Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

club funding


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:58 PM

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.

You can easily make an argument that it is not central funding. Central funding is the cut of TV, Sponsorship and Gate money etc. that is distributed evenly (apart from Bulls this year) - everybody gets a large share there.

A few tens of thousands in 'prize money' will not distort things too heavily, especially when you consider that this money will probably just be swallowed in player bonuses anyway (if the SC allows, I can't remember).

The Salary Cap is set low enough to have competitive teams, the lack of quality players and clubs ability to manage themselves well is holding the game back.

I am open to some of the radical ideas to help the comp - I'm not open to all of them - giving a team more money because they did worse doesn;t make sense on any level.

If you truly want to have a level league - why not take the highest turnover and not give them any central funding? You can then pump more into the poorer clubs to try and bring them up a level.

My issue with some of the ideas that you push are that they are too artificial. Clubs should be encouraged to grow in a sustainable way, radical changes are not required.

The NRL have an abundance of quality players, we drop off quite a bit in the top division.

#22 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,001 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:14 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.


In name it's prize money, but I thought the prize were those metal theft magnets the team captains hoist.

In reality it's a reward for doing well, which is an incentive that's not required, and if paid to winners helps perpetuate them as winners. I'm all for a club to be allowed to pay bonus's if they want to use that as a way to increase performance, but I'm not for SL money to pay for them

We want an even competition we don't need prize money in SL. Challenge Cup maybe as getting through the rounds is a cost. Clubs have lost money winning the cup.

£300K to Leeds would allow a lot of junior development around the city, 15 times more than in the Halton District. I'd agree we can get a even competition without radical ideas like a draft or an uneven SKY money distribution, but the prize money is just that - a mini version of unlevelling the playing field in favour of the top four

Edited by The Parksider, 24 January 2013 - 02:25 PM.


#23 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,001 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:16 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.


Yup.

#24 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,246 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:00 AM

You can easily make an argument that it is not central funding. Central funding is the cut of TV, Sponsorship and Gate money etc. that is distributed evenly (apart from Bulls this year) - everybody gets a large share there.

A few tens of thousands in 'prize money' will not distort things too heavily, especially when you consider that this money will probably just be swallowed in player bonuses anyway (if the SC allows, I can't remember).

The Salary Cap is set low enough to have competitive teams, the lack of quality players and clubs ability to manage themselves well is holding the game back.

I am open to some of the radical ideas to help the comp - I'm not open to all of them - giving a team more money because they did worse doesn;t make sense on any level.

If you truly want to have a level league - why not take the highest turnover and not give them any central funding? You can then pump more into the poorer clubs to try and bring them up a level.

My issue with some of the ideas that you push are that they are too artificial. Clubs should be encouraged to grow in a sustainable way, radical changes are not required.

The NRL have an abundance of quality players, we drop off quite a bit in the top division.



I don’t understand “artificial” as a criticism of socialist style leveling mechanisms in sporting competition. It assumes that a free market “everyone for themselves” approach is somehow “pure”. How so? However you structure a pro league we’re a long way from teams comprised of lads solely from surrounding villages topping up their full time wage etc. EPL would be a prime example of the exact opposite of my favoured NFL/NRL “artificial” type format where free market capitalism runs wild and the best players simply run to the elite sides, earning more money quite often to play less. So how is Man Utd gobbling up Ferdinand, Rooney, Valencia, Young, Jones, Zaha (and on and on and on) from lesser competitors over recent years any less “artificial” than leveling mechanisms to ensure said teams have a fighting chance of keeping them?

We’re talking about entertainment at the end of the day and the best way to excite and grow your fanbase is to spread your best players around your league, ensuring they both play more and better earn their corn pitting their wits against each other, rather than cowardly buddying up and running over stiffs 75% of the time. There will always be academies with home grown players to provide the more “pure” element of SL sides that we all of course like (this in fact is where we can be superior to the US sports – we don’t need a draft system, I agree) but again you only reinforce the strength of that “purity” by being fairer across the board. Scott Taylor staying at Hull KR rather than ditching for the glory of table-topping Wigan I would argue would be substantially LESS artificial. And how many Wakey & Cas lads have been lost to Leeds post-1990? etc. These instances are rife in free market leagues, which are only as “pure” as ruthless capitalism in its base form. To me that is not very pure at all. “Unhindered” might be a better word. “Artificial” mechanisms in many situations keep those lads where they belong. “Go figure” as they doubtless say on the NFL forums.

It’s swings and roundabouts. Neither style is pure. We’ve moved past that. And you say artificial, I just say “fair play” and reining in the worst elements of capitalism that have made the Euro soccer leagues so dull. We’re talking about big money pro sport and prime athletes making careers out of their talents for our enjoyment. Forget about spurious notions of “artificial” and “pure”. Just do it well and make sure the dice aren’t loaded, because nobody likes a bully and 4 teams does not a competitive or exciting league make.

#25 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,001 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:05 AM

We’re talking about entertainment at the end of the day and the best way to excite and grow your fanbase is to spread your best players around your league, ensuring they both play more and better earn their corn pitting their wits against each other, rather than cowardly buddying up and running over stiffs 75% of the time. There will always be academies with home grown players to provide the more “pure” element of SL sides that we all of course like (this in fact is where we can be superior to the US sports – we don’t need a draft system, I agree) but again you only reinforce the strength of that “purity” by being fairer across the board. Scott Taylor staying at Hull KR rather than ditching for the glory of table-topping Wigan I would argue would be substantially LESS artificial. And how many Wakey & Cas lads have been lost to Leeds post-1990? etc. These instances are rife in free market leagues, which are only as “pure” as ruthless capitalism in its base form. To me that is not very pure at all. “Unhindered” might be a better word. “Artificial” mechanisms in many situations keep those lads where they belong. “Go figure” as they doubtless say on the NFL forums.

It’s swings and roundabouts. Neither style is pure. We’ve moved past that. And you say artificial, I just say “fair play” and reining in the worst elements of capitalism that have made the Euro soccer leagues so dull. We’re talking about big money pro sport and prime athletes making careers out of their talents for our enjoyment. Forget about spurious notions of “artificial” and “pure”. Just do it well and make sure the dice aren’t loaded, because nobody likes a bully and 4 teams does not a competitive or exciting league make.


Blimey. Well put indeed. One to think about.........

#26 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 10:09 AM

I don’t understand “artificial” as a criticism of socialist style leveling mechanisms in sporting competition. It assumes that a free market “everyone for themselves” approach is somehow “pure”. How so? However you structure a pro league we’re a long way from teams comprised of lads solely from surrounding villages topping up their full time wage etc. EPL would be a prime example of the exact opposite of my favoured NFL/NRL “artificial” type format where free market capitalism runs wild and the best players simply run to the elite sides, earning more money quite often to play less. So how is Man Utd gobbling up Ferdinand, Rooney, Valencia, Young, Jones, Zaha (and on and on and on) from lesser competitors over recent years any less “artificial” than leveling mechanisms to ensure said teams have a fighting chance of keeping them?

We’re talking about entertainment at the end of the day and the best way to excite and grow your fanbase is to spread your best players around your league, ensuring they both play more and better earn their corn pitting their wits against each other, rather than cowardly buddying up and running over stiffs 75% of the time. There will always be academies with home grown players to provide the more “pure” element of SL sides that we all of course like (this in fact is where we can be superior to the US sports – we don’t need a draft system, I agree) but again you only reinforce the strength of that “purity” by being fairer across the board. Scott Taylor staying at Hull KR rather than ditching for the glory of table-topping Wigan I would argue would be substantially LESS artificial. And how many Wakey & Cas lads have been lost to Leeds post-1990? etc. These instances are rife in free market leagues, which are only as “pure” as ruthless capitalism in its base form. To me that is not very pure at all. “Unhindered” might be a better word. “Artificial” mechanisms in many situations keep those lads where they belong. “Go figure” as they doubtless say on the NFL forums.

It’s swings and roundabouts. Neither style is pure. We’ve moved past that. And you say artificial, I just say “fair play” and reining in the worst elements of capitalism that have made the Euro soccer leagues so dull. We’re talking about big money pro sport and prime athletes making careers out of their talents for our enjoyment. Forget about spurious notions of “artificial” and “pure”. Just do it well and make sure the dice aren’t loaded, because nobody likes a bully and 4 teams does not a competitive or exciting league make.

Some very good points - artificial may have been a clumsy expression, as you are quite right, there is very little that is 'natural' about the current set up. I don't agree that the capitalist system is less natural though, as ultimately all clubs are treated the same and have the same opportunities (but let's not get too bogged down by that!).

I am not against radical suggestions in general, I support the salary cap, was happy to see licensing given a go, and would now go even further with the structure of the leagues, which would certainly be seen as radical. I would be happy to have a draft system, although I'm not that sure how it could work.

I'd have no issues with the central funding being split evenly (including the 'prize' money) - I wasn't that aware there was such an inbalance, and tbh I'm not convinced it is massive.

I think there are certain things that 'feel' right - a salary cap to prevent overspend etc. is one of these things. I do however think that we need to give clubs as much freedom as possible within some of the rules we have. Giving lower clubs more money doesn't feel right on any level to me, however a flat rate would be fine in my eyes.

Also - you state in an earlier point that I generally disagree with your levelling proposal - that isn't the case at all, not sure if you are confusing me with somebody else, I enjoy your posts and suggestions irrespective of whether I agree.

I think there are plenty of socialist elements we can bring into our game before we go quite as radical as paying bottom teams most etc.

#27 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,001 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 02:34 PM

We’re talking about entertainment at the end of the day and the best way to excite and grow your fanbase is to spread your best players around your league, ensuring they both play more and better earn their corn pitting their wits against each other, rather than cowardly buddying up and running over stiffs 75% of the time.


That's probably the quote of the year (albeit we have 11 months or more to go ;) but I would be shocked to see anything better).

Yes it's entertainment and entertainment is a product that is created and manipulated and is not "real" but allows people to wallow in whatever it is that turns them on. A good laugh, a good cry, a good sing song, a good cheer for a try.

Yes it's professional entertainment in a business setting, we're not talking about pure sport, were talking about bums on seats and sponsors signing contracts to witness and be part of a contrivance. CC fans themselves queue up on here to remind us it's just that, it's not fair, and it's not sport!

But when you say "the best way to excite and grow your fanbase" then you have got that little bit wrong if you are indicating Superleague is a single entity with a vision for maximising a financial return for the business.

It's a collection of 14 different businesses who don't pull together towards the common good of Superleague and therefore the common good of the game. There are many precedents out there often quoted from the USA & Australia, but sadly we haven't got the people with the vision and the power yet to see past the self interest.

But they were told the score when Mr. Hetherington reminded us all the other month that the same clubs winning all the time is not good.

I'm with Dave T though and we should take it steady and wait to see what form Superleague is to take 2015, how it is to be funded and run, and whether we may see all clubs in it well served by their chairmen. Even if that happens the problem may remain your excellent analogy of the best players resisting market forces to have an "easier time".

#28 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,669 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 04:13 PM

As an Idea, I think the inverting the 'prize' funds is well worth an extended try. I disagree very much with those who talk of "rewarding failure"; it's investing in the future success of the league as a whole, Anyway, the individual successes of clubs are no where near as important as the whole.

Draft systems are a red herring in RL. They work in leagues like the NFL because there are thousands of kids leaving college who are busting a gut to play professional American football - with the best will in the world that situation doesn't exist in the UK with rugby league - if only.

Incidentally, and off at a tangent, unlike someone posted above, the Bulls will receive their full share of sponsorship and league monies - it is just the Sky cash which has been halved, not the others.
No team is an island.........................................

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

#29 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 04:35 PM

Incidentally, and off at a tangent, unlike someone posted above, the Bulls will receive their full share of sponsorship and league monies - it is just the Sky cash which has been halved, not the others.

I think it was me that stated that the Bulls won't get the full central funding and that is still correct - as you say though, it is the Sky part of that that they have forfeited.

#30 southstand loiner

southstand loiner
  • Coach
  • 2,657 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:18 PM

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.


it cant be a bonus for the players as it would count in the salary cap . although of course they could have an incentive payment within the cap written into there contracts
ah a sunday night in front of the telly watching old rugby league games.
does life get any better .

#31 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,040 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:45 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.


I have often pondered this idea of finishing last entitles you to more cash, we are too cynical to find it acceptable.

Then again if you you adjust the amount a club receives for their position in the competition depending on the number of overseas players they use, the number of juniors who are brought through and how many new international players they have brought through that season, then we may be on to something.

it may be a complex formulae but basically if you use the maximum overseas allowance, play no juniors and have no players you have brought through your system playong at international level that season then you get NOTHING.

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.


#32 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,001 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:00 AM

As an Idea, I think the inverting the 'prize' funds is well worth an extended try. I disagree very much with those who talk of "rewarding failure"; it's investing in the future success of the league as a whole, Anyway, the individual successes of clubs are no where near as important as the whole.


I dislike the idea of rewarding failure, but also rewarding success by giving more money to the top clubs whose position gives them several advantages in any case. First things first and a Super League of clubs who all can spend the full cap year on year with a collective business approach is the foundation to go forward.

The idea of schemes that manipulate the finances of clubs smacks of a "let's try it and see" approach Sound financial planning is better and for me if a club isn't going forward, then the others need to help sort it out, agree concessions give help etc. This is what I feel happened to Bradford. The RFL/SLE needed them and they were assisted.

There may come a time when the make up of SL is set in stone. At that point the clubs as a collective will have to run the business as a whole and if any part starts to come adrift, mend it like they did Bradford.

This is what many canny CC fans say "once you have your exalted 12 and they get everything, and everyone else has nothing and fades away what are SL gonna do if one of the 12 collapses"......

#33 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,669 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:41 AM

I dislike the idea of rewarding failure, but also rewarding success by giving more money to the top clubs whose position gives them several advantages in any case. First things first and a Super League of clubs who all can spend the full cap year on year with a collective business approach is the foundation to go forward.

The idea of schemes that manipulate the finances of clubs smacks of a "let's try it and see" approach Sound financial planning is better and for me if a club isn't going forward, then the others need to help sort it out, agree concessions give help etc. This is what I feel happened to Bradford. The RFL/SLE needed them and they were assisted.

There may come a time when the make up of SL is set in stone. At that point the clubs as a collective will have to run the business as a whole and if any part starts to come adrift, mend it like they did Bradford.

This is what many canny CC fans say "once you have your exalted 12 and they get everything, and everyone else has nothing and fades away what are SL gonna do if one of the 12 collapses"......

Can't say I agree that 'the 12' is ever going to be set in stone, though clearly the clubs in SL are most likely going to be in significantly populated areas and ultimately may well be in a wider spread than we have currently.

That said, we are where we are, and we have to look after what we've got and let's face it, any club, however unlikely it seems now, could run full speed ahead into the buffers. It only takes a benefactor to hit hard times, hardly that unlikely in these times of austerity and the most apparently financially solid of our clubs could be in trouble.

For my money it's never too soon to start having a more holistic approach to doing what is best for the whole league, which clealy includes funding, and the only real lever the RFL/SL has over funding is the central funding and the way it is distributed. Of course some fans, secure(?) in the knowledge that Mr Big is going to fund their side, want to lose the cap but even the best team is impoverished if it doesn't have any competition. For my sins, I can remember going to games and expecting to win by 50 points (and more) and you can believe me when I say it palls after a while.
No team is an island.........................................

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

#34 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,001 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:31 PM

For my money it's never too soon to start having a more holistic approach to doing what is best for the whole league, which clealy includes funding, and the only real lever the RFL/SL has over funding is the central funding and the way it is distributed. Of course some fans, secure(?) in the knowledge that Mr Big is going to fund their side, want to lose the cap but even the best team is impoverished if it doesn't have any competition. For my sins, I can remember going to games and expecting to win by 50 points (and more) and you can believe me when I say it palls after a while.


There has been a lot of talk coming out of SL this last couple of years about clubs having to be "self sustaining" with Mr. Big's talking about their aim being to achieve this so they don't have to put money in. I get the impression SL is working towards this - certainly Mr. Khan seems to want to grow the business, same with Mr. Glover.

For all the clubs to get where they want to get to in this vein yes it needs a holistic approach totally agree. I'd like to see (it may already happen) clubs sharing various initiatives to boost the businesses.

The set in stone thing really comes from looking at the Mr. Bigs coming in and then pulling out, if at some point SL can exist as self financing from top to bottom then why would they want any "Mr. Big's" anymore? To exist as self financing top to bottom does mean we cant afford to have clubs who bump along the bottom and end up with declining attendances.

#35 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,669 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:44 PM

There has been a lot of talk coming out of SL this last couple of years about clubs having to be "self sustaining" with Mr. Big's talking about their aim being to achieve this so they don't have to put money in. I get the impression SL is working towards this - certainly Mr. Khan seems to want to grow the business, same with Mr. Glover.

For all the clubs to get where they want to get to in this vein yes it needs a holistic approach totally agree. I'd like to see (it may already happen) clubs sharing various initiatives to boost the businesses.

The set in stone thing really comes from looking at the Mr. Bigs coming in and then pulling out, if at some point SL can exist as self financing from top to bottom then why would they want any "Mr. Big's" anymore? To exist as self financing top to bottom does mean we cant afford to have clubs who bump along the bottom and end up with declining attendances.

Not sure there will be enough money within the game to lose the financiers, at least not any time soon.

Even in a league with a salary cap there are plenty of extras to pay for; all the back up staff staff for a start, all the extra coaches, sprinting coaches, kicking coaches, better training faciities, the pre-season training in exotic places, better medical care above the standard insurance cover, stop-overs in hotels for certain games, use of flash cars (integrated into the cap, of course), and of course juniors - whose money doesn't count on the cap, so can be given anything as a 'signing on fee'. There are probably many more if you think about it.
No team is an island.........................................

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users