Board index ‹ RLFANS MAIN ‹ The Virtual Terrace ‹ Financial Problems In Sport (Slightly OT)

I read an article this morning on the BBC website (see link below).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18765754

The jist: Welsh domestic RU is struggling financially - The Newport Dragons lost £2.4m in the year ending May 2011, Cardiff Blues lost £2.3m in the same period, Ospreys back in May faced a winding up petition from HMRC, and Scarlets have a total debt of £5.5k (although aren't in financial difficulty as such). As a result they have all agreed to lower the salary cap in Wales.


Following the recent financial troubles Bradford have been faced with, there has been some talk on here questioning whether this is a problem with RL, that we need to cut our cloth accordingly.

Domestic RU is IMO the closest thing that we can compare against.

The point I'm trying to highlight here is that all sports are suffering, and perhaps, as a whole, Rugby League is handling with it alot better than most, despite what some say about the RFL and living beyond our means.

Were in a major catch 22

The sensible way would be to relook at the cap and lower it for certain clubs based on their financials.

But you then lopside the league even.more.

Or you lower it for all and lose even more of the best players to the NRL and Union.

But 3 clubs insolvent in the last 12 months and possibly more to.come something has to give.

Sporties wrote:

Were in a major catch 22

The sensible way would be to relook at the cap and lower it for certain clubs based on their financials.

But you then lopside the league even.more.

Or you lower it for all and lose even more of the best players to the NRL and Union.

But 3 clubs insolvent in the last 12 months and possibly more to.come something has to give.

Or adjust the cap according to income ?
This may not be "fair" but life isn't.

wrencat1873 wrote:

Or adjust the cap according to income ?
This may not be "fair" but life isn't.

Agree. Salary should be capped at a percentage of your income.

This would stop teams living beyond their means and also force clubs to put more effort into selling the game and building their fan base if they want to compete.

Win win.

I'd go further and make it that you can spend according to profitability. Linking it to turnover is stupid.

If Wigan made £8m turnover and lost £1m, they should not be rewarded for that by being able to spend more than say Wakefield who turned over £3m and lost £250,000. (All figures hypothetical)

Saddened! wrote:

I'd go further and make it that you can spend according to profitability. Linking it to turnover is stupid.

If Wigan made £8m turnover and lost £1m, they should not be rewarded for that by being able to spend more than say Wakefield who turned over £3m and lost £250,000. (All figures hypothetical)

The slight problem with that is that it could prevent clubs from investing in things for the good of the game, simply to hit that profit figure.

A loss of £1m with an investment of £2m in new facilities is far better than a profit of £100k with no infrastructure investment.

Turnover is a good indication.

[quote="Dave T"]The slight problem with that is that it could prevent clubs from investing in things for the good of the game, simply to hit that profit figure.

A loss of £1m with an investment of £2m in new facilities is far better than a profit of £100k with no infrastructure investment.

Turnover is a good indication.[/quote]

Not if it is mostly ' donation '

It'd have to be some form of balance between profit and turnover that the RFL can pay a Maths grad to invent a formula for that will be deemed "super". Else you either end up punishing teams for investing in the club/community (Profit only) or ones with large "donations" can buy up all the talent.

CM Punk wrote:

It'd have to be some form of balance between profit and turnover that the RFL can pay a Maths grad to invent a formula for that will be deemed "super". Else you either end up punishing teams for investing in the club/community (Profit only) or ones with large "donations" can buy up all the talent.

Exactly. The current system is the best.

Barnabus wrote:

Exactly. The current system is the best.

Provided 'donations' are exactly that, and not just a debt on a club, then I've no problem with teams buying up significant talent, provided it's not 'all' the talent. Squad limits can prevent this, whilst not shutting money out of the game. Said it before, but I would have: "spend what you like...except...

1) club's debt/income ratio must be below [x]
2) No more than 13 players on >£100k
3) No more than 13 more on >£40k
4) For any £1 spent over [y] (say £1.8m), £1 has to be donated to a grass-roots rugby fund. "

I firmly believe we should be attracting wealthy people to the game, not shutting them out. I also believe that a rich person who wants to come into a club will *primarily* do so because he or she wants to bring in great players to the club whether because they were childhood fans, or because its a vanity project. Either way, I don't care. We can allow them that dream to an extent - without destroying other clubs - with rules like the above. There are much smarter ways than the current cap to stop money destroying the game, without shutting it out. In fact without money, we'll die a slow death anyway. The idea that all we have to do is wait around for clubs to improve their 'marketing', so they all get big gates, spend up to the cap, then we raise the cap, is pure and ridiculous fantasy. You could spend 20 years putting adverts on the sides of trucks and still get nothing like the exposure of signing Johnny Wilkinson (years ago), Dan Carter, etc. The latter would cost an absolute Stobart truck-load of dosh, and could only happen via the gift of a very wealthy benefactor, but I for one would welcome it, and the re-rise of Rugby League as a sport with a big profile in this country. Only £££ will make that happen - if you think 'marketing', and 'equal competition' will achieve it, you're a dreamer. Or worse, Nigel Wood.

The (current) small pool of player talent does cause a slight problem for us, in that the best 13 in Superleague probably are somewhat better than the second best 13. (In soccer, the 'best 11' would be almost identical to the second, third, fourth and fifth best 11, it would just be a matter of opinion). However, the fact you can only have 13 'stars' means that injuries, etc. would keep things reasonably balanced. In particular, if I won the euro-millions, I'd want to strip Union of its 3 or 4 biggest stars (just to wind them up as much as anything, but also to bring big media attention to league). I'd need to bust the cap to do this, but provided I don't put the club in debt, I don't see the problem. That small pool of talent is only going to get worse if RL becomes less and less attractive as a potential career. I'd always advise my son to play League at a young age, because it'll make him a better player of either code, but if, by any chance he turned out to be any good and asked for career advice (i.e. how to make a living in what is a very short career), then TBH, I'd have to tell him to look at Union.