Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:15 pm  

The star says Moore is a millionaire businessman, is that correct?

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:32 pm  

lets hope he doesn't follow David Hughes' guide to running a Rugby league club then, or he wont be a millionaire for long

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:43 pm  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

The star says Moore is a millionaire businessman, is that correct?

Most adjectives in the Star relate to more physical attributes, so would guess "millionaire" is the only financial one they have for businessmen. However from the club's viewpoint it's more how much of their wealth they are prepared to put into the club with no or low expectation it will ever come back out again. I think the euphemism is "pledge" to the cause.

[Bulliac]

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:48 pm  

His assets can no doubt be added up to whatever you like, but that doesn't mean he has diddly squat available to throw at his hobbies.

[Bulliac]

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:08 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

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.

I'd say there were around eight clubs with sufficient financial backup to to feel secure. However, eight clubs is not really sufficient to make a decent league competition, so some of the 'also rans' are necessary to 'fill out' gaps in the fixture list. I certainly can't see fewer than ten clubs for a competitive league without duplicating fixtures too much and twelve is even more realistic minimum for a sensibly organised competition.

We don't have any big 'money men' behind us but, being in one of the largest cities in England, we do have the advantage of a large potential audience, much larger than most of the obvious rivals so, all things being equal, it's likely that with gates even averaging around C5k, we'd be able to pass muster as a middle ranking side, in SL.

Of course, you never know the future. In a couple of years it may well be that there are a dozen financially backed clubs, or it may be down to half a dozen, no one knows - we just need to keep chipping away.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:04 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

being in one of the largest cities in England, we do have the advantage of a large potential audience, much larger than most of the obvious rivals so, all things being equal, it's likely that with gates even averaging around C5k, we'd be able to pass muster as a middle ranking side, in SL.

I think the ability to fund a successful Superleague club is one of those areas where "size does not matter". Only 4 of the top 20 cities per the 2011 census even have a RL team. A gate of 5k is over 3k down on last year - or another £500k less funding from our current position.

So while Bradford is the 6th largest city in the UK by population - I think it is also likely that since the glory days the number of reasonably well paid jobs in the city has fallen and more HQ or professional organisations have fled to Leeds - or even further afield. The hard core Bradford RL support is a much smaller % of the population than it is in say Wigan or Hull ( If you push through the merger

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:01 pm  

tristram wrote:

How about trying to raise 400k, or at least significant proportion of it, rather than 'save' it?

I must agree there my friend. It's a false economy to reduce staffing levels that are already cut to the bone.
Why not raise a new reduced 6 game season ticket at a reduced cost for Xmas. Say £90 for 6 games, if they got
1000 supporters equals £90k. And if we are to assume this figure of £400k was to be saved over the year or £37k per month.
The first £90k would go a fair way to buying them time to get their act together, plus they would be earning from the season starting.

One of the Unique Selling Points of Odsal, is the fact that it has the room that other stadiums don't have. So even 25,000 supporters would not be a problem. So sell e'm cheap and stack e'm high as the supermarkets do.

The share option and our £650k back would also help. Note that, I believe , 2014 is the last year of the current SKY deal, so we don't really know the amount of compensation, or in fact if the contract has been re - negotiated as yet?

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:19 pm  

Wasn't it "selling them cheap" that was fairly instrumental in getting you into the current position?
People value what they pay for, dumping a product onto the market devalues the product.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:42 pm  

Rarebreed wrote:

I must agree there my friend. It's a false economy to reduce staffing levels that are already cut to the bone.
Why not raise a new reduced 6 game season ticket at a reduced cost for Xmas. Say £90 for 6 games, if they got
1000 supporters equals £90k. And if we are to assume this figure of £400k was to be saved over the year or £37k per month.
The first £90k would go a fair way to buying them time to get their act together, plus they would be earning from the season starting.

One of the Unique Selling Points of Odsal, is the fact that it has the room that other stadiums don't have. So even 25,000 supporters would not be a problem. So sell e'm cheap and stack e'm high as the supermarkets do.

The share option and our £650k back would also help. Note that, I believe , 2014 is the last year of the current SKY deal, so we don't really know the amount of compensation, or in fact if the contract has been re - negotiated as yet?

The SKY deal doesn't run out till the end of 2016 season

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:48 pm  

BartonFlyer wrote:

Wasn't it "selling them cheap" that was fairly instrumental in getting you into the current position?
People value what they pay for, dumping a product onto the market devalues the product.

The Stadium devalues the offering to the paying public. Is it right that Odsal is just a past memory and any attachment to it is now outdated and probably very costly.