Yep spot on Cronus, IIRC I think their salary cap is around £4.4m. They need a bigger squad due to the more specialised positions plus the necessity for lots of props in case of injury.

So you think SKY,ESPN,CANNAL+,ITV,BBC,BT and any other tv companies that contributes to RFU coffers, hands money over because these clubs have more staff?

Just posted the below on the Union thread in other sports but seems relevant here too. The BT deal looks like good money but the broadcasting reach will be reduced especially in the short term. With attendances going in the wrong direction and decisions being taken that reduce the TV reach, I’m not sure the competition will dwarf Super League any time soon

“Not sure what is happening with the Aviva attendances – the first home game of the season is usually pretty well attended but every team who has played at home so far has attracted less than their average last year and three teams (London Irish, Northampton and Worcester) saw their first home attendance lower than any of their home games last year“

No no-one has said that. But part of the negotiations will be that it's in the tv companies interest to pay a decent amount to fund these players wages. As it leads to a better competition. For instance how happy would Sky or BT be if half the games have uncontested scrums because the clubs can't afford to pay enough props. The same goes for RL, it's not in Sky's interest to drastically reduce the amount they pay for SL as it would lead to a worse comp and less people watching Sky. It's like when Sky make a tv programme, they can pay more and get a better tv show and so more viewers, or pay less and get an inferior tv show with fewer viewers. Of course there's a limit but the principle is the same.

Sports rights arent a deal that you do to get them for the lowest price you possibly can. BT, Sky, BeIn, Canal+, whoever want a poduct, they want a good product and the appreciate that if they cut the price they pay to a certain level, then it impacts on the product they are able to sell.

This thread is quite funny. Incorrect figures and calculations being thrown around, and to top it all off we are working out per player.

RFL spin city here some of you come.

looking at the BT site, you can get a package starting at £25.50 a month, which includes ESPN. Sky Sports is an extra charge of £15 or £20 for both channels. Phone line rental is £15.45

So you can get, broadband, TV (incl. Sky) and phone for approx. £60 - which is similar to the amount I pay on Virgin currently.

Good post bro.

I gave up on BT and went to Sky. My BT was effectively Freeview plus ESPN plus Sky Sports 1 and 2 (I think they don't get them all due to a dispute).

And as much as I enjoy football, I wouldn't be paying BT for the odd game with my own team, and Stoke v Wigan or some such. I suspect fewer people will than they think, too.

Great post with some very valid points. I can't help but feel that the RFU have followed in Formula One's approach to taking more money but neglecting the fact their TV viewing figures will be greatly reduced. I'm currently envious of domestic Union having ESPN, Sky and ITV showing games live and in a highlights package their potential audience is prosperous.

It is massively more. And it's only for their premiership. Not internationals, not Heineken cup, (correction - not in first year), etc.

I accept all the usual bleating about the disadvantages we face in getting deals comparable to RU, but a) this is nothing to do with Internationals, and b) we need to learn something instead of making excuses.

They can only sell what they're given to sell. RFL can't say "we hired IMG, so now we take no blame for anything". If that's all you have to do, then my mum might as well run the RFL, all she needs is the list of sub-contractors and a telephone.

It's £27m a year for SL, Championships & Challenge Cup compared to £38m a year for Aviva Premiership & Heineken Cup. Hardly an earth shattering difference, especially given the difference in costs.
And you're right it's nothing to do with internationals, as Internationals aren't included in either deal.

Factor in the playing and coaching squads of 20 Championship clubs, and you have evened it up

The TV money SL clubs recieve is enough to cover competitive squad in SL imo (1.32mil - 1.69 mil are the figures used on this thread) £1.5mil would be the average. Gate receipts, shirt sponsor, kit manufacturer, other sponsors, corporate money, grants and merchandise should be enough to cover staff wages and all other day to day cost imo as long as your chairman/CEO knows what he is doing so why clubs are reported to be on the edge of bankruptcy is beyond me.

It does make you wonder, doesnt it?

A simple formula would be to only spend 90% of your previous years income, any surplus could then be spent on marketing your club to increase turnover and therefore potential increase in spending

It shouldnt be hard should it

, then again my club made a profit when playing in SL

Said just about all I wanted to say myself. They've got 38 Premier League football matches and now a load of rugby union. Football will get some to sign-up for the service. Not sure BT will attract enough with club union games to make it worthwhile.

I say this not a an RL fan, but no sport other than Premier League football will get the masses subscribing to pay for that and any ancillary deals. 38 games a year is nowhere near enough to do that.

Rugby Union is massive in the UK - or at least the perception is. They call it "Rugby" on telly but they always mean Union.

League is a small northern sport which has a big final on the BBC once a year - Eddie Waring used to commentate on it, as well as It's a knockout.

They call it rugby in Oz as well, they call games they care about Footy or Cricket. So let em av it, we'll be Footy or League!

OK first point on this is that the criticism of the RFL of our deal is harsh. We signed ours a year ago. BT won't bidding for sports then, so the RFL were restricted in asking for larger payments. BT are new on the game and are a HUGE company, they have just as much money to throw at sports as SKY, they will be investing a lot money and will be prepared to lose a lot of money at first to get customers signed up. They need marquee sports to get people signed up and will pay over the odds for it. Also what happens when two people want something? They start bidding for it, meaning the RFU could keep putting the asking price up. RFL didn't have this.

Second point, now BT look big players, that will put the RFL in a good position when the next contract comes up for renewal as SKY know how big SL is to them and now they have genuine competition, out contract will increase.

And in a move that we'd expect from our own RFL, there's now a dispute with the ERC about the BT deal and the validity of screening the Heiniken Cup matches which have been previously contracted under a seperate arrangement.

Nearly every club is running at a 250-500k deficit so clearly it is not enough.

What is the money going on?

Does anybody have any indicators or figures that could show the income/expenditure of an average SL club? KR, Cas, Salford, Wakey etc.

Im only guessing but I would have thought the top 5 clubs in SL would all be operating at a profit!

I'm sure the owners of Wigan, Wire & Saints would love to have an operational net profit, Saints owe in IRO £6m for their shiny stadium alone.
If clubs were able to operate profitably on gate, sponsorship, merchandising & TV money they wouldn't need backers now would they?

The description of RL vs Union given by littlerich is exactly the perception anybody south of the M62 would give. We've a new Welsh guy at work, who was shocked when I said the statement that 'nobody cares about league' ought to be changed to 'nobody cares south of the M62', and the reverse can be applied when it comes to union based on the fact that there is one premiership club in England north of Leicester.

That's what RL has to battle, and we can compare crowd figures and TV audiences until the cows come home.

I'd pay somebody on a success fee basis to get us more sponsorship and better TV deals - i.e. keep a decent % of anything you earn over agreed targets, but with next to zero for failing to hit targets. A trained monkey could probably get close to the existing deal if we go to market again. A really clever operator would be doing exactly what somebody else suggested - start talking to all the alternative bidders well before the current deal is up - and make damn sure Sky know it too.

The Stobart deal and others suggest that the RFL has historically left these things way too late. If you do you end up with all the power on the wrong side of the table.