So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then?

The money borrowed for the stand is being paid back over 35 years IIRC.

Quote: bishops finger "So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then?'" We don't know - it is all just speculation. We're all familiar with the mood music from the club, but it is open to interpretation as to what exactly it means. To fully understand Barista's interpretation, imagine it being spoken by an actor (over)playing the part of a Shakespearean fool ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_fool ), forefinger to cheek, eyebrows raised in mock simplicity.

Quote: bishops finger "So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then?'" We don't know - it is all just speculation. We're all familiar with the mood music from the club, but it is open to interpretation as to what exactly it means. To fully understand Barista's interpretation, imagine it being spoken by an actor (over)playing the part of a Shakespearean fool ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_fool ), forefinger to cheek, eyebrows raised in mock simplicity.

Quote: Easty "For me this 10,000 figure is a load of tosh. This magical 10,000 figure was quoted a few years ago. In that time revenue streams could have gone up and we therefore need less then the stated 10,000. Alternatively they could have reduced leaving us needing for example 11000 crowds. A crowd to break even ratio surely changes every season dependant on revenue/spends'" Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.

Quote: Easty "For me this 10,000 figure is a load of tosh. This magical 10,000 figure was quoted a few years ago. In that time revenue streams could have gone up and we therefore need less then the stated 10,000. Alternatively they could have reduced leaving us needing for example 11000 crowds. A crowd to break even ratio surely changes every season dependant on revenue/spends'" Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.

Like Terry Jacks.
We had joy, we had fun
We had seasons in the sun
But the stars we could reach
Were just starfish on the beach

Hull FC being the starfish, n'est-ce pas?

It's all just speculation

For wassocking fanny face's sake, although you are my favourite, that was brain dehydrating in it's extreme boredom.

Do we give a cats flange as fans about money? As long as we don't do a Bradford or a nineties Rovers of course we cocking don't. Most of us are lucky enough to have jobs, we're not responsible for Rovers, we just turn up every week and want a bit of entertainment.

We've got Mike Smith to make a massive steaming turd of running the club without us having to worry about it, email him if you're that bothered, that'll be a long conversation.

Well put sir.

I can see how a sensitive soul might interpret me posting some highly relevant, but slightly cautionary context, as simple trollage but this is a thread about squad changes vs this year. And I'm just making the point that, vs this year there are, according to your directors a couple of potential game-changers. Firstly they're not underwriting losses anymore. Understandable 7 years on with their hugely significant personal contributions to your resurgence. Secondly they're taking on a big incremental financial commitment, which, of course, may yield big upsides. So to post this in reply to a post hoping for an increase in spend to full cap is fair enough IMO.

I think that there are other clubs in for Lovegrove and McDonnell. I think they'll both stay at Rovers, but at prices inflated by market forces. Murrell to Cas, along with Webster. Taylor to Leeds for a fee and a house. Watts to Hull on a free. Clinton to Brisbane Broncos, perhaps no longer as their highest paid forward. Hall to sign a 2 year extension, Galea 1 year. Lopini Paea in along with that kid from Warrington, Kopczak, Reece Lyne, a centre from Newcastle Knights and another Con Mika style player. Con Mika to Hull.

If I get a hit rate >25% I'll be pretty pleased.

You'll be getting a one hundred per cent hit rate off my cricket bat around your chops.

I knew I wasn't your favourite. Should I go for a proper starfish, or Patrick Star?

That's subjective and, in my subjective but highly relevant (a non-subjective usage in this instance) opinion, wrong.



Yes; because you are a troll.

I'm going to delete further contributions made in a similar tone - don't want you typing in vain. Any complaints via pm. Ooh, look at me chucking by virtual weight about.

One day, we might have a thread about finances and sustainability. It'll be balanced, mature and, frankly, boring but right now that target demographic (ie me), can't be bothered - those toy soldiers won't paint themselves.