We've been through this before. Saints and Leeds suffered more than anyone through Covid for the simple fact that they were unable to use their stadiums for non matchday activities

We now have the deal with Liverpool which will help each year in terms of income all year round. We've already seen the state of the art pitch that they paid for. I'm pretty sure that at some point we will go back to holding concerts again to generate more income

McManus has categorically said that losses won't affect player investment and we will continue to spend full cap.

Wigan are in a very fortunate position with Danson but hardly self-sufficient. Similar to City in that regard, if he for any reason pulled out they would be as royally f****d as Saints and Leeds

I take no delight in seeing large losses for any RL club, I'm reading that the COVID loans make up a significant portion of these losses which are hopefully only temporary.

We've always suffered with a lower turnover compared to others due to loss of matchday revenue due to funds going to external organisations rather than our club.

It is comforting to read that turnover is expected to increase from £6.5m to £7.5m (although how much of that is cup winning success revenue and how much is fanzone & retail is unclear yet,).

Add Warrington to the list. A loss of 1.7m for them.

Can’t strip that back, it’s been a great investment!

I read that McManus said that the club would continue to fully utilise the salary cap that doesn’t mean the same as continue to invest fully in the playing squad. I am not saying he won’t though but I am interested where people think he is going to save £1m plus given that there has been no reference to increasing revenue. I know that Saints have already reduced their administrative team and, if the physiotherapists can do a better job, or the players get injured less often, they may save on surgical supplies, but I cannot see where the cuts will land to generate such savings. Further spending will be required on the ground, especially as the infrastructure ages. It all paints a difficult picture for our sport. By the way, Wigan are not exempt from any of this but plans are already in place to make cuts and increase revenue. The other advantage is that Mike Danson also has assets he can dispose of e.g. Orrell.

What did McManus have to say on BBC Radio? Have you any idea where the cuts will fall?

They were going to go electric but were banned by the National Grid for fears it would lead to power outages around the rest of the country

One thing I forgot to say Stu is that although EM stated that Saints would spend the full cap that doesn’t mean that they will pay salaries that massively exceed the marquee allowance (although I think they have done with Feldt) which could reduce the quality of non-federation players arriving at the club. Interesting times ahead.

I've listened to the full interview (14 mins) and he makes no reference to cuts.

Also how is fully utilising the salary cap not investing fully in the playing squad? He does mention on the interview that by not investing in the team creates a false economy as a poor product on the pitch results in less fans attending

Have some of their players been affected by the winter fuel allowance cut?

Which is why we continue to invest in youth evidenced by the Reserves GF win and the Academy coming top of the league for the 3rd successive year and a SF next week

We've never been rich but that hasn't stopped success. I doubt many clubs if any will be recruiting overseas players in their prime. That stopped a while ago

Interestingly he didn’t mention investment in the juniors but I take your point regarding that. No club invests in non-federation players in their prime, we simply can’t afford them, but Saints have thrown money at players who earned a fair wedge in the NRL prior to them signing e.g. Feldt and Mbye. My point was will Saints look to cut back even further?

Quote ="Stu M"I've listened to the full interview (14 mins) and he makes no reference to cuts. Also how is fully utilising the salary cap not investing fully in the playing squad? He does mention on the interview that by not investing in the team creates a false economy as a poor product on the pitch results in less fans attending'" He does here https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-leagu ... 8d91d1z22o It also depends what the definition of ‘playing squad’ is and the term fully utilising could mean spending £2.1m or spending for example £3m. For example he could spend £250k on Jack Welsby’s contract, which would only count as £50k on the cap, or choose to pay Welsby £150k and save £100k. I am not having a pop at Saints but I never accept anything that CEOs say at face value.

Quote ="Stu M"I've listened to the full interview (14 mins) and he makes no reference to cuts. Also how is fully utilising the salary cap not investing fully in the playing squad? He does mention on the interview that by not investing in the team creates a false economy as a poor product on the pitch results in less fans attending'" He does here https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-leagu ... 8d91d1z22o It also depends what the definition of ‘playing squad’ is and the term fully utilising could mean spending £2.1m or spending for example £3m. For example he could spend £250k on Jack Welsby’s contract, which would only count as £50k on the cap, or choose to pay Welsby £150k and save £100k. I am not having a pop at Saints but I never accept anything that CEOs say at face value.

Didn't Saints have a good deal with the NHS in that the stadium was used as a base for delivering covid jabs to the public. I realise that won't cover all the losses but it must have been a decent deal to help out in hard times.

We broke even as morally (and something I agree with) we didn’t want to be seen to be making money out of a national pandemic so we just covered our costs.

That's fair enough.

So no MPs or anybody from the House of Lords was involved then?

It wasn't point scoring. It was firmly tongue in cheek. Ours didn't make the headlines. I think the 2024 season might be the last as an entertaining spectacle. We (the game) are being ran into the ground by our paymasters (Sky) but the powers that be roll over and let it happen. We allow the games rules to be changed to a point where it doesn't look like RL anymore and we keep being fed 'Nobody would insure us' yet Boxing and basically street fighting (MMA) have no issues and are raking it in. Eddie Hearn wanted to come on board and he was quietly nudged away. he saw something that could grow and now we are stuck with what we have. ALL the clubs are losing money, next season they basically aren't allowed to tackle each other, the revenue is going down, crowds aren't improving and IMG are doing sod all either. We are reaching the end.

Lost me on that one?

Thats been scrapped hasn't it???

Sorry mate, many of those who sit in the two Houses made plenty of dosh from COVID.

Oh behave - They are in a cage, there are rules, gloves, weight classes, drug testing, athletic commissions.

Quote ="bazdev"Thats been scrapped hasn't it???'" Seems to be a maybe depending on how discussions go after the end of the season. This article is literally the only thing i could find on it which is odd. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/artic ... his%20year.

Quote ="bazdev"Thats been scrapped hasn't it???'" Seems to be a maybe depending on how discussions go after the end of the season. This article is literally the only thing i could find on it which is odd. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/artic ... his%20year.

Not what i would call gloves, kicks and knees to the head, beating your opponent to a pulp until they are knocked out and bleeding out everywhere. Some sport that. Regardless of what I think of it though. They aren't struggling to be insured and the competitiors of it will be fit for nothing in 20 years.

The main difference is that there has been no change of perception recently. Combat sports have always been subject to big insurance risks and disclaimers so boxing and mma aren't suddenly having to react to massive new bills. For rugby, while there has always been an argument of "they know the risks", the risks people mostly associated with it were to mobility, risks of breaks, hip replacements, knee replacements and so on. With a couple of big lawsuits there is a sudden new financial risk due to dementia, which means insurers that used to deal with the sport have run away and the ones that have stayed are raising premiums at a time when the sport has no money to cope with new expenses. The same is happening down under, but the NRL has the money to cope with some additional expense, and the profile to attract more insurers, so it doesn't have the same effect.

Long term I expect this to settle down a bit but, for now, it's a real challenge for the game over here.