No what was said was that in the period from Sept-Nov 2007 (the three extraneous months), it is unlikely that much of a loss (if any) was made. In that period, expenditure won't have been massive and there will still have been a fair bit of revenue from the success the club enjoyed in that time.

So, given that those were the extra thee months included in these accounts and it is unlikely that there was much of a loss stemming from that time, the bulk of the loss seems likely to have come from the regular 12 month accounting period.

Think you're getting your years mixed up.

Like is said earlier.

How many years of S/L was before Hull posted a profit???

But we keep being told how much better the set-up is at Rovers...

Not by me you don't

Rovers accounts cannot be too bad otherwise they would have struggled getting a franchise spot surely. Assuming they were 2.4m in debt the RFl would have known these facts and figures when the franchise stuff was going in for approval.
Rovers obviously submitted a good plan of action for reducing the deficit over the coming years, and that has satisfied the powers that be.

Seems to me both sets of supporters seem to want the other club to go out of business, which from a business point of view makes no sense as they would lose a lot of revenue on the games between them, plus there would be the added costs of having to travel to another away game that is out of the city.

15 months of expenditure versus at best 13 months of full income will impact on profitability.



But only he knows the reasons behind this we are all guessing, but granted at face value the accounts don't look good.



Agreed.



I am discussing them now and have said they don't make particularly good reading but there may well be some valid reasons. I could be wrong but i may be right. You could be wrong but you could be right. Fact is neither of us really know. Its all guesswork.



Financial performance is better judged on a 12 month period IMO particularly when trading is seasonal. Rovers income will have increased considerably in their second S/L year so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there may be an improvement in the clubs financial performance. However until we see the accounts we cannot make a valid judgement.

To be fair, these figures are over 12 months old and don't (necessarily) represent the current position. rovers may have made a big profit in the last financial year and have paid off a large chunk of the debt (or not)

Wonder where the extra £1 million in liabilities in the period have come from

Agreed. With all the public reassurances on Rovers financial health, it's very unlikely this would be on the back of a £2.4m debt figure. This must have come down since for Hudgell to be so categorical that the finances are going in the right direction.

So you know more than Hudgell then? tell you what, stop worrying yourself doll face and get a life.

You keep getting slightly catty and making it so obvious that she is touching a nerve !

Is she getting to ya flower !!!!!

who cares if either club is deep in the red?
s long as we have our respective teams to watch/follow each week all us fans need to be concerned with is which team is doing better out on the field, let the directors and people in charge worry about the finances.
we ve waited too long to have both teams in superleague to let things like debts worry the fans........


my main concern for this season is will Hfc finish above Hkr