Any business is only a business because of the thousands of customers that are prepared to part with their hard earned cash on their product. Without customers no business can survive.

Are they the only club in SL run like a business? What makes us run more like a business than Salford or Hull KR? Just because we're the most succesful at being a business doesn't mean we're the only one run like it.

And I guess that's where the Franchise system comes in. The "quota", cap and franchise are all inextricably linked.

I'm not sure I agree with allowing some teams in the black more money because then teams like Rovers (and indeed FC) when first promoted and Huddersfield who are striving to improve attendances would potentially be pushed that further back in their efforts to put a successful team on the pitch week in week out.

All the clubs are businesses, but the realistic ambition for some is to make their losses manageable, rather than turn a profit. The pay-off, they hope is in intangibles like glory and excitement. Hull are more of a business because greater emphasis seems to be placed on profitability than at some other clubs. Some owners would be willing and able to accept losses year after year, in return for trophies - that does not seem to be the case for Hull FC. Of course, profits and trophies are in no way mutually exclusive and a sound business doesn't necessarily disadvantage you on the pitch - but it can if, all else being equal, somebody else will dig deeper.

I don't understand what more the club can do though, we spend the full cap?

I don't want to come across as negative about Hull FC - there is much to admire in what has been achieved by them. I'm going to use Warrington and Saints as comparators and that is setting the bar high.

Would Hull pay a big transfer fee for a young player like Myler? It doesn't have to be Myler, if you don't rate him - the point is paying a premium for top young talent.
Would Hull pay whatever it took to get a coach like Tony Smith? Again, it doesn't have to be Smith.
Do Hull spend as much as Saints developing young players, with all the associated benefits that success in this area brings?

I suspect the answers to all three are 'no'. I'm least certain about the last, but a 'yes' would beg plenty of other questions. If they are all 'no', there is nothing wrong with that - there is great value in prudent sustainability. But, it gives clubs like Saints and Wire a competitive advantage from a sports POV.

We paid a fee for Tansey (albeit not a massive one), we also tried to sign Myler numerous times which I'm sure would have involved a fee.

Who knows if we'd pay what it took to get a coach like Smith? Perhaps we'll see in the future, in the past the club has been more inclined to promoting from within but I'm sure it's because they felt the person was the best man for the job and TBF in the last 5 years we've reached a CC final, a grand final and won the CC so we've hardly been baron in terms of success.

The youth point is an interesting point and like you I'm unsure about how much Hull spend relative to Saints or indeed any club so wouldn't like to speculate.

But who is "Hull" in this question? Is it a benefactor that? Because if so, quite frankly, we don't have one. Hull are doing what they are doing on a sound financial basis (according to people more informed than I am on that subject) rather than on relying on someone's deep pockets. So, the business model seems to be going alright so far and it is probably one of the reasons that Richard Agar is still at the helm and why we are prepared to offer players over 30 more than a one year deal. I'm pretty sure that St Helens' gates and merchandising alone could not have supported their on-field success over the years - I suspect that someone has been helping out. As for Warrington, it is more obviously the case there.

Wasnt there a fee for Jordan Turner as well?

The business is successful, absolutely. My point is that benefactors helping out... well, help basically.
A benefactor might make you a less successful (profitable) business, while making you a more successful sports club.

It was claimed at the fans forum the other week that we did agree a transfer fee to sign Myler, but he chose Warrington instead. We have tried to sign him a few times in the last few years I do believe.

The only times we appear tight is with the strict 'limits' we set for wages (such as not signing Dobson, not paying Cooke what HE thought he was worth) and also the head coach situation...but apart from that they have splashed the cash when required. Berrigan, Crocker and Long won't have come cheap.

where Hull really excel is off the field, I honestly believe we have the best merchandising outlet in SL and our sponsorship deals are at the upper end of the league too.

that is why i said hull are the only club run like a busininess.


to answer you question maybe lowering the admission fees would be a start

My point is most customers have a choice

I personally can not change the club i support because it is not performing

how many businesses lose money every year and keep going?

hull are the only club making a profit.

taking your example of hull kr and salford;

unless the government bailed them out I don't think any business would last long if they lost money every year that they traded.

Can you imaging Neil hudgell pitching to dragons den for investment in a company that lost 250000 every year and need 10000 fans minimum to break even?

i've saidit before but i'll say it again,

maybe lowering the admission so we are not the most expensive club to watch would be a start. Why should the only club making a profit be the most expensive to watch?

Obviously because thats what is driving the board. No other board is like this IMO

No other board need the club to make a profit for themselves perhaps?