Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:31 pm  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

Think you're getting your years mixed up.

Well, I caught the "7" key instead of the "6".

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:35 pm  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

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???

I'm not saying that Rovers should have made a profit. You're saying the 15 months v 12 months is a key reason for the loss and I'm saying it's unlikely. Hudgell said any questioning Rovers financial position were mischief makers and the club was in good financial health, when in fact the level of indebtedness is rising alarmingly. FC's accounts aren't particularly attractive reading and I've never claimed they are. You seem to want to defer any discussion on the accounts until the 2008 ones are published, which will presumably be late for the 4th running about this time next year. To ask you what you think they might show doesn't seem unreasonable.

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:35 pm  

trys'r'us wrote:

Well, I caught the "7" key instead of the "6".

Like is said earlier.

How many years of S/L was before Hull posted a profit???

[Kosh]

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:37 pm  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

Like is said earlier.

How many years of S/L was before Hull posted a profit???

But we keep being told how much better the set-up is at Rovers...

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:38 pm  

Kosh wrote:

But we keep being told how much better the set-up is at Rovers...

Not by me you don't

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:39 pm  

Rovers accounts cannot be too bad otherwise they would have struggled getting a franchise spot surely. Assuming they were 2.4m in debt the RFl would have known these facts and figures when the franchise stuff was going in for approval.
Rovers obviously submitted a good plan of action for reducing the deficit over the coming years, and that has satisfied the powers that be.

Seems to me both sets of supporters seem to want the other club to go out of business, which from a business point of view makes no sense as they would lose a lot of revenue on the games between them, plus there would be the added costs of having to travel to another away game that is out of the city.

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:47 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

I'm not saying that Rovers should have made a profit. You're saying the 15 months v 12 months is a key reason for the loss and I'm saying it's unlikely.

15 months of expenditure versus at best 13 months of full income will impact on profitability.

Hudgell said any questioning Rovers financial position were mischief makers and the club was in good financial health, when in fact the level of indebtedness is rising alarmingly.

But only he knows the reasons behind this we are all guessing, but granted at face value the accounts don't look good.

FC's accounts aren't particularly attractive reading and I've never claimed they are.

Agreed.

You seem to want to defer any discussion on the accounts until the 2008 ones are published, which will presumably be late for the 4th running about this time next year.

I am discussing them now and have said they don't make particularly good reading but there may well be some valid reasons. I could be wrong but i may be right. You could be wrong but you could be right. Fact is neither of us really know. Its all guesswork.

To ask you what you think they might show doesn't seem unreasonable.

Financial performance is better judged on a 12 month period IMO particularly when trading is seasonal. Rovers income will have increased considerably in their second S/L year so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there may be an improvement in the clubs financial performance. However until we see the accounts we cannot make a valid judgement.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:02 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

You'd think I'd be offended, but we proper accountants recognise and embrace our nerdiness. Self-awareness is a great thing.

So you really are a proper accountant but yet can't do simple multiplication.
Thats got to be a worry!!

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:31 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

I'm not saying that Rovers should have made a profit. You're saying the 15 months v 12 months is a key reason for the loss and I'm saying it's unlikely. Hudgell said any questioning Rovers financial position were mischief makers and the club was in good financial health, when in fact the level of indebtedness is rising alarmingly. FC's accounts aren't particularly attractive reading and I've never claimed they are. You seem to want to defer any discussion on the accounts until the 2008 ones are published, which will presumably be late for the 4th running about this time next year. To ask you what you think they might show doesn't seem unreasonable.

To be fair, these figures are over 12 months old and don't (necessarily) represent the current position. rovers may have made a big profit in the last financial year and have paid off a large chunk of the debt (or not)

Wonder where the extra £1 million in liabilities in the period have come from

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:03 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

To be fair, these figures are over 12 months old and don't (necessarily) represent the current position. rovers may have made a big profit in the last financial year and have paid off a large chunk of the debt (or not)

Wonder where the extra £1 million in liabilities in the period have come from

Agreed. With all the public reassurances on Rovers financial health, it's very unlikely this would be on the back of a £2.4m debt figure. This must have come down since for Hudgell to be so categorical that the finances are going in the right direction.