Archived

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

morley101

club funding

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know how much funding clubs recieve from the RFL through sponsherships,the broadcast rights etc ?

Does the amout equate to the salary cap ?

Koli's close.

It's about £1,200,000 a year.

And it does not equate to the budget a successful club needs in Superleague.

Catalans are on a £6,000,000 budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL clubs get £1.316m per year from the TV contract plus a further £60k from central RFL funding and then SL clubs share 60% of any profit made by the RFL.

They also get a further share of any surplus left in SLE at the end of the year. SLE has an income of ~£24m per year. The TV share out accounts for ~£18.5m of that. SLE then pays a contribution of costs towards big screen at TV games, marketing the competition, cost of full time referees, travel costs to and from Catalans and Opta Stats service, plus any prize money. If there is any surplus from the £5.5m left after all this then it is distributed on the basis of how many home televised games a club had.

On that basis I'd say SL clubs get nearer £1.5m per year from collective funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL £1.5m and the best part time club £90k, and we wonder why the gap is growing or why PT clubs don't have a SL infrastructure.

If the £1.5m is true then it is very easy to fund two full time divisions of ten, with £700k to the second tier and £1.5m to the top- a far better platform to meet objectives from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is any surplus from the £5.5m left after all this then it is distributed on the basis of how many home televised games a club had.

If that's the case, the first I've heard, then I'm not really happy about that. It's an obvious way of those at the top stretching away financially. I can deal with the top teams being on sky more often, although sometimes it's just stupid how often the same teams appear, but if they also get more money for it then that's not really on, as it's most likely sky who dictate who is on each week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, the first I've heard, then I'm not really happy about that. It's an obvious way of those at the top stretching away financially. I can deal with the top teams being on sky more often, although sometimes it's just stupid how often the same teams appear, but if they also get more money for it then that's not really on, as it's most likely sky who dictate who is on each week.

I think the principle is based on the fact that for a home game on Sky the club has to incur costs such as pitch painting etc and it is a way of compensating for those costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the principle is based on the fact that for a home game on Sky the club has to incur costs such as pitch painting etc and it is a way of compensating for those costs.

Hmm, yeh perhaps, except those who share with footy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the principle is based on the fact that for a home game on Sky the club has to incur costs such as pitch painting etc and it is a way of compensating for those costs.

Also imagine its designed to compensate for reduced attendance due to people staying at home and watching on the tv rather than attending when it's a sky game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres also the money super league clubs get as a result of there position at the end of the season to be taken into acount.

leeds got £300.000 for becoming champions and i think im right that widnes got around £20,000 for coming bottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres also the money super league clubs get as a result of there position at the end of the season to be taken into acount.

leeds got £300.000 for becoming champions and i think im right that widnes got around £20,000 for coming bottom

:lol: Brilliant.

Fantastic way to create the competetive league from top to bottom that was one of the pillars of Superleague and the closed shop!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL £1.5m and the best part time club £90k, and we wonder why the gap is growing or why PT clubs don't have a SL infrastructure.

If the £1.5m is true then it is very easy to fund two full time divisions of ten, with £700k to the second tier and £1.5m to the top- a far better platform to meet objectives from.

Some SL clubs don't have a SL infrastructure.

You keep that alternative format idea going mate. I've only see three comments from top SL executives as to what any change may comprise of.

1 x "two leagues of ten"

2 x "we will have to drop to 12 clubs"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Brilliant.

Fantastic way to create the competetive league from top to bottom that was one of the pillars of Superleague and the closed shop!

Isn't this just prize money?

Why would somebody coming first get the same as the team coming last?

All clubs in the Challenge Cup don;t get the same irrespective of when they are knocked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this just prize money?

Why would somebody coming first get the same as the team coming last?

All clubs in the Challenge Cup don;t get the same irrespective of when they are knocked out.

So why does the team coming last recieve anything as "prize money"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why does the team coming last recieve anything as "prize money"?

The same reason that a team getting knocked out of the CC in the first round gets money.

FWIW I agree, the bottom team should get £0 and then it steps up from there rewarding each position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd flip the prize money. US sports have their drafts by way of keeping their leagues competitive and interesting - this could be our small nod to this system. It's hard to think a team would try to sink from 1st to 14th for the sake of an extra £280K. You make much more than this through the gate and in kit sales etc. by virtue of success. The small bit of extra cash could be just what your also rans need though to attract a big name player and help keep the fixture list intense and exciting. It's small potatoes. We need to do away with the idea of the successful sides reaping all of the spoils and this being somehow "just" and "fair". Their success is reward enough. I want to see intense NRL style rugby league on my own shores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd flip the prize money. US sports have their drafts by way of keeping their leagues competitive and interesting - this could be our small nod to this system. It's hard to think a team would try to sink from 1st to 14th for the sake of an extra £280K. You make much more than this through the gate and in kit sales etc. by virtue of success. The small bit of extra cash could be just what your also rans need though to attract a big name player and help keep the fixture list intense and exciting. It's small potatoes. We need to do away with the idea of the successful sides reaping all of the spoils and this being somehow "just" and "fair". Their success is reward enough. I want to see intense NRL style rugby league on my own shores.

Maybe it's a bonus split between the players, I'd hate to see them falling over themselves to finish as low down as possible for a few thousand extra £s, or more likely those in charge of the purse strings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd flip the prize money. US sports have their drafts by way of keeping their leagues competitive and interesting - this could be our small nod to this system. It's hard to think a team would try to sink from 1st to 14th for the sake of an extra £280K. You make much more than this through the gate and in kit sales etc. by virtue of success. The small bit of extra cash could be just what your also rans need though to attract a big name player and help keep the fixture list intense and exciting. It's small potatoes. We need to do away with the idea of the successful sides reaping all of the spoils and this being somehow "just" and "fair". Their success is reward enough. I want to see intense NRL style rugby league on my own shores.

So do I - I'm not sure rewarding failure is the way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I - I'm not sure rewarding failure is the way to do it.

I don’t like the idea that it’s “rewarding failure”. It isn’t. Failure is failure. To be involved with a top side means receipt of plaudits not exclusive to (but including) vast sums of cash. This would be a tiny balancing measure designed to give the failing clubs a little shot in the arm. It wouldn’t be highly desirable nor particularly sought after but it would send the right message. Is the US draft system “rewarding failure” Dave? I love it. I want to see a competitive NBA, not one where the New York and LA sides dominate every year. The TV audiences seem to agree with me.

If the difference was, say, between £2 million and £20K then I would agree with you and be opposed to it. It’s about making it fair and proportionate, so that “1st and (pot of money based on 1st place)” is substantially better all round than “14th and (pot of money based on 14th place)” but that at the same time you’re softening the blow a tiny wee bit and furthermore not just throwing money on top of money.

Given that you’re generally opposed to the leveling measures I suggest on this forum, how do you suggest we create the NRL intensity you also desire within Super League Dave? Because it sure as hell won’t be done by giving Wigan more central funding than Widnes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that you’re generally opposed to the leveling measures I suggest on this forum, how do you suggest we create the NRL intensity you also desire within Super League Dave? Because it sure as hell won’t be done by giving Wigan more central funding than Widnes.

cut the league down to 10

wigan

st helens

warrington

leeds

bradford

huddersfield

hull kr

hull fc

catalan

london

a very very very strong comp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t like the idea that it’s “rewarding failure”. It isn’t. Failure is failure. To be involved with a top side means receipt of plaudits not exclusive to (but including) vast sums of cash. This would be a tiny balancing measure designed to give the failing clubs a little shot in the arm. It wouldn’t be highly desirable nor particularly sought after but it would send the right message. Is the US draft system “rewarding failure” Dave? I love it. I want to see a competitive NBA, not one where the New York and LA sides dominate every year. The TV audiences seem to agree with me.

If the difference was, say, between £2 million and £20K then I would agree with you and be opposed to it. It’s about making it fair and proportionate, so that “1st and (pot of money based on 1st place)” is substantially better all round than “14th and (pot of money based on 14th place)” but that at the same time you’re softening the blow a tiny wee bit and furthermore not just throwing money on top of money.

Given that you’re generally opposed to the leveling measures I suggest on this forum, how do you suggest we create the NRL intensity you also desire within Super League Dave? Because it sure as hell won’t be done by giving Wigan more central funding than Widnes.

You can easily make an argument that it is not central funding. Central funding is the cut of TV, Sponsorship and Gate money etc. that is distributed evenly (apart from Bulls this year) - everybody gets a large share there.

A few tens of thousands in 'prize money' will not distort things too heavily, especially when you consider that this money will probably just be swallowed in player bonuses anyway (if the SC allows, I can't remember).

The Salary Cap is set low enough to have competitive teams, the lack of quality players and clubs ability to manage themselves well is holding the game back.

I am open to some of the radical ideas to help the comp - I'm not open to all of them - giving a team more money because they did worse doesn;t make sense on any level.

If you truly want to have a level league - why not take the highest turnover and not give them any central funding? You can then pump more into the poorer clubs to try and bring them up a level.

My issue with some of the ideas that you push are that they are too artificial. Clubs should be encouraged to grow in a sustainable way, radical changes are not required.

The NRL have an abundance of quality players, we drop off quite a bit in the top division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this just prize money?

Why would somebody coming first get the same as the team coming last?

All clubs in the Challenge Cup don;t get the same irrespective of when they are knocked out.

In name it's prize money, but I thought the prize were those metal theft magnets the team captains hoist.

In reality it's a reward for doing well, which is an incentive that's not required, and if paid to winners helps perpetuate them as winners. I'm all for a club to be allowed to pay bonus's if they want to use that as a way to increase performance, but I'm not for SL money to pay for them

We want an even competition we don't need prize money in SL. Challenge Cup maybe as getting through the rounds is a cost. Clubs have lost money winning the cup.

£300K to Leeds would allow a lot of junior development around the city, 15 times more than in the Halton District. I'd agree we can get a even competition without radical ideas like a draft or an uneven SKY money distribution, but the prize money is just that - a mini version of unlevelling the playing field in favour of the top four

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd flip the prize money. US sports have their drafts by way of keeping their leagues competitive and interesting - this could be our small nod to this system. It's hard to think a team would try to sink from 1st to 14th for the sake of an extra £280K. You make much more than this through the gate and in kit sales etc. by virtue of success. The small bit of extra cash could be just what your also rans need though to attract a big name player and help keep the fixture list intense and exciting. It's small potatoes. We need to do away with the idea of the successful sides reaping all of the spoils and this being somehow "just" and "fair". Their success is reward enough. I want to see intense NRL style rugby league on my own shores.

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can easily make an argument that it is not central funding. Central funding is the cut of TV, Sponsorship and Gate money etc. that is distributed evenly (apart from Bulls this year) - everybody gets a large share there.

A few tens of thousands in 'prize money' will not distort things too heavily, especially when you consider that this money will probably just be swallowed in player bonuses anyway (if the SC allows, I can't remember).

The Salary Cap is set low enough to have competitive teams, the lack of quality players and clubs ability to manage themselves well is holding the game back.

I am open to some of the radical ideas to help the comp - I'm not open to all of them - giving a team more money because they did worse doesn;t make sense on any level.

If you truly want to have a level league - why not take the highest turnover and not give them any central funding? You can then pump more into the poorer clubs to try and bring them up a level.

My issue with some of the ideas that you push are that they are too artificial. Clubs should be encouraged to grow in a sustainable way, radical changes are not required.

The NRL have an abundance of quality players, we drop off quite a bit in the top division.

I don’t understand “artificial” as a criticism of socialist style leveling mechanisms in sporting competition. It assumes that a free market “everyone for themselves” approach is somehow “pure”. How so? However you structure a pro league we’re a long way from teams comprised of lads solely from surrounding villages topping up their full time wage etc. EPL would be a prime example of the exact opposite of my favoured NFL/NRL “artificial” type format where free market capitalism runs wild and the best players simply run to the elite sides, earning more money quite often to play less. So how is Man Utd gobbling up Ferdinand, Rooney, Valencia, Young, Jones, Zaha (and on and on and on) from lesser competitors over recent years any less “artificial” than leveling mechanisms to ensure said teams have a fighting chance of keeping them?

We’re talking about entertainment at the end of the day and the best way to excite and grow your fanbase is to spread your best players around your league, ensuring they both play more and better earn their corn pitting their wits against each other, rather than cowardly buddying up and running over stiffs 75% of the time. There will always be academies with home grown players to provide the more “pure” element of SL sides that we all of course like (this in fact is where we can be superior to the US sports – we don’t need a draft system, I agree) but again you only reinforce the strength of that “purity” by being fairer across the board. Scott Taylor staying at Hull KR rather than ditching for the glory of table-topping Wigan I would argue would be substantially LESS artificial. And how many Wakey & Cas lads have been lost to Leeds post-1990? etc. These instances are rife in free market leagues, which are only as “pure” as ruthless capitalism in its base form. To me that is not very pure at all. “Unhindered” might be a better word. “Artificial” mechanisms in many situations keep those lads where they belong. “Go figure” as they doubtless say on the NFL forums.

It’s swings and roundabouts. Neither style is pure. We’ve moved past that. And you say artificial, I just say “fair play” and reining in the worst elements of capitalism that have made the Euro soccer leagues so dull. We’re talking about big money pro sport and prime athletes making careers out of their talents for our enjoyment. Forget about spurious notions of “artificial” and “pure”. Just do it well and make sure the dice aren’t loaded, because nobody likes a bully and 4 teams does not a competitive or exciting league make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’re talking about entertainment at the end of the day and the best way to excite and grow your fanbase is to spread your best players around your league, ensuring they both play more and better earn their corn pitting their wits against each other, rather than cowardly buddying up and running over stiffs 75% of the time. There will always be academies with home grown players to provide the more “pure” element of SL sides that we all of course like (this in fact is where we can be superior to the US sports – we don’t need a draft system, I agree) but again you only reinforce the strength of that “purity” by being fairer across the board. Scott Taylor staying at Hull KR rather than ditching for the glory of table-topping Wigan I would argue would be substantially LESS artificial. And how many Wakey & Cas lads have been lost to Leeds post-1990? etc. These instances are rife in free market leagues, which are only as “pure” as ruthless capitalism in its base form. To me that is not very pure at all. “Unhindered” might be a better word. “Artificial” mechanisms in many situations keep those lads where they belong. “Go figure” as they doubtless say on the NFL forums.

It’s swings and roundabouts. Neither style is pure. We’ve moved past that. And you say artificial, I just say “fair play” and reining in the worst elements of capitalism that have made the Euro soccer leagues so dull. We’re talking about big money pro sport and prime athletes making careers out of their talents for our enjoyment. Forget about spurious notions of “artificial” and “pure”. Just do it well and make sure the dice aren’t loaded, because nobody likes a bully and 4 teams does not a competitive or exciting league make.

Blimey. Well put indeed. One to think about.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



100 Days That Shook Rugby League

League Express - Every Monday

Rugby League World - Oct 2017