Jump to content


RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE (ISSUE 397 - MAY 2014): Available to download now. Get the app from Apple Newsstand or GooglePlay, or click here to read it online now at Pocketmags.com - Print edition in shops from Friday, or click here to get it delivered by post in the UK or worldwide.

Rugby League World - April 2014
League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Oldham


  • Please log in to reply
402 replies to this topic

#361 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,367 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:21 PM

Ragequitting


:lol: :lol: :lol:

#362 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,159 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:54 AM

1995 Leeds averaged 12516
1996 8581
1997 11005 etc etc


1985 6928
1986 6393

and for quite a few years efore that. The rot started there.

#363 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,159 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:26 AM

1. Wigan are a far bigger RL club than Oldham and have far more money, far more people interested in investing in them far more fans and far more quality local players, I have checked the Oldham Honours board and post 1960 they have won nowt and not even been runners up in a major final?

Wigan are far bigger than Oldham are they REALLY???

2. So your saying RFL/SLE could well have left shedloads of money in the pot at SKY.

What evidence do you have?????

3. It'll no longer be a Superleague at 16 clubs with reduced wages.

It's the old first division your talking about your back to recreating the past which was a big failure. However good times for keighley in those latter days. I hope they come back for you but on the above key "arguments" I've got to say "I'm out".......


1. I am not saying Oldham are bigger than Wigan. How did you deduce that from my post. I AM saying that the town of Oldham is bigger than the town of Wigan. I AM saying that if they had had the good fortune Wigan had in regards to their ground problems, they might have succeded in SL. I AM saying
they were a former great of the game and the POTENTIAL is there to be big again. I am not saying they are big now, clearly they arn t.

2. No I am not saying they left any money in the pot. I am saying that the next pot might have more money in it if Sky are approached and bargained with
in the negotiating process. On the other hand they might not play either. There is only one way to find out.

3. Clearly the present SL is not succeeeding for a majority of clubs on the financial front. I wish it were but it aint. The return to to semi pro is my suggestion to stabilise things without downsizing. What do you suggest ? Is it to prune to 10 clubs? I know you dearly love SL and you really like the idea of a fully professional competition but it just dosn t seem to ne sustainable in the long term.

My suggestion is clearly about reverting to a previous model which was indeed failing. The difference would be that the Sky money would be there to make it successful. We thought big when Sky came.There is nothing wrong with that. The SL has been wildly succesful in increasing attendances and raising playing standards. However, it is clearly a bridge too far to sustain full time professionalism at more than a very few clubs.

You asked me for my solution and I gave it to you. If there is another way, except for severe contraction, please let me know. Maybe Sky can be given the financial realities of RL and cough up more if they want a fully pro SL.

If you are,can I claim a big victory like you did with Northern Sol.

#364 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,367 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:10 AM

I am not saying Oldham are bigger than Wigan. I AM saying they were a former great of the game and the POTENTIAL is there to be big again.


I am glad we have cleared that up. I agree with "Potential" BUT.......

I believe the potential is unlockable in Oldham and at nearly all the smaller clubs in the game outside SL because of the following factors......

a. The lack of investment in Oldham and in second tier RL in general wether private or SKY
b. The lack of a suitable ground for Oldham
c. Only a few local junior teams the best of whom go to bigger clubs - same for most CC clubs
d. Only 500 fans with some RL fans in the area going elsewhere like Wigan - same for most CC clubs
e. A limit to who can access the SKY money earmarked contractually for an "elite"

Until enough those factors change significantly enough this will remain my position and I think it is a fair one born out by events over the last 17 years and has not been formed out of a dislike for small clubs.

This is post #364 and you can take this as my position until something comes along in the form of a major change in policy by RFL/SKY/SLE on these matters. If you don't agree with it please beg to differ.

Edited by The Parksider, 14 November 2012 - 11:36 AM.


#365 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 3,426 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:20 AM

i see we're still on this bloody roundabout then :lol:

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#366 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,367 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:58 AM

i see we're still on this bloody roundabout then :lol:


Sorry Spudster,

I've managed to get off it with Northern Sol.

I've afforded him two replies then has to beg to differ.

So we're done on this thread.

Just bear with me with Mr. K.

Edited by The Parksider, 14 November 2012 - 11:26 AM.


#367 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,367 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:12 AM

No I am not saying they left any money in the pot. I am saying that the next pot might have more money in it if Sky are approached and bargained with in the negotiating process. On the other hand they might not play either. There is only one way to find out.


Yes I agree there is only one way to find out. I have also in the past followed negotiations carefully and noted all that is said. On what has been said and what has been done I can only come to two conclusions, which I think are a concensus of opinion amongst several people on here who follow these "off field" matters avidly.

1. SKY want to pay for an "Elite" league, I do not know the exact definition of that. Taking into account what people have said about the future two Chairman have said 12 clubs and one has suggested 10 clubs.

2. There has been no money for second tier RL in recent years and that's the record to date. Will SKY pay for second tier. If I'm discussing reality I'd have to assume they won't.

3. Will SKY pay more money to help develop the game into a better product and get a return on that?? If that's your idea that was also my idea several years ago i.e. SKY back the north east the south east and Wales. The record to date and therefore the reality I assume for purposes of sensible debate is they won't do this either.

I think this is a position Padge is more sure of. The SKY contract is most likely to be (given past records and comment) that they pay £90,000,000 for 5 years and have no desire to pay more nor any desire to interfere in the game, BUT they must have their elite league and the money is for that and nothing else.

That's why I argue as I argue not because I "Love Superleague".

This is post #367 so it will remain my view until something comes along from RFL/SLE/SKY that warrants me changing it. If you don't agree with it please beg to differ.

Edited by The Parksider, 14 November 2012 - 11:35 AM.


#368 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,367 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:34 AM

1. The return to to semi pro is my suggestion to stabilise things without downsizing. My suggestion is clearly about reverting to a previous model which was indeed failing. The difference would be that the Sky money would be there to make it successful. T

2. What do you suggest ?


1. I take your point, as a principle it's sound. As an idea in practice I cannot comment until you tell me.....

a. How many clubs in this top division??
b. How would the current level of SKY funding be shared across this number of clubs??
c. How would you enforce lower spending on players - to what level may you reduce cap??
d. Is this with P & R what's your system??

I only want to know so I can comment respectfully on it.

2. Then I'll give you my alternative which I have set out clearly twice before but will afford you one last time.

#369 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 39,806 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:52 PM

1. I am not saying Oldham are bigger than Wigan. How did you deduce that from my post. I AM saying that the town of Oldham is bigger than the town of Wigan. I AM saying that if they had had the good fortune Wigan had in regards to their ground problems, they might have succeded in SL. I AM saying
they were a former great of the game and the POTENTIAL is there to be big again. I am not saying they are big now, clearly they arn t.

2. No I am not saying they left any money in the pot. I am saying that the next pot might have more money in it if Sky are approached and bargained with
in the negotiating process. On the other hand they might not play either. There is only one way to find out.

3. Clearly the present SL is not succeeeding for a majority of clubs on the financial front. I wish it were but it aint. The return to to semi pro is my suggestion to stabilise things without downsizing. What do you suggest ? Is it to prune to 10 clubs? I know you dearly love SL and you really like the idea of a fully professional competition but it just dosn t seem to ne sustainable in the long term.

My suggestion is clearly about reverting to a previous model which was indeed failing. The difference would be that the Sky money would be there to make it successful. We thought big when Sky came.There is nothing wrong with that. The SL has been wildly succesful in increasing attendances and raising playing standards. However, it is clearly a bridge too far to sustain full time professionalism at more than a very few clubs.

You asked me for my solution and I gave it to you. If there is another way, except for severe contraction, please let me know. Maybe Sky can be given the financial realities of RL and cough up more if they want a fully pro SL.

If you are,can I claim a big victory like you did with Northern Sol.


byb 'semi pro' I presume you a radical reduction inn player payments, since 'full time pros' in all sports have other interests. When that happens what do you think will happen to Rugby League in this country at elite level?

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015

Keeping it local


#370 davewd

davewd
  • Facebook
  • 83 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:06 PM

Most of the top players would try RU .not many to go down-under because they aint good enough.Most of the Sky money has gone to the players in wages how much has been spent on stadia by the clubs ?

#371 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 39,806 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:15 PM

Most of the top players would try RU .not many to go down-under because they aint good enough.Most of the Sky money has gone to the players in wages how much has been spent on stadia by the clubs ?


you coud still play down under and earn good money outside the NRL. but you are right about Union.

All the SL clubs apart from Wakefield and Castleford play in modern stadiums-although they haven't necessarily paid for them themselves.
Many clubs outside SL play in modern grounds now.

The RFL provides funding for improving stadiums. For instance it bent the rules to help Featherstone Rovers with their developments. Money is only supposed to be provided for new projects, Rovers' was already up and running, but the circumstances were exceptional.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015

Keeping it local


#372 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,159 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:17 PM

Yes I agree there is only one way to find out. I have also in the past followed negotiations carefully and noted all that is said. On what has been said and what has been done I can only come to two conclusions, which I think are a concensus of opinion amongst several people on here who follow these "off field" matters avidly.

1. SKY want to pay for an "Elite" league, I do not know the exact definition of that. Taking into account what people have said about the future two Chairman have said 12 clubs and one has suggested 10 clubs.

2. There has been no money for second tier RL in recent years and that's the record to date. Will SKY pay for second tier. If I'm discussing reality I'd have to assume they won't.

3. Will SKY pay more money to help develop the game into a better product and get a return on that?? If that's your idea that was also my idea several years ago i.e. SKY back the north east the south east and Wales. The record to date and therefore the reality I assume for purposes of sensible debate is they won't do this either.

I think this is a position Padge is more sure of. The SKY contract is most likely to be (given past records and comment) that they pay £90,000,000 for 5 years and have no desire to pay more nor any desire to interfere in the game, BUT they must have their elite league and the money is for that and nothing else.

That's why I argue as I argue not because I "Love Superleague".

This is post #367 so it will remain my view until something comes along from RFL/SLE/SKY that warrants me changing it. If you don't agree with it please beg to differ.


Now, you'd better sit down because I don't want you to faint and hurt yourself but I agree with every word of that.

What I feel, however, is that when Sky first came calling, RL in this country was in extremis. I don't think it's going too far to say that it was facing a slow permanant death at pro/semi pro level. The game was in no position to argue with Sky too much although they did get extra for the lower tiers from them. If Sky had not played ball we would have taken their first offer. The game was saved by that money. Sky's involvment was to do with the power struggle between Murdoch and Packer in Australia and it was not really a financial decision in order to make money in the UK. The game here was in a position of " beggars can't be chosers".

Fast forward to today and I think our game in it's relationship with SKY is in a far stronger position.
RL is now a staple of Sky's content and the viewing figures are impressive. I think Sky make money in the UK from it's RL coverage.

I don't follow things all that closely as I live far away, but I understand Sky have lost some of their soccer coverage to other broadcasters. This leaves a vacuum for RL to fill.

At the outset, Sky was the only game in town to broadcast our game. Take it or leave it. Now there is ESPN, Premier sports and the French/arabian TV channel to whom SL with Perpignan and maybe Toulouse are an attractive broadcasting option. The BBC also have lost much of their sporting content to other broadcasters and may see RL as alternative broadcasting as with the recently concluded 3 nations tournament.

The overall point I am making is that Sky now need us, maybe as much as we need them, and , in addition , there is competition to televise our game from other sources. At least we can tell them that.

Therefore, when we come to negotiate the next Sky contract, The RFL/SL is in a position of strength and leverage in the negotiations compared to where we were in past contract discussions. If the game asks for more money because SL is becoming unsustainable or even to encourage some investment in the lower tiers, especially in view of their geographic spread, then Sky might look favourably towards giving the game a bigger contract. Don't forget competition and their need for popular broadcasting content.

Of course, Sky might draw a line in the sand and say " No way". On the other hand, if the RFL use a combination of subtle blackmail and expanded opportunities for SKy coverage, then they might just give us more. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. We should give it a try. I understand Sky are making huge profits so they might have extra cash to throw our way.

#373 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,159 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:30 PM

byb 'semi pro' I presume you a radical reduction inn player payments, since 'full time pros' in all sports have other interests. When that happens what do you think will happen to Rugby League in this country at elite level?


It will continue as it is but with vastly reduced player costs. We will lose some to RU, but not forwards, because of the different skill sets required but RU clubs are facing declining attendances and cash contstraints so it might not be the big option it was.

I am not suggesting this as a panacea. I would prefer not do do it BUT the SL competition is facing a crisis as half of it's clubs cannot for much longer, sustain full time professionalism. We could ditch clubs and merge and have half the league playing in France but, to me, that's contraction and the game is small enough without going down that road.

If we get too small and the fixture list becomes overly repetitive, I think support on the terraces and from the broadcasters will decline.

I think we were an attractive option since the advent of TV coverage as a semi pro league and would be again. They broadcasters want content and do not care about the wage structures of the players.

#374 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,367 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:45 PM

Now, you'd better sit down because I don't want you to faint and hurt yourself but I agree with every word of that.


Great. Now can I trouble you for your answers to post #368 please.

#375 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 39,806 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:45 PM

It will continue as it is but with vastly reduced player costs. We will lose some to RU, but not forwards, because of the different skill sets required but RU clubs are facing declining attendances and cash contstraints so it might not be the big option it was.

I am not suggesting this as a panacea. I would prefer not do do it BUT the SL competition is facing a crisis as half of it's clubs cannot for much longer, sustain full time professionalism. We could ditch clubs and merge and have half the league playing in France but, to me, that's contraction and the game is small enough without going down that road.

If we get too small and the fixture list becomes overly repetitive, I think support on the terraces and from the broadcasters will decline.

I think we were an attractive option since the advent of TV coverage as a semi pro league and would be again. They broadcasters want content and do not care about the wage structures of the players.


how do you think player development will be affected by the drop in wages(how big a drop by the way?): fewer star players to emulate, a much less worthwhile career path, spells a contraction in the professional game, and an inability to hold on to its best players. Young players will take up union instead of league and will learn union ways of playing younger. The north of England has a massive long standing network of union clubs. How do Keighley Albion's facilities compare with Keighley RUFC's facilities at Uttley for instance? And keighlye is a Rugby League town and all.

The broadcasters want quality content and wont be interested with a declining product ie a poor return for their investment.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015

Keeping it local


#376 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,159 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:48 PM

1. I take your point, as a principle it's sound. As an idea in practice I cannot comment until you tell me.....

a. How many clubs in this top division??
b. How would the current level of SKY funding be shared across this number of clubs??
c. How would you enforce lower spending on players - to what level may you reduce cap??
d. Is this with P & R what's your system??

I only want to know so I can comment respectfully on it.

2. Then I'll give you my alternative which I have set out clearly twice before but will afford you one last time.


a)The maths and budgets would have to be worked out by the participants. Until that is done there is no way to tell how many clubs it would support. I would prefer to keep the size of SL at 14 at least but the bean counters could work out the nuts and bolts of the ecomonics of it.

B) That could also be discussed. I would think equal distribution to each club but maybe a system whereby the more needy clubs could get extra could be worked out but don't hold yopur breath on that. As Gordon Gekko said "Greed is good".

c) The tail does not wag the dog. You would tell the players what the deal was, what you are proposing to pay them, explaining the economic realities the game finds itself in and they could take it or leave it. Some would leave it but most would have no other option.

d) You know my preference is for some sort of movement between divisions and I would support p and r but we don't have it now so it would not be mandatory that a semi pro league would have it.

My proposal is just the germ of an idea forced on the game by circumstances. The nuts and bolts of it's execution woukld be up to the various participating parties.

2. I probably will recall your solution when I see it but you are so prolific a poster on here that I cannot specifically recall it. If it's to do with mergers and mega clubs and contraction for the greater good of a small elite, then , yes, I remember the gist of your argument.

#377 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,159 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:57 PM

how do you think player development will be affected by the drop in wages(how big a drop by the way?): fewer star players to emulate, a much less worthwhile career path, spells a contraction in the professional game, and an inability to hold on to its best players. Young players will take up union instead of league and will learn union ways of playing younger. The north of England has a massive long standing network of union clubs. How do Keighley Albion's facilities compare with Keighley RUFC's facilities at Uttley for instance? And keighlye is a Rugby League town and all.



The broadcasters want quality content and wont be interested with a declining product ie a poor return for their investment.


Good points but the alternative is to have many top tier clubs go belly up. Where would that leave us? We have to hope that children take up the game because they like it not specifically with a view to cash rewards.RU is obtuse and boring compared to RL. I know,I have played both. RU has great cash and facilities advantages over RL but that is so now. What would change in that relationship if we went semi pro.

Edited by keighley, 14 November 2012 - 04:00 PM.


#378 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 39,806 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:43 PM

Good points but the alternative is to have many top tier clubs go belly up. Where would that leave us? We have to hope that children take up the game because they like it not specifically with a view to cash rewards.RU is obtuse and boring compared to RL. I know,I have played both. RU has great cash and facilities advantages over RL but that is so now. What would change in that relationship if we went semi pro.


Whether you find union obtuse and boring is irrelevant. The fact is that it is a lot more popular, wealthy, widespread than rugby league can dream of. Just because you don't like it, doesn't means that millions of others shouldn't or indeed don't.
Children take up games for all sorts of reasons;
They've tried it and like it
They've seen it a d want to have a go
Their parents encourage them to for whatever reason
They want to emulate their heroes
For instance

Whether people take up sport to a higher level than that depends upon them being good enough and what the prospects are.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015

Keeping it local


#379 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,367 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:25 PM

Whether you find union obtuse and boring is irrelevant. The fact is that it is a lot more popular, wealthy, widespread than rugby league can dream of. Just because you don't like it, doesn't means that millions of others shouldn't or indeed don't.


Before 1996 people took up RU because it was the only game available to them. I guess most people end up liking what they know. If our game is that great we need as many kids to get the chance to choose. They get that choice more and more in the services, in the universities, wherever amateur clubs spring up and wherever schools give a choice.

Hence it burns me up when the young Rhinos supporting kids in Horsforth are made to play Union and given no chance of league. The after school serious team plays union yet they could have a go at League in the inter form competition.

Still I suppose there are schools in the south playing league who are hacking off their local union club whom used to get their players from there!!!

#380 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,367 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:44 PM

The maths and budgets would have to be worked out by the participants. Until that is done there is no way to tell how many clubs it would support, but the bean counters could work out the nuts and bolts of the ecomonics of it. I would think equal distribution to each my preference is for some sort of movement between divisions and I would support p and r………………..


OK….

16 team Superleague current 14 clubs add Featherstone and Sheffield.

Clubs to receive approx £1.1M SKY subsidy a year. Down from £1.3M.

I estimate about 8 clubs can pay the approx £1.6M cap.

But Bradford, and Wakey struggle to pay it now, and Salford, HKR, Castleford, Featherstone and Sheffield would certainly struggle. I think HKR may be budgeting for £1.1M wages next year.

If the richer clubs had their SKY money cut they may still be able to go full cap. HKR’s £200K cut would have to come off their player budget, as would the cut to other poorer clubs. Sheffield and Featherstone may not even quite manage £1M in wages.

To avoid a gulf in playing standards the cap could come down. I assume wage bill is very roughly £19M or so now so to cut losses bring it right down to £1.0M so 16 clubs spend £16M in wages – a saving.

Not only a saving but an even competition top to bottom. Better chance for Leigh & Halifax to survive if promoted.

Is this a good idea??

I’m hard pressed to criticise it :o :o :o :o :o :o

Edited by The Parksider, 14 November 2012 - 06:45 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users