Joel to Union

[TonyH]

The reason RL teams don't have as much money as they'd like is because the RFL are so adament at maintaining a side in London which is poor and a side in Wales which is even poorer that they lose focus of the teams who have held RL together for years.

Want to blame anyone, blame the RFL.

[Mike]

The reason RL teams don't have as much money as they'd like is because the RFL are so adament at maintaining a side in London which is poor and a side in Wales which is even poorer that they lose focus of the teams who have held RL together for years.

Want to blame anyone, blame the RFL.

Do you think the RFL have lots of money that they could splash around if they didn't support these clubs? They tend to make losses each year (and they were in deep financial trouble after one recent world cup).

In reality, the RFL's major source of income is form TV. If the game has a poor national coverage (i.e. no london team) the ammount of money TV will pay will decrease. Therefore, the heartland clubs will get less TV money if the RFL doesn't support the expansion clubs (or that's how the argument goes).

RL is a very cash poor sport, trying to compete in a market place where millionaire backers are almost required in every other main stream sport to support any club. I guess the only exception is cricket, but the wages paid there are very low as in RL.

I just can't see where all the money that people want to give the players in salaries is sloshing around in RL right now.

[Mike]

Let the player benefit from outside earnings such as sponsorship, Joel is backed by Nike so why cant he benefit from advertising and endorsements am i right to assume this is not allowed under current salary cap regs ? which is nowt to do with the club salary structure, players are being punished for succeding

I think we'll need a DaveO ruling on this one. I would imagine that sponsorhsip from unconnected companies such as Nick would be exempt - but I'm not sure. Otherwise wealth owners such as Moran have a loop-hole to setup a sponsorship agency company spearate from the club and pay "sponsorship" through that.

[jaws1]

The reason RL teams don't have as much money as they'd like is because the RFL are so adament at maintaining a side in London which is poor and a side in Wales which is even poorer that they lose focus of the teams who have held RL together for years.

Want to blame anyone, blame the RFL.

Do you think the RFL have lots of money that they could splash around if they didn't support these clubs?[/b] They tend to make losses each year (and they were in deep financial trouble after one recent world cup).

In reality, the RFL's major source of income is form TV. If the game has a poor national coverage (i.e. no london team) the ammount of money TV will pay will decrease. Therefore, the heartland clubs will get less TV money if the RFL doesn't support the expansion clubs (or that's how the argument goes).

RL is a very cash poor sport, trying to compete in a market place where millionaire backers are almost required in every other main stream sport to support any club. I guess the only exception is cricket, but the wages paid there are very low as in RL.

I just can't see where all the money that people want to give the players in salaries is sloshing around in RL right now.

Read somewhere that Nigel Wood is on more money than the Prime Minister if that's the case hes not worth it.

[yokozuna]

The reason RL teams don't have as much money as they'd like is because the RFL are so adament at maintaining a side in London which is poor and a side in Wales which is even poorer that they lose focus of the teams who have held RL together for years.

Want to blame anyone, blame the RFL.

Do you think the RFL have lots of money that they could splash around if they didn't support these clubs?[/b] They tend to make losses each year (and they were in deep financial trouble after one recent world cup).

In reality, the RFL's major source of income is form TV. If the game has a poor national coverage (i.e. no london team) the ammount of money TV will pay will decrease. Therefore, the heartland clubs will get less TV money if the RFL doesn't support the expansion clubs (or that's how the argument goes).

RL is a very cash poor sport, trying to compete in a market place where millionaire backers are almost required in every other main stream sport to support any club. I guess the only exception is cricket, but the wages paid there are very low as in RL.

I just can't see where all the money that people want to give the players in salaries is sloshing around in RL right now.

Read somewhere that Nigel Wood is on more money than the Prime Minister if that's the case hes not worth it.

Both doing a grand job

[cpwigan]

Every owner should expecty to lose money Mike IMO. There has to be a price to pay for the kudos of being owner.

However, if SL was smaller and the cap raised / removed why would clubs go bust? As many / if not more go bust post cap than pre cap and the greatest number of clubs that go bust are at the margins of pro sport, the Championship.

Perhaps a bold programme of promotion / raising the bar making the game more sellable, raising financial returns from sponsorship and tv/gate revenue might be the better way to go than at best maintaining the status quo of going nowhere.

[lucky 13]

If any of us had the chance to play for Wigan, we would no doubt jump at it. You can't blame Joel for going and being set up for life on the back of it though. Think if it was your son, how would you advise him?
In an ideal world yes he stays at Wigan, but at the moment RU is paying the big money, on the back of a bigger international game.
It would be good to think any money, like the fee we get from RU for Joel, could or should be alowed to be put on top of the presant cap limit.
With a live cap this money could be given to the likes of Charnley, Sam, Mossop, Faz all players in or around the England squad, important to RL at SL level and internationally for the future. It's the only way I can see any positives from all this.

[cpwigan]

Out of interest how much do people think Joel was on per year/season at Wigan?

[butt monkey]

Every owner should expecty to lose money Mike IMO. There has to be a price to pay for the kudos of being owner.

Without being admonished for just selecting this from one of your posts - seriously???

There HAS to be a point were clubs can be sustainable.

It will not be long before the "house of cards" that is football comes crashing down, caused by the unrelenting spending on players and their wages, both way beyond the reasonable means of the clubs ability to pay.

I use Manchester City as an example, should Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan decide to withdraw from the club for some reason, who do you think would take on the burden of debt/spending already committed to the club?

Putting you into an owner's shoes' Would you be willing to lose a percentage of your accrued wealth on any sporting team, knowing full well all you will receive from it (minus the threats/criticism/plaudits/etc) is a reduction of said wealth - and in some cases a huge reduction?

[butt monkey]

Out of interest how much do people think Joel was on per year/season at Wigan?

Pointless post as Joel was more than willing to sign a 5 year deal to earn whatever it was. Unless you are saying Joel is so weak-willed and poorly educated that he mindlessly signs contracts without knowing the implications?

You know CP, I would have had no qualm about Joel "upping sticks" and trying his hand in any other team or sport if he had decided what Wigan had offered was either not good enough for him, and deciding to let his contract expire. No one would. To sign it then complain it is not "enough" smacks of stupidity!