Same for my club (Cas Tigers). We might as well pack in developing our own juniors. All we do is prepare them for Hull. We might as well cancel our youth teams for next year and use the money to sign a boat load of mercenaries.

An illustration of how the newly promoted team has faired in their first year.

1996 - Paris - 11th (out of 12 teams)
1997 - Salford - 6th
1998 - Hull - 9th
1999 - Gateshead & Wakefield - 6th & 11th (out of 14 teams)
2000 - N/A
2001 - N/A
2002 - Widnes - 7th (out of 12 teams)
2003 - Huddersfield - 10th
2004 - Salford - 9th
2005 - Leigh - 12th
2006 - Castleford & Catalans - 11th & 12th
2007 - Hull KR - 11th
2008 - Castleford - 12th
2009 - Salford & Celtic - 13th & 14th (out of 14 teams)
2012 - Widnes - 14th

Goes to show how the challenge of staying up has got harder and harder, with only Hull KR managing to avoid finishing bottom in the last 8 years.

Hull FC's most recent available figures are:
2009, profit of £77k
2010, profit of £29k
2011, loss of £250k

Pearson is on record as saying he anticipates a loss in the region of half a million for 2012 and that previous reported profits were not reflective of the clubs overall health.
Tbf, he's investing in infrastructure and presumably paying off the ebt tax bill he inherited.
Saints, with their incredible youth production pipeline and years of on field success lost £1.35m in their last season at Knowsley road and over 2 million as tenants at Widnes. It'll be interesting to see how they get on at Langtree, but losses are pretty much endemic at most SL clubs in a way that is self-fulfilling.

No, last time I posted the first two links, one for warrington, one for wigan, you then invented in your head that clubs only made profits in these years and no others, and then further extrapolated your nonsense to decide clubs only ever make profit when they win the challenge cup.

Id take anything Pearson says about the previous regime with a large pinch of Salt , he seems to have found a very convenient scape-goat. Hull FC posted 5 years of profit, in a row, lets not pretend they are struggling financially.

Sts do have some exceptional losses, but they also have a lot of money and a big shiny new asset worth millions and millions and have been quite public that these exceptional costs/losses were budgeted for, in line with budgeting and has given them a better platform and more comfortable operating balance sheet.

Widnes aren’t making huge losses. Bradford, the basket case, the example of all wrong with RL went bust with debts of only £600k. A club making huge losses every year goes bust with debts of more than £600k. Les Catalans don’t make huge losses. Salford want to spend more money.

I don’t know why the game does itself down so much, or why the fan-base is so ready to accept clubs playing the poor man.

True - but I'm equally sceptical about the spin of the Hetherington-Rule era. It suited them to report modest profits (big profits would risk looking like they were milking it), so they did. As a Rovers fan, talking down Hull FC's financial position would only send this thread one way, but I'm sure most of their fans are aware they face some challenges.



We can swap selected figures all day and argue about what is sustainable and what is subsidy - I'd have a different take on the Salford model, for example. The headline figure is that the 14 SL clubs lose about £8 million between them - some contributing nothing to that deficit, or even mitigate it, others more than their fair share. Wealthy benefactors at a number of clubs make this (and thus SL as a full-time comp, as we know it) possible, but also necessary. More income wouldn't even solve the issue as the big clubs would demand the cap rose. That is why SL is not 'sustainable' in a business sense. Franchising and P&R have very little to do with it, and we should choose between those two based primarily on what suits RL [uas a sport[/u.

People can argue all day about what is ‘profit’ some will count some things, some others. Its not really the point. Hull can’t on one side have claimed 5 years of consecutive profits, and play the poor man. Unless there was some severe financial irregularities, the very maximum we would be looking at is a difference between a small profit switching to a very small loss. Either way, Hull FC aren’t financially struggling.
If we remember that between them London (losses C£2m) Saints (losses over the past few years of between £1.3 and £2.5M) are contributing pretty much half of that. 12 clubs, losing £4m, that’s not bad. Its not terrible. It certainly isn’t panic-worthy. SL becomes sustainable by building the bottom clubs of SL up. They have decided to do the opposite and exacerbate the gaps between the big and small SL clubs.

Or if we bin off the profitable outliers at the other end of the spectrum...

But yeah, I agree - it is only panic worthy for individual clubs when the benefactor(s) they rely on are no longer willing or able to offer that subsidy. Well structured P&R would gives them somewhere to go, while those fortunate enough to come into money in the second tier could move up.
Realistically, even if building the smaller clubs up under licensing was a given, then once they became 'too competitive' the big clubs would likely push for a cap rise to butress their position at the top of the game. We could do with an evening out of strength, but short of mergers [ithat worked[/i or forcing every third person at the DW to move to the LSV or Stobart, it ain't going to happen - so it ain't going to happen.
The effects of licensing were always going to be subtle at best. Even simply pumping more cash in would oil the wheels a bit better rather than improving the 'sustainabilty' of SL - looking at the money that PL football sucks in and then pours out. Only by structuring ownership of clubs differently, as[i clubs[/i, could we become sustainable - and that locks out the 'investment' of benefacrors, making the game poorer.

Franchising would give them the exact same place to go.

That would be a good thing, it would be the bigger clubs dragging the lesser clubs up, a levelling up of standards without holding back the bigger clubs. This should have been what we were aiming for.

If we want SL to be sustainable then we need to treat SL as a whole. That would mean mergers, it would likely mean some clubs were locked out, it would likely mean expansion clubs. It would also mean drafts, it would mean clubs marketing together, it would mean more income distribution, it would mean central ticketing, sponsorship, merchandising. It would mean trying to make the best competition. It would mean the needs and wants of some sections being sacrificed for the greater good.

But that wont happen, we will just get regressive decisions like this, where short-term self-interest trumps all and the game will keep setting itself back. When people ask why the game isn’t growing, why it struggles for visibility, why its under-valued and under-sells itself. Its because it does things like this, taking decisions which take the game back to 2000, when in 2000 we were taking the game back itself. Only RL would try and sell going back to what we were doing 5 years ago as innovative.

If you were starting from scratch and designing a new sport rationally, then I agree with much of that. But much of our strength derives from our accumulated history and people identifying with their club. For better or worse we've evolved to where we are and we have to deal with the situation we face rather than a virginal blank canvass.
[iSelf-[/iinterest might hold us back, but [idis[/iinterest is, literally, game over.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23319198Super League: London Broncos call for "fair" restructure[/url

Translation = Don't relegate us if/when we finish in the bottom two next season! Like I said earlier, who stays and who goes might not necessarily relate to league position

not sure if mentioned on here but I haven't read the other pages, if so I apologise


now that London will move to a stadium which is 5100 does this means that it doesn't matter what stadium you have? So a club like Dewsbury for example if they had a great season and won the grand final they would have to be allowed in? (If they wanted to go up of course)

Last cry for help from London to anyone who cares to listen IMO.

I think the fact Cas and Wakefield are in the Superleague already mean it doesn't matter what stadium you have.

Failing that, if Dewsbury just pretend they are building a new one it'll be fine too

Pretending seems to be a recurring theme among licensed SL clubs, doesn't it? Makes you wonder why GH at Leeds keeps pretending that Headingley is getting a new north stand... then pretending it's getting a new south stand... and then back to pretending it's getting a new north stand, provided enough mugs purchase a brick in the buy-a-brick scheme

Not really the same - It's an issue between the supporters who do said scheme and the club, but it's hardly something our franchise application hangs on. Luckily.

If finance and performance are part of the criteria, if we end up at the Hive, then we're done for.

Not all clubs pretended.

Broncos need a couple of miracles to help them survive and compete in SL.
1. BIG cash injection.
2. Operational rules change to allow more imports. This of course would be pointless without 1. happening.

IMO, neither will happen, so we're done.

Much harder since the 2 competitions started to run inline

I didnt decide anything, both claims of profit ( just the 2 ) just happened to coincide with successful Challenge Cup campaigns

Which might have an impact, yet I'd say the greater effect has been professionalism finally starting to bite. I was at a coaching workshop run by Barrie McDermott a few weeks ago and he said when he first started playing they (the players) were part-timers, by the time he'd finished playing they were full time professionals but now they're athletes.
I think the Championships could just about keep pace with full time professionals, but not with athletes. That's not necessarily a criticism of the Championship clubs, it's just how it is.

For instance at Leeds the backroom staff has expanded dramatically in both size and expertise. It's more than doubled in size in 5 years and expertise-wise is now at the point where the u18's strength & conditioning coach holds both an MSc in Sport & Exercise Science and a PhD in Fluid and Electrolyte Balance in Rugby Players. This is a far cry from the days of Mal Reilly as Assistant coach, only 10 years ago, simply telling players to run harder.

The game has moved beyond the current reach of many clubs, we need to find a way of helping them get back within reach again.

If the recession and financial crisis had not hit, I suspect at least one of those would be complete and the other way down the planning stage if not both finished.

To call all super league players athletes is a mistake, some people call football players athletes. Now don't get me wrong the modern player is super fit strong and the best prepared they have ever been. Only a handful would be classed as athletes, probably a few more at the top clubs.

Oh and there is something to be said for telling players to run harder, see Sam thaiday, Barrie mac, willie mason. Mark o medley in his pomp.

I'm not sure why they wouldn't be classed as athletes, in the same way as footballers, tennis players etc are. They have their bodies at peak condition for their particular sport.

But the term was more to describe the differences in the preparation of a SL player now compared to 10 years ago compared to 10 years before that. As was the comment about telling players to run harder. There have been massive changes in this area and its an area that requires full time players, full time coaches and expertise. All those have high costs attached to them, costs the Championship clubs can't afford currently.