304 replies to this topic

[The Parksider]

The RFL need to sell the benefits of an expanded game to Sky, ESPN and whomever. You do not know what Mr Wood asks for. I rather suspect that he asks for a continuation of the status quo rather then any attempt to get a committment to a bigger payday if the SL expands.

Really?

So Superleague could expand to 16 clubs but Mr. Wood blocks it by not discussing it with SKY.

If only SKY would look at the benefits. However you don't say what they are.

I assume the 15th and 16th clubs will be York and Doncaster?

Places where only the odd professional player comes from once a flood. Places where paying support is low.

So go on indulge me, indulge Mr. Wood tell me how Superleague will be all the better for this, outline the benefits, and outline how York and Doncaster will go on from strength to strength.

Come on time for you to back up what you say with some good old fashioned reason and logic.

[The Parksider]

Morrisons was once a one man shop. It didn't sit on it's profits and stay at that location. It expanded and took risks and ended up what it is today. SL needs to do the same thing. Once a club is ready, on the field, in the stadium and at the Bank it should be given a place in SL.

Using logic and reason please explain how the grocery market of several decades ago compares to the market for Rugby League?

Please set out the similarities especially market size and the availability of qualified staff.

Then please explain how CC clubs (like Doncaster and York) can be "ready" "on the field" and "in the bank". when they don't generate more than a few hundred grand of which all goes on expenses to survive, and when they don't produce pro players and the odd one that does come up in their area is off to Superleague.

Use some logic and reason please.

Edited by The Parksider, 03 February 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[The Parksider]

London went nowhere in 30 years. Catalans went nowhere in 80 years. There is no template that says previous failure to thrive is a recipe for future expectations.

Now let's deal with this.

Could you compare and contrast the size of the populations/amateur game London and Catalans have at their disposal with that of York and Doncaster please.

Both Catalans and London (as Quins) started out in 2006 aiming to develop their own players and to draw their own self sustsaining crowds. Superleague money at £1,200,000 per annum has allowed them financial resources to invest in growth.

How well have they done to date? And how well will York and Doncaster go in SL in comparison??

use some reason and logic please, no slogans.

[stewpot01]

So why were any of these clubs given A SL licence. According to your point of view it's a licence to fail.

If the game is to stick at 14 top clubs and that's it and the devil take the hindmost and the rest can go to the wall, then that's nothing but a defeatist attitude.

I think the game should be looking to expand from amateurs all the way to SL. If the SL is still limited to 14 or 12 or 10 clubs in 20 years time, it will have been a serial failure. If it is still stuck with most of it;s teams in the current narrowly defined geographical straight jacket, it will have become a failure.

I have seen you decry York, Sheffield, Oldham and Doncaster, all decent sized or even big cities, on the periphery of the SL archepelago, as no go areas for SL expansion. I am seeing you now in this thread saying " the game needs every resource it can get pumping into 14 clubs AND THAT'S IT ". So much for your ballyhooed support for a Welsh SL club then.

I guess if the new Coventry team slated for next season's CC1, situated in a decent sized rugby mad city, were to ever aspire to SL, it too would be told that there is no money, no fans, no potential, no players etc etc ad nauseam and told to get lost because " The game needs every resource it can get pumping into 14 clubs AND THAT'S IT".

I just don't share your elitist, defeatist, nihilist views. I think the future direction should be a bigger spread for the game with a bigger SL and the wealth should be spread around. I think expansion, not ring fencing, should be the policy. The SL has increased crowds and, despite the recent hiccups, seems to be emerging even stronger for the struggle. I think the pathway to SL should be open to all via p and r or just a plain and simple decision to increase the number of teams in the top flight.

I think the thrust of the game should be expansionary and the league should endeavour to engage with TV companies to move in that direction. You say it can't be done. I say, let's try. I don't say this can be done next season or even ever but the future must by one of expansion, if not there is no future. If a York or a Doncaster or a Sheffield are ever able to grow to the point where they can realistically apply for or get promoted to SL then they should be admitted without a backward glance, as well as Halifax or Fev or Leigh.

By the way, you can keep the money for the Bradford Bulls season ticket, you can buy me one for the Cougars and hope that they survive and that Leeds A, oops I meant Hunslet, don't get them relegated to CC1.

Sod it. Why don't we just go back to one division then maybe all this bickering can stop

[Bulliac]

Sod it. Why don't we just go back to one division then maybe all this bickering can stop

[The Parksider]

Sod it. Why don't we just go back to one division then maybe all this bickering can stop

Because we'll lose the SKY contract for an Elite league, and the game will descend into a local semi pro oddity, that will please old men like me and keighley. Once were gone though

[The Parksider]

I think the future direction should be a bigger spread for the game with a bigger SL and the wealth should be spread around. I think expansion, not ring fencing, should be the policy.

I've done a financial model for an 18 team SL.

In this model I've added York, Doncaster, Fev and Fax.

Each team gets a £930,000 share of the TV money.

That will increase losses amongst the current 14 SL clubs by £270K each and thus SL losses will go out to around -£72M.

I can't project anything BUT losses at York and Donny (Fev already lose money, and Fax break even on a low turnover and £930K won't be enough for them to continue profit in SL)

So I've conservatively estimated losses of £250K a year each on the basis that they will probably drop their player spend (and not compete) so the SL losses will go out to £73M in the first year and rise year on year faster than they are doing now.

What is your profitable model for a larger Superleague please?? Please project your figures and justification?

Edited by The Parksider, 03 February 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[oldrover]

for crying out loud, the seasons started. get out and watch a game.

[stewpot01]

for crying out loud, the seasons started. get out and watch a game.

Too far to travel to my beloved Hunslet these days and Keighley is too cold.

[stewpot01]

Because we'll lose the SKY contract for an Elite league, and the game will descend into a local semi pro oddity, that will please old men like me and keighley. Once were gone though

[Griff]

Because we'll lose the SKY contract for an Elite league, and the game will descend into a local semi pro oddity, that will please old men like me and keighley. Once were gone though

Was that not a rhetorical question ?

[M j M]

So I've conservatively estimated losses of £250K a year each on the basis that they will probably drop their player spend (and not compete) so the SL losses will go out to £73M in the first year and rise year on year faster than they are doing now.

You don't appear to know the difference between losses and debt. Which puts you in the George Riley class of financial comprehension.

[keighley]

I've done a financial model for an 18 team SL.

In this model I've added York, Doncaster, Fev and Fax.

Each team gets a £930,000 share of the TV money.

That will increase losses amongst the current 14 SL clubs by £270K each and thus SL losses will go out to around -£72M.

I can't project anything BUT losses at York and Donny (Fev already lose money, and Fax break even on a low turnover and £930K won't be enough for them to continue profit in SL)

So I've conservatively estimated losses of £250K a year each on the basis that they will probably drop their player spend (and not compete) so the SL losses will go out to £73M in the first year and rise year on year faster than they are doing now.

What is your profitable model for a larger Superleague please?? Please project your figures and justification?

Did you add in any extra money that the game might get from a bigger Sky contract negotiated because 1. There will be more Sky suscribers in the expansion areas and 2. Increased because already, without expansion, the viewing figures are increasingly impressive and Sky need us to fill their schedule with their second most watched product after soccer, who coverage on their channel has been decreased by competition. 0r 3. Maybe some extra TV money from another source such as ESPN.

I don't have figures, I'm not a bean counter, and I don't say this stuff will happen overnight. This should be a long term strategy. The alternative is a slimmed down 10 team league with the rest of the game slowly expiring. I don't think Sky would continue to subsidise the game at present levels for a reduced size competition.

Crowds have been rising year on year. If this trend continues, there will be extra gate money.

Once this depression ends then there will more money sloshing around on the corporate sponsorship front and maybe more investors wanting to play at running professional sports clubs.

None of these expansions would take place unless the appliying clubs were seen to be financially sound. How each club would do this is up to their management.

The game took a pay cut from Sky between contract one and contract two but it survived. If it cannot obtain the extra revenue and the clubs had to operate on less Sky money, well it's been done before.

[The Parksider]

1. Did you add in any extra money that the game might get from a bigger Sky contract or maybe some extra TV money from another source such as ESPN.

2. I don't have figures.

3. I'm not a bean counter.

4. I don't say this stuff will happen overnight.

5. The alternative is a slimmed down 10 team league with the rest of the game slowly expiring.

6. Crowds have been rising year on year.

7. Once this depression ends then there will more money sloshing around

8. None of these expansions would take place unless the appliying clubs were seen to be financially sound. How each club would do this is up to their management.

1. No the reality is there's no extra money

2. Then how can you predict the economics of the game

3. You can count, you can do books.

4. When will it all kick off then?

5. No it's not. alternatives are stay as we are or 12 clubs.

6. No they haven't they are up and down at clubs

7. So RL is not racing towards expanding because of the "depression"?

8. No, you said these little clubs could all get ready for Superleague, so you tell me how?

You've really just ducked the whole thing.

[The Parksider]

You don't appear to know the difference between losses and debt. Which puts you in the George Riley class of financial comprehension.

I'm well aware of the fact the game runs at a very big loss on the accounts, but a much smaller loss depending on how much of the directors loans are written off by the directors. We have had this conversation already and I was part of it and agreed with this principle.

So why not keep up with the debate rather than jumping in to have a go on a spurious point?

[Griff]

You don't appear to know the difference between losses and debt. Which puts you in the George Riley class of financial comprehension.

I wondered that, actually.

Is he talking about (a) total creditors or ( b ) the excess of creditors over assets ?

Makes a huge difference to his argument.

[The Parksider]

for crying out loud, the seasons started. get out and watch a game.

I went Friday thank you. I'll get to as many games as you if not more. If you don't want to join a debate don't but don't come on here patronising, we all go to games and we all come on here for a good old RL argument. Can do both you know.

[The Parksider]

I wondered that, actually.

Is he talking about (a) total creditors or ( b ) the excess of creditors over assets ?

Makes a huge difference to his argument.

I'm talking about which way the Superleague debt (calculate it any way you want) would go if "The future direction should be a bigger spread for the game with a bigger SL and the wealth should be spread around".

That's the debate started by Keighley.

I'm arguing that if we expanded SL to 16 or 18 clubs the debt would go up. Define debt as you wish it's neither the argument nor the point. It's what would happen to SL financially if it went to 16 or 18 clubs.

You or MjM are very welcome to pass an opinion on Keighley's proposal, and very welcome to define SL debt as you wish, it's whether you think it would go up, down or stay the same that is the point of debate?

Your views Gentlemen?

[Griff]

I'm talking about which way the Superleague debt (calculate it any way you want) would go if "The future direction should be a bigger spread for the game with a bigger SL and the wealth should be spread around".

That's the debate started by Keighley.

I'm arguing that if we expanded SL to 16 or 18 clubs the debt would go up. Define debt as you wish it's neither the argument nor the point. It's what would happen to SL financially if it went to 16 or 18 clubs.

You or MjM are very welcome to pass an opinion on Keighley's proposal, and very welcome to define SL debt as you wish, it's whether you think it would go up, down or stay the same that is the point of debate?

Your views Gentlemen?

Yes, I accept that - what I'm getting at is that Riley wasn't clear what he meant by "in debt".

I am "in debt" to the gas men. When the bill comes, I have sufficient funds to pay it. I do not see it as a concern.

On the other hand, if I had a gas bill for £200 and assets of only £100, I would be concerned.

I'm not expecting this to be answered on this forum, by the way, just pointing out how superficial this ten minute piece was.

[M j M]

I'm well aware of the fact the game runs at a very big loss on the accounts, but a much smaller loss depending on how much of the directors loans are written off by the directors. We have had this conversation already and I was part of it and agreed with this principle.

So why not keep up with the debate rather than jumping in to have a go on a spurious point?

It's hardly a spurious point when it is the key factor in determining the financial health or otherwise of the clubs. Have you actually looked at any clubs' financial statements? The only rugby clubs which I've seen recently writing off significant amounts of directors' loans are Wigan and Leeds RUFC Ltd. Most tend to just carry them - both of the noted examples did it to tidy the Balance Sheets on changes of ownership.

I've now looked at the accounts of the 11 clubs for 2011 (assuming the 14 less Catalans, Bradford and Wakefield, the latter two not having filed any accounts yet in their new forms - (although the Bulls last filed figures show a club with net assets of £840k). You can only get anywhere near to the claimed "debt" figure by including £10.7m at St Helens which is long-term debt to fund the stadium. Huddersfield and London, as expected, are the stand-out figures: London Rugby League Limited owed Hughes and Leneghan a combined £9.8m. Likewise Huddersfield had long-term loans of £7.2m.

That said, the only club which gets a fully clean bill of financial health at first glance (achieving all of positive cash balances, being profitable, having positive net assets and net current assets (as opposed to net current liabilities)) are Leeds. But profitability in a Rugby League environment is a peculiar thing: e.g. although they made a profit before tax of £600k, Leeds aren't really run to make money; the target is broadly break-even on a long-term basis and any surplus can mean more invested in the community game (or syphoned off to prop up Leeds RUFC...).