Depreciation counts for around 65% of those looking at the accounts. In the past couple of years they've actually made profits before depreciation. Which means, all other things being equal (they never are) they weren't needing constant cash injections as depreciation is a loss on past cash spending rather than current.

Well for starters I've double checked (they're not my club so I'm not fully up to speed with them) - he's only partially converted them to shares, the balance of £11m is still owing but is convertible into shares at his discretion.

Lenagan could do the same if he doesn't want the money back, which I guess he probably doesn't given how far in he is. The difference, again putting Covid to one side as all owners will be sticking cash in right now, is that based on the last couple of years Saints were breaking even pretty much at a cash level so don't need extra money putting in, Wigan do. The long and short of it is that Colman has effectively given St Helens a stadium and doesn't appear to ever want his money back. They're no different to almost all other clubs in reliance on owners BUT their stadium and the club generally but, before 2020 at least, their stadium and operations were now seemingly throwing off enough cash to minimise future requirements for injections from the owners.

Just one slight misunderstanding being peddled here that is worth pointing out. You can't distinguish between losses from depreciation and operating losses if you own the asset that is depreciating.The point of depreciation is that either:
1) The asset is becoming less valuable or
2) Will require money spending on it in order to maintain its value.

If it's the former the £22m (or whatever) asset no longer covers the debts of the club or, if it's the latter there will come a time that operating profits (if there were any, which there aren't in Saints case) would be swallowed up by a decaying asset.

There are no practical diffences between the Saints model or the Wigan one. It's merely a paper difference.

Not really.
1. The asset is generating income for St Helens and is fundamental in them moving away from losing money at EBITDA level and starting to break even from a cash point of view. The asset at Wigan is generating income for Wigan football club and the operating losses being made by the Rugby League club are pretty much all cash losses.
2. Depreciation on a stadium is vastly different to maintenance costs. And regular maintenance is being expensed by clubs like St Helens anyway.

A look at their Balance Sheet shows Saints aren't exactly in a healthy financial position but (pre Covid) they no longer needed directors to stick money in year after year, which McManus thinks is a decent position to be in (I'd like to see them actually making money but they seem happy enough with their position).

I appreciate there are no absolutes and different assets are accounted for in different ways. However I was oversimplifying in order to make a point. Maintenance is different from the depreciation as the asset is still becoming less valuable over time (assuming it has a finite lifespan) and no amount of running cost maintenance negates this.

In simple terms; if the club has an asset (let's say a laptop for ease of understanding) and it spends maintenance money on a new screen and a stick of ram and perhaps a new hard drive during it's serviceable lifetime, that merely delays its obsolescence. It doesn't prevent it. Ultimately the asset will still become worthless. Again, I am aware that a stadium and a laptop are not identically comparable but it illustrates the point.

In a nutshell, If depreciation losses weren't real losses as is being put forward here then
HMRC wouldn't allow them.

Addendum: You mention the directors don't need to put money in year on year. I would add the caveat of "for now". As the stadium deteriorates and operating revenues continue to not cover any future significant infrastructure replacement or upgrade, then this is unlikely to remain the case.

Yes, but Colman has spent that money and appears to view it as a gift to the club/town. It's cash already spent rather than a requirement for additional cash going forward which is the point.

you really think of a modern stadium doesnt need maintaining for 110 years??? Wembleys maintenance costs are reported to be 72 million over 6 years.....

Didn't a large section of cladding come off in the first few years?

yes and the roof was damaged in a storm a few days before their first game

It was a joke.
Sorry.

ah...

Look. I really don’t want to get into an argument with someone who clearly has no clue as to what they are talking about so I will leave you with this. Imagine, god forbid. one of the Wigan shareholders passed away and their shareholding needed to be valued for probate. Guess how much it would be worth. Zero. Because the club is insolvent. Even the auditors have concluded that there is a material uncertainty towards going concern.

But hey. If you want to carry on thinking your club is priceless, Knock yourself out champ.

Thank f*** for that

Put in its simplest form, ”Value” may well be zero, as many professional sports clubs would be...but “worth” is basically what someone is willing to pay for it, which as most are saying here most certainly isn’t £0.

game, set and match