You read it here first.

Ahh, now that makes sense. So how misleading is the “ROBINS £3M IN THE RED” headline!

You're in the red by how much you owe, not netting it off against assets.

If my bank account is 5 grand in the red it matters not a jot that my house is worth 400 grand

so if we put player valuation on balance sheet the net will be lower ?

Mrs B is so going to rip you a new one

When FC owed £2.4m in 2004, you didn't hear any bleating about the net liabilities number being £600k, did you? What a laugh!



Seriously, if FC directors then, or KR's directors now, wanted their cash back tomorrow, there would be no club. Fortunately for Rovers Hudgell has said that the directors have "underwritten" the financial position, which presumably means that in the event of them wanting out they'd just waive the loans. And fortunately for FC we've got a sustainable business model that's reduced the debt number each year so our reliance on directors is reducing. Everybody wins.



I can feel the Christmas spirit wearing off a bit now, mind.

But is the £2.2 million owed in the next 12 months owed just to the 'directors' or is it to other people. Surely if it's mainly owed to others that's even more loss to the directors?

No way of telling. Although it does say that there is £364,000 of the creditors for which security has been given. I think you could guess that there aren't many banks that would loan hundreds of thousands without security in which case you'd imagine most would be owed to directors, plus usual trading creditors, accruals, HMRC etc.

The "within 12 months" figure merely relates to any debt which isn't structured over a longer period. I presume any director's loand are repayable on demand. Does anyone know if interest is being paid on the director's loans?

It's entirely factual. Total liabilities are a shade over £3m - this money is still owed regardless of how much is balanced out by assets. That would only make a difference if those assets were converted to cash and used to pay off the debt.

As I've said before the only people that seem to 'stress' about Rovers accounts are FC fans!
If we go tits up then so be it but we've had fun on the way.
Perhaps it is the fun that we have had in the recent derbys that have hurt many FC fans more than we know!

Maybe having a 1.6 million bail out package was the good business start FC needed as apposed to the CVA Rovers had.

Does anyone know if the Rugby League still own shares at Hull?

Roll on the season when FC fans can focus on pitch-side matters!

I'm far from stressed about them. Amused, possibly.


Hi Neil.


It wasn't £1.6m, but facts don't seem to trouble you unduly.


Yes - anyone who was paying attention several years ago. They don't - all bought back by our board, thanks.

Think your right £1m from rfl & £900k from council for boulevard iirc

I think it was £1.2m from the RFL and £750k from HCC.

So winning the majority of the derbies over the last 2 years is worth going under for? You sad man. Our domination over the years must have really got to you bad.

The level of loss on the P&L account will have absolutely no impact on the level of current liabilities. It will simply transfer to the P&L Reserve Account on the balance sheet. If HKR have made a loss for 2009 then it does not automatically follow that their current liabilities have increased. In the P&L account losses how much of it was non-cash items which don't actually cost the club anything such as depreciation ?

The turnstile investment (whatever that is) will be capitalised on the balance sheet as a fixed asset and again will have no impact on the P&L account or the level of current liabilities. It is purely a balance sheet item - i.e. reduce cash at bank, increase fixed assets.

Current liabilities can take many forms and it isn't always a case of actually owing any money. For example, in a 3 year sponsorship deal if the sponsor paid the whole amount up front then you'd already have the cash but you'd have to include a liability on your balance sheet which would reduce pro-rata over the length of the deal - this would be in case you went bust during that timeframe and could not meet your part of the agreement in which case the sponsor would be due money back. There may also be accruals/provisions for potential liabilities which have not yet arisen and which may not materialise.

The bottom line being that from an abbreviated set of accounts without proper disclosure notes it is impossible to ascertain the things that make up the balances and therefore everyone is acting from a position of pure speculation and assumption.

Not sure of rfl money but definitely think it was £900k for the boulevard which they said hull would have to pay back if they ever went back

Absolutley not... I'm a bandwagon supporter and I haven't even heard of Dull FC before 2 years ago



BTW I can't do nowt if Rovers go under so I'm not worried by it... so shove it tool

Whatever the figures involved, it was a leg up which we never had so it's hardly suprising we owe a few quid while getting established is it.

There are 2 parts to a balance sheet, net assets and shareholders funds, which have to balance. You don't just adjust the P&L reserves (in the shareholders funds section) with no impact on net assets.

Take Rovers 2008 accounts. Loss of 447,462, negative movement on P&L Reserves, plus a £250 increase in Share capital = -447,712 movement in shareholders funds

Movement in net assets = -447,712

Increase in Fixed assets = +373,807
Decrease in current assets = -69,036
Increase in creditors = -751,983
Total reduction in net assets = -447,212

Or looking at it another way, Rovers creditors have gone up £752k to fund a P&L loss of £448k and investment in fixed assets of £373k.

Depreciation charge was £108k BTW so relatively immaterial.




Rovers have only £12k cash. Therefore if they are buying say £100k of turnstiles, the double entry is Debit Fixed Assets, Credit - guess what -Creditors. Which are in current liabilities.




You would have the cash, that's right, but Rovers don't have any cash at bank (apart from the 12k). So if a sponsor paid up front for 3 years, that would be Debit Overdraft (Creditors) Credit Deferred Income (Creditors). So net nil balance sheet impact.



There is no full disclosure of creditors, granted. But the facts are as follows. Rovers have lost (excluding the 2009 loss of £450,000 already declared by Hudgell) £1.5m since 2004 and invested £1.2m in fixed assets. Their creditors have increased by £3m over that time period. They have only a minimal cash balance.

It seems that you haven't seen Rovers accounts at all, but make the fair point that some comments are speculation. There are other sorts of information like Dun and Bradstreet reports and also the comments of the chairman in online and newspaper interviews which suggest the club is heavily indebted to its directors. As are most SL clubs.

Indeed.

Though it has to be said Rovers have sold their ground......Twice.

Shhh!!!

You'll be mentioning CVA's and local businesses being shafted next!

So you don't know then.

I do. It was £750,000 as already mentioned.

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/998647.stm[/url

The same article also states they got £1.25m from the merger.

As I suspected - the only people who are worried about Rovers accounts are FC fans hoping something negative happens!

As I keep saying if Rovers go bang then so be it - we have enjoyed the journey - and until that happens lets go about our onfield presence in the same manner - when super league returns our FC fans will have other things to worry about

At least you are resigned to the inevitable

and admit to making the most of the roller-coast while it happened.

It didn't need to have been like that, though. In the words of The Specials "You've done too much, much too young" (in your Super League incarnation). Grudge's greed and power trip could curtail genuine Rovers' fans enjoyment of top level RL for the foreseeable after next season, perhaps for ever.

Great legacy, Mr Hudgell.