What is the salary cap now?
What's the RFL SL grant a year?

IIRC, the Leeds results are only for 10 months (at least, that's what South Stander's resident accountancy expert claimed - it's all far too boring for me to get involved with)

All results fall within +-3 standard deviations of the arithmetic mean, therefore Quins are representative.

You'll have to explain why they're not. Excluding Quins because in YOUR opinion they distort the underlying picture just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

It's an opinion, I can exclude them if, in my opinion, they are outside a banding that captures the other 10 clubs, like, say +/- £1m from the median. You know, like twice as far away from it as any other club, for example

Hilarious. What is the statistical significance of the arbitrarily chosen £1,000,000 figure? Where else is the same technique employed that you have used here?

Are Quins within +-3 standard deviations of the mean? If so they fall within the normal distribution of the sample and therefore, that makes them representative, allowing no justification for their exclusion. I'm happy for someone to explain why they should be, but not if it is merely "in their opinion".

That's RL screwed then!

Not that hilarious. Look at the chart. Look at the banding of 10 clubs within the two lines showing £1m and -£1m, also +/- £1m around the median. You need to double that value to include Harlequins. It's really not that difficult. Of the clubs who've posted so far, I think it's fair to exclude Harlequins as they are so far away from the other clubs. Look at the chart, it's not that difficult to visualise.

It's almost as if you're trying to downgrade the financial performance of the rest of the competition so the results of your club are compared to an average distorted by a loss twice as great as the next worst club. Assuming the accounts are filed at some point.

If you were anymore transparent you would be made of glass.
Good day madam.

The point I was trying to make was that on the face of it results are a bit better this year. 4 clubs in profit, marginal results for Salford and Wigan (taking the profit from the notes to the accounts) who you'd imagine would turn in a profit this year. Some positive news compared to last year when there was only one club in profit, IMO.

As opposed to a profit 4.5 times that of the next best club



Use a valid statistical technique and then we can discuss the results, good, bad or indifferent. Until then, I'm pretty sure my use of valid statistical techniques is correct, yours is transparently skewing the data to achieve the figures you want. I wonder why that is?

No you were not and your sig pretty much confirms it.

So you are saying that a thread about the improving results on average of ten SL clubs is actually about Hull KR because I reference some coincidental opinion changes about Craig Hall in my sig from 2 weeks ago. OK then.

I'm a Hull FC supporter. If I were trying to improve the impression of FC's results, surely I'd be including not only Harlequins, but Rovers supposed loss of £450k and Crusaders rumours loss of £1m? I think it's good news that 4 clubs made profit and 2 were round about break-even in the context of only one club in profit in 2008.

You couldn't be more transparent if you posted saying that a less than expected loss is bad news.

You see things that simply aren't there. Why are you not commenting on the fact that 4 clubs made profit this year vs one last year? Is [uthis[/u bad news? If Rovers were to post a loss less than £450k, which Hudgell said they now will, surely this is just a financial manifestation of Morgan's "timely boost" methodology?

The MD of a company asked "what is our profit this year?"

The average accountant replied "Well, if we deduct the cost of expenses from our gross profit, that gives us our net profit figure".

The good accountant replied "What do you want it to be?"

You and I know this to be true so what exactly is the point you are making? Apart from attempting to set up Rovers for a fall when their accounts are produced in comparison to the data ammended "in your opinion".

The accounts will have to be posted at some point or their fine will end up being larger than their debt. In my experience there is only one reason a company doesn't post their accounts, because they don't want people to see them.

Two others:

1. Total incompetence. (again??)

2. There is some fundamental uncertainty that is preventing the accounts being signed off yet but where resolution is reasonably expected within a sensible time frame (although in such cases you should seek an extension from Companies House, who will generally grant it - not happened)

So that gives us:

1. Incompetence
2. Fundamental uncertainty
3. Something to hide

Several years running.

Wonder which one/s it is?

I'm making the point that last year only one club made a profit. This year the picture is better and this is a good thing.

As said, I'm not sure what you're getting at on the point about excluding Harlequins and my supposed angle on it. FC made a profit, so in that context if I had an agenda on this thread I'd be trying to make the average loss as bad as possible to compare our financial results, in a year we finished 12th, relatively excellent. Last year Rovers filed in December so if I were that bothered about trying to make Rovers look poor I'd hang fire until then to compare the result to my agenda-driven exclusion of the £2m loss-making Harlequins. And obviously disregard the cross-functional "timely boost" methodology adopted on injuries and now in other areas.

Under Dave Whelan wigan where running at close to 1 million loss because he was bank rolling them how he saw fit. IL has been fantastic since then and has got us to within 40k of being profitable. Hes made up 960k in just over a year. He's been pretty bang on with his predictions at the minute, he said judge me after 2010- Champions, he said he wouldnt have the finances straight till at least 2011- seems correct.

The figures which worry me here are huddersfields. And how come, if rumours are to be true, HKR are at such a loss?

She's a sad old bint

HTH

So what your saying is you made up the statistical technique to arrive at the result you wanted.

maybe customers not paying enough

Grubbs' test, also called the ESD method (extreme studentized deviate), determines whether the most extreme value in the list you entered is a signficant outlier from the rest. [uIf a value is found to be a significant outlier under Grubbs' test, you may choose to exclude it from your analysis.[/u

Mean: -270282.00
SD: 704902.38
# of values: 11
[uOutlier detected? Yes[/u
Significance level: 0.05 (two-sided)
Critical value of Z: 2.35472945013
Your data

Row Value Z Significant Outlier?
1 720871. 1.41
2 159514. 0.61
3 77141. 0.49
4 26679. 0.42
5 -19651. 0.36
6 -40715. 0.33
7 -72209. 0.28
8 -202379. 0.10
9 -823739. 0.79
10 -861810. 0.84
[u11 -1936804. 2.36 Significant outlier. P < 0.05[/u

Don't worry about Huddersfield's financial reporting.