If Hudgell had wanted to debate the issue he could have done. He could have issued a release to the press in Hull outlining his concerns about the number of clubs who make losses and rely on wealthy owners and then he could have said what he thought a possible solution was.



But he didn't. He just issued a "blame the RFL" bitchy release. Which is just bizarre considering that the RFL have consistently had to drag the clubs kicking and screaming into further oversight and regulation. His comments about money being wasted on "expansionist policies" are frankly very strange given what we've just recently discovered about Bradford.



It just comes across as a bitchy press release so that he can point to Bradford and jump and down and say "see I was right along!" despite the fact he's been leading his own club down a similarly unstable path through continued high losses. If he's concerned about those losses then he knows what do.

It seems that Mr Hudgell is becoming confused; he's hanging all his arguments on the convenient and admittedley topical Bradford situation, but very little of what he's describing has any relevance to the pickle the Bulls find themselves in.



There's probably something worthy of debate in his letter - RL's over-reliance on the largesse of a few wealthy individuals for example - but his decision to pad out the letter with RLfans staple subjects: 'reduce the number of teams in the league,' 'stop expansion' and 'aren't the RFL crap' - undermines the credibility of the whole exercise.



Troll.

I wonder how happy he would be to reduce the number of teams in the league if one of those dropped were HKR.

I find this absolutely pathetic from Hudgell. No one is forcing Hull KR to lose money, if he doesnt want to then he should cut his cloth accordingly, as every club should. There is no reason for any SL club to go bankrupt if they live within their means. It is simple economics and it certainly isnt a reason for SL to be cut. I dont mind 2 Hull clubs being in a 14 team SL as I think it adds something but I certainly wouldnt want 2 places being taken up in just a 12 team SL, particulalry if Hull KR are struggling as much as Hudgell indicates.

Do people realise that this is a leaked letter to other Super League club chairmen?



It is not Hudgell having a dummy spit by way of a press release.

The thing is in a sense the fans are. All fans of Superleague clubs demand success and if a club isn't spending near the cap and is losing all their fixtures the fans will blame a lack of investment. This in turn is reflected in sponsorship as the larger sponsers won't back a team that loses, who would want to be associated with a losing team? The strive for a more competitive superleague by the fans, media and sponsors does means Superleague clubs are forced to spend without their means to keep up with demand.

They should bring in a fiancial fair play system. Clubs should have to prove that their business model is sustainable in order to be granted a license. In situations where a club has few or no assets and relies solely on a single benefactor, they should insist on at least a rolling 12 months of guaranteed support.



As Hudgell points out, this has been coming. I did fear it would be Saints, but things seem to have stabilised a little and with the new ground up and built, the clubs finances should improve.



It is an area the RFL need to focus on. How on earth are London still trading with the gates they get? How long are Hull KR going to be around? How long would the rest survive if their benefactors pulled out or died?



It's another area in which I have absolutely no confidence in the RFL. They couldn't sort a sponsorship deal, they couldn't generate a meaningful TV deal despite excellent viewing figures, they were responsible for allowing the Crusaders situation to happen and they've failed to raise the profile of the sport in general. It's very hard to see what positives the RFL currently bring, it just seems we're ticking over as a sport rather than growing and improving.

And Hudgell wouldn't possibly have "leaked" it himself in order to have people discussing him and the merits of his letters, would he? Oh no...

This. Outside of worldwide merchandising brands (the amount on Yankees merchandise you see about for example) it's hard, nigh on impossible, to make money in sport and be successful. Anyone investing in sport for anything other than philanthropic or altruistic reasons is an idiot to think they can make money from it.



(On another note, nice that his story has been picked up by one of the biggest League bashing publications there is. Well done Neil!)

This; it's the oldest trick in the PR book.

I don't think that's necessarily true. In a sport with player salaries capped at £1.8m (Or whatever) per season, there is room for significant profits to be generated. If a club averages 15,000 it should be able to generate at least £4m in revenue. Throw in merchandise sales, rental of facilities for other purposes, sponsorship deals, Sky TV revenue etc and if run responsibly there is no reason that they can't be profitable.



Super League clubs need to be more commercially aware and start to maximise their potential revenue streams.

So the letter is in the hands of somebody at each of the other 13 Super League clubs. But you know that it was the author who leaked it.