Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
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
- - - - -

Broncos


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#101 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,195 posts

Posted 20 July 2013 - 06:38 PM

Completely agree with all of your examples here - arguably none of them are fair. But providing other examples of unfair treatment doesn't justify a lack of London weighting.

 

And they were more competitive then. Given that in recent years they have had to compete on probably around 50-70% of the money afforded to other clubs (relatively speaking, due to London living costs), you could argue that this dispensation could have continued (however, due to the exchange rate now they wouldn't be able to get the same quality of Aussie that they managed a few years back, so they issue is probably redundant).

 

At the time I felt that Keighley had been dealt with very unfairly as the goal posts moved mid-season.

 

Unfortunately, I think that the artificial catapulting of London into SL, and the exemption from the overseas quota is probably as much has been done to give the pro game a leg up in London. To properly break in to the London market it would need millions more injecting into it.

 

You can't beg for money because of London being expesnive to live in on one hand and then ask for he right to bring unlimited numbers of antipodeans to the UK at great expense to live in the same uber expensive  city, namely London.

 

Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too.



#102 snoopy

snoopy
  • Coach
  • 65 posts

Posted 20 July 2013 - 07:08 PM

You can't beg for money because of London being expesnive to live in on one hand and then ask for he right to bring unlimited numbers of antipodeans to the UK at great expense to live in the same uber expensive  city, namely London.

 

Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too.

No wonder RL is going backwards. RU has advanced miles ahead of us on all fronts since turning professional because they realise that the good of the game is their first priority. They are highly proactive at expanding the game to other countries because it expands the global brand and the money rolls in as a result. Do you think they will allow Argentina or Italy to fail? Even in the NRL they have a SC but have no issues  ensuring expansion clubs have extra funds to operate on a level playing field because its in the games interest. The larger it is spread around Australia and NZ the more it helps the TV deals.

RL is going backwards because of all this parochialism and will soon be part time again much to the delight of many posters on here and their little clubs.

RIP



#103 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 20 July 2013 - 07:20 PM

An alternative view is that the NRL and RU have the funds to invest and we don't.



#104 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,942 posts

Posted 20 July 2013 - 07:30 PM

RU has advanced miles ahead of us on all fronts since turning professional because they realise that the good of the game is their first priority.

 

They didn't have a head start on us, they started Pro Rugby already miles in front.



#105 RugbyLeagueGeek

RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Coach
  • 629 posts

Posted 20 July 2013 - 10:32 PM

You can't beg for money because of London being expesnive to live in on one hand and then ask for he right to bring unlimited numbers of antipodeans to the UK at great expense to live in the same uber expensive  city, namely London.

 

Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too.

Equally it could be argued that your statements about London having received extra help from the RFL and examples of Wakefield and Bradford having been unfairly treated due to lack of SKY money could also be construed as wanting your cake and eating it, given that London have been receiving relatively less SKY money than the northern clubs throughout Super League...

 

For the record I'm not a London fan. I just think that the pro game in the capital has never been properly financed by the sport in order for it to succeed.


Edited by RugbyLeagueGeek, 20 July 2013 - 10:41 PM.


#106 RugbyLeagueGeek

RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Coach
  • 629 posts

Posted 20 July 2013 - 11:04 PM

You can't beg for money because of London being expesnive to live in on one hand and then ask for he right to bring unlimited numbers of antipodeans to the UK at great expense to live in the same uber expensive  city, namely London.

In point of fact I wasn't suggesting that London should have both - I was merely pointing out that if they weren't given a higher salary cap and greater share of SKY money, then the overseas player dispensation could have been one way to help level the playing field. But given the current exchange rate and the NRL salary cap, this probably wouldn't help anyway.

 

Out of interest, would you be happy with London receiving a salary cap and SKY money in proportion to the cost of living, in order to level the playing field?



#107 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,195 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 02:06 AM

In point of fact I wasn't suggesting that London should have both - I was merely pointing out that if they weren't given a higher salary cap and greater share of SKY money, then the overseas player dispensation could have been one way to help level the playing field. But given the current exchange rate and the NRL salary cap, this probably wouldn't help anyway.

 

Out of interest, would you be happy with London receiving a salary cap and SKY money in proportion to the cost of living, in order to level the playing field?

 

Do you think the ramshackle operation that is the London Broncos give good value for the money they receive from Sky at present? . Do you think for instance that a game at the Stoop before 1800 fans and with the home team capitulating and losing by a half century of points and drawing a very small TV viewing audience gives the same value to Sky that a Wigan v Saints or Hull v Hull KR before 20,000 crowds in a close game, does ?

 

Far from getting extra money, I think London are lucky they are not docked Sky money for non performance. This is not an isolated one off situation either. This has been going on for years.

 

I know of no precedents for the RFL giving extra money to teams for any reasons. Do Catalans get extra money for all the extra travel ? Do Castleford get extra money because they are operating in a high unemployment area limiting the amounts their fans can afford to spend to follow the team ? Did the late lamented Crusaders get extra money for establishing the game in Wales, a desired goal of the game for over a century?

 

If we start giving exemptions here there and everywhere, the well will soon run dry. London knew he cost of operating in the capital from the beginning. if the club didn't plan it's finances accordingly then they shouldn't be operating at all.

 

I presume London Skolars players have to live in London on lesser wages than the Broncos. How do they manage it ?

 

I don't think the Broncos are so important to the game that they should get preferential treatment. If they need extra money to operate in the London environment then London is certainly the place for them to go out and find it, financial capital of the world and all that.



#108 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,942 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 07:46 AM

For the record I'm not a London fan. I just think that the pro game in the capital has never been properly financed by the sport in order for it to succeed.

 

No club outside the heartlands of Northern England or Southern France has ever been properly financed for it to "succeed" enough to draw crowds that sustain the club as a competitive professional outfit. Leeds, Wigan, Hull may be there, Saints Wire and Catalans following but after that every club, London or not, has a financial gap between the cost of full salary cap and full professional set up, and the business revenue.

 

Famous old clubs like Bradford, Huddersfield, Wakefield and HKR have laid bare their problems in this area. They all need at least half a million to a million a year subsidy to operate properly in SL and grow their businesses rather than "get by".

 

Where there's little culture of RL and rugby union already takes most of the resources you need a couple of £Milion a year to make up the shortfall wether Newcastle, Paris, London Sheffield or South wales. Where your in a small RL town surrounded by bigger clubs an your squeezed on resources clearly it will take a couple of £Million a year there whether Leigh, Keighley, Rochdale, York or Batley.

 

A "London weighting" subsidy doesn't look like it will do anything for London just like £1.2M a year from SKY is unlikely to do much on it's own for Leigh, Featherstone or Halifax, as it didn't at Salford, Cas etc. If we are being fair we can't single out one club for "criticism" when there are a shedload of clubs in the same boat.



#109 westlondonfan

westlondonfan
  • Coach
  • 477 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 07:50 AM

Do you think the ramshackle operation that is the London Broncos give good value for the money they receive from Sky at present? . Do you think for instance that a game at the Stoop before 1800 fans and with the home team capitulating and losing by a half century of points and drawing a very small TV viewing audience gives the same value to Sky that a Wigan v Saints or Hull v Hull KR before 20,000 crowds in a close game, does ?
 
Far from getting extra money, I think London are lucky they are not docked Sky money for non performance. This is not an isolated one off situation either. This has been going on for years.
 
I know of no precedents for the RFL giving extra money to teams for any reasons. Do Catalans get extra money for all the extra travel ? Do Castleford get extra money because they are operating in a high unemployment area limiting the amounts their fans can afford to spend to follow the team ? Did the late lamented Crusaders get extra money for establishing the game in Wales, a desired goal of the game for over a century?
 
If we start giving exemptions here there and everywhere, the well will soon run dry. London knew he cost of operating in the capital from the beginning. if the club didn't plan it's finances accordingly then they shouldn't be operating at all.
 
I presume London Skolars players have to live in London on lesser wages than the Broncos. How do they manage it ?
 
I don't think the Broncos are so important to the game that they should get preferential treatment. If they need extra money to operate in the London environment then London is certainly the place for them to go out and find it, financial capital of the world and all that.

London have got more than 1800 on many occasions. The big clubs don"t get 20,00 that often. The Wigan-Widnes 'quarter-final was nowhere near that. (Two clubs with a great cup rivalry).
In regard to crusaders not getting special help to establish rugby league in Wales in my view they could have received special help for that very purpose. Isn't that exactly what Australian league did in Melbourne?
Surely most of the Skolars players have other incomes?
Don"t keep picking on London! To my mind London's biggest problem in the short term is that they are at the foot of table and they virtually never win at home.

#110 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 08:01 AM

To my mind London's biggest problem in the short term is that they are at the foot of table and they virtually never win at home.


Bingo! So what happens when you get beaten to a pulp every week in front of a man and a dog?

#111 westlondonfan

westlondonfan
  • Coach
  • 477 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 08:28 AM

Bingo! So what happens when you get beaten to a pulp every week in front of a man and a dog?

Well there are at least two options.
One, is to call it a day. Another is to do things differently .

#112 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 09:33 AM

Well there are at least two options.
One, is to call it a day. Another is to do things differently .

Totally agree. To continue to support the Broncos the same way year on year and expect different results is......madness.

I know I'm repeating myself here but the promotion of rugby league in London is a separate issue from the plight of the Broncos. In fact it's too big a burden

Promotion of RL in London is an RFL problem. By staging the big events in London the RFL can promote the wider game. The Broncos can then get on with building their own identity without the constant reminder they're not doing a good enough job on the London psyche.

If the sport isn't serious about London then don't bother, just let the Broncos do they're own thing for they're own benefits wherever they sit.

#113 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,195 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 07:18 PM

London have got more than 1800 on many occasions. The big clubs don"t get 20,00 that often. The Wigan-Widnes 'quarter-final was nowhere near that. (Two clubs with a great cup rivalry).
In regard to crusaders not getting special help to establish rugby league in Wales in my view they could have received special help for that very purpose. Isn't that exactly what Australian league did in Melbourne?
Surely most of the Skolars players have other incomes?
Don"t keep picking on London! To my mind London's biggest problem in the short term is that they are at the foot of table and they virtually never win at home.

 

I think Melbourne were financed directly by Fox sports or some Murdoch venture, nit the NRL. Now if Sky want to up the ante and cough up extra money to promote the Broncos or Crusaders or any club, then I support it wholeheartedly but if the Broncos get extra money from the existing Sky contract thereby cutting much needed money from Cas, Hull KR, then it,s an unfair burden on the needy clubs not in London. 

I would bet that the average Skolars player, Rl wage plus second job wage, does not get the salary of the Broncos SL players. The SL players should just suck it up and make the best of it.

 

I agree that success breeds success but when the Broncos had, bad management managed to negate any positives.


 




 


 

 

 

 


 



#114 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,904 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 08:37 AM

I think Melbourne were financed directly by Fox sports or some Murdoch venture, nit the NRL. Now if Sky want to up the ante and cough up extra money to promote the Broncos or Crusaders or any club, then I support it wholeheartedly but if the Broncos get extra money from the existing Sky contract thereby cutting much needed money from Cas, Hull KR, then it,s an unfair burden on the needy clubs not in London. 

I would bet that the average Skolars player, Rl wage plus second job wage, does not get the salary of the Broncos SL players. The SL players should just suck it up and make the best of it.

 

I agree that success breeds success but when the Broncos had, bad management managed to negate any positives.


 



 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you'll find the Storm get an extra allocation of central funding from the NRL. Something like $4.5million a year.


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

#115 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 08:56 AM

I think Melbourne were financed directly by Fox sports or some Murdoch venture, nit the NRL. Now if Sky want to up the ante and cough up extra money to promote the Broncos or Crusaders or any club, then I support it wholeheartedly


Just to be clear, are you saying you would be happy if Sky bought Super League and could decide which teams were in it?

Because that was the situation with Melbourne. News Limited created Super League and created the Storm to play in it. Following the merger with the ARL, News Limited continued to co-own the competition and so retained a vested interest in its success and expansion, losses at the Storm would be offset by profits in other parts of their business. Following the ARLC taking over the running of the NRL it no longer made any sense for them to finance the Storm, hence them selling the club.

If BSkyB were to finance a club they not gain the same benefit without share of league profits. While success could lead to increased subscriber numbers, those would be offset by increased rights costs as well as the risk of losing the sport to a rival broadcaster.

Also in 1999 BSkyB tired to takeover Manchester United but it was blocked by the government for being anticompetitive, this lead to NTL abandoning their plans to takeover Newcastle United. While rugby league is considerably smaller than the Premier League, the same arguments could be made, that a broadcaster owning a sports club would distort the market for sports rights. If so an attempt by BSkyB to own the Broncos or Crusaders could be similarly blocked anyway.

#116 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,195 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 04:15 AM

Just to be clear, are you saying you would be happy if Sky bought Super League and could decide which teams were in it?

Because that was the situation with Melbourne. News Limited created Super League and created the Storm to play in it. Following the merger with the ARL, News Limited continued to co-own the competition and so retained a vested interest in its success and expansion, losses at the Storm would be offset by profits in other parts of their business. Following the ARLC taking over the running of the NRL it no longer made any sense for them to finance the Storm, hence them selling the club.

If BSkyB were to finance a club they not gain the same benefit without share of league profits. While success could lead to increased subscriber numbers, those would be offset by increased rights costs as well as the risk of losing the sport to a rival broadcaster.

Also in 1999 BSkyB tired to takeover Manchester United but it was blocked by the government for being anticompetitive, this lead to NTL abandoning their plans to takeover Newcastle United. While rugby league is considerably smaller than the Premier League, the same arguments could be made, that a broadcaster owning a sports club would distort the market for sports rights. If so an attempt by BSkyB to own the Broncos or Crusaders could be similarly blocked anyway.

 

Well then,if it's not profitable and not legal then it won't happen. This being the case, I revert to my original position. London need to accept the realities of their market and operate within those parameters. They should not be getting a bigger share of the pie with the consequent lesser share of the pie to others so putting their continued existence at risk.

 

London are important to RL but not that important. The continued expansion at amateur level if, possible, in London, isway more important to the game as a whole than subsidising the Broncos.             



#117 RugbyLeagueGeek

RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Coach
  • 629 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:24 PM

London need to accept the realities of their market and operate within those parameters. They should not be getting a bigger share of the pie with the consequent lesser share of the pie to others so putting their continued existence at risk.

     

But providing London with a relatively smaller share than these other clubs has arguably put the Broncos' existence at risk... (given the cost of living and associated problems stated previously)

 

London are important to RL but not that important. The continued expansion at amateur level if, possible, in London, isway more important to the game as a whole than subsidising the Broncos.             

I apologise for continually going back to the same point, as I do share some agreement with your view that not everything in terms of the Broncos' management etc is necessarily rosey, and they possibly aren't the solution to the future of the pro game in London. However, any other future pro club in London would need a more favourable weighting of SKY money in order for them to start on a level footing with northern clubs. Otherwise it's essentially getting London to compete with one hand tied behind their back, and then slagging them off when they don't make a success of it.



#118 westlondonfan

westlondonfan
  • Coach
  • 477 posts

Posted 24 July 2013 - 09:16 PM

The point I think that must be made about London is that it has not been a complete failure. London Broncos have problems but so do a lot of clubs. It was not that long ago that all the talk was,was that there were no players from London. That has all changed. It was also great to see Louie McCarthy-Scarebrook get the Man of the match in a really tight derby match for StHelens against Wigan. ( I have to say that that was the best match of the season so far for me).
There attendances could be better but that also applies to Huddersfield and Sheffield.
Don't give up on London because there are some real 'fans for life' of rugby league down here!

#119 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 24 July 2013 - 11:56 PM

The point I think that must be made about London is that it has not been a complete failure. London Broncos have problems but so do a lot of clubs. It was not that long ago that all the talk was,was that there were no players from London. That has all changed. It was also great to see Louie McCarthy-Scarebrook get the Man of the match in a really tight derby match for StHelens against Wigan. ( I have to say that that was the best match of the season so far for me).
There attendances could be better but that also applies to Huddersfield and Sheffield.
Don't give up on London because there are some real 'fans for life' of rugby league down here!

Other clubs have problems but few go quite as deep.

 

Huddersfield need more fans but they are doing more than okay with what they have. Sheffield need more but they are a CC club.

 

It's not RL giving up on London, it looks like their backer will, with no alternative on the horizon either.



#120 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 24 July 2013 - 11:59 PM

But providing London with a relatively smaller share than these other clubs has arguably put the Broncos' existence at risk... (given the cost of living and associated problems stated previously)

 

I apologise for continually going back to the same point, as I do share some agreement with your view that not everything in terms of the Broncos' management etc is necessarily rosey, and they possibly aren't the solution to the future of the pro game in London. However, any other future pro club in London would need a more favourable weighting of SKY money in order for them to start on a level footing with northern clubs. Otherwise it's essentially getting London to compete with one hand tied behind their back, and then slagging them off when they don't make a success of it.

To be pedantic. London has the same share as every other club so it's not "relatively smaller". It is true that money doesn't go as far in London but that doesn't mean that they are getting less cash than other clubs.

 

It's a point-of-view that this means that they should have more TV money. You could argue that although this is worth less to them, they have the advantage of being in the biggest city in Europe and having some of the richest people in the world on their doorstep. Their failure to capitalise doesn't prove that this advantage doesn't exist.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users