So you dont really know either, do you?

Seems to me that pretty much everyone knows, except you.

Saints have recorded losses of £2.4 million in 2011, £1.35 million in 2010 and £940k in 2009.

McManus' support for the Bulls is little more than a Turkey voting against Christmas.

My blame is pinned squarely on the boogie.

One would assume that his hopes are squarely pinned on the new stadium reversing those losses... a bit like Salford

So put it down in simple black and white on here then

Away you go

I think this assumes status quo too much. Yes the Bulls where loss making under the last regime. But we have no idea on the costs and what is a fixed cost and what is a cost that can be changed or stopped.

Whilst profit and loss is not just governed by the revenue side of the equation. Unless you know the costs too, then it's impossible to say whether those costs would transfer on mass to the new owners.

You can say with some certainty that some of the costs will no longer be incurred.

The Bulls did have an overdraft which they had to pay back, so there will no longer be interest and charges as that overdraft is gone. There may have been other loans, such as directors loans with interest to pay back, these may also be gone, there could have been accumulated interest on unpaid bills, to other business' or lines of credit etc.

Put simply unless you can see the books it's impossible to tell whether Bulls RLFC can opperate without a sugar daddy or how much that input would need to be. A sugar daddy may want to put in thousands for their love of the club, but millions may not be feasable.

Thats a fair enough description , It is always just a bit worrying when a new to RL/Sport investor is being touted as a new owner , no matter what your backround , or how good a supposed businessman you are , nothing can prepare you to run what is 90% of the time a loss making black hole , so as long as the new owners fully understand what is expected of them , then fine

The reality of the situation is that in almost all cases , the on field success of the club cannot finance the running of the club , and any new owners must be prepared to put cash in , and quite probably more than they are estimating right now

I've never agreed with the 'oblivion' bit, to be honest.

The [ibottom[/i line isn't (and never was) that we start next season with [ianything[/i "like the club we have at the moment", but that the club dies, as 1963, and comes back from "not owning so much as a bootlace" to having a team on the bottom rung of the RL ladder. Retaining an SL licence, along with the finance and management to run a club in that division is certainly a line, bit it's far from the [ibottom[/i line.

Like '63, it would need fans and local businesses to coalesce around a symbol, just as they did around Trevor Foster and Joe Phillips to form a new team for 1964. Yes, things have changed and it certainly isn't 1963/4 but where there is the will, the way can be found and with the support base around this club the money for a new start at that level is more than possible.

Just out of interest, what do you think should happen to the next club that hits a financial wall?

A Financial Wall? What does that mean? Explain yourself, put up with facts or shut up

I was asking the neutral Saints fan