The Article is by Paul Baxter the Sports Editor

That just makes it worse!

Thinking about, Salford's swing from '08 to '09 will just be down to playing in different divisions in those two years, most likely.

Agreed - but I think the bit I've underlined is a something of a red herring. Stadiums cost massive amounts of cash and it is near impossible for RL clubs (Leeds apart) to self fund. I'm paraphrasing - but only slightly - when recalling a Hull fan asking something like - 'Instead of wasting all that money on Paul Cooke, why didn't you focus on building the North Stand rather than going to the council with the begging bowl'. For a single modern end stand we're looking at about £6 million I think - 4 years salary cap near enough, or Hull FC's profits for 78 years (extrapolating from 2009).

I'm sure you're correct. Rovers board will have given due consideration to this.

Forgot to ask too, as a shareholder are you able to answer my earlier questions about how existing shareholders were consulted and how this would effect you? Do you know anything about how it's effecting the directors with loans and what kind of rate they are getting re transferring credit to shares?

So Mullen is a cr@p journo, and Rovers are still skint....nothing new here then

We're reliant on ongoing support from our directors, which is different to skint.

Mullen is paid to write, we give it away. Who is the fool?

Getting a bit too technical for me this now

....I am exiting the thread I find it boring anyway

It was great until you showed up.

on both points.

I was right on both points though...tbh though not interested in a cr@ppy journo or if you are skint or not

so why are you on here commenting then???

Go ask him if you're that bothered.

Anyway, £70K profit ain't much cop from a club with the infrastructure that FC have built from the RFL hand-outs and merger money to form "Gateshull".

When all's said and done I trust our Chairman is making the right decisions that are right for the big picture of our club. Improving facilities are key for the club - our Chairman and Board know that and I'm sure they are doing all they can to address this issue.

Really? Leeds won the title, Warrington won the cup, these two made the biggest profits. FC were next in a season we finished 12th. You need to make your mind up on FC's infrastructure costs, we've been told before we're being royally shafted by the SMC in City's ground, now you are saying we have it easy in terms of subsidised ground costs. Neither of which is the same as a peppercorn rent agreement.

Oops. Mrs B in knee-jerkery non-shocker.

I'm sure Charlie would have done some robust, independent contexting had it been his article.

No SL club can boast about their profits when Widnes posted £1,000,000 (supposedly) in NL1. Puts us all to shame really.

Simplez....Because I can

Can't quite get my head around the Widnes result. They only file a balance sheet, but O'Connor's comments are they turned over £2.5m. This on gates of 3,021, 10 home games @ say £15 =£0.45m. So they got another £2m from Northern Rail Cup, tv and sponsorship. This in the context of a target turnover to apply for a franchise of £1m. Must have a very generous sponsor. Harlequins only managed £2.1m turnover and they get SL Sky money.

I don't understand something. Am I an inferior supporter to others on here because I don't:
a) Have access to how much players are paid etc.
b) Search high and wide finding finance documents
c) Know the smallest details about other clubs finances

I get the feeling the modern day supporter has to know this stuff? Or am I getting one persons obsessiveness mixed up with the template for a rugby league fan?

You don't have to know any of this stuff. But of the key license criteria, many are related to a club's financials. Turnover and solvency are the 2 most obvious but clearly these are partially linked to attendances and having a SL standard stadium. Many would be interested in where their club sits against the rest in these very important criteria. Wakefield for example have a better history in SL in terms of on the pitch performances than Cas, but Wakey lost £200k last year, and are struggling to finance a new stadium with poor attendances, so it's Cas, who made a profit last year and have new stadium plans more advanced than Wakefield, who look more likely to retain SL status. Nothing much between the 2 on the pitch, but it's the diverging picture off it that will shape their respective futures massively.

Jeez Mrs B,you are just who I need to figure my finances out.How are you fixed?

Leeds apart, there is only the most tenuous link between profitability and funding a new stadium. You might be better able to persuade someone else to fund it if you show you will be able to generate enough profit to be a reliable tenant, I suppose. Owning your own ground, to be sold to fund a new one, or having a well disposed local authority are the key elements.
The mundane, dreary details of the RL business have been made more prominent at the expense of RL as a sport by licensing. This realism is maybe sensible, and may even provide benefits, but being a fan is meant to be primarily about escapism and excitement, IMO.

Yup

So is it true you spent £12 to read the accounts of some of the SL clubs?