As a Cas fan we of course played Salford at the beginning of the season. Our directors took the opportunity to speak with your directors during the game so that we could gain a better understanding of the required business model to sustain a new stadium. Ourselves at Cas, need 8500 per home game to reach a break even position and this is on a ground that we own and have minimal overheads. The business model presented to our directors was that for us to run a stadium like that of Salford's, we would need to average approx 10k to 10.5k per home game to break even.

The financial hole could be bigger than you expect and I would keep my ear to the ground if I was you. Otherwise as one fan to another best of luck!

Surely though if you own the ground the overheads are much greater.
Upkeep and maintenance.
Paying staff to run the place.
Utilities.
And God knows what else.

Where as we pay a rent and the stadium management company take care of that.

Really? So, in a stadium that holds 12,000, you reckon that our break even crowd maybe closer to 10 to 10.5k? I'm sorry but that just doesn't add up at all and if that was the case, the stadium just wouldn't have been built as any sane business people (and they don't come much saner than Peel Holdings) would know that any business case we might have built that said we would get to that amount any time soon would have been a complete tissue of lies.

For clarity, again, the 8,000 that was quoted earlier this season is NOT our break even figure, it's the level at which we would be able to spend at full salary cap. I've not heard anybody talking about a financial hole at SALford, that's happening much closer geographically to you at BRADford.

Do you not think that your rent would have to include sufficient monies to cover all of these costs? I'm pretty sure that the stadium committee don't just absorb them at a loss as a charitable act. They have the same bills to pay, and they want to repay their investment...and they want to make the investment worthwhile by making some profit.

It doesn't mater what it is, when you rent anything out....1) you cover your costs....2) you make a bit of money to make it worthwhile....and 3) you make enough money to repay the investment.

If you own your own ground and your not re-investing in the ground as Cas clearly aren't..... you only have to cover operating costs...and that's it!

Honestly guys, at Cas we need a home attendance of 8500 to break even! We are averaging about 6k and facing a £350K loss at the year end. Put that in context with Salford and it paints a worrying picture, unless you have a money man to cover the loss.

The difference between Cas & us at Reds is that the costs are spread by Sale Sharks being joint tennants and the ground is used for other events - football / Challenge Cup semis etc. This helps pays upkeep by having the stadium used all year round. Our overheads are less.

John Wilkinson has already stated publicly that the rent for the ground is nowhere near what people are guestimating and that we are indeed only paying a peppercorn rate! As agreed with Peel Holdings and Salford City Council. He has also stated, as previously mentioned that the 8k crowd figure would allow us to spend full salary cap and not needed to run the stadium! There is more to things for Peel and The Council that the eye can't see as to the reason the stadium was built, i.e. you scratch my back and we'll scratch yours! Port Salford anyone???????????

You could say Peel Holdings wants to build Port Salford, The Council say OK build us a stadium etc etc. and you can build Port Salford! <wink> <wink>. Something on the lines of Cable & Wireless being allowed to dig up every street in Greater Manchester for their fibre optic cables, Council get a very impressive indoor arena into the agreement!

Something along those lines anyway, there's something in it for everyone in the end. That's my take on things!

I would say other than perhaps half a dozen clubs in Superleague the future for many teams looks extremely bleak. The game as a whole isn’t financially strong enough to stand on its own two feet and continually relies on a small number of individuals to underwrite losses year on year. The RFL keep painting a lovely picture about the good health of our game but I think it’s nothing more than a smokescreen to protect and justify their executive positions at Red Hall.

Put simply their obviously isn’t enough money generated from TV licensing, Superleague sponsorship, club sponsorship, hospitality, gate revenues and merchandising to warrant 14 fulltime clubs paying the wages they are paying to be competitive. Furthermore there is a mass shortage of British playing talent and we are no closer at International level than we were in 1982.

Don't even get me started on the pitiful attendances for both highly marketed Exiles matches. Time for total rethink because the British game is in steady decline and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land.

"theredshed"I would say other than perhaps half a dozen clubs in Superleague the future for many teams looks extremely bleak. The game as a whole isn’t financially strong enough to stand on its own two feet and continually relies on a small number of individuals to underwrite losses year on year.



What a great post some realism, I would go as far as saying there is no more than 4 clubs trading in the black in super league. Some people need to get real, rugby league is in melt down & needs some real vision at the top of the game.

Sorry to hear the current status guys, however I did offer a little insight a few months ago for those willing to listen.

Best of luck!!

With so many clubs in trouble, money wise. Has the time come to go back to semi pro/part time with players holding a full time job outside of rugby ?. That is if they can get a job with employment as it is. Just a thought

The issue with going back to part-time employment is the attraction of Union to many of our better players. Sadly many would move as they do pay well and full-time.