[Bullseye]

Re: vs. Batley Bulldogs (H) : Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:52 am  

Binosh wrote:

Its not impossible to run a club within its means however it just involves setting budgets early and forecasting accurately.

This year Leigh's board were given a budget of £300k by Derek….

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough. “Investing” suggests that someone gets more money out than they put in. What Derek is doing is bankrolling Leigh, unless he will get his £300k back at the end of the year?

Re: vs. Batley Bulldogs (H) : Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:00 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough. “Investing” suggests that someone gets more money out than they put in. What Derek is doing is bankrolling Leigh, unless he will get his £300k back at the end of the year?

I'm not under any misconception of the difference of investment & bank rolling.

What I am factually telling you is that this year HE ISNT funding anything, he still owns Leigh but the club is funding itself via all its income streams including RFL central funding.

If he wants to bank roll another push for SL, he has said he will do it out of his own money, as we sit the club is self sustaining.

[Bullseye]

Re: vs. Batley Bulldogs (H) : Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:18 pm  

Binosh wrote:

I'm not under any misconception of the difference of investment & bank rolling.

What I am factually telling you is that this year HE ISNT funding anything, he still owns Leigh but the club is funding itself via all its income streams including RFL central funding.

If he wants to bank roll another push for SL, he has said he will do it out of his own money, as we sit the club is self sustaining.

Apologies if I'm coming over in the wrong way that isn't my intention.

I'm not talking about whether a club breaks even or whether it's self sustaining.

I just said that, in my head at least, when you invest money in something you do it so you come out with more money than you put in. That's how I understood the word to be used. Correct me if I'm wrong but you said Derek set a budget of £300k, so I understood that to be him putting money in.

Just being pedantic if you like but whenever people talk about "investing" it makes me laugh. Nobody does that in RL. Otherwise people would be queuing up to pump money into clubs wouldn't they?

Re: vs. Batley Bulldogs (H) : Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:36 pm  

I understand, I agree a smart man wouldn't "invest" in Rugby League, rich men do it because they can afford too and are generally fans. same way I give Skybet £20 a week

The £300K budget was set within the clubs means and was rigid, Derek told Duffy that's what he had to play with no more no less.
As the season has gone on and more money has rolled in he has given the coach more budget to play with whilst not gambling the clubs future.

Re: vs. Batley Bulldogs (H) : Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:15 pm  

Yes the "investor" bit always makes me laugh. It's like soccer at the top level is literally awash with money (imagine paying over £100 million for ONE player, all the surrounding fees, and paying his wage of £150K a WEEK). But the big clubs are all technically about a billion times more insolvent than the Bulls ever were! NOBODY CARES! It's not a concern for them as they all have minted foreigners able and willing to sink in sums that would embarrass Croesus, with no aim nor hope of ever getting it back.

I know banks and financiers have been bitten by incarnations of Bulls in the past, but still I would be surprised if we could have negative numbers at the levels Bullseye mentioned unless whoever holds the accounts has got some solid guarantees. (Those levels are in fact not a lot at all for a pro sports club, and a pee in the ocean compared with some other sports).

In the lower leagues you can bumble along and pretty much balance the books, if you are prudent and work very hard at sundry efforts and local income streams, but it ain't gonna get you playing in the Champions League any time soon.

Of course, many teams who have limitations, and their fans, KNOW their limitations, and know their place, and are very happy with that, and their dreams. I was, when I was a Park Avenue fan as a young kid, before they got booted from the League. And that is most teams. They dream, but a good season for them is not promotion. And thank the lord for those clubs, who are the backbone of the game. It's like the difference between the semi-pro clubs, and the amateur game, where you also have thriving local clubs that have done it for many decades or longer, and get their fix from doing well in their own league, and just occasionally a good Cup draw. Like I remember Kevin Hector at Avenue, and playing the then giant Fulham in the Cup.

You can't escape the fact that to go up, all the more so to stay up, is always going to be a very expensive business for someone. I think for example only Leeds, who have worked hard to make themselves financially sound, were operating in surplus and even there I would be interested to see their accounts for the current period.

So if someone is prepared to underwrite what we are spending, then I'm bloody delighted, and great, long may it continue. I don't see it in the slightest as any detriment, or a bad thing. I'm all for it. Every club should have one. If I ever win the Euromillions the Bulls will have one. (Can someone get me a ticket?) Without some substantial outside finance we will have little hope of SL and almost zero hope of staying in SL, and that's the simple truth.

Re: vs. Batley Bulldogs (H) : Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:18 pm  

Binosh wrote:

The £300K budget was set within the clubs means and was rigid, Derek told Duffy that's what he had to play with no more no less. As the season has gone on and more money has rolled in he has given the coach more budget to play with whilst not gambling the clubs future.

All of which seems fair comment. It shows that Beaumont has hopefully learned his lessons from his last tilt at SL.

It does make me wonder what's happened to the money that has 'rolled in' for us this year? I'm pretty sure Chalmers didn't budget for the Cup run, including a home game against Leeds, nor for Huddersfield to give us £100K for one of our Academy players.

And yet we don't seem to be giving John Kear 'more budget to play with'. It suggests either we are not actually ahead of budget (the extra money is actually just covering losses somewhere in the balance sheet) or we are banking the money for possibly making a big push for promotion next year.

Re: vs. Batley Bulldogs (H) : Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:10 pm  

The club got 100k for Wilson which put into perspective gets you a Ryan Brierley for 1 year.

Re: vs. Batley Bulldogs (H) : Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:54 pm  

JohnQ wrote:

The club got 100k for Wilson which put into perspective gets you a Ryan Brierley for 1 year.

This.

Hence no one wanting to take him, Leigh paid a nominal amount for his services for 5 games.

He's been offered a payout by Toronto but wants considerably more.

Re: vs. Batley Bulldogs (H) : Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:26 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

All of which seems fair comment. It shows that Beaumont has hopefully learned his lessons from his last tilt at SL.

It does make me wonder what's happened to the money that has 'rolled in' for us this year? I'm pretty sure Chalmers didn't budget for the Cup run, including a home game against Leeds, nor for Huddersfield to give us £100K for one of our Academy players.

And yet we don't seem to be giving John Kear 'more budget to play with'. It suggests either we are not actually ahead of budget (the extra money is actually just covering losses somewhere in the balance sheet) or we are banking the money for possibly making a big push for promotion next year.

I think the difference between this year and previous ones is the owner realises its highly unlikely we would make a serious push for SL regardless of any level of investment.

I understand folk will want us to "spend" the money from the Wilson transfer but in a way we have as we have brought in Roche who I would expect would be on more wages than the younger exiting player.

Reality is, just as an example we could be spending something like £600k on the cap (purely made up figure) and commit to another £100k for rest of season... if the benefit of this is securing an extra place or twon the league but that only benefits us to the tune of £50k why would you do it?

Instead you'd pocket it, and invest next year when its more likely we will need a clear out (there are plenty of players who are just not value for money or doing a job at the level we need) and can have a good go at promotion without a big spending Toronto in our way, surely?

Re: vs. Batley Bulldogs (H) : Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:26 pm  

bullinenemyland wrote:

.... and can have a good go at promotion without a big spending Toronto in our way, surely?

Agreed