Fair point. You still want it to be attractive to promising youngsters and have to remember that it is a short career based on 1, 2 and 3 year contracts. If the quota came down to 3 at the same time, that could mitigate some of the negative impacts.

A return to 12 teams would mean an extra £200k for each of those remaining... but a bleak future for those dropping out - or the prospect of mergers. Squads of 24 and just 3 players on the interchange bench could be considered, for the domestic game.

Because sport is fundamentally different to other businesses in that you need to maintain your competition. And also the aim for many involved in BODs is glory not profits. One benefactor, richer than all the rest, could bankroll whole decades of dominance while interest withers elsewhere. Even the ultra-capatilist USA recognizes that.

MERGERS

oh dear oh dear...but it may be only way in some cases, when the hits the fan

Not an issue for Soccer though, the worlds biggest sport!

Hull's "operating model" appears to require having a large number of fans and then doing everything possible to alienate them.

Do Hull make a profit because of the board or in spite of them?

IMO it is a massive issue for football. A mismatch is more likely to produce a surprise result than rugby, but you also have distorting factors such as the Champions League and Roman Abramovich. The dream, if not quite dead, is in a pretty deep coma for all but 4 clubs in England. And none of them has a particularly robust business model as far as I can tell.

Perhaps the Hetheringtons have learnt from experience, which is why they run the only 2 profitable clubs in SL. Even without the £1m handout, our debt would be considerably less than yours.



There is not one shred of evidence that Rovers would sell out a 14,000 stadium on a regular basis. If anything the fact you are unable to sell out what you have now is a solid reason for commercial investors not to put any money in. It's silly to predict the elasticity of demand in such aggressive terms when your average gate has gone down this year despite a regular season 4th place. In the current environment it's hardly an attractive investment.



How do you know what profits FC have made this season - the accounts aren't due to be filed until next August? Plus Rovers have made losses 5 years on the bounce, and not spent the full cap in the other 4, so that's a bit of a limp rationale. You've paid the full cap for the first time, done very well in the league and it's made no difference to getting people through the gate and you aren't well-organised enough in terms of retail opportunities to maximise revenue.

Our board have their faults, but the fact is that with our resilient attendances in the region of 13,500 and excellent merchandising and sponsorship arrangements, they've bucked the trend and reduced debt significantly over the last 5 years, albeit helped by 3 major final appearances. Criticise the recruitment and admin if you like, but to suggest the board's financial delivery is down to good luck when everyone else bar Leeds is in the financial mire, is a bit soft.

Leeds didn't make a profit and had Hull SL Ltd. paid a full salary cap, they wouldn't have made a profit either so your sentiment is wrong.


"Hull SL Ltd." (previously "Gateshead SL Ltd." after it's inception as "Made Later Ltd."icon_wink.gif was created in 1998 and has had Sky money for every year since, with the fortune of the KC Stadium generating an increased fan-base which also removed the need to invest in "game-day facilities", specifically.

"Hull Kingston Rovers FC Ltd" has been trading since 1905 and is therefore still subject to the substantial knock-on effects (such as having to invest in "game-day facilities"icon_wink.gif of the ground switch in the early '90s under the Chairmanship of Colin Hutton.


We have sold covered 100% terracing 100% of the SL season which is a cast-iron reason for commercial investors to put money in so have a day from talking out of your @rse.


IIRC our average attendance went up around 300 this season. Besides, we can't account for shocking away followings like 600 from across the river.


Pedantic drivel.


Not in the slightest as the first two seasons we did not receive a slice of the SL Sky money and then there were multiple investments that needed to be made in "game-day facilities" as the club arrived in SL, not to mention some quality ink cartidges to put in the club's pen for Paul Cooke sign his contract.


In terms of covered terracing you can not improve on it being 100% full, 100% of the time hence the immediate need for better facilities.


That is an on-going process.


Not in at all as your board has created the club with a "silver spoon".

At the end of the day, facilities will improve at Craven Park whether you like it or not, and we will continue to humiliate you whether you like it or not...