: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:34 am  

bob bob bobin robin wrote:

Why the hell are people so bothered about this?? The club were never going to be 'in profit' at a stage where a lot money was being spent in order for the club to progress as far as it has. Speculate to accumulate etc etc blah blah.

At the end of the day the club has a license for the next 3 seasons, it now has a decent average attendance and the team looks like its the strongest it's been in over 20 years.

As long as the club doesn't get in to the state it did back in the 90s, lets just enjoy it. Fans shouldn't take things so personally and start throwing childish insults, banter is a good thing but actually insulting each other over something so trivial is pathetic. People need to stop being so OTT and start realising whats more important in life.

Rant over

Good post. Anyone ever considered the licences to actually be detremental to club's like Rovers? Rather than have the 10+ years that the likes of hull, wigan, bradford, leeds etc have to get stadia, youth set-up etc up to scratch, we have to do it in 3.

Fair enough it's easy to whinge about it and it's the clubs own fault for falling behind the times in the 1990's, but that doesn't make it any easier. I'm surprised these figures look so good considering what the club has had to lay out in such a short period of time.

At the end of the day, our merchandise and ticket sales have supassed all expected levels at this stage, but so much money has to be invested into the club. If it isn't, we simply wont be in SL in 3 years time.

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:11 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Yet you choose to ignore that fact that this period would include the ticket, merchandise and prize money revenue benefits from Rovers NL1 play-off promotion campaign in September and October 2006, plus a full season of SL revenue.

....and that wouldn't have amounted anywhere near as much as the losses in the sept,oct and nov 07, plus player bonuses for that period would have swallowed most of that income up in anycase.

Keep trying dear You really should stop clutching so hard at those straws

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:40 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Rovers
Half of tangible fixed assets £464k

What tangible fixed assets do the dobbins have that are worth almost £1m?

Is it their lease on poor house lane?

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:26 pm  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

The loss you are referring to should also take into account the fact that its a 15 months accounting period with the extra three months being Sept, Oct and Nov where income is virtually non existant, yet fixed costs such as salaries still have to be paid, this will clearly adversely affect the profitablilty of the company in that period.
The next accounts for a 12 month period will offer a much better indication of performance.

Agree to an extent, but the Sky money accrues evenly over the year and didn't rovers start to sell their 2008 shirts not long after the 2007 season?

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:30 pm  

Vicenzo wrote:

"Due diligance" is something the accountants of Nat West, HBos,Sandfords,Lloyds TSb....etc. etc carried out over many years only to find in the end they had actually been valuing worthless bits of paper called "derivatives" etc.. Unfortunately for the world they had their noses
stuck so firmly in the corporate troughs, they failed to recognise this!
I rest my case!

So, you are blaming accountants for having to follow professional standards. Interesting

You are also comparing some of the biggest corporate organisations in the world when in reality we are discussing the poor performance of a small company.

A derivative, for the record, is hardly worthless. On the contrary the sometimes can end up costing you an absolute fortune as the likes of Mr Leeson / Mr Keivel have found out

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:38 pm  

I really cannot understand why this thread has been allowed to continue for so long.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:59 pm  

The Black Finger Nail wrote:

I really cannot understand why this thread has been allowed to continue for so long.

Why not?

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:05 pm  

Robbo4 wrote:

Why not?

Do i really need to explain.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:07 pm  

The Black Finger Nail wrote:

Do i really need to explain.

Do you need to explain why you think a thread about Rovers on the Rovers forum that is largely remaining on topic and does not break any AUP should be locked?

Errr kind of yeah.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:12 pm  

Robbo4 wrote:

Do you need to explain why you think a thread about Rovers on the Rovers forum that is largely remaining on topic and does not break any AUP should be locked?

Errr kind of yeah.

Maybe it's because it was started buy a hull supporter.