Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:04 pm  

mat wrote:

I'm certain rod thinks before he tweets. Its just that all his thinking revolves around his fan ownership model. Quoting barcelona fc is fan owned is a red herring as they have massive income from commercial side and a much bigger fanbase, Where in a situation where we need a massive cash injection immediately with much smaller commercail opportunities and a much smaller fan base not many of whom can afford to put any money in above their season ticket/merchandise spend. His idea is a total non starter IMO.

That's exactly the point I made Mark Moore's son on Facebook. Barcelona have 170,000 members and had revenue of 790 million euros last year and the club is valued at 4.2 billion euro's.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:39 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

No need, the deal was that they would receive half the other clubs' funding in each of the next 2 years.

The easiest way to explain this is say you were in a league of 4, and the Sky money was £8,000. So you should be getting £2000 each

If the deal is that you get HALF what the rest get, then it is not as easy to work out as it may seem. But it is if you say OK, I get 1 share, the other 3 teams get 2 shares apiece. Total 7 shares.

So you have to divide £8000 by 7. Ignore the pennies, and just work in round pounds. Then I get £1,143., the others get £2,286

But the way they did it was this:
Total Sky money £8000
One equal share = £2000
so “Bulls only get half of one share = £1000”
You can immediately see what's wrong with this; Bulls only get half what the other teams get, if the TOTAL funding is REDUCED. But it wasn't. And so, because they couldn't do simple sums, they ended up with a "surplus", here it would be (of course) the leftover £1000

Of course, 1 minutes work by a 10 year old with a pencil and paper would reveal where the mistake was, and correct it. Instead, the clubs and RFL conspired to pretend the "surplus" was real, and then proceeded to divvy it - but this time, excluding us from a share!!!!!!

So in my simplified example Bulls get £1000, the rest get (£2000 + £333) = £2333.

Same in the second year, so overall we get £2,000, everyone else gets £4666. Which most 10 year olds would agree, is not double what we get.

Trebles all round!

right, so not one calculation but two. the first is the deduction of half the funds, ie £1000 in your example, the second calculation is what to do with the deduction. pay it into a player benevolent fund, dish it out to the academies, buy Nigel a pie worthy of the man. So we did have the correct amount deducted, we were excluded from the divvy up. So we were not done out of any money other than morally. Consider it the same distinction between how much tax Her Majesty deducts from us, and what she spends it on. I don't get my share spent on me, thats for sure.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:15 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Unless we land a Beaumont type owner the ONLY way for the club to be run is to build on a strong foundation of players coming through the system in our U16s and U19s.

Derek Beaumont is not as wealthy as some assume, yeah he has a good few bob but he is not part of the nations elite money earners.

The Wasps owner/director mentioned earlier in the thread, if he is indeed an interested party & if he is indeed worth £44M, then I suggest he is far wealthier than D.B & far better placed both financially & in terms of experience in running a sporting club than most.

From what I can glean, D.B wasn't prepared or able to finance LCRLFC on a forever basis but was determined to get the Club to be as close to self sustaining as possible via promotion to SL, which was also his dream.

Leigh fans recognise & appreciate Dereks financial & business contributions to the club & it's recent success but also recognise that Roman Abramovich he ain't.

*If this Wasps guy is the real deal then I reckon he is/should be a front runner*

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:41 am  

Awww! Now Julian's not holding his hand Lawn is now unsure, well he won't be missed despite several on here thinking of him as a saviour! http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _interest/

Awww! Now Julian's not holding his hand Lawn is now unsure, well he won't be missed despite several on here thinking of him as a saviour! http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _interest/

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:42 am  

Well I read that Derek was putting in around 50k a month to fund Leigh Centurions so he certainly isn't bad off is he?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:56 am  

Looks like Lawn is out of the running now. Hope he wasn't one of the 2 serious parties that the admin was on about earlier this week!

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:17 am  

Nothus wrote:

Looks like Lawn is out of the running now. Hope he wasn't one of the 2 serious parties that the admin was on about earlier this week!

I don't think he was.

The Administrator said he'd had four NDAs back 'of which two were serious'. Lawn says in the T&A that he's still looking at the NDA and its 'still early stages'

I've got a feeling that the serious bidders are going to be 'left field' rather than the usual publicity seeking suspects.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:22 am  

If there was a way to give HMRC the (pick a number between £35k & £235k) that they are owed and the smaller creditors but not give MG anything - would RFL look upon that as a 6 point or a 12 point breach I wonder? Is it feasible? It's basically an extension of the football creditors/non-football creditors plan that was floated by Calvert et al in 2014

[Bullseye]

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:31 am  

Rumoured parties so far:

1. Lawn
2. Green
3. Moore
4. Seabrooks bloke
5. Lamb
6. Graham Lowe
7. Koukash
8. Derek Richardson - Wasps
9. Caisley & Co


Some may have joined forces.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:36 am  

Has anybody read the Sun today? Apparently Gary Cater has written an article about 2 of the potential bidders wanting a certain individual to run the club for them. I don't have access to the paper and it's not available online. Just wondering if anybody has any details?

If the bloke is Steve Ferres then I'm not interested.