is not as healthy, I would suggest as people make out!

Now the Cougars are having "difficulties" albeit somewhat smaller than a lot of clubs ( see the Cougar forum/website for details).

If the "top club" can only show a profit by selling assests to make the balance sheet show such things just how bad is it at other clubs.

How on earth do the Bulls, for example, believe they can afford to ship money overseas ( lost to the game here forever) and show a "profit"?

The game is also on the precipice of following the "Marks & Spencer" financial model of making companies go to the wall!!

For those who need to know it basically is that companies got good deals from Mark's and built their business around the good contracts Come rengotiation Mark's always wanted more but for an awful lot less. For some time a business could cope but without other sources of income found it hard.

Come renegotiation again, Mark's would again want more for less, which the businesss couldn't provide so Mark's went elsewhere. The lone supply companies went to the wall.

To me RL is in a similar boat and if clubs are in financial "difficulties" now, if the the same situation occurs then it is gonna be a right mess.

The future of the game , in it's present guise, is not looking that good and that cannot be a good thing. In the current financial climate the professional game in this country is standing on the edge IMO.

That I find very disconcerting!

I assume you are placing SKY inplace of M&S for us?
if so what you say is true to a degree, but i think the recent changes to what may and may not be shown on sky ie the ashes, will give us a better option to bargain for the contract next time. With audiences flocking away from union at the moment with it "no tries" plan, we should be ok. That said you are right we have all our eggs in one basket

You seem to forget that not so long ago the RFL had debts of millions of £s.

Clubs aren't in Rugby League to make a profit, they are in it to win trophies, clubs have come and gone, owners have come and gone, money has come and gone, but the rugby clubs will remain, they just play rugby when all said and done.

Who are the game's M&S in your scenario? BskyB? I'm confused as to the analogy.

To me, the game is in the same state as it's always been. Tied together with the string of many generous club Board of Directors. When Sky came along with all those millions the game should have been stabalised financially. All that has happened though is that we've spent all that extra cash. What confuses me is the gap between Annual Turnover and the Salary Cap. Where's the money going? Some probably financing long term debt, some as withdrawals to the benefactors (i know a wonderful story about an "allocated turnstyle" back in the 1980's) and the rest to club running costs.

Is it all bad? Isn't this indicitive of Sports in general? The Premier League (sorry for bringing moronball into your thread - i know you love it really) is the greatest league in the soccer world so we are told. Their members' debts would make RL's look like owing a cup of sugar to the neighbour.

I'm just worried as to why you've used the Bulls as an example. Yes, we've made a loss in the past, but the current board have strong control over finances. Also the Bulls have gone through SL without having a wealthy backer.

A club like Warrington is in a more precarious state should their bankrolling chairman cut his losses and walk away

Unfortunately you are completely wrong imagine the next conversation on renewal of the contract

Richard Lewis. ' We have a great game , it is exciting fast and skilful, you get 100 to 250000 viewers per game, more people watch it than RU, we would like you to give us £85 m so we can move the game on.

Ruoert MUrdoch, ' But advertisers are not interested in your poxy, little parochial sport. Apart from Gillette who want to sell razors to you hairy
@r sed northeners. You have no international game you are a joke. You cannot even spread the game except in a corner of france i will give you £75 m the same as now.'

RL, ' but we need the money our clubs are going to the wall. If you dont give us the money we will talk to the BBC.'

RM, picks himself up of the floor after suffering a laughing fit.
' Go on then they have not got two hapenennies to rub together. They dont even want to campaign to keep the romantic challenge cup. It is £75 m or nothing otherwise i will get American Football and Baseball. OR maybe i will get the NRL for £2m a season'

RL ' OK we will take it. Sorry if i upset you sir. Please make me your biatch as compensation. Pleasae do not pull the plug. Otherwise we will only have Leeds, Wigan and Hull in SL.

If that is meant to be a dig at Bradford spending money on overseas players (and if it is not, what the hell are you blabbering on about?) then its a particularly dumb comment even by your standards.

1. If its a dig at clubs generally, clubs have a salary cap to spend on players. It is totally irrelevant to their bottom line whether they spend it on UK or overseas players.

2. If its one of your all-too-frequent digs at the Bulls, why did you not instead single out one of the various other clubs (including Leeds) with more overseas players?

3. Your "Marks and Spencer" analogy in any case does not tell the whole story - firstly because a top club gets less than a quarter of its income from the biggest external paymaster (Sky), unlike many of those M&S suppliers who ended up being far far more dependent on M&S - sometimes almost totally - and secondly because M&S exercised far more behind-the-scenes control over the suppliers' businesses.

The real issue has been done to death on other threads. Despite numerous people initially denying the facts, the financial performance of all but Wakefield and Crusaders (late-filing their accounts) has been anlaysed ad nauseum. Fact of the matter is that clubs with a wealthy backer can and are running up massive losses, which are only sustainable whilst that rich owner is willing or able to bankroll the club. Clubs without a rich backer (like Hull and Bradford, for example) have to on average break even at worst and make more profits than losses (as indeed they did - remember Hull make profits and Bulls made £257k profit in 2007 and £222k profit in 2006, nicely debunking your argument earlier).

And one real issue is that the game is getting distorted (as it always has been) by bankrolled clubs being able to bid up the cost of players for everyone. But, as I keep saying, what happens if and when a rich owner suddenly ain't there any more? Everyone is mortal, after all.

And as for your dig at Leeds, that is again disingenuous - they have the funds and the resources to be able to run a (modest) loss from time to time if they need to - as they did this year to sort out the South Stand. They also appear to be financially self-supporting these days. Leeds are a subsidiary of Caddick Group plc, owned by Paul Caddick. Much as I loathe the man, maybe you should instead be applauding him for seeing that the income his club is generating is being reinvested in the game rather than paid out to him as dividends?

That made me laugh. Although probably true to life in most parts i'm not sure about this bit

The BARB figures would suggest otherwise. The viewing figures for SL and The Championship fair better than a lot of the other sports on offer. If it's a numbers game (ok, i know demographics and target marketing come into play) then Rugby League attracts good numbers for BskyB in comparison to other sports.

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.

Are you sure? 3.82861328125:10