LOGIN or REGISTER FOR FEWER ADS AND MORE FEATURES
Currently There are 1682 Rugby League fans online
WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Bradford at risk of Administration...

Board index RLFANS MAIN The Virtual Terrace Bradford at risk of Administration...


Starbug User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:59 pm
Posts: 33291
Location: watching out for low flying geese
wrencat1873 wrote:
The only problem here is that the game, along with all sports, is trying to attract wealthy backers into the game and although this very much destorts the "level playing field" that many would like, the game can not afford to lose people of such wealth, indeed, they would welcome any new investors (or sugar daddies) with open arms.


So why are some clubs criticised for being ' too reliant on owner input ' when submitting SL applications , and then others [ like Fax ] are criticised for not having a wealthy backer ?

It all depends on who you are , and where you are
kcab sfrawdder



Luck is a combination of preparation and opportunity

Just to avoid confusion Starbug is the username of Steven Pike




SOMEBODY SAID that it couldn’t be done
But he with a chuckle replied
That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one
Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried.
So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried he hid it.
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
Starbug User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:59 pm
Posts: 33291
Location: watching out for low flying geese
Him wrote:
You're right of course that the 50% requirement shouldn't have been scrapped. However Bradford would still have qualified to spend the full cap and so wouldn't have affected them in this case. Maybe a harsher requirement of 40% or even 30% of income is needed?


So what did they spend the other 1.6 million on then ?
kcab sfrawdder



Luck is a combination of preparation and opportunity

Just to avoid confusion Starbug is the username of Steven Pike




SOMEBODY SAID that it couldn’t be done
But he with a chuckle replied
That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one
Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried.
So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried he hid it.
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
wrencat1873 User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 4441
Starbug wrote:
So why are some clubs criticised for being ' too reliant on owner input ' when submitting SL applications , and then others [ like Fax ] are criticised for not having a wealthy backer ?

It all depends on who you are , and where you are


You are just being pedantic Starbug.
I would suggest that in an ideal world all clubs would be sustainable through paying customers, merchandise and sponsorship but, are you really suggesting that the RFL would like to discourage the wealthy individuals that exist at many of the SL clubs ?
I think that this type of comment is merely suggesting that the lucky few still need to improve their revenue streams through sponsorship, attendances etc.
Starbug User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:59 pm
Posts: 33291
Location: watching out for low flying geese
wrencat1873 wrote:
You are just being pedantic Starbug.
I would suggest that in an ideal world all clubs would be sustainable through paying customers, merchandise and sponsorship but, are you really suggesting that the RFL would like to discourage the wealthy individuals that exist at many of the SL clubs ?
I think that this type of comment is merely suggesting that the lucky few still need to improve their revenue streams through sponsorship, attendances etc.


Just pointing out the dual standards applied , on Leighs SL application it stated that the club had a ' history of reliance on owner financial input ' as a negative , and yet Fax were criticised for not having a single financial backer , as for Huddersfield and London , well theres was worded differently :wink:
kcab sfrawdder



Luck is a combination of preparation and opportunity

Just to avoid confusion Starbug is the username of Steven Pike




SOMEBODY SAID that it couldn’t be done
But he with a chuckle replied
That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one
Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried.
So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried he hid it.
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
wrencat1873 User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 4441
Starbug wrote:
Just pointing out the dual standards applied , on Leighs SL application it stated that the club had a ' history of reliance on owner financial input ' as a negative , and yet Fax were criticised for not having a single financial backer , as for Huddersfield and London , well theres was worded differently


Sorry Starbug, but you'll have to give me some info on the Leigh situation.
I am aware that they completed their new ground to SL standard and had some financial issues, but I am not aware of the details.
Fully User avatar
Silver RLFANS Member
Silver RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:04 pm
Posts: 8086
Him wrote:
That should be an aim, but Im not sure how much chaos it would wreak upon the league. Wire, Saints, Hull KR, Hudds & I'm sure plenty of others would have to significantly scale back.
Maybe some kind of rule whereby sugar daddies money can only be spent on investment items like facilities or community work?


But isn't that good if it evens the field up (as people are calling for) and it drives clubs to start acting as businesses and focusing on improving their commercial side of things, income streams, number of ST holders et al?
Image
wrencat1873 User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 4441
Fully wrote:
But isn't that good if it evens the field up (as people are calling for) and it drives clubs to start acting as businesses and focusing on improving their commercial side of things, income streams, number of ST holders et al?


We're talking ideal world here.
As things are, it the wealthy backers were excluded from the game toe total income into the sport would be decimated with up to half of the SL clubs having to make substantial changes to their business and although it would be great for clubs to have to operate on a level playing field, I dont think you could advocate this type of change.
As mentioned the game needs all the investment it can muster and if this comes to certain clubs via a few wealthy individuals then on balance, this is a good thing for the game.
Fully User avatar
Silver RLFANS Member
Silver RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:04 pm
Posts: 8086
I think this questions the licensing process, though.

For example, how can a club using an owner to spend the cap be deemed at less risk of losing their licence than say a club like Cas or Wakey who are managing their businesses and are only spending what they can afford?
Image
Ferocious Aardvark User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 8:26 pm
Posts: 24393
Location: MACS0647-JD


Fully wrote:
But isn't that good if it evens the field up (as people are calling for) and it drives clubs to start acting as businesses and focusing on improving their commercial side of things, income streams, number of ST holders et al?


You've bought the myth that a sports club is a regular "business" and can make a "profit" if only . . .

When in truth you must know that no sports club is a profitable business, and to be ahead of the competition, in any professional sports league, you have to throw money at it?

If there were only "profitable" clubs that would be because they had minimal wages bills. Which can't happen because only crowds in the hundreds come to watch semi-pro level teams, and no top athlete is going to make a career in RL if paid peanuts.

What people really mean when they peddle this myth is that a club should run 2 businesses. One sports business, and some other highly profitable business, but spend all the profits from the profitable business on propping up the rugby. This won't happen.

The nearest you can get to it is a rich sponsor who may back you for a few years, but will never be committed long term. Or a rich businessman who has made more money than he needs and wants to spend some of it.

if you want to go back to the amateur or semi pro days, than your plan would kind of work, but you'd have to factor in that fans now want something much different and would not come in tens of thousands like they would have in the 50s, but in tens.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Fully User avatar
Silver RLFANS Member
Silver RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:04 pm
Posts: 8086
I must be confused. Aren't Leeds, Wigan and Warrington profitable? Equally, sports can be profitable but measures have to be in place such as a salary cap to encourage that.

Football would be and is a profitable sport but wages have escalated out of control and you can't be successful unless you spend more than the opposition.

Rugby League is an ideal sport in which the sporting business should be grown and with a higher profile sport, higher profile competition and an increase in spectators, there is no reason why all clubs cannot be profitable or run a break-even status.
Last edited by Fully on Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Beverley red, burnleywelsh, Carisma HFC, JEAN CAPDOUZE, Judder Man, milopolly, nadera78 and 53 guests

Quick Reply

   

Return to The Virtual Terrace




All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, the RLSA (Rugby League Supporters Association) or the 100% League Network is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites, please email the author of this sub-site if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2013 RLFANS.COM