TBF the point was raised that the problem that faces football is far worse than RL.
I thought the academic guy was more convincing than Blake Solly was.
I noticed this morning on skysports news - they were running a similar story (they quoted £68M) I think they were doing something in more depth later.
Either way as Cudgell and Hetherington said, its not good and most clubs need to get their houses in order, aided by the RFL who are partially to blame for the problem in the first place.
On a side note its a shame this guy wasn't used during the franchises he would clearly have spotted the problems at one or two clubs, although its hard to belive the other experts didn't and it was just hushed up!!!!

His numbers were totally lacking context or explanation; they've obviously trawled for an 'academic' who was prepared to back up the scaremongering nature of the report and Sheffield Hallam have come up with the just the man.

It was an all-round shoddy piece of 'journalism' from George and Co, cynically scheduled just a few days prior to the start of the season; poor form from a so-called RL fan.

Compared of course against the RFL whos context explanation and earth shattering honesty cannot be questioned - really? What kind of depth do you expect in a 8 minute piece?
Cynically scheduled or topical on a topical local news programme?
Either way he was telling us what we already kmow to be somewhere approaching the truth and baring in mind his argument was backed up by two SL chairmen, i know where my money is.
Who was backing Blake?
The sad news is that the game is in trouble and articles show that to all who are interested, i wonder if Woodsy et al were watching??

We don't know because the 'debt' wasn't explained. How much is loans from directors who never expect it paying back?

Another club will go into administration, that's undeniable, but that's because clubs spend money they don't have. How do you stop that?

It was a bit disappointing because as said above, they just gave us headlines without any detail.
They may as well have walked around with an "end of the world" board in the Cas market.

There is no doubt the game (or at least some clubs) is in financial difficulty but equally, so is the rest of Britain at the moment.
The debt figures quoted don't take into account the director loans and in any case, debt is not a bad thing while you have an income.
I am in debt to the bank for more than my income but equally I have an asset in my house I suppose.

If this were done on a team by team basis and with a view to deciding whether the club was financially stable they would assess income and crowd figures against debts that are owed excluding the "gift" loans from directors.

The one thing I did like on the programme was the smallest sound byte at the beginning that said clubs use the salary cap as a target rather than a management tool. This I do agree with.
I would happily raise the salary cap rather than reduce it, as long as the "live" salary cap rule and management against income was applied properly.

The salary cap stops clubs buying players that they cannot pay in theory.....but that is judged on a percentage of income. It doesn't take into consideration that there may be other expenses draining the cash away.

The programme also focussed on the clubs rather than RFL. As I understand it, the governing body is not in the same massive debt.

Poor management is unfortunately the cause of issues like Bradford (and Wakefield in the recent past) but if we make the league stronger as a whole, those bad managers will be weeded out and good clubs will come in. That, like it or not, is the whole point of franchise.

That's the point isn't it. The Salary Cap should not be there for clubs to spend money they don't have to try and reach it.
If clubs were more prudent and actually set themselves a realistic limit as to what they could afford to spend on salaries, rather than just seeing the top line and thinking "we can spend £1.65M on salaries", then the game would be in a healthier state.

There needs to be some structure in place to allow the less rich clubs to retain their junior players without them being poached by those who can spend the full cap, then teams could be more realistic with the amount they can afford to spend.


As much as I would love Wakey to spend the full salary cap and bring in some real top quality players, I don't want that to be at the expense of bankrupting the club. At least Andrew Glover has set these limits and if our income doesn't rise to meet expectations I hope that he will reduce those targets accordingly. Better to build slowly and have a team in 5 years than to go for it with money you don't have and lose the lot.

Absolutely agree

I think the problem with the salary cap is that poorer clubs feel obliged to try and spend as near to the cap as they can so that they can get browny point ticks on the franchise bandwagon and ensure their future in sooperdooper league. The bigger clubs get frustrated and would like to spend more on players but are being held back by the small clubs.

It's often a bit of a gamble on projected success and crowd figures, so somewhat dangerous. I think Salford were anticipating much higher attendance at their new ground. It's tempting to spend a little more than you can really afford in the hope that it will buy you success and get you away from the bottom of the table poverty trap, but someone has to finish bottom each year.

To some extent it's stopped the boom and bust of P&R, but it's not promoted growth as much as was hoped.

Hopefully, AG is still looking longer term and at the bigger picture.

When I watch a piece of 'investigative' journalism, I expect to see some facts and for some actual 'investigation' to have taken place; I saw very little of either.

For example, 12 of the 14 clubs were reported to be in the red to the tune of £68million - how much of that is down to director's loans, which are an entirely legitimate form of 'debt' that will never be called in and may well be on the books to help the tax position of both the lender and the loanee? Equally, how much of that £68million is accounted for by those clubs who have delivered new stadia, putting them in a position of debt, but with a rather tasty assett against which that debt can be offset?

The 'academic' from Sheffield Hallam did a crude and amateur job of 'analysing' the finances of SL clubs - essentially by adding up some numbers from the public accounts; some posters on RL fans have done a much better job over the years.

There is certainly cause for concern in the way that some clubs have been run, but hardly the 'abyss' that the acedemic reluctantly referred to; a much more appropriate piece would have been the important role that RL clubs play in WY communities, the struggles they face in straightened economic times and the economic and wellbeing benefits their continued existence brings to the areas in which they operate. That would have been a good springboard for the new season, but it wouldn't have been very sexy.

I agree with the depth of investigation on view, I would assume that as an academic he would have something more substantial than you claim to back up his report, although how much of that would have been viewable and practice to shoe horn into such a small piece I'm not so sure.
There has been enough evidence of crisis in the last couple of years and perhaps more difficulty ahead for some clubs to add more weight to his argument than to support the RFLs though I would argue.
Hetherington and Hudgell seem level headed enough folk to also add weight to his report.
One thing is for certain as you pointed out, that much of what was aired has been reported or rumoured on sites such as this over the last few years, his view is very similar to ones on here, what beggars belief in my opinion is that the RFL and their franchising experts aren't/weren't aware of such difficulties at clubs which further detracts from Blake Solly's comments.
When I see a piece of franchising, I expect to see some transparency and honesty otherwise I won't necessarily believe what they are saying or what they may say in the future.
I'm still with the prof on this one.