Sam Burgess to Union

[Wigan_forever1985]

Is money the be and end all though? the last 3 players to move from RL to Union have gone from the Cash Rich NRL suggesting to me the pull is the international stage in RU something RL will never be able to compete with realistically

[Mike]

Is money the be and end all though? the last 3 players to move from RL to Union have gone from the Cash Rich NRL suggesting to me the pull is the international stage in RU something RL will never be able to compete with realistically

I believe money is a big factor in this. I've read he's on £750K per year - which maybe even Mr Crowe can't afford.

[DaveO]

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.

Well if you have opinions on things such as this I don't see why you have to have includes comments about moaning or negativity when people express theirs whatever they may be.

I also don't think anyone has voiced such an opinion in here, that they want the club in massive debt due to signing star players.

I don't think anyone who posts on this forum is so naive.

As to history, you are quite wrong to suggest the Whitbread stand costs played no part in the clubs financial plight back then. There were also other factors such as the short season and long lay off when we went form Winter to Summer. It is far too simplistic to lay the problems at players wages and nothing else.

We also all know that today the game has limited funds here in the UK and a big reason for this is the fact the RFL have adopted their "Whole game approach" which means they have chosen to spread the cash we do have thinly across the game rather than directing it toward the very thing that brings in this revenue - SL due to being on Sky.

If disagreeing with this is "moaning" fair enough but it does show there are alternatives ways the spend the games income before we even consider whether they were right to accept the Sky deal or not.

I read this today:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/f ... -australia

and despite all the bullish comments about profit and being the biggest sport what struck me most was the comments about growing the game at the grass roots despite the NRL being effectively a closed shop. We have not got the guts in this country to realise we can only support a small elite competition and the rest of the games future lies along similar lines to RL outside the top flight does in Oz.

Out of interest given IL is now against the Sky deal, do you agree with him on this?

[xbrettkennyx]

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.

You do realise that this is not true?

[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.

You do realise that this is not true?

What's not true?