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

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.

The 50% rule, I assume, is hard to manage (for clubs and RFL alike). Plus it might discourage affordable 'investment', locking in success a handful of currently dominant and well-supported clubs. A flat cap has the advantage of simplicity and, in theory at least, should make for a more even competition. I'm not against it entirely or in principle, I just think it creates as many problems as it solves.
I'm not sure that NH's letter contains any suggestions, although I guess we've only seen page 1(?). He clearly thinks 14 teams is not sustainable - but that is just stating what he believes to be a problem.

Actually it's not that difficult as any such monies would appear on the clubs accounts which are available for a small fee.

Bradford, for instance, received a loan of roughly £700k in January 2011 which was basically an advance on their Sky money. They then had to pay this back out of the proceeds from selling their lease to the RFL - hence their current cash-flow crisis.

Similarly Crusaders received a loan from the RFL that was secured against their stadium, which the RFL now part own.

The other clubs you mention got nothing AFAIK.

The RFL aren't exactly minted. It wasn't so long ago that they were in serious debt. I'm not sure why so many people seem to think they have huge wads of cash to throw at clubs even if they wanted to.

Once again, I invite you to come up with a figure for how much cash all these things are costing the game. Because unless you can do so then I don't understand how you can claim that stopping them would help.

I can't come up with a figure but I will state it will eventually lose fans. My point was that the whether financially or in a time / effort expenditure the RFL seems more focussed on chasing an expansion / international game then it does looking after its core business.

My points where the international game will never expand even if we royally thumped the aussies.
The game will never thrive outside of its current areas, no nes interested.

Whilst time and effort is being expnded in these areas the fact one of the biggest teams in our game is going to the wall, a solution is needed and that should be the RFLs priority