i am to understand quins made record sl losses of 1.8 m last year we need a sugar daddy

You had one called R branson

more like a miracle

Who put us in more trouble then we were already in.

Er...you already owe your sugar daddies well over £4m. And who the hell do you think funded that loss and the big losses of earlier years?

If we owed our sugar daddies anything then they wouldn't be sugar daddies would they !

???

Suspect you don't understand how it works, then?

Invariably, the sugar daddy advances cash to keep the club running. This gets credited to his loan account. Sometimes it even gets repaid. More often than not, it either gets written off eventually as a "gift" to the club, and treated as exceptional income in the accounts (as happened with some of your own loans in 2007, for example) or gets converted into shares (as recently happened with Saints, for example).

It rarely makes sense tax-wise for an owner to simply gift money to a club.

hth.

So not owed then?

Perhaps, but can you ever see the situation where it is not written off as a gift at QRL ? Hence my original point.

You clearly fail to understand what the rest of the planet understands by the term "sugar daddy".

Maybe we need some input from a HM Tax Inspector..........recall a 'previous' Chairman-Director in the Fulham/Crusader days slowly getting a tax benefit/rightoff against his one season 'major' investment in the Club.

As far as I'm aware a Sugar Daddy is an old man who has a young girlfriend who he keeps sweet by giving her lots of presents and paying for everything. All he would want in return is companionship and hot lovin'.

Now if you use this as a metaphor for a rugby league team, the rugby league team being the girlfriend, the sugar daddy would fund the club (the presents) and pay for everything and in return the rugby league team (the girlfriend) would continue to exist and play (companionship and hot lovin').

Does the girlfriend pay the sugar daddy back? Hell no...

You have obviously never watched Judge Judy

And I wouldn't want to...

I think the real worry is what happens when David Hughes finally decides to leave the club. Is there anyone else to put funds in? I doubt it.

I'll bow to your greater expertise of lavishing gifts on young girls in return for favours.

He's too busy smashing n lovin

Mine does. Big time.





Not with cash though.

(... [size=17he dreamed wistfully[/size)

Worrying times indeed for the Nomadic London Broncos. IL was supposed to have reduced his shareholding by yesterday and still hadnt managed to do it. He has had 2 years to do this so sounds to me like no one wants to buy the shares. After all, would you buy shares in an insolvent company with no assets? No wonder the RFL are trying to publicly shame the Broncos about their abysmal crowds.

Is it just time to admit that professional rugby league in London just isnt going to work? Its no better off than it was in the Fulham days.

Are you going to add anything constructive to this thread..?

Is professional rugby league working anywhere in England? How many clubs are currently making a profit without directors loans? I reckon you'll have fingers to spare if you count them on one hand. Feel free to knock London RL but this is worryingly widespread and a three team league in a few seasons time ain't going to work...............

Why are we losing so much money? With the Sky money and supposedly low rent at quins why are we losing so much? Its not like we have a squad of superstars.

Because your costs are approximately twice your turnover. Indeed, your turnover is little more than the full salary cap + NIC for PLAYER COSTS ALONE. (Doubt you spending the full cap, though).

Its not your costs that are the problem, its your income (or lack of), a full 2/3 of which is Sky money unlike (say) Bulls etc where its less than a quarter.

(Taken or deduced from 2008 accounts).