Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:26 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Hull have had more income over the last few years but have also had much high outgoings including a players wage bill of £1.6m vs one of £0.4m.

I agree that neither club is in a brilliant state financially but the size of the loss Rovers made in 2007 is pretty worrying considering the playing roster that season when Paul Cooke and Mick Vella were pretty much the only big names. The payroll costs will have increased in 2008 with Newton, Galea, Crossman, Jake Webster, paying James Webster for a full season and Dobson for half - this isn't speculation as the club are on the record that they were much nearer the salary cap in 08 than 07. Crossland has also said you've increased youth development expenditure so that's an extra drain on resources. The point is that unless something startling has happened to Rovers business model it's unlikely that 2008 accounts will show a much improved position so the debt figures could well increase.

I agree that FC's level of debt will increase with the new training centre, but depending on how any ground developments at Rovers are funded, so will theirs.

Now the accounts are finally available and a bit grim, I would challenge Hudgell's claim dismissing people speculating about Rovers finances as mischief-makers.

Judging by the number of postings from you on this board and the fact you bookmark anything relating to Hull KR you appear to have an addiction to the club.

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:40 am  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

Having Hull SL's abbreviated accounts didn't stop you forming a fairly damning opinion in the past

The tangibled you halved were only revalued to market value in the year to those accounts so halving them is unrealistic.

The fact remains Vince, that rovers lost over £400k in their first season in the top flight and have a must worse net liability position. If I recall you warned many Hull fans that the end of the world was just around the corner a few years ago on the back of some abbreviateds but you seem strangley calm about rovers situation.

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.

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:25 am  

Kosh wrote:

I've mentioned this before, but you have some rather strange ideas about scientists.

Like I said, when I am allowed to debate with you on all forums I will respond. I am waiting for the AUP which allows you to ban people who you THINK are someone else. It could be interesting. Over to you Homer!

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:26 am  

The Kings of Hull wrote:

How peculiar, Vince doesn't want to talk finances all of a sudden.

I wonder why that is?

He asks at 2.08 am !!!!!

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:28 am  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

Having Hull SL's abbreviated accounts didn't stop you forming a fairly damning opinion in the past

The tangibled you halved were only revalued to market value in the year to those accounts so halving them is unrealistic.

The fact remains Vince, that rovers lost over £400k in their first season in the top flight and have a must worse net liability position. If I recall you warned many Hull fans that the end of the world was just around the corner a few years ago on the back of some abbreviateds but you seem strangley calm about rovers situation.

The tangibles are halved to reflect not their "market" value but a firesale valuation. Even 50% is generous in those circumstances

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:33 am  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

Thats the biggest load of tosh you have posted for some time.

A companies true worth is n othing to do with its balance sheet. Its what someone is prepared to pay for it. Usually what someone is prepared to pay for it is based on all the inherent factors which are virtually impossible to value (customer base, perceived quality, brand etc - or put another way, the companies future profitability potential).

You seem to confuse the role accountants have in business with your bad experiance of ONE which you chose in the past. Who do you think corporate finance and due dillegance are?

"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!

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:38 am  

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!

thank f*** for that.

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:41 am  

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.

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.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:44 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

[Kosh]

Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007 : Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:20 am  

Vicenzo wrote:

Like I said, when I am allowed to debate with you on all forums I will respond.

You just did.

Let's see if you can resist the temptation this time...