Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


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

#41 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,220 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:31 AM

And that's one of the problems of this approach. Though much of the process could be based on solid facts, some of the projections will be best/worst case projections (and probably the mean between them).

It doesn't count the human cost.

#42 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,304 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:58 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!

not an account's job , maybe?    

 

Accountants do the sums: the measurement, disclosure or provision of assurance about financial information that helps managers, investors, tax authorities and others make decisions about allocating resources.

 

Anyway, looks like we are building yet another forum house made of speculative cards on a foundation of supposition.


Edited by JohnM, 25 April 2013 - 08:00 AM.


#43 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,665 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:16 AM

You don't merge clubs who have 100 years of history, you kill one of them
Our challenge is to unite the game again, give hope to those not at the top table, expand the player pool in both France and here and create a high intensity top tier with a raised cap to better prepare us to beat the Aussies

#44 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,220 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:23 AM

Sweaty, we're not really talking about merging clubs. We are talking about how accountants think.

#45 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:36 AM

Looks like we are building yet another forum house made of speculative cards on a foundation of supposition.

i.e. "The fact of believing something is true without any proof"???

What proof do we have of what is going to happen, but I guess there's good guesses and bad guesses that can be based on what has been said.

1. I do recall that Nigel Wood ruled out central funding for London Broncos recently so their continuation depends on David Hughes. Mr. Sadler spoke of reducing the "footprint of the game" which London's demise would do in spades, do you think Holmes we can fairly deduce from that Hughes may pull out London Broncos?

2. It has been speculated that Superleague could be 10 clubs, that even has come out of the mouth of a Superleague CEO. However Mr. Sadler categorically states the contract is for a minimum of twelve clubs and that the proposed changes do not involve any contract negotiation with SKY. Thus 12 is therefore the logical limit for reduction?? Elementary my dear Holmes?

3. Equally speculated has been the wishful thinking that "SL1 + SL2 = 20 clubs = more SKY money" Again Mr. Sadler quashes the idea that there are any negotiations for more money and that SKY are not driving anything here. The deal remains at £16.8million for a Superleague of a minimum of 12, and again as has been said this is about the top clubs getting more money. Does it take an accountant to do this sum....

£16,800,000. divided by 14 = £1.2M each but £16,800,000. divided by 12 = £1.4M. Even a bloodhound can work that out. DR was purported to save SL clubs £100K a season. A drop to 12 will give them £200K extra a season. Nothing for the second tier.

Enough clues to more than suppose it's 12 clubs sharing the existing SKY money and no London???

Edited by The Parksider, 25 April 2013 - 08:38 AM.


#46 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:49 AM

3. Equally speculated has been the wishful thinking that "SL1 + SL2 = 20 clubs = more SKY money" Again Mr. Sadler quashes the idea that there are any negotiations for more money and that SKY are not driving anything here. The deal remains at £16.8million for a Superleague of a minimum of 12, and again as has been said this is about the top clubs getting more money. Does it take an accountant to do this sum....

What Sky want is enough good quality content to fill their summer schedules at the lowest price they can get away with. In the absence of any serious competitors bidding against them they will pay what they think is enough to keep SL in business and not a penny more.

It really is as simple as that.

If the clubs want more money from the TV deal then they need to get another broadcaster interested. I do hope someone at the RFL has been in contact with BT.

That's me.  I'm done.


#47 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:58 AM

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.

I fear you may be highly disappointed. However I stand to be corrected on whether in the recent mumblings we are discussing it has been said that this is more than just a reduction in SL so the big clubs can get more money, and that P & R is any part of the plan.

We NOW know that there is no more money from SKY and the moves are to give SL clubs more of what SKY do pay. How P & R can work between a Superleague that is enriched by £300,000 per club (which is the salary cap for the second tier) and which will turn over over £6,000,000 per club against a league that has no no backing and who will be used to supply players to SL I'm afraid i don't know??

As for choosing who goes where don't hold your breath about next year being about a competition to avoid relegation. The 17 year history has been entirely about manipulating who goes where. On the field Batley, Keighley, Hunslet and Dewsbury all earned the right to go up and didn't, then Fartown were reprieved from relegation three times, Catalans, London and Wales were protected from relegation, and Halifax. Leigh and Barrow refused licenses. I see no seas change in the policy?? RFL/SLE pick.

Finally (sorry about this) I'm amazed you think that Cas and HKR's relegation or "step down" would allow them to "get themselves together" and that they would benefit from not playing Leeds and Wigan. To be removed from a league in which you are removed from a £1,400,000 annual subsidy, and removed from a league where a visit from Leeds and Wigan can pull you 8,000 to 10,000 fans would be devastating. Again a check of the SL history books will demonstrate how the relegation of Oldham, Workington, Leigh and Halifax left them far from getting themselves together.....

#48 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:12 AM

What Sky want is enough good quality content to fill their summer schedules at the lowest price they can get away with. In the absence of any serious competitors bidding against them they will pay what they think is enough to keep SL in business and not a penny more.

It really is as simple as that.

I get pulled up for stating opinion as fact, so you'd best sprinkle a few IMHO's in there.

But it's an opinion I share as again the evidence of events was both games proffesionalised and the smaller game shifted to summer so SKY can have Rugby all year round. That's our strength - we supply RL in the gap between RU seasons.

What I am unsure of is are the Superleague club chairman basing their proposed changes to Superleague on a desire to keep the "product" they sell to SKY to a high quality? After all what would SKY pay if we were a semi professional game??

#49 Chronicler of Chiswick

Chronicler of Chiswick
  • Coach
  • 2,525 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:37 AM

What year does the current contract run to?

2017 - 5 year deal.



#50 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:52 AM




2. It has been speculated that Superleague could be 10 clubs, that even has come out of the mouth of a Superleague CEO. However Mr. Sadler categorically states the contract is for a minimum of twelve clubs and that the proposed changes do not involve any contract negotiation with SKY. Thus 12 is therefore the logical limit for reduction?? Elementary my dear Holmes?

 

 

Not necessarily that simple though.

 

The current TV contract may dictate 12 teams, but that runs until the end of 2016. Who is to say that they won’t reduce to 12 in 2015, and then relegate another two at the end of 2016? If the game believes this is the right thing to do, then it is up to them to sell it to Sky to get it in the next contract.

 

There is too much short term planning going on – if it is genuinely believed that a 10 team division will be better for the game, then there are definitely ways that this can be delivered.



#51 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 10:07 AM

Not necessarily that simple though.The current TV contract may dictate 12 teams, but that runs until the end of 2016. Who is to say that they won’t reduce to 12 in 2015, and then relegate another two at the end of 2016? If the game believes this is the right thing to do, then it is up to them to sell it to Sky to get it in the next contract.

It is that simple for 2015 when the changes are said to be coming in.

OK they may run at 12 for 2015 and 2016 and then go to 10.

But by "Relegation"?? In recent years Catalans and Hull have had disasterous seasons and come in the bottom two. These clubs are first picks for Superleague so I really don't think any reduced SL will be left to chance like you suggest.

I also don't think that the big four Superleague clubs themselves who look like they are back to running things now Lewis is gone can organise such a plan without the rest of Super league getting to know what is coming up.

Which Superleague clubs are going to play the patsies 2016-2017??? Would the chairman of any club who knew SL was going to 10 after 12 and felt his club would be out, just go along with this??

IMHO the announcement by Hudgell and effectively Fulton that they aren't going to bankroll their clubs any more probably comes from them seeing the writing on the wall, after all Hudgell spoke of 12 clubs well over a year ago. Whether we saw O'Connor following suit in an ambiguous press release the other day I don't know.

However the new unofficial press spokesman for Widnes, Viking Warrior was able to offer a confirmation it was business as usual!!

Edited by The Parksider, 25 April 2013 - 10:09 AM.


#52 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 10:20 AM

1 - It is that simple for 2015 when the changes are said to be coming in.

2 - OK they may run at 12 for 2015 and 2016 and then go to 10.

3 - But by "Relegation"?? In recent years Catalans and Hull have had disasterous seasons and come in the bottom two. These clubs are first picks for Superleague so I really don't think any reduced SL will be left to chance like you suggest.

4 - I also don't think that the big four Superleague clubs themselves who look like they are back to running things now Lewis is gone can organise such a plan without the rest of Super league getting to know what is coming up.

5 - Which Superleague clubs are going to play the patsies 2016-2017??? Would the chairman of any club who knew SL was going to 10 after 12 and felt his club would be out, just go along with this??

6 - IMHO the announcement by Hudgell and effectively Fulton that they aren't going to bankroll their clubs any more probably comes from them seeing the writing on the wall, after all Hudgell spoke of 12 clubs well over a year ago. Whether we saw O'Connor following suit in an ambiguous press release the other day I don't know.

7 - However the new unofficial press spokesman for Widnes, Viking Warrior was able to offer a confirmation it was business as usual!!

1 - Whilst there may be limitations on the 2015 structure - in the past when this has been mentioned by Gatcliffe and Peacock for example, I don't believe they have ever put timescales on it.

 

2 - Yep, so we agree with my point about it being possible.

 

3 - I never suggested relegation would be done by removing the bottom two clubs.

 

4 - Not really sure of your point here - it is the clubs who will decide the structure - this top 4 that you have created don;t run the game, how do you know that they haven't had buy in from Catalan, Hull, Hudds etc? The only people I have seen talk about the 10 clubs are Gatcliffe and Peacock - that doesn't mean that they are the only two who believe it is the way to go.

 

5 - Majority rules (although I'm not sure about the majority required to force this kind of change through) - the SL clubs will decide the structure. What's to stop the top 10 clubs agreeing this and 'evicting' 4 clubs over a couple of years?

 

6 - Dunno about the Hudgell point, maybe he is just fed up of spending a bomb. I also didn't find the O'Connor PR ambiguous. He is stepping down from Chairman but remaining on the Board as Director. 

 

7 - VW is welcome to give his thoughts on the goings on at his club, I don;t have strong thoughts either way about what he said.

 

BTW - I wouldn;t welcome the approach that I have highlighted above - I don;t want to see a contraction, I'd rather see us dragging more clubs up to a higher level rather than risking cutting clubs adrift. I'd only be supportive of a top division reduction if funding and structures were to be improved below that division, which I suspect would be the sweetener for some of these clubs and fans.



#53 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,304 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 11:23 AM

By house of cards I was referring to these types of comments

 

It will be interesting how they choose the 10 Clubs in SL1.

 

I wonder what chance a ten team superleague and an additional competition to fill the TV schedule gaps... Expanded WCC maybe?..  9's comp?.. Exiles series?..

 

Mr. Sadler spoke of reducing the "footprint of the game"

 

(Sherlock Holmes is a work of fiction. Ed.)



#54 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,905 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 11:33 AM

1 - Whilst there may be limitations on the 2015 structure - in the past when this has been mentioned by Gatcliffe and Peacock for example, I don't believe they have ever put timescales on it.

Not sure its as clear cut as some are making out, those limitations are removed if both parties are happy to renegotiate.  I'd have thought as is often the case the contract only gets brought out in the event of a dispute, that seems to be my commerical experience anyhow!



#55 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 11:44 AM

Not sure its as clear cut as some are making out, those limitations are removed if both parties are happy to renegotiate.  I'd have thought as is often the case the contract only gets brought out in the event of a dispute, that seems to be my commerical experience anyhow!

Indeed, and that links back to my point that the RFL have to sell this to Sky if they genuinely believe it to be the best move. 

 

At the risk of sounding disrespectful, I'm not sure Sky are that bothered about some of the lower clubs that they have to show. They'd rather show Wigan, Leeds etc playing competitive games surely?



#56 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 01:23 PM

At the risk of sounding disrespectful, I'm not sure Sky are that bothered about some of the lower clubs that they have to show. They'd rather show Wigan, Leeds etc playing competitive games surely?

I'd agree with that and that links back to my point about how the "product" will be likely enhanced if the clubs on TV are struggling less under a new structure.

Edited by The Parksider, 25 April 2013 - 01:40 PM.


#57 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 01:32 PM

1 - Whilst there may be limitations on the 2015 structure - in the past when this has been mentioned by Gatcliffe and Peacock for example, I don't believe they have ever put timescales on it.
 
3 - I never suggested relegation would be done by removing the bottom two clubs.
 
4 - Not really sure of your point here - it is the clubs who will decide the structure - this top 4 that you have created don;t run the game, how do you know that they haven't had buy in from Catalan, Hull, Hudds etc?

5 - Majority rules (although I'm not sure about the majority required to force this kind of change through) - the SL clubs will decide the structure. What's to stop the top 10 clubs agreeing this and 'evicting' 4 clubs over a couple of years?
 
6 - Dunno about the Hudgell point, maybe he is just fed up of spending a bomb. I also didn't find the O'Connor PR ambiguous. He is stepping down from Chairman but remaining on the Board as Director.

1. The two you mention are from the big four.

3. I thought you said "and then relegate another two at the end of 2016" not neccessarily the bottom two. Remember when catalans came in?

4. I didn't "create" the big four, they got on a plane went to Toulouse and decided to be favourable to Toulouses SL application. The other ten were not at the meetings.

5. Whats to make any SL club carry on competing in SL if they think they are lined up for the chop?

6. The question I posed was was O'Connor going to carry on his level of investment in Widnes because the piece did not say wether he would or would not. Wether he sits on the board or sits at home is a totally different thing.

Edited by The Parksider, 25 April 2013 - 01:43 PM.


#58 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:14 PM

1. The two you mention are from the big four.

3. I thought you said "and then relegate another two at the end of 2016" not neccessarily the bottom two. Remember when catalans came in?

4. I didn't "create" the big four, they got on a plane went to Toulouse and decided to be favourable to Toulouses SL application. The other ten were not at the meetings.

5. Whats to make any SL club carry on competing in SL if they think they are lined up for the chop?

6. The question I posed was was O'Connor going to carry on his level of investment in Widnes because the piece did not say wether he would or would not. Wether he sits on the board or sits at home is a totally different thing.

1 - yep, the other two of your big 4 haven;t said anything, does that mean they agree or disagree? How many of your 'other 10' agree or disagree. Who knows - it may be a big 8 pulling these strings.

 

3 - I did say relegate - I didn;t state they would be the bottom 2. I meant 'eject' 2 teams.

 

4 - The big 4 can't make any decisions themselves, they need a majority so will need some of the other 10 to go with them. That big 4 will need to become a big 8 (or whatever the protocol is) to drive change. I'm sure clubs or individuals are able to go and have a look and discuss what is happening over in France before deciding whether they want to support, or indeed drive forward plans for Toulouse - that's their prerogative and seems a fairly sensible approach, but they won't drive it through alone.

 

5 - I'm not sure clubs would cut off their nose to spite their face, but that would be their choice. This all depends on how the 10 will be decided, they may purely decide to do it based on the field and then have P&R. That may make it more palatable to be relegated in the first place.

 

6 - TBH I have no idea how much O'Connor has invested, or how much he plans to invest in future. Similarly I have no idea how much Moran invested or how much he plans to invest in future. I wouldn;t be surprised to hear that Moran is investing a lot less than O'Connor.

 

TBF I don't think there's much we disagree on with regards to the above.



#59 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 03:15 PM

I meant 'eject' 2 teams. The big 4 can't make any decisions themselves, they need a majority so will need some of the other 10 to go with them. That big 4 will need to become a big 8 (or whatever the protocol is) to drive change.

I'm not sure clubs would cut off their nose to spite their face, but that would be their choice. This all depends on how the 10 will be decided, they may purely decide to do it based on the field and then have P&R. That may make it more palatable to be relegated in the first place.

If the big players in SL want to go to 10 or 12 meaning more money all round who is going to say no when invited to side with them.

The reality is unfolding before our eyes as at least two club chairmen have decided that's it for them, (maybe a third) plus another looks like he's in schtuk as there's no central funding for him.

The ten almost pick themselves now for my money.

The licensing committee are due to sit to decide as we speak that's not changed.

Of course it could ALL change but to me there seems no sign of that. At the Mo it's pick 12 for 2015.

#60 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

1 - If the big players in SL want to go to 10 or 12 meaning more money all round who is going to say no when invited to side with them.

2 - The reality is unfolding before our eyes as at least two club chairmen have decided that's it for them, (maybe a third) plus another looks like he's in schtuk as there's no central funding for him.

3 - The ten almost pick themselves now for my money.

4 - The licensing committee are due to sit to decide as we speak that's not changed.

5 - Of course it could ALL change but to me there seems no sign of that. At the Mo it's pick 12 for 2015.

 

1 - there is the long term considerations though. The 'middle 6' let's call them could soon find themselves on the outer if Toulouse come into the mix etc. The big clubs don't always win the vote - Warrington and Saints didn;t get support over the DR thing, the big clubs couldn't get a Salary Cap increase a couple of years back - I don't think it will be that easy for them to get agreement.

 

2 - again, 2, 3 or 4 is a minority. They would lose a vote if they don't get others onside - see above.

 

3 - It'd be quite easy to go through and pick a top 10, but say Wakefield make that 10 for example - would they vote for it or would they see themselves 'shafted' in future and sign with the bottom 4?

 

4 - yep

 

5 - maybe, but that is guesswork - nothing tells us that is a fact. I don't disagree with your guesswork btw.