Strictly speaking every team currently in Super League had their SL brand given to them in July 2008.



Not what you said here (good gag about "inkling" though).

It's not £780.000, check the accounts. And the player valuation is not money "owed" to anyone, it's a reserve adjustment impacting neither the financial profit or loss in the year, nor creditors, only the revaluation reserve. The only one of you on here with a shred of credibility when it comes to accounts analysis was Chilibeano and he made himself scarce when the actual numbers were discussed. I'd suggest you give it up or take an elementary book-keeping course.

Yep.



You're fighting a losing battle here, IMO. Through a combination of good fortune and good judgement (we could bitch about the relative importance of the two all day, but life isn't fair), Hull are running an operating profit. By the standards of most sports clubs they find themselves in a financially healthy position. They could just carry on as they are indefinately. Rovers could not and have to evolve. The player valuations included on their balance sheet is just an attempt to boost the value of the club, and doesn't take away from the fact they are consisitently making a modest profit. Just as listing Rufus's Robin suit as worth five million pounds, wouldn't make Rovers profitable. They are gilding the lily, or at least painting it an unconvincing orangey-yellow, but they do at least have a lily - I've run to far with this analogy, haven't I?

To be fair, if you can do sums you can analyse accounts to a level to discuss them down the pub or on here. Put simply, both Hull and Rovers are worth less than nothing, as they have more debt than assets - 'balance sheet insolvent', to quote Hull Kingston Convicts. The difference is that Hull are making money and heading in the right direction, Rovers are losing it and relying on continued support from benefactors.
Overvaluing assets, doesn't affect P&L. It is pretty simple. Mind, some people confuse late submission of accounts with going into administration or liquidation, so I guess the febrile rivalry makes people see what they want to see.

You can't mention him on these boards, his superior understanding of financial matters has seen him banned!

TBF to me I've never said FC are in a fantastic position financially either, but relative to others our profitability over the last 5 years has been outstanding. It's true that our liabilities exceed our assets (if you take out player valuations) but TBH not by much - £0.2m (Rovers gap was £1.1m before the last 2 years losses). If you were comparing at RL clubs as a buyer, clearly our off the pitch operations and readymade stadium coupled with demonstrated profitability would make us a relatively attractive proposition but you would be comparing us to a right set of mingers.

Back to the title thread - does anyone seriously think Hudgell will walk away? I don't. I guess it depends on whether he is prepared to run the club hands-on on a day to day basis indefinitely or whether he will at some point want to go back to run his legal business?

Wrong figure (and oddly enough exactly the same wrong figure quoted by Bertie) and has no impact on the amount of cash owed to directors.

Try again.