Before you anti-Australian/NRL start bashing me up, please read the article in full and note this particular statement from UK born Dave Smith. Super League needs to serious start embracing the business model the NRL has to take this game forward. Obviously it will require tweaks and adjustments to suit the British sporting culture of SL.

"It doesn't make good business sense to be so dependent on one thing - we need to de-risk the game from the five-year media rights cycle,''

Meaning: the game needs to STOP relying on television income alone! SL needs a Dave Smith ASAP!

Maybe it is time for an RFL Commission to be appointed to run the game and not the clubs any longer? Maybe it's time for certain things to be more centralised like merchandising and media?

Some useful stats the RFL can only dream of right now, however this could change.

KEY STATS

Participation: Record 171,071 registrations in weekend club rugby league

Mini footballer registrations: 42,019, up 5.6% since 2012

NRL digital network: 3.1 million unique browsers per month, up 41% since 2012

Social media: 4.7 million followers on Twitter and Facebook, up 30% since March

Crowds: 15,900 per game; down 2.9% since 2012

TV ratings

The NRL is up against AFL and both control NSW and Victoria respectively. The RFL plays 2nd fiddle EVERYWHERE to soccer and still trails the other rugby code in respect of crowds and media attention......before world domination I suspect paying the bills at Bradford and cutting the top tier to 12 or even 10 self sufficient clubs would be more important than pretending that RL will ever be as popular in England as it is in Sydney

The weird thing is that SL on fta in UK would get bigger ratings, sadly fta in UK won't spend big bucks on sport like the TV channels in Oz will do.

Also NRL doesn't have the equivalent of soccer to compete with. In the two states were it is popular the other codes are not any sort of competition.

Re participation numbers does the rfl release these? How many registered players are there in UK? How many jnrs playing the game?

Finally RL doesn't have the class based system to deal with in Oz or the north/south divide and biased media.

No doubt the game can be better run in UK but pointless comparing the sport in different countries as the variables are huge.

The biggest problem with League in Australia was that hundreds of empire builders had found ways to dress in a suit and attend meetings where they spent years arguing over whether to crack their eggs at the pointy end or the blunt end. These guys not only kept the game from acting in a united way, they also all drew big wages that sucked a heap of money out of the game for little or no return.

The Rugby League Commission is an idea borrowed from the very successful AFL Commission, and it basically means 6 or 7 separate organisations that all drew huge wages for their office holders and all basically spent their time fighting each other for funds to pay themselves with have been replaced with a single body whose job it is to move the code forward in the most efficient way.

In short, the benefit comes from sacking a lot of old guys who basically spent their days finding ways to get their snouts into the trough, and replacing them with a much smaller number of well paid professional administrators with a specific job to do.

In SL that would require the club chairmen giving up control. Which is always the sticking point. They have the power and there is little to no reason for them to vote to give it up. It's how it was set up over here that the clubs were gifted the power and the money. So no one looks to the long term good, just the next battle.

If someone came in and started barking orders the clubs would just ignore them, hence the situation we now have where the RFL make recommendations which the clubs vote on and then the RFL has the last say if there is deal lock. The only way the break this is for the RFL or some other body to fill the clubs with enough gold to give up their power. Also going back to the OP. SL does not rely on TV income alone, in fact far from it. The clubs major income is from ticket sales. With an average crowd of 10,000 any club over this gets £2.6 million roughly from ticket sales. Even at an average of 5k crowds you still get more from ticket sales than SKY.

The reason SKY gets so much control is because it's something that is seen as free money. ie money for nothing. Where as to grow crowds and merchandise takes effort. Also the margins are so thin in pro RL in the UK that without this money nearly all clubs would go bust. 2-3 would survive.

FTA would be a possible solution but the loss in income from TV would need to be matched for the clubs to jump for it. That's assuming you can get someone from FTA to bid for it. We all know what giving something for free does to the value of something. (Stobart)

The good news about Dave Smith, with his non-Rugby League background, is that he already seems to have identified that there is a lot of money to be made from the International aspects of the game. He has already stated we need to get more games played and improve the standard of the second tier nations.
I expect a lot more effort will be put into the next WC to make teams more competitive with the big 3 - which will mean bigger TV deals and more sponsorship dollars - basically we will spend more to make more - which might not mean a bigger profit in the next WC - but it means the concept will grow.
At the moment we put peanuts into the WC and get peanuts in return, while Rugby Union seem to put in hundreds of millions and get the same sort of return.
We need to get us some of that, and everything Smith has said about the international aspects of the code indicates that he sees that very clearly.

The biggest challenge for RL in this country is for the clubs to relinquish control to a neutral body.

Ego's, my club, my club, will continue to make this nigh impossible with clubs thinking that next season is long term investment.

At the risk of sounding like a record with a scratch, the WHOLE game in this country needs reorganising to bring it to the fore and competitive long term with the southern hemisphere. It will be painful, it will involve hard work, some noses will be put out of joint but if all those involved WANT it to succeed then it can. It need dedication, whole hearted involvement and some sacred cows to be sacrificed.

They did it in Australia, and currently have minimal consistent international opposition, but what were the "easy beats" Kiwis are making better strides than here and both have lower populations to work with.

The clubs still have the strange notion that signing overseas players is a better deal than developing their own players. Clubs seem to think that is the way to go. The excuse being that it improves the "quality" of the game and the clubs benefit.
This has been stated since 1982 and since then England/GB have won SOD ALL and with the current set up are likely to continue in the same vein for years to come unless change is made.

We have just had a successful World Cup, the consensus being that we can take that success forward. It ended in November, the new seasons start in February and all the news is of financially stricken clubs, overseas signing of players no one knows and nothing about the future, how good the game is, absolutely next to nothing.

As you sow so shall you reap. The game since then has sown on stony ground or not bothered to sow at all. It looks like another meagre harvest so people will go elsewhere for their needs.

But how do you take power from the clubs? At the moment the clubs are after more power not less? They have the power and I people rarely give up power. Even less likely for 12 clubs to give up power all at once.

It's a catch 22.

Once the clubs have all the power they then can't agree amongst themselves!

Quote ="Worzel"Before you anti-Australian/NRL start bashing me up, please read the article in full and note this particular statement from UK born Dave Smith. Super League needs to serious start embracing the business model the NRL has to take this game forward. Obviously it will require tweaks and adjustments to suit the British sporting culture of SL. "It doesn't make good business sense to be so dependent on one thing - we need to de-risk the game from the five-year media rights cycle,'' Meaning: the game needs to STOP relying on television income alone! SL needs a Dave Smith ASAP! Maybe it is time for an RFL Commission to be appointed to run the game and not the clubs any longer? Maybe it's time for certain things to be more centralised like merchandising and media? Some useful stats the RFL can only dream of right now, however this could change. KEY STATS Participation: Record 171,071 registrations in weekend club rugby league Mini footballer registrations: 42,019, up 5.6% since 2012 NRL digital network: 3.1 million unique browsers per month, up 41% since 2012 Social media: 4.7 million followers on Twitter and Facebook, up 30% since March Crowds: 15,900 per game; down 2.9% since 2012 TV ratings: 870,000 per FTA game; down 3.8% since 2012 [url www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6789889864[/url'" The NRL has 143,423 followers on Twitter and 624,803 'likes' on Facebook. Not sure where you're/they're pulling those figures from. I'm guessing it's a collective rugby league total, but that's extremely ambiguous. Sonny Bill Williams has 336,398 on his own... Agreed on most things. Especially the need for a neutral body made up of business people. Letting the clubs vote on the title sponsor is a joke. That's the governing bodies job, to make decisions for the good of the game, not for a clique of needy clubs.

Quote ="Worzel"Before you anti-Australian/NRL start bashing me up, please read the article in full and note this particular statement from UK born Dave Smith. Super League needs to serious start embracing the business model the NRL has to take this game forward. Obviously it will require tweaks and adjustments to suit the British sporting culture of SL. "It doesn't make good business sense to be so dependent on one thing - we need to de-risk the game from the five-year media rights cycle,'' Meaning: the game needs to STOP relying on television income alone! SL needs a Dave Smith ASAP! Maybe it is time for an RFL Commission to be appointed to run the game and not the clubs any longer? Maybe it's time for certain things to be more centralised like merchandising and media? Some useful stats the RFL can only dream of right now, however this could change. KEY STATS Participation: Record 171,071 registrations in weekend club rugby league Mini footballer registrations: 42,019, up 5.6% since 2012 NRL digital network: 3.1 million unique browsers per month, up 41% since 2012 Social media: 4.7 million followers on Twitter and Facebook, up 30% since March Crowds: 15,900 per game; down 2.9% since 2012 TV ratings: 870,000 per FTA game; down 3.8% since 2012 [url www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6789889864[/url'" The NRL has 143,423 followers on Twitter and 624,803 'likes' on Facebook. Not sure where you're/they're pulling those figures from. I'm guessing it's a collective rugby league total, but that's extremely ambiguous. Sonny Bill Williams has 336,398 on his own... Agreed on most things. Especially the need for a neutral body made up of business people. Letting the clubs vote on the title sponsor is a joke. That's the governing bodies job, to make decisions for the good of the game, not for a clique of needy clubs.

Getting the same tv deal would open up endless doors, we can never be a NRL though but can be so much better if we focus our product on the culture of our own shores and stop this licensing garbage

The RFL are the governing body not a commercial enterprise.
This is why many club chairmen are frustrated at the RFL trying to do what they have proved repeatedly that they can't do and that is run the whole game on a commercial basis.
SL needs to run its own commercial affairs, It needs its own Chairman, CEO and the power to raise its own funds from commercial sources.
It seems to me that they are trying to create a body like the "Barclays Premiership" in soccer and the same in Union. Not a breakaway but a body that can decide its own future and not have it imposed upon them by people who are incapable of running the whole of the game.

After the WC which was a great success, that's not due to those at the very top but their offshoot RLWC2013, we need to build on it very quickly. International Rugby can take us forward but it is now up to us to make the Four Nations comp here more competitive. That means improving the French team considerably.
There is only one way this can be done and that is by having another French team in SL, Toulouse.

Toulouse should be given notice they can be brought in from 2015 or 2016. SL should be the body to supervise this ensuring they have the commercial backing not just to survive but thrive in SL. Interesting note on their crowds was that when Catalans went there with an on the road game around 15k showed up to watch, and Toulouse weren't even playing.

IMO SL should be working to strengthen itself commercially and broaden its scope of clubs in the League. They should be working alongside the RFL to take the game forward both at club level and take the International game forward too.

I give you

Bradford Bulls
Castleford Tigers
Hull HR
Wakefield Trinity Wildcats
Salford Reds
Crusaders
Paris St Germaine
Sheffield Eagles
Huddersfield Giants
Hull FC
Gateshead

All SL clubs who could run the game financially better than the RFL. The same SL who dived up the cash they "stole" from the Bulls and still clubs could not make ends meet.

SL was initially run as a seperate organisation but soon found it couldn't cope and came back under the RFL umbrella.

That track record really shows me, and probably some others just how brilliant those that run SL clubs really are.

And after the FREE sponsor of SL, a year of no sponsor, this years is............................................................

I'll take your comments under advisement!

He has a point that lack of competence is not limited to the RFL.

Would the clubs give over any more power to the new SLE chairman than the RFL chairman. For me it's the set up of the clubs holding all the cards that is the biggest issue. It leaves no power for anyone else. Just advisory status.

Clubs need to be less reliant on the "Sky money". Total amateurs running clubs like Wildcats, Cas, Bulls, Broncos, and Widnes.

Why? I very much doubt there is any prof sporting club in the world that isn't 25-50% revenue reliant on media contracts. In NRL clubs would now be up around 30-40% of their revenue being from the NRL contract.

Explain how the people running Leeds,Saints,Wigan,Giants,Salford,Warrington,Hull are any different?

Not as reliant on TV income. Simple.

It's not easy, but the only hope for progress is to convince the clubs that they're giving up power to something that will ultimately serve their interests well. It's all very well to castigate chairmen for being too interested in control, but would any chairman in their right mind hand over control to Nigel Wood and that lot? If that was the only option on the table I'd be horrified if they gave up the control they have.

I happen to believe that most chairpeople aren't idiots. They've mostly all managed to acheive something in business life, so at least have half a clue how the world works. Most, I believe, could be convinced of the value of a powerful unified governing body if it was run by very good people and had enough checks and balances (without becoming a giant committee of course).

In practise, whilst hardly the impartial way to do it, such a body will have to be the creation of the chairman themselves if it's going to happen - people are more inclined to hand over power to something they think they created.

How and why?

Yep.

Even Leeds would struggle to be competitive without the £1.2m/£1.4m (whatever the figure is) TV money. In the same way Man Utd would without their TV money.

Being reliant on TV money isn't the problem. Lack of other income is.

The SL clubs need more money to run full time squads so they can fulfil their obligations to SKY for the TV deal.
SKY pay around £26m, the SL clubs get £17m and the Champ clubs £1.7m.
Figures from a reliable source.
This means the RFL are keeping £7.3m for "admin" purposes. This leaves the SL clubs with less than 2/3rds of the SKY money. That plainly is not enough and it this shortage that is causing the problems as much as anything else.

The RFL need to cut their costs to ensure the SKY money goes to what SKY are paying for - Super League. A further £250k to each SL club from the RFL would I'm pretty sure prevent most of the financial problems clubs are having.
I would far rather the costs of "admin" be cut than us lose clubs, players and things like U21 leagues. All lost due to a lack of funds which it appears SKY are providing but are being witheld by the RFL.

The power is not with the clubs but the RFL. The RFL Chairman and CEO are also the Chairman and CEO of SL. That needs to be changed and improved.
SL need their own Chairman/CEO and the freedom to negotiate their own commercial deals. Something the RFL have self evidently failed to do.

For some time on here there has been a theme that the game is leaderless and lacking direction. A SL in partnership would give the RFL time to deal with the International Game, Challenge Cup and basic admin of the game.
The RFL is costing far too much and denying SL clubs monies that would prevent those in financial difficulties from having such money problems.

As would other clubs without the generosity of their owners.

Are those clubs run like a business or purely reliant on owners cash?

So easy to ridicule those clubs; particularly as a team like Cas has always run a budget of making ends meet and always paid its bills on time to creditors.

Just because we don't satisfy your criteria of HAVING to spend the salary cap, we must be run badly. I don't get this fascination with HAVING to spend money. I believe that all Super League clubs should be encouraged to spend less than the salary cap whilst being successful and maximising other incomes. As a proper business should be. You will also know that the RFL have also asked other clubs to see the way Cas are operating and have been doing over the past 18 months as a model forward for other clubs. Hardly the poor club you intimate.

This is what worries me regarding Koukash trying to increase the salary cap. What it will lead to is financial warfare between clubs, creating a more divisive sport and an elite of 3/4. On the opposite side, whilst it may drive more income into the sport, it will also increase the propensity to which more overseas players come in and take the spots of English players (let's face it, the quota will be next after the salary cap), thereby damaging the production line of players. Not only that, you end up with some distinctly average players demanding more money from clubs.

On another side, rugby league has always been a community-based and interactive sport between sponsors, players, officials and fans. Will we have an elitist attitude in rugby league if the salary cap is increased?

Sorry, but it's not for me. I believe in slight increases to the salary cap but I also believe in maintaining rugby league as a sport for all, whilst also maximising the chance for young English players to go on and take themselves to the top.

Similarly, I don't believe in this whole furore about five or six players going to the NRL. It is beneficial for English rugby league in the sense that the more English players going into their system, the better coaching they will get, better facilities and also it will play a part in weakening the pool of Aussie players should they progress. It gives us a realistic chance of putting a dent in the Aussie production line to the benefit of English players.

Father Ted - what's your reliable source for those figures?

According to the Watkins Review the latest TV deal, for the 5 years 2012-2016, amounted to £135m or £27m per year. But that isn't just Sky and not just for Super League. That's for everything minus the internationals. So Super League, Challenge Cup, World Club Challenge, Championships & Northern Rail Cup and from Sky, BBC and Premier Sports.

The RFL receive 1/16th of the Super League TV deal. Which makes only a contribution toward RFL costs of running the game, it doesn't cover it.

The RFL keep Challenge Cup, Championships & Northern Rail Cup broadcast money plus obviously Internationals.

Apart from the 1/16th RFL share, a 1/16th share given to the Championships, and £2m split between SL and Championship clubs, SLE keep the SL TV money. Plus revenue from the playoffs, title sponsorship and any other commercial deals for SL.

According to the Watkins Review, SLE income is roughly around £24m per year.
The RFL receives and distributes the Championships shares of the TV deal.

Again looking at the Watkins Review, it appears the Super League portion of the TV deal in 2012 is about £22.5m. Which would seem to be about what SLE would receive from the total TV deal if in 2012 there was no title sponsor and their total income was around £24m.

I think the SL clubs are doing fine from their TV deal. What we need is the deal to be bigger, a title sponsor and clubs to get off their backsides and find some revenue themselves. But the proportions of the TV deal received by the SL clubs is fine.

It's HOW they are being run.

Yes, and the question at the top of my post still stands. How do you know that they are being run - in your words - 'badly'? What is the definition of bad?

Let's take the example of Cas again, never been in admin, pays creditors first and has average losses that are less than some of the top clubs - oh, and has managed to turn a profit at least once in the last decade.

Just because we don't or can't spend the salary cap, doesn't mean that we are being run badly nor do you have any evidence to substantiate that really. I have no doubt that we could be run better - and those steps are being taken and are coming into fruition now. But that doesn't mean we've been run poorly in the past.

After all, the general consensus on here seems to be that the whole game could be run better........

But your point about being reliant on Sky money is flawed when the majority of clubs in Super League - Huddersfield as an example, Salford another, Hull KR in the past another - are reliant on benefactors putting in cash. By your post, the whole of Super League is run badly because they are reliant on one income source and are not self-funding, self-sustainable entities.