Disagree.

I'll grant you, the numbers in football are much more noteworthy but so is, in many cases, the ability of those clubs to service them.

Manchester United seem to have little trouble servicing a debt of £515m yet Bradford Bulls made national headlines by going into administration with a debt of £1.5m.

It'll be interesting to see if this programme shows which clubs are most in debt but more importantly, as bramleyrhino points out, if the clubs in debt can service that debt or are struggling with it.
For instance Leeds will probably have to incur some kind of debt to build a new South Stand, yet no-one would describe Leeds as a club in financial trouble.

Is 3 million per club really that bad? (quoted in the article) but even if you straight average it, its just shy of 5 million each.
any club bringing in 10000 average gate should really have over that in income every year anyway, so its more than servicable for most, but some of the clubs with smaller incomes will struggle.

What could saints debts be with the cost of building the stadium plus general running costs?

Have clubs taken on extra long term debt in order to build/improve stadia?

Cas Tigers are about 2.5 million in debt owned mainly to directors and mostly Jack Fulton the chief benefactor. This does'nt include 2012's accounts (which I'm expecting to be bad). If 3 clubs are well in the black presumably Wigan, Leeds and Warrington this leaves the other 11 with debt's averaging 6.2 million each. This cannot be right can it ?

And that's the problem. At a quick guess I'd say there's prob only Leeds, Wigan, Hull FC, Wire and Saints who get a 10,000 average. Plus it's the extras the really knock the income up. The corporates, the hospitality, the club sponsors, the merchandising and the non-matchday income. Which is something that a lot of clubs are appalling at bringing in.

most definately - a good example been Wakefield. Losses of 1.2 million for 2011 due mainly to ground improvements.

So not exactly the height of reckless spending then?

Issues I have with article is show us the details, show is how it compares to other sorts for fair comparison of the reality of prof sport and tell us which clubs are at risk due to their debts. But then easier to kick the game, add to the public perception of a failing code and sensationalise the real issues with words like abyss.

No - nothing reckless. The improvements had to be made to satisfy the RFL and the licence.

And Bradford, plus Cats are only a few hundred off.

Super League clubs are facing combined debts of £68.5m, a BBC Inside Out investigation alleges. Compared to the combined debt in Football of £2.4 BILLION, and with annual losses of £130m in the Football championships, £68.5 million is a drop in the ocean. READ MORE ON THIS STORY....

Super League clubs are facing combined debts of £68.5m, a BBC Inside Out investigation alleges. Compared to the combined debt in Football of £2.4 BILLION, and with annual losses of £130m in the Football championships, £68.5 million is a drop in the ocean. READ MORE ON THIS STORY....

Which two sl clubs are charitable trusts ?

rlOne journalist thinks that the media is once again having a 'love in' with rugby unionrl.



rlLooks like he's forgot this BBC documentary which was favorable towards rugby league and not favorable towards footballrl. This documentary 'Lord Sugar Tackles Football' lasts an hour and was broadcast nationally. Meanwhile 'Inside Out' is on for half an hour and has squashed in one other topic along side our beloved rugby league.



Does the great British public only exist in the Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and the north west regions?

Wonderful [islight consultation[/i eh?



Rugby League does get a very fair crack of the whip. This is very bad journalism from you!