Its not only that he doesn’t offer solutions, but that he doesn’t actually explain why they are problems (why doesn’t he like DR for instance) nor does he explain why they are problems for the whole game, which need the whole game to address (Leeds and Wigan aren’t struggling with Youth Development, wheres the problem for them, how can the whole game address Neil Hudgell being unable to cover HKR’s shortfall) he doesn’t even explain fully why these would cause ‘dark days ahead’.

Poor article.
It's like that Inside Out "investigation" into RL clubs finances a while ago. Could have been interesting and useful if done properly but due to it being half-d its pretty worthless.

Slightly OT, but I'm wondering if anyone else has the same theory as me regarding no title sponsor for Super League. (Not, as you've incorrectly put, "the game.")

In the back end of 2011 Heinz began a small partnership with Super League and the RFL which grew bigger over the course of 2012. By which point the two year deal with Stobart had been agreed, and I've no doubt a clause was included in that deal which gave each party the option to walk away with no strings attached. Super League and the RFL took this option at the end of 2012, and announced it mid-season.

In my opinion, having developed a successful relationship with Heinz throughout the end of 2011 and throughout 2012, the plan was for the league to be called Heinz Big Soup Super League from 2013 (or something along those lines) onwards.

As harsh luck would have it, in February 2013 just as the season was starting, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21461779Heinz announced it was being taken over.[/url Could a potential sports sponsorship deal be detrimental to the takeover bid? Would the new owners have taken kindly to the news Heinz was to become a major title partner to a sport just as they were about to take control?

Anyway, methinks any sponsorship deal of any kind would have either been put on hold, or dropped due to this takeover deal, which is still yet to close. If a deal did collapsed prior to the start of the season, then I imagine it would take months, not weeks, to wine and dine a potential new sponsor and get an agreement in place that would be worthwhile.


And on a side note...



Better. In 1996 Sky paid the RFL £87 million to switch seasons, combined with an initial x number of years broadcasting rights. Over the years Super League has given Sky extras, such as home internationals, National League/Championships coverage etc.

Last season Sky began a £90 million broadcast deal over five years, solely for Super League. No added extras, as the Championship rights are now sold individually by the RFL, and internationals are sold by the RLIF.

."...we have reached the point where a think tank of the best brains in the game is needed to provide the medicine rugby league needs."

in fact, said think tank needs to include some brains from *outside* the game. We're consistently useless at knowing what's good for us.

Phil Clarke knows the game infinitely better than you, and he can see the writing on the wall. It's not compulsory to give every detail, nor offer a solution - he can sense a big problem and wants competent people to be taking it seriously. A complete diagnosis of the problem is part of what needs to happen - its good enough for me that someone with his knowledge knows that "something 'aint right". We don't need a 50 page report from Phil Clarke before agreeing that makes sense.

Nothing wrong with Clarke,s statement, which comes across as a concern for the sport rather than a personal moan or rant.,
Superleague has been in decline for the past 5 years, succesfully run clubs have been held back on progression by the lesser clubs and an unimaginitive RLHQ.
The problem is we have the World Cup which will shadow the problems in our superleague for a short time and restructuring will be on the back burner for a while.

He's my take on it all.

I'm not the most articulate of writers when it comes to explaining things, so please, bear with me. Phil clarke is right, there are many problems within the game, and if we continue down the current path without adaptation, the game could end up in a real mess. It comes down to the basic laws of nature, survival of the fittest.

The game needs bums on seats, firstly. Half the games i see on sky seem to be played in half empty stadiums, dependant on who's playing. Fans, along with sponsers are one of the primary sources of income within the game. We have no sponsor, and attendances across the board have either flatlined or declined. I don't have the statistics on this, but I know Leeds attendances pretty much peaked 3/4 years ago, bradford's have certainly declined since the early super league glory days, wigans and warrington are steady and consistent it seems, but none of the top clubs are getting 17k week in week out. Theres a limit to this obviously, like you aren't going to get hull kr (just picked a random team) strutting round with 20k week in week out, but damn, theres still plenty of (realistic) potential to be cashed in on.

The game has always had a core fan base, which has peaked and troughed over the years due to cultural and other factors, but how do you increase a games fans base? It comes down to onfield factors. The game needs to almost be less selfish, and take what may seen as backward steps in the short term, for long terms gains.

So, it's been done to death on here but P&R needs to be re-introduced. Franchising simply isn't something which can work for us. It can't be contrived, this is sport, it needs to organicly unfold on the field without other forces affecting things. So that means, if you have P&R and you lose London down to the championship, so be it. Sometimes a club needs a period of rebuilding to come back stronger, it certainly helped Huddersfield, although i accept they are in different situations.

But the bottom line is there needs to be a very real, achievable and tangible pathway for teams in the lower league to be able to mix it with the big boys. Theres nothing wrong with making mistakes, just learn from them. Franchising has been a mistake. Sport is organic, let things flow, some teams are yo yo teams, some teams come from low and establish themselves at the top. Let it unfold on the field. So if London come up and go down and come up again, let it happen. It can't be contrived, that is what turns fans off.

Next up is is to reduce the league to 12 teams (another idea touted alot on here). Again, short term it looks bad. Less teams, less games, very bad news for 2 teams. But it's not like they are getting a life sentence, they'll have the opportunity to come straight back up through P&R. But 12 teams will help with the distribution of quality players. It'll mean some better games and fresher players. It's not going to make an earth shattering difference, but it'll help, especially in the long term.

With a 12 team league, you can then re-introduce the original top 5 play off system. What a beautiful system it was. Imagine, with the current quality of the teams, a top 5 playoff involving warrington, wigan, huddersfield, leeds, saints, catalans.

So, so far, we have - Re introduce P&R, cut the league to 12 teams, introduce top 5 system. What do all these things have in common? It's what the majority percentage of supporters in the game want. The game has to start doing things more for the benefit of the fans. It's logical. P&R is ingrained into the culture of sport in this country. Potential fans can't get their head round franchising, it's too contrived, nor can they a top 8 system which includes more than half the teams in the league.

I feel some form of salary cap is a necessity but we are coming at it from the wrong angle. Not sure about that one, need more thought on it. Again, not sure about the administrative side of it, but is the current salary cap just a set number?

I don't feel there should be any set number. A clubs spend on players should be dictated by how much turnover they make. E.G. No club can spend more than x% of their annual income on players. What happens then is you are actively rewarding clubs for making money, you encourage clubs to make money, the more money you make the better the players you can get. Essentially what it was like before any salary cap, except it's regulated to stop clubs overspending.

As a fan of the game, i have no insight into the inner workings of things, but i'd suggest there needs to be some overhaul of the administration at the RFL. Clarke makes a great point about a think tank.

Someone like Gary Hetherington should have an active role in advising. Look at what he has done at leeds over the last 15 years. He's turned them into one of the best run rugby league clubs in the world and one of the most successful clubs, on the field, in super league. Whatever your club loyalties, anyone who can do that is someone you want to be taking advice from.

You know, one of the great things about rugby league is that throghout it's history it's never been afraid of change or innovation, in fact it embraces it. But that can also be the sports achilles heal, because sometimes you just need the consistency of sticking with a structure. I feel the structure was right in 1998, but they didn't stick with it.

I use the analogy, of the sport of bodybuilding. In bodybuilding, at the highest level, freakish and almost sub human physiques are built with fundemental structures and basics over many many years so banal you'd probably fall asleep if you watched a day in the life of a pro.

I feel rugby league falls into the trap of short cuts and extremes. If one thing doesn't appear to work they move to another extreme. It just needs a fundemental basic structure to stick to, and repeat.

Let me lob a handgrenade in to the discussion. I have been a supporter of Hull KR since 1981. Last game at old craven park and first game at the new ground etc etc. But...... I dont live in the city, I live 30 miles away so I dont have the rabid and onesided views of most rovers fans or indeed fc fans.
If and its a big if, it came down to both hull clubs merging to be viable in a 12 or 10 team superleague I would be there. Many wouldnt and say over my dead body, and thats their right. But I love my rugby League and if it meant one club in hull then so be it.
Many say they wouldnt go but I tell you what, if that team ever did exist it would make every other team in superleague look over their shoulders. The fanbase, the amatuer scene and the history would be a pull for any player and coach.
I hope to god it never happens but if it did I wouldnt turn against it.

He is a tool,

As he sees it. When clarkey says we can't afford to lose any clubs due to the sport being so small. What he actually meant was ..we need to lose three established teams and gamble on another airy fairy, pie in the sky pet project. Because we are a collosul sport that everybody loves.

Love threads like this. S.L is failing so cut the league down, do people think Sky will pay the same for a reduced league?.

As for Jean (yeah right you live in France) what makes you think Toulouse will be a success given the city has a very good Union team who would probably hoover up any decent youngsters they would have. So you would have team in France with lots of South Sea Islanders and Aussies in like Catalans were at the start (helping the French national team no end).

Then again the national team hasn't pulled up any trees either with the influx of Catalan players.

I don't think it would be a problem. Do you think the deal would be drastically reduced if for example there was no salford and widnes?

I doubt it would be hugely reduced and the teams would get a slightly bigger piece of the pie anyway.

Yes, they actually do!

They seem unable to grasp the concept that sky only cares about subscribers to its network, and that if castleford and hull kr were to pull the plug, then many people in these areas would pull the plug on sky sports.