Why don't you comment on the website the article appeared on then. If you're only questioning Mullan's journalistic skills what has that got to do with Hull KR or this forum?

I'm here but really, really struggling to understand the gibberish you've just written.

He's the Hull KR reporter and the very opening words of this thread were a link to his "report".

But you're only commenting on his journalistic skills. It would seem the appropriate place for that is the website the article is published on.

Think this might have been the first year of the improved Sky deal - wouldn't swear to it though.

I'm a shareholder I dont mind a squat.
I would imagine more than enough would agree.

Ah, with you now. Without wanting to give a free lesson on statistics (again) Quins result must be included in an analysis of the financial results of SL clubs. Why would they not be? Just because the number looks a bit different to most of the others does not mean it should not be included, it falls within the boundary that any statistician would consider "normal" for the results provided.

Their results might be an "obvious anomaly" to you, but in fact they're not.



In his defence, Mullan hasn't tried to reinvent statistics to prove some kind of absurd and meaningless point. On the face of it there is nothing wrong with his comparison of Rovers results against Saints, however as you point out, the choice of Saints as a comparison is questionable. It could (and does) at first glance make Rovers results appear better than they are.

Why he would chose to do that is for him to answer. I couldn't say, I wouldn't have done that. It doesn't say anything about Rovers financial performance, which is what the article is supposed to be about.



Statistics and accountancy (as Mrs B is now aware) are two very different things.

Indeed, I've no idea how they've managed that (although I'm sure uncle John has had a rather heavy influence) but as well as significantly strengthening their position, this could well be (especially when their results come out) yet another nail in Wakey's coffin.

It really does appear that they've had a very definite on and off field plan. 1) Accept being poor on the field and take the inevitable hit on crowds for a few seasons to save money. 2) Make sure your new ground is definitely going to be ready for the next round of licences no doubt helped by the cap money you've saved. 3) Sign some name players to start to ramp up interest before the new stadium opens, whilst showing you can afford it on the previous results. 4) Move to the new ground and enjoy the undoubted rise in attendances which will no doubt help to facilitate a whole new list of signings.

A really interesting blue print for growth from one of the leagues current smaller clubs. Good luck to them.

Whichever way its spun its an improving trend which can only be a good thing. Would be interesting to see a list of all profit and loss for SL clubs.

The Salford postion is an odd one for me, ok they may have reduced their player expenditure but their crowds were abismal towards the endo of the year, down to 3000 in some instances, so how they can turn a profit with such a reduced income is staggering.

It is a sad indictment of our game (and other sports) that some deem success to be how the balance sheet looks rather than what the on the field product is. Salford and Widnes being the main two in point.

Both teams have been awful on the pitch, Widnes even struggling in the championship, I'd go as far as saying they gave up after they loaned their way to the NR cup, once that was won they shed the loan players and concentrated on turning a profit.

I'm wonderig how long it will be before the RFL decide to stop playing rugby altogether and we all turn up to watch an ipod vs microsoft windows over 80 mins without contested scrums (held in an all seater stadium of course).

The Article is by Paul Baxter the Sports Editor

That just makes it worse!

Thinking about, Salford's swing from '08 to '09 will just be down to playing in different divisions in those two years, most likely.

Agreed - but I think the bit I've underlined is a something of a red herring. Stadiums cost massive amounts of cash and it is near impossible for RL clubs (Leeds apart) to self fund. I'm paraphrasing - but only slightly - when recalling a Hull fan asking something like - 'Instead of wasting all that money on Paul Cooke, why didn't you focus on building the North Stand rather than going to the council with the begging bowl'. For a single modern end stand we're looking at about £6 million I think - 4 years salary cap near enough, or Hull FC's profits for 78 years (extrapolating from 2009).

I'm sure you're correct. Rovers board will have given due consideration to this.