I suspect so, though if the sport ever gets that low that they have to cut 4 clubs I suspect the ones that do the worst anyway (backers excluded) will be in most trouble. As it is the game won't get that low

If we are ignoring the one-off income of the sale of assets, then we should also ignore the one off investment in the southstand, which mean Leeds would again be making a Profit, GH and Co also grew the business by nigh on a million pounds last year

Hull FC and Bradford had fine financial results, Wigan isnt too bad but has needed restructuring a fair bit which will cost,

Wire and Hudds have clearly got the backing and now, infrastructure, if they stay patient, growth will follow

what we are seeing isnt 'the game' in bad shape, its the traditionally smaller clubs left behind as the game grows as we always knew they would,

Saints have the potential to catch up, but it is entirely dependant on a new stadium, Salford also clearly need a new stadium which should give them the impetus and opportunity for rapid growth,

Hull KR are in a strange position as they have racked up pretty big debts to promote very rapid growth, however the place they need to be to sustainable and make some dent in those debts is further on to where they are now in terms of support and facilities, they also would be hoping the support follows after better facilities but have already admitted they cant really get from where they are to where they need to be without help,

Wakefield and Castlefords two biggest problems are their stadia and each other. Castleford have never made that break through into that top tier were they regularly look like challenging, they have a hardcore of support which is fairly good, but dont have the a huge amount of growth potential and have never looked like a club which will grow massively from where it is now. Wakefield have lurched from crisis to crisis throughout their SL life. IMO they have more potential than Cas and have the potential to unite the district and finally give it the team it can be proud of and the team the young players in the district deserve. However they have yet to execute anything of note in SL, the squad is packed with Aussies, and they seem pretty insecure financially, both are also desperate for their new stadia

( i have left out the expansion clubs in an attempt to keep the topic at least a little on track)

what i am trying to say is the game doesnt look that unhealthy, out of those clubs, more than half (6) look to be in a fine position, one would almost certainly be if they can sort out their stadium, another has huge potential if it can get its stadia sorted and tap into the huge market on its doorstep

one club on anothers doorstep who have grown massively, have decent crowds but are struggling for investment to take them to the next level in the biggest economic meltdown for many a year

then we have Wakefield and Castleford who both seem to be at a crossroads where big questions need to be asked, and they need to be brave enough to ask them

all in all, it doesnt strike me as a game in trouble but a few clubs

Just out of interest , will the total rebuilding of the South stand bring in any more revenue than at present , it is a large terrace , are the plans to build a newer large terrace , or are they to make it a seating stand ?

Not having a pop , just interested how they are going to do it

Spot on , we just dont have the money to do anything , grow from the bottom up or from top down , maybe we should just try to build up what we already have

Am I the only one who would like us to walk away from Sky even without a deal.
We would soon see who was viable and which 'expansion' clubs wanted it.

I think you will find that turnover wise, Saints have been 2nd behind Leeds in recent years, and thats while playing in a decrepit stadium.

The way i see it, is that if Warington can increase their turnover from around £2.5 million to around about 5 million merely by moving to a new stadium.
Then Saints should be able to grow their business from around £5 million to £7 or £8 million in a new ground.

Going back to the original point about the RFL being wholly dependant on Sky, then i will point out that the RFL are no more dependant than any other major UK sport.

It appears that its in the nature of RL fans to continually downplay their sport, then complain when others dont take us serously.

I remember when the initial SL deal was announced, did we have fans rejoicing at the money coming into the game, No! all the talk was that this money would last 3-5 years then sky would pull the plug.
Amazingly enough 15 years later Sky are still broadcasting SL and are giving large sums of money to the RFL.

Can anyone see a time when Sky will want to show more games? I am surprised with all the new digital channels that a FTA provider hasn't made a bid for some games, or at the least bought the rights off Sky to show them later in the week.

Anyone who thinks that Sky care very much about RL is seriously deluded. Sky care about football, that is it, the rest is just filler. Which is why, in the absence of any serious broadcast competitor, they will always only pay the bare minimum that it takes to keep the game at a certain level of professionalism and provide them with relatively cheap prime time sport in the football off-season. You can have as many new teams as you like but Sky will only pay what they have to. There is no logical reason for them to do anything other than that.

Yes, I suspect you are.

Add £1.2m extra loss onto the reported results of each club, and some (sponsorship etc), and then tell me which clubs - or their backers - could stand that?

Correct, however, it would appear that we are the only sport that went fully proffessional on the back of the tv money. I could be wrong on this.

RU.

The problem is the lack of competition for the broadcasting rights. Setanta were the only serious attempt to crack SKY's sporting monopoly, and look what happened there. The BBC will shell out for the directors' old school friends down at Twickers, but that's it, and under the incoming Cameron Government, the BBC will find itself even less likely to be able to do anything Murdoch isn't keen on.

It's hard to see where a competitor to SKY could come from, unless one of the major US networks decided it wanted to start a European operation. If that were the case, then RL would be a tasty morsel because of its viewer numbers, but... BUT.... it's not enough on it's own. The only sport in this country which will sell enough subscriptions to make an operation viable is
soccer. That's why Murdoch will pay through the nose for that, because he knows that by puchasing soccer he's effectively purchasing the sports broadcasting market as a whole.

I can't really envisage a situation in which SKY isn't the only game in town. That sucks. We effectively have to rely on them continuing to see the need for RL to be fully professional in order to bring in the subscriptions and advertising they want.

why are the other FTA channels in teh UK not interested in showing sport? I always thought sport was a high audience event for TV channels? I know it isn't cheap to show live sport but if there is an audience, and with loads of channels these days to fill I'm surprised there isn;t more interest. Or is it just that SKY pays for exclusive rights and the RFL have never dared challenge this by putting it out on the open market?

I would suspect thats the case.

Will never happen smokey, like sayin the two hulls or, leeds and bradford could unite under one banner. cas fans and fev fans will never ever support a team called wakefield, and since castleford and featherstone combinedhave about 2/3 of the districts rl support the district will never unite under one banner. no one from castlford, featherstone, pontefract or knottingley considers themselves as being in anyway part of wakefield, even parts of normington are of the same opinion. The council reorganisation was a beurocratic change not one in the identity of the areas. If leeds was for some reason swallowed up into the area of bradford council would you coinsider yourself from bradford? would you suddenly want to become a bulls supporter?

there is actually a wakefield fan on the cas board asking if the district should be split up into castleford and wakefield just to give you an idea of how much we are united in this district.

However i do agree with you that both wakefield and castlford are at a crossroads and the next few years will be the differance between success and many more years in sl and being dropped down to the championship.

Give a FTA a free deal for the right coverage, watch merchandise/crowds/sponsorship rise and it will quickly replace lost revenue.

The clubs unable to adapt will move down a peg and those in a better position to do so will move up. The gap between divisions would be more breachable.

Sorry but could not disagree more.

If you take £1.2m (minimum) out of every club's income, with little warning, many will go straight to the wall. Their financial situation is so tenuous. They simply cannot replace that revenue overnight, if at all. Leeds could probably stand the initial shock - you can doi that when you are owned by a plc and you made a mint from selling a cricket ground - and a club with a rich owner prepared to stump up that much cash on TOP of what he already does could ride the initial storm until or unless he said "stakes too high - I fold", but it would immediately kill any other clubs. And £1.2m is a hell of a lot of revenue to make up - for example, you would need around 12.5k more on the gate EACH GAME to achieve that. From day 1. If indeed you could fit them in.

And you are IMO extremely extremely näive if you think crowds will rise substantially. Why should they? Especially since half the competition will have been blown into oblivion before the season even starts, and which non-SL clubs could immediately step up to SL level - and SL costs? Widnes, if O'Connor put his hand much much further in his pocket, and who else? You would start the first season with a handful of clubs. At best.

And as for sponsorship...the big deals come from the brands being seen on TV anyway. So why on EARTH would sponsorship rise substantially? If you think viewing figures would rocket through a seriously weakened competition being shown on a FTA I fear you are way too optimistic.

\
as usual you would be wrong

As usual i couldnt care less what you think. Troll. Leave the discussions to people who care about the game. Thanks

Interesting argument, but here's another dimension.

Never mind the clubs - what if the RFL themselves found themselves in administration? What would happen then?

An Aussie tour, pretty damn sharpish.

, whats up boys , the sport not as important as YOUR club , not forgetting that you are all RL fans before you're club fans

Yeah right

you should only comment about things which are true.

this would mean much less commentry.

the BBC were interested in the SL rights previously when the RFL was holding off from Sky but their offer was less.

pleased to help

Not the 2 FT divisions of 10 logic that was suggested a few years ago, 27 games and play offs, 1 up 1 down. 50% SL2 to SL1. Expand game without getting thrashed every week or having to buy a team of past it aussies/kiwis. Accomodating all clubs who had shown SL ambition, ie Fax , Widnes, Leigh and possibly Fev from last Franchise bids plus Toulouse and Cumbria. Drop overseas to 1 in SL2 and ringfence for 3 years to allow other ambitious clubs to plan and grow.

Link/evidence?