I try not to think it but sometimes it does feel like a conspiricy.

A fair comparison would be to compare the level of monies put into the sport ie tv revenues, sponsorship etc against the debt.

Did I miss the announcement that the BBC is now the RFL's PR agency?

The BBC, as a source of journalism, is doing it's job. This is clearly a topic that will raise interest and the BBC is right to ask questions about the running of organisations that are key parts of their communities. If the SL clubs don't want bad PR, don't give journalists the ammunition to fire at you.

As for the timing, of course they're going to time their content for maximum effect - they're not going to go to that time and expense only to air it at 2am in mid December.

And those who say that the Beeb wouldn't do this for football clearly don't remember the Panorama programme broadcast just before the World Cup bid delegation flew out to Switzerland.

Fair points. I totally understand why the Beeb are doing it and when, my point is that it's a non-story when compared to other sports debts.

Sounds rubbish to me. My team is around 2.2 mill in directors debts, that would suggest the other 9 clubs are sharing around 66mill, bullox I say.

Disagree.

I'll grant you, the numbers in football are much more noteworthy but so is, in many cases, the ability of those clubs to service them.

Manchester United seem to have little trouble servicing a debt of £515m yet Bradford Bulls made national headlines by going into administration with a debt of £1.5m.

It'll be interesting to see if this programme shows which clubs are most in debt but more importantly, as bramleyrhino points out, if the clubs in debt can service that debt or are struggling with it.
For instance Leeds will probably have to incur some kind of debt to build a new South Stand, yet no-one would describe Leeds as a club in financial trouble.

Is 3 million per club really that bad? (quoted in the article) but even if you straight average it, its just shy of 5 million each.
any club bringing in 10000 average gate should really have over that in income every year anyway, so its more than servicable for most, but some of the clubs with smaller incomes will struggle.

What could saints debts be with the cost of building the stadium plus general running costs?

Have clubs taken on extra long term debt in order to build/improve stadia?

Cas Tigers are about 2.5 million in debt owned mainly to directors and mostly Jack Fulton the chief benefactor. This does'nt include 2012's accounts (which I'm expecting to be bad). If 3 clubs are well in the black presumably Wigan, Leeds and Warrington this leaves the other 11 with debt's averaging 6.2 million each. This cannot be right can it ?

And that's the problem. At a quick guess I'd say there's prob only Leeds, Wigan, Hull FC, Wire and Saints who get a 10,000 average. Plus it's the extras the really knock the income up. The corporates, the hospitality, the club sponsors, the merchandising and the non-matchday income. Which is something that a lot of clubs are appalling at bringing in.

most definately - a good example been Wakefield. Losses of 1.2 million for 2011 due mainly to ground improvements.

So not exactly the height of reckless spending then?

Issues I have with article is show us the details, show is how it compares to other sorts for fair comparison of the reality of prof sport and tell us which clubs are at risk due to their debts. But then easier to kick the game, add to the public perception of a failing code and sensationalise the real issues with words like abyss.

No - nothing reckless. The improvements had to be made to satisfy the RFL and the licence.

And Bradford, plus Cats are only a few hundred off.

Super League clubs are facing combined debts of £68.5m, a BBC Inside Out investigation alleges. Compared to the combined debt in Football of £2.4 BILLION, and with annual losses of £130m in the Football championships, £68.5 million is a drop in the ocean. READ MORE ON THIS STORY....

Super League clubs are facing combined debts of £68.5m, a BBC Inside Out investigation alleges. Compared to the combined debt in Football of £2.4 BILLION, and with annual losses of £130m in the Football championships, £68.5 million is a drop in the ocean. READ MORE ON THIS STORY....

Which two sl clubs are charitable trusts ?

[url=http://loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_568-media-s-love-in-with-union-continues-as-bbc-sticks-the-boot-in.htmlOne journalist thinks that the media is once again having a 'love in' with rugby union[/url.



[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0113f7hLooks like he's forgot this BBC documentary which was favorable towards rugby league and not favorable towards football[/url. This documentary 'Lord Sugar Tackles Football' lasts an hour and was broadcast nationally. Meanwhile 'Inside Out' is on for half an hour and has squashed in one other topic along side our beloved rugby league.



Does the great British public only exist in the Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and the north west regions?

Wonderful [islight consultation[/i eh?



Rugby League does get a very fair crack of the whip. This is very bad journalism from you!

In all honesty in the cold light of day other than RL fans (who on the whole love to knock the sport and not build it up) who the hell will take the slightest bit of interest in this programme? It might be a tool for the Beeb to use in their next round of TV rights negotiations, but cant see many others being bothered.

Potential sponsors if they are affected will I am sure do their due dilligence and make their minds up accordingly.

I suspect that the levels of debts are affected by the sugar daddies at each club. Hull for example have made losses since the Heatheringtons departed the scene, but this will be written off over the long term. London are supported by a rich benefactor, who admittedly could walk away at a moments notice and leave them high and dry. Its a problem most sports clubs of any level have, yet it is one that always seems to be resolved.
Wire are used as an example, but lets face it that could be considered to be a house of cards as well. If Moran goes (no sign of that happening I know) who will take the club on.

Lets all start building the game up and stop knocking it for the sake of knocking it. The RFL are announcing new partners at the moment and have a World Cup which should bring in some good publicity. (Though I fear another cock up there with the venues chosen for games) But thats for then not now in the build up to the start of a new season.

Game should grow a thicker skin. Fed up of people who see concerns or criticism as "running the game down". Call it that if you like, but if a player wasn't performing and got shouted at by his coach we wouldn't be happy if his response was to say "stop running me down, talk me up!".

The sport is massively underperforming, it's administrators are a bunch of clowns and the more people make this point the better as far as I'm concerned. Great sport, let down by incompetent leaders.

Without the beeb providing any detail on the breakdown the headline figure strikes me as somewhat tabloid journalism... The total figure feels wrong (almost 5m per club) so has surely been inflated by long term sustainable development debts such as those from building new stadiums. Also the total number includes at least a 20% fudge factor since it is based on the accounts of only 11 clubs.

I'd be interested to hear how they have justified the headline if anyone watches it (am down south and probably won't be bothered to be sucked in by their headline and seek it out on the iplayer)

I've already posted in the Wire forum as to why I think this is shoddy journalism.

However, I have a burning question that I hope someone can answer: two clubs apparently have significant debts, that mean that the others (nine clubs) have an average of £3m debt each. So nine clubs have £27m between them, meaning the other two have £41m?!?! Who are these clubs, are how are they structured to allow them to carry so much debt without folding??

Its just a cheap shot at RL, timed to impact on the start of the season.
As mentioned by another poster, you wont "rugger" mentioned in a bad light, not ever.
Is it the old school tie that prevents them getting a bad press or, the threat of the 6 nations being moved from the Beeb.