Agree with that but I do think that clubs that trade in the black should be rewarded with a larger cap than those who don't, that would then encourage a few clubs that are losing money and seem to be content to do so like Huddersfiled, Salford and Wakey to get their houses in order!

How many businesses can alienate their customers and still expect them to come back??



(Not including KC)







What a stupid comment. Sports are only businesses because of the thousands of fans that are prepared to part with their hard earned. If it wasn't for the love of the sport there would be no business. The vast majority of sport fans become disillusioned with clubs when they are seen as only a business that cares not for the fans.



Yes, you want your club to be run well (like a business would be).



Also, if so why are Hull the only club in SL run like a business??

if its not a business then where do the profits go to??

a trust fund for retired players



if it is designed to make a prifit then it is a business in any guise you care to make it!!

but thanks for the insult , well done!!

Yes, I see no reason is principle why the cap couldn't be banded in some (limited) way. The main virtue of the current system is it's simplicity.



One problem though is that if a club isn't operating at the cap or the most obvious way to get their house in order is cutting the wage bill, a larger cap isn't much of an incentive. And if somebody is content to lose money - is that a problem? It's their money and the cap stops anybody distorting the competition too much.

Any business is only a business because of the thousands of customers that are prepared to part with their hard earned cash on their product. Without customers no business can survive.



Are they the only club in SL run like a business? What makes us run more like a business than Salford or Hull KR? Just because we're the most succesful at being a business doesn't mean we're the only one run like it.

And I guess that's where the Franchise system comes in. The "quota", cap and franchise are all inextricably linked.



I'm not sure I agree with allowing some teams in the black more money because then teams like Rovers (and indeed FC) when first promoted and Huddersfield who are striving to improve attendances would potentially be pushed that further back in their efforts to put a successful team on the pitch week in week out.

All the clubs are businesses, but the [urealistic[/u ambition for some is to make their losses manageable, rather than turn a profit. The pay-off, they hope is in intangibles like glory and excitement. Hull are more of a business because greater emphasis seems to be placed on profitability than at [usome[/u other clubs. Some owners would be willing and able to accept losses year after year, in return for trophies - that does not seem to be the case for Hull FC. Of course, profits and trophies are in no way mutually exclusive and a sound business doesn't necessarily disadvantage you on the pitch - but it can if, all else being equal, somebody else will dig deeper.

I don't understand what more the club can do though, we spend the full cap?

I don't want to come across as negative about Hull FC - there is much to admire in what has been achieved by them. I'm going to use Warrington and Saints as comparators and that is setting the bar high.



Would Hull pay a big transfer fee for a young player like Myler? It doesn't have to be Myler, if you don't rate him - the point is paying a premium for top young talent.

Would Hull pay whatever it took to get a coach like Tony Smith? Again, it doesn't have to be Smith.

Do Hull spend as much as Saints developing young players, with all the associated benefits that success in this area brings?



I suspect the answers to all three are 'no'. I'm least certain about the last, but a 'yes' would beg plenty of other questions. If they are all 'no', there is [unothing[/u wrong with that - there is great value in prudent sustainability. But, it gives clubs like Saints and Wire a competitive advantage from a sports POV.

We paid a fee for Tansey (albeit not a massive one), we also tried to sign Myler numerous times which I'm sure would have involved a fee.



Who knows if we'd pay what it took to get a coach like Smith? Perhaps we'll see in the future, in the past the club has been more inclined to promoting from within but I'm sure it's because they felt the person was the best man for the job and TBF in the last 5 years we've reached a CC final, a grand final and won the CC so we've hardly been baron in terms of success.



The youth point is an interesting point and like you I'm unsure about how much Hull spend relative to Saints or indeed any club so wouldn't like to speculate.

But who is "Hull" in this question? Is it a benefactor that? Because if so, quite frankly, we don't have one. Hull are doing what they are doing on a sound financial basis (according to people more informed than I am on that subject) rather than on relying on someone's deep pockets. So, the business model seems to be going alright so far and it is probably one of the reasons that Richard Agar is still at the helm and why we are prepared to offer players over 30 more than a one year deal. I'm pretty sure that St Helens' gates and merchandising alone could not have supported their on-field success over the years - I suspect that someone has been helping out. As for Warrington, it is more obviously the case there.

Wasnt there a fee for Jordan Turner as well?