It happens in all sports, get over it. I take it the likes of Hardacre and Hill should've stayed with their clubs then? Both of them are now pushing for representative honors, benefiting out game as a whole.

State of the game report Where the money comes from and where it goes. The RFL get my full support! www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... Report.pdf

State of the game report Where the money comes from and where it goes. The RFL get my full support! www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... Report.pdf

See also: Richie Myler & Danny Brough

You never considered, then, that most youngsters' burning ambition is to play at the top level of their sport?

If Warrington come in for young Fred, is it up to him, or does a group of burly men drug him and bundle into the back of a van with blacked out windows, never to be seen again?

The recruitment and retention strategies of most Lancashire clubs are dependent on players not discovering the world outside their small town

This whole story is going to look very small if the NRL get their $1 billion TV deal...

Not really. It's a completely different marketplace.

$1bn (Ozzy dollars) is about £660m. The lastest deal for Super League was £90m.

And as has been said, totally different market place

I'd also question how the Aussie market can sustain that

Some shocking figures in that financial report. Sponsorship just over 3% of market turnover, I would have expected 10 times that. Also Sky and Government funding over 60% of market turnover a big fall if withdrawn. Net asset value of only just over 1 million some superleague are much better than that.

Why is sponsorship being one percentage figure any better than another percentage figure?

Generally its an indication on how good marketing is in the sport, this low percentage is abysmal. In global sponsoring terms we are living off scraps because the game has little stature and presence. If people watch league on Sky a lot then everything will appear fine and dandy.

No it isnt, it is an indication of how much sponsorship makes up the total revenue, thats all it is.
Premier league clubs sponsorship generally make up between 2% and 10% of total revenue.

The premier league's sponsorship agreement is £120m against TV rights of £3b, which totals a huge 4% (and as a true comparison with the RFL would be much lower as £120m is 4% of £3b tv rights, not the total turnover of the PL, which must be at the very very least £3.12b)

Is the premier league struggling with marketing?

Whilst that figure is a little disappointing I don't think it's as bad as it seems.
The FA's revenue from "sponsorship & licensing" is only 16% of its income, and their broadcasting and government income is 43% of revenue.

As for net asset value, the RFL doesn't own anything other than Red Hall, so it has few assets. Unless we build a national stadium, which is unnecessary and unlikely then it'll remain that the RFL has few assets.

They own a few places don't they?

Whitebank, Spotland, Cougar Park, Odsal...?