Just out of interest, do Leicester and LUFC turn a profit or run at a loss?

Given the value of their respective TV deals and average attendances, their turnovers are pretty much in line with what I'd expect in relation to ours TBH. I'd imagine their salary costs are a fair bit higher though.

Depends what Leeds (and Leicester) actually spend within the permitted cap but in a top Premiership RU club's case it's likely to be at least triple given their limit is set at around £4.5M compared to Leagues £1.65M.

My point was that no matter how dilligently you run your club, it's historically rare for a team to make both showpiece finals in the same year, never mind do it two years on the bounce.

It would be interesting to see how the accounts stacked up without the profit made from those events, and whether the club would be running at least at break even if it did endure a barren year without one.

Leicester Tigers
2011 - turnover of £20m
- operating profit of £600k

2012 - turnover of £17m
- operating loss of £1m

Man Utd £350m
Tesco £64bn

They're just as relevant.

The most interesting thing about this is that if you take the profit and a full salary cap out of the turnover it shows operating costs of £8.3m. Would love to know how that breaks down.

£1.6m Players salary
£6.7m cost of GH's flights to Australia

Call yourself an accountant.

£8.29M CEO trips to Australia and the other £10K just wasted.

Sounds about right for BA these days.

Hetherington said: “That played a part, but from the play-offs and Grand Final we only actually get prize money, which goes to the players in the main. Ticket sales are pooled."

Nonetheless, as he also mentions, getting to those finals probably does affect attendances the following season... and, to take your point a bit further, it would be interesting to see what difference it makes to the accounts in a season after no finals.

At least one team has managed to make both finals in 10 of the 15 SL seasons where we've had both a Challenge Cup Final and Grand Final. Last year was the first time both teams played in both in a single season.

Agreed that it's (SL) historically rare for a team to make both finals in consecutive seasons as Leeds did in 2011 and 2012 but St Helens added a third year to their record of reaching said finals in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Pre SL - Post WW2 teams made both finals on thirteen occasions with Leeds and St Helens making both finals together in 1972 as did Halifax and Warrington in 1954.

(During the period 1974 to 1997 there wasn't strictly two comparable finals to make unless we're going to replace the Grand Final with the end of season play-off format Premiership Final but if we did that would add another twelve instances and another two of the same teams making both finals in the same season - Hull and Widnes in 1982 and Leeds and Wigan in 1995 - as well as more consecutive season teams in Hull and St Helens and a four consecutive double finals for Wigan.)

Washington Redskins turnover exceeds $500 million. Now you have helpfully established some clubs in other sports have bigger turnover how about a context that is not only easier to grasp but one that is relevant. How do the results look for an English Rugby League club operating within Super League?

Pretty damn good I'd suggest. Why not use other English super league clubs as a comparison as that is the market we are competing in?

How can the fact that the club is consistently successful in it's objectives, ie reaching finals, possibly be used as a way to belittle these continued excellent returns? Like I said earlier, I think the finals are a bye product of how well run the club is.

Not really, just someone who gets paid to browse the internet all day!

The news for the club is extremely positive given the recent and current financial climate both nationally and especially in RL so why are some trying to down play it or even make it a negative???

Not even that. 2008 had a higher attendance figure than 2004, 2005 and 2006. 2009 has a figure only 300 lower than 2004 - mathematically insignificant. Quoting this season is not accurate as it's only March and as we know the regular season ends in September.

Agree with everything you are saying - the point I was trying to make was how can such a small operation create such a huge amount of interest.

They're a remarkably consistent set of figures. Not much to say having looked at them - turnover down 3% (£356k), wages and salaries down 13% (£611k) thanks in particular to a bloodbath amongst the off field staff (admin staff cut from 81 in 2011 to 70 in 2012). And that's about it - virtually everything else has moved within less than £100k giving an overall pre-tax profit of £692k (vs £596k in 2011).

The balance on the interest free loan given to Leeds RUFC was £850k as at the end of October (down from £1.5m a year earlier).

Cash in the bank was £2.5m (up from £2.3m).

The Directors' Report blurb is once more punctuationally challenged and a full stop free zone. It compounds this by copying the YEP's so-called journalist in omitting the definite article from before our nickname:

"Season ticket sales were again short of expectations"

Interesting.

Depends on how high the expectations are, clearly they were too high and not realistic, its not going to get any better year on year despite unprecedented success there isn't room in most budgets for a substantial lump sum to be found close to the end of each year in order to pay for something up to ten months in advance - lots of families have had to become realistic about their household expenditure, clearly the directors haven't correctly adjusted their realism to the necessary extent.

On the other hand, if the season ticket offered a saving that could be evaluated as being worth paying for something ten months in advance that you may actually never use when the time comes, then possibly the numbers would increase, although not necessarily the revenue, on balance maybe they've hit the optimum income.

Agreed on that - the timing i.e. just before Christmas is diabolical, the club have brought this forward one month. For most families the timing could not be worse. The idea that you get three free games only works if you genuinely think you will attend every game. By the 12th of April the Rhinos will have played 7 home games so 54% of the games in the worst of the weather. Given season ticket sales are falling it suggest a new form of marketing is required.

To be fair the club (belatedly) acknowledged the difficulties faced by fans by allowing season ticket holders to pay £50 by Dec 5th & the balance by the end of January.
Or you could pay by instalments albeit incurring hefty interest charges.
Finally, you could argue that fans know well in advance when season tickets need to be renewed so could budget for it - easier said than done I know.
If the club does not learn from its past mistakes & budget for lower income from season ticket sales this year then next years figures may not be so good.
I would hope that the budget is always set on the basis that the club will not reach Wembley or Old Trafford.
Let's hope for good weather for the Test in May vs the Kiwis & for the ODI vs Australia in September.

What is our debt situation like - are we currently serving any long term debt (eg for the pitch/Southstand works/contributions toward Carnegie stand etc etc)?

I note £2.5m in the bank - deposit toward a new stand anyone (main or South?)...

Also "Only the Headingley Lodge returning a material budget shortfall and also Headingley Experience catering budget suffered mainly as a result of the One Day International being washed out without a ball being bowled"

Do I take from this that the rugby club own the hotel and catering facilities? Or is this a joint venture with the cricket club? Great for the rugby club if true, but must hit the cricket club in the pocket on test matches etc.

Does it? Even though there's clearly an increase in the first few years of that decade?

I reach two conclusions:

1) I hope you're not in charge of anything important, anywhere (although you may be CEO of a large high street back with that sort of acumen for reading trends and markets...)
2) You almost certainly work for the Daily Express.

Yes. Leeds Rugby retained ownership of the hotel & the catering rights in the Long Room when they sold the rest of the ground to YCCC.
Another good piece of business by Caddick/GH, to be used as a bargaining tool when the North Stand is (eventually) redeveloped?

Absolutely none - the Carnegie Stand was paid for out of cash. The company has £18.6m of total assets and £3.6m total liabilities. The latter were £754k trade creditors, £142k owed to other Caddick companies, PAYE & VAT £350k, dividends owed to Caddick £30k, misc other creditors £378k, accruals and deferred income (including season ticket income) £1,076k, Deferred Tax £302k and deferred ground improvement grants £662k.

All very healthy looking indeed.

Plus £850k due back from Leeds RUFC who have raided our piggy bank to fund their own losses.