Might have to drop down to CC1, which could be a bit iffy for a club like HKR.

Hull KR get crowds of 7-8k on average, so why aren't they capable of being a self-sustaining business?

Lack of commercial income? Servicing historic debt?

Not having a dig, it's a genuine question and one I'd be surprised if Rovers fans themselves hadn't been asking.

If we [uwent bust[/u and didn't find a buyer, and start over like Crusaders, perhaps. Probably in fact.

If we just hand back our licence and ask for an orderly transition that would surely suit everybody. If it is the prospect of CC1, [iand we haven't even gone bust[/i, we might as well gamble on keeping the licence, risking a repeat of the Bradford farago. And nobody wants that, surely?

Same reason as most of the other SL clubs. Our benefactors seem to have had enough, is all. They (the RFL) reckon you need about 10k to break even - it'll vary a bit with circumstance, of course.

Number of Challenge Cup / Championship wins

Wakefield 7
Salford 7
HKR 6

Number of iconic films centred around the club

Wakefield 1
Salford 0
HKR 0

Their chairman has indicated low gates and lack of commercial revenue, although the new stand is designed to address the latter at least when it opens. Their break-even point has been indicated as being around 10k fans per home game.

rough averages, but if a ticket across the board (including season passes etc) pans out about 13 quid a pop, then there's about 1.7m in ticket revenue at 10,000 a game.....they are currently missing 3,000 fans a game,so about half a million over the year.....they will survive if they cut their cloth

But if they cut their cloth (presumably wage bill mostly) will 10,000 turn up to watch average players lose each week?

Spending on players is always a gamble, but the problems in this game aren't going to be fixed by just spending less, in the same way that the Tories aren't going to get the economy going by spending less.

If a club like Hull Kr need 10K crowds to BE imagine how much London must be losing in the year.

Another club suffering after people with money look to pull out, the RFL will want more people with money to come in until they get bored. The benefactor route seems to be what the RFL likes but for the sustainability of the sport we really need to make sure clubs are spending to their means.

Why bother having a salary cap if all we want are rich people coming in and pumping money in to save clubs, surely the salary cap should be based on revenue/profit with debt/other non player related outgoings taken into consideration.

I wouldn't wish what we went through last year on anybody but it's going to happen time and time again unless the people running this sport get their acts in order.

good luck KR

And Salford
Although their crowds are starting to grow, they are miles away from the numbers needed for SL.

Its one thing to cap a club based on *their* revenue, but its another to cap the whole league on the basis of the worst performers. It doesn't "level the playing field", it rewards failure and ever lowers the profile of the sport and its attractiveness to talented young athletes. Far better than a flat salary cap is a squad limit of just 13 players who can be paid more than 40k. But those 13, you can pay whatever you like if you can afford it. This makes the sport attractive - if you're REALLY good you'll get one of the 'star' berths and can make big money at the right club. It also ensures that talent must be spread around, by definiton. Finally, it forces clubs to have an extensive youth structure because you'll sure as heck need plenty backup with only 13 on 40k+.