Yes, in fact I heard tell that had the Aussies not toured in 2001 (when they were scared of the Eiffel Tower getting bombed!) then it quite realistically could have been curtains for the RFL. Not sure how true that is but they certainly were not rolling in it then after the 2000 WC.

Do you know I love the english language.

You post something to make a statement and it is read a different way, which is understandable.

The replies are in the same vien.

Sometimes I wonder how we really do communicate effectively and actually understand what we are all talking about









This thread, IMO is a classic example but then again maybe not

I think the point is LF, that however bad it might seem, it is probably a hell of a lot better than it was.

Not really mate - a lot of your posts aren't written coherently. It's not everyone else's fault.

Are you sure?

After reading about how much some clubs are losing it is hard to see that by the enxt time licences come around they will all still be around.

Maybe the salary cap is too high and needs lowering? Would also mean less Aussies in SL. Maybe the ability to have an income of a min 2.5mill a year should be a license criteria?

Or reinstate the max 50% of income on Players.

yeh that is an option but does lead to a less even league. With salary cap at 1.6mill, you would think a club could be run on 1mill I would have a min income of 2.6mill to get a license. This way you keep the league even and intenisty high and don't lose clubs to financial difficulties which ends up massively damaging for the credibility of the game.

i know RL gets good viewing figures but the demographics are important. Simply put but to illustrate a point

If RU viewers have £60.000 salaries and that money to spend and RL viewers have £20K then RU is 3 x more attractive to advertisers.

Big companies advertise and sponsor things which brings the money in. the likes of Morrisons and Nettos are not going to be in a bidding war for advertising space during a SL match.

A bit simplistic and stereotypical but that is the reality. RL does not have a national enough profile to bring in the big bucks.

That's a definate but the question is, does the current profile warrant squeezing another £10m out of RM over 5 years? OK, we can't command the big bucks but can the RFL at least go into a round of negotiations armed with figures that show an increase in viewer numbers?

You'd have to contract the league to do that. Going down to 12 again might not be the worst thing in the world, but any less than that would be a problem in my opinion, though I guess you could do 10 if Scottish Premier used to do it