Explain how the people running Leeds,Saints,Wigan,Giants,Salford,Warrington,Hull are any different?

Not as reliant on TV income. Simple.

It's not easy, but the only hope for progress is to convince the clubs that they're giving up power to something that will ultimately serve their interests well. It's all very well to castigate chairmen for being too interested in control, but would any chairman in their right mind hand over control to Nigel Wood and that lot? If that was the only option on the table I'd be horrified if they gave up the control they have.

I happen to believe that most chairpeople aren't idiots. They've mostly all managed to acheive something in business life, so at least have half a clue how the world works. Most, I believe, could be convinced of the value of a powerful unified governing body if it was run by very good people and had enough checks and balances (without becoming a giant committee of course).

In practise, whilst hardly the impartial way to do it, such a body will have to be the creation of the chairman themselves if it's going to happen - people are more inclined to hand over power to something they think they created.

How and why?

Yep.

Even Leeds would struggle to be competitive without the £1.2m/£1.4m (whatever the figure is) TV money. In the same way Man Utd would without their TV money.

Being reliant on TV money isn't the problem. Lack of other income is.

The SL clubs need more money to run full time squads so they can fulfil their obligations to SKY for the TV deal.
SKY pay around £26m, the SL clubs get £17m and the Champ clubs £1.7m.
Figures from a reliable source.
This means the RFL are keeping £7.3m for "admin" purposes. This leaves the SL clubs with less than 2/3rds of the SKY money. That plainly is not enough and it this shortage that is causing the problems as much as anything else.

The RFL need to cut their costs to ensure the SKY money goes to what SKY are paying for - Super League. A further £250k to each SL club from the RFL would I'm pretty sure prevent most of the financial problems clubs are having.
I would far rather the costs of "admin" be cut than us lose clubs, players and things like U21 leagues. All lost due to a lack of funds which it appears SKY are providing but are being witheld by the RFL.

The power is not with the clubs but the RFL. The RFL Chairman and CEO are also the Chairman and CEO of SL. That needs to be changed and improved.
SL need their own Chairman/CEO and the freedom to negotiate their own commercial deals. Something the RFL have self evidently failed to do.

For some time on here there has been a theme that the game is leaderless and lacking direction. A SL in partnership would give the RFL time to deal with the International Game, Challenge Cup and basic admin of the game.
The RFL is costing far too much and denying SL clubs monies that would prevent those in financial difficulties from having such money problems.

As would other clubs without the generosity of their owners.

Are those clubs run like a business or purely reliant on owners cash?

So easy to ridicule those clubs; particularly as a team like Cas has always run a budget of making ends meet and always paid its bills on time to creditors.

Just because we don't satisfy your criteria of HAVING to spend the salary cap, we must be run badly. I don't get this fascination with HAVING to spend money. I believe that all Super League clubs should be encouraged to spend less than the salary cap whilst being successful and maximising other incomes. As a proper business should be. You will also know that the RFL have also asked other clubs to see the way Cas are operating and have been doing over the past 18 months as a model forward for other clubs. Hardly the poor club you intimate.

This is what worries me regarding Koukash trying to increase the salary cap. What it will lead to is financial warfare between clubs, creating a more divisive sport and an elite of 3/4. On the opposite side, whilst it may drive more income into the sport, it will also increase the propensity to which more overseas players come in and take the spots of English players (let's face it, the quota will be next after the salary cap), thereby damaging the production line of players. Not only that, you end up with some distinctly average players demanding more money from clubs.

On another side, rugby league has always been a community-based and interactive sport between sponsors, players, officials and fans. Will we have an elitist attitude in rugby league if the salary cap is increased?

Sorry, but it's not for me. I believe in slight increases to the salary cap but I also believe in maintaining rugby league as a sport for all, whilst also maximising the chance for young English players to go on and take themselves to the top.

Similarly, I don't believe in this whole furore about five or six players going to the NRL. It is beneficial for English rugby league in the sense that the more English players going into their system, the better coaching they will get, better facilities and also it will play a part in weakening the pool of Aussie players should they progress. It gives us a realistic chance of putting a dent in the Aussie production line to the benefit of English players.

Father Ted - what's your reliable source for those figures?

According to the Watkins Review the latest TV deal, for the 5 years 2012-2016, amounted to £135m or £27m per year. But that isn't just Sky and not just for Super League. That's for everything minus the internationals. So Super League, Challenge Cup, World Club Challenge, Championships & Northern Rail Cup and from Sky, BBC and Premier Sports.

The RFL receive 1/16th of the Super League TV deal. Which makes only a contribution toward RFL costs of running the game, it doesn't cover it.

The RFL keep Challenge Cup, Championships & Northern Rail Cup broadcast money plus obviously Internationals.

Apart from the 1/16th RFL share, a 1/16th share given to the Championships, and £2m split between SL and Championship clubs, SLE keep the SL TV money. Plus revenue from the playoffs, title sponsorship and any other commercial deals for SL.

According to the Watkins Review, SLE income is roughly around £24m per year.
The RFL receives and distributes the Championships shares of the TV deal.

Again looking at the Watkins Review, it appears the Super League portion of the TV deal in 2012 is about £22.5m. Which would seem to be about what SLE would receive from the total TV deal if in 2012 there was no title sponsor and their total income was around £24m.

I think the SL clubs are doing fine from their TV deal. What we need is the deal to be bigger, a title sponsor and clubs to get off their backsides and find some revenue themselves. But the proportions of the TV deal received by the SL clubs is fine.

It's HOW they are being run.

Yes, and the question at the top of my post still stands. How do you know that they are being run - in your words - 'badly'? What is the definition of bad?

Let's take the example of Cas again, never been in admin, pays creditors first and has average losses that are less than some of the top clubs - oh, and has managed to turn a profit at least once in the last decade.

Just because we don't or can't spend the salary cap, doesn't mean that we are being run badly nor do you have any evidence to substantiate that really. I have no doubt that we could be run better - and those steps are being taken and are coming into fruition now. But that doesn't mean we've been run poorly in the past.

After all, the general consensus on here seems to be that the whole game could be run better........

But your point about being reliant on Sky money is flawed when the majority of clubs in Super League - Huddersfield as an example, Salford another, Hull KR in the past another - are reliant on benefactors putting in cash. By your post, the whole of Super League is run badly because they are reliant on one income source and are not self-funding, self-sustainable entities.

Quote: Il Fanatico "The NRL has 143,423 followers on Twitter and 624,803 'likes' on Facebook. Not sure where you're/they're pulling those figures from. I'm guessing it's a collective rugby league total, but that's extremely ambiguous. Sonny Bill Williams has 336,398 on his own... Agreed on most things. Especially the need for a neutral body made up of business people. Letting the clubs vote on the title sponsor is a joke. That's the governing bodies job, to make decisions for the good of the game, not for a clique of needy clubs.'" Now count the followers and likes for each individual club and 4.7 million followers doesn't sound all that unrealistic. The NRL teams have roughly a combined 2 million followers on Facebook and Twitter. The NRL itself has an easy 1 million followers and likes across both. That's 3 million right there. Throw in the Intrust Cup, NRL One Community, NSWRL etc and you'll easily find another 1 and a half million likes and followers. Seems unlikely that you'd need to start counting players to hit the 4.7m figure. At least they're counting down under, I bet nobody here is. The NRL actually has purpose-built "mission control room" initiative for big events. A fair sized room of experts tracking, engaging, promoting and measuring the event. For more on the NRLs relationship with social media read here: www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/a ... rol_b46675 www.vml.com/news-and-trends/arti ... gin-series blog.marginmedia.com.au/Our-Blog ... cial-media Fairly cool stuff but bet it costs a bit. Lots of other cool NRL related stuff on the VML Vimeo page too vimeo.com/74424866 www.campaignbrief.com/2013/03/co ... ds-te.html

Quote: Il Fanatico "The NRL has 143,423 followers on Twitter and 624,803 'likes' on Facebook. Not sure where you're/they're pulling those figures from. I'm guessing it's a collective rugby league total, but that's extremely ambiguous. Sonny Bill Williams has 336,398 on his own... Agreed on most things. Especially the need for a neutral body made up of business people. Letting the clubs vote on the title sponsor is a joke. That's the governing bodies job, to make decisions for the good of the game, not for a clique of needy clubs.'" Now count the followers and likes for each individual club and 4.7 million followers doesn't sound all that unrealistic. The NRL teams have roughly a combined 2 million followers on Facebook and Twitter. The NRL itself has an easy 1 million followers and likes across both. That's 3 million right there. Throw in the Intrust Cup, NRL One Community, NSWRL etc and you'll easily find another 1 and a half million likes and followers. Seems unlikely that you'd need to start counting players to hit the 4.7m figure. At least they're counting down under, I bet nobody here is. The NRL actually has purpose-built "mission control room" initiative for big events. A fair sized room of experts tracking, engaging, promoting and measuring the event. For more on the NRLs relationship with social media read here: www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/a ... rol_b46675 www.vml.com/news-and-trends/arti ... gin-series blog.marginmedia.com.au/Our-Blog ... cial-media Fairly cool stuff but bet it costs a bit. Lots of other cool NRL related stuff on the VML Vimeo page too vimeo.com/74424866 www.campaignbrief.com/2013/03/co ... ds-te.html

RFL/SL has a pathetically low profile on social media as a part of the bigger issue of a poor media profile overall. The game needs an serious overhaul and rebranding. Super League is a tired brand and too generic.

A quick (and maybe not accurate so happy to be corrected) look at FB shows
London Broncos 6,013 .....amazed they keep up the pretence
Salford 9,327
Widnes 4,377
Wakefield 2,089
Castleford 13,576
Catalan 3,229
HKR 9,613
Hull FC 19,323
Saints 17,336
Wigan 32,797
Leeds 52,310
Bradford Bulls 10,810
Giants 5,128
Warrington 27,279

215k and change......across 14 SL clubs.

The RFL deliver 9,311 and Super league 76,000.

RL representation in the UK on social media is less than poor but the clubs that have made an effort look similar to the clubs with most fans and the clubs with a chance of profitability. Leeds have without a doubt embraced the potential of social media with both arms as have the NRL themselves, both individually as well as collectively.

Perspective:
MANCHESTER UNITED = 38,500,000+ (all of them can't be from Essex can they?)

Just an observation but paying silly contracts to past it, never were, never will be, pension seeking crocks from the southern hemisphere is not conducive to money being kept in the game in this country.

I still wonder why clubs think it is different and cost effective, especially when their accounts are negative in either debt, turnover, balance, profit & loss or a combination or even all.

But then all I know is 99p is not £1 but neither is £1.01, a concept I suggest is beyond some.