Sam Burgess to Union

[DaveO]

It is nowhere near it.

The details are here:

http://www.totalrl.com/web/ins-outs-sup ... w-tv-deal/

Clubs currently get £1.2m off Sky so they are getting an extra £625K (sorry not £600K as I said above).

As I said, such a successful World Cup and it gives our SL clubs an extra £625K is under selling the game.

SO 1.2 + .625 = 1.825. Which is probably the £2M figure after some media rounding. Certainly covers the whole salary cap, so everyone should be up to the cap and use their other income to support the stadia and support staff?

Money from the deal also goes to the game at all levels and not just the Super League club's.

That is why the SL clubs only got £625K. The game cannot sustain what it wants to sustain, which is a league of 24 competitive teams with the money on the table.

It should have either gone out to tender to try and raise more cash or cut it cloth according to the money it did get.

It has done neither and so as I said in response to Mike, it has cut itself off from employing the worlds top players.

It is also easy for some to have a go at those who negotiated the deal when they know that they would never be in a position to negotiate anything better.

Do you always deny yourself an opinion on anything you weren't directly involved in? If so why are you on an Internet discussion forum?

[Wigan_forever1985]

IMO the fact that 3 of the biggest superstars to move in the last year;

Sam Burgess
SBW
Benji Marshall

All coming from the perceived cash rich NRL proves that this is surely more than just a money problem.

The problem as I see it, is we cannot produce the atmosphere and stages that union can. I went to the Double header international league event at Wemberly a few years back and for most of the game you could hear a pin drop with more plastic on show than a lego factory.

Switch the to the 6 nations stadiums full of singing/chanting/passionate crowd, yeah the games a load of tonk but the atmosphere is electric.

Our international setup is a joke, made more so since the disbanding of GB, now there are 3 teams England/Austrailia/New Zealand and a bunch of other teams made up in bulk by players who couldn't get in the primary 3. Some people have switched international teams more than they have switched clubs!

For me we so go back to a 4 nations tournament and get GB back. That should happen once every 2 years.

I think to compete with the draw of something for your career we need to offer an alternative something that would pull the crowds in and be another challenge for a professional to fill. So in the years there wasn't an international I would have either;

Super Club challenge - 4 best from superleague vs 4 best from NRL

or
World State of Origin - NSW, Queensland, Lancashire, Yorkshire

Our international game will never take off properly lets face it so I think we need to offer something different something that makes for a great spectacle

[xbrettkennyx]

In all honesty what did you expect?

You simply cannot buck the market.

The Communist Cap was always going to result in players (free agents) leaving the game.

Did anyone outside of Red Hall honestly think that this was not going to happen?

The real tragedy will be the news that you never hear.

The potential Sam Burgess who RL fans never hear about as he has chosen to go down the "RU" route at the age of 14 when his talent became obvious.

Owen Farrell, George Ford? Tip of the iceberg.

[Owd Codger]

SO 1.2 + .625 = 1.825. Which is probably the £2M figure after some media rounding. Certainly covers the whole salary cap, so everyone should be up to the cap and use their other income to support the stadia and support staff?

Money from the deal also goes to the game at all levels and not just the Super League club's.

That is why the SL clubs only got £625K. The game cannot sustain what it wants to sustain, which is a league of 24 competitive teams with the money on the table.

It should have either gone out to tender to try and raise more cash or cut it cloth according to the money it did get.

It has done neither and so as I said in response to Mike, it has cut itself off from employing the worlds top players.

It is also easy for some to have a go at those who negotiated the deal when they know that they would never be in a position to negotiate anything better.

Do you always deny yourself an opinion on anything you weren't directly involved in? If so why are you on an Internet discussion forum?

No, I do have opinions, but at the same time, I also spend my time discussing the actual game itself and do not spend my time with constant moaning about the running of its financial affairs when like the majority, I know that there is now more money in Union and the NRL and our game no longer has the clout it had prior to 1996 when Union went professional and also introduced proper league competitions at both domestic and European level which has attracted both coaches and players from our game. No amount of money in our game will alter that fact unless of course, some want our club's to end up in the same state as Wigan did in the mid nighties with massive debts as a result of signing a squad of Star players and creating a situation where we lost our world famous ground and ended up having to now share a Stadium with a football club.

[doc]

Why do people always blame signing too many top players as the reason the club hit financial troubles in the 90s. A major cause was the massive overspend on the new stand.

[nellywelly]

Money from the deal also goes to the game at all levels and not just the Super League club's.

That is why the SL clubs only got £625K. The game cannot sustain what it wants to sustain, which is a league of 24 competitive teams with the money on the table.

It should have either gone out to tender to try and raise more cash or cut it cloth according to the money it did get.

It has done neither and so as I said in response to Mike, it has cut itself off from employing the worlds top players.

It is also easy for some to have a go at those who negotiated the deal when they know that they would never be in a position to negotiate anything better.

Do you always deny yourself an opinion on anything you weren't directly involved in? If so why are you on an Internet discussion forum?

No, I do have opinions, but at the same time, I also spend my time discussing the actual game itself and do not spend my time with constant moaning about the running of its financial affairs when like the majority, I know that there is now more money in Union and the NRL and our game no longer has the clout it had prior to 1996 when Union went professional and also introduced proper league competitions at both domestic and European level which has attracted both coaches and players from our game. No amount of money in our game will alter that fact unless of course, some want our club's to end up in the same state as Wigan did in the mid nighties with massive debts as a result of signing a squad of Star players and creating a situation where we lost our world famous ground and ended up having to now share a Stadium with a football club.

Yes I agree that we did over spend then but do we now have be brought down to what the lowest club can afford. We need to keep our best players and also rewarded for the expence of developing them. I also agree even the top clubs will strugle to keep our best players from going to Union, but they may at least stay longer playing for us before they leave. If the present situation continues we will have a second class product and more clubs will become insolvant it will just be a matter of time. Clubs have to have the independance to regulate there own finance. The rugby league could set up a new rule that clubs will be helped if they require it to moniter there finances before they come off the rails

[butt monkey]

Why do people always blame signing too many top players as the reason the club hit financial troubles in the 90s. A major cause was the massive overspend on the new stand.

I remember Shaun Wane and Ged Byrne were victims of this. Both were sold to raise capital for a specially created concrete structure as a foundation due to the catacomb of mines underneath the old stadium

Once the club's record appearances at Wembley were halted then the club imploded

[Owd Codger]

Why do people always blame signing too many top players as the reason the club hit financial troubles in the 90s. A major cause was the massive overspend on the new stand.

Sorry, but it was not. The final cost of the new Stand cost £1.7 million to build and £1.1 million came from the Whitbread company whose name went on the Stand. Only the remaining £600,000 came from the club. The original estimate was for £1.1 million with Whitbread's donating £750,000 but because of extra work needed because of mine workings(including £250,000 being spent on a concrete raft to strengthen the ground)it ended up costing like many other things costing more than the estimate.

It is fact that the debts of over £6 million plus came as a result of signing all the top players(many of International class), that the club could sign during the early nighties with massive contracts which made the club at the time the only fully professional one in our game and the main reason why we won so many trophies including eight Challenge Cup wins on the trot. In fact, it also led to apathy and a decline in crowds as many supporters got fed up of watching one sided games which did not help the finances of the club and eventually led to the critical situation in 1997, which led to the purchase of the club by Dave Whelan aided by discontented prominent shareholders like Ernest Benbow and former Director John Martin.

A situation which resulted in the RFL introducing a Salary Cap, so that clubs would be on a more equal basis.

In no way, do I ever want that situation in the mid nighties ever to occur again and a reason why IL and his management team have my full support in the prudent way that they are running the club, while at the same time maintaining the success on the field that our club has bee famous for over many years.

Long may it continue.

[thegimble]

Until the cap is dictated by the top sides in SL and not the bottom ones then we will lose more players to the NRL and RU. What good is SL if we have to play by the rules of the lowest paid.

The cap is a good idea but not at the present amount and needs more exemptions for owners who can afford it. Sam Burgess will be quickly followed by more players over the next few years and each season SL standards will drop to the level where in all essence its a full time game played to part time standards. That will suit sides like Cas, Wakey, HKR, Broncos and a few others. There is no real pressure for clubs to develop own players as they can cherry pick what Wigan, Saints and Leeds do not want.

Have exemption for 2 players on the cap who are club produced and an exemption for 1 NRL or RU player. What harm is there in allowing sides who trained players to keep them. After all SL is not really that competitive. Only 2 winners in 7 years with 4 different finalist. The cap was meant to make it an even playing field but its far from that and never will be as long as there is no reawarding sides who is run well and produce talent year on year.

[Owd Codger]

Until the cap is dictated by the top sides in SL and not the bottom ones then we will lose more players to the NRL and RU. What good is SL if we have to play by the rules of the lowest paid.

The cap is a good idea but not at the present amount and needs more exemptions for owners who can afford it. Sam Burgess will be quickly followed by more players over the next few years and each season SL standards will drop to the level where in all essence its a full time game played to part time standards. That will suit sides like Cas, Wakey, HKR, Broncos and a few others. There is no real pressure for clubs to develop own players as they can cherry pick what Wigan, Saints and Leeds do not want.

Have exemption for 2 players on the cap who are club produced and an exemption for 1 NRL or RU player. What harm is there in allowing sides who trained players to keep them. After all SL is not really that competitive. Only 2 winners in 7 years with 4 different finalist. The cap was meant to make it an even playing field but its far from that and never will be as long as there is no reawarding sides who is run well and produce talent year on year.

The fact remains that any business cannot spend more than what it makes and that is the current situation for many club's within our game, irrespective of any salary cap and there now being far more money in Union and the NRL.

The main problem is that we have too many club's in a confined area for the number of class players in the game and the number of people watching it.