After the match on Friday, we were in the pub pondering how much Trinity would be valued at for the purposes of buying it as a going concern.

The metrics used in the industry I'm in are based on multiples of turnover, but I wouldn't have a clue how a sports club is valued; I guess it would be similar, but I'm not sure what the cost/value of players brings to the mix. Are they an asset or a liability? (no obvious jokes please!)

Any shareholders had the most recent set of accounts yet and if so, what does the balance sheet look like; is the club making or losing money for example?

I'm not forming a consortium by the way - just thinking aloud.

I've just emptied my pockets, and I can throw in some small coins, a piece of string, a pencil sharpener and a ticket stub for the Leeds game. That should cover it, I reckon.

I had a strong suspicion that the first response would be something along those lines!

Doubt you will get many serious answers on this one, however I'll give it my best shot. I suspect at the moment (based on the tax bill arrears, the fact the clubs have been not been replacing players on a like for like basis and falling attendances) that the club is losing money on a weekly basis. Normally if a company is a going concern the value would be the average profit multiplied by a figure appropriate to the industry. As the club are most likely losing money valuation technique goes out of the window. We then look at the assets the company owns, which is probably not much.

The players are employees of the company and usually will not affect the balance sheet. Transfer fees for players in RL are now the exception so there is probably little realisable value to the players registrations.

So what we are left with is a company whose running costs are likely exceeding it's income and little in the way of assets, therefore the value of the business is probably a nominal fee. However, the issue for any prospective investor would be that they would have to inject funds to keep the business going whilst it was losing money and most likely invest in the club in order to change things around.

The thing that may change all this is the possibility of a new stadium, which we hope will change the business model by attracting better players, bigger crowds etc. which would put the business back in a cash generating position. If this happens it could change the financial dynamics very quickly. If it doesn't and the club do not get a franchise the likely outcome is extinction/radical downsizing.

Accountancy lesson over. Hope that helps!

I was wondering the same.
We have no assets as such, we don't own a ground, we don't legally own our playing staff or indeed any other staff, under t.u.p.e you would have to employ them all or make them redundant under the terms of their original length of service and not re-employ anyone for that position for 12 months I think.
Things such as vehicles I presume are on lease so those contracts would have to be honoured presumably.
So the only assets I can see are the balance book (- any debts or outstanding tax money!!) and merchandise as a ongoing operating business.
Perhaps someone in the know could ask ted for a realistic figure, NGB4C always seems minted!

Makes sense to me. As I understood it, although we've sold the ground, we've only received part payment for it, so we still have some asset value tied up in it. This is good if/when we get a new ground, but means we'll more than likely go out of business or end up sharing somewhere else (and eventually going out of business) if we don't. At least, that's how I understand things, but I'm not "in the know".

Speaking as a qualified accountant with over 30 years in business, and also having a copy of the latest filed accounts, I'd say that was an excellent and comprehensive summation. Spot on, IMO.

If you were Hull FC, you'd capitalise the player values in your balance sheet, and attract very adverse comment from your auditors for doing so. No-one else does that I have seen, although I've seen player "registration" fees prepaid in club accounts.

I usually get hounded off here whenever I post anything remotely financial "facts of life", so I'll leave you guys to it.

I agree it's not a foregone conclusion that a new stadium will instantly turn things around, but frankly I think it's the only lifeline the club has. To outlay cash now and prop the club up hoping the stadium will come off, the franchise will be given and the fans will come flocking would be a risky proposition for most investors.

I think it will, I took the nipper to his first Bulls game last week as I knew he'd be able to see. I made the mistake of taking him to the Leeds game and not 1 of us there could see and i'm 6 foot. I think in close games like the Crusaders debacle lack of atmosphere is crippling us. Especially now fans are scattered all around the ground a great deal more than they were 2-3 years ago. It used to be chav corner generating a din but now we have fans behind the sticks, behind the dug-outs, in front of the old scoreboard (clown corner?)... It's nearly the most common thing said regarding Wakefield fans online - "give them/us a roof!"

I know a great deal of mates and fans of other clubs who go to most games but they won't come to Belle Vue for pretty grim reasons. One lad I know only ever goes to Wakey away games, he's never in his life been to Belle Vue!!!!

I guess that's the crux of it really; the club is limping along and probably losing money right now, with all hopes resting on the new stadium - a very high risk strategy in and of itself.

One view seems to be, for example, that the new stadium will 'attract' higher calibre players. It might indeed pique their interest, but ultimately what attracts high calibre players are salaries and benefits commensurate with their skills and abilities - even if we played in Camp Nou, they wouldn't play for nowt, so we still need to have sufficient cash available to pay the buggers.

Cash-wise, in the absence of a millionaire sugar-daddy, I presume we generate the bulk of our income from ticket sales? That being the case, it would seem that the most urgent task IF we get into the new stadium, is to dramatically increase the number of bums on seats. Does the 'field of dreams' effect that people assume will attract players also extend to new supporters? Will we attract them with the current quality of rugby on display in a brand new venue, or will an injection of cash in the off-season be required to get the quality of players in who are likely to bring new fans through the gates? If that's the case, is it likely to happen? More fans = more cash = better players = better results = more fans = more cash etc etc, ad infinitum.

It seems to me whilst the new stadium is indeed a very positive development, it has thrown the future of the entire club into sharp focus; I'd agree with newwildcat that if it fails, the club fails. Conversely, if the people in charge are able to keep all of the plates spinning sucessfully, we could find ourselves in the rather un-Wakey like position of having nothing substantive to complain about.

If it was happening to another club, I'd find it exciting; since it's us, I'll stick to ting myself.

Speaking from my experience as an accountant who used to work at a football club, i can say players there are considered as 'assets' on the balance sheet and depreciated over the term of their contracts. Whether this is the same in a rugby league club or not though, I couldn't be sure.

lets have a whip round to see if we can force a coalition

Strictly speaking not the stadium itself that attracts players but the fact that a better stadium is a pre-requisite for a franchise, and who wants to commit to a club whose SL future is not assured?

I have no facts or evidence to support this but I would guess gate receipts are secondary to sky money (which I'd guess is approx £1m+/season). Therefore continued existence in SL = sky money = better players = better team = better ticket sales.