24 Clubs Outside Super League

[Wakefield Ram]

5 minutes ago, Cardypaul said:

The problem is clubs are spending money they don’t have, would you really have a business where you just keep pouring money in with no chance of ever recouping it is total madness.

They have Financial Fair Play however flawed in football. The problem with the "rich backer" approach is with few exceptions, they leave at some point and leave a financial mess behind. It is not a sustainable model.

The more the professional game shrinks, the fewer who will support the game, the poorer the game is all round. 

If my team Dewsbury folded, would I go and watch another team? No. Would I be less likely to attend international games? Yes. Watch SL on TV? To be honest, I stopped a few years ago, but watch the NRL instead.

And my son comes with me, he's in his 20s. Would he watch another side? No.

 

[Barley Mow]

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

They have Financial Fair Play however flawed in football. The problem with the "rich backer" approach is with few exceptions, they leave at some point and leave a financial mess behind. It is not a sustainable model.

The more the professional game shrinks, the fewer who will support the game, the poorer the game is all round. 

If my team Dewsbury folded, would I go and watch another team? No. Would I be less likely to attend international games? Yes. Watch SL on TV? To be honest, I stopped a few years ago, but watch the NRL instead.

And my son comes with me, he's in his 20s. Would he watch another side? No.

 

It's something I have direct experience of.

Since Bramley folded I've been more just a fan of the game in general: I go to the odd Leeds, Bradford or Hunslet match but I'm not a supporter of any of those clubs, they aren't "my team". I've watched the amateur Bramley side that replaced the original club from time to time.

As I say, I'm now just a fan of the sport. I still enjoy matches live or on tele, but there isn't the same passion or intensity as following your club.

It's a great shame if any club folds. Hopefully all will be able to ride out any cuts in funding - time will tell. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Barley Mow

[Blind side johnny]

27 minutes ago, Cardypaul said:

The problem is clubs are spending money they don’t have, would you really have a business where you just keep pouring money in with no chance of ever recouping it is total madness.

In reality most sports have little real concern with viability. When sports become businesses is the time that they cease to be sport in its purest form and simply money making ventures. Maybe that is what most "fans" of these sports thrive on but I have always, naively I guess, believed that RL is just a little different.

[Cardypaul]

24 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

In reality most sports have little real concern with viability. When sports become businesses is the time that they cease to be sport in its purest form and simply money making ventures. Maybe that is what most "fans" of these sports thrive on but I have always, naively I guess, believed that RL is just a little different.

I know what you mean but to an extent clubs always have been a business, most lower league clubs have had to sell players to make ends meet at some point. To be fair the club you support do run a tight ship and don’t spend money they haven’t got. My point is that everyone has argued that clubs should all receive the same amount of central funding which I don’t have a problem with but if that’s the case should there not be a case of a limit on funding from the owners and make it a level playing field?

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Cardypaul said:

The problem is clubs are spending money they don’t have, would you really have a business where you just keep pouring money in with no chance of ever recouping it is total madness.

They do have the money, the rich people are giving it to them. If that stops they'll have to adjust. 

But banning rich people from giving some clubs extra money does nothing to save the basket cases from going bankrupt. They'll still be as broke as they were the day before. 

The truth is, we all like to find a bogeyman to blame bad things on in life, and in rugby league that's variously 'Super greed', the RFL, Rupert Murdoch, or in this case rich benefactors. 

But as in real life, the blame can usually found with oneself - or factors that noone can control. 

The rugby league clubs that have gone under - or may go under in future - will have gone largely due to a combination of bad management and societal and sporting changes they couldn't control. ie, local people just didn't care enough any more. 

[Blind side johnny]

20 hours ago, Cardypaul said:

I know what you mean but to an extent clubs always have been a business, most lower league clubs have had to sell players to make ends meet at some point. To be fair the club you support do run a tight ship and don’t spend money they haven’t got. My point is that everyone has argued that clubs should all receive the same amount of central funding which I don’t have a problem with but if that’s the case should there not be a case of a limit on funding from the owners and make it a level playing field?

I disagree, fundamentally.

Businesses exist to make profits, purely and simply. The vehicles that they use to make such profits may be arbitrary so long as profits ensue.

Clubs exist to provide sporting experiences to participants and spectators. Along the line they have to somehow make the books balance in order to pat their way.

Much of sport, notably that sold as such in the USA, is now purely a business. Hence the drive by owners to minimise risk and uncertainty. We are now hearing the same arguments from SL clubs here.

[Mumby Magic]

For me clubs should be self sufficient on top of the money rather than relying on it. For example Dewsbury have the Carboot that brings in extra revenue. Batley have been utilising their stadium for years hence why they are one of very few without recent financial problems. Barrow are giving it a massive push this year plus Keighley are trying to bring Cougar time back.

One connection with these is that they have their own stadiums. 

My fear us for some of the others. Oldham and Swinton spring to mind. Swinton tried to rebrand to try and take the club forward. That was poopooed by the fans. This day and age particularly after last year fans need to be open minded. Drastic change at some clubs may save them.

[Cardypaul]

41 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

I disagree, fundamentally.

Businesses exist to make profits, purely and simply. The vehicles that they use to make such profits may be arbitrary so long as profits ensue.

Clubs exist to provide sporting experiences to participants and spectators. Along the line they have to somehow make the books balance in order to pat their way.

Much of sport, notably that sold as such in the USA, is now purely a business. Hence the drive by owners to minimise risk and uncertainty. We are now hearing the same arguments from SL clubs here.

That’s okay it’s really just terminology really you have to provide the money to operate a team because there are costs involved, whether you call that a business or just a club is up to you.