1. You deny saying that you think all is well with SL but then in point 2 of your post, you list a litany of successes of SL. You apparently do think SL is a roaring success.
2. No there hasn';t ever been a fully profitable or even a remotely fully profitable or, in fact, anything which even faintly resembles a profitable SL. However, if we don't get a lot closer to a profitable operation, there will be "touble at t mill", big time.
As to your laundry list.I will agree with a, e and f. Of the remainder
b. This is not true. Since we went to Sky and dumped terrestrial TV, e.g. the players trophy and most internationals, the profile of RL has vastly decreased. There is no comparison with the exposure on Sky TV compared to the BBC. The BBC is hundreds of time bigger in the exposure league than Sky. Do not interpret this as me saying that I do not value the Sky coverage because I do. The money from themn is vital BUT in terms of exposure, Sky has reduced the profile of the game in this country.
c. This is patently false. The game is played all over the country due to the initiative of Lionel Hurst and thereafter the RFL and the growth of the Summer Conference league and then the appointment of development officers nationwide due to the Sports England wwindfall. SL had very little if anything to do with this.
d. I am not so sure they have developed more amd more professional players from all across the country. Firstly, many hundreds, if not thousands, of professional players were recruited from Australasia. This was even more true in France, than England. The other professional players produced were, as always, introduced to the game via the amateur ranks and any gems uncovered were hoovered up by SL clubs.
3. The number of clubs being too great at 14.I disagree with this also. It is not the number of clubs that is the problem, it is the level of finance and cash that is needed to successfully and, god willing, profitably operate.The bar has been set too high. We need to pay less so as to enable us to break even in more places. It's no good having 6 five star hotels when you can have a motel in every town in the country for less and still attract guests.Reducing the numbers to give more cash to Wigan, Leeds or Saints is not the answer. Reducing the numbers sends out a message of failure. Every mega business, Woolworth comes to mind, cuts out huge numbers of branches when they start to fail. We should not go down that road unless we really are seriously declining.
Maurice Lyndsay was a typical greedy, grasping business tycoon. He wanted to have less clubs so that there was more pie to divvy up with his cronies at the top clubs. He was not doing it to satisfy Murdoch. Murdoch wanted our game in his pocket to put Kerry Packer to the sword in the SL war back in Australia. He was so hot to do that that when the clubs initially balked, especially those who were going to be excluded from SL, he immediately, without a murmur, coughed up extra millions to placate the clubs and seal the deal.
Have you considered what you propose, i.e ditch two SL clubs, turn the championship clubs into parasites. In short, decimate the whole of width and breadth of RL to enable SL to spend more than it can afford or to enable it to function for the sake of 12 clubs. It took RU 50 years to claw back the losses form the great split. Casting teams out is a bad strategy. It is better to lower your expenses to enable existing clubs to function. Expansion and holding the line is good. Contraction is bad for the many for the benefit of the few.
I would be delighted if SKY coughed up more cash. I think they possibly could. However, whenever I have ever suggested this previously, you have strenuously argue that there was no way they would ever do so. You need to be consistent.
Lastly, nobody wants SL to collapse. It would be the death knell of the game. I don't think anyone on these boards wants that. It's to avoid that specifically that I am saying, if we can't afford to operate at current levels, we must reduce our costs to the point where we can at the very least break even. My feeling is that you are a professional in a financial field. If so, you should know very well that we cannot keep on vastly overspending and getting further into the mire year after year but you seem to advocate that. Cost cutting to save the game seems to be an anathma
Edited by keighley, 24 October 2012 - 05:36 AM.