It's becoming quite clear in the modern game that we are living beyond our means. This is becoming quite pronounced, not just with the obvious problems Bradford have encountered but also with the fragile positions of just about the majority of clubs in the game. Whether you are losing money hand over fist or relying on some benevolent benefactor you are dicing with death. London are just one man away from oblivion, and other clubs are not as healthy as they would like to believe in that respect either. In this era of accounting transparency, there have been four clubs going into administration in the top flight already and other's wont be far behind. In this era of running the sport like a business, not one of the businesses is actually making a profit. Something has to change.

The thing is, I feel like this is needless. Why are we overspending on players? Why is this pursuit for top australians seen as a good thing? Why pay over the odds for stars who threaten us with trying their hand at the other code? They're not so strong themselves in many cases, there is not the money there to take everyone we have. We have the product here that means our game will be entertaining no matter what the level served to us. It's nice to have the top skill level but if you look back on old games during the part time era there wasn't much of a difference in quality. Certainly not entertainment value. I don't feel like if we dropped the cap and introduced even more stringent measures all of our players would leave. We have a marketable sport with or without Sam Tomkins, wonderful talent though he is.

All clubs in the top flight need and should be encouraged to have a conveyor belt of youngsters that replenish their talent. If needs be, have a youth quota in each team. If it's the same for everyone, it's an even playing field. No clubs just buying in and never developing or taking risks. The lower league clubs need to be supported in this by the sport itself in conjunction with the amateur game because they can't afford the alternative in most cases.

Self sustenance should be the key but we're nowhere near it and that's becoming a problem. Let's stop living beyond our means. I appreciate this means occasionally taking a hit when players leave but its a small price to pay when you compare it to the cost of losing clubs like Bradford for good.

Although most of this is true there is a point that need raising I feel.
Rugby League isn't alone in this regard you only have to look at the association game to see that.
As you say Union isn't any better.
I could continue but you get the point I would imagine.
It isn't even just in this country either, At some point sport stopped being just 'sport' and became something far darker IMHO.

Whilst I'd agree with your general point, I'm not so sure what the solutions are.

Cutting player wages will lead to more of our better players leaving for the NRL or Union. Also most of the players wages are accounted for by the TV deal, IIRC the clubs receive around £1.4m per year from the TV deal and the salary cap is £1.65m. A club only has to find £250k to pay its players. I would say that rather than costs being too high, that revenue is too low. Clubs are pretty poor (IMO) at creating/finding extra forms of income that aren't dependent on 13 home games per year.

At the moment there is probably only Wigan & Leeds who can live within their means at the level necessary. Also, as mentioned, this is a similar situation to most sporting clubs. I'm not sure but I doubt there are many Premier League or Union Premiership clubs making a profit either, and plenty are utterly reliant upon one rich benefactor. As cases such as Man City or Wasps show.

You're right in that self-sustaining clubs should be the ultimate aim, but it's one that only a few clubs could fulfill without going semi-pro IMO.

We already have a youth quota of sorts. Clubs have to have 8 (IIRC) club-trained players in their 25-man squad.

Oh and Leeds make a profit

There was an article a few months back in RLW stating that while everything in RL is not brilliant financially, we are in much less danger than certain football clubs outside the premiership. I can't remember the stats but the figures relating to Bristol City are alarming.

Bradford have laid off their coaching staff now. Perhaps a club disappearing would make them realise what they are doing to the sport.

FFS cut Super League to 10 teams, play fewer fixtures. It would make the league a higher standard and games more competive. Every game would be unpredictable and I'm sure Sky would buy into it.

If every team was A ok and not in debt what would we have to talk about on hear, think about it, it is not possible it would be great but not a chance of it hap ping in my lifetime

And the lost revenue will come from where?

Less games = less gate money, less sponsorship money (less exposure, less money they will be willing to give), Sky will reduce the money paid...or just cancel the contract full stop.

Unless of course you're being sarcastic as per



The problem is the game isn't popular enough to gain good enough sponsors to support a strong league.

Sporting clubs generally have a benefactor to cover shortfalls, how they cover the shortfalls is often the problem - the dreaded Directors Loan.
If these shortfalls are covered by the purchase of shares the club is protected from historic built up debt.
It would be nice to run all clubs at a small profit, but it will never happen.

I think that you can currently add one other club to the list & that is Wakefield. However, this is only different now because of administration and a new owner, and Andrew Glover is running the club within it's means... so they are still different to Wigan & Leeds in that these two clubs appear to be able to spend almost the full-cap & live within their means, which Wakey clear can't!

I disagree with your point about about going semi-pro for the same reason, Wakefield would appear to be currently able to do it and with the Sky money, I think every SL club could do the same... but the temptation in sport is always to spend beyond your means in the hunt for success. Time will only ever tell if Wakey & Andrew Glover fall to same the same temptation as the previous owners!

As opposed to a 14 team league where games such as Wigan v. Bradford and Salford v. Warrington are completely predictable?

I think the price of watching SL as a season thicket holder is a good bargain, I certainly wouldn't be bothered about paying a bit more. Clubs could spread costs over 10 months DD as well, it would give them a steady flow of income.

When the RFL scrapped the rule that clubs couldn't spend more than 50% of they're income on salary cap it was only a matter of time.

Generally businessmen/women buy/own/run clubs , in their own businesses they spend the majority of their time looking at ways of making more money , at their sports club they tend to spend the majority of their time looking for ways to spend more money , usually money the club doesn't actually have

Until that changes , we will continue to struggle as a sport

All clubs in all sports run the same way

Sure there are brief periods when come clubs might run at an actual profit, but they are rare, rare exceptions

I any sport

RL is no different, and actually better managed than most other sports.

Bradfords current problems are all of their own making plus a kick in the teeth from a bank,

The Bank complaint was utter nonsense and nothing less than a transparent "blame the bully bankers" ploy.

How big was the overdraft compared to the tax arrears and the amount the Bulls were losing each month?

I was under the impression that the most a club can spend on player salaries is 50% of their turnover with a salary cap maximum. That hardly seems to be overspending seeing as several of the clubs have turnover figures significantly higher than twice the cap limit. I mean if you're spending less than 40% of your turnover on your players that doesn't seem to be excessive seeing as the players are, in effect, the product that people purchase.

It might suggest, as others have said, issues with management of clubs rather than a flaw in the basic infrastructure of how the salary cap levels are set e.g. if you're a team that resides in/near a big conurbation the only thing stopping you from earning more revenue than clubs that reside in/near smaller conurbations is your own ability to generate that revenue.

I posted something similar a few days ago, every sports business should strive to be profitable, and by profitable I mean genuine generated income, not donation from owner/benefactor

It really isnt that difficult to comprehend, if they were judged by that criteria , they would be forced to operate differently

Those Barmy bar stewards at Red Hall may have fooled some, but not all.

Bradford, and other clubs have been stupid, however...
The RFL don't get out of this that easy, licensing, grading, auditing, buying leases or freeholds, propping up franchises, Sponsorship deals that beggar belief, destroying GB and Ashes series, removing the competitive essence of sport.

They have had a play, now leave the dam sport alone.

In times of austerity, a full-time environment is not working across the board. Teams with average attendances also suffer when Catalans or London come to town with their handful of fans. Bring back P&R, 2 up, 2 down. No special dispensation given to any team. Any team going into Administration lose 20 points with immediate effect resulting in relegation to the championships. If they're good enough in that league after the rebuilding process, they win their games,they are back in Super League. Simples.
This would revitalise the bottom end of Super League, less meaningful fixtures & the Championship Clubs have hope again. Then RL would all be one happy family again. Though I'm Sure British Sky Broadcasting Corporation would think otherwise. I'm afraid Wood & Rimmer are only puppets to this organisation who only care about viewing figures and not the good of the game.

I am also one of many fans who is open to the idea of SL1 & SL2 (10 teams) and a Co-Op Championship with 1 P&R place throughout the leagues, with Sky maybe showing an SL2 game on a Thursday or Monday.

Things have to change soon. I feel sorry for teams that get stuck in Champ 1 next year. Check out the new teams, the travelling involved etc. This will send some lower league heartland clubs to the wall.

The game is screwed. Unless you support Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Hull or Saints of course!

SL is built on sand, all those clubs have the potential to be back in the mire at some point.
I tell you, its like Paul Mckenna is going round these clubs and convincing everyone, its all good 5&it, party on.

A 14 team league where the teams at the top rest their better players against the teams at the bottom because league games don't really matter?

What makes you say that? Do you know of other clubs that are about to hit the wall? There's a full time professional women's football league that hardly anybody watches on telly and you're suggesting it can't work for one of SKY's highest viewed sports? Give over.



No offence Jeff but this argument comes up all the time and it is one of the biggest red herrings in the game. If other teams were bringing thousands every game then I could see the argument, but they're not. Okay, teams from around here i.e. Wire, Widnes, Wig, Salford, bring a lot more (from 1k to in excess of 4k) but I've seen less than 200 come over for some teams in Yorkshire and not just on the odd occasion. Let's say over the course of a season the average number of away fans at Saints for teams from Yorkshire is 700 then when Catalans come over with, say, 10 fans we get around £18k less income for that match. Saints generate nearly £5m in turnover which makes that £18k seem pretty insignificant doesn't it. Unless you're suggesting that £18k extra (£36k if you count London) would stop every club from going bust.

I think some people are slightly misconstruing some of the point's I've made. I'm not suggesting that SL clubs need to run on a profit. My point about that was we're running them like a business rather than a sporting club, and yet businesses are supposed to run on profits not the good will of people.

I do think our clubs need to be a lot more manageable. We shouldn't be allowing players to hold us to ransom. If they're threatening to go to Union, tell them to go. If they go to the NRL they are not lost to the game. Lower the cap. Work out where we can save. Less subsitutes and smaller squads? Get radical. Quotas for developing youngsters maybe. We wont die just because we lose a few players, that's not going to happen because we've got the right game.

They dont need to run at a profit Chris, but they should aim to run at a profit, that is the point, if they dont try to improve their susstainability, they will never improve it, and they will not grow both themselves and the sport

This applies to all levels of the ' proffessional ' sport

It goes without saying. People have been asking these questions for years but they fall on deaf ears. How good an idea is it exactly to rely on a bank roller or let the players dictate to us their wages?

The thing is we enjoyed the game when it was part time and we would again. Let's not pretend here that stopping over spending would cause oblivion. Clubs are facing oblivion and they need to stop over spending, that's the right way around.

Bradford, well, there are so many unanswered questions. Someone must have known a while before now what they were facing. The cheap season tickets, out bidding teams for players, it seems like they were playing a game. Yes we're facing administration but we're too big and well attended to go down. For me, that's a crime. It's never the fans fault - and I wouldn't dream of getting at them, but just like it is when most other clubs goes through this, it's awful management and they've not been thinking long term at all.