Some intersting reading in the following article. Just goes to show that an awful lot of clubs would be no more without their sugar daddies. Some of those loss figures in a year are scary.

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2012/apr/24/bradford-bulls-debts-super-league?CMP=twt_gu[/url

Although the Guardian is not a RL fan and there is a slant to the article, some of the trading figures are indeed scary.
It is difficult to properley interpretate some of the losses (especially as they are already 12 months out of date), but it is clear that some of the clubs are a long way from break even and without their wealthy backers London and Huddersfield could not exist.
It is interesting that expansion is deemed a success because of the Catalan team, yet there is no mention of the failed clubs, such as Paris, Crusaders etc
Many would complain, but with hefty losses being incurred at mot clubs, the salary cap may well need a re-think. However, with 3 year franchises, should clubs really be overspending on player salaries.
In the protected environment that exists, perhaps more realism is in order and clubs should cut their cloth according to their income.

Ironically, before going in to admin, we made the smallest loss of the loss makers.
The 4 profit makers were above us of course but everyone else made a bigger loss than we did.
With Admin wiping debts and Glover buying for £30k and then this year gates up significantly - it looks like we are in a good position compared to most.

Interesting reading, god knows how Leeds have made that much cash, is there any Bradford / Harris debt amongst that? Good effort by Warrington too.

Also, most of the losses are presumably mopped up by the Sugar Daddy’s (How much cash has that guy got at London?) but I wasn’t aware that St’s had a benefactor, so who covers that deficit & why is it so large with the club reaching the G.F?

Bulls just gambled badly. Had huge crowds on the back of Bullmania but blew all the money on pre-match entertainment, kind of devouring itself in the process. Since then, chased the grand final dream but gave away season tickets at stupid prices. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you sell 9,000 season tickets at a third of their "through the gate" price, you are surviving on crowds of 3,000 whilst throwing away the extra money the ones who wouldn't pay full price would bring.

I know Bulls fans go on about the overdraft being pulled, etc, but if you survive on a massive debt, you have to look at why, because it means that at no point are you liquid.

Sugar daddies are distorting the picture slightly, because teams without them have to spend to keep up, and teams who have the income through the gate but without the big investor lose the advantage of all their hard work.

Slugger - isn't this what Wakey have done - allbeit on a smaller scale ?

Last season i paid for 3 season tickets at £175 = £525.

This year i purchased 4 at £100 = £400.

The extra ticket holder bought chips and bottle of cider (not glass) and a correct scorecard on saturday, so in answer to your question you'll have to decide for yourself.

If this is widespread and fans are parting with money at games then i think the ST discount is working but only the club will now that for sure.

Although our plan was similar it has other benefits for us.

By getting interest because of the price, and further interest because the crowds are big and the atmosphere better. Bradford dont need those things.
Also we have invested in more outlets to sell to people so that will be good for us.

On top of that the crowd numbers being up is good for franchise.

I would agree if Glover had thrown the full salary cap into the team and put a winning side on the park. And I did say "distorted". With average crowds of over 8,000, we are probably spending a sustainable amount, and are probably making more per week than we were a couple of years ago.

As far as I know, Glover's investment has been about stabilising, ground improvements, and slowly building the club into a self-sustaining model. Teams like Broncos are propped up by sugar daddies, as are Huddersfield (they could not assemble their team on their crowds - I bet we could assemble ours on our crowds). Teams like Bulls spend like they've got sugar daddies. Teams like yours are the victims, as you live within your means and so struggle to keep up. Us to an extent, because I don't think Glover is throwing money around. He's investing root and branch rather than just blowing it on player salaries, presumably waiting to build good support in the build up to Newmarket.

That's exactly how it should be done. I have not an ounce of sympathy with clubs who spend over their income (and that includes how we used to be!) Most sensible people don't run their household budget in that way so why should they do that with their club?
I know it's a completely different ball game nowadays but many years ago, when most clubs were 'member clubs' I went to a members AGM and heard former Chairman, old Les Pounder, explaining why the club were not signing 'big stars'. He basically gave a piece of Mr Micawbers logic on income and expenditure. In a nutshell don't spend more than you are generating. Old fashioned views if you like BUT the same principals apply now as then.
Let's hope our new owner sticks to this. Loan after loan and robbing Peter to pay Paul have no place in the modern business of Rugby League. Nor does ignoring the taxman have any place in the running of a club. He is one creditor who must be paid! - as we know to our peril!
Anyway here's hoping we have turned the corner!

The only problem with generic growth is that you are "in real terms" getting further behind the leading pack, who not only are either being given or are earning more money.
Clubs like ours are plundered by these bigger teams for our finest players which in turns continues the weakening and strengthening cycles and maintains the status quo.
Thats why the gamble is so appealing and clubs live beyond their dreams.
If any of us want to see "successful" rugby played in this district, i'm afraid there is only one real solution IMO, and it begins with M.

Money ????????

Guess again


Money if it came in a life changing amount via a benefactor could of course make a huge change to any club, but just building slowly from the bottom up isn't going to make any difference.
We've been in SL 14 years and have been surviving by the skin of our teeth, going bust and not paying our way.
Cas have been up and down like a tarts drawers and both of us are still struggling near the bottom but for the odd glimpse of success following a year of over achieving.
Happy to struggle on, just happy picking scraps off the top table of RL.
Look at the players both clubs have lost to bigger clubs in this time, now that would have made a real team.

Come on Kinley Cat, you are better than that.
There is no reason why both clubs can't survive. Ultimately we are talking about money as Fordy says.
A merger sounds tempting because you in theory can pool resources, but that means you are also releasing resources as the club can't instanly be twice as big.
Money comes from people through the gate and sponsorship. If we merged less people will come. Its argueable of course whether it would be more than half from either side, and you could possibly split the community so no one goes and they try to generate their own teams.

On top of that, all those players you say we could keep, will still go elsewhere because it would be the same group of people running a club with less support and no identity and ultimately in my opinion less successful.

I'd rather watch an average Wakefield side that builds gradually by spending what they earn.
If it takes 10 years to build a club that can have a nice stadium with good youth system and a better than average team then so be it.

We are talking about a successful club or a surviving one, that is the point.
I will ask you a question, if we grow (as a club) slowly, constantly losing our best players and best juniors, how long do you think it will take us to get to say 6th or 7th place in SL, and out of the stronger clubs in the top eight, who and how are they going to make way for us in the top eight.
A threatened team will target players from any threatening clubs to strengthen their own squad and weaken the aggressors.
Two teams have got their way into the upper echelons, Catalans through years of support from the RFL and a near full strength international squad backed up with a load of aussies and Warrington who have now a wealthy backer and have capitalised on this and (as have catalans) seen the Bulls slide out.
These are the conditions needed to gain "success" and i dont see us benefiting from any of them.

The Merger ship has sailed. We're in the end game, a fight to the death (possibly Mutual Murder?)
The only way is Monopoly.

If the RFL want a reduced SL next time round which Lewes did mentionin an interview last year, the Merger ship is well and truly in dock taking on board fuel and provisions.

The only situation where I can see Merger re-emerging is if both NM & GH fail to materialise in the next 2 years. Otherwise, the club in the strongest position at that time will survive at the expense of the other (or both will be cut). I can't see any benefit of accepting merger if one club has a stadium and the other doesn't. If both projects come off I can't see any logic in merger.

I do get your point about survival v supieror club and I'd love to see us at the top but:
1) Someone has to come at the bottom of the league. It doesn't mean they are bad, just not as good as the others that season. If we have a well run club and improve gradually, I'm ok with mid table mediocity.
Its not settling for less its accepting where we are.

2) I agree with the other posts that it is now a fight to the death. If someone really does have to suceed and fail in the "Calder" area, then only one will survive (to paraphrase from Highlander!). If we lose I'll still support a championship side. I won't just watch Cas cos they are in Super League.

No it really isn't.

I don't disagree with your sentiment, i just think that the longer we "survive" the further we stand still/go back, as others move forward.
You have got to be able to see this, as a non club related issue, which i concede is difficult.
The three independent clubs could provide a huge wealth of talent that could be streamed into a successful representative side at the top of the pyramid.
A team full of all the best players we have produced and were producing before the wealthier or more appealing clubs took them away. a team that could rival any other in SL and an opportunity for the people of the area could be proud of as it truly represents them.
Maybe its all a bit romantic, but i see it as far more doable than the slow growth and wish for someone else's demise option.

I'm interested to know, why you think that is so certain.

Because at the end of the day RL is a sport, and in the UK sports like RL have always been run on what the heart says not the head.

So in theory it's a merger is a viable idea, in reality it will destroy two good clubs (or clubs that survive as you say) and replace them with an unwanted monstrosity that no one wants - that will wither and die within 5 years IMHO. A ground share is more viable but clearly won't slake the RFL's and Clubs thirst to destroy existing and IMHO good clubs. Only in RL could reality and reason be so lost in clouds of bunk theory and delusions of grandeur.

RL has only ever had one enemy, itself.

Vasty - I couldn't have put it better than that.

10 out of 10 for eloquentcy and a hint of romance.



I totally agree with your statement. (P.S. do you have multiple personalities or does your shift between great pieces like the above

and your other lesser works

depend on the time of the month ?)

I agree with your final point, however that is not to say that a successful representative side could not be formed.
Many people would support a successful representative side if it were not a merged club, (they could co exist with some thought and planning) and would i am sure be supported by the RFL as it sorts out two issues for them with one stone.
Featherstone compete with fairly low income/attendances, so would the feeder Wakefield and Castleford clubs, and there is certainly enough support in the area for a successful club too.
People go to watch success that is a fact, and there is enough bedrock to support a successful club from a playing perspective.
Instead of losing these players to other clubs, as we do currently because we are too busy staying afloat, we should be doing all that is possible to keep them.
We've had fourteen years and both us and Cas are still where we were, with my proposed set up generations of players and supporters could enjoy success, with the present set upwe may not have generations of anything other than the last fourteen SL years of dwindling interest, failure, relegation and bankruptcy.
I'm in a strange mood today.