dboy

Delighted to report that the pitch has been treated and re-covered, so action has been taken.

And you can't make the leap between the safety of a pitch and sore knees. We are talking about grazes, not concussions, for example.

Some players have sore knees. They aren't playing games on a minefield outside Kiev.

My thoughts on your thoughts: The pitch was indeed a joy, with amazing drainage...but it was knackered, rock hard (with no sprinkler system)...maybe as you suggest through a lack of investment and maintenance...but even if maintained it wouldn't sustain the kind of use the club are trying to achieve to make a viable income stream.

Your pitch has been down much much longer and you have heat lamps. You do realise you've explained exactly why the pitch is far from optimal right now, don't you?

But you knew when you typed your post that Wakefield don't have those lamps, nor can they probably afford them. It's not an option.

And how do you propose they grow grass during the winter?

1. Name the winning sides (1 point each) Salford Warrington Hull FC Wigan Catalans Cas 2. Which team will score the most tries (1 point) Catalans 3. Which team will score the fewest tries (1 point) Leigh

Many thanks. Just a suggestion; could each "next round thread" start with the latest leaderboard, as well as the next set of fixtures?

Leeds look quite leaderless. I think they need a Captain.

You have understood that he's not saying they are Grade A now, don't you? You saw the word "aspirations"? It's an interview about how the new build, and being in control of the incomes it brings, that will open revenues to allow them to become Grade A. You get it, yes? Hull FC, Wigan, Hudds - they can only earn more money through increasing ticket sales. They cannot earn a bean through F&B and events etc. Their income streams are exhausted. Wakefield by contrast, now have the opportunity to generate income to invest in the playing roster and future potential success. They are like the fat kid at the gym - at least they are there trying to change!

They had no investment so we'll never really know exactly how bad they were run? IF THERE WAS NO INVESTMENT, THEN BY DEFINITION, THEY WERE BADLY RUN. CLEARLY THAT WASN'T WORTH THE RISK. Since you mentioned Huddersfield, let's assume Ken Davy walked away tomorrow, would they then be "well run"? NO, IT'S NOT A SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL - I DON'T LIKE IT - BUT RIGHT NOW, IT WORKS FOR THEM. THEY ARE SOLVENT. Having 10 "well run clubs" in the top tier with crowds of 5000 would only going to accelerate the disappearance of RL from the sporting mainstream even faster. WHO'S AIM IS THAT? WE NEED 20 WELL RUN CLUBS, BUT BE REALISTIC - SL IS A B-TIER SPORT, AS MUCH AS IT PAINS ME TO SAY THAT. 14 TEAMS AVERAGING 10K WOULD BE A REALISTIC GOAL IN THE MEDIUM TERM.

The 80 (or 2x40), mins of distraction from that blasted phone is the highlight of my week. When I'm watching RL, I am in the game, I'm somewhere else, it's vicarious and it's cathartic.

I'd like the link to that quote and remind you again that Wakey make an operating profit.

Who says that is a problem affecting only Wakefield (one of only 2 clubs to run at a profit)? I think you'll find all clubs say they need a minimum of 13 home games. You'll also find that it is/will be less of a problem for Wakefield, when their new facility comes online and opens up other revenue streams. You should call it the Cuckoo Club problem, as it is those clubs that are beholden to a landlord, with limited stadia-based income streams that may suffer most.

What's "the Wakefield problem"?

Can they both lose please?

"Solvency is the ability of a company to meet its long-term debts and financial obligations." You are conflating sustainable and solvent. While ever someone like, for example, Ken Davy underwrites Hudds, they are solvent. Whether those kinds of clubs are ultimately sustainable remains to be seen in the fulness of time. Bulls were neither sustainable nor solvent. That they could fail financially with the huge crowds you recall, is testament to how badly they were run. They do not deserve sympathy, nor do they deserve favour just because "they had big crowds".

If you can service your debts, you are solvent. It doesn't matter where the money comes from e.g. assets or liquidity. Hence, until there is an issue, all current clubs are solvent. Of course, for some, the sugar-daddy clubs, problems could always be just around the corner. I don't think they are appropriate business models either, but until one pops, it is what it is. I'd hope IMG will have an element of grading linked to financial sustainability and the game won't suffer another Bulls episode.

Because the crowd potential is directly proportional to the catchment population. And yet, they couldn't run a solvent business there.

Let's put it this way - if you are a massive club, with regular on-field success, with huge crowds, a massive commercial presence, a huge media footprint and front-line sponsors and you can't make the numbers add up to pay your bills (x5) - you do not deserve to be in the top division of your sport.

Replace what? A basket case club, who had big crowds, but still couldn't make the sums add up. Five times. It's not about replacing their crowds, it's about replacing them with a well run club, who have earned it on the field, whilst remaining solvent. That's what the game has done.

Happy to debate this point with you. Bulls went bust 5 times in a decade! Wakefield were saved by the tight-fisted Michael Carter (only spends the money they generate - more clubs should try it), paid off all their historic debt, now own their own ground which is being heavily developed, and are one of only two clubs to be run at a profit! New stadium efforts will hopefully allow them to break the 6-8k attendance ceiling they have experienced. Salford are a contrast. Cuckoo tenants, weak crowds (though hopefully improving), paying a high wage bill including marquee payments, have no player development pathways to speak of and have never paid their full rent! But to stay on thread - York are an example of a club trying to do it right and earn promotion on the field. Bulls believe they have some historic right to be in SL, regardless of how badly they do on and off the field. Until that mentality changes, they will never get their house in order.

So we have established - the best reason for having a Bulls team in SL is that they could get a 20k crowd against Leeds. Well tough. It's not an attendance competition. You don't grow the game by having "big" clubs who go bust - that makes the game smaller.

Only ONCE have Bulls averaged over 15k crowds - that was in 2003. And it is better to have a club with 5k crowds and paying their bills/players, than it is to have one with a 15k crowds who don't.