Re: Rumours Rumours Rumours : Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:21 pm  

dboy wrote:

Northernrelic wrote:

The simple reality is you cannot continue to spend money you don't have.

Bulls will have to cut their cloth according to their means. Paying more in the hope of a cup run, a league run or a sugar daddy coming along to balance the books later down the line, is no longer an option.

I think this sums it up on how other clubs see the situation. Give the new consortium the opportunity to live within its means and then be satisfied with whatever happens.

[Bulliac]

Re: Rumours Rumours Rumours : Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:13 am  

Early Bath wrote:

I think this sums it up on how other clubs see the situation. Give the new consortium the opportunity to live within its means and then be satisfied with whatever happens.

That's obviously true, but very much down to the fans as individuals, particularly with regard to how many turn up to watch. I still feel we could get around 5k as an average, which would allow us to keep a reasonable [but hardly top] side but there are still plenty of folk, even some on here, who still think "we are a 'big' club" and should be "top of the league" and won't "pay good money to watch rubbish", which translates as, not beat all those clubs they feel we "should" beat.

Then again, patience never was the biggest part of being a fan..

Re: Rumours Rumours Rumours : Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:49 pm  

dboy wrote: Well, given that my post was about the folly of paying for marquee signings in the hope that they bring success and an increase in revenue, yours is quite a change of subject. Are you now blaming the running costs of your iconic stadium for your woes? You can analyse the accounts all you like, but when you have two sets, one for the RFL and one that is real (that will be the set where departments of the club were given unrealistic and unsustainable budgets). The answer to the problem is exactly as your new BOD seem to be suggesting - costs must be cut, including playing and backroom staff. Expect some big earners to leave soon. It's what Wakefield are currently doing. The complicating factor may be that there will be few clubs with either the money or the cap space to take players of your hands. I dont think Odsal as iconic, I see it as a millstone around the bulls neck, for two reasons - its not a great spectator experience and secondly yes the accounts show it is relatively expensive, and somewhere in the 10 or so years of accounts I analysed is a statement from Chris Caisley to that effect. Taking a ten years trend does compensate for any massaging of the figures, but I also analysed the cash flow, and whereas the value of an asset can have a wide range, if the bank statement says £12.01 then thats what it is. And the cash flow made grim reading. so where were you 18 months ago: http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=529680&p=16973693&tsmp=1386320053#p16973693 Trophy players? yes, we've signed Sonny Boy Williamson, etc etc etc. Remember we played much of last season with three or two props plus makeshift back rowers. ever since the whinging Aussie theres been a reluctance to sign a trophy player, depth of squad has been more important. Hence a mixture of successes and failures eg Herbert in the "value" players we have mostly signed. Anyway, back to Odsal. I was using it as an example that its not just as easy as handing in notice and nipping down the road to the custom built 20000 seater stadium. And the attempts to redevelop Odsal stretch back time immemorial. The new board had iirc already said they were going to find savings from overheads and team before you put your nano-pennysworth in. So why simply echo what they have already said? Does that move the debate forward? Sound bites from the nursery school primer in financial management just arent enough.

dboy wrote: Well, given that my post was about the folly of paying for marquee signings in the hope that they bring success and an increase in revenue, yours is quite a change of subject. Are you now blaming the running costs of your iconic stadium for your woes? You can analyse the accounts all you like, but when you have two sets, one for the RFL and one that is real (that will be the set where departments of the club were given unrealistic and unsustainable budgets). The answer to the problem is exactly as your new BOD seem to be suggesting - costs must be cut, including playing and backroom staff. Expect some big earners to leave soon. It's what Wakefield are currently doing. The complicating factor may be that there will be few clubs with either the money or the cap space to take players of your hands. I dont think Odsal as iconic, I see it as a millstone around the bulls neck, for two reasons - its not a great spectator experience and secondly yes the accounts show it is relatively expensive, and somewhere in the 10 or so years of accounts I analysed is a statement from Chris Caisley to that effect. Taking a ten years trend does compensate for any massaging of the figures, but I also analysed the cash flow, and whereas the value of an asset can have a wide range, if the bank statement says £12.01 then thats what it is. And the cash flow made grim reading. so where were you 18 months ago: http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=529680&p=16973693&tsmp=1386320053#p16973693 Trophy players? yes, we've signed Sonny Boy Williamson, etc etc etc. Remember we played much of last season with three or two props plus makeshift back rowers. ever since the whinging Aussie theres been a reluctance to sign a trophy player, depth of squad has been more important. Hence a mixture of successes and failures eg Herbert in the "value" players we have mostly signed. Anyway, back to Odsal. I was using it as an example that its not just as easy as handing in notice and nipping down the road to the custom built 20000 seater stadium. And the attempts to redevelop Odsal stretch back time immemorial. The new board had iirc already said they were going to find savings from overheads and team before you put your nano-pennysworth in. So why simply echo what they have already said? Does that move the debate forward? Sound bites from the nursery school primer in financial management just arent enough.

Re: Rumours Rumours Rumours : Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:27 pm  

I think the "iconic" bit comes from the RL bumph when they bought the stadium.

Re: Rumours Rumours Rumours : Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:16 pm  

I heard today from a friend that two Bulls players who were due to attend a Junior presentation at the Wyke club yesterday failed to turn up. Rumour had it that they simply refused to carry out their 'community obligations' with the current situation being as it is.

I'm sure someone can confirm or deny this rumour?

Re: Rumours Rumours Rumours : Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:18 am  

Such actions still show how in the main RL players are still Mercenaries. Some things never change.

Re: Rumours Rumours Rumours : Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:46 am  

Gale going nowhere according to both the club and Hull.
Honestly, I'm actually a little disappointed he's staying. Not because I don't like the guy, but looking at the club as a whole and the position we are in, selling a player of his stature would surely have eaten up a significant wedge of the shortfall. Now we're back to square one.

Re: Rumours Rumours Rumours : Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:16 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

Trophy players? yes, we've signed Sonny Boy Williamson

Is that the name of the tribute act?

Re: Rumours Rumours Rumours : Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:26 pm  

Sonny Bill Williams son. Very good pedigree, great potential, one for the future, he's only four years old.

Re: Rumours Rumours Rumours : Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:29 pm  

Nothus wrote:

Gale going nowhere according to both the club and Hull.
Honestly, I'm actually a little disappointed he's staying. Not because I don't like the guy, but looking at the club as a whole and the position we are in, selling a player of his stature would surely have eaten up a significant wedge of the shortfall. Now we're back to square one.

Player of his stature how much do you honestly value him at.