This evenings Manchester Evening News gives an in depth insight into a programme on the Inside Out Programme on BBC1 tonight.
The programme is about the severe financial state of the majority S/L clubs and the implications. The report in the MEN is very detailed , so watching the programme will be interesting.

Going by the report www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21211330 things look very bad - "Super League clubs are facing combined debts of £68.5m, a BBC Inside Out investigation alleges." - that is a huge level of debt especially in the current economic climate, makes you wonder if there will be more clubs going to the wall soon. This could be grim watching.

Going by the report www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21211330 things look very bad - "Super League clubs are facing combined debts of £68.5m, a BBC Inside Out investigation alleges." - that is a huge level of debt especially in the current economic climate, makes you wonder if there will be more clubs going to the wall soon. This could be grim watching.

There's simply not enough money in the sport to sustain 14 super league teams, yet this shouldn't be an excuse for clubs to be as poorly ran Bradford have no one but them selves to blame.

11 clubs examined....£68.5m debt
2 clubs removed leaves 9 clubs with £3m average = £27m

That means 2 clubs have a total debt of £41.5m between them, makes Bradford look well run....pmsl

Debt by itself isn't a problem. It's only when you can't service it that it becomes one.

Maybe one of the clubs is Harlequins, where the indebtedness is a paper only exercise - there is no point in owner Hughes ever asking for his money back as it has already gone and he has written it off in all but accounting terms (This no doubt applies to HKR, Hudds, Saints prior to their new stadium and others as well).

Whilst not suggesting that SL is in good health, if you look at comparable figures for RU and football clubs our clubs debts pale in comparison (whilst noting that the turnovers in those club games are "somewhat" higher than in SL).

I would love to see an accurate breakdown of these figures as I really dont think these headline figures will stand up to any serious scrutiny and I am sure that the bulk of the £68.5 million can be easily explained, particularly the 2 teams that are carrying £41 million debt.

This just seems to be a beat up Rugby League story nicely timed to undermine the start of the Super League season.

It's all Wigan' fault of course.

If we hadn't deferred wages a few seasons ago the RFL would not have made the cap "live" meaning the rule that limited spending to 50% of income or the cap whichever was lower would still be place.

That would have stopped clubs doing as the person who came up with this says which is and I quote"In my opinion, this is due to seeing the salary cap as a target rather than the limit which is intended. The mentality seems to be that if you want to perform well on the field of play you have to spend up to the cap.'"

From herehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21211330rl

"Two of the clubs examined had significant levels of net debt and, if these are removed from the sample, we can conclude an average net debt of around £3m per club."

So 9 clubs have an average of £3m debt? So £27m spread over nine.

But that is not the case either because the article says three or four clubs are supposed to be performing well. So by my reckoning that means if we assume four clubs are doing well the remaining five clubs have debts totalling £27m. So £5.4m per club.

So Warrington and Saints are disgracing the game? No change here then..

ahem....
rlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21237956rl

Smith's club, Warrington, are one of the clubs in good financial shape, but he accepted there were problems in Super League.

follow above link and get up to speed with the latest story before trying to be clever

Not exactly a Panorama exposé, all headline & little substance. The only interesting thing was Riley's tan.