It is likely that the move to dual registration is an acceptance by the RFL that the majority of C teams will never be SL standard. So the dual model + SL clubs having an u20s will encourage C clubs to be 'feeder clubs'. This would also fit in with the mandatory allocation of some sky money to SL youth development.

Any clubs without strong independent finances that does not have dual registration arrangements will be at a disadvantage.

So you don't know then. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

We heard and ignored you the first time. At least this thread, unlike so many you start, is actually about discussing rugby league.

It's basically 10 pages of sniping, argumentative, old garbage that appears to be in danger of turning libellous.

Wannabe mod eh? Leave it to the experts pal

I would be all giving NL clubs more money if I thought the clubs were well run and the money wasn't simply going to be wasted on chief execs who are quite obviously are not up to the job.

Oldham has a vibrant amateur rugby scene and a population of 60k? - but the rugby club which has been in existance for 100 years and no SL club within 15 miles struggles to attract 2k to a game - perhaps Hamilton should spend less time prancing around with the chain round his neck and more time at his own club.

I would expect very very little profit is made from those 'events' and whilst they arent sold out, and whilst they arent top of the nations concious any profit made should be ploughed back into those events, they
are the highest profile we have, and they are our best chance of attracting new fans,

as far as i am aware lower league clubs get about £20k each from the RFL, with the possibility of another £100k to spend on certain things, with another fund to which they can apply for funding to improve facilities

now this does all come from the RFL central fund, not directly from Sky, however, considering the RFL havent hosted a tri nation for 4 years and its highly unlikely the european cup makes money, and we know, MILLIONS of pounds are put in every year from Sky, its safe to assume that that is where the money comes from

3 things

1. You forget Salford is only 10 miles away.

2. They struggle to attact 1000 people to home games, let alone 2000. Some of the amateur clubs have had bigger crowds on a Saturday than the Pro Club have got on the Sunday

3. Your spot on about what you say about El Presidente. Some accountant he is, glad he doesn't do my books.

Thanks for that.

the Lower leagues get more than their fair share of the revenue, if they got their fair share, they would get nothing,

Why on earth, would you think SL chairmen would be prepared to cut their own income from tv revenue by 20% for nothing in return?

it was 15% a minute a go,

If the Lower leagues are worth 10% of the sky money, why, every time we have tried to sell the tv rights to the lower leagues, has no one been willing to pay that for them?

Sky, paying £0, but paying the expenses of actually screening the games is the best offer a broadcaster is currently willing to make, that is how much the broadcast deal for lower league RL is worth

One way of cutting their costs would be to use the academy players from the SL as the backbone of their squads and fill it out with more experienced players. They should forget reserve/junior grade - leave that to the better amateur clubs. Forget about development officers - leave that to the SL clubs and concentrate on improving their revenues streams.

Then and only then should the SL clubs look to some form of integrated fund sharing