: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:48 am  

Regarding the stadium plans being a constraint on Leeds being able to finance a full salary cap, is there any evidence of this being the case?

Even the Bulls have stated until recently that they have been spending upto a full salary cap, and they have much more widely publicised financial problems. For Leeds to cut back now on the verge of making a possible record third in a row championship would be non-sensical, especially as we are one of the most financially successful SL clubs. We would also be jeopardising the extra revenue that comes through having a successful trophy-winning team, which is something I doubt GH would want.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:52 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

It's like those who seem to believe the Academy should be churning out another crop like 2001-02 every year, success makes you irrationally greedy.

Those people are deluded.

That was one off. I think it's going to be a huge challenge to replace all those who came through, and are likely to retire, at the same time.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:54 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

It's like those who seem to believe the Academy should be churning out another crop like 2001-02 every year, success makes you irrationally greedy.

Not really but if the coach's deem them good enough and are willing to play them what's the problem??
I would of loved eastwood to come and scruton to stay but it didn't happen,but that doesn't mean we should panic and sign more player's without using our squad.
I understand what you and other's are saying but don't you think we should trust these youngster's???
As GH has already stated we have money available for the right player so i don't see the reason to panic.
A lot seems to rest on IF'S and BUT'S and any squad would struggle if it was deprived of 3/4 of it's quality player's for a sustained length of time but let's just see what happen's before declaring the world over and the demise of our great club and team.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:57 am  

Trimalchio wrote:

Regarding the stadium plans being a constraint on Leeds being able to finance a full salary cap, is there any evidence of this being the case?

I'd be surprised if the funding for major capital projects was coming out of operating income. A bigger issue for the stadium redevelopment is likely to be the unwillingness of financial institutions to lend money at anything like reasonable interest rates at the minute.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:58 am  

Trimalchio wrote:

Regarding the stadium plans being a constraint on Leeds being able to finance a full salary cap, is there any evidence of this being the case?

Even the Bulls have stated until recently that they have been spending upto a full salary cap, and they have much more widely publicised financial problems. For Leeds to cut back now on the verge of making a possible record third in a row championship would be non-sensical, especially as we are one of the most financially successful SL clubs. We would also be jeopardising the extra revenue that comes through having a successful trophy-winning team, which is something I doubt GH would want.

None.

However, earlier in the thread the posters craving new signings were talking about our ability to simply go out and get contracted players. They were talking about transfer fees.

I would imagine GH has never spent up to the full cap. He has very wisely given himself plenty of wiggle room.

However, there's no doubt the South Stand has to be re-built. That will have to be financed.

I'd also imagine our income will drop this year as will everyone else's.

Wit that in mind its' not unreasonable to say that depth for the squad must come from the junior ranks which has provided so well for us.

The quest for a 3rd championship is great but not at the expense of the financial stability of the club. We tried that in the 1990's.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:03 pm  

G1 wrote:

The quest for a 3rd championship is great but not at the expense of the financial stability of the club. We tried that in the 1990's.

Funny, I must have missed those two championships in the early 90s But point taken.

Interesting that you and Gilder differ over whether expenditure on the salary cap should be affected by the stadium build.

I agree that it is good to have some wiggle room with the cap but if it means Leeds are 1-2 players short in positions in which youngsters aren't coming through then it is a concern. I suspect if Eastwood had come this season as planned he would have been spelled at prop given his size; perhaps if he does come next year it will be one less body in the pack to worry about.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:09 pm  

Trimalchio wrote:

Funny, I must have missed those two championships in the early 90s

Me too.

When were they?

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:12 pm  

Trimalchio wrote:

Interesting that you and Gilder differ over whether expenditure on the salary cap should be affected by the stadium build.

It will have an impact, primarily because if money needs to be borrowed to fund redevelopment then the repayments on that loan will need to be factored into your running costs for the next however many years it will run for.

What you won't see however is running costs being reduced to save up money to redevelop the ground. With costs likely to run into seven figures you can't generate that kind of savings by reducing your running costs, it will have to come from capital investment either in the form of loans or grants.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:17 pm  

Trimalchio wrote:

Funny, I must have missed those two championships in the early 90s But point taken.

Interesting that you and Gilder differ over whether expenditure on the salary cap should be affected by the stadium build.

I agree that it is good to have some wiggle room with the cap but if it means Leeds are 1-2 players short in positions in which youngsters aren't coming through then it is a concern. I suspect if Eastwood had come this season as planned he would have been spelled at prop given his size; perhaps if he does come next year it will be one less body in the pack to worry about.

The club had to contribute to the Carnegie Stand but the majority of funding came from Carnegie and Grants.

In the current climate the club, I would imagine, will have to pay a significantly higher amount (if not all) of cost of the Southstand.

If they club finance it through loans who will pay the loan repayments?

The club paid very little for the Carnegie. But the deal for that was done, in all probability, 3 years ago when times were very, very different.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:17 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

What you won't see however is running costs being reduced to save up money to redevelop the ground. With costs likely to run into seven figures you can't generate that kind of savings by reducing your running costs, it will have to come from capital investment either in the form of loans or grants.

Why bother with loans and grants, just get Carnegie to pay for it like normal