Hull Kingston Bronco wrote:
Lister, you'd argue black was white so I'm not entirely sure why I bother given our commercial situation is blindingly obvious to anyone who can see the empty seats, exec boxes and sponsor slots, but guess I'm a sucker for punishment so here goes...
Since Ian Leneghan took over our major sponsors have been Sports Cafe and Workplace Systems. Owner subsidies are not allowed to count towards turnover for salary cap purposes. Sponsorship income is. Ian had a large shareholding in both Sports Cafe and Workplace Systems. Now thinking back, why do you think those two particular companies sponsored us? My money would be on us having a significantly larger official turnover in previous years than we expect to have in 2009.
Those sponsorships no longer exist in the same form, ie we don't have the same amount of owner subsidy, ie we probably can't afford the same player budget - not "legally", as the salary cap isn't linked to turnover anymore, but in practice because the people running the club aren't either (a) totally loaded, or (b) completely nuts.
Also, my last point that you refer to was not irrelevant, it described the only possible consequence to your alternative plan. You want the club to perform better, and think the coach is questionable because they don't. They need to have a better squad to have a realistic chance of doing that. Without spending more money than we can afford, we can't have a better squad. QED - your expectations are that we blow our future to give you what you want this season.
PS: Have you been a Government economic advisor for the last 10 years by any chance?
Since Ian Leneghan took over our major sponsors have been Sports Cafe and Workplace Systems. Owner subsidies are not allowed to count towards turnover for salary cap purposes. Sponsorship income is. Ian had a large shareholding in both Sports Cafe and Workplace Systems. Now thinking back, why do you think those two particular companies sponsored us? My money would be on us having a significantly larger official turnover in previous years than we expect to have in 2009.
Those sponsorships no longer exist in the same form, ie we don't have the same amount of owner subsidy, ie we probably can't afford the same player budget - not "legally", as the salary cap isn't linked to turnover anymore, but in practice because the people running the club aren't either (a) totally loaded, or (b) completely nuts.
Also, my last point that you refer to was not irrelevant, it described the only possible consequence to your alternative plan. You want the club to perform better, and think the coach is questionable because they don't. They need to have a better squad to have a realistic chance of doing that. Without spending more money than we can afford, we can't have a better squad. QED - your expectations are that we blow our future to give you what you want this season.
PS: Have you been a Government economic advisor for the last 10 years by any chance?
All fair points. I've never had any unrealistic expectations and said the club should be spending money it doesn't have. Last years quality hasn't been replaced with the same calibre yet we are still apparently up to the cap, and you have given a reasonable explanation. But then it was also stated that not having a sponsor would not affect the spending on players...
it's no wonder Mr Hogg wasn't worried about a shirt sponsor.
