Hence at NBV.

Am i correct in thinking that last year was the first one when we havent had to pay off directors loans?

Rule said last year we don't owe the directors anything. In a financial sense, anyway. Obviously we owe them big time for saving our club, getting us into a sustainable financial position and winning the Challenge Cup.

So therefore profits are down even more than the 50k reported?

Why would profits be down?

Paying off the loans would not hit the p/l

Only loan interest would be in the P&L

IIRC, Leeds posted a turnover of around £10m last year. I'd expect ours to be at least half of that.

£2m from ticket sales throughout the year
£1m from merchanside
£1m from Sky rights
£1m from sponsorship
Rest from prize money, etc?

Can't be too far off.

Sponsorship will be nearer 3/4 mil. imho

Dont ask me , im not a bean counter

Just though if we made 250k profit per year, but then decided to pay 200k off loans, for example, so net profit is only 50k.

Hull have once again included their players as ‘intangible assets’ on their balance sheet, placing a value of more than £1m on their playing squad, as part of total assets of £1.42m.
It is a move which auditors Sadofskys stress is not in accordance with financial reporting standards.
However, FC have always justified including players as assets due to the huge impact they have on the success of the business in terms of results on the pitch, stressing they do not impact on profits or losses shown in the accounts each year.

Can you show proof of this ? , or are you all still smarting at Mr Allam's gift

The clue is when they can't spell their user name properly