343 replies to this topic

[Dave T]

so what is your take?

I was agreeing with you.

I suspect many fans have no clue what Wood has done, and if they were responsible for his appraisal would have something like:
"stop being nasty to my club and stop eating pies..."

[foozler]

Because with 14 clubs, there are 14 sets of fans buying subscriptions plus they get to pick two games out of seven not six. Not to mention that 12 means the return of loop fixtures.

I'm not sure that reason really stacks up.

Do Sky sell many subscriptions in France based on Catalans being in SuperLeague? Or in London because of the Broncos?

[jpmc]

Assuming that Sky would agree to pay the same for a 12-club league as it would for a 14-club league you mean.

If London are vital to the sky tv contract and expansion of the game then this is just an idea that would guarantee there continued presence in sl and possibly give them a good chance of attaining some success on the field

[Lobbygobbler]

I very much doubt that! I watched the game and the contingent from Hull was small, tucked away in one corner of the main stand. I'd say London's home support increased from the previous week so it was even worse that they performed to the standard of a pub team. There are a number of London players who deserve nothing but the sack.

Were you at the game? I was and Trojan's assessment is not far off the mark. Most of the East stand had Hull KR fans in it, it was just that sky showed the small pocket of Rovers fans who chose to sat at the end.

Whats worse about the home support is that it was made up to a significant extent of young lads in tracksuits from various youth teams - obviously on freebies.

The club is managed very badly. They should have moved grounds and had a fresh start.

Interestingly, i have also noticed that every single club is bringing much less away fans to London than say 10 years ago

[JohnM]

I was agreeing with you.

I suspect many fans have no clue what Wood has done, and if they were responsible for his appraisal would have something like:
"stop being nasty to my club and stop eating pies..."

understood. apologies

[nadera78]

Because with 14 clubs, there are 14 sets of fans buying subscriptions plus they get to pick two games out of seven not six. Not to mention that 12 means the return of loop fixtures.

I really don't think it works like that, but even if it did then losing two clubs who average 5,000 home fans would mean Sky losing about 2,000 subscribers. I don't think that would worry them too much.

IIRC the SL clubs receive 1.2m p/a so losing two clubs would mean you could distribute an extra 180k to each of the 12 remaining clubs, with London picking up the remaining 240k. So there'd be no need for the extra rounds. You've then got four spare weekends so you could hold England v Exiles / Wales v France on two of them so Sky get some games, and then shorten the season with the other two.

[Ackroman]

I really don't think it works like that, but even if it did then losing two clubs who average 5,000 home fans would mean Sky losing about 2,000 subscribers. I don't think that would worry them too much.

People don't buy SKY subscriptions to watch just RL, therefore reducing the number of teams in a competition does not have a direct loss of subscribers.

if I could afford SKY I would buy it regardless and I'm sure most people would react the same way.

[Northern Sol]

If London are vital to the sky tv contract and expansion of the game then this is just an idea that would guarantee there continued presence in sl and possibly give them a good chance of attaining some success on the field

I doubt London are vital or Woods would hardly have said what he did.

[Northern Sol]

I really don't think it works like that, but even if it did then losing two clubs who average 5,000 home fans would mean Sky losing about 2,000 subscribers. I don't think that would worry them too much.

IIRC the SL clubs receive 1.2m p/a so losing two clubs would mean you could distribute an extra 180k to each of the 12 remaining clubs, with London picking up the remaining 240k. So there'd be no need for the extra rounds. You've then got four spare weekends so you could hold England v Exiles / Wales v France on two of them so Sky get some games, and then shorten the season with the other two.

You have forgotten that losing two clubs means losing two home games.

The thing is with just the one bidder for SL, Sky pay whatever they want for SL. Every company in such a position pays the minimum that they have to. In the case of Sky that is the minimum needed to run a full time league. Now they might choose to keep paying the same if London meant all that much to them but I've seen nothing in the last 6-7 years that makes me think that they care about London.

[Northern Sol]

I'm not sure that reason really stacks up.

Do Sky sell many subscriptions in France based on Catalans being in SuperLeague? Or in London because of the Broncos?

No, but we wouldn't be getting rid of either Catalans or Broncos. We'd probably cut Wakey and Cas. Now those clubs do sell subscriptions, probably not a huge amount but more than the side that we would be sacrificing them for.

[Dave T]

Interestingly, i have also noticed that every single club is bringing much less away fans to London than say 10 years ago

I'm sure that is not a surprise to any individual at all.

Saints brought a hell of a lot less to the HJ last Friday night, so the numbers travelling to London will clearly be affected if people are struggling to afford to travel 7 miles.

[nadera78]

You have forgotten that losing two clubs means losing two home games.

The thing is with just the one bidder for SL, Sky pay whatever they want for SL. Every company in such a position pays the minimum that they have to. In the case of Sky that is the minimum needed to run a full time league. Now they might choose to keep paying the same if London meant all that much to them but I've seen nothing in the last 6-7 years that makes me think that they care about London.

I haven't forgotten anything. I explained that each club would get more central funding, and that the spare weekends could be better used.

[Northern Sol]

I haven't forgotten anything. I explained that each club would get more central funding, and that the spare weekends could be better used.

More funding (assuming that Sky didn't cut the funds#) but less gate receipts. What's the point?

# You are suggesting not only that Sky accept a league with fewer clubs and thus fewer subscribers, less choice of games to show and now four fewer rounds!

[nadera78]

More funding (assuming that Sky didn't cut the funds#) but less gate receipts. What's the point?

# You are suggesting not only that Sky accept a league with fewer clubs and thus fewer subscribers, less choice of games to show and now four fewer rounds!

2 fewer teams means nothing to Sky because it's extremely doubtful that anyone would cancel their subscriptions. Less choice of games? Sky go out of their way to pick games they think will be competitive, which is even more true of a 12 team league. Yes, four fewer rounds of SL, but two of those weekends will be filled with internationals instead. So only two fewer weeks of games for them.

[Northern Sol]

2 fewer teams means nothing to Sky because it's extremely doubtful that anyone would cancel their subscriptions. Less choice of games? Sky go out of their way to pick games they think will be competitive, which is even more true of a 12 team league. Yes, four fewer rounds of SL, but two of those weekends will be filled with internationals instead. So only two fewer weeks of games for them.

You might think that the above constitutes such an obvious improvement that Sky would be happy about it but you can't know that.

[nadera78]

You might think that the above constitutes such an obvious improvement that Sky would be happy about it but you can't know that.

Same as you can't know that they'll lose subscribers, etc. I do believe that's why boards like this exist: to throw ideas around.

[Northern Sol]

Same as you can't know that they'll lose subscribers, etc. I do believe that's why boards like this exist: to throw ideas around.

I don't claim to know that I said that you can't just assume that you can reduce the league to 12 clubs without effecting the value of the contract.

[Egg Chasing]

I'm glad someone has finally come out and said this, but I don't honestly believe the RFL would ever throw them out of the league unless they opted to go like Crusaders.

[Johnoco]

How many clubs has there been in Wales in 118 years?

[Northern Sol]

I'm glad someone has finally come out and said this, but I don't honestly believe the RFL would ever throw them out of the league unless they opted to go like Crusaders.

I imagine that Crusaders were asked not to apply for a another licence.