Re: INTERESTED PARTY : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:20 am  

The worry is that Asian businesses tend to operate on a low overhead high profit system of trading and the higher cost of most business is labour and they make sure thats as cheap as it can be. So Sport with high overheads inc labour and little profit is not going to cope well with the Asian business ethos.

Re: INTERESTED PARTY : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:21 am  

Do you not think that's due to the market those businesses traditionally operate in rather than the ancestry of their owners?

Re: INTERESTED PARTY : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:31 am  

one thing they will do is look at revenue and make sure expenditure is less than that, if that means spending well under the salary cap the next coach will have recruit players of value and promote the youngsters from the academy

Re: INTERESTED PARTY : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:35 am  

perhaps the off field operation can subsidise the on field? Just like CC planned when we came back to ODsal and built the coral stand.

Re: INTERESTED PARTY : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:36 am  

Why is it that no-one seems to have the appetite to do the decent thing and reform as a new club in CC1 with more input from the supporters rather than stay in SL at any cost?

[Bullseye]

Re: INTERESTED PARTY : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:39 am  

I guess most clubs aspire to be in SL. If we can stay in SL without going into liquidation then we will be doing the decent thing. If liquidation happens then I reckon staying in SL is unlikely anyway.

Re: INTERESTED PARTY : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:53 am  

hi de hi wrote:

Why is it that no-one seems to have the appetite to do the decent thing and reform as a new club in CC1 with more input from the supporters rather than stay in SL at any cost?

Simple answer - we would never get back into SL if we dropped out...

Re: INTERESTED PARTY : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:55 am  

eastul105 wrote:

erm .............. you were joking yeah?

Actually I wasn't

Whatever we think about Caisley and co they did know how to run a rugby team. Or were those five consecutive Grand Finals just a figment of my imagination?

What they didn't know is how to run a business - as the current shambles bears adequate testimony.

I'd certainly welcome fresh input and ideas from our (hopefully) new investors, but I still think they'll need some rugby people running the playing side - whether its Duffy, Duckett, Tasker, Caisley or whoever. The report in the Guardian strongly suggests that 'previous directors' are involved in this somewhere along the line, so I can only assume that some or all of the above are going to end up back at the helm of the rugby side (my emphasis) with the Asian consortium handling the business / finance / marketing side.

Re: INTERESTED PARTY : Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:01 am  

Bullpower2012 wrote:

Simple answer - we would never get back into SL if we dropped out...

Why not?
If the public supported a Championship team and it did the job on the pitch then there is no reason not to get back in is there, unless you are suggesting that Super League is a closed shop as our friends from Halifax and Keighley have been saying for years.

Re: INTERESTED PARTY : Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:06 am  

[quote="paulwalker71"]Actually I wasn't

Whatever we think about Caisley and co they did know how to run a rugby team.........




.....at a loss while hiding the truth from everyone including each other so why oh why would a new investor want them anywhere near it thats my point not a question of what you won its what state they got you into