Re: westerman : Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:26 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

What I'm actually saying is this.

The club has lost £1.5m since 2010, lost money last year, is making redundancies and has a credit rating that has worsened appreciably over the last 12 months. I don't see that any of this can be contested. In this context the importance of season pass income to the club IMO is as, if not more, important than it's ever been. In my opinion there's a risk that if the proportion of people not renewing on here is replicated in our fanbase, our ability to operate as a top 8 team will be compromised. Maybe worse.

The bulk of the creditor number is likely to be to AP, of course. There's a note to the accounts that says a going concern basis for their preparation is only feasible because AP says he'll continue to provide backing for the next 12 months; without that backing we wouldn't be a going concern. That's not particularly unusual in RL clubs because of the significant reliance on benefactors by most teams.

As for relevant comparators, who would you suggest? Saints, Leeds, Warrington, Huddersfield and Cas either own their ground or their owners have a controlling stake IIRC. Wigan? Hull KR? Salford? I think Wakey own their ground too.

Is the £1.5mill a guess or did AP ring you and tell you?

does the £1.5mill include Manus £200k and the tax mans unconfirmed amount (Poss £200k)

The purchase of county road?

Hudds only own 10% of their ground (hardly controlling stake)
Wigan dont own their ground
Rovers dont own their ground
Salford dont own their ground
Wakey sold theirs years ago when it was thought to be sat on precious, mineable, minerals (still owned by 3rd party)

Re: westerman : Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:28 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Did Pearson actually say we would go under?

Nah Mellow birds made it up

Re: westerman : Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:32 pm  

bonaire wrote:

Pearson needs a wake up call.If he went out and brought in a decent coach that would be the message of intent fans would respond to buying season passes
We now have another unqualified coach for the under 23s.
The next step will be Yeaman coaching the under19s

wasnt the point of the merger of the U19's to get them the best coach in the game, and the new club has Webster at the helm

There will be some on here asking if he could do a job at 7 for us still....

Re: westerman : Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:16 am  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

I have no idea how much Manu will be paid, and I suspect you don't either. Not sure if Pritchard is our Marquee player. I recall Pearson saying he was not in favour of the idea. I also seem to think Pritchard could well have been signed before the Marquee signing rule came in.

Well that's a load of rubbish! Pearson was claiming Pritchard was the most expensive player in the league on radio not so long back. He's our marquee signing, make no mistake.

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

Just to reiterate my earlier post, since the signing of both Pritchard and Manu, the financial climate of the club has gone down. These players cannot be un-signed.

Maybe you could point out the dramatic change in financial circumstances since June then? Such to the extent it would wipe out the increase in revenue from Sky and the RFL golden handshake from the academy merger?

Re: westerman : Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:25 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

We only signed manu a few weeks ago and we're still pressing ahead with the planned U23's which will reportedly cost £150k p.a. so whilst the financial situation won't be particularly rosy, it's far from the disaster the accountants on the forum are implying

In isolation that last set of accounts make poor reading, but that's nothing new.


It think there are a number of factors when have contributed to the perceived financial concerns. Form being probably the main one. But could you imagine the outcry if we did not sign decent players? I suppose its speculate to accumulate. Pearson has committed to these costs, I think he is perhaps looking for some support / backing from the fans on this.

Re: westerman : Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:31 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

There are probably about 4 or 5 who have said it on here which pales into insignificance compared to the 100's or 1000's who have stopped attending games despite holding season passes. This is a fact, it's not a threat and I can only assume is down to the dire home form of last season

I will hold my hand up and say, I missed 5 home games last season despite being a season pass holder. 2 of these were due to work commitments, 3 were towards the end of the season when I fully admit, I simply couldn't be bothered to watch a nothing game.

It has not stopped me renewing my season pass for 2016 though.

Its those who do not attend due to a particular coach being at the helm which puzzles me.

Re: westerman : Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:38 am  

*1865* wrote:

Well that's a load of rubbish! Pearson was claiming Pritchard was the most expensive player in the league on radio not so long back. He's our marquee signing, make no mistake.

Maybe you could point out the dramatic change in financial circumstances since June then? Such to the extent it would wipe out the increase in revenue from Sky and the RFL golden handshake from the academy merger?

Sam Tomkins is probably going to be the biggest earner in SL next season (I don't know this for fact, but on the basis that it was Wigan's idea for a marquee player solely to get ST back, its a reasonable shout).

Since June, corporates have distanced themselves, some season pass holders have voiced discontent, the SMC are playing hardball.....

Re: westerman : Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:40 am  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

I will hold my hand up and say, I missed 5 home games last season despite being a season pass holder. 2 of these were due to work commitments, 3 were towards the end of the season when I fully admit, I simply couldn't be bothered to watch a nothing game.

It has not stopped me renewing my season pass for 2016 though.

Its those who do not attend due to a particular coach being at the helm which puzzles me.

Yet you didn't attend because you didn't want to watch a nothing game, isn't one of the main factors of them been "nothing games" the coach. If so, then you didn't attend due to the poor coaching that as put us in the "nothing game" scenario. Not puzzling really

Re: westerman : Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:25 am  

Tinkerman23 wrote:

Yet you didn't attend because you didn't want to watch a nothing game, isn't one of the main factors of them been "nothing games" the coach. If so, then you didn't attend due to the poor coaching that as put us in the "nothing game" scenario. Not puzzling really

No, a nothing game, is nothing to do with the coach at all.

The position of the team in the league is not solely down to Radford. The facts of the matter are, there are better teams with better players in the league. Wayne Bennett would not have turned our squad into world beaters. Certainly towards the end of the season when we had a significant amount of injuries, we were stretched to the max. Were the injuries the coaches fault?

The games against Hudds and Cats at the end of the Super 8's held nothing of interest to Hull FC. That's nothing to do with Radford or anyone else who may have been in charge if it were not Radford.

In a similar way, I would not feel the need to attend a pre season friendly game. There is nothing really at stake.

I didn't attend as there was nothing of interest in the game and I invest a significant amount of time and travel into each home game I attend.

We do not have a given right to be at the top end of the league, especially when there are better squads with less injuries. It would appear some have not been around the block with Hull FC enough times to realise this.

Re: westerman : Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:32 am  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

No, a nothing game, is nothing to do with the coach at all.

The position of the team in the league is not solely down to Radford. The facts of the matter are, there are better teams with better players in the league. Wayne Bennett would not have turned our squad into world beaters. Certainly towards the end of the season when we had a significant amount of injuries, we were stretched to the max. Were the injuries the coaches fault?

The games against Hudds and Cats at the end of the Super 8's held nothing of interest to Hull FC. That's nothing to do with Radford or anyone else who may have been in charge if it were not Radford.

In a similar way, I would not feel the need to attend a pre season friendly game. There is nothing really at stake.

I didn't attend as there was nothing of interest in the game and I invest a significant amount of time and travel into each home game I attend.

We do not have a given right to be at the top end of the league, especially when there are better squads with less injuries. It would appear some have not been around the block with Hull FC enough times to realise this.

Good post, don't agree with much of it, but cant fault your reasoning's if that's what you truly believe