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?

Who even mentioned the Championship in revenue sharing?



All gate & merchandise money from every SL team would be split evenly amongst the other SL teams (and maybe the RFL)...not the Championship.

There's no "donating" either considering every team would be doing it - not just Wigan etc. Sponsors would also be kept by the teams that find them.

Of course Wigan & Leeds fans aren't going to like any idea that will make the competition better because why would you want to make it harder to see your teams win things every year?

As for the Salford thing - why not copy La Liga and have individual TV deals to make Wigan & Leeds even better because that will be good for the game

Think about it. Under a 3-year licencing system, the Championship club would be facing a team at the bottom of Super League that has had 3 years to develop, and not just one like Widnes. So, it may not be as easy as you may think.

Under P&R, then the club you face wouldn't be in a position to grow slowly and experiment with young players and inexperienced coaches. They would have to be much better in order to avoid the bottom, even if they inevitably don't. So, you probably wouldn't be facing a Widnes side that is as poor as it is now.



But why is that better than the team that finishes bottom of Super League just having to accept their fate, while two evenly matched teams battle it out, in a culmination of the Championship season, in order to win the right to replace them?

It seems a fairer way of doing things to me, while guaranteeing that Super League will get fresh blood.

The only problem that I see is that, under the licence system, this could be a death sentence for some Championship clubs, because they will be locked in there for 3 years. You can see what that did to the Crusaders. That's why Widnes got the licence. Under a licence system, that makes sense, but the major flaw in that situation is there for all to see. So, a return to annual P&R would have to happen, in order to make any of this feasible for most, if not all, Championship clubs.

Like you say, it is unlikely that there will be an about face by the RFL anytime soon, and licencing will remain anyway.

there would'nt be a 3 year licence system....

Which is why I also addressed the same situation under P&R, and why it was still an unfair way of deciding who goes to Super League. Even with Widnes as poor as they are, the odds are still massively stacked in their favour. If we had P&R, then Widnes would not have the team or coach they have now.

Why chose such an unfair system, when we already had a very good way of deciding who goes up and down, long before licencing was ever thought of, and is clearly a much fairer option?

Licensing is here and for the foreseeable is here to stay. Some politician decides to talk about bringing P&R back. If he'd of looked on RLFANS he would have seen that what he said had been said on here years ago.

In the Championship, there are maybe 2 or 3 teams who could possibly with a lot of hard work, get into Superleague, but as you can see from Widnes this season, there is a massive gulf in class. I'm afraid that unless you have crowds of 10k plus or someone willing to bankroll you indefinately then you wouldn't survive in Superleague.

Franchising is a good thing and is good for Superleague, its just that the RFL aren't doing it right. Just because we used to have P&R doesn't mean we should always have P&R. We used to roof our houses with asbestos. Would you still do that now?

LifeLong HKRFan,
You had better hope Mr Hudgell continues to fund you then because you don't have a 10,000 average, in fact your crowds are dropping and Mr Hudgell has stated he cannot subsidise the club indefinitly.

Hull KR bridged the gulf in class when they were promoted. Maybe Widnes did just not do such a good job. They had a poor team in CC last year, and their coach has never set the world on fire. Perhaps their recuiting was also sub standard.

Licencing is here to stay, it is neccessary to protect the financial support given to around 50% of current SL clubs, without it we could see the demise of several clubs in the next few years, as it is only London look like failing ( unless the RFL and or SKY come to their rescue, correctly IMO )

However it is making the gap between SL and the Championship wider and ultimatly it is damaging the clubs outside it , what is required is a change of direction by the RFL in the way they see the semi pro competitions, they seem to think the Championships are just a poorer version of SL, but it is very different, the TV coverage is worthless and therefore should be dropped apart from the NRC final and the GF s, they need to be marketed to their local populaces, and that is where the RFL should be looking to find and spend money

That is of course if they value the lower tiers at all.

Quite right, I hope he does carry on subsidizing them because if he didn't then we would be in a mess unless we can get a 10k average. My point is that you either need a 10k average or someone to back the club. Widnes have a backer, London also have a backer. Has any of the teams currently in the Championship have a wealthy backer to fund them in Superleague?

Franchising is not going to go away and I don't believe it should. Maybe there is a better way of doing it but P&R is not the answer.

The only reason Hull KR stayed up for that year was because there was a team even worse than us in the Superleague. Hull KR were the exception and most other teams who have been promoted during the P&R days went straight back down and it would almost certainly be the case if we brought P&R back.

HKR went for broke in 2006, failure would have seen them probably back in administration. They went for broke because they knew the drawbridge was almost up.
I have a lot of respect for the HKR 1500 hardcore who kept the club going for the Glory boys to jump back onto in 2005/6/7
How is the lad with the 10-5 flag doing these days, great bloke.

Works perfectly for me. Said it before myself.
The only thing I'd add is that the top team in tier 2 can chose not to go up and keep getting the money, so they can build at their pace rather than going bust trying on first attempt.

But the licencing system is snapshot of the League as it existed at the time it was introduced - more or less. If that snapshot had been taken before Hull KR, had been promoted they'd be marooned in the championship trying to maintain the same standard for three years. As for promoted teams going straight back down, what about Wakefield, Huddersfield, Cas, Hull FC, Salford - all promoted in the P&R era -all still there. The only promoted team to bring P&R into disrepute IMO are Celtic Crusaders/Crusaders with their inelligible players and last minute withdrawal last season.
When under P&R did we have a player suing the RFL because of a failed transfer?