Does amuse me on here the way that some people still believe FC's valuation of players has contributed in any way to it's accounts.



Can they not understand it equates to a side note to the auditors?

Raising cash through share options is always a decent way to make money, providing again that existing shareholders are happy to have a smaller % of the club in doing so.

Where one sees these big swings, how much is 'real' as a layman would understand it and how much is down to accounting practices/client choice and the way dates fall? As a layman I find some of them hard to, ahem, account for.

The selection of just one club, the one with the worst deterioration in a league with overall improving results, as a comparator for Rovers performance is frankly a journalistic embarrassment. Why would you just pick Saints when 8 clubs improved (2 of which by £1m and £800k) and only 4 went backwards? Do you think someone has just told him this anecdotally and he's printed it without being @rsed to see what anyone else has done?

[size=50[Spin mode on[/size

Not a bad result when put against the average of the 13 clubs who have thus far declared (-£272,592)

Both Rovers and the league average are headed in the right direction.

[size=50[spin mode off[/size

I think we both know the answers here:

(1) Mullen is to journalism as Cabman is to understatement.

(2) After the recent retraction of the article he penned last year (same subject), the Mail are looking to avoid a similar reaction from Rovers.

A far better comparator would have been Huddersfield. Similar on field performance in SL, although they did reach Wembley (you wouldn't tell from the financial results!), fairly similar gates.

You can't really tell for most clubs as they only file a balance sheet, so you have to take the P&L movement. The thing is, though, is that accounting in businesses of this size in in this sector are relatively simple, compared to say manufacturing or financial services for example. There may be some grey areas like provisions (where you have to take a judgement on a future liability that's not fully quantifiable yet, for example), but generally speaking it's not an accounting minefield. The swing at Leeds is pretty easy to understand as they are in a league of their own financially and the £700k profit is more representative of their underlying position than the loss they made the previous year which IIRC had an exceptional item in it. Salford's not sure about - they don't seem to have spent the full cap, but it is a big turnaround. Warrington's can be explained by their CC appearance. Cas also improved significantly. The accounting dates point is not really that relevant as clubs have either an October or November year end to coincide with contract end dates. Having said that Leeds results are for only 10 months, so maybe on a like for like basis they're actually better than the £700k reported over a full year.

I fail to see what all your ranting about Rovers accounts is trying to prove.Stop worrying about us, we'll be alright




Why don't you go onto Saints site and ask why such a successful club on the field has got such massive losses and can't match hulls off field success.
Start talking to them about Hulls profits against their losses, i'm sure they'll all be happy to engage you in the subject.

Maybe, but in 2009 their passes were £60. The one that stands out for me is Salford, and on the face of it, I think they've played it quite cleverly. Clearly under threat from a license perspective, they've cut their cloth significantly this year knowing the stadium was going ahead and must have mentally written performances off in lieu of the medium term bigger picture. They'll be going into the license applications with a new stadium underway, a breakeven position in the most recent filed accounts, a Manchester location that's not in the catchment for another club, and some decent signings coming in. Quite canny.

I'm not ranting about Rovers accounts, I'm saying Mullan is a journalistically challenged halfwit who wouldn't know a piece of independent and relevant context if it bit him on the @rse. This applies equally to his rugby league exclusives and his rather poor financial article today.

is this because he writes about Rovers? is James Smailes better? has anyone who writes about Rovers ever been any good? are you sure your not ranting about Rovers accounts?

surely he can only report on the figures given to him, or should he dig deeper and spill the beans, risk having Rovers put a ban on the HDM,

Where on earth is Barnacle Bill?

One could almost conclude it's really Barnacle Charlie given Mullet's insistence on not only including this anomaly but also using it as the illustration to compare SL clubs' financial performances. An applaudable attempt to prove Rovers' return is as rosie as their red breasts.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, you Gene-ius.

He's a journalist, not a secretary typing up whatever he's told to. It's his job to challenge and be independent. IMO that would mean providing some relevant context, ie the results of the other SL clubs, most of which improved and some by very significant amounts, rather than just one that just happened to have gone backwards.

James Smailes is OK. He knows at least something about RL.

isnt it a coinsidence that the year before the new franchise's are chosen nearly all the clubs finances have improved, some significantly too.

Why don't you comment on the website the article appeared on then. If you're only questioning Mullan's journalistic skills what has that got to do with Hull KR or this forum?

I'm here but really, really struggling to understand the gibberish you've just written.

He's the Hull KR reporter and the very opening words of this thread were a link to his "report".

But you're only commenting on his journalistic skills. It would seem the appropriate place for that is the website the article is published on.

I'm simply acknowledging that you were convinced in your insistence that Harlequins results should be included for comparative 2009 performance analysis despite their huge loss being an obvious anomaly to the rest of the SL clubs. (On VT).

In a similar way, Mullen has used the most extreme swing compared to last years results in quoting St Helens' dramatic negative increase in loss to seemingly give a benchmark to compare Rovers' performance.

Why would he do that? In the same way that no sane person would include Quins 2009 performance when illustrating an average for the other clubs.

I thought this showed you and Mullen shared similar traits in your approach to producing unbiased figures. Did you go to the same school of accountancy?

Think this might have been the first year of the improved Sky deal - wouldn't swear to it though.

I'm a shareholder I dont mind a squat.
I would imagine more than enough would agree.

Ah, with you now. Without wanting to give a free lesson on statistics (again) Quins result must be included in an analysis of the financial results of SL clubs. Why would they not be? Just because the number looks a bit different to most of the others does not mean it should not be included, it falls within the boundary that any statistician would consider "normal" for the results provided.

Their results might be an "obvious anomaly" to you, but in fact they're not.



In his defence, Mullan hasn't tried to reinvent statistics to prove some kind of absurd and meaningless point. On the face of it there is nothing wrong with his comparison of Rovers results against Saints, however as you point out, the choice of Saints as a comparison is questionable. It could (and does) at first glance make Rovers results appear better than they are.

Why he would chose to do that is for him to answer. I couldn't say, I wouldn't have done that. It doesn't say anything about Rovers financial performance, which is what the article is supposed to be about.



Statistics and accountancy (as Mrs B is now aware) are two very different things.

Indeed, I've no idea how they've managed that (although I'm sure uncle John has had a rather heavy influence) but as well as significantly strengthening their position, this could well be (especially when their results come out) yet another nail in Wakey's coffin.

It really does appear that they've had a very definite on and off field plan. 1) Accept being poor on the field and take the inevitable hit on crowds for a few seasons to save money. 2) Make sure your new ground is definitely going to be ready for the next round of licences no doubt helped by the cap money you've saved. 3) Sign some name players to start to ramp up interest before the new stadium opens, whilst showing you can afford it on the previous results. 4) Move to the new ground and enjoy the undoubted rise in attendances which will no doubt help to facilitate a whole new list of signings.

A really interesting blue print for growth from one of the leagues current smaller clubs. Good luck to them.

Whichever way its spun its an improving trend which can only be a good thing. Would be interesting to see a list of all profit and loss for SL clubs.

The Salford postion is an odd one for me, ok they may have reduced their player expenditure but their crowds were abismal towards the endo of the year, down to 3000 in some instances, so how they can turn a profit with such a reduced income is staggering.

It is a sad indictment of our game (and other sports) that some deem success to be how the balance sheet looks rather than what the on the field product is. Salford and Widnes being the main two in point.

Both teams have been awful on the pitch, Widnes even struggling in the championship, I'd go as far as saying they gave up after they loaned their way to the NR cup, once that was won they shed the loan players and concentrated on turning a profit.

I'm wonderig how long it will be before the RFL decide to stop playing rugby altogether and we all turn up to watch an ipod vs microsoft windows over 80 mins without contested scrums (held in an all seater stadium of course).