Most of the clubs in the PL are insolvent so I hardly see the FA insisting they reduce income streams/increase costs

Taken from another forum:

'[iSeems like the sponsorship pot is drying up. I have heard of one club whose shirt sponsorship has dropped by 80% in value. The money is just not out there at the moment. Even my club Quins are losing £1.5 Million a season and with poor crowds (the one on Saturday was more like 2,500, 3,600 was pure fantasy) which brings me to say that 10 teams is the way forward with at least 2 French clubs and a reduced number of matches and more Internationals.[/i'

This bloke has contacts both over here (especially London) and France and usually knows what he's talking about.

rugby league has been built over here and especially in aus on club rugby for many years now.what makes this chap think in the interests of british RL australia is going to alter its very success league & SOO setup to incorporate more internationals?

Maybe he's thinking of building up international crowds and interest and believes that will bring in more revenue. Maybe he's looked at rugby union and seen how much a single international at Twickenham brings in for the RFU.
Personally I don't think it's the way forward for rugby league.

i think we would need a very strong french,welsh and NZ league to make international RL work and from what we have now thats laughable

Agreed and that is some way off.

A couple of points to come out of tonights fans forum in Wigan:

* Chief Executive Mick Hogan is actively looking at main sponsors for 2011. (In London tomorrow talking to 3 companies).
* Our sponsorship deals are worth 30% more than last season.

so if the product is there the sponsors are there-it sound like that anyway.

Chairman Peter Hood confirmed at our Fans' Forum this evening, asked to comment on a press report, that the SL clubs have indeed been considering the possibility of reducing the number of clubs in SL. He did not indicate which clubs were pressing for any change, or what his position on the question was. He said it was for the SL clubs to decide the number of clubs, and for the RFL then to decide which ones.

At first I thought it was just rumour and pub talk, but I've heard from journalists, sponsors and now this from the Bulls board saying that a reduction is a real possibility. I think it's going to happen.

so some SL chairmen will dictate RL policy

Common knowledge that the clubs have the decision on how many clubs are in SL , this quite simply gives them the power to decide how much SKY money they get

Seemingly, yes. In this regard, apparently its the SL clubs that set the policy and the RFL that implements.

there are 14 teams in SL assuming 3 abstain and 4 vote against and 7 just think of themselves who would have the casting vote?

Depends wether Mr Lewis threatens to resign again

The RFU's accounts are available online, but I do recall that their income from corporate hospitality at Twickers alone is something like £26M per year, that's over twice the RFL's total revenue, purely in hospitality! But of course they do own Twickers.

I think ticket sales are something like £80M per year (although without loking them up again, that might be the total revenue figure). Suffice to say they make plenty.

Think the tv money went up at the last deal - according to a BBC report:
Last season, champions Manchester United earned £52.3m in Premier League television money, compared to £31.6m for bottom club West Bromwich Albion.

In a different report it also showed that Wigan earnt 6.8 million in prize money from the premier league (although not sure if this is part of the overall tv money or seperate). Either way Wigan probably netted £35-£40 million in tv +prize money.

If there are SL clubs talking of reducing the number of teams in SL, you can't help but think it will be the bigger clubs who either think they will get a bigger slice of the money or just scared that in the next tv deal there will be less money to go around. There's no way clubs like Wakey, Cas or Salford would vote to reduce the number of clubs.

not bothered reading all this thread

but the decision on the makeup of SL is solely up to the RFL and not the clubs

clubs all signed up to giving the RFL sole decision on certain things.

it would be a disaster to go back to 12 after just having expanded.

and 1/10 extra sky money for the remaining SL clubs wont make much difference

The clubs have shares, so it is not soley up to the RFL. If it was, there wouldn't be this discussion. So just stop right there on that assumption so it doesn't drag into pages of you trying to prove something that your aren't sure is right to be right (because it isn't and it's just a waste of everyone's time).

And 1/10th of Sky money extra per year (going on the current contract) is roughly £110k each. Considering clubs are losing between £500k per year on average, that would be a good help in plugging some of the deficit (and that's before assuming there isn't an increase on top of that).

i read something where the RFL made all clubs agree to give them sole control over the number of teams in SL.

sole control.

so unless the RFL wants it, its not happening.

you read loads of cr*p on the internet, some people just dont bother reading much about the game and go off rumours etc.

lower the salary cap by 100,000 per club then.

better than losing 2 teams.

problem solved. pleased to help

And this is some of that cr*p.
The RFL do not have sole control over what happens in the SL. Clubs have a vote. I'm pretty sure Championship sides have a vote also (it's weighted).

You have either misread something or have misunderstood something. But the point is the RFL do not have sole control. If you can point me in the direction of something that says otherwise then I will bow to your wisdom. But for now, it is a factless rumour started by yourself or someone you have read it from and you should try "bothering to read about the game" a bit more.

And reducing the salary cap will not happen. There would be all sorts of further ramifications from that (i.e. players going to union, etc.). If anything, we should be looking at ways to increase funding so we can increase the cap and make our sport a more attractive career path for players. So no, problem created not solved.

The Bradford chairman Peter Hood stated quite categorically (3/2/10) that the decision on the number of clubs in SL was down to the SL clubs themselves. The criteria governing which clubs formed SL was down to the RFL.

well its quite a pickle, 12 teams = bigger share of sky money, but sky arnt daft, will they try to reduce the money if less teams are playing? i think they will.

That's what I would have thought.

Although, if you get rid of the weaker teams, you are showing the better teams more often on Sky, which one would think would attract a better audience. Maybe they'd prefer that?

That's obvious, given the guff you've posted. No change there then is there Dally?