Yes they would , the income at Bradford was still quite high , their outgoings , ie rent,rates,maintenance,stewarding is the issue

What you mean is profit prior to salaries

I'd pin more blame on the morons running the clubs into the ground rather than the competition structure itself.

Surely a big part of the problem is the ridiculous list of players they had on their books - salaries are a huge fixed cost, and they could have controlled that more responsibly.

Without doubt , ' big club syndrome ' based on past glories can kill many businesses , not just in Sport , I attempted to keep my business alive by personal borrowing for several years when I should have just wrapped it up , still paying for it now 4 years down the line

Unfortunately at sports clubs the biggest cost ( wages ) are usually the 1 st part of the budget , when they should be the last

It's sustainable if you have a rich sugar daddy (like Derek) or if you're content to stay where you are (like Batley). Those without big money backers should forget about promotion.

As much as I love the game & watch any game I can, the problem is that punters are not prepared to go & watch live rugby in numbers that will sustain the clubs. The fans we have are not prepared to pay prices at the gate to sustain the sport, they won't travel, won't attend internationals in large enough numbers. Until we can charge £50 & upwards & fill 80,000 capacity grounds 8 or 9 times a year as the other code can (& they struggle with fully pro players)

Is that any different to other sports?

Big part of it for sure. A huge element of the previous regime's failure. A little over 40 the first year in the Championship. Almost 50 last year. Bloody ridiculous, particularly considering the number that never pulled on the shirt.

We might have got three more years out of it without that. If we'd gone up, as was the goal of that squad, we'd have collapsed under the weight of avoiding relegation.

The systemic problem is Odsal. It will drag us under again and again. It was the reason for the long decline even in SL, even in 2003 and all the "well, not as good as last year but close" seasons that followed and still brought the crowds in. It dragged us down, and it is still dragging.

Anyone who wants to know where the money from the success years went I would hope it is obvious: on slowing the rate of decline. And now there's none left. It'll only get worse.

I think if they finished top 4 (very possible) and made it to million pound game (less likely), you might find they have some desire to play in super league.

In my oinion all down to poor business management.
Did thes clubs have proper business plans or they have a policy on the hoof plan they they made up as they went along?

How can you have a proper business plan, when you don't know how much revenue your going to have until the last minute. The central funding money clubs receive will form the main part of their revenue.

I agree. They've made assumptions about winning. The Bulls banked on getting into SL 2015 and failed, at that point they should have gone part time- they didn't-they banked in doing it again 2016 they then failed to even make the top4 in 2016- they had probably factored in prize money and gambled badly.

They know what central funding they're going to get at the end of each season don't they? Isn't it pretty much dependent on finishing position in the Championship?


And your last sentence is the real problem with many RL clubs. The central funding is too high a proportion of their income. They need to generate income from other sources.

Now I get that's not always very easy, especially when many clubs sold all their assets decades ago.

For instance I would guess at a club like Widnes (and others, I'm not just singling out Widnes) the central funding will be around 50%, if not more, of their income.

With the increase in central funding for SL last time, it neatly covers the maximum salary cap, which is usually the main expense.

With regards to the championship, I think the RFL stumbled into it as a Plan D sort of thing. Reducing the SL to 12 clubs, they suddenly found 4 FT clubs in the championship and decided to (back of a Greggs wrapper planning) make increasing the number of FT teams and creating an SL1 & SL2, each of 12 clubs. Obviously need a plan E now.....

It feels to me like we are well on our way to splitting the championship further, into those that can run full time (by whatever means) and could be a genuine addition to super league, and those who cannot and would offer very little to the top flight. That my be deemed elitist, but isn't promotion and relegation very much elitist.

With that in mind I don't think the championship as it is will remain a viable, competitive completion, we would as others have said, be better served with a franchising structure, where SL isn't closed off, but teams have to meet a set criteria to be in (this includes current super league clubs) this could then eventually lead to expansanion of SL both in terms of Team numbers and geography, and allow teams time to build, rather than the mad scramble P and R seems to have created.