"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)

Making a direct comparison is also futile because RL crowds were a lot lower across the board.

Yes, this is where the argument falls down every time. I know some commentators have looked to the NFL-model of 'less is more' but, to be frank, comparing English RL to it is mental.



I think there are a number of ways it could work. It's certainly something that could give the playoffs more kudos.

Quite right throughout the 1970's rugby league attendances were in decline. I recall Salford in the late 1960's getting a couple of bumper cup crowds against Workington and Widnes at the Willows in the region of 16,000. Between the late 60's and around 1971 we regularly got 10,000+ crowds and despite winning two championships in 1974 and 1976 we never averaged more than about 6,000.

RL attendances didn't really recover until the early 1980's when Hull and Wigan brought over several overseas stars.

Sky do this anyway don't they? I'm sick of seeing the same 4 or 5 clubs all season. It is coincidentally the same 4 or 5 clubs who are winning and bringing in the crowds. Sky don't care about the also-rans. They have an image that they want to portray of the game and they work to a script. Look how stumped they were when we took Wire to the cleaners last year.

The problem with a league of 10 is as has been mentioned before not enough variety of fixtures/ not enough revenue from reduced fixtures. We would have the same situation that we have with the Scottish Premiership with teams playing each other 3 or 4 times a season. Quite boring!!!

The biggest problem with RL in this country is that there are too many people with vested interests who control the game. In Australia teams who finish top one season can find themselves bottom the season after. When did that last happen over here? The likes of Gary Hetherington and co who seem to always be pushing the agenda when it comes to development don't want the Salford's and Wakefield's and Castleford's to be up at the top because it upsets his power balance. Development for them is the strong clubs getting stronger and expanding the World Club challenge which the Aussies couldn't give a to$$ about. They think that that is the way we will end up beating them at international level and that it would represent success in developing the game. Nearly 30 years of the WCC have proved that we are no closer to beating the Aussies!!

It is going to take a huge re-think in the way the game is administered and the removal of the power held within it by certain individuals who want to promote the game through the same 4 or 5 clubs. The aim should be to have as equal a competition as we can but the current administration have not got that kind of vision or motivation for the game. They need to be realistic about who we as a game can attract as investors. We do not have the clout or media power of football nor do we have the public school old boys network of Rugby Union. Our pool of investors is limited to a small number of enthusiasts and smaller companies who cannot afford the advertising/ sponsorship of the aforementioned other football codes so they put some money our way.

Yes I agree but it would be even more of an overkill than it is now.