They have wealthy backers as safety nets, but it's not like they are Hudds-style money drains. They are very well run and capable (in the case of Saints hopefully from this point) of being self-sustainable.

Totally agree on the last point. And IMO it's things like that (along with the obvious that has been done to death) that are the reasons causing people to consider not renewing.

With you 100% on this point.

I'm pretty sure our turnover was north of £5m some years ago under kath & co. No doubt retail sales and commercial/sponsorship are down and also gate receipts but you need to factor in price increases, increase in sky income and, presumably, a falling cost to use the stadium as that is linked to numbers coming through the gate. Didn't we break even more or less in the last set of accounts? This was pre some people leaving who haven't been replaced (sutton, munson etc.), the increase in sky income (Is it another £1/2m p.a.?)and, of course, any savings to be made from the not merger of the academies. I'd have said we should be reasonably profitable unless gate receipts drop dramatically.

Ultimately, the stadium deal remains a millstone around our necks. What should be a great platform for success is actually holding us back. We're restricted on non matchday income (conferences, events etc.), matchday income (food and drink sales), sponsorship (naming rights, stadium sponsorship etc.) and also seemingly punitive costs in some areas (ticketing being one). If we have been paying circa £750k p.a. to use the stadium I'd put the hidden costs (income which goes directly to the smc) at £1/2m more at least. Add in the lack of flexibility on match day prices and other promotions and this is where we are really losing out as a club to the likes of leeds, saints and warrington. For example, on lower gates than us, wire made about £1/2m profit last year I think.

pearson has made plenty of mistakes and seemingly is continuing to do so. As has been said, I'm bored of hearing how it's everyone else's fault.

One thing to bear in mind is the the profitability under the previous regime has now been shown to have been generated off the back of leveraging some tax/NI loopholes that have since been closed and at one point plain not paying a tax bill on time/at all. Not to mention underinvestment in facilities/youth.

if kath had have merged the academies she would have been killed!

Radford was such a short sighted appointment in the first place, and like most things in rugby league looked to have just followed the latest 'fad' or 'trend'.

A few years previous the trend was to appoint Aussie no 2s, Wigan had great success with McGuire, Potter and others in this mould were successful so we followed suit and appointed Gentle who fit a similar criteria. Following the NRL over technical and over coaching model was seen as the way forward. By the time Gentle's two years were up a new trend was set, no nonsense British coaches were all the rage, forwards who never took a backwards step, hardworking and wouldnt be afraid to use the 'hair dryer'. Leeds had success with McDermott, and Wigan had done the double with Wane and Anderson in the same mould took and unlikely Huddersfield to the league leaders shield, a cynic could say that AP just used this formula in appointing Radford, and all of these magical attributes that only AP see's are just his way of justifying his terribly thought out decision.

I must admit I'm excited about the direction of next seasons recruitment though, Pritchard is a real handful and most importantly for an import of his age is still performing to a decent level, and the other three are talented younger players with ability and something to prove.

That I'm afraid though is overshadowed by Pearsons ridiculous stance on Radford, the coaches philosophy on style of play and young players, and the sour taste left by the decision to sell our future short for a drop in running costs and a grant from the RFL, without even being able to really sell the idea himself other then saying "it's for the best". I'm afraid I won't be a 'customer' next year.

That's because kath was milking it like I said many times only to be ridiculed by the person who started this thread

Difference between radford and the other 3 you mention is that they all took over from a coach who had done the donkey work in turning each club into a successful operation. None of them put the foundations in place themselves which is what radford is having to do

So surley someone like Brian Smith would have been the ideal choice for a job like that? Not a rookie coach. I honestly don't see what foundations Radford is putting in place, he's going from week to week trying to win games and finish as high as possible. I'm not blaming him TBH, he will have known that not finishing in the 8 would have been a disaster. We have no real defined style of play or direction, it was even admitted that the senior players had to request a change in style of play, although I do respect Radford's open mindedness in that situation TBH. Some of our best performing players this year have been Rankin, Ellis, Pryce and Mini none of whom have any real long term future at the club and will all need replacing, most of our talented younger players have either been sold/released, gone backwards under him or not getting a look in. While the signings look good for next year, I'm not sure retaining Micheals and Yeamo are great forward thinking moves either. All sides need a transition period and results can generally be either totally ignored or at least allowances made when sides are in transition especially if a lot of young inexperienced players are being played, but I would hardly call this side a transition side.

You implied she was taking large amounts of cash out of the club. In the context of several years of profit I said this was unlikely as dividends would have been illegal, so her supposed massive salary would a) have had to have come out of the P&L and b) would have required sanctioning by the board as she had a minority share.

I still think we're currently well short of the ability of the top 3 to finance a large and high quality coaching set-up (we've seen the extensive personnel Leeds and Wigan employ), run a squad at full cap+ and deliver a top notch academy. At the moment it seems that the eggs are in the first team squad basket, much like most teams outside the elite group.

So kath was turning up every day put of her love for the club? Who do you think was running the show? kath or the other directors? What was happening to the money that wasn't being paid into overseas players' ebt funds, spent on training facilities or the academy? What about the money that was been saved utilising tax avoidance schemes? We're currently operating on this reduced income you're telling us about, spending the money we should be on facilities etc and we still broke even last year. You explain to me, as an accountant, where you think the money used to go?

The club made profits of around £1m IIRC during the last board's tenure, enabled partly by not spending appropriately on the academy but after taking into account any payments to KH. Since AP took over nearly £800k has been lost. We didn't break even last year, gates are down again and many on here are saying they're not renewing. Sponsorship is likely to be lower - remember the P&O deal that was the largest of its kind at the time? The record shirt sales? IIRC we averaged 14k one year. Wilf is saying we've given up on 12k as a target now.

Let's say the reductions in income are offset by increased Sky monies - it's possible, and that on average over a c 15 year period we broke even. My point, in the opening post, is that Leeds, with £11m turnover, Saints with £7m & own stadium and Wigan with £7m and a cashed up owner, all three of which have higher gates too (and possibly better sponsorship) are currently much better placed than us financially, and the gap will be hard to close in the short term. Are you satisfied we have the size and quality of these three's back room staff? If not, and gates fall again, I just don't see how the expectation we can compete on a level playing field is justified.

Maybe it's the re-marketing he's talking about?

After all, "If you don't like it, don't come" would be in a marketing masterclass and the subject of numerous MBA courses for decades to come