Yeah i have to agree

Wood we have you still believe our game is thriving.

I remember during the world cup and i sent a few emails to the RFL saying what i cr@p job they were doing leading up to the event. I got an email saying before the event even started they were guaranteed so many millions profit because of how well they had organised it...........we all know how that ended!

Having a negative net worth doesnt make a company insolvent.They become insolvent if they are unable to pay their debts as and when due.

Goes back to what I was saying about living within our means, but some people are happy to continue sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "sugar daddy sugar daddy" over any such discussion.

Someone has copied the OP's post onto Salford's Facebook page and they've replied with the following. Apparently the OP is claiming to have family on the board.

They need to rebrand as a Manchester team , i.e Manchester Reds and try and appeal to a wider audience.

Lowry Lynx

They could re locate to old trafford as a name change is certain to pull in Mancunians in their droves

Just imagine how much exposure St Helens RFC would get if they would rebrand themselves to Liverpool Saints, eh?

funny...I don't remember hacking your account and posting that.

Economic nonsense. If a club can afford to keep players in OUR sport then we should be encouraging them to do so. Dragging everybody down to the level of the clubs that can't get themselves any fans just rewards failure and leads to ever further decline. We can't get sponsors as it stands, how is losing the best players going to help? Far from the cap being too high, its the cap being too low ( for clubs with money ) that's caused the problem. Its blocked money out of the game.

Indeed - given nine of the 13 British SL clubs have negative net worths that would indeed be a problem; the average net worth is minus £94k. Exclude Warrington and Leeds and it is minus £2.4m. 12 of the 13 have net current liabilities, an average of £1.4m.

Every club other than Leeds is reliant on their owner for support; but this is a fact of life in almost every sport, certainly in the UK, and does not reflect positively or negatively on Rugby League in any particular way. In fact it is quite remarkable that such a small sport has so many very rich people willing to put so much money in - the most extreme examples being Ken Davy, the guys at St Helens and David Hughes. Quite how much John Wilkinson can be compared to those backers of rival clubs I'm not sure - and, like at Bradford, that might be Salford's big problem.

And yet Cas, Who own their own ground, And can maintain a suitable standard SL team, Losing less than most, Are been forced into busting a gut to get a new stadium, When the one they have is suitable for their needs. (Same goes for Wakefield)

The RFL are killing the game.

Salford aren't the only ones, Hull KR aren't far behind them, And the bottomless pit in London can't last forever.

Correct. I don't know if these fans of even lower salary caps genuinely don't mind league becoming a very very minor sport indeed or if they live in a fantasy world where we, uniquely, can be a top 4 or 5 sport in the UK without wealthy benefactors in the game. It ain't going to happen. If someone has the money to spend on things to boost the game...let them. And frankly, although people tend to always see high player expenses as a bad thing, you can make a strong case that buying say, Dan Carter, (heck, even Gavin Henson!) would generate more column inches, and therefore more sponsor interest, etc. for it to be a perfectly sound piece of business for the game as a whole. Our game has decided its too small fry for that to *ever* be something we'd do, and it pees me off that we're doomed to media mediocrity. At our media 'peak', Hanley, Offiah, etc. we were just starting to get somewhere against the bias, but now we're back (in fact behind) square one.