I think the RFL was going to increase funding to the 2nd tier. Hence the moan from the SL clubs about having their money diluted.

It would not cover the full gap, but it allows for an ambitious club like Featherstone with backers who can cover the difference to try and make the step up.

IIRC the reduction to £1.6m was done when removing the NICs. I'm guessing that it was possibly something to do with that EBT tax dodge that many clubs were involved with. I'm presuming it also prevented a few clubs going over the cap when they paid any past debt to HMRC.

The problem within the game is this. You have six clubs who are all pretty equal in terms of stadia owned or rented and income streams, sometimes like Huddersfield heavily subsidized by an individual and playing standards. Widnes and Salford have the infrastructure but not quite the playing potential.

Then we have the blur, Castleford and Wakefield for instance, protected by the concept of no relegation but have these clubs got more within their business than Leigh and Halifax?

So Leigh Halifax and Featherstone are in real limbo, they tick the boxes of the bottom four or five in super league but are left to play great traditional clubs like Hunslet who now for instance play at an athletics track with one stand only that holds around 1500 and they draw 400 a week to watch them. The risk is the three above lose the fan base and eventually their business and we continue with a stale split super league and a lower competition which will be competitive but the clubs like Hunslet Batley and Hornets could never be strong enough to sustain anything than basic part time operations. If you look at the game as a business model it is quite frightening unless something is done.

its the tax, its taken at source from the £1.825, leaves you with the lower figure.

Taken from the Halifax Courier.
It is we clubs who own Super League not the RFL and Wigan for one do not want to see our millions of pounds of investment in Super League distributed to a further 10 clubs beyond the current 14,” said Lenagan.

Its £1.6m bumped up the £1.8m if you meet homegrown/ playing for England criteria which allows the bit extra

And of course the players union would be dead against this as more players in the championship earning better wages, would lead to a more competitive environment for the players union as they would no longer be representing the majority of full time professionals, just the bigger wage earners. So it will become like the bankers union.

Not much sympathy for them!!!

Does the players union just represent SL players?

Yes it does the championship players are in the GMB not all but quite a few

I think you need to read the press release of League13 as I suspect you misunderstand their position.

Essentially they disagree with the three leagues of 8 scenario and are concerned about a few other things, however they have not jumped into bed with Lenaghan and co. Its merely a case of them sharing some of the concerns. Sections of the media have been misrepresenting them.


- WE DO welcome the pause for further debate and consultation
- WE DO NOT support a 14 team Super League and thus do not support the Ian Lenagan rebellion as mistakenly reported
- WE DO support a 12 team Super League
- WE DO support promotion and relegation
- WE STRONGLY OPPOSE the preferred RFL option which contains the 3x8 league split after 23 fixtures
- WE DO believe that simplicity and stability are the keys to success
- WE DO believe the league structure is not the central problem
- WE DO believe that the marketing of the game has been very seriously under performing
- WE DO believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with the wonderful, simple yet totally enthralling, compelling and thrilling sport of rugby league.
- WE DO believe that the sport is seriously undersold and undervalued.
- WE DO believe that the expertise to deliver clear commercial success exists at some of the games’ top clubs and they should be empowered to lead a sharp, focused and results based commercial strategy that delivers the just rewards for our sport
- WE DO believe that League 13 has a pivotal lead role in delivering the player welfare service to all clubs [/i

In which case, maybe they have been mis-represented.

However, I don't get the opposition to the 3x8 split.

So far the only arguement I have heard against it is that it's too complicated. Which if it's the case, then I do worry about educational standards.

The 8x3 split does carry issues, but it also carries potential benefits as games towards the end of the season can be more or less cake walks for those in the top 8.

I did feel it brought a new outlook and possibilities to the league. I know people are hesitant to change, but the initial response to me just seemed knee jerk. ie It's different therefore I oppose.

There were also assumptions that the gap in wages would be too much for tier 2 to cover. However, that was assuming current cap levels. I reality, those tier 2 clubs paying £900k could have quality players who could beat a side funded at less than the £1.8 cap.

The real reason for this opposition is money and that it was to be spread further than before. SL clubs want to keep a tight fist on the money. League 13 only represent a percentage of SL players so again don't want to risk money going to players outside of their club.

I understand self interest, it's natural. I would do the same. But that's the point of a governing body that sets the rules. Their job is to look at the over all benefit not just self interest of a few elite players and clubs.

Otherwise left to their own devices, I would expect the clubs to continually contract the league to squeeze more and more out of the same funding, by cutting more and more of their fellow clubs.

I think we went to 10 clubs once and that did not expand the game at all. We need a route in for other clubs, but standard P&R with no extra funding to the 2 tier means that 2 tier clubs have to change wholesale in 2 months after the best SL players have already been purchased.

With a cap half that of the top teams and games against lower SL teams, it should provide those clubs with an opportunity to gear up earlier and gain higher intensity earlier.

Like I say, I get the self interest, but to me it sounds like more stagnation for the game as a whole.

For me, my opposition comes from the fact I can't name a single sport in the world who has that set up. There has to be a reason for that, and there are no obvious benefits as opposed a "normal" league system. That means its innovation for the sake of innovation, like clubcall, rhino ball, stobbart, buying odsal, Celtic crusaders, magic weekend etc etc i am tired of them messing with this great sport - the current administration seem so fixated for gimmicks as quick fix solutions (which I feel this is) they don't seem to be seeing the bigger long term picture of constantly fiddling with the set up.

In isolation it probably wouldn't have caused the uprising it's caused, but in context it's probably the straw that's broken the camels back.

That's just my opinion

Yes.

I am starting to see why the Super League clubs are rebelling. Crazy stuff, the document states one thing that is correct and then comes up with a solution that would make it worse claiming it is the solution.

Moving between FT and PT leagues is very hazardous for club finances. So we are going to make it easier for it to happen?!?!?!?

This has to be a the only light in whole lot of dark in this report but does that just create an even larger gap between Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Warrington and everyone else? Also with only allowing 10 elite academies the club trained allowance is only going to apply to 10 teams. So Salford for example who are unlikely to be one of the 10 will be hampered trying to buy their way out of mediocrity, which at the moment is the only way to do it.

Maybe the league should consider setting up elite academies over the country in areas such as South Wales and the North East? If funding is ring fenced why just give it to the clubs?