Hardaker was developed by Fev, he went to Leeds as the finished item. All he needed was full time fitness. He was supposed to spend a further season at Fev on loan, but because of injuries they recalled him. Leeds didn't need the security of licencing to "develop" him. Niether did they need it to develop Sinfield, McGuire, or Burrow in the P & R era.
The question we should be asking is if (for example) Fev had been playing in SL would Burrow & Briscoe have started their pro careers there instead of with a club from elsewhere? The lack of P &R is throttlng clubs in the lower leagues. Fev have dominated the Championship for the last two seasons but seem to have peaked. What happens if they can't keep it up until application time do they miss out? Probably. The whole thing is a bad joke dreamt up by someone who knew nothing of the game and TBH obvioulsy cared less since he's now off back to tennis.

Hardaker is FAR from the finished item.



No because the likes of Leeds & Hull would still be able to pay higher wages than Fev



The lack of P&R isn't throttling lower league clubs - the lower league clubs are what's throttling themselves, if they knew how to market themselves etc they could pull in crowds and make good money.

The fact of the matter is the majority of clubs in the lower leagues just aren't run well enough, have a good enough infrastructure or marketing to be a successful Super League club.

Franchising is the correct way to go - the RFL are just doing it wrong, what they're doing isn't franchising it's off-field bureaucracy P&R shrouded in secrecy and they know it's wrong because they bar teams from suing them over decisions they make during the process - if it was a more open process then they couldn't work it how they do.

Only 1 method of franchising works - the model the NRL and American sports use, you have your league set up and those teams are in the league for good (although conditions such as admin = automatically kicked out should be in place to promote the ideal of running a club properly and not spending beyond what you can afford to), then once the demand is there for more teams you add those teams.

With the above model you have a 20 team league split into 4 divisions of 5 teams.

Super League clubs are being funded by the money that Sky pay to televise their matches. If the Championships had an equivalent TV deal, they would get equivalent funding. The fact that they don't isn't an 'artificial' problem, it's completely natural, obviously the lower leagues are never going to attract as much funding as the top league. Like I said, I'm not sure why Championship clubs feel like they should be given an equal share when they are clearly not equal in terms of how much money they bring into the sport. Once again, it comes down to the fact that certain Championship fans for some reason seem to think that the RFL are doing them an injustice by not giving money unconditionally to their clubs. It's just competely ridiculous and illogical.

At the same time, the RFL reduced the amount of money they gave all of the teams below Super League by 10k last year, might not sound like a lot, but it nearly sunk my club.

We're not asking for a payout, we're asking for a chance to compete, that's sport isn't it? And why isn't it injustice if the RFL will tip money into Crusaders, London, Paris and Bradford, but not two entire divisions of clubs struggling to keep their heads above the water.

How about the overall health of the sport?

The NFL have a salary cap and draft system that massively holds back the biggest teams. Why? For the overall good of the sport.

Furthermore, if we're only going to give out money to those clubs that are attracting it, then I'm afraid we'd only be paying around 6 clubs — in terms of attracting Sky to the game, the rest are simply making up the numbers. Some teams are being massively funded by the TV deal despite the fact that they bring next to nothing to the table. If it's ok for them, why not for other clubs?

No it isn't. It's the fact that Super League clubs are able to attract new supporters. If you live in Sharlston, and are making the decision as to which team you're going to support as a youngster, you're going to choose Wakey, because you've seen them on TV regularly playing the top teams, not Fev. Same goes for kids in Hindley Green say - they're going to pick Wigan not Leigh. It's the same thing that makes kids from outside Liverpool or Manchester support teams from those towns. Following the big name. In their time in SL Wakey's crowds have grown and Fev's have shrunk, the same applies the the Bulls and Fax and probably Leigh and Wigan. It's got nothing to do with clubs' marketing and everything to do with access to Super League and their marketing.
BTW if Hardaker wasn't the finished product how come he's in the England squad?

The salary cap only holds back Dallas & Washington, the rest of the owners prefer the salary cap ($120m this season!). The draft...again the best teams tend to be the best drafters too.

There's a ton of things that RL could copy from the NFL though to improve every team, here's 2 things they do that helps spread the wealth:
League kit/merchandise contract - revenue paid by Nike + all sales (minus ones sold in the club shops) split 33 ways (32 teams + the league)

Tickets - All ticket sales minus season ticket sales & VIP seats are split 33 ways.

Those 2 things are probably the biggest thing the NFL do for the good of the sport over the good of certain teams....oh and they don't agree to sponsorship deals that involve no money but a couple of trucks

Wouldn't that be incredibly unfair on the Championship side?

A fully pro team, with a cap of £1.6 Million against a team of semi-pros with a cap of £300k. That looks like the odds will always be stacked in favour of the SL side.

So rather than increase the turnover of a club like Cas or Wakefield who are turning over roughly £4m, we simply take money from a club like Leeds which turnover £13m and give it to them?
As a sport we need to get away from ideas which take away from the top and give to the bottom.

Not really, if all the money the teams made got lumped together I'd guess that over half the league would end up better off for it and if it improves the league then it's better for the sport.

Hull KR would be one of the biggest benefactors of revenue sharing in Super League, as would London.

The Dallas Cowboys owner doesn't like it happening in the NFL, probably because his team can't win in a fair league - where as Green Bay have one of the smallest markets in the league and are one of the best teams thanks to revenue sharing.

funny enough i'll bet the same people vote labour

I would think that each and every NFL owner votes as far right in the Republican Party but they still agree to the revenue sharing concept and their league is immensley profitable and successful as a result. Baseball does the same as SL and all teams keep what they make and the result is a league of haves and have nots with the same old favourtes winning most of the time and a diminution of interest in all but the biggest markets. I don t know why the RFL and SL can t lok at somehting similar. Of course in the US they don t have to worry about lower divisions.

Yes, it's vitally important to maintain (or enhance where possible) the current status quo where just the select few at the top continually benefit at the expense of the rest.

=#0040FF*That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party*

And the rest worse off for it. We arent going to improve by damaging our best.

As would Castleford. Leeds wouldnt, and St Helens wouldnt, and Wigan and Hull wouldnt. And when these clubs start losing huge amounts because the work they do marketing and selling themselves benefits someone else who isnt spending huge amounts on marketing and selling themselves as much as it does then what do you think will happen?

Its not a good thing for the NFL Green Bay contribute so little off the field

Or we spend our time improving the lower sides so that the challenge at the top not because we have fundamentally damaged the businesses of those sides at the top, but because we have improved the businesses of those at the bottom

Not really, the best teams still have the top players and coaches, using the NFL again because the idea is from there - the Patriots, Steelers & Ravens are always good why? Because they're the best run teams with the best coaches & some of the best players in the league.

Just because everyone has the same money it doesn't make the league worse - it makes it better because everyone is somewhat competitive.



Well, sponsors would stay with individual teams so the best marketing departments etc would still give the teams an edge in revenue but with everything else shared the league would be closer. Wigan, Leeds & Hull might receive less money but Bradford, Cas, Catalan, Huddersfield, Hull KR, London, Salford, Wakefield & Widnes would all benefit - that's 9 teams that would improve under revenue sharing.



But it is, a lot of NFL like seeing Green Bay do well and they make a lot of money for the league by being so popular despite being a small market team.

At the end of the day; Leeds fans and the like will hate an idea which will even out the league because it might stop them winning every year but at the end of the day they'll still have Hall, Sinfield, McGuire, Peacock, Burrow etc.




But they wouldn't be fundamentally damaged, they might receive less money in the short term, but as the league grows more sponsors etc will be more interested in a competitive league.

No they dont because they no longer have the money, These are now clubs making losses, you have massively damaged one of their main income streams. Why do you think Leeds can afford to spend more than Wakefield or Castleford on youth development, coaching, infrastructure, and facilities? It is because they bring more money in than Wakefield or Castleford. The answer clearly isnt to have Leeds operating on less, its to have Wakefield or Castleford operating on more.

Well it does, because we currently have roughly 7 clubs who are operating at the level they need to in the medium term, we have 7 who cant afford to. By spreading the existing wealth we will have 14 who cant operate at the level we need to because we have damaged the income streams of those who can and not increased the total amount coming in.
It is nonsense to think that the top clubs should, never mind could, subsidise the bottom clubs.
And three who would be damaged by it. And Bradford, Catalan would only have a limited benefit if any at all because any extra amount they would bring in from leeds, Saints, Wigan, Hull, would likely be swallowed up with a little extra to the amount they would need to pay to subsidise, Castleford, Wakefield, Widnes etc.
Not that many or they wouldnt need to be subsidised would they. If enough people 'liked' to see Green Bay be successful that it benefitted the NFL, there would be no need to subsidise them.

I have no problem with us doing things to try and even out the league. But the only sustainable way of doing that is by improving the bottom, damaging the top is counter-productive and ultimtely damaging.

Really? if that were the case other clubs wouldnt need to be subsidised

=#FF0000 tax the people who work hard for the people who cant be d political broadcast on behalf of labour

so would you really be happy to see all the hard work leeds have done to turn over a profit be basically taxed away from them from the rfl?

Leeds wouldn't lose everything, you know that right?

If you include the RFL in the cut only 2 things gets split 15 ways - merchandise sales and attendances, everything else is kept by the clubs that make that money (sponsorship, season ticket sales etc). If the RFL don't take a cut then that gets split 14 ways.

A league wide kit deal so everyone wears for example ISC gear would be great business for every team.

This is something Starbug has been going on about for at least a couple of years for teams in CC & CC1

I feel we do OK in spreading the wealth. I doubt that many are bothered about watching the likes of Salford on Sky, but they still get an equal share of Sky money.

"But they wouldn't be fundamentally damaged, they might receive less money in the short term, but as the league grows more sponsors etc will be more interested in a competitive league. "

You are aware that these very same SL sides are generally losing money every year aren't you? I don;t see anything at all in your scenario that would lead to the league growing in anything other than the number of teams involved - certainly no sign there of any growth in total cash available.

Are you seriously suggesting Wigan should be asked to donate extra revenue they have earned through having bigger sponsors or crowds to support weaker teams? Or that SL sides (many of whom are making losses) should send more cash to support the Championship?

Where does it end - surely NL1 clubs in turn should be far more financially supportive of NL2 sides? If not why not?

All this and numerous other threads look like is continual special pleading on behalf of Championship clubs - often at the direct expense of some mythically rich SL.

Salford really ripped everyone off yesterday didn't they?

yep........but im sure fev,halifax & sheffield would fancy a crack at widnes this year..


i don't think we'll ever see a return to P&R as it used to be but i think it's only fair to give the top championship side a crack and the worst SL side

Nice way to miss the point entirely



Will that game have got Sky any more subscribers or advertisers?