838 replies to this topic

[Ackroman]

Hybrid game

Ultimately change will come otherwise the game dies and those on here defending entrenchment into 10 or 12 club comp. just don't get it. If SKY goes that's it, end of. To survive the game needs all levels to succeed and that needs to be the goal. If these tie ups are a step towards that target (which I believe) then good but if they are as people fear to protect the few, then we expose all clubs to failure or change beyond their control.

And the relevance of your post maybe more significant than you think. What if SKY, the main if not only benefactor of worth in our game hold the SL to ransom? At least the RFU will have hunted for a bit more cheese to protect their membership and history, whereas the SL may not have a lot of choice. This leaves the Championships who, bereft of any significant investment for sometime, become the rump of what was once a thriving sport.

Edited by Ackroman, 03 December 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[Dave T]

Ultimately change will come otherwise the game dies and those on here defending entrenchment into 10 or 12 club comp. just don't get it. If SKY goes that's it, end of. To survive the game needs all levels to succeed and that needs to be the goal. If these tie ups are a step towards that target (which I believe) then good but if they are as people fear to protect the few, then we expose all clubs to failure or change beyond their control.

And the relevance of your post maybe more significant than you think. What if SKY, the main if not only benefactor of worth in our game hold the SL to ransom? At least the RFU will have hunted for a bit more cheese to protect their membership and history, whereas the SL may not have a lot of choice the the Championships bereft of significant investment for sometime, become the rump of what was a thriving sport.

RL is a very resilient game. It has never been in a very fortunate position financially, like some other sports yet it has always survived.

If Sky pulled out (not sure why this keeps coming up!) but the game would adapt and move on.

[saints10coach]

RL is a very resilient game. It has never been in a very fortunate position financially, like some other sports yet it has always survived.

If Sky pulled out (not sure why this keeps coming up!) but the game would adapt and move on.

I think the game would do better to adapt now, rather than wait for something to happen. As we don't seem to be able to bring the Championships finances near to SL. Why not bring the SL finances closer to the Championships. The money would still be there within the game but at a central level rather than shared out between the invited few.

[barrowraiderskid]

We'd likely lose all our top stars to the NRL and Union if that happened.

[Marauder]

We'd likely lose all our top stars to the NRL and Union if that happened.

more players would come along and we would still have a product thats second to none.

[saints10coach]

Not all RL players can adapt to Union and the ones that went to NRL would be playing at an higher level. All would vacate players to allow younger players to progress.

[Dave T]

I think the game would do better to adapt now, rather than wait for something to happen. As we don't seem to be able to bring the Championships finances near to SL. Why not bring the SL finances closer to the Championships. The money would still be there within the game but at a central level rather than shared out between the invited few.

Why would we just reduce the salary cap when there is no need to? That is all that would happen.

How will the game be stronger if money is taken from some clubs and given to others?

The Championship has a £300k salary cap, which is affordable.

SL has a £1.65m salary cap, which should be affordable.

[Ackroman]

I think the game would do better to adapt now, rather than wait for something to happen.

That's the whole point. Is arguing that entrenchment is the right way forward, promoting progress?

By protecting SL clubs we protect SL clubs but not the whole game of RL. The idea that SL is the game of RL is propaganda peddled by those scared of change. SL was supposed to be the future, but now it seems to a lot of fans, it's building a wall to hide behind and await the inevitable at SKY's beck and call.

If you concentrate the money into one area of your business, have one revenue stream, no hiring and firing, and people in it for the money but not for the good of the business then you would sell that part to the highest bidder for the biggest profit. What's left is the rump to discard or survive depending on the resilience of it's subscribers. Is this what we want?

[Marauder]

That's the whole point. Is arguing that entrenchment is the right way forward, promoting progress?

By protecting SL clubs we protect SL clubs but not the whole game of RL. The idea that SL is the game of RL is propaganda peddled by those scared of change. SL was supposed to be the future, but now it seems to a lot of fans, it's building a wall to hide behind and await the inevitable at SKY's beck and call.

If you concentrate the money into one area of your business, have one revenue stream, no hiring and firing, and people in it for the money but not for the good of the business then you would sell that part to the highest bidder for the biggest profit. What's left is the rump to discard or survive depending on the resilience of it's subscribers. Is this what we want?

IMO that sums up what has happened, by design or by stumbling along I'm not sure as we've seemed to be going from one format to another every year or so.

[Keith T]

Why would we just reduce the salary cap when there is no need to? That is all that would happen.

How will the game be stronger if money is taken from some clubs and given to others?

The Championship has a £300k salary cap, which is affordable.

SL has a £1.65m salary cap, which should be affordable.

SL salary cap of £1.65 million should be affordable when clubs receive £900k from Sky towards that figure or 54.54% of the salary cap.

Championship clubs salary cap of £300,000 isn't quite as affordable as they only receive £100k (I believe) 33% of salary cap, which is for specific positions in the club not necessarily for players, coaches, etc. To receive anything like pro rata with SL clubs the Championship clubs would need to be getting around £164,000 per season to make their salary cap as affordable.

[saints10coach]

Why would we just reduce the salary cap when there is no need to? That is all that would happen.

How will the game be stronger if money is taken from some clubs and given to others?

The Championship has a £300k salary cap, which is affordable.

SL has a £1.65m salary cap, which should be affordable.

You do not have to reduce the salary cap. Reduce the SKY money that the clubs receive. If they want to go to maximum cap they have to generate the money by other means. There could then be a larger central fund. this could be applied for, lets say facility improvements, to bring other clubs closer to the standards required.

[Dave T]

You do not have to reduce the salary cap. Reduce the SKY money that the clubs receive. If they want to go to maximum cap they have to generate the money by other means. There could then be a larger central fund. this could be applied for, lets say facility improvements, to bring other clubs closer to the standards required.

In principle I agree with you - but as we see already, some clubs cant afford the cap as it is - if you reduce an income stream then you either reduce the cap, or face the fact that you cause an even bigger split in the top division.

[Ackroman]

RL is a very resilient game. It has never been in a very fortunate position financially, like some other sports yet it has always survived.

If Sky pulled out (not sure why this keeps coming up!) but the game would adapt and move on.

I agree but by entrenching our assets into one easily influenced and accessible position we won't necessarily have anything more than a community sport if the cheese gets moved.

The SKY thing gets mentioned because it is by and large the reason SL exists and is also the reason for it's lack of exposure. After 17 years RL should have other income streams of significance. In that time our competitors have left us standing!! What we have now is a diminished array of competitions in order to promote SL as the be-all and end-all. I also re-read a piece from the time of the last world cup by Richard De La Reviere regarding the number of home grown player numbers in SL being too few as a reason why we weren't successful. What's the betting we've gone backwards there as well to make the WC2013 as much as a disappointment?

my comments aren't aimed at you per s, as your points are valid I'm just using them to push back at the loud and consistent thread tennis experts that insist SL is Elite and worthwhile for the good of the game.

[keighley]

I didn't disagree with you, I didn't say it should not be the policy. I'm happy for clubs to slowly grow crowds, stadium, facilities, business, youth development etc and when they hit a certain standard then be considered for SL. Good idea there, I agree.

However what your now saying seems to be in support of minimum standards P & R. We have that now??

I have for a long time now conceded p and r should have standards attached. Your arguments did, in fact, persuade me that that was essential.

We do not have standards based p and r now. We have a standards based licencing system. This is not guaranteed to promote suitably qualified candidates.

First it is a three yearly excercise which is too long to ensure any significant movement from one competiton to the other.

Secondly, although a club might satisfy the criteria, it's application might be deemed to be not as strong as an incumbent SL club, and it might be rejected in favour of that incumbent.

Under p and r with standards that would not happen. Provided a club won the CC grand final and met the minimum agreed standards it would be in SL the next season. The club which finished bottom of SL, whether or not it was deemed to have a slightly more qualified business plan than any propsective promotee, would be relegated. Every SL club would need to draw up a contingency plan that they could follow if they were unfortunate to be relegated, in just the same way that CC clubs have to draw up plans to enable their participation in SL should they be promoted.

To sum up, the difference between standards based p and r and what we have now is the guarantee of promotion on a yearly basis and removal of the the three year intervals between SL membership changes ( if indeeed there were any)and the knowledge that, subject to meeting minimum standards, all clubs are equal and some clubs would not be judged more equal than others and decisions be made on that basis.If you finished bottom, you're gone.

[Trojan]

That's true.

I wanted to buy Hunslet and put them in Superleague.

I was told that I'd have to spend a large sum on an academy so I could develop our own players which was cheaper than throwing money at Aussies and old pros.

I was told that I'd need to spend money to ensure a standard of home venue so I could attract as many fans as possible and maximise crowd income.

Above all I was made to show a viable business plan so I didn't waste my time and money and make a laughing stock of myself.

I went mad with the RFL. How dare they not allow me to spend my own money my way. The whole thing put me off.

What should have put you off was the tortuous process before the team you bought got into the top flight. Let's say you did buy Hunslet. You'd have to spend on players and their wages to get you to the top of the Championship, possibly a top coach too, and because it'll be another three years before new licences are granted you'll have to keep spending. And of course the South Leeds stadium won't do for SL so you'll have to spend there. In fact it's all spend spend spend, and no certainty that even if you finish top of the Championship and win the GF that you'll get into the top flight because if your team's to be accepted it means that someone else's team will be rejected and there's absolutely no guarantee that that will happen.
I recall in the bad old days of re-election to the Football League, the same team kept finishing top of the Northern Premier - Altrincham and they kept applying for membership of the FL, but the clubs were unwilling to drop the bottom club - old pals act - and when P&R between the leagues finally became mandatory Altrincham had run out of steam and Wigan got in instead. Tough on whoever bankrolled Altrincham's push for FL status.
Now that's what I call a disincentive.

[Padge]

A disincentive is to pump money into a club to get promotion, get promotion, pump even more money in to stay up and then finish bottom and go straight back down. All because of the inexperience of operating at the top.

People want to know that the money they are investing is for a future and not just some half-arsed gamble.

[Lobbygobbler]

That's the dictionary definition, I want your definition when used in the context that you used it in. Many means different things in different contexts, so what did YOU mean by many.




In 93/94 only 1 club managed to top 3k in division 2 (there was only 1 tier below div1), 3,032,was acheived by Keighley so they just broke the 3k mark. The bottom 6 clubs were alll below 1,000 the highest of those 6 only got 788.

in 92/93 when there was 3 divisions not one club in the two second tier divisions managed 3k, closest to 3k was Oldham with 2,809.

in 91/92, the season when 3 divisions was re-introduced 2 clubs in the lower divisions scraped past 3k Oldham 3,149 and Leigh just scraped in at 3,014

To sumarise:
In 93/94 your definition of many is 1
In 92/93 your definition of many is 0
In 91/92 your definition of many is 2

However the game was semi pro, grounds were dilapidated, many crowds were understated (for reasons we all know), and there was no tv coverage. As a ratio to the top tier it was much closer.

If we had a similar P&R scenario now (i.e. where there is a good chance of going up) then crowds on the second tier should have gone up in line with SL. They havent

[The Parksider]

Why would we just reduce the salary cap when there is no need to?

How will the game be stronger if money is taken from some clubs and given to others?

The Championship has a £300k salary cap, which is affordable.

SL has a £1.65m salary cap, which should be affordable.

The reason for this is as I suggested before.

Some people - and I don't blame them and am not having a go - merely think in terms of what is good for their club and their own ambitions, and that is for their club to be able to access the top division again.

It doesn't matter whether it's good for the game as a whole all that matters is what's best for their them and maybe not even their club who like Batley don't want promotion. They are only aping the behaviour of how Superleague directors think and work.

SKY are simply not going to wear it, the rich men who control RL now are not going to wear it either. You cannot look SKY and the rich benefactors in the face and take half the money they will argue is their money and they generate and give it to small clubs. It just cannot be done and the RFL cannot force it either, they are as much the serfs of SKY and rich SL chairmen as anyone.

But what do people think will happen to our top clubs if shorn of half a million pounds?? What will happen to my club Hunslet if you give them half a million pounds.

That doesn't seem to be explained in this outbreak of sporting communism. It's the same as P & R yesterday someone explained how his club should be able to access promotion within one season.....

And that was the end of his point, that was his goal, there was no thought at all to what happens once his dream is reached. No pro players to keep them up, no money to buy any, none available anyway, 99% chance of straight back down but as another poster said "what's wrong with that".

Well nothing because it's only a game.

But this is the problem of not thinking beyond one's fantasy, Up go Leigh and 25 defeats and 4,500 crowds later the cupboard is bare and the dream is over for several years,

But that doesn't matter because If Wigan have a bad season they can go down, other clubs can raid their playing roster, and they can pull another 3478 crowd against Whitehaven like they did last time.

SKY and their rich camp followers have bought the game. If that's bad for the game then fine campaign for them to go away and let's get back to 1995. I'm not being sarcastic either, I can watch Hunslet Warrios as readily as Leeds Rhinos. I'll still be staunchly following the game even if tens of thousands of others won't be, even if the salary cap for all clubs is £200,000. Even if we're no longer on TV.

As you say Dave..........

"RL is a very resilient game. It has never been in a very fortunate position financially, like some other sports yet it has always survived.If Sky pulled out (not sure why this keeps coming up!) but the game would adapt and move on".

Which is 100% spot on and it'd move on with the support of it's hard core of staunch traditional fans who would not wear a hybrid game (why Union would accept this I dunno, England have just beaten NZ). But this is never going to happen either, still we need some bogeyman to justify the unjustifiable, because good business logic doesn't justify it one little bit.

But then this is sport, it's about hopes, dreams and passions, it's not about good business sense.

The irony for me is that the whole history of the game is full of rich businessmen and their sponsor friends trying to buy success, trying to pay more money to players than the next club. Throwing money they haven't got or they know will run out at a dream that ends in tears. When a number of clubs actually do it so well that they secure the top division for themselves and rest end up with no chance, then we get these calls for "central planning for the benefit of all".

I'm not sure sporting communism will work in the capitalist world of sport, but it depends on your definition of "work". If your club can get promotion once every few years only to tumble back down, then that "works" for you.

[Trojan]

The reason for this is as I suggested before.

Some people - and I don't blame them and am not having a go - merely think in terms of what is good for their club and their own ambitions, and that is for their club to be able to access the top division again.

It doesn't matter whether it's good for the game as a whole all that matters is what's best for their them and maybe not even their club who like Batley don't want promotion. They are only aping the behaviour of how Superleague directors think and work.

SKY are simply not going to wear it, the rich men who control RL now are not going to wear it either. You cannot look SKY and the rich benefactors in the face and take half the money they will argue is their money and they generate and give it to small clubs. It just cannot be done and the RFL cannot force it either, they are as much the serfs of SKY and rich SL chairmen as anyone.

But what do people think will happen to our top clubs if shorn of half a million pounds?? What will happen to my club Hunslet if you give them half a million pounds.

That doesn't seem to be explained in this outbreak of sporting communism. It's the same as P & R yesterday someone explained how his club should be able to access promotion within one season.....

And that was the end of his point, that was his goal, there was no thought at all to what happens once his dream is reached. No pro players to keep them up, no money to buy any, none available anyway, 99% chance of straight back down but as another poster said "what's wrong with that".

Well nothing because it's only a game.

But this is the problem of not thinking beyond one's fantasy, Up go Leigh and 25 defeats and 4,500 crowds later the cupboard is bare and the dream is over for several years,

But that doesn't matter because If Wigan have a bad season they can go down, other clubs can raid their playing roster, and they can pull another 3478 crowd against Whitehaven like they did last time.

SKY and their rich camp followers have bought the game. If that's bad for the game then fine campaign for them to go away and let's get back to 1995. I'm not being sarcastic either, I can watch Hunslet Warrios as readily as Leeds Rhinos. I'll still be staunchly following the game even if tens of thousands of others won't be, even if the salary cap for all clubs is £200,000. Even if we're no longer on TV.

As you say Dave..........

"RL is a very resilient game. It has never been in a very fortunate position financially, like some other sports yet it has always survived.If Sky pulled out (not sure why this keeps coming up!) but the game would adapt and move on".

Which is 100% spot on and it'd move on with the support of it's hard core of staunch traditional fans who would not wear a hybrid game (why Union would accept this I dunno, England have just beaten NZ). But this is never going to happen either, still we need some bogeyman to justify the unjustifiable, because good business logic doesn't justify it one little bit.

But then this is sport, it's about hopes, dreams and passions, it's not about good business sense.

The irony for me is that the whole history of the game is full of rich businessmen and their sponsor friends trying to buy success, trying to pay more money to players than the next club. Throwing money they haven't got or they know will run out at a dream that ends in tears. When a number of clubs actually do it so well that they secure the top division for themselves and rest end up with no chance, then we get these calls for "central planning for the benefit of all".

I'm not sure sporting communism will work in the capitalist world of sport, but it depends on your definition of "work". If your club can get promotion once every few years only to tumble back down, then that "works" for you.

Answer me this then Parky, why does what you call sporting communism work in every other competitive sport in this country? Sport is all about change not maintaining the status quo. In Union even the ultra posh Harlequins were relegated. In cricket Yorkshire have been relegated and promoted. Even a powerful side like Lancashire have been relegated. It's called dynamism and its good for us all. What we have at the moment, effectively an oligarchy will kill the game either sooner or later because the fans will tire of the same old same old winning every year. In the late eighties (and I know this for a fact, I worked with a good number of them) even the Wigan fans began to tire of their team winning everything every year.

[Johnoco]

Soccer and RU have sporting communism?


I wonder if the Glazers know about this?