Good post. Anyone ever considered the licences to actually be detremental to club's like Rovers? Rather than have the 10+ years that the likes of hull, wigan, bradford, leeds etc have to get stadia, youth set-up etc up to scratch, we have to do it in 3.

Fair enough it's easy to whinge about it and it's the clubs own fault for falling behind the times in the 1990's, but that doesn't make it any easier. I'm surprised these figures look so good considering what the club has had to lay out in such a short period of time.

At the end of the day, our merchandise and ticket sales have supassed all expected levels at this stage, but so much money has to be invested into the club. If it isn't, we simply wont be in SL in 3 years time.

....and that wouldn't have amounted anywhere near as much as the losses in the sept,oct and nov 07, plus player bonuses for that period would have swallowed most of that income up in anycase.



Keep trying dear

You really should stop clutching so hard at those straws

What tangible fixed assets do the dobbins have that are worth almost £1m?

Is it their lease on poor house lane?

Agree to an extent, but the Sky money accrues evenly over the year and didn't rovers start to sell their 2008 shirts not long after the 2007 season?

So, you are blaming accountants for having to follow professional standards. Interesting



You are also comparing some of the biggest corporate organisations in the world when in reality we are discussing the poor performance of a small company.

A derivative, for the record, is hardly worthless. On the contrary the sometimes can end up costing you an absolute fortune as the likes of Mr Leeson / Mr Keivel have found out

I really cannot understand why this thread has been allowed to continue for so long.

Why not?

Do i really need to explain.

Do you need to explain why you think a thread about Rovers on the Rovers forum that is largely remaining on topic and does not break any AUP should be locked?

Errr kind of yeah.

Maybe it's because it was started buy a hull supporter.

That would be pathetic in all honesty.

I could be wrong, but wouldnt these figures also include ground improvements such as the purchase of the golf stand and the upgrade of the floodlights and such things ?

That type of purchase would effect the balance sheet I imagine, as they were upgrades rather than maintenance, so classed as fixed assets. It wouldn't have much of an effect of the profit/loss in that period, except from a proportion of the cost going to the P&L as depreciation.

A Celtic fan has just started a tghread on our board, should it be locked? I started a few threads, on the Salford, Celtic and Catalns board a few weeks ago, should they have been locked?

In the three months to 30 November 2006, Rovers should not have made a loss as they had income from the play-off v Widnes, the Grand Final and associated merchandise etc against a wage bill of £80k at most. Let's assume that all the prize money was given to the players - still should be breakeven at worst for this period. We're then into a 12 month period to 30 November 2007 which will include a full season's payment of Sky money, season passes, merchandise, sponsorship etc. Any club would plan their costs for the full 12 months (player contracts run over this full 12 months) vs the income in respect of this period. Whilst there won't be much cash coming in in the last 3 months, that's irrelevant from a budget and P&L perspective. It would therefore seem likely that the full loss derives from the 12 months to November. You can try and pretend that nothing can be deduced from the accounts for another year, but I don't agree. On your logic there is a big loss in Sept-Nov 2007. How will this be different in 2008 as the basic financial framework is the same year on year? When we do see the 2008 accounts, what reduction in the £2.4m are you expecting to see?

So are you seriously saying that in their promotion season Rovers should have returned a profit????

Most of what you have stated is off the cuff guesswork and i didn't think real accountants did guesswork





Also how many years of SL was if before Hull posted a profit???

I thought I was doing the opposite TBH!

No what was said was that in the period from Sept-Nov 2007 (the three extraneous months), it is unlikely that much of a loss (if any) was made. In that period, expenditure won't have been massive and there will still have been a fair bit of revenue from the success the club enjoyed in that time.

So, given that those were the extra thee months included in these accounts and it is unlikely that there was much of a loss stemming from that time, the bulk of the loss seems likely to have come from the regular 12 month accounting period.

Think you're getting your years mixed up.

Well, I caught the "7" key instead of the "6".

I'm not saying that Rovers should have made a profit. You're saying the 15 months v 12 months is a key reason for the loss and I'm saying it's unlikely. Hudgell said any questioning Rovers financial position were mischief makers and the club was in good financial health, when in fact the level of indebtedness is rising alarmingly. FC's accounts aren't particularly attractive reading and I've never claimed they are. You seem to want to defer any discussion on the accounts until the 2008 ones are published, which will presumably be late for the 4th running about this time next year. To ask you what you think they might show doesn't seem unreasonable.

Like is said earlier.

How many years of S/L was before Hull posted a profit???

But we keep being told how much better the set-up is at Rovers...

Not by me you don't