Jump to content


RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE (ISSUE 397 - MAY 2014): Available to download now. Get the app from Apple Newsstand or GooglePlay, or click here to read it online now at Pocketmags.com - Print edition in shops from Friday, or click here to get it delivered by post in the UK or worldwide.

Rugby League World - April 2014
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

#81 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:28 AM

Which "Two SL leagues" are these??. The discussion on SKY the other day was about dropping the size of the one SL league so the remaining clubs had more money?

IF

#82 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,363 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 12:50 PM

IF

I understand if but it's a very big if based on nothing much. Sorry about that but IMHO for reasons previously stated, what was said on TV dispelled any idea of any money for an SL2...

Edited by The Parksider, 26 April 2013 - 01:27 PM.


#83 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 13,528 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 02:07 PM

I understand if but it's a very big if based on nothing much. Sorry about that but IMHO for reasons previously stated, what was said on TV dispelled any idea of any money for an SL2...

It was only said by journos who haven't actually printed much about it. 

 

Are journos always correct?



#84 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,157 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 02:18 PM

Yeah in sure the sub-4k crowds at the past two Cas Sky games are preferred over Wigan's 13-15k crowds, as well as Rovers' two empty ends at their ground...

 

Won't be empty for much longer when that new stand opens.



#85 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,157 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 02:53 PM

Doable if the top ten SL club chairmen all stand down and new rich chairmen come in in a spirit of philanthropy and goodwill to their neighbours.

Is that likely??

 

 

Probably not because of myopic self interest. If they had a broader vision than MY  TEAM RLFC then they would see that a wider spread of clubs over a wider area all being solid on a smaller operating budget would be better than a reduced rump competition which, due to two French Clubs, would lead to a general reduction in gates, even more so if London were retained.

 

They should examine the workings of the NFL and even the NRL whereby expansion is not shunned, reducing numbers is not now the policy and sharing revenues for the greater good leads to more prosperity for all..

 

However, as you rightly say, don't hold ypur breath



#86 FaxMachine

FaxMachine
  • Coach
  • 356 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 03:12 PM

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.....

It's taken a few years but I would say that Halifax are in a better financial position than they have been in for many, many years. They have been in profit for several consecutive years now.

Let me remind you that Halifax bit the bullet and unloaded all their best players prior to their last season in SL to reduce the historical debt they had been carrying for several years unlike a certain SL team last year who flatly refused to release a single player.

#87 Spidey

Spidey
  • Coach
  • 410 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 03:20 PM

It's taken a few years but I would say that Halifax are in a better financial position than they have been in for many, many years. They have been in profit for several consecutive years now.

Let me remind you that Halifax bit the bullet and unloaded all their best players prior to their last season in SL to reduce the historical debt they had been carrying for several years unlike a certain SL team last year who flatly refused to release a single player.

 

Halifax did everything the correct way (morally speaking) and paid the price, and like you said a certain other club refused to even attempt to pay off thier debts even with large sums being offered their way for their players



#88 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,422 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 04:12 AM

Probably not because of myopic self interest. If they had a broader vision than MY  TEAM RLFC then they would see that a wider spread of clubs over a wider area all being solid on a smaller operating budget would be better than a reduced rump competition which, due to two French Clubs, would lead to a general reduction in gates, even more so if London were retained.

 

They should examine the workings of the NFL and even the NRL whereby expansion is not shunned, reducing numbers is not now the policy and sharing revenues for the greater good leads to more prosperity for all..

 

However, as you rightly say, don't hold ypur breath

 

The NFL would not expand by introducing new clubs into an area already well served by member clubs. The NRL does seem to be shunning expansion at the moment. As for sharing revenues, as I believe the NFL does, that idea may have some merit, especially to help new clubs in expansion areas establish themselves in Super League. If NFL-like revenue sharing was introduced, though, it would surely be restricted to the Super League competition. 


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#89 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,363 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 11:09 AM

It was only said by journos who haven't actually printed much about it. 
 
Are journos always correct?

Are such issues always a 50/50 shout?

In light of SKY not even being involved in the issue, in light of what was said, in light of SKY's aversion to paying for a second tier and in light of this probably meaning the top clubs would get less money, do you think this is a 50/50 shout?

#90 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,363 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 11:13 AM

Probably not because of myopic self interest.
 
However, as you rightly say, don't hold your breath

Glad we agree. Hudgell found out by joining them what the score was, I'm pleased he at least has been open and honest with the fans.......

#91 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,363 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 11:19 AM

1. It's taken a few years but I would say that Halifax are in a better financial position than they have been in for many, many years. They have been in profit for several consecutive years now.

2. Let me remind you that Halifax bit the bullet and unloaded all their best players prior to their last season in SL to reduce the historical debt they had been carrying for several years unlike a certain SL team last year who flatly refused to release a single player.

1. IIRC they turned a £30K profit recently on a what? £900K turnover?. That leaves them £millions short of the money needed to be a Super League club. Just how it is - not having a go at a fine club.

2. That certain team was IMHO being pressurised by the RFL (who sorted the ground out) and Superleague (who would have bought Bradford and I think encouraged the embargo on signing their players).

No point having a go at Bradford clearly the RFL/SL were behind their rehabilitation because had Bradford gone there but for the grace of god would go the other top clubs above Mr. Hudgells "glass ceiling".

You can learn a lot when men in top positions in the game are open and honest....

Edited by The Parksider, 27 April 2013 - 11:21 AM.


#92 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,154 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 11:23 AM

If French TV money is dependent on two French clubs, can't they just give the FFR13 two franchises for SL and just do P&R between the RFL clubs?
Posted Image

#93 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 13,528 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 12:48 PM

Are such issues always a 50/50 shout?

In light of SKY not even being involved in the issue, in light of what was said, in light of SKY's aversion to paying for a second tier and in light of this probably meaning the top clubs would get less money, do you think this is a 50/50 shout?

I haven't got a clue what you are saying.



#94 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,363 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 03:04 PM

I haven't got a clue what you are saying.

That there's nothing to indicate any funding for an SL2 and everything to indicate SL will continue to want all the SKY money.

#95 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,204 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 03:29 PM

Extra funding is not needed from Sky, the deal will allow a SL2 and SL1 will remain on the sky revenue they currently get. It simply needs Sky to support the concept.

Increased income streams must come from within, a better product to sell for SL1 should improve income through the gate and from sponsorship. A SL2 will reduce income for 4 clubs whilst increasing it for 6, it can be argued that the costs will drop far greater than income for those 4 though.

If this structure works then it increases the player pool both in France and here, and creates a FT level for PT clubs to aspire to and build from.

What we have isn't working for both the top SL clubs and the ambitious PT clubs



#96 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,157 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 04:48 PM

The NFL would not expand by introducing new clubs into an area already well served by member clubs. The NRL does seem to be shunning expansion at the moment. As for sharing revenues, as I believe the NFL does, that idea may have some merit, especially to help new clubs in expansion areas establish themselves in Super League. If NFL-like revenue sharing was introduced, though, it would surely be restricted to the Super League competition. 

 

At one time they did not introduce new clubs and that led to a rival league the AFL which promptly went into competition with in their own back yards. The New York Jets are a remnant of that struggle. Eventually the NFL and the AFL merged to become the present fay behemoth. The MBA and ABA did the same thing.

 

The RFL are not about to introduce new clubs into SL areas. Any clubs in the heartlands are already existing clubs who were on the wrong side of history at the start of SL. There are also plenty of virgin RL areas in the UK for the establishment of new teams with a view to eventual SL membership but the ring fencing, numbers reducing , regressionist policies  currently being propogated will put a nix on any such exspansionary visions. No pie for anyone not at the high table.



#97 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,422 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:41 PM

Extra funding is not needed from Sky, the deal will allow a SL2 and SL1 will remain on the sky revenue they currently get. It simply needs Sky to support the concept.

Increased income streams must come from within, a better product to sell for SL1 should improve income through the gate and from sponsorship. A SL2 will reduce income for 4 clubs whilst increasing it for 6, it can be argued that the costs will drop far greater than income for those 4 though.

If this structure works then it increases the player pool both in France and here, and creates a FT level for PT clubs to aspire to and build from.

What we have isn't working for both the top SL clubs and the ambitious PT clubs


But the stronger clubs, those that are certain to be in a revised Super League, want increased revenues - including those from the Sky contracts. It is not at all clear why they would want to sacrifice some of their potential income so that a part-time second tier can become full-time.


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#98 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,422 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:55 PM

At one time they did not introduce new clubs and that led to a rival league the AFL which promptly went into competition with in their own back yards. The New York Jets are a remnant of that struggle. Eventually the NFL and the AFL merged to become the present fay behemoth. The MBA and ABA did the same thing.

 

The RFL are not about to introduce new clubs into SL areas. Any clubs in the heartlands are already existing clubs who were on the wrong side of history at the start of SL. There are also plenty of virgin RL areas in the UK for the establishment of new teams with a view to eventual SL membership but the ring fencing, numbers reducing , regressionist policies  currently being propogated will put a nix on any such exspansionary visions. No pie for anyone not at the high table.

 

"The RFL are not about to introduce new clubs into SL areas."

But by introducing a second tier to the competition, that is exactly what Super League would be doing. Not that it would do such a thing, but could you imagine the NRL introducing a second tier, made up of Sydney clubs, and then re-directing funding from existing NRL clubs to this second-tier?


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#99 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,617 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 08:47 PM

Probably not because of myopic self interest. If they had a broader vision than MY  TEAM RLFC then they would see that a wider spread of clubs over a wider area all being solid on a smaller operating budget would be better than a reduced rump competition which, due to two French Clubs, would lead to a general reduction in gates, even more so if London were retained.

 

They should examine the workings of the NFL and even the NRL whereby expansion is not shunned, reducing numbers is not now the policy and sharing revenues for the greater good leads to more prosperity for all..

 

However, as you rightly say, don't hold ypur breath

Your club is as myopic as any other,  when they were throwing £thousands at buying promotion, how many £thousands did they throw to other clubs to help them join your three wheeled bandwagon.

 

The Cougars are as mercenary as all other clubs, sod off with your holey than thou  claptrap.


Edited by Padge, 27 April 2013 - 08:48 PM.


Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

Footballers spend 90 minutes pretending to be hurt, rugby players spend 80 minutes pretending they haven't been hurt.


#100 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,157 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 11:59 PM

1. IIRC they turned a £30K profit recently on a what? £900K turnover?. That leaves them £millions short of the money needed to be a Super League club. Just how it is - not having a go at a fine club.

2. That certain team was IMHO being pressurised by the RFL (who sorted the ground out) and Superleague (who would have bought Bradford and I think encouraged the embargo on signing their players).

No point having a go at Bradford clearly the RFL/SL were behind their rehabilitation because had Bradford gone there but for the grace of god would go the other top clubs above Mr. Hudgells "glass ceiling".

You can learn a lot when men in top positions in the game are open and honest....

 

 Re point one,obviously if they were in SL they would have a million plus to add to those figures so their turnover would be in the 2 million range, so not as bad as you are making out.

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users