Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Phil Clarkes thoughts on Dual reg


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#121 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,462 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:50 PM

The question is why have they not got sufficient funds. There's more money in the game than there was 20 years ago but apparently we can afford less.


Because of profligate wage payments with no relationship to the income needed to run the organisations.

#122 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,148 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:05 PM

however, in a competitive market place, if you don't pay the going rate, you'll get the players going... elsewhere.

#123 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,462 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:26 PM

however, in a competitive market place, if you don't pay the going rate, you'll get the players going... elsewhere.


Yes, that's why clubs need proper financial strategies in place to maximise their income.

#124 jpmc

jpmc
  • Coach
  • 503 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:15 PM

Reduce sl down to ten clubs and let them share the money between themselves.
They should be able to run quality reserve teams then.

#125 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:50 PM

however, in a competitive market place, if you don't pay the going rate, you'll get the players going... elsewhere.


There's only a limited market for players. You can only play 17 a week or 22 if they defect to Yawnion, obviously.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#126 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,148 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:11 PM

"Because of profligate wage payments with no relationship to the income needed to run the organisations"


But given that to remain competitive, its the income that needs to increase rather than player payments that need to be reduced. reduce player payments and the best will go elsewhere to earn a living, either to say Aus, or to union or to something else entirely. Sure clubs need to live within thier means but its their means that they need to increase.

#127 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,804 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:38 PM

Reduce sl down to ten clubs and let them share the money between themselves.
They should be able to run quality reserve teams then.

the body closes down when dying.
Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#128 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,804 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:43 PM

"Because of profligate wage payments with no relationship to the income needed to run the organisations"


But given that to remain competitive, its the income that needs to increase rather than player payments that need to be reduced. reduce player payments and the best will go elsewhere to earn a living, either to say Aus, or to union or to something else entirely. Sure clubs need to live within thier means but its their means that they need to increase.

Maybe Sky should give the game more money to maintain the high standards on the pitch.
Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#129 jpmc

jpmc
  • Coach
  • 503 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:47 PM

the body closes down when dying.


I think the body is dying anyway and like some trees or a bushes you need to cut them right back to see new shoots develop in time

Edited by jpmc, 26 February 2013 - 08:48 PM.


#130 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,674 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:35 PM

Of course we'd like more from the Sky deal, but we have what we have at the moment.
With the economic situation as it is and a distinct lack of major sponsorship income for the other competitions outside of SL, the clubs are going to have to cut their cloth appropriately.
That may mean lower player payments - by all accounts Hull KR have reduced their player spend this year for example. All SL clubs have ditched a portion of their player development and structure to save £100k each - that sounds to cutting cloth to me.
Top players may go to Australia, some may go to Union, but I can't honestly see 14 clubs x 25 players = 350 players disappearing to Saracens and Sale and Sydney. If a few do, then that is one of the main reasons that we should be doing all we can to maintain players development and numbers in the various players pathways at all levels and not shrinking them as we are now. If that means a few less Aussies in the competition then so be it.

#131 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,224 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:37 PM

OK, fine. When they announce the new expanded TV deals, I will have been proved wrong and will be happy to admit it.


Never mind the new deals, the old ones are proof enough that SKY don't want to pay any more than necessary, the RFL's renegotiation in 2007 is proof enough they push SKY as hard as they can.

Edited by The Parksider, 26 February 2013 - 10:55 PM.


#132 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,224 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:42 PM

Clubs need proper financial strategies in place to maximise their income.


Like what? What are SL clubs failing to do that would increase their incomes??

#133 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,148 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:56 PM

Of course we'd like more from the Sky deal, but we have what we have at the moment.
With the economic situation as it is and a distinct lack of major sponsorship income for the other competitions outside of SL, the clubs are going to have to cut their cloth appropriately.
That may mean lower player payments - by all accounts Hull KR have reduced their player spend this year for example. All SL clubs have ditched a portion of their player development and structure to save £100k each - that sounds to cutting cloth to me.
Top players may go to Australia, some may go to Union, but I can't honestly see 14 clubs x 25 players = 350 players disappearing to Saracens and Sale and Sydney. If a few do, then that is one of the main reasons that we should be doing all we can to maintain players development and numbers in the various players pathways at all levels and not shrinking them as we are now. If that means a few less Aussies in the competition then so be it.


"Top players may go to Australia,etc"... a downward spiral as those who can command a better deal elsewhere gradually do so, making the game less attractive to potential new stars, to fans, to Sky etc.

#134 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,674 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 02:10 PM

"Top players may go to Australia,etc"... a downward spiral as those who can command a better deal elsewhere gradually do so, making the game less attractive to potential new stars, to fans, to Sky etc.


We need a huge shift in Sky income and sponsorship revenue streams to match what is going on in Australia, so regardless of whether a clubs spends £1.4m or up to cap at £1.65m or £2.5m with a Sky increase, the players will go to Aus or RU as what they can offer outstrips those figures big time. If a player wants to go they will we have top accept that.

#135 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,208 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 02:29 PM

We need a huge shift in Sky income and sponsorship revenue streams to match what is going on in Australia, so regardless of whether a clubs spends £1.4m or up to cap at £1.65m or £2.5m with a Sky increase, the players will go to Aus or RU as what they can offer outstrips those figures big time. If a player wants to go they will we have top accept that.


I disagree. I think an increase in the cap will scare off union a bit. I think they would probably still try and get the Sam Tomkins of this world, but maybe not the Joel's. As RL signings are seen as a risk to fans, journalists and administrators of the 15 aside code the question is how much do they financially risk purchasing and paying a player who is unproven in their sport. It would probably be worth it from a PR perspective alone on the really top draw signings, but the slightly lesser ones we've seen moving over more recently it would hopefully be deemed too much of a risk.

#136 slowdive

slowdive
  • Coach
  • 264 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:13 PM

Like what? What are SL clubs failing to do that would increase their incomes??

From reading a lot of the stuff on here it would appear that some clubs don't/haven't been run very well. Salford and London are two clubs that spring to mind most readily.
It might be a bit leftfield but I think that clubs need to look at diversifying their income in other areas, not necessarily specifically Rugby.
The public sector is being rapidly privatised and whilst I don't agree with that at all, opportunities exist for forward thinking clubs to be a part of the new landscape.
I'm a teacher and I work with kids with behavioural problems. There are an increasing number of privately run education establishments working with these sort of kids. Let's face it, there's always going to work in this sector and clubs could take advantage of this. I don't actually buy into the idea that sport can miraculously change young people's lives, but lot's of people do and there's no reason why clubs couldn't run perfectly good education centres for disaffected young people etc and make money out of it.
"At times to be silent is to lie. You will win because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. For to convince you need to persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack: Reason and Right."

#137 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,112 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:27 PM

Bradford, Leeds, Hull, Hudds, Wakey, Saints, Wigan, Wire, London, Cats - Tier 1. 27 games and 1 down

Widnes, Salford, Cas, HKR, Toulouse, Fax, Fev, Leigh, Sheffield, and hopefully a Welsh club - Tier 2. 27 games and 1 up via play offs

Barrow, Haven, Town, Gateshead, Batley, Keighley, Dewsbury, Swinton, Oldham, Rochdale, Skolars, Oxford, Gloucester, Hemel - Tier 3 - 26 games and a KO comp


Surely a cumbrian side has got to be in there? Don't see why Sheffield constantly get put in ahead of a cumbrian side when they take 10 fans to an away game on the back of a Championship winning season.

That's for another debate I guess.

#138 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:37 PM

Surely a cumbrian side has got to be in there? Don't see why Sheffield constantly get put in ahead of a cumbrian side when they take 10 fans to an away game on the back of a Championship winning season.


Is it because neither Workington nor Whitehaven - and, hey, throw in Barrow if we don't want to restart the old geographical debate - want to be in it ?

At the moment, anyway.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#139 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,112 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:16 PM

How are you sure that none of the 3 clubs wouldn't want to be part of a 2 tier SL. Surely Barrow not going for DR and Workington using the system barely, shows they have some ambition? Can't see how you can conclude that none of the sides would want to be in.

#140 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 08:34 AM

How are you sure that none of the 3 clubs wouldn't want to be part of a 2 tier SL. Surely Barrow not going for DR and Workington using the system barely, shows they have some ambition? Can't see how you can conclude that none of the sides would want to be in.


I look around their grounds.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users