: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:46 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

none, but then no club has Hull KR visit their stadium 13 times a year either so.............

So what you are saying is that as an aggregated figure the benefit to SL by having Hull KR in is more than equivalent to the best funded junior set up. Wow, you do make me feel good about my clubs inclusion.

SmokeyTA wrote:

plenty when they can get a free increase of £300k profit for having a better make up of the league, or the league can bring in an extra £4.2million a year, profit, guaranteed, and actually real instead of in the heads of HKR fans (considering they dont get close to bringing in 2k away fans to every game, never mind 2k more than clubs would otherwise get)

But we got the extra £300k with Hull KR in, so it's not a case of one or the other, it's a case of do you want £300K or £350K? Who would turn down an extra £50K for free?

SmokeyTA wrote:

when did this happen, is this a credit crunch thing? do we no longer have to pay variable costs? do i no longer have to pay my water, electricity, gas, or fuel costs because they are variable? awesome, have you like an official link or something because this definately sounds too good to be true

No, the variable costs associated with your original premise are the costs of the paper which the tickets are printed on plus maybe the cost of a burger a tea bag and perhaps some golden gamle draw tickets. I would think that perhaps maybe £2 or £3 of the £25 spend is variable cost.

I am using your figures, just because they don't actually support your argument is not my fault.

SmokeyTA wrote:

clubs no longer having match day costs, that should make a huge difference to the profitiability of our clubs, we could put them anyway and almost guarantee profit,

SmokeyTA wrote:

if there is any club in SL who would have gone bust or suffered financial difficulties because they didnt get the 2 or 3 thousand pounds profit on matchday revenue Hull KR bring, they shouldnt be in SL, we want stable clubs

I didn't say a club would not have gone bust if it hadn't received the extra £50k you suggest by including Hull KR. But what it does do is give every other club in SL effectively £50K free, which it can then spend on things like, oh, I don't know...maybe academy sides? or youth set ups? what about talent scouting or even youth facilities?

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:02 pm  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

So what you are saying is that as an aggregated figure the benefit to SL by having Hull KR in is more than equivalent to the best funded junior set up. Wow, you do make me feel good about my clubs inclusion.

no its not, but if we are just making things up Hull KRs inclusion in the league costs the league £1.4million

But we got the extra £300k with Hull KR in, so it's not a case of one or the other, it's a case of do you want £300K or £350K? Who would turn down an extra £50K for free?

but that again isnt what i said, as desperate as you for it to be, read back to the original post you quoted, and read what you quoted

No, the variable costs associated with your original premise are the costs of the paper which the tickets are printed on plus maybe the cost of a burger a tea bag and perhaps some golden gamle draw tickets. I would think that perhaps maybe £2 or £3 of the £25 spend is variable cost.

and also the stewards, the turnstyle operators, the police, the people who sell the programmes, the beer, the coffees, the hot dogs, in fact anything extra in monetary terms HKR bring, there will be a another directly attributed cost, to having those fans in,

and you seem strangely happy to ignore the difference between turnover and profit, and the fact the £50 turnover HKR (dont but we are pretending they do) bring in probably equates to about £2-3k profit at most,

I am using your figures, just because they don't actually support your argument is not my fault.

really? i dont remember attributing a cost to a cup of tea? i think you did that!

I didn't say a club would not have gone bust if it hadn't received the extra £50k you suggest by including Hull KR. But what it does do is give every other club in SL effectively £50K free, which it can then spend on things like, oh, I don't know...maybe academy sides? or youth set ups? what about talent scouting or even youth facilities?

expect even using the £50k figure, they havent given £50k free, matchday revenue isnt free, allowing more and more away fans in isnt 'free' that £50k turnover will not contribute more than £2-3k to a clubs coffers if that,

which pales into insignificance compared to the £300k extra PROFIT we have got from a better TV deal, and going around in a big circle, back to the beginning, if a different make up of the league meant a higher tv deal, HKR would be dropped quicker than you can say 'stop banging on about your away support, it really isnt that good'[/quote]

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:20 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

expect even using the £50k figure, they havent given £50k free, matchday revenue isnt free, allowing more and more away fans in isnt 'free' that £50k turnover will not contribute more than £2-3k to a clubs coffers if that,

If a club only makes £2/3000 from having an extra 2000 fans and £50K revenue, your figures) when there are only minimal variable costs associated, when you take into account the fixed costst attributable to the other supporters it's not worth opening the gates!

Using your assumptions every game will result in a massive loss. You haven't really thought this through have you?

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:22 pm  

vastman wrote:

But that is the whole point, Leeds can afford to do both whilst most other clubs have to make do with one or the other.

It's not a criticism of Leeds just a fact.

Leeds fans love to crow about them being the big city club with the most fans and most corporate backing etc. That's fine, but you can't then when it suits (Smokey style) deny the obvious advantages it gives you. It's a very perverse logic some fans have.

It wasn't a fact at the outset of Superleague. It wasn't a fact when the majority of this crop of juniors were signed up and introduced to the 1st team.

The fact is we chose to do this from the outset of Sl whilst others didn't. We chose to do it at a time when we were in dire financial straights. Others didn't.

That we went down this route has led to us being in the healthy position we're in now.

Its' very disingenuous of clubs who have paid scant regard to their junior development to excuse themselves because they're not as big or rich as us. We weren't at the relevant time.

All of this, btw, ignores the great work of that other recently successful club in relation to Junior development, St Helens. They're not Leeds, don't have our financial clout and aren't a massive city.

How were they able to do such sterling work in this area and reap the rewards then?

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:31 pm  

Fuggin' heck, stuff moved on in this thread since I took a breather. Here's a question for Gareth - where did the 350k for Iestyn come from in 1997? GH and Caddick can't have turned things around that quickly, can they? Could that signing have been made without Caddick's financial backing? The Leeds model is a good one and deserves praise. But I still think it's unrealistic to expect a Super League of Leedses (sp?) right here and now. You junk HKR for poor player development, who do you bring in instead? What guarantees do you have that they will perform any better. Incidentally, no one's mentioned the one club that really did decide to economise and give the youngsters a chance to shine - Halifax c. 2003, P28, W1 D0 L27

Fuggin' heck, stuff moved on in this thread since I took a breather. Here's a question for Gareth - where did the 350k for Iestyn come from in 1997? GH and Caddick can't have turned things around that quickly, can they? Could that signing have been made without Caddick's financial backing? The Leeds model is a good one and deserves praise. But I still think it's unrealistic to expect a Super League of Leedses (sp?) right here and now. You junk HKR for poor player development, who do you bring in instead? What guarantees do you have that they will perform any better. Incidentally, no one's mentioned the one club that really did decide to economise and give the youngsters a chance to shine - Halifax c. 2003, P28, W1 D0 L27

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:08 pm  

af wrote:

Here's a question for Gareth - where did the 350k for Iestyn come from in 1997? GH and Caddick can't have turned things around that quickly, can they? Could that signing have been made without Caddick's financial backing?

Good question. Not sure tbh. I do recall Caddick saying in press cuttings about poor crowds that he was getting tired of propping up the Tykes and that he'd not had to do so with the Rhinos.

I also recall MJM used to download the Leeds accounts annually and there was nothing in those about loans from Caddick.

Anyway, what about St Helens? Explain away Leeds if you will but they're not from a big city, not that vibrant financially and don't have a rich backer.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:35 pm  

af wrote: Fuggin' heck, stuff moved on in this thread since I took a breather. Here's a question for Gareth - where did the 350k for Iestyn come from in 1997? GH and Caddick can't have turned things around that quickly, can they? Could that signing have been made without Caddick's financial backing? The Leeds model is a good one and deserves praise. But I still think it's unrealistic to expect a Super League of Leedses (sp?) right here and now. You junk HKR for poor player development, who do you bring in instead? What guarantees do you have that they will perform any better. Incidentally, no one's mentioned the one club that really did decide to economise and give the youngsters a chance to shine - Halifax c. 2003, P28, W1 D0 L27 Aah, the good old days, that gave us a strong foothold in the national leagues. Quite like it that we win a lot now rather than getting battered all the time.

af wrote: Fuggin' heck, stuff moved on in this thread since I took a breather. Here's a question for Gareth - where did the 350k for Iestyn come from in 1997? GH and Caddick can't have turned things around that quickly, can they? Could that signing have been made without Caddick's financial backing? The Leeds model is a good one and deserves praise. But I still think it's unrealistic to expect a Super League of Leedses (sp?) right here and now. You junk HKR for poor player development, who do you bring in instead? What guarantees do you have that they will perform any better. Incidentally, no one's mentioned the one club that really did decide to economise and give the youngsters a chance to shine - Halifax c. 2003, P28, W1 D0 L27 Aah, the good old days, that gave us a strong foothold in the national leagues. Quite like it that we win a lot now rather than getting battered all the time.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:20 pm  

G1 wrote:

Anyway, what about St Helens? Explain away Leeds if you will but they're not from a big city, not that vibrant financially and don't have a rich backer.

Eamonn McManus is a wealthy man.

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:55 am  

G1 wrote:

Anyway, what about St Helens? Explain away Leeds if you will but they're not from a big city, not that vibrant financially and don't have a rich backer.

I'm not looking to explain away things, I'm not denying clubs' agency in the matter, I'm just trying to provide a bit of context.

If Leeds had put in Hull KR's effort, I don't think they would have achieved as they have in reality. But at the same time if Hull KR had put in Leeds' effort, I doubt they would have achieved to the extent Leeds have.

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:45 am  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

If a club only makes £2/3000 from having an extra 2000 fans and £50K revenue, your figures) when there are only minimal variable costs associated, when you take into account the fixed costst attributable to the other supporters it's not worth opening the gates!

Using your assumptions every game will result in a massive loss. You haven't really thought this through have you?

fixed costs are still attributed to fans however many fans come through the gates,

thats where economies of scale come in,

your point probably works if we for some reason decide only variable costs are applied to match day revenue, which is frankly pretty pointless

your logic seems to suggest that fixed costs arent applied to the 2k extra fans hull kr (dont) bring, but thats as true for the 1st fan as it is the last coming through the gates unsurprisingly, you're being silly