there is enough money, you just have to cut back on what you spend.

I know it would mean the sport regressing to some degree but if a club can generate £3M to £4M then they could still operate to a good standard.

At present we have clubs spending more than the business model suggests they should and that's fine as long as nothing goes wrong.

What would happen to the Giants if Ken Davey pulled out tomorrow or Salford if John Wilkinson pulled out there.

Understood. And when you think that Hudds and Quins each lost well over £1m, and all bar Hull FC lost money (Leeds was unusual and they can stand it, and Bulls was effectively break-even after several years of profit so you can exclude them both too), then you can see that even WITH the TV money the game is - as Peter Hood said last year - "built on foundations of sand". Scary.

You're right, but the problem then comes that we either cut down on squad sizes, which obviously means less strength in depth or we reduce the wages of all players and accept the fact that more top players will go to Union.
In my opinion we need to develop and expand the sport into new areas and try and eventually get all clubs to an average crowd of around 9 or 10,000. Only at that level (in my opinion) will a club really be consistently competitive.

i think Wakey forgot about that last year

If I'm being really honest, I couldn't be @rsed to work out the tax and NIC




Yep absolutely, the TV money is vital.

How many clubs are generating £3m before TV money, let alone £4m?

Sorry, but I totally disagree. It is NOT about costs - clubs like Bulls (who still have one of the highest turnovers in the game) have cut back spending to the absolute minimum, because they have had to to avoid losses with no sugar daddy to bankroll them.

Its all about income - or lack of.

Where would your or any other club cut back if you suddenly lost £1.2m p.a TV money? AND in practice more, since your sponsorship money would likely plummet if the sponsors had no TV exposure, with I suggest at best questionable attendance increases.

Yep, Leeds have made redundancies this year.

We will never have all clubs reaching that attendance whilst the administrators of our great game keep changing the goalposts year after year, the sport now is pretty much a laughing stock. I for one will tyurn my back on the game if we don't get down to a period of settling down, we are on the 1st round of franchises and already talk of changing the league size again, how about giving the current format a chance 1st? The people that run our sport have no idea at all. Keep up with this and i along with many others no doubt will be lured back to puffball.

yeah lets drag SL down to wakeys level.

if you cant compete with the top SL clubs, give someone else a turn to do it.

im sure a few clubs outside SL will do better.

the people that run the sport decided to give wakey a franchise (based on a number of promises that were made).

the succesful heartland clubs can grow and prosper.

First of all, don't believe everything thats in the papers. It's amazing that the only time that talk about changing the size of the league has come out is in the off-season. I haven't seen or heard a direct or even in-direct quote from anyone in the RFL about anything to do with licences.

Having said that I wouldn't put anything past the RFL and wouldn't trust Nigel Wood as far as I could throw him. Which, lets face it, wouldn't be very far.

I don't believe everything but i could see the rfl doing it, there are a great many disgruntled fans watching our game, one wrong move from the RFL can see crowds drop by more.


DM when you start listening to reason and facts i will respond to you whilst you post utter drivel i will leave you alone.

From The Superleague Press Launch:


Nigel Wood said: "These are significant decisions which would not be made without detailed dialogue with all of the game's stakeholders.

"The important thing is 2010 is the year by which we begin to shape the competition for the 2012 television contract w[ihether it's the look of the competition in number of clubs[/i, or length of the season, or where the high spots are.

"All of these issues will begin to be worked through during the course of 2010 after consulting all the game's stakeholders. Everything is up for discussion."

moving back to 12 clubs would be a massive backward step. and relegating 3 SL clubs at once too much of a shock from which the game might not be able to handle

1 club at a time and give the other laggards a chance to sort themselves out

you see!

you can speak sense when you try hard

So in that case the first two clubs to go would be Quins and Crusaders. I base this on the criteria that they don't own their grounds, have the least support, produced the least number of players, one was saved from administration only when clubs such as Wakey voted to save them about 5 years ago etc etc. Kind of blows your expansion logic doesn't it.

NOTE: Crusaders and Quins fans don't bite my head off the above is not aimed at you!

I'm not suggesting that we don't have a TV contract or the money that comes from it, what I'm saying is that clubs should not exist based largely on the money they receive from a TV contract.

Clubs should have a business model which allows them to function and prosper without being overly reliant upon TV income or the philanthropic nature of a wealthy supporter. Under those circumstances if the worst that were to happen and no TV deal could be agreed or their sugar daddy were to pull out they would still survive almost entirely intact.

Once again I'm not suggesting that clubs shouldn't utilise the TV money or a benefactor's money only that they shouldn't hock the family silver and put the whole existence of the club at risk on the basis of a wing and a prayer.

There are plenty of examples, especially in football at the moment, where wealthy backers have not been what they were supposed to be or have chosen to pull out, leaving the club in dire straits. Rugby league would not be immune from this sort of jeopardy.

Fair enough. Hopefully it may just be a warning shot to some clubs rather than a serious proposal, but if it's not then it would just prove what I already suspect of Nigel Wood's "leadership" as Chief Exec.

Quins have produced plenty of players, they have as many academy products in their squad and fewer overseas players than Wakefield

Crusaders are yet to play a game at their new stadium, they have already sold their first match out, and they also own their stadium.

by all means show dally up for the idiot he is, but try and stick to the facts rather than just making things up

28 January 2010 will go down in the record books as a momentous day in history.

Dally has not only made 1 sensible point - he's made 2...

and in the same post as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wonders will never cease

I think he opted for the lobotomy.

On a similar note, won't Quins have something like 3 Antipodeans compared to Wakey's 8 or 9 on Saturday?

Correct...Dorn and Temata are both injured so we will only have the option for 3 Anzac players Chad Randall, Luke Williamson and David Howell.
As has been done to death everywhere else on these boards, the Quota system is designed to get young UK players playing at the top level with an aim to get a better standard of England/GB team to take on the Aussies/Kiwis....Quins would seem to have taken the quota system to heart and are an example of what can be achieved if you try. That said, I expect the SL trophy to be held aloft by the captain of a team with 7+ overseas imports whilst Quins will struggle........but in the long run I believe this will change. An example of the system working (kind of) is young Ben Jones Bishop getting first team footie at Quins this year whilst Leeds continue to field Webb.....in the hope that when Webb leaves, they may have a pretty good replacement ready to step in......

Back on thread, I am very happy for Wakey that they seem to have got past this issue and can look to the future with more confidence........good for the fans, good for the game in general.

Quote ="dally messenger"you dont see Hull KR being hit with a winding up order unlike wakey were guess why that is ?'" www.independent.co.uk/sport/hull ... 82100.html

Quote ="dally messenger"you dont see Hull KR being hit with a winding up order unlike wakey were guess why that is ?'" www.independent.co.uk/sport/hull ... 82100.html

Quote ="dally messenger"you dont see Hull KR being hit with a winding up order unlike wakey were guess why that is ?'" www.sporthull.co.uk/hullcity/HUL ... ticle.html

Quote ="dally messenger"you dont see Hull KR being hit with a winding up order unlike wakey were guess why that is ?'" www.sporthull.co.uk/hullcity/HUL ... ticle.html