Quote JB Down Under="JB Down Under"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?'"
If they have rich backers prepared to keep pumping money in, Ken Davy being perhaps the best example, then those clubs will still be here. If.
The 2009 numbers will be far more enlightening, given that it was a far more challenging year financially for the game. My guess is that we'd see some big loss reductions at some clubs, such as Hudds and Wire, and worsening situations at some others such as Wakey. It can't have been the best of years for Bradford either, as our [iannus horribilis [/ion the pitch cannot have helped the bottom line.
As for the salary cap being too high, when you get a club like (for example only) Hudds losing over £1.3m (the group position is a bit better) then you'd have to reduce the salary cap to a fraction of what it is now to sort that out.
Think you will find all SL clubs have incomes well over £2.5m anyway. The licence criterion is actually, and sensibly, solvency not income or profit, and many SL clubs (if not necessarily their parent groups) are technically insolvent and rely on the continuing financial support of their owners. Maybe if the criterion for those clubs was that the owners had to lodge a bond with the RFL equal to three year's losses we'd see some changes, dunno. (And in case anyone thinks I was picking on Hudds - I wasn't - I would expect Ken Davy would be first in the queue with his bond).
Once you cut through the babble in the OP's initiating post, the underlying point - not enough money in the game, by a long way - is a fair one and one that should worry a lot of people.
