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
* * * * - 1 votes

Super League Restructure Discussion (Many Merged Threads)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
730 replies to this topic

#361 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,482 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:49 AM

As I understand it many kit deals involve no money but the club gets the replicas at X price and sell them for Y, which is where they make their money on it. Now if, by selling all SL clubs' kit deals to one supplier, you could get each club Z amount of money as well as the above then I don't see why Wigan, Leeds, etc would necessarily be forgoing any income.


Ok - so, at the moment, Wigan and Leeds (probably) earn more money from kit sales than other clubs.

On your plan - Wigan and Leeds (probably) will earn more money from kit sales than other clubs.

How is that different in principle ?
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#362 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,482 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:53 AM

parky you are talking drivel about widnes, steve o'connor has stood down as chairman to devote more time to his business but still remains the majority shareholder, we have another two investors who have come on board to take the club to a higher level. the new board members are both millionaire business men who have committed to invest in return for a stake in the club, so our board contains three millionaire business men and a council representative................hardly shoring things up is it??


My experience is that, eventually, everyone gets fed up of throwing money into a bottomless pit.

Rugby league clubs should not have a policy of staggering from one sugar-daddy to another.

Imho, if you need a millionaire businessman, you are shoring things up.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#363 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,866 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:24 AM

parky you are talking drivel about widnes, steve o'connor has stood down as chairman to devote more time to his business but still remains the majority shareholder, we have another two investors who have come on board to take the club to a higher level. the new board members are both millionaire business men who have committed to invest in return for a stake in the club, so our board contains three millionaire business men and a council representative................hardly shoring things up is it??

 

Well "If you say so". Trouble is what you say only indicates that Widnes MAY be in a position to invest as heavily as anyone else in players. Let's discuss the situation.

 

1. "O'Connor stood down and is devoting more time to his business but still remains the majority shareholder", All I can take from that is that O'Connor is taking less interest in Widnes. Nowhere in that phrase does it indicate he'll spend a penny more on players?

Why should I accept what you say given that?

 

2. Mr. O Connor was wanting I think 7,000 members and looking for an 8,000 crowd average to achieve his aim of the club being self sustaining as a business so he did not have to put money in. Widnes are nearly two years into Superleague. Last years crowds were a loss making 6,000 and this year crowds haven't done well despite the club succeeding more on the pitch.Can you blame me for wondering if your directors have the stomach to fund the losses and buy the big stars??

 

3. "The new board members are both millionaire business men who have committed to invest in return for a stake in the club, so our board contains three millionaire business men". Again please excuse me but that phrase does not contain any commitment  that these people will compete in the transfer market for top players. Your re-interpreting "having a stake in the club" and "being a millionaire" as proof that these people will spend heavily in the transfer market.

 

4. The player your new director funded was Danny Tickle. Danny is over 30 now and next year will be his 14th season in Superleague. Great respect to the lad but like Gareth Carvell going to Bradford, these are players on the way down their natural career path from the big clubs. It's a signing, but it isn't the sort of signings the big clubs are making or lining up. So again no proof anyone is splashing the cash at Widnes??



#364 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,866 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:35 AM

My experience is that, eventually, everyone gets fed up of throwing money into a bottomless pit.

Rugby league clubs should not have a policy of staggering from one sugar-daddy to another.

Imho, if you need a millionaire businessman, you are shoring things up.

 

Exactly.

 

In fact I do not ever remember Mr. O'Connor committing to run the Widnes club in this way. He very much put the focus on the fans to deliver the support to be a competitive Superleague club.

 

The best example of sugar daddy is Huddersfield where Ken Davey took over many seasons ago now. He's sought out the best coaches he can, he's sought out the best players he can sign - and some of the top ones did not want to go to Huddersfield, and he's marketed the club as best he can. By 2012 he had got gates up to 7700 and has had a couple of RL cup runners up honours.

 

Turning a club like Castleford, Bradford, Hull.K.R, Wakefield, Widnes, Salford Fartown or London into a competitive self sustaining SL business takes millions just to make up the operating losses, before you then have to compete with the big boys for the best talent.

 

This cannot be lost on smart businessmen and the best thing to do is to watch what they actually say and do. Koukash says he'll spend millions and proceeds to make big serious offers for players, and offer transfer fees. He's landed a quality young Australian on the way up the career ladder. He hasn't done enough to see off all the doubters, but he's said and done a lot more than Mr. O'Connor and his millionaire co-directors.Jury's out on them.


Edited by The Parksider, 27 June 2013 - 10:40 AM.


#365 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 11:14 AM

Ok - so, at the moment, Wigan and Leeds (probably) earn more money from kit sales than other clubs.

On your plan - Wigan and Leeds (probably) will earn more money from kit sales than other clubs.

How is that different in principle ?

I'm not suggesting all merchandising revenue is pooled and then split. Clearly, the big clubs wouldn't go for it

 

As it stands most clubs don't get paid a fee by the manufacturer, they get their kit and replicas at X price and sell it at Y. That's how they make their money on it. By selling the rights to all SL clubs in one contract we should (theoretically) be able to get a fixed sum in addition to the above. It becomes a sponsorship rather than simply a manufacturing contract.

 

For example, London currently buy their gear from MKK and then sell it on. With this scheme they'd get an upfront fee (the same as every other club), but then how much they make on top of that is down to how much they sell. So the big clubs wouldn't lose out because they'd still be selling as many shirts as the currently do, but the small clubs would gain from having the upfront fee which they currently miss out on.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#366 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,482 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 11:33 AM

I'm not suggesting all merchandising revenue is pooled and then split. Clearly, the big clubs wouldn't go for it


Then it's not communism. Communism is where Leeds share their 10000 kit sales with Sheffield and Sheffield share their 200 kit sales with Leeds.

Sure - a joint deal MAY gain a few quid. On the other hand, it may create fulfillment problems. It's not clearcut.

As I said - not in my lifetime.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#367 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:07 PM

Then it's not communism. Communism is where Leeds share their 10000 kit sales with Sheffield and Sheffield share their 200 kit sales with Leeds.

Sure - a joint deal MAY gain a few quid. On the other hand, it may create fulfillment problems. It's not clearcut.

As I said - not in my lifetime.

I never said it was communism, you did. I said there were ways we could increase revenue by acting as a group.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#368 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,482 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:01 PM

I never said it was communism, you did. I said there were ways we could increase revenue by acting as a group.


Then we're making different points.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#369 my missus

my missus
  • Coach
  • 4,769 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 06:19 PM

finally got around to sussing out how the NRL manage 16 teams in there league, after a quick check it looks like they play 6 teams once and nine teams twice and have two byes giving them 26 games a season.

and i ask why do we not do this, far better than all these confoluted schemes being put forward.


What does it mean
This tearjerking scene
Beamed into my home
That it moves me so much
Why all the fuss
It's only two humans being.


#370 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,866 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 06:23 PM

finally got around to sussing out how the NRL manage 16 teams in there league, after a quick check it looks like they play 6 teams once and nine teams twice and have two byes giving them 26 games a season.

and i ask why do we not do this, far better than all these confoluted schemes being put forward.

 

Probably because we can do the fixtures for 16 teams.

 

All we need is 16 teams that can compete.

 

That's what's missing.



#371 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 06:23 PM

finally got around to sussing out how the NRL manage 16 teams in there league, after a quick check it looks like they play 6 teams once and nine teams twice and have two byes giving them 26 games a season.
and i ask why do we not do this, far better than all these confoluted schemes being put forward.


Probably because the consensus with in SL is that the clubs want 14 home games. So SL has to work around this.

#372 robinson2

robinson2
  • Coach
  • 102 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 06:32 PM

finally got around to sussing out how the NRL manage 16 teams in there league, after a quick check it looks like they play 6 teams once and nine teams twice and have two byes giving them 26 games a season.

and i ask why do we not do this, far better than all these confoluted schemes being put forward.

The NRL can justify 16 teams because rugby league is numero uno in NSW and Queensland, indeed but for the Super League war we'd probably still have 20 teams. As a big fan of Belgian football, I can confidently say that the RFL are on to a real loser if they go down the route of a complicated, overelaborate structure, which will only serve to alienate fans, players and other stakeholders alike. The only advantage is that it might drive the curiosity of some people but I can't see that translating into more £££££, which is what the sport is crying out for.

The first question is to determine how many clubs of the requisite standard an elite competition can realistically support before we get to all the talk of 2x12, 3x10 etc. I'm sure there are plenty more qualified than me to say. It requires the sport to take some hard-headed decisions for the betterment of the game long-term and though I hope those at the top won't shy away from that, I wouldn't be holding my breath.



#373 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,866 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 06:41 PM

The first question is to determine how many clubs of the requisite standard an elite competition can realistically support

 

Mr. Caddick supports Leeds

Mr. Moran supports Wire

Mr. Lenegan supports Wigan

Mr. McManus supports Saints

Mr. Koukash supports Salford

Mr. Davey supports Fartown

Mr. Pearson supports Hull

and the Catalans have their own support system

 

Beyond that no other clubs have proven support of that magnitude.

 

An 8 team Superleague end of season comp and play off is now planned because those eight clubs are of a professional standard.

 

The rest do not have any proven financial support from their boards for sustaining professional RL.



#374 my missus

my missus
  • Coach
  • 4,769 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 09:49 PM

Probably because we can do the fixtures for 16 teams.

 

All we need is 16 teams that can compete.

 

That's what's missing.

i don't believe the aussies have 16 teams that can compete, some get battered nearly evey week the leveller in oz is Origin when its played poorer sides get a crack at weakend teams who are resting origin squad members.


What does it mean
This tearjerking scene
Beamed into my home
That it moves me so much
Why all the fuss
It's only two humans being.


#375 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,866 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 06:15 AM

i don't believe the aussies have 16 teams that can compete, some get battered nearly evey week the leveller in oz is Origin when its played poorer sides get a crack at weakend teams who are resting origin squad members.

 

Fair enough. They do however seem to financially sustain their league better than us through a higher level of fans, sponsorship, interest in the game and numbers of quality players.

 

I like the idea of 16 clubs because it roughly represent the number of independant clubs we have as championship clubs lose fans hand over fist and turn to being dependent on SL partners. 

 

But we would throw up many fixtures in which club "A" batters club "B" and yes it happens in Australia point taken. However the reaction of fans to being battered is best seen at London and Salford where crowds dropped to 2,000. At that level SL cannot be sustained without a rich man dishing out literally millions.

 

Again I have no knowledge of how Australian clubs sustain their finances to carry on in the NRL, but the financial difficulties at SL clubs are laid bare. Hudgell for instance says he puts in £500K a year, now he isn't doing that other clubs are picking his team apart big style. Bulls, Widnes, Wakefield and Cas equally have chairmen who confirm there'll be no money from them.

 

The only difference I know of is the Australians have a much bigger production line of players than us, and have added our best players to that. It's early days yet as HKR and Cas put in heroic displays, but as the best players left in the clubs weakened by financial collapse steadily leave for the bigger SL clubs one can only assume that once that process is complete, there are some regular top.v.bottom hammerings to come. Will these matter? As you say they don't seem to matter in Australia, and as others say clubs can get on a roll and hammer other clubs then it will be someone else's turn a week later.

 

For me clubs like Salford and London have had some sustained batterings and have no chance on the resultant 2,000 crowds. Halifax's batterings in one season led to 2,000 crowds in 2003. What would Featherstones crowds be if they lost regularly?

 

The difference between SL and NRL seems to be resources, I'd guess at their bottom end they have more fans, quality players and financial support than the bottom end of SL. That is borne out by SL clubs agreeing 14 clubs cannot be sustained. Whether a 12 club league can I dunno, but they don't seem to want to take the risk without the plan of taking out the bottom four clubs late in the season every year and giving them easier fixtures and something to win. That smacks of being afraid for our smaller SL clubs.....


Edited by The Parksider, 01 July 2013 - 06:18 AM.


#376 colin84hunter

colin84hunter
  • Players
  • 47 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 07:03 AM

There doesnt need to be big changes. So if we do end up with a straight two leagues of 12 with p&r, but not having the 3x8 split (like my proposed 2015 fixture list somewhere in this thread). Then there will be 23 fixtures (with magic) before play off which frees up a couple of game weeks. I think we should have a proper 9's tournament over 2 weeks, 4 groups of 6/8 (1 set of fixtures played at a stadium in Lancashire, Yorkshire, London and Cumbria), top two in each league through to the final

#377 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 09:48 AM

There doesnt need to be big changes. So if we do end up with a straight two leagues of 12 with p&r, but not having the 3x8 split (like my proposed 2015 fixture list somewhere in this thread). Then there will be 23 fixtures (with magic) before play off which frees up a couple of game weeks. I think we should have a proper 9's tournament over 2 weeks, 4 groups of 6/8 (1 set of fixtures played at a stadium in Lancashire, Yorkshire, London and Cumbria), top two in each league through to the final

I think we should give the players a few extra weeks off instead of working them into submission.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#378 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,482 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:23 PM

I think we should have a proper 9's tournament over 2 weeks, 4 groups of 6/8 (1 set of fixtures played at a stadium in Lancashire, Yorkshire, London and Cumbria), top two in each league through to the final


Have these ever been huge crowdpullers ?
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#379 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,482 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:24 PM

Interesting to see it reported today that there's still no real consensus of opinion amongst those with actual votes.

Bit like this forum really ........
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#380 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,866 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:50 PM

1. There doesnt need to be big changes.

2. So if we do end up with a straight two leagues of 12 with p&r, but not having the 3x8 split (like my proposed 2015 fixture list somewhere in this thread). Then there will be 23 fixtures (with magic) before play off which frees up a couple of game weeks.


1. But there are big changes proposed by people who know what the finances are and what effect the changes will have on clubs. We know eight clubs are well in front of the rest because they have the rich men in charge all putting in.

Superleague itself says there's not enough money for 14 clubs, but going to 12 could badly knock back the two clubs who get relegated, in addition it will knock back the only clubs left who can be serious about an SL application albeit there's no proof either Fax or Fev have the money to compete either.

The Championship isn't a place you rebuild for Superleague if you have no money, it's a place that leads to falling crowds and fortunes if nobody rich comes to the rescue.

How four remaining clubs without much money will go in a 12 club SL we don't know but we do see the big eight picking off any players they want off those clubs who don't have a chairman with the money to resist matters.

2. The fixture formulae is fine, as is the idea of 2x12 with P & R, but with the deepest of respect this is just re-arranging the deckchairs, and I truly think the restructure isn't based on going back to P & R again because it's exciting and vibrant and the fans will flock to it. It's based on the financial state of the clubs.

We have changed fixture formats for decades now and each change leads to more and more alienation of clubs at the top from those below them. In 1996 our Elite was a 16 club Fist division. Now the first point of dividing the clubs is proposed to be at club number 8.

Is this because finances are at breaking point or is it because it will simply stimulate crowds into rising which is what the P & R tells us.

Edited by The Parksider, 01 July 2013 - 12:52 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users