Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Martyn Sadler and Andy Wilson hint at behind the scenes restructure of Super League


  • Please log in to reply
207 replies to this topic

#21 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 3,850 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:26 PM

I'd probably take bet on two twelve.

The only problem I see is how are they are going to move the teams about?

League position would mean London would go down which I can't see happening. Ideally I think the RFL would want Hull KR and Cas to go down. Can't see Hull KR surviving without Hudgell and Cas just seem a mess, think both clubs need a step down and start again get everything together. Not having to compete with Leeds and Wigan will hopefully help them.

Then how do you choose the Championship sides going up? League position? Financially stability? Similar method to licensing.

Would be interesting to see how the RFL proceed.

#22 THE RED ROOSTER

THE RED ROOSTER
  • Coach
  • 2,255 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:30 PM

That's the flaw in the 10 Clubs in SL1 plan, everyone is ok with it...
 
... as long as they are in SL1 competition.
 
In my opinion, at the moment, I think only Castleford fans are aware they might face the chop. But fans of the other 13 clubs would be adamant - with good reason - why they MUST be in SL1.

London are pretty much nailed on to join Cas on the outer if it reduces to 12 which courtesy of Martyn Sadler we now know is the SKY limit and I do not think there would be too many London fans on here that would disagree with me.

One question about Super League II which is can clubs be relegated from the second tier and replaced with say Hemel Stags in five years time should Hemel's progress warrant inclusion or would it be the case of another closed shop this time with an additional six clubs ?

I am an oil trader and successful at that but, but marketing, finance, business management, human resources etc are not my strengths


 

 

David Hughes to Ian Lenagan Page 134 - A Pastel Revolution - Fletcher and Gordas - 2006

 

Being an outsider, it is easiest to see what is wrong with the sport. It's a fantastic sport that has been undersold and under-marketed  because people who run it probably want to keep it the way it is

 

 

Dr Marwan Koukash to Joanthan Lieu. Sunday Telegraph 9th March 2014

 

 


#23 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:52 PM

Apparently one of the ideas muted could only have come from an accountant, what ever that means.


Being married to an accountant I think I can give you an idea. Basically it will have been looked at from a purely financing level and with no emotional weighting. Purely counting beans so to speak.

I'd suspect for example an accountant would like the idea of mergers (not sugesting this is what the person you mentioned was on about but it makes a good example). They might say, merge club a & b together, you'll potentially lose 30% support from each club, but the total is higher, and probably sustainable. They would just see the figures, not the loss of history, or the animosity created in the old fans who won't come back.

#24 The Daddy_merged

The Daddy_merged
  • Coach
  • 918 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 07:00 PM

London are pretty much nailed on to join Cas on the outer if it reduces to 12 which courtesy of Martyn Sadler we now know is the SKY limit and I do not think there would be too many London fans on here that would disagree with me.

One question about Super League II which is can clubs be relegated from the second tier and replaced with say Hemel Stags in five years time should Hemel's progress warrant inclusion or would it be the case of another closed shop this time with an additional six clubs ?


Don't be surprised to see a centrally funded London team in the top tier. When Brian Barwick was interviewed on Boots n All and the question was posed regarding the off field performance or lack of of the Broncos he delibaratly avoided answering, I read into it that he had something up his sleeve or at least had some inside knowledge.

Despite the poor off field performances of the Broncos, I think they'll be kept in simply because, if the whole point of the restructure is to attract more sponsorship and monies into SL it would be counterproductive to leave out the only team which gives the league national scope, therefore they will strengthen London.

#25 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,978 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 07:13 PM

Being married to an accountant I think I can give you an idea. Basically it will have been looked at from a purely financing level and with no emotional weighting. Purely counting beans so to speak.

I'd suspect for example an accountant would like the idea of mergers (not sugesting this is what the person you mentioned was on about but it makes a good example). They might say, merge club a & b together, you'll potentially lose 30% support from each club, but the total is higher, and probably sustainable. They would just see the figures, not the loss of history, or the animosity created in the old fans who won't come back.

I know the above is purely hypothetical, but how would anyone be able to calculate a rough percentage of drop in support?


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#26 Steve Slater

Steve Slater
  • Coach
  • 1,776 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:25 PM

 

Being married to an accountant I think I can give you an idea. Basically it will have been looked at from a purely financing level and with no emotional weighting. Purely counting beans so to speak.

I'd suspect for example an accountant would like the idea of mergers (not sugesting this is what the person you mentioned was on about but it makes a good example). They might say, merge club a & b together, you'll potentially lose 30% support from each club, but the total is higher, and probably sustainable. They would just see the figures, not the loss of history, or the animosity created in the old fans who won't come back.

 Plus the fact that those 30% from each club might cancel their Sky subscriptions, either that or they'll only watch the soccer, which could eventually reduce the money given to RL when they measure viewing figures.

#27 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:34 PM

I know the above is purely hypothetical, but how would anyone be able to calculate a rough percentage of drop in support?


It's an example, I'm not suggesting I know anything. In this example the accountant might have asked a marketing or business estimate for a best and worst case scenario.

Talking to my wife about accounting often helps me get to sleep when I'm struggling.

#28 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:44 PM

Plus the fact that those 30% from each club might cancel their Sky subscriptions, either that or they'll only watch the soccer, which could eventually reduce the money given to RL when they measure viewing figures.

Again this isn't a real example. I haven't got any insider information this is just an example of how accountants tend to think.

In your example they'd probably realise that 30% of 2 of the smaller clubs wont make a huge variance on sky's numbers outside of the normal seasonal peaks and troughs. 3600 lost supporters and probably only half would have a subscription anyway, I'd imagine that's well within statistical fluctuations of subscriptions. So maybe 1500 lost sky subscribers at most.

* the 3600 figure I've pulled out of the ether is a complete guess based on 2 roughly equal clubs getting a 6000 crowd each making a combined 12000 potential supporter and losing 30% personally I think it would be higher but this is just and example of the mental process

Edited by RidingPie, 24 April 2013 - 08:45 PM.


#29 slowdive

slowdive
  • Coach
  • 264 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:05 PM

I really can't see a SL 2 happening. The clubs are not going to vote to get even less sky money per head and can anybody see Sky suddenly offering us more? If it stays at 14 I wonder if toulouse would get a shot. I'd hate to lose either Castleford or HKR and I question the wisdom of losing a club which can consistently get 7/8000 without being a regular top eight side. The game also loses the only proper derby and a couple of the biggest games in the year. Just saying.
"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."

#30 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,463 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:22 PM

So 12 clubs give 24 weeks of competition, I am intrigued where the extra 2 weeks come from if 10 is not acceptable to give 24?

#31 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,496 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:38 PM

Just watched the show. Andy and Martyn raised some good points but Stevo yet again ruined the show by being needlessly negative, puerile, ill informed and not in the least bit constructive.

There's a difference between playing devils advocate and spouting incoherent nonsense!

#32 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,861 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 11:36 PM

In my view the Super League clubs would be remarkably stupid to reduce the size of the competition. In doing so they would not be addressing the main issue which, as I said on the programme, is the game's apparent inability to generate commercial income. Reducing the footprint of the competition would only make that job even harder.

Oh no!

"Footprint of the competition" What???

I can only assume it means geographical spread.

Red Rooster sees the inevitable end to London (there's one long footprint gone there then RR?) but the Daddy Merged feels the opposite with some sort of central funding to preserve at least one foot in England extending beyond the M62. I dunno, but there's less chance of "commercial contracts" reverting back to M62 land (apart from Hovis), and that veritable sage Hudgell predicted that London Mk7 or Mk8 or whatever would end up centrally funded, and that SL would be 12. I cannot deduce from that London's rejection from SL.

Edited by The Parksider, 25 April 2013 - 06:20 AM.


#33 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,921 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 12:02 AM

I am watching this thread with interest, I have long lost the will to argue my main point, not because I think I didn't have a point but because its repetitive, bowever it is interesting that slowly more and more people are pushing what I have been saying.

 

So I will say it once again and hope my fingers don't leap up away from the keyboard screaming oh no not again, its all about the money, you can have any dammed structure you like but if the money can't support it you will fail.



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.


#34 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:16 AM

I'd probably take bet on two twelve.

The only problem I see is how are they are going to move the teams about?

League position would mean London would go down which I can't see happening. Ideally I think the RFL would want Hull KR and Cas to go down. Can't see Hull KR surviving without Hudgell and Cas just seem a mess, think both clubs need a step down and start again get everything together. Not having to compete with Leeds and Wigan will hopefully help them.

I don't really care how it's done as long as the clubs get a season's notice of it.

What will probably happen, this being RL, is some crackpot idea will be announced at the last moment to become effective next year, leaving some clubs high and dry with no way of playing themselves out of it.

That's me.  I'm done.


#35 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,978 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:31 AM

I am watching this thread with interest, I have long lost the will to argue my main point, not because I think I didn't have a point but because its repetitive, bowever it is interesting that slowly more and more people are pushing what I have been saying.

 

So I will say it once again and hope my fingers don't leap up away from the keyboard screaming oh no not again, its all about the money, you can have any dammed structure you like but if the money can't support it you will fail.

I thought you meant slowdive's reference to the Hull derby being "the only proper derby".

 

;)


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#36 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,978 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:37 AM

It's an example, I'm not suggesting I know anything. In this example the accountant might have asked a marketing or business estimate for a best and worst case scenario.

Talking to my wife about accounting often helps me get to sleep when I'm struggling.

Yeah I know it wasn't based on anything, I'm just intrigued how accountant x could work out a drop in support of y%, whether it be 1% or 99%. Again, not knocking what you've said, there just seems to many variables for anyone (real or not) to consider what a loss in punters would be. Anyway, that's probably too much like hard work for me before I've had a coffee!


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#37 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,931 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:44 AM

Don't be surprised to see a centrally funded London team in the top tier. When Brian Barwick was interviewed on Boots n All and the question was posed regarding the off field performance or lack of of the Broncos he delibaratly avoided answering, I read into it that he had something up his sleeve or at least had some inside knowledge.

Despite the poor off field performances of the Broncos, I think they'll be kept in simply because, if the whole point of the restructure is to attract more sponsorship and monies into SL it would be counterproductive to leave out the only team which gives the league national scope, therefore they will strengthen London.

Not a chance. Nigel Wood already ruled it out.

 

London adds nothing. People who live in Twickhenham do not know that they exist; they struggle to get any kind of sponsorship at all and their crowds are below 2,000 (many of whom are away fans). Sky rarely show their games.

 

Yet somehow people will argue that they attract sponsorship to the game! 



#38 Mumby Magic

Mumby Magic
  • Coach
  • 3,129 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:45 AM

Keep the names the same, licensing for Championship, use Championship for ALL expansion then allow P and R between Championship and SL. Promoted team gets a 12 month stay from relegation. Bottom team from Championship has to apply to stay in there like the old Football League set up.

Best number for me is 12 in SL but like has been said what is the best way to do it?

May have to set in place 2,3 or even 4 year plan to make it fair rather than saying "Next year we are doing x, y and Z". And if we do make changes, this time LETS STICK TO IT. Grr.

Lilly, Jacob and Isaac, what my life is about. Although our route through life is not how it should be, I am a blessed man.


#39 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,563 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:01 AM

Yeah I know it wasn't based on anything, I'm just intrigued how accountant x could work out a drop in support of y%, whether it be 1% or 99%. Again, not knocking what you've said, there just seems to many variables for anyone (real or not) to consider what a loss in punters would be. Anyway, that's probably too much like hard work for me before I've had a coffee!

Going by the 30% rule and last season's averages, the two likely discussed rumours would see:

Hull FC/Hull KR - Hull United
(11,433 + 7,546 = 18,979) * 0.7 = 13,285 (a loss of 5,694)

Wakefield/Castleford - Wakefield Tigers
(8,172 + 6,710 = 14,882) * 0.7 = 10,417 (a loss of 4,465)
Posted Image

#40 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,978 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:23 AM

Going by the 30% rule and last season's averages, the two likely discussed rumours would see:

Hull FC/Hull KR - Hull United
(11,433 + 7,546 = 18,979) * 0.7 = 13,285 (a loss of 5,694)

Wakefield/Castleford - Wakefield Tigers
(8,172 + 6,710 = 14,882) * 0.7 = 10,417 (a loss of 4,465)

Which, under reduced costs, would see an upturn in kerching.

 

It was the "projections" aspect that threw me, and I know 30% was a random figure (and this is nowt to do with RidingPie!) my uncertainty comes from how any accountant anywhere in the world would be able to forecast how people would react, whether it is a sports club, or moving a supermarket or whatever.


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users