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...

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.

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.

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?

The way I see it he wants a bit more support from the RFL. I do agree with his letter and think the governing body should focus more on the elite clubs in SL rather than pumping money into London and elsewhere. Realistically it's not going to improve the sport and compete with Yawnion or other bigger sports. I do also think it's a desperate cry for personal help as well. Hudgell is probably sick of putting his money into the club and getting no great return. The reason why he does it now is because of his support and passion for the club. You would be in more trouble if it wasn't for a fan with a bit of money.

Us and a number of others - that's his point, really.

On the other hand, it has always been thus to an extent. I might go through my Hull KR centenary history later - decades passed iirc, with each year a note that 'The parent company reported a loss of 21 pounds and 3 shillings', or similar.

I have never had the time of day for Hudgell, for whatever reason but I side with him 100% here. The RFL have wasted millions over the years trying this expansionist game to no avail. They eventually saw daylight and moved the Magic weekend to Manchester after gross failures at Cardiff and Edinburgh. Hudgell deserves a pat on the back this time.