That's got to be one of the funniest posts on here for ages

Bigger trouble ahead methinks - wonder why I get a feeling of deja vu?

Hold your horses there pal.
First up, I posted a series of figures regarding the income of Bradford Bulls as part of an explanation as to why they were in need of further UNSCHEDULED funding from their owner. You accused me of making stuff up!

I responded with links to every set of figures I had used, but instead of you admitting you were wrong, you pointed out that OK has actually already sunk 800k into the club, on top of this 900k. I can't see how this added any weight to your premise that Bradford aren't in the crapper, but I reposted all the financial ins and outs including the scheme by which next years ST could be paid for this year.

Why don't ye revisit all the facts before you reply again?

£180 season tickets x 6,500 = £ 1,1700,000
1/2 Sky Money = £600,000
Sponsors Money = £300,000
2,250 extra fans per game @ £20 = £4,500,00

Before a pint, pie or replica shirt has been purchased, Bradford Bulls have seen a 2013 income of £2,520,000. Let's say that the Pies, Pints and shop takings come in at £10.00 a head per game....so add £850,000 to the kitty so far and you get an income of £3,370,000.

Now, your owner has now ploughed an additional £1,700,000 into the coffers of the club and we have established that after the Council Loan and July Wages are settled, there is £500k left in funds for the rest of the season.

London and Catalan will bring few fans.....£5 a ticket for London. There are Wages to be paid for August (£200,000), September (£200,000) and October (£200,000) before the season ends and some players leave whilst some join, then you start the yearly cycle again November (£200,000), December (£200,000), January (£200,000), and season starting February (£200,000)....so, the income from London, Catalans and Huddersfield games (£100,000 at best) + £500,000 in funds in the bank will be expected to cover 7 months wages (£1,400,000), rent on the ground al the other running costs before a ball is kicked in 2014.

I am not saying Bradford won't be there in 2014......what I am saying is currently, the figures just don't add up......they don't even come close to adding up.

Bradford are assured of £600,000 from SKY next year, as well as £300,000 sponsorship money. They have targeted 10,000 ST holders £1,800,000 and that in turn will produce another £1,300,000 in residual revenue....£4,000,000.

With an income of £3,400,000 this year, they have required another £1,700,000 just to pay the wages.......if they get their 10k ST's next year, they are still coming up £1,100,000 on the running costs of 2013......which I have already shown they will end with a deficit after the Wages to December are paid.

Please...re-read the above maths before you reply.....other than the assumption that a residual spend at a game is £10 a visit including, beer, programmes, pies, replica gear etc it is all based on published fact!

If I am 50% out on my calculations, then Bradford will still need to fill a 600k hole in 2014 over and above the 600k loss they will make before February 2014.

The Wages are 200k a month...August through to January is 6 months, so 1.2 million before the season starts......they have 500k in the bank and only the prospect of Huddersfield bringing any away fans.

2014's figures are based on getting 10,000 ST sales....that's a 35% increase at static prices....a MASSIVE ask.....if they only add 20% ( a brilliant result) then they are a further 400k down on projected revenue.

I am not talking about any running costs other than wages here, because we don't have figures on the cost of rent etc, but the reality is, the sums do not add up.

Bradford will have received over 5,000,000 in revenue in 2013 and could quite possibly be 600k short by the end of the year.....next years projections without more cash from your owner do not look healthy...at all!


BTW...I never said away fans brought 2,250....I worked on 6,500 ST's and an average of about 8,750...there will be Bradford casuals in there.

No, your figures don't look healthy. However, the majority of your figures are estimates based on educated guess work and not in possession of all the facts regarding the bulls income. Maybe that's why the figures don't add up?

Fine I am 75% out.....Bradford are still in a £300,000 hole this year and next!
By the way, I estates the turn over of London broncos to within 8% last year and the rest of sl by an average of 15%.......it's more than educated guesswork

Also sky money is paid monthly so we still have 200k of that to come in this year (4 instalments at 50k each).

And I was only 5 numbers away from winning the lottery on Saturday. The fact is you're basing your argument on incomplete data so it's always going to be skewed in favour of the point you're trying to make.

So you don't the validity of my assertion even though I have pointed out that if I was 75% wrong (I ain't by the way) it just doesn't add up?
It's a long river in Egypt pal!

There is a good chance you are entirely wrong and don't have a clue about Bradfords finances.

Where did you do this?

Really? What part of my maths is wrong?
1.7 million from owner
600k from sky
300k from sponsor
6500 season tickets
8750 average
London and Catalan being poor draw cards
200k loan from council
Missed wages payment

Bradford will turn over close to 5 million this year including 1.7 million from an owner who said his total expected investment was 2 million. Next year, if they miss the 10k st target, they are in a massive hole again....... Does the owner have another 1.7 million he can refinance!

So that was not what you meant@ Well then, let's see what you said

Any person familiar with English would take that as a contrast - between what they DO aspire to, and what they SHOULD aspire to. Thus you said that the Bulls should aspire to self sufficiency, and that they should not aspire to paying DD charges because they have run out of cash.

Now, you tell us that you did not mean they should or do aspire to cash flow issues. Fair enough, let's run with that. So what else did you mean?

At the moment, it seems your meaning was"....self sufficiency should be the bare bones of what you aspire to, not paying players DIRECT DEBIT LATE PAYMENT CHARGES because you've run out of cash, though of course you don't aspire to the latter, so I don't really know why I made that comparison".'"