well said sheldon, in a nutshell mate!

One thing he (Pearson)saidat the 1st fans event was he'd never lied, and he had no intention of starting now. We may not always want to hear what is said, but it will be the truth.

I'd sugest that the past few weeks, and the latest announcement have shown that to be true.

As you say, very refreshing.

Parasol's sponsorship of Rovers last year was £nil according to their accounts.

So, just as Rovers have "10,000 break even gates" thrown in their faces every verse end, it appears you need 14,500 to break even? Good luck with that, lets hope you get 2 home derbies per year (as per 2007) to prevent you missing this target every season.

That old line



How many years you gonna use that for. You're a SL club end of and therefore should be competing like every other club.

If Rovers get over 8k fans they see it as a success.

Hull have got over 8K season ticket holders and see it as disappointing.

Says it all!

Aye. Fair enough.

Looking forward, I think Pearson and the HDM make some interesting points in the two articles released today, covering related issues.

The 2007 peak attendance of >14.5k did include 2 home derbies, so maybe ~13.8k would be a better figure for comparison. Although the previous era now seems to be considered disasterous, it did include a successful period in the middle of the decade, when gates increased - but not massively. A winning team, [uby itself[/u probably isn't enough.

I think Pearson is effectively acknowledging that with the talk about changing the tenancy agreement, and delivering more attractive pricing. I've been playing with the figures and it is difficult to see a silver bullet. If you lower prices significantly, you're immediately offsetting a big part of the increase you get by getting more people in. A small decrease likely only has a small effect.
He presumably wants to persuade SMC to take a smaller fraction of the cash from the gate above 7.5k, providing the club with a greater incentive to increase attendance. SMC would be wise to take that, IMO - depending on what they get in return. The possibilty of more people above 7.5k works... to an extent. On top of that I'd want the crowd threshold lowering and/or a bigger basic ground rent. Assuming it is a business choice.

I agree that Pearson seems like the right man for the job. It does now look like a big job though. Investment takes time to bear fruit, and he seems to accept that further losses are possible or even likely.

On a more positive note, Hull FC have paid a number of fees for players in recent years, so they probably have more than most to re-direct to where it is needed most.

There may also be an element of painting this as the darkest hour before the dawn, given the ill-will between the old and new owners. Sets up next years figures as a good news story 12 months on. Spin never really dies, it just changes direction.

No it doesn't. Who exactly said Rovers see 8k+ as a success?

Success should be measured in the trophy cabinet when talking about sports clubs and in that respect both clubs are failing to meet aspirations.

Quality ownage Mrs B!

14500 isn't break even, 14500 and he'll start to claw back money. Which is not too much to ask for a winning side. I'm just thankful the last board have gone. In AP we trust

Not to mention the new SMC user agreement which will be more cost effective and will bring that required average down!!

I don't see a distinction. Unless 14499 is break even.

Any thoughts on what Pearson is aiming/hoping for there?

Didn't Hudgell say this time last year that 10k crowds wee needed to break even,hence the urgency for ground re-development?

No 8k isnt success when 10000 is needed.

Remind me was it 2010 when the 14k capacity Poorhouse Lane would be open?

As for cabinet full of trophies,

er,

our last one is from 2005.

Your last major one was, er.

hmmm

Ridding the club of the current mill stone is a start

I quite like playing with numbers - I was just wondering what people might think would be a desirable and realistic alternative arrangement. There may be algebra later - be warned.

surely (I could be wrong I'm not an accountant.) but with a 300k debt you would ony break even again once that debt is cleared and the balance sheet reads 0 and to do this you must generate more income than what goes out. So if AP says we need to be at 14500 to balance the books then 14500 will bring in the revenue needed to clear the debt and balance the books. Well thats how I read it anway. Feel free to put me right but I really couldn't give $hite. A challenge cup win and a grand final apperance and everyones a winner.

I read break even as an annual thing. When Rovers go on about the 10k crowd, that would make us sustainable, not clear the accumulated debts. Tbf, Pearson may not be speaking in a way that is technically precise. It'd be exhausting to analyse your every utterance in that way. And we're here to do it for him, anyway. No need to thank us Adam!





That is what matters.

I've been reading things slightly differently, he said we've amended the valuation of the players on the balance sheet, so this "loss" isn't actual money as opposed to a downgrade in the valuation of the squad...

or have I got it completely wrong?

I would certainly have thought so as the break-even point is defined as the point where sales or revenues equal expenses. There is no profit made or loss incurred at the break-even point. This figure is important for anyone that manages a business since the break-even point is the lower limit of profit when setting prices and determining margins

the large tax bill that has been mentioned - i know AP has said we have reached an agreement with ours but are any other superleague clubs about to be faced with a similar bill, and as it relates to overseas players are some clubs (those who, you know, have one or two more than other clubs) about to get hit with a big bill?

in the article AP states that if match day revenues don't increase you will continue to trade at a loss which he will have to fund personally, that to me suggests it's real money he is talking about you losing rather than any "creative accounting " about the "value " of your players that Kath and her cronies had on your balance sheets, so yes you might be wrong there.

You should know, accounts on paper mean absolutely nothing.