Just been over on the Hull FC thread. Won't be doing that again.
Bunch of Sharks.

No such luck, they spend just as much time here lol.

I wonder if rovers are in serious financial trouble by any chance?

See what I mean.

Yeah, I like him. Think he's that Lucy ones dad.

There is a lot of truth in the letter, what good will come of it, if any remains to be seen.

You cost me money dude.

I had you down to be here 1st and you let me down. I'm seriously disappointed in you.

They are as predictable as clockwork, but come Friday teatime if Rovers win they will all have mysteriously dissappeared

And when we don't win, Their mothers/sisters/fathers and brothers will all be on here spouting frep.

Neil Dudgell.....we need 10,000 to break even.

Who's losing money on every home game. Who's NEVER EVER gonna get 10,000 average home support.

Be worried, be very worried.



Wish we had Fudgell instead of Mr. Pearson.



In Pearson

we trust, do you trust the ambulance chaser



Begging bowl out yet again, pathetic.

Go lick a cats starfish.

Did A Hull KR Supporter/Player/Board member do something terrible to you? Do you need to talk to someone? I think counselling would be a good idea for you. Do you experience flashbacks?

Don't worry I know a good solicitor who could get you some compo

TBF you would not ask all those questions in one go, bit overwhelming that.

Well done.

You've grasped how this local rivalry thing works.

It's all one way, frankly we're bored of beating you and are much more humble in victory, besides you all disappear when you lose so gloats would be in vain.

Your lot love it though, like a cup final when you beat Rovers. Sad.

Wow, two Hudgism's in one post
CAPITAL letters
... and pointless smilies to give your chaotic rubbish some emphasis

Take a bow

We've been in cup finals in recent history, something you would know nothing about and believe me when i say that beating the smaller club in the city, although may be fun is nothing compared with being in cup finals. Now run along and know your place.

I don't see any reason for this to be a proxy-battle for the intra-Hull rivalry, or a chance to vent for the more, ahem, 'impassioned', or to drag up old arguments.

Hudgell has made a point about what he believes are the parlous state of the sport's finances. Whether you agree or not, he's entitled to an opinion - feel free to discuss it's merits.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Stumbling along from crisis to crisis, making it up as we go is the most likely outcome - it has worked (kind of) for 100+ years. But it isn't unreasonable to at least hope for some strategic thinking.
What the best way forward is, is subjective and influenced by club-bias. Our situation means 12 teams and each getting a bigger slice of the pie appeals. 10 teams (as advocated by Jamie Peacock and Tony Smith) we'd probably think of as cutting too far, as we'd perhaps be one of the those considered for the cull. Hull fans going on about the 50% rule, while talking about it in terms of financial stability, one cynically assumes, are thinking about the competitive sporting advantage they imagine it'd give them.

Which teams have received 'handout after handout'?

On the contrary my 11 fingered cousin;
Hull KR played in and won the Northern Rail Cup in 2005 and National League One in 2006 and again made the final of the NR Cup.

You're wasting your time, I'm still waiting for one of them to tell me how much the RFL have doled out to London

=#FF0000Last one, everything O/T goes binwards from now. I've put it in red and everything, so I clearly mean business. YEAH!

The problem with that being that it would require RL to come up with a model for running a pro sport that has evaded every other pro sport for decades, if not longer.

The RFL strategy has been to modernise the sport to make it more media and sponsor friendly, thereby attracting more income from TV deals and direct sponsorship. They have also encouraged clubs to grow crowds as much as they are able. I'm not sure what else can be done TBH.


I was in favour of the 50% rule when it was first introduced, long before it would have given any possible commercial advantage to FC. Club chairmen have proven time and time again over many decades that they will overspend in the hopes that success on the pitch will follow and somehow that will bring in enough cash to balance the books. The 50% rule was specifically designed to stop this self-destructive behaviour, or at least limit it. And it worked - sort of. Then the clubs decided that they didn't like it any more and it was removed. Personally I think that was a mistake but opinions will vary.

A smaller league might well be a sensible approach, but as you point out how many clubs would vote for that if they thought they might be one of the clubs sacrificed 'for the good of the game'? There is also the possibility that Sky would reduce the TV contract for a smaller league with fewer games to televise and we'd be back to square one.

A last possibility would be to reduce the cap drastically to the point where overspending was impossible. This would result in a massive drop in the quality of the competition as the best players left, but might guarantee the long-term viability of clubs without rich boards/sponsors. It could just as easily destroy the sport altogether as Sky and sponsors abandon the game due to the poor quality.

I'm not sure what the answer is TBH. I am sure that it won't be a simple one, and that the ideas put forward in Hudgell's letter don't even come close.

When you say "one of them", I assume you mean us. Your smart enough to know that none of us could know how much if any, likewise with Bradford, Catalan, Salford, Wakefield and Crusaders.

People like you realy need to get your heads out of the sand and open your eyes, other proffesional sports do rely on benafactors, namely football, but look at the state it is in with clubs deeply in the red and even facing bankruptcy in some cases, football also has massive tv income to back it up which rugby league doesn't to the same extent .
The writing is on the wall for other clubs like Bradford imo if the RFL dont start to get real, Rugby league is a business and as in any other the the easiest and fastest way to growth is to firstly protect what you currently have, the RFL need to focus a little more on their core business imo.

For those old enough to remember will recollect the early eighties when Rugby league was on the ropes and going downhill, it seems to me that the people currently in charge at red hall may be blindly heading the same way.
Love him or hate him you Hull fans but ignore NH concerns at your peril .

The RFL need to stop looking at expansion / the international game. We currently have 2 comps (superleague and NRL) that seem to attract spectators and are established competitions.
The constant chasing of widening the areas the game is watched is a foolish campaign. People outside of the heartlands are not interested, will never be interested in any kind of numbers and if we put a club in Birmingham for example no one will go.
The magic weekends are prime examples, the only people who went were people who travelled to watch their clubs. The sport got covered on sky as a sport that hired out a big reception room but didn;t have the friends to fill it.
We need to concentrate on what we have, keep the money within the local clubs and stop the idea that we will ever have a national game to rival RU.

The franchising idea should be scrapped as well, its not working, the lack of P&R kills the season for a number of teams. The idea it allows teams time is a folly, all it does is allow teams like widnes to come up, get spanked for a couple of years, thus losing countless fans that will in all likelyhood never return.

We need to stop promoting teams on how nice their house is and look at how good the team is. Rant over.