Does amuse me on here the way that some people still believe FC's valuation of players has contributed in any way to it's accounts.





Can they not understand it equates to a side note to the auditors?

Raising cash through share options is always a decent way to make money, providing again that existing shareholders are happy to have a smaller % of the club in doing so.

Where one sees these big swings, how much is 'real' as a layman would understand it and how much is down to accounting practices/client choice and the way dates fall? As a layman I find some of them hard to, ahem, account for.

The selection of just one club, the one with the worst deterioration in a league with overall improving results, as a comparator for Rovers performance is frankly a journalistic embarrassment. Why would you just pick Saints when 8 clubs improved (2 of which by £1m and £800k) and only 4 went backwards? Do you think someone has just told him this anecdotally and he's printed it without being @rsed to see what anyone else has done?

[size=50[Spin mode on[/size



Not a bad result when put against the average of the 13 clubs who have thus far declared (-£272,592)



Both Rovers and the league average are headed in the right direction.



[size=50[spin mode off[/size

I think we both know the answers here:



(1) Mullen is to journalism as Cabman is to understatement.



(2) After the recent retraction of the article he penned last year (same subject), the Mail are looking to avoid a similar reaction from Rovers.



A far better comparator would have been Huddersfield. Similar on field performance in SL, although they did reach Wembley (you wouldn't tell from the financial results!), fairly similar gates.

You can't really tell for most clubs as they only file a balance sheet, so you have to take the P&L movement. The thing is, though, is that accounting in businesses of this size in in this sector are relatively simple, compared to say manufacturing or financial services for example. There may be some grey areas like provisions (where you have to take a judgement on a future liability that's not fully quantifiable yet, for example), but generally speaking it's not an accounting minefield. The swing at Leeds is pretty easy to understand as they are in a league of their own financially and the £700k profit is more representative of their underlying position than the loss they made the previous year which IIRC had an exceptional item in it. Salford's not sure about - they don't seem to have spent the full cap, but it is a big turnaround. Warrington's can be explained by their CC appearance. Cas also improved significantly. The accounting dates point is not really that relevant as clubs have either an October or November year end to coincide with contract end dates. Having said that Leeds results are for only 10 months, so maybe on a like for like basis they're actually better than the £700k reported over a full year.

I fail to see what all your ranting about Rovers accounts is trying to prove.Stop worrying about us, we'll be alright







Why don't you go onto Saints site and ask why such a successful club on the field has got such massive losses and can't match hulls off field success.

Start talking to them about Hulls profits against their losses, i'm sure they'll all be happy to engage you in the subject.

Maybe, but in 2009 their passes were £60. The one that stands out for me is Salford, and on the face of it, I think they've played it quite cleverly. Clearly under threat from a license perspective, they've cut their cloth significantly this year knowing the stadium was going ahead and must have mentally written performances off in lieu of the medium term bigger picture. They'll be going into the license applications with a new stadium underway, a breakeven position in the most recent filed accounts, a Manchester location that's not in the catchment for another club, and some decent signings coming in. Quite canny.

I'm not ranting about Rovers accounts, I'm saying Mullan is a journalistically challenged halfwit who wouldn't know a piece of independent and relevant context if it bit him on the @rse. This applies equally to his rugby league exclusives and his rather poor financial article today.

is this because he writes about Rovers? is James Smailes better? has anyone who writes about Rovers ever been any good? are you sure your not ranting about Rovers accounts?



surely he can only report on the figures given to him, or should he dig deeper and spill the beans, risk having Rovers put a ban on the HDM,

Where on earth is Barnacle Bill?



One could almost conclude it's really Barnacle Charlie given Mullet's insistence on not only including this anomaly but also using it as the illustration to compare SL clubs' financial performances. An applaudable attempt to prove Rovers' return is as rosie as their red breasts.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, you Gene-ius.

He's a journalist, not a secretary typing up whatever he's told to. It's his job to challenge and be independent. IMO that would mean providing some relevant context, ie the results of the other SL clubs, most of which improved and some by very significant amounts, rather than just one that just happened to have gone backwards.



James Smailes is OK. He knows at least something about RL.