Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

foozler

Oldham

403 posts in this topic

When Stevo gets a degree in economics then he'll know as much as me about this.

Clubs not paying the full cap provide opposition for those that do, Otherwise you'd have a five team league with little commercial value. Some teams contribute more to the value of the contract than others but they all contribute.

Crusaders, however, did nothing to get that 700 thousand. It was a pure loss for the game.

The Welsh adult league has more or less collapsed with few fixtures being fufilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. That's true and SKY money can make big clubs bigger becuase it provides adequate additional investment to do that.

It's a fact proven by events that if you give SKY money to small clubs they fail becuase the SKY money alone won't make them Superleague clubs. Clubs need fans, players and their own money in adequate amounts before the SKY money can be effective investment.

This is why Wigan and saints and Wire can use the SKY money to grow, yet all Oldham (LOOKEY HERE we're back on track) or keighley could do with the SKY money is waste it......

2. TOTALLY WRONG Leeds had five figure crowds depsite not winning anything, their fanbase was the bedrock of their success then hetheringtons junior development took that on. They don't need propping up by Caddick. Your totally wrong and it's hard to debate with you when you pressent no real facts, and create falsehoods.

3. Totally false I don't propose the loss of teams.

I was at the Hunslet meeting when we nearly went, Bramley went this year I was at the last game before York went, Rochdale went etc etc.

What do you propose - give these clubs SKY money REALLY????

Rather than tell you what you thing I am courteous enough to ASK.

4. Again ASK and don't be so rude.

I think the game has to deliver a self sustaining elite league for the following reasons

a. To survive as a professional game

b. To deliver the SKY contract

That may be hard on second tier teams but it has been hard on them since the divisional split in 1973.

Since 1973 exclusion has not led to "losing whole areas of the game".

Since 1996 it hasn't either. You seem to confuse "the game" with semi pro clubs.

the only club to be lost apart from expansion clubs is Bramley, well they play RL in the schools, Stanningley are a mega club that produces players and the good people of West leeds get themselves off to headingley.

Bramleys dissapearance hasn't lost the area to the game. How can you expect me to debate with you with cointrived nonsenses like this???

5. Greed?? Trough??? What are yo on about? the game has to deliver an Elite league to get £90M - live with it for without is there is disaster. You and your mates think that we can return to the past, we can't if we waste the SKY money on all inclusiveness the game will be at it's lowest ebb ever.

6. Messiah??? Don't be stupid, just accept he said too many clubs were chasing too few resources. He was right, since that has been partly addressed the game has more fans, has expanded around the country and is played professionally, and attracts a big fat SKY contract.

I'm loving it......

7. I asked Bradford and they say they are a massive club traceable back to the 1860's. They've had some downs but have always been big enough to pick themselves up and rise again. last time they did this they ended up being the most successful club in Superleagues first decade.

I then asked leeds and again traceable right back to victorian days, always been heavily supported, never been out of the top league and the most successful club by far of Superleague second decade.

BUT (just watch what i do here) OLDHAM are not as big as these clubs and they consequently cannot survive setbacks the same way Leeds and bradford can. They cannot and di not make use of the SKY money because it wasn't enough to make a small club big.

It's not enough to make cas a big club or Salford a big club or HKR a big club yet they are IN superleague.

Any idea to increase the size of superleague and stretch the SKY money further would be an economic catastrophe.

Don't you get this??

Come on lets deal with one point at a time.

Divvying up SKY money 14 ways has led to several SL clubs being unable to compete on the field, a couple of clubs have to rely on private money to survive, and about £8,000,000 in losses have occured.

So you think that SL should fly in the face of this and expand.

Do me the favour of explaining exactly how this will work.

1. Which clubs? (let's go for 16)

2. How will the money divvy up??

3. How will the 16 club competition reduce losses

4. How will it be more competetive.

Explain to me your alternative plan and how it will work in detail please...........

1. Clubs do need more than the Sky money. Nobody is denying that. Clubs can find it. If they don't, nobody is proposing them for SL. Bradford are an example of a big club that couldn't.

Keighley never had the big Sky money. You know that. Don't even go there. If Oldham had had a stadium delivered on a plate like Wigan did, despite the fact that they were in financial trouble, maybe they would have been successful. Wigan have been always an RL power but they have messed up several times in a major way but hey they are a big club so that dosn't count.

Perpignan are a small club that beat the odds and are now a big club. Huddersfield also. They were down to 400 in a rotting stadium, remember.

2. No, you are wrong. Leeds were down to around a 6,000 average before SL. You love your research and apparently have unlimited time so loook it up. Caddick rescued an almost bankrupt club. Look that up too. So a combination of Caddicks investment, Sky money and Hetherington's good management righted the ship. Today, indeed they are self sustaining although they have to feed out their juniors to Hunslet apparently.

3.Whilst you do not openly advocate the loss of teams, your total denial of any access to SL for any lower teams and your espousal of a ring fenced, unchanging top division, will result in the loss of the lower tier. You know Hunslet's last tilt at the top was shot down and now look at them. Keighley also.

When SL and Murdoch came along, the first offer was refused. He had to come back with extra millions for the excluded clubs. This was reduced in subsequent contracts, as was the share for SL because of the position the game was in. Now the game is in a much stronger position vis a vis Sky. I am of the opinion they need us almost as much as we need them. So, yes, Sky money was given to the lower tier at the onset and I see no reason why we can't negotitate from that position again. It might not work, but hwo knows. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You SL zealots seem so damn scared to rock the SL boat and the RFL and SLE are the same, that they will never approach Sky about anything.

4. Firstly, you are the epitome of courtesy. How could I be so wrong. Your agressive, demanding self righteous assertion of your divine correctness on all things RL reaps you what you sow in reply. Sorry.

The need to deliver a self sustaining top tier for Sky is agreed but it hasn't happened, has it? half of the top tier clubs arn't self sustaining.

The difference between you and me is that you want a ring fenced, unchanging SL elite and I would wish for either an expanded SL or a change in the membership to assist the lower tier as and when practical. The knowledge that there is a route to the top should stimulate crowds and investment in some CC teams and I don't mean a hopeless application to be granted a licence from a self serving cabal.

Since 1976 we have lost York, Keighley twice, Gateshead, Whitehaven, Sheffield, London/ Fulham, several times,Doncaster, I forget how many. The fact that they all ultimately either reconstituted or reformed due to the sheer willpower and grit of their supporters is amazing but make no mistake, we lost them. They came back weaker for the most part.

I am not confusing the whole game with the pro/semi pro clubs but is it not that area of the game which is under discussion here. Furthermore, at the risk of being accused of being rude, is it not your contention that only SL clubs can sustain really good amateur leagues and the others are all marginal ? I thought I read your posts proclaiming that.

5. Yes we need the elite but it need not be ringfenced. Furthermore, Sky has given of it's largesse to sustain the lower tier in the past. I think they should be re vsiited on that point.

6. We've been over that before. The arrival of the Sky investment was a lucky, very lucky, accident.

7. The humpty dumpty club self destructed when they split into soccer and Northern Union clubs. The Northern Union club were a minnow until after WW11. They died in 1964 with crowds in the hundreds. they died last year and the present re incarnation is on probation until it proves successful. Are they the example you want to cite as a big club?. Maybe but not one noted for fiscal probity, Sky money or not.

Leeds are big but I think, seeing as you are hearking back to the historical past, were in the 2nd division in its first incarnation ( You know the one where Keighley were promoted in the early 1900s). But I will yield that they are a big, successful club but they needed Carrick's investment and Sky money. If the RU side had become as big as he wanted they might even be playing 2nd fiddle at Headingley. They were bailed out by a man dreaming of a huge RU club.

Oldham fell a long way. They might never get back but they were a major RL power, check their honours board, they had a 5 to 6 year run in the 1st Division immediately prior to SL. The town is big enough, bigger than Wigan I believe and with no premier league soccer team as a rival. The ground is fertile for a big club. It might never materialise but the potential is there whatever you say to the contrary.

I have two points to make re the Division of Sky money.

1. We should see if we can get more. Both parties need each other and they are getting the game for cheap. Alternatively, let us approach other broadcasters now in the sporting arena.

2. Notwithstanding point 1, there needs to be a revolving membership of SL, the goodies need to be shared amongst more than the current favoured few. Indeed, spread the largesse. The noises coming from the RFL and a couple of club chairman would seem to indicate that this might be being considered. You just might find yourself on the wrong side of history on the p and r debate. Time will tell.

As regards your laundry list at the end of your post.

Firstly we need to see if we can coax some more cash from Sky both to stabilise existing strugglers and to subsidise any extra SL clubs.

Secondly, if that fails, then we need to change the league business model. Clearly fully pro clubs are only sustainable at Wigan, Warrington and Leeds on their own merits. We have some others who compete because of sugar daddies, many of whom are currently blinking and hinting at funding cuts, and then we have the strugglers who are losing money. We need to re evaluate if we need a fully pro competition. If wages were reduced we might have a sustainable SL even at 16 clubs. The game cannot successfully operate at a Professional level except at a very small number of clubs.

The game was on BBC for years and widely viewed when operating as a semi pro league. It can be done again. A fully pro league is the holy grail but if it can't be done, then it can't be done.

The level of competition will, as always, depend on the recruitment of players and the standard of coaching and each club will be responsible for achieving the necessary standards as they are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. When Stevo gets a degree in economics then he'll know as much as me about this.

2. Clubs not paying the full cap provide opposition for those that do, Crusaders, however, did nothing.

3. The Welsh adult league has more or less collapsed with few fixtures being fufilled.

1. You know more about the game than Stevo :lol:

2. Clearly Crusaders provided opposition too or was I dreaming watching their opener against Leeds, and their run to and through the play off's with Nobby

3. If crusaders had kept going in South Wales so would the game, they didn't and you remark on the game going downhill yet the double standard is apparently if Broncos disappear you say it will have no effect on the game in the south east.

In a nutshell I'm not interested in this stuff, claiming to know more than Stevo, and being ambiguous such that the only conclusion I can draw is a nasty little bias against Crusaders and Broncos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You know more about the game than Stevo :lol:

I know a billion times more about economics than he does.

2. Clearly Crusaders provided opposition too or was I dreaming watching their opener against Leeds, and their run to and through the play off's with Nobby

And I'm not disputing that but they were advanced 700k on the basis of TV rights but never played those games.

3. If crusaders had kept going in South Wales so would the game, they didn't and you remark on the game going downhill yet the double standard is apparently if Broncos disappear you say it will have no effect on the game in the south east.

In a nutshell I'm not interested in this stuff, claiming to know more than Steve, and being ambiguous such that the only conclusion I can draw is a nasty little bias against Crusaders and Broncos.

Back to the magic wand. If we had 80 million pounds to invest in Broncos then they'd be fine....

Great logic but misses the point we don't have 80 million and Crusaders did go bust and always were going to go bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are wrong. Leeds were down to around a 6,000 average before SL. You love your research and apparently have unlimited time so look it up.

1995 Leeds averaged 12516

1996 8581

1997 11005 etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a billion times more about economics than he does.

If your going to be silly then I refer you to posts 346 and 350.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your going to be silly then I refer you to posts 346 and 350.

What do they have to do with Crusaders taking TV money in advance and then quitting SL having not played those games?

When I earn my pay, it's not my bosses' business how I spend the cash.

If I ask for a payday advance and then never work those hours, it's not much of an excuse to point the finger at how other employees ###### their wages up a wall on a Friday night. It was their money to ###### up a wall, they earned it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If Oldham had had a stadium delivered on a plate like Wigan did, despite the fact that they were in financial trouble, maybe they would have been successful. Wigan have been always an RL power but they have messed up several times in a major way but hey they are a big club so that dosn't count.

2. Sky money was given to the lower tier at the onset and I see no reason why we can't negotitate from that position again. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You SL zealots seem so damn scared to rock the SL boat and the RFL and SLE are the same, that they will never approach Sky about anything.re the Division of Sky money, We should see if we can get more.we need to see if we can coax some more cash from Sky

3. If that fails, then we need to change the league business model. Clearly fully pro clubs are only sustainable at Wigan, Warrington and Leeds on their own merits. We need to re evaluate if we need a fully pro competition. If wages were reduced we might have a sustainable SL even at 16 clubs. The game cannot successfully operate at a Professional level

1. Wigan are a far bigger RL club than Oldham and have far more money, far more people interested in investing in them far more fans and far more quality local players, I have checked the Oldham Honours board and post 1960 they have won nowt and not even been runners up in a major final?

Wigan are far bigger than Oldham are they REALLY???

2. So your saying RFL/SLE could well have left shedloads of money in the pot at SKY.

What evidence do you have?????

3. It'll no longer be a Superleague at 16 clubs with reduced wages.

It's the old first division your talking about your back to recreating the past which was a big failure. However good times for keighley in those latter days. I hope they come back for you but on the above key "arguments" I've got to say "I'm out".......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do they have to do with Crusaders taking TV money in advance and then quitting SL having not played those games?

Posts 346 and 350 endeth my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suit yourself.

But ragequitting doesn't change the fact that Crusaders left SL owing the RFL money and Oldham didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1995 Leeds averaged 12516

1996 8581

1997 11005 etc etc

1985 6928

1986 6393

and for quite a few years efore that. The rot started there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Wigan are a far bigger RL club than Oldham and have far more money, far more people interested in investing in them far more fans and far more quality local players, I have checked the Oldham Honours board and post 1960 they have won nowt and not even been runners up in a major final?

Wigan are far bigger than Oldham are they REALLY???

2. So your saying RFL/SLE could well have left shedloads of money in the pot at SKY.

What evidence do you have?????

3. It'll no longer be a Superleague at 16 clubs with reduced wages.

It's the old first division your talking about your back to recreating the past which was a big failure. However good times for keighley in those latter days. I hope they come back for you but on the above key "arguments" I've got to say "I'm out".......

1. I am not saying Oldham are bigger than Wigan. How did you deduce that from my post. I AM saying that the town of Oldham is bigger than the town of Wigan. I AM saying that if they had had the good fortune Wigan had in regards to their ground problems, they might have succeded in SL. I AM saying

they were a former great of the game and the POTENTIAL is there to be big again. I am not saying they are big now, clearly they arn t.

2. No I am not saying they left any money in the pot. I am saying that the next pot might have more money in it if Sky are approached and bargained with

in the negotiating process. On the other hand they might not play either. There is only one way to find out.

3. Clearly the present SL is not succeeeding for a majority of clubs on the financial front. I wish it were but it aint. The return to to semi pro is my suggestion to stabilise things without downsizing. What do you suggest ? Is it to prune to 10 clubs? I know you dearly love SL and you really like the idea of a fully professional competition but it just dosn t seem to ne sustainable in the long term.

My suggestion is clearly about reverting to a previous model which was indeed failing. The difference would be that the Sky money would be there to make it successful. We thought big when Sky came.There is nothing wrong with that. The SL has been wildly succesful in increasing attendances and raising playing standards. However, it is clearly a bridge too far to sustain full time professionalism at more than a very few clubs.

You asked me for my solution and I gave it to you. If there is another way, except for severe contraction, please let me know. Maybe Sky can be given the financial realities of RL and cough up more if they want a fully pro SL.

If you are,can I claim a big victory like you did with Northern Sol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying Oldham are bigger than Wigan. I AM saying they were a former great of the game and the POTENTIAL is there to be big again.

I am glad we have cleared that up. I agree with "Potential" BUT.......

I believe the potential is unlockable in Oldham and at nearly all the smaller clubs in the game outside SL because of the following factors......

a. The lack of investment in Oldham and in second tier RL in general wether private or SKY

b. The lack of a suitable ground for Oldham

c. Only a few local junior teams the best of whom go to bigger clubs - same for most CC clubs

d. Only 500 fans with some RL fans in the area going elsewhere like Wigan - same for most CC clubs

e. A limit to who can access the SKY money earmarked contractually for an "elite"

Until enough those factors change significantly enough this will remain my position and I think it is a fair one born out by events over the last 17 years and has not been formed out of a dislike for small clubs.

This is post #364 and you can take this as my position until something comes along in the form of a major change in policy by RFL/SKY/SLE on these matters. If you don't agree with it please beg to differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see we're still on this bloody roundabout then :lol:

Sorry Spudster,

I've managed to get off it with Northern Sol.

I've afforded him two replies then has to beg to differ.

So we're done on this thread.

Just bear with me with Mr. K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am not saying they left any money in the pot. I am saying that the next pot might have more money in it if Sky are approached and bargained with in the negotiating process. On the other hand they might not play either. There is only one way to find out.

Yes I agree there is only one way to find out. I have also in the past followed negotiations carefully and noted all that is said. On what has been said and what has been done I can only come to two conclusions, which I think are a concensus of opinion amongst several people on here who follow these "off field" matters avidly.

1. SKY want to pay for an "Elite" league, I do not know the exact definition of that. Taking into account what people have said about the future two Chairman have said 12 clubs and one has suggested 10 clubs.

2. There has been no money for second tier RL in recent years and that's the record to date. Will SKY pay for second tier. If I'm discussing reality I'd have to assume they won't.

3. Will SKY pay more money to help develop the game into a better product and get a return on that?? If that's your idea that was also my idea several years ago i.e. SKY back the north east the south east and Wales. The record to date and therefore the reality I assume for purposes of sensible debate is they won't do this either.

I think this is a position Padge is more sure of. The SKY contract is most likely to be (given past records and comment) that they pay £90,000,000 for 5 years and have no desire to pay more nor any desire to interfere in the game, BUT they must have their elite league and the money is for that and nothing else.

That's why I argue as I argue not because I "Love Superleague".

This is post #367 so it will remain my view until something comes along from RFL/SLE/SKY that warrants me changing it. If you don't agree with it please beg to differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The return to to semi pro is my suggestion to stabilise things without downsizing. My suggestion is clearly about reverting to a previous model which was indeed failing. The difference would be that the Sky money would be there to make it successful. T

2. What do you suggest ?

1. I take your point, as a principle it's sound. As an idea in practice I cannot comment until you tell me.....

a. How many clubs in this top division??

b. How would the current level of SKY funding be shared across this number of clubs??

c. How would you enforce lower spending on players - to what level may you reduce cap??

d. Is this with P & R what's your system??

I only want to know so I can comment respectfully on it.

2. Then I'll give you my alternative which I have set out clearly twice before but will afford you one last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I am not saying Oldham are bigger than Wigan. How did you deduce that from my post. I AM saying that the town of Oldham is bigger than the town of Wigan. I AM saying that if they had had the good fortune Wigan had in regards to their ground problems, they might have succeded in SL. I AM saying

they were a former great of the game and the POTENTIAL is there to be big again. I am not saying they are big now, clearly they arn t.

2. No I am not saying they left any money in the pot. I am saying that the next pot might have more money in it if Sky are approached and bargained with

in the negotiating process. On the other hand they might not play either. There is only one way to find out.

3. Clearly the present SL is not succeeeding for a majority of clubs on the financial front. I wish it were but it aint. The return to to semi pro is my suggestion to stabilise things without downsizing. What do you suggest ? Is it to prune to 10 clubs? I know you dearly love SL and you really like the idea of a fully professional competition but it just dosn t seem to ne sustainable in the long term.

My suggestion is clearly about reverting to a previous model which was indeed failing. The difference would be that the Sky money would be there to make it successful. We thought big when Sky came.There is nothing wrong with that. The SL has been wildly succesful in increasing attendances and raising playing standards. However, it is clearly a bridge too far to sustain full time professionalism at more than a very few clubs.

You asked me for my solution and I gave it to you. If there is another way, except for severe contraction, please let me know. Maybe Sky can be given the financial realities of RL and cough up more if they want a fully pro SL.

If you are,can I claim a big victory like you did with Northern Sol.

byb 'semi pro' I presume you a radical reduction inn player payments, since 'full time pros' in all sports have other interests. When that happens what do you think will happen to Rugby League in this country at elite level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the top players would try RU .not many to go down-under because they aint good enough.Most of the Sky money has gone to the players in wages how much has been spent on stadia by the clubs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the top players would try RU .not many to go down-under because they aint good enough.Most of the Sky money has gone to the players in wages how much has been spent on stadia by the clubs ?

you coud still play down under and earn good money outside the NRL. but you are right about Union.

All the SL clubs apart from Wakefield and Castleford play in modern stadiums-although they haven't necessarily paid for them themselves.

Many clubs outside SL play in modern grounds now.

The RFL provides funding for improving stadiums. For instance it bent the rules to help Featherstone Rovers with their developments. Money is only supposed to be provided for new projects, Rovers' was already up and running, but the circumstances were exceptional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree there is only one way to find out. I have also in the past followed negotiations carefully and noted all that is said. On what has been said and what has been done I can only come to two conclusions, which I think are a concensus of opinion amongst several people on here who follow these "off field" matters avidly.

1. SKY want to pay for an "Elite" league, I do not know the exact definition of that. Taking into account what people have said about the future two Chairman have said 12 clubs and one has suggested 10 clubs.

2. There has been no money for second tier RL in recent years and that's the record to date. Will SKY pay for second tier. If I'm discussing reality I'd have to assume they won't.

3. Will SKY pay more money to help develop the game into a better product and get a return on that?? If that's your idea that was also my idea several years ago i.e. SKY back the north east the south east and Wales. The record to date and therefore the reality I assume for purposes of sensible debate is they won't do this either.

I think this is a position Padge is more sure of. The SKY contract is most likely to be (given past records and comment) that they pay £90,000,000 for 5 years and have no desire to pay more nor any desire to interfere in the game, BUT they must have their elite league and the money is for that and nothing else.

That's why I argue as I argue not because I "Love Superleague".

This is post #367 so it will remain my view until something comes along from RFL/SLE/SKY that warrants me changing it. If you don't agree with it please beg to differ.

Now, you'd better sit down because I don't want you to faint and hurt yourself but I agree with every word of that.

What I feel, however, is that when Sky first came calling, RL in this country was in extremis. I don't think it's going too far to say that it was facing a slow permanant death at pro/semi pro level. The game was in no position to argue with Sky too much although they did get extra for the lower tiers from them. If Sky had not played ball we would have taken their first offer. The game was saved by that money. Sky's involvment was to do with the power struggle between Murdoch and Packer in Australia and it was not really a financial decision in order to make money in the UK. The game here was in a position of " beggars can't be chosers".

Fast forward to today and I think our game in it's relationship with SKY is in a far stronger position.

RL is now a staple of Sky's content and the viewing figures are impressive. I think Sky make money in the UK from it's RL coverage.

I don't follow things all that closely as I live far away, but I understand Sky have lost some of their soccer coverage to other broadcasters. This leaves a vacuum for RL to fill.

At the outset, Sky was the only game in town to broadcast our game. Take it or leave it. Now there is ESPN, Premier sports and the French/arabian TV channel to whom SL with Perpignan and maybe Toulouse are an attractive broadcasting option. The BBC also have lost much of their sporting content to other broadcasters and may see RL as alternative broadcasting as with the recently concluded 3 nations tournament.

The overall point I am making is that Sky now need us, maybe as much as we need them, and , in addition , there is competition to televise our game from other sources. At least we can tell them that.

Therefore, when we come to negotiate the next Sky contract, The RFL/SL is in a position of strength and leverage in the negotiations compared to where we were in past contract discussions. If the game asks for more money because SL is becoming unsustainable or even to encourage some investment in the lower tiers, especially in view of their geographic spread, then Sky might look favourably towards giving the game a bigger contract. Don't forget competition and their need for popular broadcasting content.

Of course, Sky might draw a line in the sand and say " No way". On the other hand, if the RFL use a combination of subtle blackmail and expanded opportunities for SKy coverage, then they might just give us more. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. We should give it a try. I understand Sky are making huge profits so they might have extra cash to throw our way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

byb 'semi pro' I presume you a radical reduction inn player payments, since 'full time pros' in all sports have other interests. When that happens what do you think will happen to Rugby League in this country at elite level?

It will continue as it is but with vastly reduced player costs. We will lose some to RU, but not forwards, because of the different skill sets required but RU clubs are facing declining attendances and cash contstraints so it might not be the big option it was.

I am not suggesting this as a panacea. I would prefer not do do it BUT the SL competition is facing a crisis as half of it's clubs cannot for much longer, sustain full time professionalism. We could ditch clubs and merge and have half the league playing in France but, to me, that's contraction and the game is small enough without going down that road.

If we get too small and the fixture list becomes overly repetitive, I think support on the terraces and from the broadcasters will decline.

I think we were an attractive option since the advent of TV coverage as a semi pro league and would be again. They broadcasters want content and do not care about the wage structures of the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, you'd better sit down because I don't want you to faint and hurt yourself but I agree with every word of that.

Great. Now can I trouble you for your answers to post #368 please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will continue as it is but with vastly reduced player costs. We will lose some to RU, but not forwards, because of the different skill sets required but RU clubs are facing declining attendances and cash contstraints so it might not be the big option it was.

I am not suggesting this as a panacea. I would prefer not do do it BUT the SL competition is facing a crisis as half of it's clubs cannot for much longer, sustain full time professionalism. We could ditch clubs and merge and have half the league playing in France but, to me, that's contraction and the game is small enough without going down that road.

If we get too small and the fixture list becomes overly repetitive, I think support on the terraces and from the broadcasters will decline.

I think we were an attractive option since the advent of TV coverage as a semi pro league and would be again. They broadcasters want content and do not care about the wage structures of the players.

how do you think player development will be affected by the drop in wages(how big a drop by the way?): fewer star players to emulate, a much less worthwhile career path, spells a contraction in the professional game, and an inability to hold on to its best players. Young players will take up union instead of league and will learn union ways of playing younger. The north of England has a massive long standing network of union clubs. How do Keighley Albion's facilities compare with Keighley RUFC's facilities at Uttley for instance? And keighlye is a Rugby League town and all.

The broadcasters want quality content and wont be interested with a declining product ie a poor return for their investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.