Seems like 2009 was a marginally better year financially for some clubs. In 2008, the only club (I think) to make a profit was Hull FC. The league table of profit/loss for 2009 is as follows (assuming I've got the right entities) and shows 4 clubs in profit and a further 3 with a loss < £100k (although I'm being a bit generous with Wigan and using their pre impairment/depreciation/interest number). Leeds profit is before a hefty exceptional income of £3m from a transaction with Yorkshire CC. The average loss excluding Harlequins, which IMO distorts the underlying picture, is -£103,630.





Leeds 720,871

Warrington 159,514

Hull FC 77,141

Castleford 26,679

Salford -19,651

Wigan -40,715

Bradford -72,209

Wakefield -202,379

Huddersfield -823,739

St Helens -861,810

Harlequins -1,936,804

Average excluding Harlequins -103,630



This excludes clubs whose accounts are overdue, ie Hull KR and Crusaders.

Where did you get this info?

suggests herself

Companies House - you can download them for £1 each. They don't all have a full profit and loss account, but you can work out the profit by the movement on the profit and loss reserves in the balance sheet. The best ones for commentary are Wigan, Saints, Leeds and Bradford as they have a directors report where they talk about trading performance in the year and factors affecting it - Bradford's for example references Greg Bird, injuries, Macca having the full cap at his disposal, lottery etc.

I think Wigan have said the Grand Final success took them from loss to profit in 2010. They are heading the right way though after years of, well to be honest, not being run as a club at all under Dave Whelan.

Would imagine they'll be into profit for this year. More success on the pitch GF appearance, and also some exceptional costs over the last few years for Noble and Fielden not being repeated.



Will be interesting to see the financial performance of Saints once they get rid of the financial millstone of Knowsley Road's maintenance.

You were quick off the mark there Mrs B, given some of those accounts were only available for download this morning!

whats up with the giants?



new stadium, reasonable crowds thats a massive loss to be posting.

Its way better than the previous year, mind. At least you can do that when you have Ken Davy bankrolling you.

Not enough paying customers i would say.

Why does Harlequins distort the "underlying picture" but Leeds does not?



The Mean excluding both Harlequins and Leeds is more like -195,000 almost double the figure compared with excluding only Harlequins. Given both HKR and Crusaders are likely to post losses (of varying degrees) the profit posted by Leeds may well be considered the more exceptional of the two figures.



As it stands Harlequins losses are 2.25 times the second highest posted loss (Saints) and 2.35 times the third highest (Hudds)



Leeds profits are 4.5 times the second highest profit figure (Wire) and 9.4 times the third highest (FC)



That suggests to me that actually the profit posted by Leeds is way more distorting on the average results than Quins loss. Excluding only Leeds the Mean average then becomes -369,000.



Regards.



Poindexter.

Anyone who isn't profitable shouldn't get a license when they do the next round of farcical promotions.