Me too, bang on there. When a club is losing lots of money its a ticking time bomb that could implode at any moment. You can have all the razzmatazz and attention you want in RU but if a club goes bust then whats the point? From a business standpoint we are much stronger as we dont spend beyond our means and weve had success and also turned a profit at the same time.

The premier league has got similar problems in that theres a lot of clubs in there with huge debts who just use the tv money to service it. The will hit that fan at some point though unless they smarten up business wise.

Go with whoever you like! There are far wealthier and more successful businessmen involved in RU than in RL so I'd suggest they and the RFU probably have a better idea of how to build a sport than the RL club owners and the RFL. Are you really with IL on this one, that club RU is in a worse state than RL financially? RL clubs can't even pay 70% in real terms of the player salaries that they were paying at the outset of the SC. They're absolutely on the breadline in professional sport terms. RU clubs may need to rein in spending but it would be quite easy for them to do so against a backdrop of very strong TV, corporate and spectator revenue.

Let's look at the evidence since RU went professional only 15 years ago... RL has gone backwards in that period, club RU has gone from a one man and a dog spectator sport to a bigger spectator sport than club RL..... how many SL clubs have gone into admin or got into serious financial difficulties in that period... how many RU premiership clubs have gone into admin or got into serious financial difficulties in that period...??? Hmmm. I know who I'd go with....

If you're expecting RU at club level to suffer significantly due to overspending then that's wishful thinking I'm afraid. It will continue to grow and outstrip RL at club level, even if the odd club gets in difficulties (and RU would have to get things very wrong to have as many clubs go bust as RL!!). RU management isn't great but it's streets ahead of RL.

I posted this in another thread about rugby union
A quick click onto the articles shows that club rugby union, to which IL perhaps referred to as opposed to RU as a whole, isn't exactly rosey.

And just because a director has more money, doesn't mean they're better for your club?
Would you like to swap IL to have Dave W back?
Did Richard Branson have a positive effect on the London club?

Your argument is obviously based on the premise that the RU is reliant on sugar daddies not walking away because if they continue their support (or if others are waiting in the wings to buy clubs and continue to support them if they pull out) then there just isn't an issue, their ability to soak up the "huge losses "you mention isn't therefore relevant.

There's so much wishful thinking here. I've no doubt some RU clubs will get into difficulty from time to time, as some football clubs do (and as lots of RL clubs do, which you seem to ignore!). But the revenue streams mean that even if the wealthy lose interest in RU the RU clubs will survive in the long term as much bigger clubs than SL clubs.

We just have to face up to the reality that RU at club level is now a bigger game than RL at club level. The growth in their game has been massive. Even if the sugar daddy support were taken away RU would cope. Some clubs might need to go into admin, restructure and cut their wages bill. At the end of that process they almost all be in better shape than SL clubs.

Don't forgot though that some RU clubs don't even have or particularly need wealthy backers. Leicester's turnover is c£20m and they make a small profit. That's almost four times Wigan's turnover. Ashton's team the RU Saints have a turnover of over £12m and make a profit (c£500k last time I think). Compare that to the RL Saints....

Time has moved on and RL has been left behind.

There is nothing in that article that is news. IL said the same things at the press conference and interviews afterwards and Joel's situation remains unclear. It is pretty typical of that rag in that it puts out "news" articles with not bloody news in them!

Northampton made about 6.5% profit on their turnover of about £12m last season, about £800,000. Not £500,000 as Deano stated. Not sure of the exact figure but it in the £12m / £800K ball bark.

I don't think there is any RL club doing a 6.5% profit on turnover but that isn't the point. While they "only" have £800K to spend so to speak meaning they could not raid RL for several players as a club, what they can clearly do is pay their (much higher) costs which is going to be mostly wages.

So they can pay the high wages RU offers and still turn a very healthy net profit.

IL must be talking about different clubs to Northampton, Leicester and Sarries.

For the 2nd time (hopefully this time the penny will drop) no it isn't based on the reliance of sugar daddies. It's based on the fact of the losses sustained by a number of RU clubs, with or without a sugar daddy.



Some RU clubs make profits, some RL clubs do. Some RU clubs need sugar daddies to survive, so do some RL clubs. In terms of Wigan RL, which is what Lenegan was talking about we are in a better position than most RU clubs because we are able to live within our means, nothing what you've said so far backs up your initial argument that what Lenegan said was wrong.

I think it's us, Leeds, Hull and the Dire who have been able to turn a profit in the last couple of years in RL, so there's always an exception to the rule. It's quite correct to say that the finances in Premiership football are a basket case, despite the fact Man U can turn a big profit and the large revenues involved generally, but to be competitive most clubs are living beyond their means.

In turns of RL, I don't have the figures to compare against that 6.5%, but I know we are nowhere near based on last year's accounts. Not sure about Saracens making a profit, Gloucester have in the past.

I take issue with football using basket case financing. Football and most sports work on a very well tried and tested financial system.
Its called a pyramid scheme. New owners come in chase success and mortgage the club. Club is then sold to a bigger financer who does the same. Repeat adinfinitum. Club eventually runs out of new money men or has cash flow problems leading to them not being able to pay a tax bill. Suddenly everone financing the club realises that not all the champions league title for the next twenty years could repay this debt. So they give up and go home leaving a club with no cash and no resources. Club goes into admin.creditors accept something rather than nothing from local business man who offers to buy to save club. The club is then run sensibly for a few years. The fans get restless not chasing the dream chairman feels pressure and caves in or sells to someone wishing to please fans and so begins the cyle again. In the end sport is financed on hope.

Hope of a better team.
Hope of success
Hope of being associated to success
Hope of getting a big contract.
Hope of getting paid for services rendered.

If we lived in a country where debts where paid in jail time you would see alot less risk taking over chasing a dream byond the size of the finances and the assets to bear the weight.

Thanks Dave. I couldn't remember the exact figures, glad I underestimated rather than overestimated the profit figures as I know that would have brought criticism on me from certain quarters.

The point about turnover is that a large part of this will be wages and a good proportion player wages. So RU clubs will be able to massively outbid RL clubs for players.

OK. I'm glad you've cleared up the sugar daddy issue raised in your 2.24pm post, it took a while to get there.

I'm glad you've also now acknowledged that lots of RL clubs make a loss.

Back to IL's comments, when he took over Wigan RL our revenue was sub £5m and we were making a significant loss (DaveO I don't suppose you have the figures to hand?) under DW's ownership. IL cut Wigan's expenditure a bit and took steps to increase revenue slightly to balance the books. I'm sure if he took over an RU club he could do the same there.

If he's suggesting that Wigan's turnover and profits put it in a stronger position than most RU clubs then that is just nonsense. Stronger how? Is he expecting them all to go bust and not buy up RL talent any more? That is just wishful thinking. RU clubs are already bigger than RL clubs; any financial difficulties casued by overspending will not weaken RU clubs to the point that Wigan can stop them from taking any players they want. It's just nonsense.