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.

Most professional sports are (at least in the UK) at root, loss making exercises that end-up being underpinned by folks with a lot of money who love the game. Its been like that for the last 100 years, across all major sports. The more you try to make League purely self-sustaining, the more you'll fail. We need to get a grip on reality and accept that rich benefactors are good for us.

Reduce the number of teams in the competition has to be the first step.

Reduce salary cap to 1.2 million. Would solve the financial problems for most clubs overnight.

20 players avg 60k each, sorted.

and we'd have less games with less annual income.....

Ah yes, the "We are too big to fail" argument. How did that work out for Rangers?

You will have a club without a licence and without an application for one. If other clubs had to submit applications and be graded and checked to be in SL, why would a newco Bradford not have to do the same. Crusaders had to start over with their newco in CC!.

If they are admitted to SL without meeting the licencing criteria, those same criteria will have been proved to be meaningless. Other clubs wanting a SL licence who were knocked back or passed over for the newco may well sue. The London Welsh precedent will be cited. To whit, there are criteria you are setting to us Championship clubs which have not been applied to existing members of SL.

Any new Bradford need to be allowed back in at the lower level and work their way up and then apply for a SL licence at the licencing window like all others. Either that or re introduce p and r and let them play themselves back to SL.

Bradford have no " Divine Right" to a SL place unless and until thery fulfill the licencing criteria.

Hasn't a precedent already been set in such a situation with Wakefield though? If nobody appealed then that's basically an agreement that it is acceptable.

No. Wakefield were different. They submitted an application and were vetted and were accepted and issued a licence. That might have not stood if Crusaders did not withdraw their licence application but Wakefiled did actually apply for a licence.

Because the decisions are not left to disgruntled Keighley fans carrying Titanic-sized chips on their shoulders?