Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:51 am  

Northernrelic wrote:

....
The problem for all professional sports clubs seems to be they spend up to or above what they have budgeted for costs ( rents, salaries etc) but that the revenue never comes up to what they expected from ST sales or fans paying on the gate.

edited for accuracy! is the way of the world, and the pigeons regularly arrive to roost on a recurring basis at all of them.

Northernrelic wrote:

.... I think I shared his view that after rescuing the club at the end of 2012 more fans would have turned up last season - when infact the gates went down.

I agree

Northernrelic wrote:

....That's why I think if we weaken the squad much further the risk is even more fans take their bats home and we get into a spiral of decline from which there is no escape. So if you don't make some investment in 2014 Bradford will drop out of the top league.

Doesn't follow, though; if we had a better squad last year (we did) yet gates went down, this kinda disproves this theory. Also disagree with "making investment" - you will never get more (or even as much) extra income IN as you "invest" going out. It's like an obvious and certain case of diminishing returns.

People criticise clubs regularly (we are in the brunt of it now, but it could be anybody) for being over-optimistic in budgeting - "yes we will spend £X on squad improvements but that will mean we will get £X + £Y in extra revenue". Can anyone disagree that this rarely if ever follows?

I know a lot of things also fell into place in a relatively short period of time, but peter Deakin improved our revenues enormously without ever spending a penny on the squad. Sadly Deakins are rare as rocking horse sh?t.

[Bulliac]

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:56 am  

History certainly suggests that when you get into a decline it is very difficult to get out of it. Our decline started in the mid 'noughties' and clearly hasn't ended yet and the only really significant difference can be provided by some new money, either from sponsors or new directorships, being put into the club. Without it the downward spiral is only going continue imo.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:24 am  

[quote="Ferocious Aardvark"] Also disagree with "making investment" - you will never get more (or even as much) extra income IN as you "invest" going out. It's like an obvious and certain case of diminishing returns.

The specific problem we have next year is if we fail to keep our SL status a big chunk of the clubs funding will go for certain. You can never be sure of ticket sales or attendances but the Sky money ( even when you only get 50% of it) is a major contribution to revenue. So preserving SL status has a very specific return.

Personally speaking having a competitive, but funded team in the 2nd tier without the constant off field problems would help my blood pressure, but I think while realistic it is certainly a minority view on this board.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:16 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

Personally speaking having a competitive, but funded team in the 2nd tier without the constant off field problems would help my blood pressure, but I think while realistic it is certainly a minority view on this board.

Permanently?

Because the problem with that is that we all know you can't fund a SL - standard squad in the Championship; so even if you managed to come straight back up, you would be the next version of the yo-yo clubs. Unless, of course, you came up and bet the house by buying up all the most expensive players you could find to cobble together a SL - standard squad: welcome back to Square One.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:37 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Permanently?

Because the problem with that is that we all know you can't fund a SL - standard squad in the Championship; so even if you managed to come straight back up, you would be the next version of the yo-yo clubs. Unless, of course, you came up and bet the house by buying up all the most expensive players you could find to cobble together a SL - standard squad: welcome back to Square One.

To be honest FA the way the change to SL is being lined up at the end of next year if you aren't in SL for 2015 it is very unlikely you ever will be. Even with 14 teams and a clear 2nd tier within those in terms of finance it is tough to stay up even with a wealthy backer ( eg Widnes) but if the number of teams reduces further as the weaker teams finally buckle under the strain then the gap in squad strength, finance to overcome becomes even harder to bridge. So unless someone turns up with £20m to burn ( maybe in a new area?) just cannot see teams, especially traditional ones like Fax, Featherstone, Leigh ( or the Bulls) ever having a chance to get back into the top flight.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:47 pm  

Bulls4Champs wrote:

Has 400k gone missing from the club or have the previous regime just set budgets that were 400k to much for the season and that would be what we would be down by if we were to continue with the current budget?

This is the bit I'd like clarifying too, I might have just missed it. Is it (trying to simplify here) that the expeniditure and income forecasts for 2014 are out by 400k? (accepting that we have debts, but if we ran at break even we could manage the debt over time) we we're looking to drop our expenditure by 400k to only spend what were earning.

So if we assumed we had the missing 600k sky money would the books balance? And if that were the case is there not an argument to ask to defer (not cancel) our second year punishment until 2015, or even maybe half of it until 2015 giving us an extra 300k this year and allowing us to make more manageble cuts of 100k+ or whatever we need over the short to meduim term? Then new board can set out realistic player/staff salary targets for 2015 and beyond for the long term in a managed way rather than a firesale way in the first P&R year since licencing.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:18 pm  

The press (not T&A) have apparently heard that the players have rejected the offer of a 10% pay cut. The source may be questionable, but it's not the first time I have heard the players will not take a cut (and why should they?) http://www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby-league/355084/EXCLUSIVE-Bradford-Bulls-in-crisis-after-players-reject-paycut

The press (not T&A) have apparently heard that the players have rejected the offer of a 10% pay cut. The source may be questionable, but it's not the first time I have heard the players will not take a cut (and why should they?) http://www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby-league/355084/EXCLUSIVE-Bradford-Bulls-in-crisis-after-players-reject-paycut

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:20 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Permanently?

Because the problem with that is that we all know you can't fund a SL - standard squad in the Championship; so even if you managed to come straight back up, you would be the next version of the yo-yo clubs. Unless, of course, you came up and bet the house by buying up all the most expensive players you could find to cobble together a SL - standard squad: welcome back to Square One.

During the period of promotion and relegation, there were never really yo yo clubs. Of the teams relegated they either moved to the championship and stayed there (like Halifax and Leigh) or been relegated, come back up and moved onto greater things, Huddersfield being the obvious example, with castleford, and Widnes less predominantly (though both have massively improved competitiveness than before they were relegated).

In my opinion, relegation challenges the people in charge of a club to cut the fat and create a core that can be built around, failing to do so takes a lot longer to bounce back, but can be beneficial in the long run. How many years did Huddersfield finish bottom before being relegated? It's possibly been one of the best things for them to get them out of that rut.

Whether or not it would be good (in the long run) for Bradford I don't know. But, you may not be able to fund a sl club in the championship, but you definitely can't fund a club at all with no money.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:37 pm  

Duckman wrote:

This is the bit I'd like clarifying too, I might have just missed it. Is it (trying to simplify here) that the expeniditure and income forecasts for 2014 are out by 400k? (accepting that we have debts, but if we ran at break even we could manage the debt over time) we we're looking to drop our expenditure by 400k to only spend what were earning.

So if we assumed we had the missing 600k sky money would the books balance? And if that were the case is there not an argument to ask to defer (not cancel) our second year punishment until 2015, or even maybe half of it until 2015 giving us an extra 300k this year and allowing us to make more manageble cuts of 100k+ or whatever we need over the short to meduim term? Then new board can set out realistic player/staff salary targets for 2015 and beyond for the long term in a managed way rather than a firesale way in the first P&R year since licencing.

I would imagine they will make such a request, but only once they have visibly done everything else, which they certainly seem to be doing - trying to cut the wage bill by 10%, cutting admin, calling for volunteers which would reduce the wage bill etc. I would also think they would want to minimise the amount of reduction this year to get the max increase next year, more 400/200 reduction than 300/300

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:45 pm  

The RFL withholding money to a stricken club as mentioned.

I understand the RFL not just giving money to a club that seemingly quarterly is changing the Leaders and then finding even more debt. Do the RFL not do an audit to find the truth? "Just when you think you can see the bottom of the hole someone hands you a spade"

Clearly the board are more competent and fit for purpose than the other, (although well meaning OK) have been, I mean more commercially adept and business like. If players have to be sold then that is a fact. The club will still be able to compete. Good players are just around the corner often unnoticed until they are there playing. if you see what I mean.

Sometimes boards need help and I hope the RFL and Provident are using there influence and skills in the best interests of the Bulls.

Actually £400K is not a lot of money to the club it is what is hiding away suspiciously that is concerning me.

I also understand the RFL has a duty to be wary of wolves looking at asset stripping.

To Edit, That the RFL should be concentrating and releasing money strategically to stabilise the concentration of clubs that play it regionally. A period of 3 to 5 years enhancing that, instead of frittering money away in expansion of areas that it is just not working. The games improvement regionally will sell itself outwardly to other markets over time.