jaybs wrote:
I feel both are as much to blame! and that the article by Luke was fair. At least Down Under they had the common sense to do what they did with Melbourne, which has become a huge success.
London in SL to date has, at a Conservative estimate cost 18 million of TV money and 18 million of investment from owners coupled with 9 million in ticketed revenue and a few bob in sponsorship.....say another 2 million, cost in the region of 50 million rounded up to get to where they are now......
The RFL have received 362,000,000 in TV revenue since the first TV deal was brokered and the game switched to summer.....SKY have contributed about 5% of that to London and expected the game to supplant itself in the conciseness of the sporting public in the SE
IIRC Melbourne received almost double the level of central investment than other NRL teams as well as receiving other favourable allowances against the cap to secure star names....Slater, Cronk, Smith and Inglis at one club and people acted surprised they were cheating
The RFL are 100% responsible for the state the club finds itself in now.......a simple little thing like appointing the England Coach to the position of Head Coach of the Broncos would have focussed the minds of northerners when they considered moving down south.....at a cost of NOTHING to the RFL. Instead, they said the club could have as many aussies as they wanted......not a lot of expansion/development thinking going on a Red hall.
If SKY had been told they had to fund us for the first 15 years, a la the storm, you can be damn sure they wouldn't have wasted the 50 million I alluded to above.
