304 replies to this topic

[M j M]

Clearly Huddersfield are deep in debt and have plans to go deeper for many years to come

The game has to take every penny anyone wants to gift it.

But the over riding principle applies that if that money is used just to keep a small club up with the big boys, rather than grow the small club into a bigger club then you just store up the problem until Mr. Rich leaves.

Not a financial problem if he doesn't want his moneyback, just a problem that an SL place is taken up by a club that isn't helping grow the game.

Agree, that's the issue but they just didn't make that case. They led with a headline figure which is, frankly, irrelevant. They then sort of had a bit where they said it was hard to get people out of their armchairs but that doesn't tally with RL crowds which at top flight level have been at unprecedented levels over recent years. It's still a relatively small game and it has many challenges but this particular piece didn't get to the bottom of them whatsoever; it went in with its big lead SHOCK figure. Like I said, I'm embarrassed for GR who is usually quite good on daily sports reports but evidently doesn't have a deeper understanding of financial statements or sports finance - or who was happy to be too easily led by the nose by that seemingly clueless fellow from Sheffield.

It shied away from naming names or focussing on any clubs in particular but as it stands the vast majority of clubs are either financially healthy or have backers who have shown no intention of removing their backing. Focussing on the challenges of the London/Huddersfield single backer model or the more potentially precarious positions of Cas or possibly HKR or looking back at what happened at Bulls or Salford could have been insightful. The broad brush approach was frankly pretty worthless.

[Lounge Room Lizard]

The problem with the report is it doesnt give many facts and only looks at SL and not the other parts of the game. having said that there are major problems in the game and they are being wrongly addressed.

Some people on here need to get their heads out the sand and look at the real picture and not the one they want. Whilst the game is not in meltdown it is in serious trouble. Very poor management at most clubs in and out of SL has got us to the point where many clubs are strugglimng to survive. The really short term thinking of getting rid of academy teams to save money and getting Championship teams to act as a type of reserve/feeder club will damage the game mid to long term. SL is full of badly run clubs who since 1996 have thrown money away on trips abroad and over rated Australians and player agents instead of investing for the future off field or giving youth a chance instead of a unknown Aussie.

The massive loss of grant money from Sport England will cause massive damage to many areas which have had a Development officer(s). This is a real concern and I would rather the BBC or any Journo look at where the game is heading at all levels and speak to people at Grassroots level who often have more idea about things than some CEO at a SL Club.

SL is not dieing but its at a crossroads for many of its clubs. Can the game survive full time of will it slip into a Semi pro stage as most of the clubs even in SL cant afford or be properly managed to be fulltime without running up debts that eventually hurt them.

[Marauder]

I wouldn't sorry to much, it looks like every team sport seems to be having financial problems.

Could the day of the silly wages in some sports be coming to an end.

[roughyedspud]

just seen blake solly say on sky sports news say that "the net liabilities across the whole of the SL clubs is only £2m"

[The Parksider]

I'm embarrassed for GR who is usually quite good on daily sports reports but evidently doesn't have a deeper understanding of financial statements or sports finance - or who was happy to be too easily led by the nose.....

As Mr. Drake says shock horror sells better than all in the garden is rosy. If Riley didn't act the stooge someone else would have got the gig.

[Derwent]

just seen blake solly say on sky sports news say that "the net liabilities across the whole of the SL clubs is only £2m"

Net liabilities are a totally different issue to level of debt. They are the difference between the value of your assets and the value of your liabilities, but are often a complete red herring. For example, a club could have £10m of debt but value it's stadium and fixtures & fittings at £11m therefore saying it had net assets of £1m. In reality, it's stadium is probably worth nowhere near that amount as who would want to buy it in isolation, e.g. Saints new stadium will be valued as an asset on their balance sheet for the full capitalised build cost but if they put it up for sale tomorrow they'd get nowhere near that price for it.

[The Parksider]

Some people on here need to get their heads out the sand and look at the real picture and not the one they want. Whilst the game is not in meltdown it is in serious trouble. Very poor management at most clubs in and out of SL has got us to the point where many clubs are strugglimng to survive. The really short term thinking of getting rid of academy teams to save money and getting Championship teams to act as a type of reserve/feeder club will damage the game mid to long term. SL is full of badly run clubs .

Just had a look at the real picture and SL is backed by a contract of £90,000,000 pounds and the following wealthy benefactors messrs Caddick, Moran, Lenegan, Mcmanus, O'Connor, Koukash, Khan, Davey, Glover, Pearson Hudgell, Hughes etc etc.

That's before anyone goes through a turnstyle.

So no Superleague is not struggling to survive.

If anyone wants to get their heads out of the sand it's the old time fans who want to preserve all the old time clubs many of whom are from relatively small towns and are hemmed in by their rivals.

This makes it hard for them to be Superleague clubs when they don't have many super players or super amounts of fans and can't expand.

It's not "poor management" at all. Why do we always have to blame all the ills of the game on certain people??

Cas are the biggest strugglers. It's not Ferres's fault his town is only 40,000 people and that just down one road Wakefield are looking to mop up the best players and as many fans as they can whilst down the other road featherstone are at it. It's not his fault nobody wants a piece of land out of town, it's probably how cas got it in the first place. It's not his fault wakefield council won't help with a ground because if they have to help one they have to help all three.

There's no problem over the academy anyway? What does this oversized development system churn out in terms of quality professionals for the respective clubs every year against how many kids it just rejects?? They got it in Hull when they decided they only really need one academy, but then bottled it. I can think of a few other places where less can be more.

It's a minority sport/game and always will be so it's not easy to grow it and it's even harder when the games history is allowed to drag it backwards. We actually haven't done that bad in the circumstances. "Full of badly run clubs" give over, Leeds, Wigan, Hull, Wire, Saints, Catalans are clubs I'm personally proud of. For the rest it's been a struggle to step up from semi-pro to pro but all over the place we see Mr. O'Connor trying to rebuild Widnes as a power, Mr. Koukash wants a dynasty, Mr. davey has secured Fartown as a big club again, Mr. Khan and his board are going to keep Bradford on an even keel. Mr. Hudgell hopes Mr. larvin and the ground developments will come up trumps.

The game isn't "struggling to survive" it's struggling to shake off it's past. I wouldn't mind your comments if it wasn't for the fact the RFL/SLE recognised the problems Hudgell outlined last year and are actively looking at ways of sorting out a format and funding such that we can get additional security and hopefully growth. But i can't see how anyone can be blind to the achievements of Superleague over what we had in 1995 achieved against a very very difficult sports market of Soccer going mega big, Union going professional and mega big, and now the NRL going cash rich.

I think were managing very very well indeed in the circumstances.

Edited by The Parksider, 29 January 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[Kenny Bania]

I liked the bit about the Lincolnshire floods. Very interesting.

[Terry Mullaney]

Just had a look at the real picture and SL is backed by a contract of £90,000,000 pounds and the following wealthy benefactors messrs Caddick, Moran, Lenegan, Mcmanus, O'Connor, Koukash, Khan, Davey, Glover, Pearson Hudgell, Hughes etc etc.

That's before anyone goes through a turnstyle.

So no Superleague is not struggling to survive.

If anyone wants to get their heads out of the sand it's the old time fans who want to preserve all the old time clubs many of whom are from relatively small towns and are hemmed in by their rivals.

This makes it hard for them to be Superleague clubs when they don't have many super players or super amounts of fans and can't expand.

It's not "poor management" at all. Why do we always have to blame all the ills of the game on certain people??

Cas are the biggest strugglers. It's not Ferres's fault his town is only 40,000 people and that just down one road Wakefield are looking to mop up the best players and as many fans as they can whilst down the other road featherstone are at it. It's not his fault nobody wants a piece of land out of town, it's probably how cas got it in the first place. It's not his fault wakefield council won't help with a ground because if they have to help one they have to help all three.

There's no problem over the academy anyway? What does this oversized development system churn out in terms of quality professionals for the respective clubs every year against how many kids it just rejects?? They got it in Hull when they decided they only really need one academy, but then bottled it. I can think of a few other places where less can be more.

It's a minority sport/game and always will be so it's not easy to grow it and it's even harder when the games history is allowed to drag it backwards. We actually haven't done that bad in the circumstances. "Full of badly run clubs" give over, Leeds, Wigan, Hull, Wire, Saints, Catalans are clubs I'm personally proud of. For the rest it's been a struggle to step up from semi-pro to pro but all over the place we see Mr. O'Connor trying to rebuild Widnes as a power, Mr. Koukash wants a dynasty, Mr. davey has secured Fartown as a big club again, Mr. Khan and his board are going to keep Bradford on an even keel. Mr. Hudgell hopes Mr. larvin and the ground developments will come up trumps.

The game isn't "struggling to survive" it's struggling to shake off it's past. I wouldn't mind your comments if it wasn't for the fact the RFL/SLE recognised the problems Hudgell outlined last year and are actively looking at ways of sorting out a format and funding such that we can get additional security and hopefully growth. But i can't see how anyone can be blind to the achievements of Superleague over what we had in 1995 achieved against a very very difficult sports market of Soccer going mega big, Union going professional and mega big, and now the NRL going cash rich.

I think were managing very very well indeed in the circumstances.

Interesting points you make there Parky. So do you think Gary Hetherington has got it wrong when he cites 'incompetence at club level letting the sport down'?

Edited by Terry Mullaney, 29 January 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[saints10coach]

I think Gary Hethrington should be given his wish. Let his Leeds side and the other two or three that are performing well, form a league of their own. The rest can then split into two divisions with promotion and relegation between the two.

Edited by saints10coach, 29 January 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[foozler]

Interesting points you make there Parky. So do you think Gary Hetherington has got it wrong when he cites 'incompetence at club level letting the sport down'?

Well no, Hetherington is bang on the money. Why did Bradford get into the mess they did? Incompetence at club level. Why did Salford get into the mess they did? I would suggest incompetence at club level played a significant role?

[keighley]

So when Directors put money in they don't want back is that income, or is it debt?

If they don't want it back, it's income but there are I understand tax implications if they do that.

[JohnM]

I liked the bit about the Lincolnshire floods. Very interesting.

see here: http://www.totalrl.c...re-floods-1953/

[keighley]

If anyone wants to get their heads out of the sand it's the old time fans who want to preserve all the old time clubs many of whom are from relatively small towns and are hemmed in by their rivals..It's a minority sport/game and always will be so it's not easy to grow it . I think were managing very very well indeed in the circumstances.

Wigan are a small town hemmed by a very big rival, so are Widnes, so are Huddersfield but that's ok because they are SL pukka members.When a team in the same situation wants to move up, like Featherstone and Halifax, then it is suggested that they cannot survive in like environments to many of the current SL clubs.When teams not hemmed in away from the very centre of the heartlands are suggested as possible SL teams like York, Doncaster and Sheffield and even Barrow then scorn is heaped on these ideas.We are a minority sport from mostly small towns not a mega sport like soccer. That is our demographic and we should prosper within that framework.I agree the game is doing quite well but I see no reason why the aim should not be to expand and increase the number of top level clubs. The contraction route favoured by many is just regressive and self defeating.

Edited by keighley, 29 January 2013 - 04:20 PM.

[Terry Mullaney]

Well no, Hetherington is bang on the money. Why did Bradford get into the mess they did? Incompetence at club level. Why did Salford get into the mess they did? I would suggest incompetence at club level played a significant role?

Practically giving season tickets away didn't help the Bulls case for instance. I too think GH nailed it but the RFL approved licenses for these 'incompetent' clubs.

[Dave T]

Practically giving season tickets away didn't help the Bulls case for instance. I too think GH nailed it but the RFL approved licenses for these 'incompetent' clubs.

Would you suggest a 6 team league?

[my missus]

It is easy to check on what clubs hav and don't have, like

Super League (europe) Limited is an Active business incorporated in England & Wales on 12th August 1996. Their business activity is recorded as Other Sports Activities. Super League (europe) Limited is run by 2 current members. and 1 company secretary. 15 shareholders own the total shares within the company. It is not part of a group. The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 31/12/2011 reported 'cash at bank' of £3,108,747, 'liabilities' worth £10,149,905, 'net worth' of £15 and 'assets' worth £9,921,334. Super League (europe) Limited's risk score was amended on 10/10/2012.

[Amber Avenger]

Practically giving season tickets away didn't help the Bulls case for instance.

But doing nothing wouldn't have helped either. Crowds were falling fast and good did come of it - for example it secured the JCT600 sponsorship who were previously going to pull out from the club. It's easy to have a go but the problems were there long before the season ticket saga, and the club may have "died" far quicker without it.

[The Parksider]

Interesting points you make there Parky. So do you think Gary Hetherington has got it wrong when he cites 'incompetence at club level letting the sport down'?

I'm half with Foozler on this.

I've thought longish and hardish and Hetherington can only really have a go at clubs who go into administration. If Wilkinson and his partner hand over to Koukash and write off their directors loans i don't see hetherington has a valid criticism. He hardly solved the problem of having to try to develop professional RL in a large conurbation with two big soccer clubs when he was at Sheffield. He bailed out?

Maybe he considers Wakefield as guilty over Administration last year, Richardsons business interests took a dive. But let's face it the real battle was Leeds.v.Bradford who fell out over Harris and went to law, so maybe the "incompetence" at club level is directed at Bradford primarily.

He won't say so though as there is no advantage to him or the game in doing so. I also suspect the incompetence jibe was Bradford continuing to spend money they didn't have on the playing squad whilst the RFL bailed them out with Odsal.

Fair comment or an old axe to grind?? I'd have rather he'd have answered more positively that he did.

Edited by The Parksider, 29 January 2013 - 04:52 PM.

[The Parksider]

1. Practically giving season tickets away didn't help the Bulls case for instance.

2. The RFL approved licenses for these 'incompetent' clubs.

1. Come on Terry, your a businessman so be fair. They took decisions that as Amber Avenger said were a risk but made some sense and the same time cheap season tickets got thousands of people into the ground and buying the food and drink. It's not good form to condemn people in retrospect. Doing nothing or just cutting costs could have accelerated things as AA said, but we really should leave it alone now as should Hetherington.

2. Again Terry be fair. I know people who have done well with business and people who have done badly, I don't define them as competent or incompetent. It depends on luck, what hand they are dealt and how well the competition do against them. The licensing panel couldn't drop a club with 10,000 fans for one with 2,000.

Edited by The Parksider, 29 January 2013 - 04:53 PM.