Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

82 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Or perhaps he's just doing what his coach wanted him to do. Stuart said that the game plan was to take them on up the middle and that's what they did.
  2. The premise of the title seems to be that if you play in a bigger ground you will magically attract more paying spectators (build it and they will come!) and media column inches. However, the reality is that London will probably find themselves in the same boat as the RFL wrt making the hire fee. London survives because of a rich guy who runs it as a hobby and has done for years. Granted they get the SL Sky distribution this year but most (if not all) of that will be used to cover the cost of the squad and associated costs. Anything else that they do (like running th club, maintenance, marketing, etc) probably comes from attendance money and small amounts of sponsorship, merchandise sales and, of course top ups by the owner. So the idea that they hire a large venue with a minimum paying attendance of c2k and a probable attendance of 3k-4K is a big risk given that they’ll have to pay for the pitch, stadium, Insurance, security, opening of any facilities such as bar and food (may even have to guarantee minimum revenue for these), policing, etc. Better to stay at the home ground with additional stands and minimum additional costs. Also, the deal for the home stadium might be for a set number of games - in which case they’d also lose the money they paid for that game. P.S. maybe I’m a bit strange - in all the decades I been watching RL I have never been to a game solely on the basis of the stadium it being played in. I’ve avoided some, but that was usually on the basis that they were difficult to park at or the reputation of the area for vehicle damage (I’ve been to a few in the past where the car has been scratched)
  3. Presumably. However, by the time they hit the SL there may well not be a L1 and, therefore, no clubs to share it with.
  4. It is NOT fresh money, it is what a member club gets as its distribution of the TV money.
  5. Well, Perez’s approach to getting this through is a bit like May’s wooing of the DUP - he’s offering the L1 clubs money. Apparently the offer is 10% of the money that they get from the ‘distribution’ as they progress. So, once (if) they get to SL, that would be about 180k to share between them (on the current deal, and I’m not sure what L1 and championship clubs get). Of course, that could be different come the next TV deal.
  6. I do not think that it does hold membership of the RL - membership is not transferrable and, as far as I am aware, the RL Council has not admitted any new members recently. The membership of Widnes Vikings RL club was renewed after a takeover by a new ownership group.
  7. With Wales winning the 6N and Grand Slam SE’s stock is high now. So, IMO this is the time to find his best deal, waiting for the WC to finish is a big risk but maybe he’ll insist on an England RU release clause just in case.
  8. So Tigers are looking for a solid right centre?
  9. The RFL don't consult the clubs (members), the members decide... "The subscribers to the Memorandum of Association of the Company; the Members as at the date of incorporation of the unincorporated association known as the Rugby Football League; and such other persons as are admitted as members by the Council in accordance with these Articles (and any applicable Rules) shall be the Members of the Company. Every person who wishes to become a Member shall deliver to the Company an application for Member in such form as the Directors require executed by him. Any application for Member shall be made to the Chairman and shall be assessed against such criteria as the Council may specify from time to time. Membership is not transferable and shall cease on dissolution." Council : ""means the members of the Company for the purposes of the Act;
  10. IIRC correctly he was head coach at Wasps for 3 seasons 2005-2007.
  11. The Wigan statement only talks about intentions it does not imply that there is/was a contract. So are you saying that Edwards lied when he said that he has not had sight of a contract from Wigan? If he hasn’t he has every right to look for a new employer given that his current contact has a fixed end date. Maybe there’s a case that Wigan were in a hole and used Edward’s name to temporarily smooth it over with their fans. Either way it always seemed a very strange deal for all concerned. And now it has turned into a real calamity!
  12. IIRC SLE didn’t want relegation but conceded to one up one down. When it comes to it we’ll see how much commitment was behind the concession. I think there’ll be some get out hatched to make sure it doesn’t happen unless It is one of the less ‘fashionable’ clubs that’s in the ejector seat.
  13. The ‘salary cap’ may be the same for all clubs but then there’s the marquee player relaxation which allows clubs to spend more. At the moment neither Leeds nor Wigan seem to be getting good value for any extra money they pay!
  14. Firstly, the only thing I want from the sports package is RL - we still wanted the Sky TV channels and weren’t bothered about films. We now get all of it for marginally more than dropping everything apart from the TV. Secondly, I do not have any other Sky products. I think it is more about Sky being s*t scared about people taking streaming packages in preference thus reducing their overall viewing figures and, consequently, their advertising revenue.
  15. Not so sure about this... I recently decided to reduce our Sky costs so rang them up and told them that I only wanted to watch RL and didn't want to pay for the rest. As it happens reducing the sports package would not take a significant bite out of my subscription rate, so I said dump the films as well. Sky's response? "We can see that you are a long time subscriber (I've had Sky since it first started broadcasting RL), as a result we have a deal for you that, as long as you keep the film package will mean that you keep all the sports channels and pay significantly less". Net result I continue to have films, I continue to have all sports but I now pay about half what I was. And, I only got all the sports because I was prepared to continue taking Sky cinema, not that I continue with all sports. So it seems that it is important to Sky to keep people on full packages, even if they don't want them, by offering financial incentives. Oh, I did lose one package - children's TV.
  • Create New...