They've got debt problems the Crusaders though haven't they, they've been open about there being more debt than they expected when they took the club on. It'll be a couple of years before they're clear

Not looked at the Hudds accounts yet, but I suspect Mrs B has quoted the RL club numbers only, and not a pro-forma consolidation with the stadium operating company and/or with the parent holding company of the RL company?



If its the RL club accounts only, then stadium issues will not materially influence the results. Even if not, from memory I don't think anything like you suggest will have a bearing.



The basic problem, as far as you can determine from the club accounts, has historically been external income substantially less than club operating expenditure. Same as Quins and Saints. And, as with those other examples, the wealthy owners provide the cash - as subordinated loans (although mcManus capitalised a load of loans as shares not that long ago) - to enable the club to continue operating. That is how the clubs can sustain heavy annual losses, and show technically-insolvent balance sheets with massive net liabilities, and yet continue in business.



Presumably Davy has allowed the club to spend the full cap (I gather he specifically agreed to the extra expenditure when they signed Hodgson, for example) and I believe he is happy to fund the level of expenditure on infractructure, coaching staff, marketing, whatever necessary to enable the club to achieve the sort of admirable on-field results that it now has. If they could get the sort of crowds Wigan (probably nearest-comparable club) now get, and probably improve on ancillary income streams as a result, I'm sure you'd be looking at a far better P&L.

What is the salary cap now?

What's the RFL SL grant a year?

IIRC, the Leeds results are only for 10 months (at least, that's what South Stander's resident accountancy expert claimed - it's all far too boring for me to get involved with)

All results fall within +-3 standard deviations of the arithmetic mean, therefore Quins are representative.



You'll have to explain why they're not. Excluding Quins because in YOUR opinion they distort the underlying picture just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

It's an opinion, I can exclude them if, in my opinion, they are outside a banding that captures the other 10 clubs, like, say +/- £1m from the median. You know, like twice as far away from it as any other club, for example

Hilarious. What is the statistical significance of the arbitrarily chosen £1,000,000 figure? Where else is the same technique employed that you have used here?



Are Quins within +-3 standard deviations of the mean? If so they fall within the normal distribution of the sample and therefore, that makes them representative, allowing no justification for their exclusion. I'm happy for someone to explain why they should be, but not if it is merely "in their opinion".

That's RL screwed then!

Not that hilarious. Look at the chart. Look at the banding of 10 clubs within the two lines showing £1m and -£1m, also +/- £1m around the median. You need to double that value to include Harlequins. It's really not that difficult. Of the clubs who've posted so far, I think it's fair to exclude Harlequins as they are so far away from the other clubs. Look at the chart, it's not that difficult to visualise.



It's almost as if you're trying to downgrade the financial performance of the rest of the competition so the results of your club are compared to an average distorted by a loss twice as great as the next worst club. Assuming the accounts are filed at some point.

If you were anymore transparent you would be made of glass.

Good day madam.

The point I was trying to make was that on the face of it results are a bit better this year. 4 clubs in profit, marginal results for Salford and Wigan (taking the profit from the notes to the accounts) who you'd imagine would turn in a profit this year. Some positive news compared to last year when there was only one club in profit, IMO.

As opposed to a profit 4.5 times that of the next best club





Use a valid statistical technique and then we can discuss the results, good, bad or indifferent. Until then, I'm pretty sure my use of valid statistical techniques is correct, yours is transparently skewing the data to achieve the figures you want. I wonder why that is?