Why just the semi-pro and pro clubs?

RFL money (which is different from Sky money) doesn’t belong to SL or Championship clubs, it belongs to the game as a whole, do you want the RFL to ask every single club, from the bottom to the top before they do anything which costs money? Or are we ignoring the amateur game?

RFL council has several voting members from the non professional game. they will make their views known if Dicky and Nige can be bothered to ask council for their decisions.

Nobody bankrolled anybody. It was a loan - one that has been repaid in full. If the RFL have acted unconstitutionally then I'm sure that they'll be challenged, but I suspect that they've done nothing wrong.

The SL clubs have control over the entry mechanism into SL, as well as the number of clubs in the competition. The SL clubs decided to keep London in SL, not the RFL.

This is a whinge by one club chairman with a history of whinging.

He's right about fourteen teams though.

They have 3. The Championships have 19. Why do you think the Championships should have 6 times more representation when deciding what the RFL should spend RFL money on than the amateur game?
If every Championship club gets representation, and every SL club gets representation, then every amateur club should get the same representation.

Only 'repaid' in full because the RFL bought their stadium. The Bulls were failing to pay it back and that became part of the problem.

Jeez. get a grip. There are many more than 3. Do not be so arrogant as to equate BARLA with the entirity of the non professional game.

As for every amateur club having a vote..grow up. If they are not happy they can break away and do their own thing. They wont. Or they can aggitate through orgs like BARLA...it does not happen.

Hudgells business is facing a huge reduction in income when the Jackson reforms of personal injury solicitors are introduced. He clearly has one eye on his own finances and is looking for HKR to become self financing

There are too many teams, and it is right that teams should look to self finance. I hope the other chairmen agree on these things.

He's right about 14 teams. First thing, there is only a need for one team in Hull, and the bigger one stays in, Hull FC.

Now, Mr Hudgell, I presume you agree with that.

No I don't think he would agree with that.
Why is their only a need for one team from Hull. Surely you want the best teams, What's the point in replacing Rovers with a worse team simply for geographical reasons?

Very few sports teams make a profit. In the NRL this year, the Titans are in big strife (all their own fault) and 3 other clubs have had to get their annual TV handouts early - including Manly. In other sports look no further than Rangers.

The cap itself (at least the upper limit theoretical spend) is not the problem either. The problem is clubs overpaying players, full stop. That's what tends to happen in sports. If we make more money, players get paid more, regardless of any financial reality. Its not the joe-average players that are the problem either - its the stars. That will always be the case.

This is made worse by budgetary processes that are amateurish at best. IIRC it was Sts a few years ago that budgeted on winning the Challenge Cup? That is beyond stupid.

The RFL can and probably should tighten up rules on cap spend. A couple of quick things should be:

1) No club to be able to budget for a loss for more than one year without personal guarantees from the owners or collateral to guarantee they won't go bust.

2) No club to be able to budget increases in attendances from the prior year. In fact I'd go so far as to say you shouldn't be allowed to budget for more than 90% of the previous year to allow for form downturns etc.

3) No club to include any forecast revenue from Challenge Cup games or Play Offs.

4) No club to include sponsorship deals that have yet to be signed.

5) No club to be able to include non-cash sponsorship (payments in kind etc) as 'revenue' unless it is a direct offset of an unavoidable operating cost. There's a big difference between including a restaurant giving a team 100 free meals as sponsorship and a firm paying for team transport for example.

6) No club to be able to use any tax 'reduction' method that hasn't been approved in writing by the relevant taxation authorities (I'm talking non-standard things like offshore payments for image rights etc, which now look like the piece of cr*p they always were).

The above are ALL examples of dodges I've seen professional sports 'businesses' use in Australia (except the offshore payments part). They are also all easy to police, when you add 7, which probably already happens which is the budgets being signed off by the RFL. The problem there is potential for bias - I'd personally pay a decent accounting firm (using payment in kind sponsorship if required) to provide independent audits of all budgets, with clubs subject to fines for any breaches.

While these are some good points , but certainly things arent as straightforward as that.
Just one example - not budgeting for crowd increases. Where would that have put Saints, Hull, etc with their new grounds. What about clubs building support after being in the lower leagues? Widnes' crowds have grown. I think HKR's have grown year on year after entering SL (tho I think this year will be against that trend).

I think the key is that all clubs must be able to give clear justifications showing the validity of their proposals - which is actually what they are supposed to do with the franchise process.

If your crowds grow you'll be able to gradually ratchet up your forecasts based on actual crowds as you go. Sts in their new ground I'd make an allowance for on the basis of their crowds at Knowsley Rd before the move - but again only 90% of that, not some notional increase without backing. You could also allow new SL clubs to uplift their crowds - but again I'd put a VERY tight limit on that - say 10% increase over the previous year. In most cases you can put rules together that allow for some allowances without letting clubs drive a truck through any pretence of reality.

In general I wouldn't allow any exceptions though, because its when you allow exceptions (and probably every team can make some sort of argument to suggest they 'expect' crowd increases) that any system starts to fall apart and becomes a budgetary nonsense.

Bottom line is I'd bet that an independent auditor with experience of looking at the accounts (budgets vs actuals) from sports businesses would be able to tear apart the budgets put together by any SL club.

They wouldn't be replaced in a reduced league, simply dispensed with

Fair enough so his aim is to dispense with Rovers at the expense of keeping a team in SL that offer alot less simply for geographical reason, That's well though out and reasonable.

My ribs are hurting so much after reading these pages,the smoke is bellowing up the ivory towers and the franchise faries think nothing is wrong wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


And now the fans are scrambling around trying to justify there place at the top table....love it

You are correct, however it is a good time for Rugby League to take a long hard look at itself and work out the best way forward for the sport as a whole, not just the few at the "top table"

aren't kpmg involved in the franchise process? i thought they were looking at all bids in conjunction with the rfl, from and independant point of view, or have i made that up (or read it on here and thought it must be true!)?

who leaked the letter and why is a more interesting question!

No, you haven't made it up; KPMG and the rather woolly 'experts' from Leeds Met university are involved in scrutinising the books as part of the franchise process.

More interesting than "what did The Grudge" hope to achieve with this latest hissy-fit"?

You must be joking, especially as he is responsible for over 25% of the "£8 million accumulated losses"

You can adopt an osrich mentality, go bust, then merge with another team, pretending nothing happened or address problems before they become insurmountable.

Typical whinge from a small club chairman

Nothing new

Or not get to these problems in the first place.

I think Messers Pearson, Caddick, McManus, Davy, Lenegan et al will be surprised to hear they are bankrupt.