Quote: Leaguefan "is not as healthy, I would suggest as people make out!
Now the Cougars are having "difficulties" albeit somewhat smaller than a lot of clubs ( see the Cougar forum/website for details).
If the "top club" can only show a profit by selling assests to make the balance sheet show such things just how bad is it at other clubs.
How on earth do the Bulls, for example, believe they can afford to ship money overseas ( lost to the game here forever) and show a "profit"?
The game is also on the precipice of following the "Marks & Spencer" financial model of making companies go to the wall!!
For those who need to know it basically is that companies got good deals from Mark's and built their business around the good contracts Come rengotiation Mark's always wanted more but for an awful lot less. For some time a business could cope but without other sources of income found it hard.
Come renegotiation again, Mark's would again want more for less, which the businesss couldn't provide so Mark's went elsewhere. The lone supply companies went to the wall.
To me RL is in a similar boat and if clubs are in financial "difficulties" now, if the the same situation occurs then it is gonna be a right mess.
The future of the game , in it's present guise, is not looking that good and that cannot be a good thing. In the current financial climate the professional game in this country is standing on the edge IMO.
That I find very disconcerting!'"
If that is meant to be a dig at Bradford spending money on overseas players (and if it is not, what the hell are you blabbering on about?) then its a particularly dumb comment even by your standards.
1. If its a dig at clubs generally, clubs have a salary cap to spend on players. It is totally irrelevant to their bottom line whether they spend it on UK or overseas players.
2. If its one of your all-too-frequent digs at the Bulls, why did you not instead single out one of the various other clubs (including Leeds) with more overseas players?
3. Your "Marks and Spencer" analogy in any case does not tell the whole story - firstly because a top club gets less than a quarter of its income from the biggest external paymaster (Sky), unlike many of those M&S suppliers who ended up being far far more dependent on M&S - sometimes almost totally - and secondly because M&S exercised far more behind-the-scenes control over the suppliers' businesses.
The real issue has been done to death on other threads. Despite numerous people initially denying the facts, the financial performance of all but Wakefield and Crusaders (late-filing their accounts) has been anlaysed ad nauseum. Fact of the matter is that clubs with a wealthy backer can and are running up massive losses, which are only sustainable whilst that rich owner is willing or able to bankroll the club. Clubs without a rich backer (like Hull and Bradford, for example) have to on average break even at worst and make more profits than losses (as indeed they did - remember Hull make profits and Bulls made £257k profit in 2007 and £222k profit in 2006, nicely debunking your argument earlier).
And one real issue is that the game is getting distorted (as it always has been) by bankrolled clubs being able to bid up the cost of players for everyone. But, as I keep saying, what happens if and when a rich owner suddenly ain't there any more? Everyone is mortal, after all.
And as for your dig at Leeds, that is again disingenuous - they have the funds and the resources to be able to run a (modest) loss from time to time if they need to - as they did this year to sort out the South Stand. They also appear to be financially self-supporting these days. Leeds are a subsidiary of Caddick Group plc, owned by Paul Caddick. Much as I loathe the man, maybe you should instead be applauding him for seeing that the income his club is generating is being reinvested in the game rather than paid out to him as dividends?
