What the business should be doing is maximising it's income - not aiming for a set number of fans. So 1000 fans paying £10 is better than 9000 paying a pound. I think the problem for the Bulls is that if last weekend was anything to go by - and I think most core supporters turned out if they could - is that at the moment 10,000 seems to be the ceiling on our home gate.

TBH, I think that a core support of 10k is a good number. There's plenty of clubs in SL who don't get that sort of crowd on a weekly basis.

10,000 is a very good core support - a lot stronger than cas, wakey, london etc.

However if that core support is based up selling tickets at a price cheaper than you would nomally do so then the spend of the busines has to be cut accordingly.

As much as we all say get the supporters in and then the shortfall is made up by additional spend in the club shop etc this simply is not the case.

If you re offered a £10 ticket rather than a £20 ticket are you realistically going to spend that £10 extra in your pocket at the game? Many simply take it as a saving.

For those going regulary its simply a case of spending your budget at the game and if you save something then great.

And even if you do spend that money on a burger and a coffee etc some of that will be going to external suppliers who pay rent at the ground - its not necessarily going into the clubs coffers. Other may go to the pub accross the road before the game which reduces the reveune take further.

Ultimately the model is flawed and requires a big money backer to subsidise the shortfall i.e. Huddersfield

A few years ago I was told that 10,000 number of fans was set by the RFL because that was deemed as the "break even"figure for a Super League Club and for every 1,000 below the average crowd that means, someone or persons have to make up the shortfall by £100,000per season.Now that works as long as all the 10,000 are paying a proper market price for their entrance last Sunday for instance we were told only 20% of people actually paid in and many were kids for a quid , so 80% went in on season ticket and did not pay in.So therefore the game had once again a considerable shortfall , now to achieve the break even money they are going to have to charge the market price for Suuper League so looking at Sundays figures do you still think you will get the 10,000 every match or will some one have to be picking up the shortfall.

Look, for the last bleedin time can you please get it through your skull that the season ticket holders do NOT GET IN FOR FREE they have PAID. In my case well over £200, for the privilege.

Yes we do not pay in again on the gate, but can you work out why that doesn't mean we "do not pay in"? You can call ticket holders declining to pay again various things, but you can't sensibly call it a "shortfall". The nearest word regards any who did pay twice is "bonus".

A "kid for a quid" had to be accompanied by an adult paying normal admission, so can you see why that offer was made?

As to your last question, the administrator hasn't reneged on the season ticket deals so as long as that remains the case then yes we will get 10K. If he does, or if Newco do, then it will depend on how many season ticket holders who would then have been shafted, were prepared to pay twice over. (Or in most cases three times over, if you count the Pledge payments).

And there in lies the rub, because although in the last few weeks the majority focus has been rightly on just surviving - there is always the undercurrent of not only should we survive but also get back to collecting trophies. But to do this we are having to compete with clubs with either one of the "fabled Sugar Daddies" who is happy to chuck in several hundred thousand a year, or clubs with gates several thousand higher than ours - some of the swine even have both which is highly unsporting of them!

The Dark Lord may have made himself unpopular by berating the fans for not turning out in sufficient numbers but the maths behind his comments is right.

Nah, any man who berates the population of the country for not coming to spend money in his particular business is an utter moron. Build it attractive enough and they will come. No-one has to, and the ones that might could get pishsed off by being told off, and stay away on principle. We are in the 21st century and folk can do what the hell they like with their leisure dollar. Berating folk never but a single £ on a gate.

How rude, if you take the trouble to read my post properly I did not say that the season ticket holders got in for free.What I said was the season ticket holders did not pay in , which is as you say they had no need to because they have already paid. My point was how hard would it be for the new owners to persuade these people to pay in for the rest of the season if the season ticket was not honoured.I agree they were shafted but that wasn`t my point either.

Correct me if I am wrong but was it not Bradford who at the start of last season offered season tickets at £80?

How many took up that offer?

Kids should be allowed in at a £1 if i had my way to all grounds but should not be counted as part of a 10k crowd as they only pay a fraction and distort the figures.

Absolute nonsense!! The Bulls aren't too big to fail. I wouldn't want to see them fail but it wouldn't have anywhere the same impact as Chelsea in the EPL or Rangers in the SPL going bust. In fact the Bulls haven't challenged for a couple of years so losing them would hardly cause any problems at all. I remember in the 80's and early 90's when Halifax used to bring more away support than Bradford and Bradford were only pulling 4-5k fans in. If Bradford went down and were replaced by Halifax then Halifax support would grow again and in a few years SL would be back to normal.

Halifax may have had larger crowds (though never as big as Bradford's) when they were successful, but that success was built on spending money they didn't have (sounds familiar) and the receivers were called in.

Would Halifax be able to grow sustainably? Their fans might say so but I fear that without a wealthy backer they would be just heading for trouble in the long run.

I think that you'll find that clubs like Leeds and Wire, at least, have managed their finances to a point where the 'sugar daddy' does not contribute at all. Simon Moran only acquired the club after several years when John Smith, a tough accountant who was CEO of Wire at their lowest ebb, cut every cost under the sun to stop the club losing money. The cuts were so ruthless that we ran no 'A' team for several years, with the result that we had no youth policy ( something other fans taunt us with to this day ) effectively before we moved to the HJ.

Do you honestly believe that Moran is not contributing at all to Wire? Really?

TBF dont think morans contributes much towards day to day running costs anymore. Where his money comes into play is wires ability to pay transfer fees.

And large bills. Like ones to the taxman