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.

Glory years??????? when was this then

Glory years: 1912-14 (we went bust tho') and 1936-39

All matters of record.

As is what ended both periods.

Good post, but I think there are only 2 clubs continuously in the black - Leeds and Wigan. The top-end on the game in the UK cannot keep relying on a handful on benefactors propping SL up.

It is no coincidence that Cas Tigers , Salford and Hull KR are all seeking major new investors. If we don't get them we don't keep up with the big boys and if we don't keep a level of competitiveness a reduced league of 10 will happen. Two tier Superleague ?

I have to disagree with the post that we didn't get good crowds in the glory years. My dad constantly refers to the cup quarter final against Widnes (I think) when he had to climb over the wall cos the gates had been locked before kick off. Also he goes on about an Easter Monday game with Wigan when it was blazing hot and the club sold out of ale. We reportedly got 5000 turn up for an 'A' team match when Watkins made his debut.

The few clubs that are operating in the black at the moment win. It is as simply as that! In the 80's Halifax used to get massive crowds at Thrum Hall. Why? Because they won the league and went to Wembley twice in about 4 years. Win and marketing is esay. Lose and you have an near impossible task.

There are things we can do, but right now the club is in a bit of limbo while new investment discussions take place. What new investor would want the current administration to put into place policies that it may not like or agree with. Therefore, the clubs waits to see what happens.

The problem with a league of 10 teams is that 9 home fixtures isn’t enough (Not financially viable) and if they decided to play each other 4 times a year then 18 home fixtures would be far too much. Players just couldn’t handle the physical demands of 36 league games plus cup fixtures, potential play-off matches and Internationals.

OK they could come up with a system of playing some teams twice at home and some once but it would just make a complete mockery of the whole competition. Sport has to be seen as fair and equal where clubs play each other in the league, home and away the same number of times a season.

I think another problem with reducing the number of teams in the higher echelon of British RL is that it would create an even bigger divide where the large majority of clubs would be viewed as totally insignificant to the elite minority.

What happens if some teams struggle to compete or get into financial difficulties in a league format of 10? Do they reduce it 9 teams then 8? Or do they promote a club from 'Superleague 2' who will find it equally as difficult to compete?

I think you also have to take into consideration the potential negative impact a league of only 10 could have long term on broadcasting and attendances. Reducing the league from 14 to 10 would result in a 30% reduction in the variety of different fixtures and Sky would be televising the same teams more frequently. More live games for clubs I believe would impact negatively on match attendances with supporters becoming increasingly apathetic to having the same nine opponents every year. (And especially if teams are going to have to play each other more than twice a year, forgetting magic weekend, challenge cup and play-off fixtures)