lol, Please please stop talking rubbish. Many of my friends are Leeds united ST holders, I worked in leeds for years. Absolutely none of them would blame being relegated for their current plight.

Basically your saying that Leeds although overspending by millions and having crippling debt shouldn't have been relegated. lol Overspending was Leeds problem, chasing the dream. They had to off load their best players they had overspent on. They eventually went in to administration in the championship but would have in the premier league anyway.

Leeds academy was destroyed because they couldn't afford it properly in the first place along massive wages they were paying certain average players

Leeds were badly managed, but I suppose just like Widnes you think over spending and then going into admin, putting lots of small business' at risk is ok.

had the premier league had a licensing system with no relegation Leeds would have been relying on prem handouts or booted out


ffs dont even try and say being relegated was the reason for Leeds downfall, try and look at the reasons they went from champ league semi finalists to prem bottom 3 in the first place.

Had the PL have a franchise system in place Leeds would have been able to offload their players for their true value instead of a fire sale which meant that many were unavoidably offloaded on the cheap, they would have had more income from TV, supporters and sponsors, they would have had guaranteed income and been able to restructure their debts and would have in fact paid off more of those debts to small businesses you so clearly want to see out of pocket.

There was no small business or supplier who got paid more because Leeds were relegated, all of them got less because of it, and the same goes for the multitude of other clubs who did the same.

Bad management was the cause of Leeds problems, those problems were massively exacerbated by relegation, only a moron could possibly think otherwise, especially when there are so many examples of clubs being relegated then going in to admin

they went into admin because they had no money they were in debt, smaller business wouldn't have got a larger cut of feck all if they were in the prem.

Rio Ferdinand didn't go to Man united on the cheap. Players didn't go on the cheap they went for less than the overpriced fees Leeds had paid for them while chasing the dream. Also letting some player go on the cheap was the only option because the players refused to move on and drop their wages. Leeds continued to pay part wages of some players they offloaded because they were on such ridiculous wages no other team would pay them the same.

Leeds united were paying more than half Jacob burns wages at Barnsley, Jacob Burns ffs lol

Franchise would not have stopped any of the above, Leeds never believed they would be relegated anyway

Leeds didn’t go in to administration in the premiership. The money owed would have had to be paid, so why wouldn’t it have been? BTW, you dont go into admin because you have debt, you go in to admin because you dont have the cash to service them.


And they had to do those things because their income was dropping because they were going to be relegated. All debts could and would be restructured around guaranteed income. Those debts would have been paid off had leeds had the guaranteed income to pay them. Relegation and the uncertainty of it caused the cashflow issues, which caused the firesale.

Now it may be convenient here for you to pretend Leeds didnt sell players on the cheap, history shows you are wrong, they sold Woodgate for £8m, less than a year later he was sold for £14m, Paul Robinson went as an England international for £1.5m, 4 years later after a drastic slip in form, he was sold for £3.5m, Robbie Keane went for £7m, Was sold for £20m, Liverpool agreed a £9m fee for Bowyer, he ended up going on a free transfer, Milner cost Leeds nothing, went for £5m, was sold for £12m, Aaron Lennon went for just £1m,

It is nigh on the most idiotic thing i have seen yet on these boards, and this is a board Starbug, Gutterfax and William Eve post on, to argue that the huge loss of revenue caused by relegation was not a major contributing factor in Leeds financial issues.

Leave me out of your almighty thread drift.......

I never said they were small or struggling, I said they were no great shakes, they weren't great at that time. You said I had been misleading to say they were not contending at the top end during that period. They were not competing at the top end with the exception of one season. They were then as Wigan were between 2004 and 2009 a middling team in the top flight. We tended to make a late run each year at that time to make our season look better than it really was. During those years our crowds were suffering but actually went up when we were fighting the drop in 2006 and have tended to increase since then (success helps). We were in a period much like the Bulls are now where we had been and still were trying to spend money we didn't really have to buy back former success. We will probably never know whether we were in quite as bad a state financially as the Bulls are now (we had certainly been in a bad state when we sold CP a few years previously). Under new ownership (Lenegan) we stabilised and have so far prospered. Hopefully the Bulls will be able to do the same.



But Huddersfield's attendances are going up and Bradford's are going down. As I said in a reply to another poster it is not an overnight phenomenon and to have a lasting and major effect on Bradford's crowds they would probably have to suffer a long period of decline probably outside the top flight with other local clubs enjoying much more success when compared with the Bulls. Leeds have probably had more of an effect than Huddersfield to date. It is not the hardcore that defect but those potential or future fans who would have chosen a successful Bulls when looking at who to support but would not select a moribund one over a local rival that is performing better at that time. It is their choices that shape on-going support levels.



But how many people live in Arsenal? That is a club that has a massive following yet no-one if asked is likely to say they live in Arsenal. So why do they identify with the club, why do they follow it? Do all Man Utd fans live in Manchester? No, many like a lot of sports fans follow success and that is what initially attracts.

Swapping the histories of Hunslet and Leeds and whether that would reverse their crowds is always going to be the sort of thing people will debate over and there is no way to categorically prove or disprove it. Whether or not 17000 would be turning up at Hunslet games you may dispute but I doubt you will be able to convince many that 17000 would be turning up at Headingley for the visit of The All Golds or the Skolars in Championship 1.



In the global behemoth that is soccer that may be true but Wigan and St Helens aren't cities, the two most successful clubs in our sport are both town teams. There may be a tendency to think that to grow big you need to be in a city but that doesn't always ring true particularly not in our sport. There is no need for any team gaining promotion to SL to be in a city. A city club can just as easily be a basket case as a success, we seem to have two of those at present.

If Bradford or Catalans are relegated this season there are no Championships clubs replacing them anyway, so what are you blubbering on about?

I wonder how Leeds Tykes/Carnegie would have faired under a licensed rather than a P&R system.

In football the decline or even loss of 2 or 3 clubs doesn't actually matter that much.

But it is still misleading because the same is the case for every team.

Hudds arent getting anywhere near though. Now you can say that at some undefined time in the future Hudds might grow some more. That doesnt prove your point. It simply adds evidence it was incorrect by admitting there is no statistical correlation.

And to a point you are right, if you are the only club in your market you have a large potential market. But thats no argument to say that what Hudds gain is what Bradford lose, or that Bradford have taken halifax's market. There are some places which intrinsically have a higher potential.


Well Arsenal isnt a place so not many people do live in Arsenal. If they do avoid them



Man Utd's overseas success is buil massively on the work they did to build it. That investment was built on the fact they were a big club to start with, largely built on the fact they had a large catchement area. Where is the alternative? Where is the evidence of what you are arguing? A club which isnt built on the fact it has a huge catchement area that a city provides?


You would still get more than you would at Hunslet.
Both of those are in a major urban conurbation. Wigan is in the greater manchester area, and St Helens in the Liverpool conurbation. And they are only big compared to small town clubs. Leeds commercially are far superior to both clubs. Part of that is that they have some fantastically skilled people who work hard and achieve success, but part of it is also that they are a big city, with a big catchement area, where big companies can advertise to large numbers of people.

It is only in the context that most of our clubs are pretty parochial, in pretty small towns, that St's and Wigan are big clubs, and to do that they still need to rely on the fact they are in much larger conurbations.

Any club can just as easily be a basket case as a success, in our game, at their own time, most clubs have been both. But to grow big, you do need be in a big city, because they game should constantly be growing. It isnt about today or tomorrow but 5-10-15-20 years time.

if the game is run well, and becomes a success, and we start adding 10% crowd growth a year, then in 5 years Wigan and Leeds are getting 20k+ crowds, Saints, Wire, Hull are knocking on the door, in 10 years we are looking at 30k+ crowds at those places. Thats 10% growth year on year, a tough target and one we probably wont meet but not beyond the realms of possibilty. There is simply no way these small towns compete with that. Not even close. There simply isnt 30k people in featherstone, never mind 30k fans for them to go at, there probably isnt 8k, or 10k for them. If RL is to be successful and sustainable it will be based around City clubs, because thats where the money is and thats where the people are.

It was pretty obvious, ive said it a few times. losing Bradford and Catalans from SL would be bad for the game because it would result in a net loss in terms of fans and visibilty, in part because we dont have clubs capable of replacing that. Is that put simply enough for you old man?

Whether we have clubs to replace is irrelivant if they arent being replaced , you are aruing with yourself, and as regards your beloved Leeds United, it took them 40 odd years to win anything of note, they had a few years of success then struggled again to compete with real ' Big ' clubs, then managed to bancrupt themselves trying to compete, best place for them is the Championship, they have found their level

The title of this thread is mistaken. It wouldn't be a disaster for the RFL if this happened, but a disaster for us all, as RL fans. Recently we lost our only SL presence in Wales. If we lost our only SL presence in London and France as well, then we genuinely would be simply a shrinking M62 sport. No amount of going on about the amateur game, or the semi-pro competitions would disguise that. There'd be no defence against unenthusiastic editors or schedulers who dismiss RL as just a small-time regional game, and our detractors - of whom there are many and well-connected - would lay on the public agony.

In the short term, I think its very likely that London won't survive relegation. It's almost impossible to find investors for the top-level game, so the idea that someone will come along and sink hard-earned cash into a semi-pro outfit playing small-town teams is laughable. Hector McNeil at Skolars is a one-off. Moreover, I think people need to be aware of the likely outcome at amateur level in London and the SouthEast of the demise of the Broncos.

The game is currently in a worse state here than I can remember it. Long-established, previously secure, clubs like Souths and Wests have been forced to merge to survive. Other clubs have either disappeared altogether (Greenwich), or are purely transient. The kids' game is hanging on by its fingernails with the withdrawal of nearly all the development officer posts. It's not surprising, perhaps, that the fate of the whole pyramid here is tied closely to the fate of the Broncos. The amateur game was at its strongest, and growing fastest, when London were doing well. There has been stagnation while the Broncos stagnated, and now we're in decline.

I can dress things up as positively as the next person when faced with a journo, but amongst ourselves, it's important to acknowledge that we're in trouble here. I also imagine that the talent development programme which was actually beginning to bear fruit at Broncos despite the stagnation, is now effectively dead. When the Broncos go, a lot of the grassroots will shrivel and die. Many people won't, of course, give a stuff. But let's not pretend that somehow this is just business as usual, promotion and relegation and London can go down and build to return etc. If and when London go down, the whole game in the capital and southeast will suffer. The London SL franchise has never just been about the London club; it's always been about the whole sport in the southeast of England. That's what we'll lose.

As for Catalans, I'm much more confident that they'll somehow pull it together sufficiently to finish above London and A N Other club. But were they to go down, I do think it's very much a case of wishful thinking that they'd simply carry on in the championship as normal. I also think that some of those same championship chairmen currently demanding that two heads should roll, irrespective of who they are, would soon be going cap in hand to the RFL moaning about the costs of having to travel to the south of France once a year.

This is big stuff. There's only three states any sport can be in : growing, stagnating, and retreating. SL has seen some minor growth, and a fair bit of stagnation. But the demise of Catalans and London in SL, or their replacement with two more M62 clubs, would without question be a major retreat. Maybe the final defeat.

read back at the context it makes it pretty clear.

Regarding leeds the championship isn't their level, as is clear with anyone with half a brain. They may not be a Barcelona, but even in the championship they were comparable attendances to clubs like Swansea, QPR, Palace, Hull. If Leeds were to go up they would immediately be top 10 in attendances, they aren't far off that now.

What they don't have is someone bankrolling hundreds of millions in losses, football is a success in spite of P+R and most clubs are sitting on losses bigger than Rugby league as a whole. Despite incredible sums bein given to tfootball in this country, billions every single year, ther are sitting on a debt bubble which would make a tinpot dictatorship blush.

Btw I'm not sure where you got 40 years from, there was 17 years between Revies league title and Wilkinsons.

So which Championship Chairmen are now running the RFL and SL?

So its only about attendances? , no it isnt

It took Leeds 40 odd years to win anything of note, many of those years spent outside the top tier, they assembled 1 good team that were strong for a decade, then dropped again, 1 trophy after that, not much in the great scheme of things

IF franchising had been introduced at any given time in the last 120 years many ' Big ' clubs would have missed out, it doesnt work in british sport

I think that's possibly more due to the loss of Sport England funding. Development Officers have gone all across the country.
Unfortunately RL has been hit by a double whammy. The loss of Sport England funding and Council's cutting funding for everything but the bare essentials. A lot of development officers were funded by a combination of Sport England money (via the RFL) and local Council money.
The responsibility for development has passed from the RFL & Council's to clubs. Now, in an area like Leeds with a club willing and able to spend money on it, it's actually looking better than ever. But sadly it's not the case in every area and obviously those areas without a club are going to struggle.

Honest answer : Nigel Wood.

A good rule of thumb in politics to explain decisions is "follow the money". The equivalent in RL might be to discover "who benefits" ?

There's a good case to be made that the big policy changes proposed by Wood are likely to most benefit small-medium-sized clubs in the upper half of the championship. Funnily enough, That's Wood's background.

The mad thing about London is everybody virtually agrees what should have happened, so why didnt it?

You are being serious, his record at Fax was, well Outstanding

is the best way to describe it

it does not work for teams who are to small or lack the investment to make them work at a higher level, this new 8X8X8 is only in place to give the championship teams more cash so they will stop bleating about not been able to go up, widnes are the prime example on how it should be done our money is going into the youth another 3 years and we will be on par with most of the big boys but P&R might scupper that in 2 seasons what will the next thing be, the championship sides will shout its not fair we want the sl sides to play with 10 men to even out as they are stronger than us as they have their own gyms

Imagine the response from the clubs if after announcing that the new Super League would include London and Paris at the expense of teams who had actually won the right to be involved, that they added

"By the way...we're going to give these 2 teams 20 years exemption from relegation, 10 more foreigners on their allowance, a bigger salary cap ...oh and an extra £1,500,000 each a year too"

...not sure how many defibrillators there were in the pubs and clubs up north back then, but if it happened today, the national grid would fall over

Obviously its working well, last thursday you got around a 1,000 more fans watching your upwardly mobile club play a local club in SL than you were getting against us in virtually identical circumstances in the 2 nd tier, well done



So you think this new structure has been railroaded by the Championship clubs? , like some ' Jedi mind control ' ?

But it wouldnt have just been the ones who didnt get in though would it? , it would have been all including those that did, now its probably too late

<Bradford Bulls>You don't need to see our accounts.
These aren't the owners you're looking for. </Bradford Bulls>