I'd agree. I would be interesting to know just how skint Saints are. I suspect things are difficult for them. It certainly looks like they couldn't afford to finish off Trailer Park (and given the bargain basement build quality you have to wonder whether they are going to be able to afford the large maintenance and refurb costs that are coming their way over the next 20 years).

Professional RL is in a very precarious position, the number of clubs with finances in decent shape (and/or a committed and very wealthy backer like Wire's owner) is far too small. That this is the case given the better stadiums, healthy crowds at some clubs and a salary cap that is at least 30% lower in real terms than it was when it was brought in (meaning that the players are effectively subsidising clubs by accepting a lower standard of living) is a damning indictment of the management of clubs and of the RFL.

If this continues we are heading for a semi-professional future for the game, with the league hopefully a feeder for the NRL (rather than RU or talented young athletes simply not getting involved in RL in the first place). In 10 or 20 years' time we could well see SL reduced to something similar in status and size to the French domestic competition if the attrition of clubs and falling real terms revenue continues.

the official bulls website has had the plug pulled on it.

Must be to slash there hosting costs?

Very funny.

The lack of walls was due to cost cutting because the rest of the building is state of the art. You haven't seen the corporate facilities for instance or inside the playing area. However, the lack of walls is due to be put right in the off season. Also, every new build has one year for all the niggles to be identified and then put right without any cost to the purchaser. There are a number of niggles that fall into that category and which arise with most new builds.

As for being skint, since Saints own their own ground then they have one great big asset right there that is worth anything between about £15 million to £25 million, depending on which report is the more accurate! In cash terms though I wouldn't have thought Saints would be realising a profit for a few years. However, it isn't impossible that they will realise a profit sooner. If the economy recovers that will help but even so, the stadium is now being used by revenue streams other than the rugby.

For instance, there was a week long NHS conference held there just last week. There are weddings, parties and other events held there on a regular basis already. Liverpool FC u19s played a game there in an international a couple of months back. 3000 were expected; treble that turned up. Next year 10 such games have already been booked: by Liverpool, Everton and Man Utd. It's awful to think of soccer being played at Langtree Park but it will bring money in and at least Saints are the host club rather than it being the other way around!

I wasn't trying to be funny, if you went bust and out of existence then we would be forced to admit Wire were our main rivals.



This WAS hilarious though:

















I have seen the corporate facilities, I was there for the derby. Spartan is the word.

Also you don't seem to have enough toilets in your corporate lounge area, there was a massive queue for the gents as a result of two or three hundred blokes having to share two toilets and two urinals. I've never seen anything like it at any sports stadium. It appears urinals and toilet facilities were also the victim of the cost-cutting.

There's no way your stadium is worth much. The land can only be used for a sports venue and in St Helens there is only one occupier of significance (unless you are usurped by the football club you tried to destroy). Assets with no market are worth very little - things are only worth what people are prepared to pay for them.

Maybe you should have taken the pi$$ out onto the pitch, a bit like our team did that day.

The lack of Walls would have been instructed, nothing to do with the final retention being released.

Has Bullman & Bull boy gone too, or is the administrator planning on appointing them to coach the team this Sunday ? - seriously this is getting beyond a joke

The running of the club was the "Joke", this is reality....

Quote ="Deano G"There's no way your stadium is worth much. The land can only be used for a sports venue and in St Helens there is only one occupier of significance (unless you are usurped by the football club you tried to destroy). Assets with no market are worth very little - things are only worth what people are prepared to pay for them.'" Given the fact that there is a top level rugby team in St Helens then the stadium is a significent asset to have. I would guess its value could be put at the net present value of whatever the annual rent is over the period of the service life of the stadium. Certainly auditors have valued Warrington's stadium at circa £12m. Its intersting that Warrington's turnover is greater than Wigan's - how do you think they manage that (and turn a profit in four of the last five years - something Wigan can only dream of saying) on average crowds 40% less than Wigan's? Deloitte's report into European Rugby finances was interesting in what it found - a summary ios given here for those who dodn't have access to the full report: www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/i ... 0aRCRD.htm

Quote ="Deano G"There's no way your stadium is worth much. The land can only be used for a sports venue and in St Helens there is only one occupier of significance (unless you are usurped by the football club you tried to destroy). Assets with no market are worth very little - things are only worth what people are prepared to pay for them.'" Given the fact that there is a top level rugby team in St Helens then the stadium is a significent asset to have. I would guess its value could be put at the net present value of whatever the annual rent is over the period of the service life of the stadium. Certainly auditors have valued Warrington's stadium at circa £12m. Its intersting that Warrington's turnover is greater than Wigan's - how do you think they manage that (and turn a profit in four of the last five years - something Wigan can only dream of saying) on average crowds 40% less than Wigan's? Deloitte's report into European Rugby finances was interesting in what it found - a summary ios given here for those who dodn't have access to the full report: www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/i ... 0aRCRD.htm

Like at Wigoon

Quote ="Paul Youane"Given the fact that there is a top level rugby team in St Helens then the stadium is a significent asset to have. I would guess its value could be put at the net present value of whatever the annual rent is over the period of the service life of the stadium. Certainly auditors have valued Warrington's stadium at circa £12m. Its intersting that Warrington's turnover is greater than Wigan's - how do you think they manage that (and turn a profit in four of the last five years - something Wigan can only dream of saying) on average crowds 40% less than Wigan's? Deloitte's report into European Rugby finances was interesting in what it found - a summary ios given here for those who dodn't have access to the full report: www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/i ... 0aRCRD.htm'" Are you serious - what property investor would regard a RL club as a good covenant? A wind-up surely. As for the accounts, I think you'll find that the figure is book value rather than market.

Quote ="Paul Youane"Given the fact that there is a top level rugby team in St Helens then the stadium is a significent asset to have. I would guess its value could be put at the net present value of whatever the annual rent is over the period of the service life of the stadium. Certainly auditors have valued Warrington's stadium at circa £12m. Its intersting that Warrington's turnover is greater than Wigan's - how do you think they manage that (and turn a profit in four of the last five years - something Wigan can only dream of saying) on average crowds 40% less than Wigan's? Deloitte's report into European Rugby finances was interesting in what it found - a summary ios given here for those who dodn't have access to the full report: www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/i ... 0aRCRD.htm'" Are you serious - what property investor would regard a RL club as a good covenant? A wind-up surely. As for the accounts, I think you'll find that the figure is book value rather than market.

WTF has it got to do with property investors? St Helens RLFC are a rugby league club with the aim to play rugby league at the top level. The fact that they have a stadium to use without having to pay rent means it is an asset to that club. Is that really so hard to understand?

The value in the accounts is the value to that company with relation to the market it operates in. Why would they they report the value in any other way?

not so - Deano is correct, 99% certain it will be stated at cost.

building an asset for say £4m but then perceiving it to be worth £8m as it would produce £8m of future revenue flows is not one you would get past the auditors.
Stick to commenting on things you know about

just wondering why no bids have been made for bulls players.Is it because smart chairmen are waiting for players to get sacked then make a move.

[url=http://gifsoup.com/view/1199947/picard-s-double-facepalm.html[/url [url=http://gifsoup.com/GIFSoup[/url

Astonishing.

I referred to property investors because you described the stadium as an asset generating rental income (which is what an investor would be interested in). You said:



Here's some light reading for you which might explain some accounting terms. Companies can't simply say well I'm saving rent by owning this property rather than leasing it so I'll pluck a figure out of the air and stick that down on my balance sheet... You either go with book value (cost, as nikos says, adjusted by depreciation over time) or if you were for examaple a property holding company you would get an independent valuation from a valuer and value the property on the balance sheet at the figure certified by the valuer.

[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_value[/url

[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_value[/url

Snipped....

I think the expression is "owned".

Well you've made that up didn't you.

It is obviously an "asset" (general use of the word as you would expect on a rugby league forum rather than an accountancy course) as it means Saints (and Warrington) do not have to pay rent for use of a stadium in which to carry out its primary purpose (eg play rugby).

The worth given to that asset that I'd used to illustrate it has a value was again an easy to understand example rather than an accountancy principle eg for the life of the stadium Saints do not have to pay any rent. If you are suggesting that has no value then I give up.

At least you're amusing the usual culprits on here. You stick to wikipedia as your business resource.

Actually the only value figure I referred to was from Warrington's audited accounts so I presume you're ok with that?

As you appear to know more than me about this can you confirm whether a rugby stadium owned by a rugby club would be considered an asset to that club?

*Comes into a thread looking for talk on Bradford, finds a legal arguement taking places, promptly leaves*.

Not to back-seat moderate, but ...

Yes, it would be normally (though if dilapidated it could be a liability rather than an asset, a ground like Odsal would potentially be problematic), though the value is probably quite low.

The book value as shown in the accounts could appear high, this is however just an accounting entry rather than showing the market value of the stadium. I imagine the HJ cost around £15m-20m to build and that that figure would have been entered in the balance sheet in the financial year in which the development completed. Depreciation charges would then be applied each financial year, these write downs (of say 5% a year) resulting in the current £12m figure you refer to, that would seem to make sense, though I haven't seen the accounts, perhaps if you have you could confirm?

The market value of somewhere like the HJ or LP is however likely to be low, unless the ground had redevelopment potential for residential or retail (but then the club would need to find somewhere else to play). Without redevelopment potential you would be looking at the rent you could achieve, the covenant strength of the tenant and any costs you were unable to pass on to the club as tenant to determine what the property was worth as an investment.

In terms of what the ground is "worth" to the club it may save some money compared with renting (unlike many Wigan fans I don't think we get a good deal at the DW which is why IL has never revealed the true position) and does offer opportunities to generate revenue through conferences etc there is something to be said for having a lease without repairing liability from a landlord with deep pockets who can meet the maintenance and repair expenses, which will only increase as any stadium ages. The day will come when the HJ and LP need a major overhaul and this may be as expensive as building a new stadium from scratch. Wire's owner may be able to fund this but I'm not sure many clubs would be in as fortunate a position. Many modern buildings only have a useful life of 30 years or so and while some of the modern stadiums in RL areas look to have been solidly built (Huddersfield and the DW spring to mind) and look like they could last for decades to come without needing vast sums spending on them, other grounds look less robust (LP in particular).

No, I didn't make it up. You referred to the value of the asset being derived from its rental income. Who apart from a property investor would be interested in owning a property in order to receive rental income.

As for your "general" use of the word "asset", here's what you actually said:



You refer to "net present value" (a technical accounting term) based on a rental calculation. You then go on to refer to the auditors having valued the stadium at c £12m (I think you mean that they have audited the accounts which contain an entry on the balance sheet of c£12m rather than valuing it, as this would be something for a surveyor or valuer rather than an auditor).



D'oh! I'm tempted to resort to the Picard double-facepalm again...

The reason they would report the value in a different way is simple - because they are required to under UK accounting standards (GAAP).

I don't use Wikipedia as a business resource myself but it's fair to say that the contributors to the two Wikipedia entries mentioned above seem to have a much firmer grasp of the issues than you do.