Adeybull

Coach
  • Content count

    1,697
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Adeybull last won the day on June 12

Adeybull had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,089 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    At the Gates of Delirium

Recent Profile Visitors

3,462 profile views
  1. You obviously know nothing about where and how often I travel - which in any case is frequent and far enough to be quite capable of forming a view about international tourism. I mentioned one country I was in this year that is probably an ideal location for being able to see for oneself. The US is another. But that is hardly pertinent to the subject at hand. I'm still looking to hear about your sources for your argument that Tourism and Sport are "...the two biggest money makers in the world". And how you define "money-makers"? I really am curious, since I cannot see any obvious sources anywhere, and am always keen to expand my factual knowledge. You are wrong in saying that "...SKY set the bar and others have learnt from it. That's exactly why SKY have had to reduce their charges." It is a bit more fundamental than that. Interesting piece here I just dug out, about what happened in NZ. Their sports package now costs a fraction of ours here, incidentally, which gives an indication as to direction fo travel for what they can pay. There is considerable speculation in NZ that Amazon may pitch for the All-Blacks and Super Rugby - the flagship broadcast sport in NZ. Not about other sports. They would want the biggest and most popular. But the keyt bit IMO is the summation: "Sky worked as long as it held a monopoly over so many things from sport through to movies. Their problem is time and technology is in the process of passing them by." Again, a question. Which others of theose "hundreds of broadcasters" would you see being keen to step into SKy's shoes, and why do you think they would pay as much as - or, preferably, much more than - Sky? OK, we know BT threw the towel in but who else would you expect to be delighted to fill the breach? And for at least double what Sky pay now? Who would be likely to pay a shedload, for a sport that had been dropped by still much the biggest current player in the market and was seen by most as not the biggest game in town?
  2. I'd be interested in your sources for your argument that Tourism nd Sport are "...the two biggest money makers in the world". And how you define "money-makers"? You must be totally confident of your facts, to assert that you would "destroy any argument that says otherwise" - strange language for a forum like this, but no matter. Regardless, though, I'm not sure what world you are living in? Not the real commercial world, I suggest, if you think we can demand double the current deal of Sky? Sky's business model is under very severe threat - same as every other "traditional" broadcaster's is. Not least from the US streaming giants. As an example, when I was in NZ earlier this year I learned that Sky had lost a massive number of subscribers over the previous year. This coincided with ultrafast broadband being rolled out across the country, and massive migration to Netflix. Folk I spoke to said the sport was too expensive, and that they were paying for stuff they were not interested in. Across all channels, not just sport. I chucked Sky a couple of years ago, then was tempted back. But no way will I pay for the sports. And I'm just about to finally chuck them again and subscribe to Netflix (already have Amazon). For the same reasons as folk in NZ were telling us. In NZ, Sky have had to dramatically reduce their charges, to try and arrest the severe haemorrhaging of its subscriber base. I can see that happening here, as the streaming services become more widely used. Against this (global) background, why do you think Sky would pay more..."at least DOUBLE"? Where is the competition? We had BT in the wings last time. Now, BT has chucked in the towel and is taking Sky content and not bidding against them for major sports. Who else is waiting there to pay loads more than now? And why is the SL product so much better now than it was then? When most objective observers - and me - feel it has at best stagnated. And again, most objective commentators (and me) expect Sky's next offer to be less, not more than last time. Absent some massive change in the RL offering to justify a shedload more If the RL negotiators pitched in with a demand for more than double, as you urge them to do, IMO they will be laughed out of the building as the bluff is called big-time.
  3. ps. Have to go now. But these recent posts surely demonstrate the difficulties in coming up with a solution?
  4. ??? So you are poposing a system where entry to the club can be totally rigged by the existing members of that club? If so, why not just cut any pretence of licensing, and say admittance will be purely by invitation only? Incidentally, IMO that is far from being an invalid option. But IMO it would effectively guarantee a permanent schism in the game, like we saw in 1895 and very nearly saw in 1995. Is that what you wish for? Since governance would surely split, and in due course the rules would likely diverge. Maybe, in due course the SL Clubs would conclude they need contested scrums and lineouts, and two more **ankers on the park...?
  5. For the +1 to be superseded by a new entrant, in an environment where the relegated club has all the structures already in place and the benefit of a parachute payment, and the the candidate has far less central funding than now means promotion is likely ONLY if the club has a wealthy owner prepared to throw a shedload of money at it. And, in doing so, wreck the Championship as a competition. Unless you had SEVERAL such candidates - in which case all the failed candidates would have thrown a shedload of money at something on offer to only one...and who realistically would bankroll a club in that situation?
  6. All fine and dandy. Now, turn those descriptions into what makes a club "Most valuable". For example, is an extra £1k on ground capacity more "valuable" than and extra 500 bodies through the turnstiles? Or an extra 10,000 population? For that matter, what population area would you use? The local authority area? A radius of x miles from the stadium? Some other measure? On "Population", again I'll take Bradford as AN example: Odsal stadium is right on the edge of the City of Bradford LA district - which also includes Keighley, and such renowned RL hotspots as Ilkley. It is within easy walking distance of three other local authority areas - Leeds (Leeds & Hunslet), Calderdale (Halifax) and Kirklees (Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Batley). Use the LA area and you include swathes of land far from the Bradford Bulls hinterland. Use a radius of stadium - which WOULD pick up far more of the hinterland - and you encroach into the areas you might assign to other clubs. And would, say, running a top-notch academy be more valuable than just making up the numbers because you have to? if so, how would you rank each academy? Ditto Reserves. Again, I'm not denigrating the concept at all. But I AM suggesting that trying to set licensing based on value judgments of a range of criteria will inevitably be both highly subjective and vulnerable to significant manipulation.
  7. Hardly down an alley, though? Since you would be giving these P Shares to existing SL clubs. And then giving the relagated team (no doubt) a big parachute payment ( a la Leigh...) to give them the best possible chance of bouncing straight back. Especially since, having withdrawn the central funding to Championship clubs (and especially those who finished well the previous season) the gulf would be far wider than it currently is? I fear all this would do is ensure we have an ongoing 12 + 1 SL, with one club on a sabbatical every year. Seeing the destruction of Bradford and, sadly a possibility now, Leigh after failing to bounce straight back will surely heavily influence those who make the rules going forward? Don't misunderstand me. I am not arguing for a continuation of the status quo ante. A combination of up to four SL clubs potentially being relegated, two more non-UK clubs potentially being promoted, and numerous clubs staring financial ruin in the face (and up to and including SL), together with inadequate attendances and insufficient commercial income and insufficeint TV and media coverage and rights, shows the present arrangements are stuffed. What I AM arguing against is a coup by existing SL clubs that serves to preserve their own situation and at the expense of everyone else. If the Junta, or anyone else, can come up with a proposal that addresses the existential (IMO) issues facing the game, providing a means for it to expand and devlop and at the same time providing opportunity for better-run and ambitious clubs to climb the ladder without impediment, then I'm in. Whether those plans come from Elwood, Lenagan, Hetherington, Rimmer or the man in the moon.
  8. Turnover? Really? Which would give a nassive advantage to clubs currently in SL, given the significantly-greater opportunities for commercial and sponsorship etc income when a team is regularly on TV and in the top flight. You would not be comparig like with like. Attendances are another chicken and egg situation - current incumbant would have a clear advantage. Even so, applying your list of criteria could see - for example (and I use this only because these are ones I am most familiar with) - Bradford replace Salford in SL. Since it would win on ground capacity, attendances, having a reserve team and an academy, and on p[opulation size. Whether that was fair or not. And whether or not the prospective replacement team was actually ready and in a position to do the replacing. There are of course other examples, now or may well be soon, given half a decent chance. What you are actually saying is bring back licensing, but do it more objectively? I suspect that is the way the cabal are anyway heading - albeit whether objectively or otherwise is the big question - by ensuring that any promoted team meets whatever criteria they set. So easy then to tweak the criteria to ensure an undesirable club fails the test, eh? But who sets the licensing criteria? Those already in SL? To rig them so they meet the standards but prospective new applicant will struggle, not least because they do not currently enjoy the benefits of being in SL? Who sets the criteria for those who will set the criteria? I'll not pretend to be a yawnion plant by chucking some Latin in here; but...who watches the watchmen?
  9. Been thinking a bit more about what you just said there. The implication is that clubs outside of SL should not have the same voting rights as clubs in SL? Even though some of the current SL clubs are there more because they were in the right place at the right time. And some previous giants of the game (very much including pre-SL) are currently enduring lean times that may or may not continue, depending on future developments and circumstances? Is this "all votes are equal, but some votes are more equal than others" a principle that should be more widely applied? For instance, London (the city) keeps telling us how it generates far more income for the country than anywhere else. Surely, then, we should reward the voters of London and the South East with, say, TWO votes in parliamentary elections? After all, the top-end of the economy is what matters, isn't it? And, after all. "...who's bothered about the North?"
  10. And which would the "more equal" clubs be? Since that changes from time to time. And by what measure? There are clubs currently ouside SL, that could very well bring more to the "Elite Competition" than some clubs currently in SL, if they had SL funding and security of a place in SL. Now, or in the not too distant future. I'll not name names, but I think most people could do so. Something radical is needed to save the professional game from the continuing slow decline I fear it currently faces. Especially when Sky (whose business model is under severe financial threat on various fronts, and whose prospective major sports competitor recently chucked the towel in) come in with a lower TV deal than the present one. But all I have seen or heard from the Junta as yet seems likely to seek to preserve the status of the lucky clubs who, in some cases, are fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. Just like two SL clubs were unfortunate in 2014 to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, as rather more clubs were in 1995 and indeed as has happened regularly since then. And "...who's bothered about the Championship?" just makes it clear to me the Junta is seeking to grab a bigger share of what is likely to be a diminished cake for themselves. And the devil take the hindmost.
  11. Really? Based on something his arch-enemy at best suggests, in a piece that comes out strangely enough coinciding with comments from Elstone? I am more concerned that we may be seeing round 2 of the Junta trying to bounce the game into doing what they want. Note how he says “...who’s bothered about the Championship?” He clearly is not. So why would anyone outside of SL vote for anything he says?
  12. Trouble is, after that first press conference when the then-cabal sought to bounce the game into the New Order by making confident - yet premature - announcements, how can we be sure they are not at it again? Good strategy - seize the initiative, build up expectations, amd make it look like everything is going just fine. Then, when (as last time) the other (wrongfooted?) parties stand up and say "Whoooah there...not so fast..." it is THEY that are cast as the bad guys for spoiling the party. Politicians do it all the time. I'll not look forward to Peace In Our Time, until I see both Rimmer AND an authorsed spokesman for the non-SL clubs validating what Elwood said.
  13. Dave, when you refer to “what Hetherington says in the article”, are you sure you are not falling into the trap the article writer has set? Given the article is a very partisan attack on what may be selective comments from Hetherington, not an article BY Hetherington? In particular, the writer seems to me to have manufactured a so-called war with Rimmer. Otherwse, I largely agree with what you say there. The reason I feel why we are seeing so many club owners wading in ad hominem is because of the vacuum there has been (and IMO remains, after the RFL CEO appointment) at the RFL. If there ever was a time we needed a strong RFL CEO backed by a strong board (not the invisible wonders we currently seem to have) it is surely now? I have always suspected that Gary has been far less close to Rimmer than to Wood. I also fear that Rimmer was crowned CEO in part because he would not put up a decent fight against any seeking to wrest control of the top flight. This to me could well explain why Gary looks to be putting some pressure on Rimmer. As no doubt everyone else is, since I fear the future of the game may we’ll depend on what this IMO second-rater does. I see the Mirror has reported Rimmer as saying he anticipates a settlement of the war within two weeks. I guess in any settlement we will be better able to judge? (Personally, I am expecting Lenagan’s lot to largely get their way, but I would be delighted to see Rimmer prove me wrong). EDIT: I meant Elwood had said two weeks, not Rimmer (who we can judge by who any deal most favours). My bad.
  14. Can you at least try and present my expressed views honestly, please? 1 - I have never “slagged off” Elstone. He is a capable, experienced professional doing the job required of him by his employers. I would draw your attention to where I lamented the fact that it was SL not the RFL that had engaged him. 2 - I never “slag off” anyone. Unlike the guy who penned that embarrassing rant of an article. I will admit to deliberately using perjorative terms like “the Junta” for effect and emphasis - in that particular case, because a small group of powerful individuals have made IMO a clear attempt to set up an alternative governance for the elite part of the game, which in turn would significantly impact on the whole game. What I DO do is attempt to present reasoned arguments in support of my expressed opinions. 3 - My reasoned arguments against the expressed intentions of the Junta - or Lenagan and his group, if you prefer - are specifically because I do NOT see anything yet in their expressed intentions likely to “elevate” the top tier. Instead, I see -so far - a largely defensive approach more likely to protect the status quo in SL whilst damaging the rest of the game. If I thought the Junta’s plans WERE likely to “elevate” the top tier, and without that being at the expense of the rest of the game, I have said before on here I would become a fully-paid up Juntarite. Since the game sure as hell needs some radical change to avoid an imminent existential crisis IMO. 4 - I have never said that Dual-Reg was not SL-centric. Of course it is. It also provides a means for non-SL clubs to engage players they would otherwise be unable to. Which in my view distorts the competition, provides a means for non-SL clubs to avoid or mitigate at least some of what I see as their responsibilities, and ultimately may well do them no favours when DR players get pulled at short order, or when a club finds it has too few of its own players. 5 - DR may well have been Hetherington’s idea - but I honestly did and do not know that. You appear to suggest I am supporting Hetherington in my earlier post, when in fact I stated specifically that on Reserves - and so by implication DR, since they are largely mutually exclusive IMO - I disagreed with him. 6 - I specifically said the demise of the Wood/Hetherington axis was IMO no bad thing. 7 - What you have failed to address is the point I actually made in my original post, which was criticism of the nature and tone of the headlined article. My subsequent post was merely a follow up to that.
  15. I'll agree with that bit, 100%. But the only "fresh" ideas I have seen so far from the Junta or their employee look to be in reality just defensive plans to preserve the existing SL clubs. And the hell with anyone else. The Wood/Hetherington axis was clearly shafted with Wood's defenestration, and probably no bad thing given my loathing of Wood. But will the game be any better off when Lenagan and his allies have fully siezed control? Or will it just be another case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss...?" Had Elstone been appointed as RFL CEO (instead of the very very poor appointment actually made) rather than SL CEO, then I would probably have felt considerably more optimistic. As it is, all I see is one junta replacing another, and not taking us forward at all.