Bazza that wasnt what your first post requested or stated

Yes it is a business but there are plenty of sporting businesses that dont make money

We have as much money as David Hughes wants to spend -very similar to Chelsea-I suspect there are a lot of clubs wishing they had someone like David Highes as a chairman.

No. Very few RL clubs are businesses. Harlequins definitely are not. Very few people buy a football, cricket, RL, ice hockey, RU, basketball or other sports club with the aim of making money?

Clubs should be run in a business-like fashion, but the main aim of nearly all RL clubs is not "maxmising the profit for the owners of the business".

Yeah, ok then

Not only are Harlequins RL losing a shiitload of money every day they are not even close to breaking even.

Would YOU bankroll that club??

You don't have to be Alan Sugar to see their is no way Harlequins will ever be a good investment for someone.


You might as well just repeatedly smash yourself over the head with a hammer whilst flushing wads of £20 notes down the toilet as financially back Harlequins.

Quote ="Scorpions for SL"The debt is very small compared to this club. Surley they must be finished if Harlequins are news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10237268.stm'" wtf as a scoccer team got to do with RL ?

Quote ="Scorpions for SL"The debt is very small compared to this club. Surley they must be finished if Harlequins are news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10237268.stm'" wtf as a scoccer team got to do with RL ?

The only similarity between Harlequins RL and Chelsea is that they are both from London.

The only Dave Hughes I've ever heard of is an Aussie comedian from a show called The 7pm Project


Maybe it's the same guy?

Lets face it you would have to be a comedian to invest any money into Harlequins RL

Thanks.

.....you had me at hammer


Bazza.....unlike the real world, where companies make money, sport is different. Apart from the larger European wendyball clubs who sell gazzillions of replica jerseys and get loads of TV cash, pretty much every other sporting club is run at a loss. RL in the UK is very unlikely to generate anything more than a pittance of a profit for successful clubs and if it does, 9 tiimes out of 10, the benefactor/suggar daddy/owner will pump this money back into the club.
An example would lets say be Wigan. An average gate of 15k with a ticket costing (IL stated 9.85 at quins as an average) 10 quid.
1,950,000 income...+ 1,500,000 from TV and lets say another 1,250,000 from sponsors, shirt sales etc.....4,700,000 a year income. Now, little old Quins have admin expenses of over 4 million, so you would imagine that a giant like wigan would have better players on better salaries, more staff in the office and higher costs overall......so let's say 700k more......there, see, Wigan, one of the best supported clubs in the UK, would struggle to make money........
Owning a sporting club is a vocation first........a pain in the ars3 second and never ever a profitable business. I would hazzard a gues that chelsea have cost its owner in excess of 1 billion so far........money he will never see again unless some other russian fool comes along and buys it from him.

Bazza....some of the biggest names in the worlds most popular sport are going to go under sooner rather than later....

Also, only 4 NRL clubs made a profit last year IIRC. Most of the Sydney sides are bankrolled by their Leagues Clubs. The sporting side of almost every team in professional sport loses money. It's not a business for the most part - Union, soccer, RL and RU are all similar in that regard.

Sorry, i dont think i explained myself as well as i could've, i think you misunderstood what i was trying to say.
For me it all comes down to potential. There are big clubs, like Hull, Leeds, Wigan etc that we couldnt have an SL without (imo) There are a lot of clubs that have the potential to be big clubs, eg when Warrington got a good stadium, and got a decent team, their attendences (and thus their income) increased greatly. I think Widnes have the potential to be a fairly big club, beacuse history shows that when we have a decent team, the attendences will be pretty good. History shows that this is not the case for the London team, as in all their various forms, they have failed to become a well supported, financially stable club, even when they had a decent team.

You keep saying that attendence is only 2 points in the criteria, this isnt entirely true. It indirectly effects many of the other criteria. For example it is almost impossible for a very badly supported team to have a large turnover, It is also very hard for a club with little support (and thus a smal turnover), to be able to spend up to the full salary cap (and thus get the points for contributing to the league).
For me this is a major point, because until we have a league, where most teams are able to spend up to the salary cap, we wont have a truely competetive league. Just by looking at the attendences for the last 3 granfinals, it obvious that people are getting bored of the same teams winning everything. Imo for superleague to be successful, we need a situation where each game, and each season is unpredicatable, this can only be the case when all teams are spending the full (or thereabouts) salary cap, and this cannot be the case, when we have teams with average crowds of 3k.


No, i watch all superleague clubs more than i watch Widnes, as i watch all televised RL matches (and there are more SL matches shown), and as i cannot attend almost all widnes games, due to where i live.

And to all the people saying this is a second account, its not, this is my only account (and yes i am a widnes fan).
And to people like 'chirs dalton' who apparently think im just taking the , and pretending to be a 'flatcapper' (god i hate that phrase), why do i not post on the harlequins or crusaders boards, and why are the majority of my posts on the sin bin? i'll tell you why, because your wrong .
Also, i have never lived in, nor supported Salford (i'm not sure where the hell that came from

)


If anyone doesnt agree with the following, please tell me exactly which part. This is how i see Harlequins:
1)Judging Harlequins, on their crowds of recent years, it is obvious that even if the team are playing well, and being successful, there are not enough fans willing to pay to watch them play, in order to make them financially stable, and in order for them to spend up to the salary cap.
2)Having teams in the league who cannot spend the full cap, means that the league wont be as exciting/unpredictable as it should be.
3)Having teams who dont have enough fans (even when the team are doing well) to be financially stable, is bad for the league, as there will always be a risk that the backer will pullout, leaving the club to either go under, or rellocate.
4)The fact that they have had to rellocate so many times in the past (and may have to do so in the future, based on the whim of their financial backer) is ultimately bad for the game, as it makes the game look even more amateurish than it already looks, to potential fans and sponsors.



And for those people claiming that 'its not that bad, that Harlequins made a 2mil loss for the past couple of years, after all lots of sporting teams make losses.' Can someone please show me a few sporting teams which have as large a deficit to turnover ratio as the quins (a ratio of losses~2mil to turnover~2mil will take some beating i imagine). Good luck

So...if that's the case, how come Quins made 2 play-offs whilst better supported clubs have not?...Yes..I agree about attendances (see 90% of my posts on the QRL boards)....but Hudds are creeping into the mix and they have terrible crowds according to some....




we are at cap......or so we are told by DH and given the level of loss, we either are, or we are paying tha janitor 200k a year to clean toilets.
...crowd numbers across the board are on the up......and TV figures too....not exciting if you are on the outside looking in maybe.
agree with this 100%....but let's face it, where would you be without Mr O'connor.
in your opinion....FulhamCrusaderBroncoQuins are a pre-condition of the money you crave so much for being in superleague. We average 50% of some slubs with a true history but are always the first port of call for flatcapped anti-expansionist posters like yourself.....easy target and yet no.....we never finished ina relegation position, made 2 play-offs and have grown the game in the south to the extent that Basketball is the only team sport growing faster in the London area. We blooded a 17yr old prop at the weekend...a lad from 4 miles down the road, who was 4 when SL started.......
Bang on all you like about user names, what peoples perception of you is...etc..etc....you are a Widnes fan and I applaud your passion, but if you want to knock holes in London RL....do some research and lay of the supposition...it does you no favours.




the day David Hughes walks away, we are in trouble......kind of like when your previous board fu(ked up and walked away....weren't you glad Mr o'connor was keen to step in.
Sorry.....but a widnes fan bleating on about finance is almost laughable.........you didn't get a licence last time, you dealt with it and IMO ar a shoo in for next time, but your posts aremore like the dummy spit from the numbnuts at Leigh...except yu had time to consider what you said...and still said it


League without SKY would be dead as a professional sport and SKY wanted London.....small price to pay IMO and that of many others.

Just a reminder - he's not actually a Widnes fan.

I'm sure all Widnes fans are glad Mr O'Connor was keen to step in, but there were two other consortiums who made an offer for the club - one of which was also headed up by someone with net worth over £10 million.

You'd think there were enough rich wannabee sports club owners in London that David Hughes could pass QuinsRL onto someone else when he does "walk away".

I suspect there are lots more wealthy people in London than Widnes. 10 Million in the sporting world gets you nowhere-refer to the figures above

They wouldn’t have had to have dealt with the figures above. With an attendance average of around 7,000 (in SL) Widnes would be much nearer the break even mark than Quins – if not actually in profit. Plus it wasn’t just one man. It was a Consortium of several wealthy backers.

That’s the difference.

Widnes did not get thrown out of Superleague. They finished in one of the relegations slots and were relegated. The reason Widnes did not get back into Super League is not because of expansion, but because they couldn't play their way back into it. Expansion is almost irrelevant, other than creating the extra relegation slot.

Some Widnes on here bemoan expansion, but expansion has brought us franchising, and franchising is the only way they will get back in, because they seem routinely unable to win their way back in. They need to decide whether they support franchising, and thus expansion, or they don't. In which case, don't apply.

I would like to see Widnes back in Super League, but they need to put the violins away, because it was their performances on the field that got them in the lower league, and their performances on the field that kept them there.

As for Harlequins, I wish them well. Their presence in Super League arguably brings to the whole game of rugby league than Widnes and quite a few other teams (I include Wakey in this), as the off-field stuff is good for the game.

You've lost me. Which Widnes fans are crying here, where, and why do you think it's crying about missing out on SL?

It's been a pretty constant theme for a few years.

Don't get me wrong, I want Widnes to get a franchise, they will hopefully bring a lot to the league, but there has been a constant bemoaning of the unfairness of Super League and the franchising system, when in fact franchising will prove to be your most likely route back.

Why single out Widnes fans for that though?

This is something which gets mentioned by far more fans of other clubs than it does by Widnes fans on these boards. It just seems that people like you want to blame every single post on Widnes’ licencing failure on widnes fans, when half of the time it’s fans of SL clubs arguing amongst themselves and trying to score petty points off each other.

Widnes gets mentioned by a fan of a SL club. [i‘Widnes should have got a licence and not your club’ [/ietc…

This is often followed by the fan of the other SL club slagging off Widnes.

Enter the Widnes fan to defend our honour. The next thing is, we read posts like yours blaming Widnes fans for moaning. We’ve even got Salford fans pretending to be Widnes fans to stir it even more. That’s how pathetic RL is becoming.

I don’t support licencing, but I want my club to put a bid in because it’s all that’s on offer and I fear for my club should it fail. It must be nice to look down from your ivory tower.

We'll get in Pepe dont worry. We're got too much to offer the franchise that other teams havent for them to turn us down.

Naivety of the highest order. You believe that when a club submits a licence application they are doing it for the greater good? Grow up, every club that applies is doing it for one reason and that is to secure their place at the top table. Do you honestly think Leeds or Wigan would give a toss if Halifax or Barrow got in next time at the expense of the Crusaders?

For one, I don't use the term flatcapper and never aimed it against you, so I don't know where you got that from. When little bitches whined on here about a similar term aimed at expansionists and got it banned, I was quite annoyed that one wasn't banned as well in retort so you're very wrong there.

Secondly, you are a fake, you show all the classic signs and mods can check IP addresses. You're probably Enfield Exile or someone of that ilk. Whether or not you go on the other boards is irrelevant, but you've probably tried a similar game there and don't want to get caught too quickly again.

The thing is, if you don't want to get these accusations thrown at you, stop dragging up old arguments, living up to ludicrous stereotypes about widnes fans and generally playing the fool.

You reckon?

That's why I said it was likely that David Hughes *would* be able to find someone to take over at Harlequins, should he decide to step down.

As for £10million not being much, that is certainly true if you're putting in £1 million each year. Seems to me though that there are plenty of SL clubs who don't have millionaire owners.

Thats because one contained the word nazi and unsurprisingly people found it offensive to be compared to the nazis simply because they believed that spreading the game of rugby league was a good thing.

Its not a similar term at all, if you cant see the distinction you are a fool. Nobody would mind if you did use a similar term, people did mind when you went way way way over the top and started evoking one of the most abhorent regimes to have ever existed whilst discussing something that is relatively unimportant.

Moderation queries can be addressed to the moderators or admins. As you well know.



But FWIW, I added that word 'expansion*zi", its variants and an equally insulting word referring to supposed opponents of expansion, to the swear filter. I didn't add flatcapper, although there was a request, because 1) it's a perfectly standard English word and 2) Featherstone fans have done nothing to deserve any mention of them being banned.