Actually the abbreviated accounts don't support his assumption at all. And I wasn't making any assumptions.

Millward, maybe not first off but in the long run we would be ok IMO.

It's all my mother's fault!!

I remember the discussion. You came up with a stack of fictitious amounts which supposedly backed up your claims that the directors aren't taking much out. I still believe that a business with a turnover of circa £5m, where the 3 biggest costs (players, stadium and stock for the shop) are less than £3m (probably substantially less) must either be making a decent profit or have other expense we don't know about.

The abbreviated accounts don't disprove his assumption either

Like Wigan, you mean, whose directors emoluments are zero, whose stadium rental is <£200k and who make a loss on bigger gates than we get? Righto.

Like wigan who were run as a sideline to whelan's beloved wigan athletic and who are now returning to profit because they are being run properly I mean

Yes, they are returning to profit. They've won the league and we haven't. They pay the directors nothing and we'll be paying Rule, Sutton and Flatman. They pay only £187k for stadium rental, our deal is supposed to be at least half a million. In that context they should be making at least half a million a year more than we do.

Should they? What is their income compared to ours? How do you know they pay their directors nothing?

I'm guessing that with the salary cap, that if every club had the same level of income as us then they'd pretty much all be making a profit other than possibly leeds who have a completely different business model to everyone else

Their income last year was £4.6m. I know the directors get nothing because it states in the accounts - directors emoluments: Nil. Saints was £4.9m and they lost £900k.

Indeed not. Yet this doesn't seem to stop you continually implying/claiming that the directors are taking big salaries out of the club. And therefore I can counter with an opinion that our relatively strong level of profitability in a year we finished 12th and went out to Salford in the first round of the cup might indicate otherwise.

I'd counter it with the fact that I doubt we saw much drop in income, if any. I'm not saying the directors are taking big salaries, just that it's a possibility. I thought we made £70k last year? Hardly a "strong" level of profit on £5m turnover (although obviously better than a loss before you come back with a predictable response)

What, the loss we would have made had the directors taken big salaries out of the club, you mean?

Our best year of profit in recent years was when we won the CC, plus a decent year in 2008 IIRC. The value of getting to finals financially shouldn't be underestimated. Warrington turned in a profit last year (loss making the year before) off the back of a Wembley trip. Saints blamed a major part of their YOY worsening profit on failing to get to Wembley again. So success in the cup at least does have a significant impact on the bottom line, which by default means that finishing 12th and being dumped out of the cup v Salford but remaining in profit is a decent result.