You have to separate running the business from on-field performance and player recruitment. They are very different things.

Its ridiculous to question GH/Caddick on the business side given the fact we nearly went completely out of business when they took over. Hardly any sporting businesses anywhere in the world make a profit. Investing in them is usually a very bad idea. The fact that we as a club are profitable is far more remarkable than people seem to think.

On the recruitment front I'd say there's always been evidence that GH is a bit hit and miss. If you look back over his tenure there have been several 'Ben Cross' type signings. Again though, the overall record since GH took over has been very good, as evidenced by GFs we've won.

Regarding performances this year I'm still of the view that GH simply made the wrong choice of coach. I don't have a problem with that if he seeks to correct that at some stage (assuming no Lazarus-like resurrection of the team under BM).

It could also be said this is a club with the largest revenue streams with a trophy winning record - in SL era - worse than St Helens and Bradford. It could also be suggested from this position the club has under achieved?

Looking at the much vaunted cash position; has this been generated through operational excellence or sale of assets?

I have said this before - it is much easier to run a business when cash flow is not an issue. In the early days Caddick was bouyant and cash rich so GH didn't have to concern himself with that issue.

Finally the success of any sporting club is very tightly linked to on field performance - revenue streams can only be maintained if on field standards are maintained. It is no surprise crowds are falling at Leeds as the success on the field declines. This begs the question regarding recruitment of both players and coaches over the past two years?

The next set of financial data from the club will be the most interesting to date and should give a greater insight at how the various stakeholder groups are effecting strategy and profitability.

I do not think we're that far behind and considering Hetherington came in to a sinking ship after Super League had already begun he's done a good job playing catch up.

Turnover has nothing to do with asset sales these last few years.

I don't think Caddick has ever subsidised the Rhinos. I think they've been run as a stand alone operation.

I agree to an extent but not entirely. Unlike, say Bradford, whose early commercial successes were based around instant on field successes GH has built the business to a degree where it is not dependant upon on the field results and that is key because nobody can run a club and ensure they win the championship every single season. Of course, we'll be better off commercially if we're more successful but we won't be in the mess others are if we're not.

This I agree with. When are they published?

Gareth,

Cash isn't just about turnover - if you sell a player and receive a huge amount of money i.e Harris the money still shows on the balance sheet. The huge overdraft Caddick inherited wasn't reduced by operation profitability it was cleared when the cricket ground was sold. Also the cash position is a very transient position that can change quiet easily and quickly depending on operational issues. Whilst Leeds had 2m+ available cash at the time of the accounts I would be very surprised if that is the norm through the year. Most firms would maximise working capital at the Y/E

Caddick guaranteed the overdraft, it provided GH with the necessary working capital not to have to worry whether the players were going to get paid. It also stopped the bank calling in part or all of the overdraft.

I disagree regarding the correlation between on field success and profit, his dismay at the lack of ticket sales for the final and the lower than expected season ticket showed how important these issues are. Last year Leeds were still riding on the back of 3 GF wins in a row and 2010 being a blip. Now fans and sponsors have seen a further regression you can see this revenue stream going only one way.

Once upon a time a certain poster managed to lower expectations with a relentless series of negative impressions for the up-coming season/s.

It appears that poster (in that role) has now been replaced by the actions (or the lack of) at the summit of the club itself.

If anyone (based on the situation we see today) is still optimistic for the prospects (on and off the field) in 2012 I think I need a pint of what they're drinking and I'm tee-total.

There is still time from GH to announce the signing of Benji Marshall, SBW and Matt Scott - their up the sleeve waiting to be allowed out

I've read this about 8 times and still can't fathom the logic.

So in the Super League era St Helens and Bradford are the only clubs with a better trophy winning record than Leeds. But you bring in financial criteria to state that Leeds (as third best) are underacheiving but ignore that one of those clubs is in a mess financially while the other had a major bailout in 2002 (even after which they were operating at a significant loss).

So we could easily turn your statement on it's head and say that since the Caddick/Hetherington takeover (i.e. 1997 - SL II) [uLeeds have been the most successful [ifinancially stable[/i club in SL[/u.

I haven't been following the South Stand redevelopment, so genuine question:

Was the plan for the redevelopment to be contracted to Caddick companies?

I ask because the obvious plan of action, if that's not a factor, is for a cash-rich business to undertake any Capital Projects which add value in the future *now* when materials and labour are at a low, and when you'll be getting sod all on any investment market with your cash reserves. Unless it's unacceptable to pay current market-rate to the planned contractors, and the artificial rate is too expensive...

IA & others will be able to tell me, can Caddick just carry out the work "as of right" or does the work have to be put out to tender?

In my view GH has been losing the plot for the last 3 years.

I acknowledge and give him credit for his earlier achievements. However so much of our success on the field came from the good fortune of having a unique set of talented youngsters become stars at the same time. This factor was the key to so much of the increased revenue and finanancial stability which so many attribute soley to GH.

It is this same set of players that have been allowed to grow past their prime all at the same time. I am not sure how much credit is due to GH for having recruited such a good accademy squad, or was it really the coaches and scouts or was it just a purple patch of good fortune.

GH did recuit well with Ali, Webb, Ellis and Peacock to add to the home grown talent but then all the other top SL sides also recuited well. Buderus is certainly up there with the class players but what was GH's thinking because at the time we did not need a hooker but we did need a centre and a prop.

What is clear over the last few years is that GH has shown a management weakness with his failed succession policy and has allowed the other sides to recuit the limited number of quality players that are now available and leave us with a 5th place side

which former hull chairman put his in his boot?

GH what was ever to be expected of a big daft lad of a forward

It's probably a good job he wasn't sacked straight away in the 90s and apart from arabs buying football clubs has anyone of made a suggestion where extra funds can come from @ the moment?

He also put his money where his mouth was on and off the field with sheffield.