Re: 8,000 fans : Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:25 pm  

"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.

Re: 8,000 fans : Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:54 pm  

the_grobs wrote:

As a Cas fan we of course played Salford at the beginning of the season. Our directors took the opportunity to speak with your directors during the game so that we could gain a better understanding of the required business model to sustain a new stadium. Ourselves at Cas, need 8500 per home game to reach a break even position and this is on a ground that we own and have minimal overheads. The business model presented to our directors was that for us to run a stadium like that of Salford's, we would need to average approx 10k to 10.5k per home game to break even.

The financial hole could be bigger than you expect and I would keep my ear to the ground if I was you. Otherwise as one fan to another best of luck!

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!!

Re: 8,000 fans : Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:02 pm  

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

Re: 8,000 fans : Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:19 am  

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.

Re: 8,000 fans : Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:37 pm  

Prestwich Red wrote:

I just think I managed to translate that.
Clubs lose players its a fact of life and to say he was our main playmaker is farcical.
We have never had big crowds even in the Glory Years and until the Salford public get off their ar$es and start supporting the only professional sports club in the city then we never will.

Glory years??????? when was this then

Re: 8,000 fans : Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:42 pm  

jetblack74 wrote:

Glory years??????? when was this then

The 70s. We won a couple of Championships then, you might want to pull out a history book or two.

Then again, he could also be referring to the 30s I suppose!

Re: 8,000 fans : Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:52 pm  

Glory years: 1912-14 (we went bust tho') and 1936-39

All matters of record.

As is what ended both periods.

Re: 8,000 fans : Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:45 am  

theredshed wrote:

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.

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 ?

Re: 8,000 fans : Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:33 am  

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.

Re: 8,000 fans : Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:15 am  

Tigerade wrote:

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 ?

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)