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.
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.
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.