Most are 17 or 18, there are a few others who should be given more of a chance, Staverley, Balmforth and Litten (at full back), but we prefer to play the likes of Shaul, Houghton, Evans, Lovodua and Lane.
Not we as supporters Smith I just wonder if the other members of the coaching staff actually have a view or voice. Gene will obviously side with Smith as Smith wanted someone loyal and that means to me do as i say but surely there are others who should voice an opinion.
It’s subjective but I doubt it. Probably won’t even be informative for me. Even people who can read them say stuff like ‘it is hard to tell with abridged accounts’.
Nearly all SL clubs run at a loss, not least St Helens (in recent years at least) the supposed example to others. Everybody spends more than they have because they’re chasing others doing the same. Sometimes the money runs out and clubs have to tighten their belts or if they don’t/can’t they go bust. S’only interesting if it affects the game.
I mean, Rovers almost went bust over something like £500k (I can’t remember exactly but it was a lot less than £7.8m). I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve more debt now than when the Sharks went to the wall or when Pearson rescued you. Yet here we are, you thinking a spell in the lower leagues mightn’t be so bad and me now paranoid about how many commas I use.
I mean, if nothing else we find out how much you paid for the ground last year.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
I mean, if nothing else we find out how much you paid for the ground last year.
There is that, I suppose. It’ll be included, will it? As a single, explicit, unambiguous number?
I don’t mean this as either an insult or compliment to your profession, but it feels like some effort and expertise goes into yielding a minimum of information in these things and producing something that is as opaque as is compliantly possible. Is that one of those ‘well… ye-uh’ things?
There is that, I suppose. It’ll be included, will it? As a single, explicit, unambiguous number?
I don’t mean this as either an insult or compliment to your profession, but it feels like some effort and expertise goes into yielding a minimum of information in these things and producing something that is as opaque as is compliantly possible. Is that one of those ‘well… ye-uh’ things?
Well, the cost of the purchase will need to be shown in the tangible fixed assets note under land and buildings additions. So, yes, I think so
Well, the cost of the purchase will need to be shown in the tangible fixed assets note under land and buildings additions. So, yes, I think so
Have you an opinion on the financial aspect of the club?Would you care to comment on financial statistics? Summary:
Loss for the year c650k Cash erosion c400k New borrowing c500k Technically insolvent Cash run rate <12m Liquidity ratio c0.44 (excluding accrued income)
Note that Tax creditor has jumped significantly which could indicate entering into a TTP arrangement with HMRC
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Have you an opinion on the financial aspect of the club?Would you care to comment on financial statistics? Summary:
Loss for the year c650k Cash erosion c400k New borrowing c500k Technically insolvent Cash run rate <12m Liquidity ratio c0.44 (excluding accrued income)
Note that Tax creditor has jumped significantly which could indicate entering into a TTP arrangement with HMRC
Liquidity ratio excluding accrued income, I’m on tenterhooks.
In the meantime, I looked up what tenterhooks are. So now I know. Didn’t look up liquidity ratio or cash run rate though.
Unless the new "powerboard" (let's face it, most of whom are not rugby league supporters) are in it for something other than the team winning silverware. Beware false prophets and all that!
So Savelio was dropped based on performance levels so far according to Smith
Seems mind blowing to me that he drops Savelio who has been one of the better performers (even after coming straight back in from injury) to bring back Lane who is & was dreadful and has been for a long while now. I get that he is trying to mix things up to see who is up to the task but think it’s been clear the majority ain’t going to change anytime soon.
Think it’s time to he gave Staveley an opportunity.
There are players still getting played that should never wear the shirt again and players sat on the sidelines that at the very least give their all when they do play. If Smith is trying to get a reaction then why not drop the lazy b@5tard5 instead and play the players that at least play like they give a 5h!t
So Savelio was dropped based on performance levels so far according to Smith
Seems mind blowing to me that he drops Savelio who has been one of the better performers (even after coming straight back in from injury) to bring back Lane who is & was dreadful and has been for a long while now. I get that he is trying to mix things up to see who is up to the task but think it’s been clear the majority ain’t going to change anytime soon.
Think it’s time to he gave Staveley an opportunity.
There are players still getting played that should never wear the shirt again and players sat on the sidelines that at the very least give their all when they do play. If Smith is trying to get a reaction then why not drop the lazy b@5tard5 instead and play the players that at least play like they give a 5h!t