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
- - - - -

Will the Broncos be swallowed up by the Championship?


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

#141 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 08:07 AM

Maybe the two parties had different opinions wrt HOW artificially inflated the first contract had been. SL felt like they had delivered the goods and so justified a higher (or a less deflated) price. Sky knew that they didn't have any serious competition for the contract and so could low ball - or were willing to gamble on that. Given the relative success of the London Broncos in the first contract, that seems a more realistic scenario than that sky offered less because SL wouldn't give London >1/12 of the contract money that was going to the clubs.

 

What has my club got to do with this?



#142 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,328 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 08:20 AM

Maybe.....

 

What has my club got to do with this?

 

Maybe indeed but don't reposition my point to enable yourself to counter it.

 

The whole package of failing to produce bigger and better resourced clubs and failing to expand the game whether in the north east, wales or London is the point.

 

The contract wasn't what RFL hoped for and the question is what set up would maximise the SKY contract because I don't think an M62 league mirroring 1995 will do that do you?

 

Your club allegiance may just be in line with that of other posters who argue like you. Oddly they all support clubs shut out of SL. You may be different.



#143 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 08:46 AM

I haven't repositioned your point.

 

The point I was talking about was your comment that the sky contract was likely to be lower because london (or crusaders) didn't get the extra support they need to succeed.

 

I can assure you that my team was not shut out of SL.



#144 Chronicler of Chiswick

Chronicler of Chiswick
  • Coach
  • 2,525 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 09:11 AM

Cool story bro.......where's the bit about the law suit? Engaging a lawyer isn't a lawsuit BTW.....did they file papers? If so, there will be a record of it!
Widnes did........keighley didn't get that far.

As for the money wasted on London.....if sky hadn't stepped in what state do you think the English game would be in now?

In his 'autobiography', Ken Arthurson (who was the CEO of the ARL, as it was at the time) wrote that he asked Maurice Lindsay why he'd taken the Murdoch money and was told that it was because we were effectively bust. If I remember correctly it was reported that only two clubs at the time weren't technically trading illegally (whatever that means). So without Sky, although RL would still be around it could well now be at the level of shinty in Scotland.



#145 gutterfax

gutterfax
  • Coach
  • 248 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 09:25 AM

So without Sky, although RL would still be around it could well now be at the level of shinty in Scotland.

Spot on.

#146 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,505 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 10:30 AM

In his 'autobiography', Ken Arthurson (who was the CEO of the ARL, as it was at the time) wrote that he asked Maurice Lindsay why he'd taken the Murdoch money and was told that it was because we were effectively bust. If I remember correctly it was reported that only two clubs at the time weren't technically trading illegally (whatever that means). So without Sky, although RL would still be around it could well now be at the level of shinty in Scotland.



Yes
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#147 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,328 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 11:03 AM

I haven't repositioned your point.

 

The point I was talking about was your comment that the sky contract was likely to be lower because london (or crusaders) didn't get the extra support they need to succeed.

 

So you left out the massive over riding point in the very same sentence I made that every proposed merger in the SL plans failed, all six of them regionalising new and bigger combined clubs..

 

Repositioned indeed. Petty point to me. 



#148 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 12:49 PM

Well isn't that interesting.

 

There's only so far a sport can be pushed into anything, and only so far a broadcaster will go. The more you deliver the broadcaster the more the broadcaster can deliver the funds.

 

I'd guess with the push against mergers and the denial of London Broncos (or Crusaders come to that) the extra support they needed to succeed, the game has in turn had to take less SKY money.

 

Still, the games leaders have saved themselves the bother of modernising and taking the sport forward.

 

 

So you left out the massive over riding point in the very same sentence I made that every proposed merger in the SL plans failed, all six of them regionalising new and bigger combined clubs..

 

Repositioned indeed. Petty point to me. 

 

I must admit, it didn't read to me that the mergers were the over-riding point. So then the mergers (or lack thereof) had a much greater impact on the sky contract than London? Is there any evidence of that?

 

But even if so, and the argument is re-repositioned that the mergers were really the limiting factor, I think the argument regarding the artificially inflated price of the first contract holds true.



#149 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,537 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:02 PM

How could he have been less wrong?

 

The investment to make such an idea a success simply wasn't there. Each and every project came to a sticky end or never even got off the ground.

 

Toulouse is a realistic project. If he had said that Toulouse should be in SL then he'd have had a point but Milan and Barcelona is just insane babbling that gets applauded by the lunatic fringe but is unlikely to get anywhere in the next 100 years.

I believe Toulouse was an original proposal, where as Milan and Barcelona were seen as future possibilities.  His foolishness was being public with his hopes for Milan and Barcelona, when it would open him to ridicule.  Since then, we have had a Super League game in Barcelona and even an amateur Barcelona rugby league club, while rugby (albeit union) has grown in Northern Italy.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#150 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,595 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:45 PM

Well you said you never made it in the first place a few minutes ago

You are blaming SL on featherstones relegation
Which is ridiculous

 

It depends which relegation you are talking about. The removal of Featherstone from Div 1, which became SL, was entirely due to the movers and shakers who orchestrated the makeup of the original SL. that was due to SL.

 

Fev's relegation to CC1 was due to their own ineptitude in the Championship. However, there is a serious case to be made that if they had not been removed from Div one and had access to Sky funding that they would never have been in the position to be relegated to CC1. Maybe they would have been relegated from SL to the Championship but we will never know that as the dirty deed to give them, Widnes, Keighley and Batley the shaft was perpetrated and history was changed.



#151 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,595 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:55 PM

Just noticed this pop up on your post.

 

It's phrased as though SL rejection caused the clubs downfall when in fact their own massive over spending caused it.

 

Something you highlighted by noting Widnes.

 

There was also an idea that anonymous backers were waiting in the wings to bankroll Keighley for Superleague. They never stepped forward to fund any court case nor to reduce the deficit. They didn't exist.

 

Post the initial 1996 selection upset the game retained P & R allowing any aggrieved club to show that the RFL were wrong. That didn't end until 2009. Widnes worked towards that goal and achieved it in 2002, but suffered financial difficulty in the end as the step up was too much, as it would have been for Keighley

 

In the licensing process the RFL's worries over Widnes's financial failures were allayed when Steve O'Connor stepped forward with a £500,000 guarantee of the clubs financial stability. Although it wasn't taken it was there. This didn't happen at Keighley.

 

But the bottom line for any avid fan of a small championship club once able to rise and fall on the back of a few quid from a wealthy director in the old semi pro days is that arguments have to be found re the viability of their clubs for Superleague, otherwise it's the scrap heap of dual reg. I don't blame 'em....

 

Widnes are a small town club, Castleford are a very small town club. Bradford are a big city club as are London. What you are saying doesn't correlate. The first two are successful SL teams and the latter two SL disasters. Each club needs to be considered on it's merits and we will see who make it and who doesn't. Contrary to popular belief it seems that size doesn't matter.



#152 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,505 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 02:53 PM

It depends which relegation you are talking about. The removal of Featherstone from Div 1, which became SL, was entirely due to the movers and shakers who orchestrated the makeup of the original SL. that was due to SL.

 

Fev's relegation to CC1 was due to their own ineptitude in the Championship. However, there is a serious case to be made that if they had not been removed from Div one and had access to Sky funding that they would never have been in the position to be relegated to CC1. Maybe they would have been relegated from SL to the Championship but we will never know that as the dirty deed to give them, Widnes, Keighley and Batley the shaft was perpetrated and history was changed.

no it depends which relegation YOU are talking about since you brought the matter up. YOU  wrote about their relegation to CC1, which happened almost a decade after SL was instituted and which I can assure you from the point of view of someone employed by the club, and covered all their home games and some of their way games for LPL had nothing whatever to do with SKY.

all the non SL clubs received SKY funding, for several years.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#153 Chronicler of Chiswick

Chronicler of Chiswick
  • Coach
  • 2,525 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:43 PM

Widnes are a small town club, Castleford are a very small town club. Bradford are a big city club as are London. What you are saying doesn't correlate. The first two are successful SL teams and the latter two SL disasters. Each club needs to be considered on it's merits and we will see who make it and who doesn't. Contrary to popular belief it seems that size doesn't matter.

Or, to put it another way, if a club's got a good owner who employs people who know what they're doing it'll be a success wherever they are. Seems odd that the point has to be made, really.



#154 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,559 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 04:29 PM

Or, to put it another way, if a club's got a good owner who employs people who know what they're doing it'll be a success wherever they are. Seems odd that the point has to be made, really.

Totally right.  And whether a club has a good owner who knows what they're doing largely looks to be a matter of luck. 



#155 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,595 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:48 PM

no it depends which relegation YOU are talking about since you brought the matter up. YOU  wrote about their relegation to CC1, which happened almost a decade after SL was instituted and which I can assure you from the point of view of someone employed by the club, and covered all their home games and some of their way games for LPL had nothing whatever to do with SKY.

all the non SL clubs received SKY funding, for several years.

 

I was talking about Fev's removal from Div1/SL to facilitate London and Paris. I speculated that their eventual decline into CC1 might have been influenced by the fact that they were removed from the top tier and so lost the big Sky money. No doubt their own ineptitude was also a factor in their eventual CC1 status and I said so but the removal of what would have been a SL place cannot but have had an adverse effect on the club uo to and including their eventual fall to the league of death.



#156 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,505 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:59 PM

I was talking about Fev's removal from Div1/SL to facilitate London and Paris. I speculated that their eventual decline into CC1 might have been influenced by the fact that they were removed from the top tier and so lost the big Sky money. No doubt their own ineptitude was also a factor in their eventual CC1 status and I said so but the removal of what would have been a SL place cannot but have had an adverse effect on the club uo to and including their eventual fall to the league of death.

their own ineptitude was the only factor

all of the clubs in the championship were in the same boat

to cite something that happened to over half the clubs in professional uk rugby league a decade previously is just silly. They were promoted the next year. Was the introduction of SL the cause of that?

 

League of death? Who died?


Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 21 July 2014 - 06:00 PM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#157 Keith T

Keith T
  • Coach
  • 8,913 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:00 PM

Yes, we were - see the interview with Sky's Vic Wakleing (sp?) in the history of SL published a while back (sorry, can't remember the title - perhaps someone out there can help, my copy's still buried in the rubble of my house move). In fact, we were the only definite condition, as Sky couldn't sell in France and they weren't that fussed about summer rugby, although we'd have had to have taken less cash for winter.

 

The book is Super League the First 10 years by Phil Caplan and Jonathan R Doidge (interview is on pages 122 - 123).

 

SL didn't even ask for summer rugby as some seem to think.   That was a proposal in the document "Framing the Future" and the RFL asked Sky if they would still support the game if they switched to summer.  Sky agreed and the rest is history.

 

Wakeling states that Paris wasn't on Sky/BSB radar and again that was Lindsey and the RFL wanting a European element for Super League.

 

As a supporter of the longest and most successful expansion club from outside the Lancashire/ Yorkshire heartlands I refer some of you to my signature at the end of my post for an independent view of how our club was treated at the time.    Sorry for the fans of any team getting relegated but life goes on.


I remember when .............................

"It is impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Workington Town, the fall guys this season for the Super League's determination to retain it's European dimension, in the shape of Paris. While the French have had every assistance to survive, the importance of having a flagship in a heartland area like West Cumbria has been conveniently forgotten." - Dave Hadfield - Independent 25th August 1996.