Interesting selection of teams "saddend" you dont quote Cas or London in this group which quite frankly is bewildering

It was a sarcastic point really, namely that reducing the league to twelve or less might be the last thing he wants.The RFL have been making geographical decisions for years. How else can you explain the Quins and Crusaders? Salford gets in because they are from the Manchester area, and everyone around Wakefield presumes that the RFL want just one club from the Wakefield area.

Geography is part of the consideration in franchising. The point is, for Mr Hudgell, be careful what you wish for.

He'd also be away with the fairies if he thought that Sky would pump the same amount of money into a reduced-team competition

Excellent point - if we lost two clubs during the current Sky contract, you just watch them insist on re-negociation!

I'm sorry but when a club like Sheffield who don't own their own stadium and don't get any Sky money can run a club and make nearly £10,000 profit it shows how it can be done.. It's about staying within your means, something which a lot of super league clubs aren't doing. www.sheffieldeagles.com/index.ph ... Itemid=490

I'm sorry but when a club like Sheffield who don't own their own stadium and don't get any Sky money can run a club and make nearly £10,000 profit it shows how it can be done.. It's about staying within your means, something which a lot of super league clubs aren't doing. www.sheffieldeagles.com/index.ph ... Itemid=490

Neil Hudgell sounds like a moron.

We are going back to the end of the eighties again, when one club had money, Wigan, and everyone bust themselves trying to keep up. The salary cap is supposed to address that, but of course clubs now find their way to the top through sugar daddies rather than income streams, or make bad decisions to get punters through the gates. It has been said that the Bulls made no money from the glory years, because they spent so much on pre-match entertainment, and when clubs give away season tickets at a third of what they are worth, like Bradford, they have to survive on a gate of a third of what it is.

Bradford made bad decisions, and that is why they are in trouble. You make no more money from 9,000 season ticket holders paying £60 a year compared to 3,000 paying £180, plus you lose the £120,000 that the 6,000 "pay on the gate" would bring to every home game. Bulls made dumb decisions, and that's why they are in a mess, and tried to pay for a Grand Final squad while they were at it.

Seems to me "Slugger" here hasn't got a clue what the situation actually is.

It depends if that is a term of the contract.

The league going from 14 to 12 clubs wouldn't affect the number of games SKY would show, and if those two teams were from heartland areas it wouldn't make much of an effect on the Geographical spread that would appeal to the companies advertising during those games. Closer matched games in a more competitive competition would probably mean increased viewers and increased revenues for SKY.

I know all about the bank withdrawing the overdraft facility. If they had made more money, they wouldn't have needed it, and they would have had money to pay the tax bill.

I think what he means is your statement that Bradford made no money during their glory years because they spent it all on pre-match entertainment. The news articles I've read seem to suggest that Bradford had, at one time, around £4m in the bank and spent it all on building the Coral stand instead of securing a loan (which, at the time of building, would have been obtainable) and paying it off in installments, which, with retrospect, would probably have seen them through the Harris debacle with cash to spare and they wouldn't be in this trouble now.

Of course, they could just as easily have spent all that money in the mean-time on other things ('star' player wages, transfer fees, etc), still had a loan for the Coral stand to pay off and be in exactly the same situation as they are in right now, only with the two upset creditors involved being RBS, of course, and (insert lenders name here) instead of the RFL.

Another chairman (McManus), on the same theme... www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

Another chairman (McManus), on the same theme... www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

Not even with a 'B' licence?

Please, post something that has some substance or don't post at all.

How very kind of you. I'm sure the RFL will take your view into account, should it ever come to it!

Quite an incredible post from you really when one considers that you have derbies against Saints, Warrington and Widnes. I'm sure Salford could be thrown into this mix also when you consider it's another very short journey for you. The nearest SL club to Hull KR, after Hull FC, is Castleford, some 55 - 60 miles away!

So, again, why should Hull KR (a club with a 'B' licence) not be included in a 10 team SL?