Hi Billy. The WCC is as rubbish and patronising now you've got it, as you said it was whenever we got it! Enjoy the Harris money that put you in profit.

You are wrong about leeds, you are wrong about it being the 'harris money' which put leeds in to profit, and you are wrong about Leeds not spending the cap to save money. You are wrong in the fact and tone of your post on leeds.

Leeds make a profit because they have some very significant assets in their own stadium, and in some of the people who work there. Leeds turnover about double of any other club in SL, our turnover generally ranges between £11m and £13m. We made a profit last year, a year where we were crowned SL champs.

Leeds can do that because they are a very well run club which utilizes its income streams very well and keeps cost down.

There is no doubt, however that we required significant investment from a very wealthy individual to get us here.

The NRC, Id say yes, it has taken on more interest , but ultimatly it is the lack of promotion that has finally ended my watching days, it was only the admin side that was keeping me still going , and some inept decisions by the club has finished that interest

Because they didnt have any other income other than the SKY money

Do they still own housing property? When I was at Leeds Uni they owned quite a lot of student houses.

£11m! That's a whopping turnover.

Honest answer is I dont know.

Its great for the context it was made in.

Wind your neck in, I have no axe to grind with Leeds, I'm sure they run a pretty tight ship, and if they manage to turn a profit, once in a while, even if purely technical, then good luck to them. Wish every club did. However . .

1. What is this "profit" in ££s and what figure, in ££s was received from Bradford re Harris? I'd like to compare the two.

2. It's good to know you make all this money. When did you repay all the investment your investor put in, by the way? Or didn't you? If a club is making a "profit", but still technically is indebted to a person, body or investor for a few millions, it isn't the sort of "profit" I would like to make myself. Surely, any annual surplus should be going to chip away at these debts?

Any company can have a trading prifit, but dont confuse this with being debt free.

It all dpends how pedantic somebody wants to be , its like trying to have a conversation with a solicitor , they deal in minute details , and talk absolute

They didn't sell a single ticket or season pass? Not one item of merchandising? No sponsors at all?

I can easily believe that the SKY money was the major part of their income, but 100%? Doesn't seem possible.

They are your assertions that Leeds only make a profit by scrimping on the cap, because of the Harris money, only once in a while and purely technically, you need to back those assertions up with evidence, logic and reason. Please show your evidence, logic and reason.

There are no outstanding directors loans and according to Gary Hetherington Leeds are debt free.

And surely someone has explained the difference between investment and loan to you before, so I cant see why you are desperately trying to conflate the two, other than it is clearly beyond you to accept that Leeds have been run well, by talented people and have achieved financial success and stability so obviously beyond Bradford under the previous regime/s

=#FF0000It all depends how pedantic somebody wants to be , its like trying to have a conversation with a solicitor , they deal in minute details , and talk absolute rubbish

I rest my case , yes they sold some tickets , yes they sold some sponsorship , but the vast majority of their income was the SKY money , so if the 50 % rule was still in use , they would have had to spend relatively little on their squad , which they seem to have done anyway

Rather than my assertions, they are simply you getting on your high horse based on nothing more than a throwaway comment to retort in jest to Billy Rhino! Well done!

An interesting point that I'll shamelessly steal from MjM on the Leeds board -
Bradfords wage bill is apparently £2.3m whereas Leeds' is £4.8m.
So either Leeds is very high and inefficient or, as I think is more likely, Bradfords is way too low for a team spending at or near to the salary cap.

Why cant the RFL just bail out Bradford like they did with London

Link?

Its all here for those to read - Taken DIrect from Accounts filed at Companies House, and nothing to do with Harris payouts. The simple thing is that their turnover has dropped £600K from the previous 2 years and they have FAILED to reduced Cost of Sales (Players Wages, etc) accordingly, while also failing to reduce Staff Wages and overheads.

Totally miss-managed and further compounded by reduced season tickets 2 seasons running will have reduced turnover down even further for 2011 & 2012

Date Of Accounts........31/12/2010........31/12/2009..........31/12/2008
Turnover....................£3,956,715..........£4,600,518.........£4,639,613
Cost of Sales..............£3,127,144..........£3,364,438..........£3,271,108
Gross Profit...................£829,571..........£1,236,080.........£1,368,505
Wages & Salaries.........£2,447,753..........£2,399,834..........£2,314,391
Directors Emoluments......£16,978............-..........................-
Operating Profit...........-£373,530..........-£76,455.............-£16,302
Depreciation................£101,518............£92,306.............£103,859
Audit Fees....................£12,500...........£10,500..............£11,500
Interest Payment.............£3,267............£2,289...............£1,950
Pre Tax Profit..............-£311,403...........-£78,728.............-£10,105
Taxation .....................-..........................£6,519...........-£6,946
Profit After Tax.............-£311,403...........-£72,209............-£17,051

Also if they are expecting £1.2 mil in losses this year, then a further reduction of £900K in Turnover, or increased overheads/players wages has occured.

The Answer is that Northern have a £3.9mil turnover compared to the Loiners £11mil. - As per accounts filed at Companies House. But you have to remember these figures dont just include players, but staff as well.

More like Missing link



Saint 77777.....thousands have claimed this, but still, none have ever come forward with a shred of evidence for this bail out. You are either fising, and if you are son, you'll only catch an old grouch like me or you are genuinely a card carrying member of the flat earth society.....

...whichever it is, your contribution to this thread is much appreciated....by Bradford fans, anyway

That's a remarkably simplistic analysis of the Bulls finances. Season ticket prices were IIRC on a sliding scale depending on how many were sold. You appear to bizarrely think along the lines of halving the prices halved the revenue.

[url=http://viewtopic.php?f=17&t=525669&tsmp=1340263515More here[/url boss.

The Harris cash, whatever it was, cycled through Leeds' accounts some years ago and is irrelevant to the recent profits.

Leeds had cash in hand of £2.23m and were owed £1.4m by the RU club which it has been funding in recent years. No amounts are owed to Caddick who does not put cash into Leeds RLFC other than marginal sponsorship.

But is that just salaries for the playing staff, or does it include all the support staff (coaches, kitmen, physios, office workers etc)

It includes everyone - but to me it does not suggest the Bulls were in any way recklessly run on the expenditure side, at least in terms of expenditure they could control as better informed folk than me keep telling us about the onerous nature of the Odsal upkeep. But overall theirs looks more like a revenue-based problem - that is hardly a new issue to face RL clubs but is one with which the previous board wrestled for perhaps too long.

There's also added to that the fact that depending on where in the stadium you wanted your ticket for also had an affect on the price.

The cheap season tickets were an attempt to arrest the slump in attendances which was the main reason for the drop in revenue and to recoup the lower cost in terms of concession sales etc. It was a gamble that seems to have back fired