Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Is it against the laws of the game in this country for the RFL to own and operate a Super League team?


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 The Daddy_merged

The Daddy_merged
  • Coach
  • 1,104 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:22 PM

Anyone?

#2 Rob

Rob
  • Coach
  • 516 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:28 PM

When SLE nearly ended up running Bradford, I think the other clubs voted on the situation. i.e the other clubs are in charge of their own destiny as it were, so if it were against their own rules they could just change the rules surely?

If anyone was going to run Salford (presumably who you had in mind) would it not be SLE and not the RFL who would run them?

#3 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,521 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:06 PM

I dont think its against the law of the land or else SLE would not have been able to run Bradford which was once possibility. And its clear that its not against the Constitutions of SLE neither.

#4 Pie tries

Pie tries
  • Coach
  • 507 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:57 PM

I think at the moment anyone with money is acceptable...

#5 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,297 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:05 AM

The owners only have to be approved as fit and proper by the RFL to allow a club membership of the RFL, Who they are is irrelevant. Becoming a member of SL is based on the membership of the RFL for UK clubs, I think there is a clause regarding European clubs in the articles of membership but I can't be arrised looking it up.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#6 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:35 AM

Surely it would be a conflict of interests though?

#7 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,297 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:42 AM

Surely it would be a conflict of interests though?

Why if all the clubs own it?

They would have no interest in it being unsuccessful and losing money any more than they would their own club.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#8 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,512 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 09:34 AM

Surely it would be a conflict of interests though?


The over riding interest is that the game has a Superleague to sell to SKY.

Forget "fairness" this is "business". As long as the SL clubs are ok anything is possible within the laws of the land.

#9 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,512 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:34 AM

When SLE nearly ended up running Bradford, I think the other clubs voted on the situation. i.e the other clubs are in charge of their own destiny as it were, so if it were against their own rules they could just change the rules surely?

If anyone was going to run Salford (presumably who you had in mind) would it not be SLE and not the RFL who would run them?


I think that's the question (Daddy to confirm??) - SLE running SL clubs in the absence of an owner. Not sure about Salford though I can see the business sense in ensuring Bradford are preserved for SL but not Salford.

I don’t believe the clubs are still agonising about what to do come 2015 and it seems to me Bradford are an integral part of SL’s plans whilst Salford are not. Fairness?? It’s business.

How it would work though is intriguing. Maybe SLE would appoint a willing local business man to run the club on behalf of SLE at no financial risk to himself, but effectively independently of SLE as his club.

Oh hang on??

I welcome any moves for the RFL or SLE to treat Super league as a single business entity, clearly as individuals the clubs are happy to destroy each other, but when it gets a bit close to home like Bradford then there’s a sudden realisation that to be a successful SL club you need someone to beat but you can’t flog whipping boys for too long as they just die on you and everyone get’s bored.

#10 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,727 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:21 PM

Why if all the clubs own it?

They would have no interest in it being unsuccessful and losing money any more than they would their own club.

I think that's correct.

Though the clubs are individual businesses they are no more 'viable' as individual members than the league is, as a whole. If the 'also rans' of the league can't provide meaningful oposition for the best clubs within it, we'll all go to the wall. The league is like a chain: it's as strong as its weakest link.
No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#11 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,837 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:28 PM

The NBA recently took over the running of one of their troubled franchises, New orleans, I think. They stabilised it, found an investor, and sold it on to him making a profit in the process. I guess it was done for the greater good of the NBA and not merely to save that particular franchise.

Given the brand new ground and the size of the Manchester/Salford catchment area, I think it would be a good thing for the RFL to do as regards the Salford club. To completely withdraw from that huge meagpolis would seem not to be in the best interests of the game, in my opinion.

#12 thundergaz

thundergaz
  • Coach
  • 3,125 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:34 PM

The NBA recently took over the running of one of their troubled franchises, New orleans, I think. They stabilised it, found an investor, and sold it on to him making a profit in the process. I guess it was done for the greater good of the NBA and not merely to save that particular franchise.

Given the brand new ground and the size of the Manchester/Salford catchment area, I think it would be a good thing for the RFL to do as regards the Salford club. To completely withdraw from that huge meagpolis would seem not to be in the best interests of the game, in my opinion.


I agree but the problem with any RL team in a city/town where there is one successful footy team is going to be hard to compete and get fans through the gates never mind two successful footy teams. I hate to say it but I think rugby for the city of Manchester is on borrowed time which is a crying shame.

#13 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,830 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:33 PM

I agree but the problem with any RL team in a city/town where there is one successful footy team is going to be hard to compete and get fans through the gates never mind two successful footy teams. I hate to say it but I think rugby for the city of Manchester is on borrowed time which is a crying shame.


How come?
City and United have 115k fans out of a metropolis of a million or so.
Salford have 5.5k
The rest is still to go at.

#14 The Daddy_merged

The Daddy_merged
  • Coach
  • 1,104 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 05:55 PM

How come?
City and United have 115k fans out of a metropolis of a million or so.
Salford have 5.5k
The rest is still to go at.


Good point, has been a poorly run club for a long time and I remember Matt Parrish saying that he thought the club was run poorly and it doesn't matter if you move into a new stadium or not if your house isn't in order and it proved to be the case.

#15 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,297 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 07:22 PM

How come?
City and United have 115k fans out of a metropolis of a million or so.
Salford have 5.5k
The rest is still to go at.


City and United have 115k fans who go to games, I'd say the proportion of avid followers of the two teams in Salford/Manchester is quite high, presuming that Salford have 900,000 people to go at is stretching it, however it is a valid point that they probably have a lot of untapped potential. To get to 10k you generally need a local population of around 100,000, 10% of the population. That doesn't mean though that if an area has a population 500,000 the support will easily reach 50,000.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#16 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 07:59 PM

How come?
City and United have 115k fans out of a metropolis of a million or so.
Salford have 5.5k
The rest is still to go at.


Those stats can't be taken as they are though. How many of Uniteds 75k are actually from manchester? But then again how many more could united get in if theh had a bigger stadium. The fans won't be the same every game also so that's a factor.

Basically the amount of people within salfords potential fan radius who have paid too watch the two soccer clubs could vary between 50,000 - 300,000. Even if one fan only watches one game at United, that could be an equivalent cost of 3 salford city games which he has chosen not too go to. It would take extensive research to get an accurate amount of what Salford can aim for if they are looking to attract non soccer fans.

#17 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,641 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:08 PM

I think the RFL should own Salford, buy all the best kids over 20 and then put mcbanana in charge of them


It'll save the championship

#18 DimmestStar

DimmestStar
  • Coach
  • 106 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:44 PM

Is it against the law for the church to own the congregation?

I dare say not, nobody ever thought of it.

#19 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,512 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:16 AM

How come?
City and United have 115k fans out of a metropolis of a million or so.
Salford have 5.5k
The rest is still to go at.


City and United attract fans from all over not just Manchester but the north west as well and beyond.

Wigan attract fans not just from Wigan but the north west including Manchester as well.

Of course Salford would aim to pull in local fans first, and of course limited marketing budgets can only go so far.

But the sporting world knows what's going on and who plays what where and they take their pick.

Says here in my Gillette yearbook 10,146 people went to see Salford.v.Catalans at the end of the 2011 season

The return game the following year at Barton attracted 4,220.

It's not Mrs. Williams in Pendlebury and another million like her Salford need in their stadium, she doesn't even know what Rugby League is and likes Tennis anyway.

#20 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,837 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 03:03 PM

City and United attract fans from all over not just Manchester but the north west as well and beyond.

Wigan attract fans not just from Wigan but the north west including Manchester as well.

Of course Salford would aim to pull in local fans first, and of course limited marketing budgets can only go so far.

But the sporting world knows what's going on and who plays what where and they take their pick.

Says here in my Gillette yearbook 10,146 people went to see Salford.v.Catalans at the end of the 2011 season

The return game the following year at Barton attracted 4,220.

It's not Mrs. Williams in Pendlebury and another million like her Salford need in their stadium, she doesn't even know what Rugby League is and likes Tennis anyway.


So, if they need 8,000 to survive and already get 5,500, they only need to attract 2,500 more spectators from the whole of Manchester. Surely that can be done ?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users