If we're running clubs as businesses, how about reducing the amount that Directors/Owners can put into a club on a yearly basis, like the Financial Fair Play rules in football.

This will mean that those effectively being bank-rolled will also be on a fair level playing field with those who don't have sugar daddies.

That should be an aim, but Im not sure how much chaos it would wreak upon the league. Wire, Saints, Hull KR, Hudds & I'm sure plenty of others would have to significantly scale back.
Maybe some kind of rule whereby sugar daddies money can only be spent on investment items like facilities or community work?

The only problem here is that the game, along with all sports, is trying to attract wealthy backers into the game and although this very much destorts the "level playing field" that many would like, the game can not afford to lose people of such wealth, indeed, they would welcome any new investors (or sugar daddies) with open arms.

I don't see why we're included in that. We've been self sufficient for a few years now, the past few seasons have run at a profit, albeit one of the few clubs that are

And why did they do that ?

Celtic Crusaders

Nigel and Richards feet must be shot to hell , they keep altering rules to suit this club or that club , and bugger it up for somebody else

are criticised for not having a wealthy backer ?

It all depends on who you are , and where you are

So what did they spend the other 1.6 million on then ?

You are just being pedantic Starbug.
I would suggest that in an ideal world all clubs would be sustainable through paying customers, merchandise and sponsorship but, are you really suggesting that the RFL would like to discourage the wealthy individuals that exist at many of the SL clubs ?
I think that this type of comment is merely suggesting that the lucky few still need to improve their revenue streams through sponsorship, attendances etc.

Just pointing out the dual standards applied , on Leighs SL application it stated that the club had a ' history of reliance on owner financial input ' as a negative , and yet Fax were criticised for not having a single financial backer , as for Huddersfield and London , well theres was worded differently

Sorry Starbug, but you'll have to give me some info on the Leigh situation.
I am aware that they completed their new ground to SL standard and had some financial issues, but I am not aware of the details.

But isn't that good if it evens the field up (as people are calling for) and it drives clubs to start acting as businesses and focusing on improving their commercial side of things, income streams, number of ST holders et al?

We're talking ideal world here.
As things are, it the wealthy backers were excluded from the game toe total income into the sport would be decimated with up to half of the SL clubs having to make substantial changes to their business and although it would be great for clubs to have to operate on a level playing field, I dont think you could advocate this type of change.
As mentioned the game needs all the investment it can muster and if this comes to certain clubs via a few wealthy individuals then on balance, this is a good thing for the game.

I think this questions the licensing process, though.

For example, how can a club using an owner to spend the cap be deemed at less risk of losing their licence than say a club like Cas or Wakey who are managing their businesses and are only spending what they can afford?

You've bought the myth that a sports club is a regular "business" and can make a "profit" if only . . .

When in truth you must know that no sports club is a profitable business, and to be ahead of the competition, in any professional sports league, you have to throw money at it?

If there were only "profitable" clubs that would be because they had minimal wages bills. Which can't happen because only crowds in the hundreds come to watch semi-pro level teams, and no top athlete is going to make a career in RL if paid peanuts.

What people really mean when they peddle this myth is that a club should run 2 businesses. One sports business, and some other highly profitable business, but spend all the profits from the profitable business on propping up the rugby. This won't happen.

The nearest you can get to it is a rich sponsor who may back you for a few years, but will never be committed long term. Or a rich businessman who has made more money than he needs and wants to spend some of it.

if you want to go back to the amateur or semi pro days, than your plan would kind of work, but you'd have to factor in that fans now want something much different and would not come in tens of thousands like they would have in the 50s, but in tens.

I must be confused. Aren't Leeds, Wigan and Warrington profitable? Equally, sports can be profitable but measures have to be in place such as a salary cap to encourage that.

Football would be and is a profitable sport but wages have escalated out of control and you can't be successful unless you spend more than the opposition.

Rugby League is an ideal sport in which the sporting business should be grown and with a higher profile sport, higher profile competition and an increase in spectators, there is no reason why all clubs cannot be profitable or run a break-even status.

No we didn't , the RFL refused to acknowledge the LSV in our application and asked for an inspection of Hilton Park

No idea where that one came from

That's the beauty of franchising and the criteria stipulations. It gives the RFL room for manoeuvre and a degree of subjectiveness and selectiveness. Yes, it's open to criticism and examples of inequities like the ones you've pointed out but easier to deal with those complaints by lambasting a member clubs' application and turning the criticism back onto the failed club. What the RFL don't want is to be hamstrung by tight guidelines otherwise clubs like Halifax and Leigh might end up being in SL and that is unthinkable.

True , VERY true

God forbid !

No. In their last published accounts for example Wigan had a net worth of Net Worth of -£2,690,240 (that's minus two million if you missed the - sign). They are IIRC also projecting a big loss for 2012. Doubtless there will be very good reasons for it all etc.

How many years have they been profitable to get to a net worth of minus £2.6m then? I might try it myself.

Warrington did actually sneak a very marginal (but well done!!) "profit" per their 2009 accounts when they made the Cup Final. They made a profit of £27,800, (or a months dinner vouchers for Solo) in the year to November 2009. That compares with a loss of £348,000 the year before.

I'm glad you mentioned Leeds. Leeds did decide to keep some money in their pockets the previous season, and their account posted a £1/2m "profit", but they had made the usual loss the year before, and anyway I am talking about the top teams (of the moment). Leeds paid for not spending on their squad by slowly becoming crap. Even we (Bradford) are above them in the table just now and while they did great to win the GF, everyone who watched the game last season knows they were in truth not a top side any more. And they certainly aren't now.

So you kind of make my point for me.


Well, quite. So, it's not profitable- at all - then. OK.



Well, if there's "no reason", that's all right then! Maybe you could ring round all the clubs and tell them? I was at Keighley the other week ( as far as I can tell, a well run club with a decent recruitment policy and making an effort at marketing). The crowd was 837 and half of them were from Featherstone. But if there's "no reason" then I'm sure they'll find it reassuring.

There is a ' reason ' , its called nothing to play for

I think there's everything to play for. NRC and the GF. As you've pointed out - it's up the Championship chairmen to get together and work out a marketing plan. They should forget what's happening in SL and concentrate on the very competitive product that they have before them.

Once again you choose to ignore the fact that it's the SL clubs that make the rules that govern SL, not the RFL.

And why would the removal of the 50% rule have been of particular benefit to CC over any other club?

FA has answered in some detail, but I'll just add that Hull FC posted a profit several season in a row. However it's become clear that we did that by skimping on infrastructure spend and squad development. The result was years of mediocrity as we got further and further behind the more successful clubs.

The best any successful sports club can hope for is break-even IMO. And even that will be far from easy.

Meh, let the haters hate.
I reckon FA and the Greek Financial minister went to the same school. Either that, or he's letting his blatant hostility to his better off neighbours cloud his judgment.

I suspect it's the latter, and how must he wish the Bulls had a balance sheet and a stadium like ours.

And as for being crap, yes, we feel really bad about being World Club Champions, and console ourselves with the indisputable SL fact......that your Club wins nowt in June.

Although you can get popped into Administration, apparently!......