[Wanderer]

: Sat May 30, 2009 8:32 am  

insideman wrote:

while we are on subject of administors a few things have popped into my head which might have been asked at meeting with carl but i wasnt able to go so dont know?

how come we was told at begining of season that the club would be run within budget and without a backer. we have since released some of our better players and we are still up the creek without a paddle.

who was responsible for the budget? Who was responsible for giving out playing contracts?

wouldnt it make sense to reduce office staff in order to keep the players?

it just not adding up im my mind again i apologise if this has already been discussed but how much debt are we in?

This won't fully answer all of the above, but from the notes from the meeting with Carl;

Corporate Targets
It was identified that corporate targets for 2009 had not been met creating a financial shortfall.

additionally, the Club appears to have had a number of players who were on 2-year deals from last season so those deals weren't agreed by those who ended up in charge.

Reference office staff and this is from memory, outside of Dave Marshall and Karen Bailey, we were advised that the only people in the office were Carl Hall and Andreus Bauer (plus Steve Miller whose role is funded by the Lottery which is run as a separate entity).

As I said, it won't fully answer everything asked but I've covered what I can.

: Sat May 30, 2009 8:55 am  

Sad Sad day in rugby league if the Dons were to be no more, great facilities, fans and not a half bad team shame it seems cant be said about their board members and directors...........................If it dos happen can the trin ahve your ground????

: Sat May 30, 2009 10:25 am  

thanks for trying wanderer

i was talking to a current players last night he said all lads had agreed 25% pay cut so if the lads have agreed to a pay cut and we released players that i would imagine was top earners then surely that must cover the down fall in corporate or have they drastically over budgetted?

has for contracts being given out last year that doesnt wash because the people incharge would have known who was on a 2 or 3 year deal so could budget accordinly.

sorry but its just not adding up

[Wanderer]

: Sat May 30, 2009 10:34 am  

insideman wrote:

thanks for trying wanderer

i was talking to a current players last night he said all lads had agreed 25% pay cut so if the lads have agreed to a pay cut and we released players that i would imagine was top earners then surely that must cover the down fall in corporate or have they drastically over budgetted?

has for contracts being given out last year that doesnt wash because the people incharge would have known who was on a 2 or 3 year deal so could budget accordinly.

sorry but its just not adding up

Reference the playing contracts, I'm not defending anyone, I'm merely saying that the current 'owners' inherited some already agreed contracts (which I accept they would have known about).

Failure to generate cash from corporate sales on the same scale as the previous season would in part explain why there are now financial issues as they must have budgeted for a certain level (whatever figure they put on it?)

But yes, it does look like some serious mis-calculations have occured.

One thing we do need to keep in mind though, if these people hadn't stepped forward when they did, we already wouldn't have a Club.

: Sat May 30, 2009 7:50 pm  

But how was it, that in March everything at the club was bright eyed and bushy tailed.

Yet 8 weeks later we are facing administration, it sounds a bit queer to me!

[Wanderer]

: Sat May 30, 2009 8:08 pm  

Trotsky wrote:

:THINK:

But how was it, that in March everything at the club was bright eyed and bushy tailed.

Yet 8 weeks later we are facing administration, it sounds a bit queer to me!

I'm not sure that everything was fine in March. It has been said before that the 'owners' were looking for additional finance. Indeed a consortium has been mooted for some months now.

I could be wrong but it's probably become an impossible situation as we don't have a home match for a month, so even less income but some players still on contract money.

Don't forget, we (wrongly in my opinion) played Gateshead at home last season 3 days after beating Batley in the Northern Rail Cup and the explanation given there even though we had a financial backer was that money would be an issue if we didn't as we were going 4 weeks without a home fixture if we didn't play Gateshead.

: Sun May 31, 2009 10:42 am  

there was no additional finance mentioned at start of season we was told we would sensibly without a backer/additional finance just on money budgetted which i would assume is money they are garanteed! not well we will spend x amount of pounds because someone might be willing to put up x amount of pounds! you cant work like that it just isnt cricket

i consortium was mentioned after start of season and was stated that they wouldnt be puting money willy nilly for players or such so begs the question why have we spent money we dont have?

: Sun May 31, 2009 11:26 am  

insideman wrote:

there was no additional finance mentioned at start of season we was told we would sensibly without a backer/additional finance just on money budgetted which i would assume is money they are garanteed! not well we will spend x amount of pounds because someone might be willing to put up x amount of pounds! you cant work like that it just isnt cricket

i consortium was mentioned after start of season and was stated that they wouldnt be puting money willy nilly for players or such so begs the question why have we spent money we dont have?

At the end of last season the club reported they were losing £4500 per week (£234k per yr) this season all Nat 1 teams receive a payment from the RFL of £100K which would still leave a shortfall of £134k less the wages paid to Ellery Hanley,Gale & Lawrie, this season the new owners budgeted for home crowds of 800 & submitted a business plan which was accepted bt the RFL.
The supporters were told that we were the envy of many clubs as we were free of debt and players would be only offered terms that fall in line with the budget & we would not live beyond its means.

[Wanderer]

: Sun May 31, 2009 11:43 am  

insideman wrote:

there was no additional finance mentioned at start of season we was told we would sensibly without a backer/additional finance just on money budgetted which i would assume is money they are garanteed! not well we will spend x amount of pounds because someone might be willing to put up x amount of pounds! you cant work like that it just isnt cricket

i consortium was mentioned after start of season and was stated that they wouldnt be puting money willy nilly for players or such so begs the question why have we spent money we dont have?

You have used the phrase 'money budgeted' and then suggested that this is money which is 'guaranteed'.

This will not and cannot have been the case as within that budget will have been assumptions about income. Assumptions about gate receipts, assumptions about corporate revenue, assumptions about merchandise sales etc. They are mean't to be educated and sensible assumptions but they are assumptions just the same.

I have no idea how robust the original business plan was but there have been noises earlier in the season that attendances were still not quite as high as had been anticipated. It has been clear that the corporate hospitality activity has not been at the level it was last season and I'm guessing that merchandise sales have been poor as the replica shirts were extremely late in arriving.

Only a few (the most successful) sporting clubs have money readily available. For the rest its a constant battle to balance the books and having no backer must have made that much harder.

I think there is now a realisation that the committed outgoings are exceeding the revenue which is coming into the Club and yes that suggests that someone got the business plan wrong. I think the people at the Club now realise that.

For the record, the last 7 or 8 'signings' the Club have made, the likes of Matt Carbutt, Mike Coady, Jamie Bovill, Al Rounding, Gaz Carey, Wayne Opie etc have all come to the Club on match terms only, so clearly there was a realisation that contract money was no longer available for further recruits.

As I said earlier in the thread though if these people hadn't agreed to take the Club on at the start of the season, the Club may not even have started the season.

Don't get me wrong, I am as unhappy at the situation we find ourselves as you. I just think the signs have been there if we looked.

Where we go now to be honest is administration unless a financial backer / consortium emerges very quickly.

: Sun May 31, 2009 1:21 pm  

The assumptions for this seasons budget should have been made with regard to the previous seasons accounts which we were told that the club was making a loss of £4500 per week most of the coporate revenue last season came from friends & business associates of Carl Harrison