Re: We told you so : Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:14 am  

Starbug wrote:

So lets see the defence of the Crusaders farce now then ?

We told you it wouldn't work

Time for Mr s Lewis and Wood to go now

You just took a guess which by coincidence turned out to be right.After all,you couldn't possibly have seen what was in Crusaders private application in 2008.

Re: We told you so : Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:33 am  

It's all gone hush hush from the crazy expansionists corner! At least Moss and Roberts had the balls to admit that the club was not a viable venture, something that we all said from the start.

This is proof that attendances are very important, just for future reference. I'd love to have seen the squirms from the expansionist camps last week. The people losing out here are the genuine fans who started to get emotionally involved with the club, but Rugby League as a whole is not.

This just proves that us realists were right all along.

Re: We told you so : Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:40 am  

TFC wrote:

It's all gone hush hush from the crazy expansionists corner! At least Moss and Roberts had the balls to admit that the club was not a viable venture, something that we all said from the start.

Indeed, those crowing about Crusaders flit to Wrexham being a good thing because "Now we have two Welsh clubs" have gone very quiet indeed.

Re: We told you so : Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:54 am  

How many clubs do you think make a profit?

Therefore without backing those losing money are not sustainable unless they have a backer(do you agree with that) No matter what the location is.-In London we have a backer "happy" to pay £2M a year out of his pocket. The Reds, Hudds plus others are supported in a similar manner to varying degrees.

Re: We told you so : Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:00 am  

wire quin wrote:

How many clubs do you think make a profit?

Therefore without backing those losing money are not sustainable unless they have a backer(do you agree with that) No matter what the location is.-In London we have a backer "happy" to pay £2M a year out of his pocket. The Reds, Hudds plus others are supported in a similar manner to varying degrees.

Of course clubs can be sustainable with small losses here and there, but a wealthy backer is needed in most cases, obviously some clubs make profit. But when clubs are running full time Super League squads on average gates below 4,500-5000 then there is going to be trouble without someone to pick up the tab.

Your question about how many clubs make a profit? No idea.

Re: We told you so : Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:08 pm  

wire quin wrote:

How many clubs do you think make a profit?

Therefore without backing those losing money are not sustainable unless they have a backer(do you agree with that) No matter what the location is.-In London we have a backer "happy" to pay £2M a year out of his pocket. The Reds, Hudds plus others are supported in a similar manner to varying degrees.

You are quite correct , it is all about the ' degree ' involved , if it is a small amount then it isn't really a problem as there will usually be somebody else along to pick up the tab if the current admin can't , but if it is 40/50/60 percent , then it isn't sustainable

Re: We told you so : Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:44 pm  

Starbug wrote:

You are quite correct , it is all about the ' degree ' involved , if it is a small amount then it isn't really a problem as there will usually be somebody else along to pick up the tab if the current admin can't , but if it is 40/50/60 percent , then it isn't sustainable

Ah, i get you, if its an amount which allows middling and lesser clubs to bumble along being mediocre and average at best and we can hold back to top clubs to keep them competitive it is sustainable, if it is an investment to really grow the game then it obviously isnt sustainable.

Re: We told you so : Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:52 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Ah, i get you, if its an amount which allows middling and lesser clubs to bumble along being mediocre and average at best and we can hold back to top clubs to keep them competitive it is sustainable, if it is an investment to really grow the game then it obviously isnt sustainable.

No , only your warped mind could construe my post that way , normal people will understand exactly what I meant , that financial sustainability ( like your beloved Leed Rhinos ) has to be the aim for all sports clubs if they are to be around long term

Re: We told you so : Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:05 pm  

Starbug wrote:

No , only your warped mind could construe my post that way , normal people will understand exactly what I meant , that financial sustainability ( like your beloved Leed Rhinos ) has to be the aim for all sports clubs if they are to be around long term

The financial stability at Leeds Rhinos came after massive investment. Leeds for a time, even under Caddick and Hetherington were losing that 40%, 50%, 60% you were talking about, they were losing that because they were investing in the club to get the financial stability we have now.

For a fair amount of clubs in SL and ever club in the lower league, the investment they need as a club is way more than they are currently bringing in. It is the mediocre investment with no further ambition that keeping a club ticking over which will lead to stagnation, and which is ultimately unsustainable.

Now this goes directly against what you have said and what you are arguing for, unless of course what you were actually saying was the idiotically self-evident fact that losing 60% of your turnover in perpetuity is unsustainable, maybe im giving you more credit than you deserve but I dont believe even you are such a moron as to bother to point out something so pointlessly obvious.

Re: We told you so : Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:36 pm  

Four/five made a profit last year I believe. leeds, cas, Hull and Wigan n wire I think were the clubs