It's becoming quite clear in the modern game that we are living beyond our means. This is becoming quite pronounced, not just with the obvious problems Bradford have encountered but also with the fragile positions of just about the majority of clubs in the game. Whether you are losing money hand over fist or relying on some benevolent benefactor you are dicing with death. London are just one man away from oblivion, and other clubs are not as healthy as they would like to believe in that respect either. In this era of accounting transparency, there have been four clubs going into administration in the top flight already and other's wont be far behind. In this era of running the sport like a business, not one of the businesses is actually making a profit. Something has to change.

The thing is, I feel like this is needless. Why are we overspending on players? Why is this pursuit for top australians seen as a good thing? Why pay over the odds for stars who threaten us with trying their hand at the other code? They're not so strong themselves in many cases, there is not the money there to take everyone we have. We have the product here that means our game will be entertaining no matter what the level served to us. It's nice to have the top skill level but if you look back on old games during the part time era there wasn't much of a difference in quality. Certainly not entertainment value. I don't feel like if we dropped the cap and introduced even more stringent measures all of our players would leave. We have a marketable sport with or without Sam Tomkins, wonderful talent though he is.

All clubs in the top flight need and should be encouraged to have a conveyor belt of youngsters that replenish their talent. If needs be, have a youth quota in each team. If it's the same for everyone, it's an even playing field. No clubs just buying in and never developing or taking risks. The lower league clubs need to be supported in this by the sport itself in conjunction with the amateur game because they can't afford the alternative in most cases.

Self sustenance should be the key but we're nowhere near it and that's becoming a problem. Let's stop living beyond our means. I appreciate this means occasionally taking a hit when players leave but its a small price to pay when you compare it to the cost of losing clubs like Bradford for good.

Although most of this is true there is a point that need raising I feel.
Rugby League isn't alone in this regard you only have to look at the association game to see that.
As you say Union isn't any better.
I could continue but you get the point I would imagine.
It isn't even just in this country either, At some point sport stopped being just 'sport' and became something far darker IMHO.

Whilst I'd agree with your general point, I'm not so sure what the solutions are.

Cutting player wages will lead to more of our better players leaving for the NRL or Union. Also most of the players wages are accounted for by the TV deal, IIRC the clubs receive around £1.4m per year from the TV deal and the salary cap is £1.65m. A club only has to find £250k to pay its players. I would say that rather than costs being too high, that revenue is too low. Clubs are pretty poor (IMO) at creating/finding extra forms of income that aren't dependent on 13 home games per year.

At the moment there is probably only Wigan & Leeds who can live within their means at the level necessary. Also, as mentioned, this is a similar situation to most sporting clubs. I'm not sure but I doubt there are many Premier League or Union Premiership clubs making a profit either, and plenty are utterly reliant upon one rich benefactor. As cases such as Man City or Wasps show.

You're right in that self-sustaining clubs should be the ultimate aim, but it's one that only a few clubs could fulfill without going semi-pro IMO.

We already have a youth quota of sorts. Clubs have to have 8 (IIRC) club-trained players in their 25-man squad.

Oh and Leeds make a profit

There was an article a few months back in RLW stating that while everything in RL is not brilliant financially, we are in much less danger than certain football clubs outside the premiership. I can't remember the stats but the figures relating to Bristol City are alarming.

Bradford have laid off their coaching staff now. Perhaps a club disappearing would make them realise what they are doing to the sport.

FFS cut Super League to 10 teams, play fewer fixtures. It would make the league a higher standard and games more competive. Every game would be unpredictable and I'm sure Sky would buy into it.

If every team was A ok and not in debt what would we have to talk about on hear, think about it, it is not possible it would be great but not a chance of it hap ping in my lifetime

And the lost revenue will come from where?

Less games = less gate money, less sponsorship money (less exposure, less money they will be willing to give), Sky will reduce the money paid...or just cancel the contract full stop.

Unless of course you're being sarcastic as per



The problem is the game isn't popular enough to gain good enough sponsors to support a strong league.

Sporting clubs generally have a benefactor to cover shortfalls, how they cover the shortfalls is often the problem - the dreaded Directors Loan.
If these shortfalls are covered by the purchase of shares the club is protected from historic built up debt.
It would be nice to run all clubs at a small profit, but it will never happen.

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.