Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

club funding


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 morley101

morley101
  • Players
  • 24 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:51 AM

Does anyone know how much funding clubs recieve from the RFL through sponsherships,the broadcast rights etc ?

Does the amout equate to the salary cap ?

#2 koli

koli
  • Coach
  • 170 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:54 AM

About 1 million and no!

#3 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,229 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:12 AM

Does anyone know how much funding clubs recieve from the RFL through sponsherships,the broadcast rights etc ?

Does the amout equate to the salary cap ?


Koli's close.

It's about £1,200,000 a year.

And it does not equate to the budget a successful club needs in Superleague.

Catalans are on a £6,000,000 budget.

#4 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,947 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:49 AM

SL clubs get £1.316m per year from the TV contract plus a further £60k from central RFL funding and then SL clubs share 60% of any profit made by the RFL.

They also get a further share of any surplus left in SLE at the end of the year. SLE has an income of ~£24m per year. The TV share out accounts for ~£18.5m of that. SLE then pays a contribution of costs towards big screen at TV games, marketing the competition, cost of full time referees, travel costs to and from Catalans and Opta Stats service, plus any prize money. If there is any surplus from the £5.5m left after all this then it is distributed on the basis of how many home televised games a club had.

On that basis I'd say SL clubs get nearer £1.5m per year from collective funding.

Edited by Derwent, 23 January 2013 - 08:50 AM.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#5 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,629 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:49 AM

SL £1.5m and the best part time club £90k, and we wonder why the gap is growing or why PT clubs don't have a SL infrastructure.

If the £1.5m is true then it is very easy to fund two full time divisions of ten, with £700k to the second tier and £1.5m to the top- a far better platform to meet objectives from.

#6 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,095 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:11 AM

If there is any surplus from the £5.5m left after all this then it is distributed on the basis of how many home televised games a club had.

If that's the case, the first I've heard, then I'm not really happy about that. It's an obvious way of those at the top stretching away financially. I can deal with the top teams being on sky more often, although sometimes it's just stupid how often the same teams appear, but if they also get more money for it then that's not really on, as it's most likely sky who dictate who is on each week.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#7 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,947 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:34 AM

If that's the case, the first I've heard, then I'm not really happy about that. It's an obvious way of those at the top stretching away financially. I can deal with the top teams being on sky more often, although sometimes it's just stupid how often the same teams appear, but if they also get more money for it then that's not really on, as it's most likely sky who dictate who is on each week.


I think the principle is based on the fact that for a home game on Sky the club has to incur costs such as pitch painting etc and it is a way of compensating for those costs.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#8 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,095 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:37 AM

I think the principle is based on the fact that for a home game on Sky the club has to incur costs such as pitch painting etc and it is a way of compensating for those costs.

Hmm, yeh perhaps, except those who share with footy though.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#9 matt newsholme

matt newsholme
  • Coach
  • 911 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:45 PM

I think the principle is based on the fact that for a home game on Sky the club has to incur costs such as pitch painting etc and it is a way of compensating for those costs.


Also imagine its designed to compensate for reduced attendance due to people staying at home and watching on the tv rather than attending when it's a sky game.

#10 southstand loiner

southstand loiner
  • Coach
  • 2,657 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:54 PM

theres also the money super league clubs get as a result of there position at the end of the season to be taken into acount.
leeds got £300.000 for becoming champions and i think im right that widnes got around £20,000 for coming bottom
ah a sunday night in front of the telly watching old rugby league games.
does life get any better .

#11 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,229 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:35 AM

theres also the money super league clubs get as a result of there position at the end of the season to be taken into acount.
leeds got £300.000 for becoming champions and i think im right that widnes got around £20,000 for coming bottom


:lol: Brilliant.

Fantastic way to create the competetive league from top to bottom that was one of the pillars of Superleague and the closed shop!

#12 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,229 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:39 AM

SL £1.5m and the best part time club £90k, and we wonder why the gap is growing or why PT clubs don't have a SL infrastructure.

If the £1.5m is true then it is very easy to fund two full time divisions of ten, with £700k to the second tier and £1.5m to the top- a far better platform to meet objectives from.


Some SL clubs don't have a SL infrastructure.

You keep that alternative format idea going mate. I've only see three comments from top SL executives as to what any change may comprise of.

1 x "two leagues of ten"
2 x "we will have to drop to 12 clubs"

#13 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,879 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:15 AM

:lol: Brilliant.

Fantastic way to create the competetive league from top to bottom that was one of the pillars of Superleague and the closed shop!

Isn't this just prize money?

Why would somebody coming first get the same as the team coming last?

All clubs in the Challenge Cup don;t get the same irrespective of when they are knocked out.

#14 gazza77

gazza77
  • Coach
  • 2,191 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:04 PM

Isn't this just prize money?

Why would somebody coming first get the same as the team coming last?

All clubs in the Challenge Cup don;t get the same irrespective of when they are knocked out.


So why does the team coming last recieve anything as "prize money"?

"Featherstone outside the Super League is like Rooney, Ronaldo, Villa out of Euro 2012."

Please view my photos.

 

http://www.hughesphoto.co.uk/


Little Nook Farm - Caravan Club Certificated Location in the heart of the Pennines overlooking Hebden Bridge and the Calder Valley.

http://www.facebook.com/LittleNookFarm


#15 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,879 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:40 PM

So why does the team coming last recieve anything as "prize money"?

The same reason that a team getting knocked out of the CC in the first round gets money.

FWIW I agree, the bottom team should get £0 and then it steps up from there rewarding each position.

#16 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:43 PM

I'd flip the prize money. US sports have their drafts by way of keeping their leagues competitive and interesting - this could be our small nod to this system. It's hard to think a team would try to sink from 1st to 14th for the sake of an extra £280K. You make much more than this through the gate and in kit sales etc. by virtue of success. The small bit of extra cash could be just what your also rans need though to attract a big name player and help keep the fixture list intense and exciting. It's small potatoes. We need to do away with the idea of the successful sides reaping all of the spoils and this being somehow "just" and "fair". Their success is reward enough. I want to see intense NRL style rugby league on my own shores.

Edited by DeadShotKeen, 24 January 2013 - 12:45 PM.


#17 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,095 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:51 PM

I'd flip the prize money. US sports have their drafts by way of keeping their leagues competitive and interesting - this could be our small nod to this system. It's hard to think a team would try to sink from 1st to 14th for the sake of an extra £280K. You make much more than this through the gate and in kit sales etc. by virtue of success. The small bit of extra cash could be just what your also rans need though to attract a big name player and help keep the fixture list intense and exciting. It's small potatoes. We need to do away with the idea of the successful sides reaping all of the spoils and this being somehow "just" and "fair". Their success is reward enough. I want to see intense NRL style rugby league on my own shores.

Maybe it's a bonus split between the players, I'd hate to see them falling over themselves to finish as low down as possible for a few thousand extra £s, or more likely those in charge of the purse strings.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#18 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,879 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:55 PM

I'd flip the prize money. US sports have their drafts by way of keeping their leagues competitive and interesting - this could be our small nod to this system. It's hard to think a team would try to sink from 1st to 14th for the sake of an extra £280K. You make much more than this through the gate and in kit sales etc. by virtue of success. The small bit of extra cash could be just what your also rans need though to attract a big name player and help keep the fixture list intense and exciting. It's small potatoes. We need to do away with the idea of the successful sides reaping all of the spoils and this being somehow "just" and "fair". Their success is reward enough. I want to see intense NRL style rugby league on my own shores.

So do I - I'm not sure rewarding failure is the way to do it.

#19 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:36 PM

So do I - I'm not sure rewarding failure is the way to do it.



I don’t like the idea that it’s “rewarding failure”. It isn’t. Failure is failure. To be involved with a top side means receipt of plaudits not exclusive to (but including) vast sums of cash. This would be a tiny balancing measure designed to give the failing clubs a little shot in the arm. It wouldn’t be highly desirable nor particularly sought after but it would send the right message. Is the US draft system “rewarding failure” Dave? I love it. I want to see a competitive NBA, not one where the New York and LA sides dominate every year. The TV audiences seem to agree with me.

If the difference was, say, between £2 million and £20K then I would agree with you and be opposed to it. It’s about making it fair and proportionate, so that “1st and (pot of money based on 1st place)” is substantially better all round than “14th and (pot of money based on 14th place)” but that at the same time you’re softening the blow a tiny wee bit and furthermore not just throwing money on top of money.

Given that you’re generally opposed to the leveling measures I suggest on this forum, how do you suggest we create the NRL intensity you also desire within Super League Dave? Because it sure as hell won’t be done by giving Wigan more central funding than Widnes.

#20 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 3,723 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:39 PM

Given that you’re generally opposed to the leveling measures I suggest on this forum, how do you suggest we create the NRL intensity you also desire within Super League Dave? Because it sure as hell won’t be done by giving Wigan more central funding than Widnes.


cut the league down to 10

wigan
st helens
warrington
leeds
bradford
huddersfield
hull kr
hull fc
catalan
london



a very very very strong comp

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users