: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:22 pm  

cbr1100xx wrote:

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

That would be pathetic in all honesty.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:24 pm  

Robbo4 wrote:

Thread of the year. FACT.

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:29 pm  

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.

I could be wrong, but wouldnt these figures also include ground improvements such as the purchase of the golf stand and the upgrade of the floodlights and such things ?

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:23 pm  

carlleo123 wrote:

I could be wrong, but wouldnt these figures also include ground improvements such as the purchase of the golf stand and the upgrade of the floodlights and such things ?

That type of purchase would effect the balance sheet I imagine, as they were upgrades rather than maintenance, so classed as fixed assets. It wouldn't have much of an effect of the profit/loss in that period, except from a proportion of the cost going to the P&L as depreciation.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:26 pm  

cbr1100xx wrote:

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

A Celtic fan has just started a tghread on our board, should it be locked? I started a few threads, on the Salford, Celtic and Catalns board a few weeks ago, should they have been locked?

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:01 pm  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

....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

In the three months to 30 November 2006, Rovers should not have made a loss as they had income from the play-off v Widnes, the Grand Final and associated merchandise etc against a wage bill of £80k at most. Let's assume that all the prize money was given to the players - still should be breakeven at worst for this period. We're then into a 12 month period to 30 November 2007 which will include a full season's payment of Sky money, season passes, merchandise, sponsorship etc. Any club would plan their costs for the full 12 months (player contracts run over this full 12 months) vs the income in respect of this period. Whilst there won't be much cash coming in in the last 3 months, that's irrelevant from a budget and P&L perspective. It would therefore seem likely that the full loss derives from the 12 months to November. You can try and pretend that nothing can be deduced from the accounts for another year, but I don't agree. On your logic there is a big loss in Sept-Nov 2007. How will this be different in 2008 as the basic financial framework is the same year on year? When we do see the 2008 accounts, what reduction in the £2.4m are you expecting to see?

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:15 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

In the three months to 30 November 2006, Rovers should not have made a loss as they had income from the play-off v Widnes, the Grand Final and associated merchandise etc against a wage bill of £80k at most. Let's assume that all the prize money was given to the players - still should be breakeven at worst for this period. We're then into a 12 month period to 30 November 2007 which will include a full season's payment of Sky money, season passes, merchandise, sponsorship etc. Any club would plan their costs for the full 12 months (player contracts run over this full 12 months) vs the income in respect of this period. Whilst there won't be much cash coming in in the last 3 months, that's irrelevant from a budget and P&L perspective. It would therefore seem likely that the full loss derives from the 12 months to November. You can try and pretend that nothing can be deduced from the accounts for another year, but I don't agree. On your logic there is a big loss in Sept-Nov 2007. How will this be different in 2008 as the basic financial framework is the same year on year? When we do see the 2008 accounts, what reduction in the £2.4m are you expecting to see?

So are you seriously saying that in their promotion season Rovers should have returned a profit????

Most of what you have stated is off the cuff guesswork and i didn't think real accountants did guesswork

Also how many years of SL was if before Hull posted a profit???

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:25 pm  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

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

I thought I was doing the opposite TBH!

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:27 pm  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

So are you seriously saying that in their promotion season Rovers should have returned a profit????

No what was said was that in the period from Sept-Nov 2007 (the three extraneous months), it is unlikely that much of a loss (if any) was made. In that period, expenditure won't have been massive and there will still have been a fair bit of revenue from the success the club enjoyed in that time.

So, given that those were the extra thee months included in these accounts and it is unlikely that there was much of a loss stemming from that time, the bulk of the loss seems likely to have come from the regular 12 month accounting period.

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:30 pm  

trys'r'us wrote:

No what was said was that in the period from Sept-Nov 2007 (the three extraneous months), it is unlikely that much of a loss (if any) was made. In that period, expenditure won't have been massive and there will still have been a fair bit of revenue from the success the club enjoyed in that time.

So, given that those were the extra thee months included in these accounts and it is unlikely that there was much of a loss stemming from that time, the bulk of the loss seems likely to have come from the regular 12 month accounting period.

Think you're getting your years mixed up.