for Wigan 2008-2009 according to the league express, if correct is it so low because of the stadium situtation, or is there other factors.

Don't know, don't care.

Why comment then?
I'd certaintly be interested to read the opinions of those with a bit if know on this matter. It may be interesting reading...

There are people on here who have a good insight into this kind of stuff who im sure can give a good balanced view of things.

Turnover is a load of rubbish imo. Somebody could have a £20 million turnover and make less profit than somebody with £5 million turnover. Im more interested in profit/loss as thats the most important thing imo.

If you think it's low now you should have seen it when Whelan owned the place.
IL has done a great job in turning around the club's finances.
Next years figures should include, hopefully, improved merchandise figures from the new shop, better crowd figures and improved broadcasting revenue over previous contracts.
Wigan RL also has some of the lowest admission prices in SL.

You can't compare the turnover when Whelan ran the place to now because of how Whelan ran it. He just funded it out of a big pot of money that came from any income generated by the club which got lumped with other income and if he felt like splashing out £400K on a transfer he just did.

There was effectively no turnover in the conventional sense because it wasn't run as a company but as one of Whelans hobbies if you like. I never saw a problem with that provided money was available for players and it was. The difference now is IL can't or won't bank roll the club and it is run as a proper company. Which is better is a bit of a moot point IMO. I know the RFL are not keen on clubs relying on one individual but in fact that has not changed under IL. Where is Mick Hogan's replacement for example?

Put it this way would you complain if some Arab Sheik came along and did a Man City and built us our own ground, with state of the art facilities , upgraded to Orrell and who knows what else out of his lose change? Or would you try and advance the club out of its own earnings and nothing else?

As to a £4.5m turnover for 2008-9 I thnk that is pretty good. Under the old salary cap rules that would have meant we could spend £2 1/4 million on players wages (50% of turnover) which is about what it was before the flat rate came came in so the turnover should easily fund a squad up there with the other top teams given the salary cap is lower.

Dave

What was the general consensus over the size of the fee paid for Martin Gleeson?

Besides Fielden have any other transfer fees been paid? (I guess Flanaghan as well)

Which players/coaches were released between November 2008 and November 2009?

Er, because I neither know nor care if it is low or not, or if the figure is due to the "stadium situation", whatever that is.

Seriously, who cares what we turn over? We are obviously one of the top clubs in the game, doing as well or better than most both on and off the field. Do you really need untold pages of guesswork and penis measuring on here to go with it?

How are they classed in your profit and loss? Does the money dissapear as an expense? Or does Gleeson become an asset of the company, who's value depreciates over the period of his contract?

Surely Gleeson would be classed as an asset of the company and therefore wouldn't be included on the P+L. Either way it will have no effect on turnover anyway.

As you correctly guess Wigan's accounting policy is to capitalised the transfer fee as an intangiable fixed asset and to write it off over the period of the players contract.

So what was the consensus over the Gleeson transfer fee?