They are wrong, quite significantly so.

Spend a quid you tight get and find out the truth.



Oi! Oi! Oi!

Proof please? Or just received wisdom?

I was being ironic when you consider the amount of abuse we have received in terms of our supposed salary payments.



In truth though, those figures will probably be on the ball due to tax exemptions, free housing, food, car etc They'll be plenty of legitimate ways to increse the real term value of a players contract.

a 10k loss is pretty insignificant compared to some clubs tbh

Except:



1. All those items (bar the first) are taxable as benefits in kind.

2. All those items are specifically caught by the salary cap - see the RFL Operational Rules.



if you really want to increase the value, you have to resort to things like (excessive payments for) image rights and through a (usually offshore) personal service company, (questionable) payments to Employee Benefit trusts, (Legitimate) Pension payments, an "unconnected" third party mysteriously paying a load to the player for his image rights or services and that player mysteriously and coincidentally agreeing to play for a much lower salary (legit if genuine...if...) or the brown paper bag (illegal).



Obvioulsy, no responsible club would want to resort to the more questionable items on that list.

Solomona was on £350k per year and we have took his wages off their cap plus Deacon leaving means they could probably afford £500k per annum!!!!!!!

I think we paid half of that in kind in pies...

released for all to see

Where? Go on...

Keep digging. Cica $20k loss. Fact.

Yup. You are correct. For the avoidance of doubt:



1. Warrington Sports Holdings Ltd is a holding company. It lost £55k.

2. Looks like it does not trade in any meaningful way, but holds the (long leasehold) stadium, and the loans etc, and owns the rugby league club. It has net assets of approx £12m (albeit with an unusual balance sheet suggesting maybe a huge capital profit arose sometime somewhere)

3. The RL club is actually its subsidiary The Warrington Football Club Limited.

4. THAT company lost £212k - as correctly reported on this thread. (I am calling off ITS accounts as we speak to double-check, but the £212k loss is referred to in the parent company accounts.

5. Because the group is "medium-sized", consolidated group accounts do not have to be prepared.

6. Last point is crucial, because you can only see the whole position by adding the two businesses together. There may be "consolidation adjustments" which mean that the whole is rather different than the sum of the parts.

7. Nevertheless, the sum of the two losses is £267k.

8. You have a wealthy backer though, so that will assuredly take the pressure off in the event of losses being incurred. That is something you don't see in a set of accounts, yet is probably more important than almost anything actually in those accounts.



For comparison, Bulls DO prepare consolidated FULL accounts - which are a consolidation of the holding company, the rugby league company and the lottery management company. £10k group loss (£258k profit previous year).



And a message to "The Original Stevo" - [i"a loss is a loss and to add a player on that kind of money when you are working on a loss doesn't make sense".[/i Leaving aside the huge holes in your logic, what is your take on your own club's signings then?





Edit update:



As I suspected, the rugby club accounts are "small" which means they show sod all. Means that you cannot make meaningful comparisons with the accounts of clubs like Bradford and Leeds, who present "Full" consolidated accounts.



Can see from the balance sheet though that the loss was indeed £212k. Also, that the club (as an entity) is technically insolvent, having net liabilities in excess of assets of £2.75m, But it is stated as being treated as a going concern because of support from the parent company - which has a very strong balance sheet, as strong on paper as Leeds' even.