The 50% rule, I assume, is hard to manage (for clubs and RFL alike). Plus it might discourage affordable 'investment', locking in success a handful of currently dominant and well-supported clubs. A flat cap has the advantage of simplicity and, in theory at least, should make for a more even competition. I'm not against it entirely or in principle, I just think it creates as many problems as it solves.
I'm not sure that NH's letter contains any suggestions, although I guess we've only seen page 1(?). He clearly thinks 14 teams is not sustainable - but that is just stating what he believes to be a problem.

Actually it's not that difficult as any such monies would appear on the clubs accounts which are available for a small fee.

Bradford, for instance, received a loan of roughly £700k in January 2011 which was basically an advance on their Sky money. They then had to pay this back out of the proceeds from selling their lease to the RFL - hence their current cash-flow crisis.

Similarly Crusaders received a loan from the RFL that was secured against their stadium, which the RFL now part own.

The other clubs you mention got nothing AFAIK.

The RFL aren't exactly minted. It wasn't so long ago that they were in serious debt. I'm not sure why so many people seem to think they have huge wads of cash to throw at clubs even if they wanted to.

Once again, I invite you to come up with a figure for how much cash all these things are costing the game. Because unless you can do so then I don't understand how you can claim that stopping them would help.

I can't come up with a figure but I will state it will eventually lose fans. My point was that the whether financially or in a time / effort expenditure the RFL seems more focussed on chasing an expansion / international game then it does looking after its core business.

My points where the international game will never expand even if we royally thumped the aussies.
The game will never thrive outside of its current areas, no nes interested.

Whilst time and effort is being expnded in these areas the fact one of the biggest teams in our game is going to the wall, a solution is needed and that should be the RFLs priority

Whats the problem Rovers fans jeez..... never seen you all so tetchy. A letter from Hudgell and instantly it's about what Hull fans think, what they are doing on thier board, who will be on here talking about a begging bowl.

A leaked letter over the April 1st weekend and in the week leading up to the derby,

Exactly my thoughts, it is not always advisable to consider diversification until your core business is stable and profibable, it something the RFL should have been giving prority to for the last few years imo, walk before you run springs to mind.

So why bother with this then?

They probably look at the profits of the RU world cup and are told to expand for bigger tv rights.

But the fans want it small time so I don't why they bother.

I'd love to have a thriving international game like ru but I'm a realist and understand it will never happen. People will not swith onto a new sport like that.

The only way it would work is if a hybrid rl/ru sport was devised akin to 20-20 cricket. even thats a long shot.

I'm not a big fan of RU but one thing i will say in its defence is that it has a far superior maketing department than the RFL, it never ceases to amaze me that the RFL have appeared to blow so many opportunities to aggressively promote the game of rugby league in the past.
Its marketing strategy has been at best very averarge for many years imo.

We had a big international game, we didn't try to expand it well enough.

Could you imagine some of our fans reaction if they lost players mid season for internationals?

RU fans seem to accept the games bigger than the clubs.

Of course it does, they have educated people with great networks running it.

Expansion isn't being targeted for the lols - it's being targeted as the only viable method of growing the game and thereby increasing income. A game played only along the M62 corridor is less attractive to sponsors and TV companies. There's also little evidence that the RFL is actually ignoring 'heartlands' teams or offering them less assistance than 'expansion' teams, with the exception of a few tweaks to the quota rules.

The RFL already loaned Bradford a hefty sum to bail them out of what they were assured was a temporary cash flow problem. Guess what? It wasn't temporary. They then bought the lease to Odsal to help them out again, and STILL Bradford's board couldn't make the books balance. What else were they supposed to do? Falling crowds at Odsal and their BOD's serial failure to spend within their means has nothing at all to do with 'chasing expansion'.

Yes it does but, can you remember a few years ago and the quote from Will Carling on rugby union,? "If the game is run properly as a professional game, you do not need 57 old farts running rugby."
Afterwards they had a complete clearout at the top with a more dynamic type of personell taking over who changed the way the game was run, perhaps the game of rugby league would benifit from such a change at the top.

I'd agree with that. Crusaders was a disaster, but I imagine in was inspired to some extent by the promising start Catalans had made and continue to build on.
On the International game, I understand the comparisons with RU, but the diverging histories of the two codes mean that they are only valid up to a point. In some ways I'd even consider de-coupling more from the Aussies, as it'd give us some flexibility in adapting our competition to suit our needs. Personally I think SL has to come before international game, looking to association football in this country/continent as our example, rather than RU or cricket, in that one area.

It's been an appalling mess these last few years though.

If Bradford do fail, or even if they don't (which of course I hope is the case), then there needs to be a debate. 3 clubs in administration in 2 seasons would be worrying.

I would agree on that point inparticular.

Coincidentally the 2 seasons following removal of the 50% rule...

Was their a press release why it was removed Kosh?

I can't remember or find any.

Crusaders were a slow-motion car crash largely due to the RFL failing to heed warnings about their original owner. I agree that over-confidence following the success of Catalan may have played a part, although the two clubs weren't particularly comparable.

I'd say that SL and the international game have to have parallel development rather than one being prioritised. We aren't ever going to have the domestic fan base to model ourselves on soccer and therefore - like RU and Cricket - need a viable International game to add to the sport's commercial attractiveness. IMO of course.

It's been gone longer than that, hasn't it?

I don't ever recall it being an issue for us. Binned off after the Wigan farago, possibly?

Not that I can recall. I remember it came out of a meeting with the clubs but not what specific reasons were given.

I [isuspect[/i that one or two of the larger clubs were feeling the pinch commercially and rather than tighten their belts convinced everyone to remove the 'constraint' on spending.

In cricket and RU, the international game is the commercial attractiveness and the counties/clubs are the added extra.
It isn't a case so much of prioritising, as recognising and playing to our relative strengths. Although the scale is massively different, football, with it's main focus on civic rather than national pride, offers a better comparison, IMO. This is compounded by our not being able to beat Australia and France not being able to beat us. Or any realistic prospect of that changing, barring the odd freak result maybe once a decade. 'Representative' gives more options than 'International'. The Exiles is a decent concept, but so was a Yorks-Lancs origin series, but you need fans to buy into it.

Interesting to note that flat salary cap was set higher than it is now, a decade ago. www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... -1.8m.html That's a big decrease in real terms. So the 50% rule was originally binned off a long time ago - was it re-introduced for a period?

Interesting to note that flat salary cap was set higher than it is now, a decade ago. www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... -1.8m.html That's a big decrease in real terms. So the 50% rule was originally binned off a long time ago - was it re-introduced for a period?