Archived

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

The Daddy

Martyn Sadler and Andy Wilson hint at behind the scenes restructure of Super League

210 posts in this topic

I saw it. When Stevo said "Superleague isn't working" , my immediate thought was that he had been prompted to say that in the pre-broadcast production meeting.

 

Sky calls the tune and we'll get a structure that Sky wants.

 

This may not be a bad thing because Sky has lost a lot of its rugby union coverage to BT ... freeing up cash and airtime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure Wolford, I don't think anyone can tell Stevo what to say and expect him to say it if he doesn't agree. Maybe Martyn could comment on some of the things he's heard /read for those of us out of the loop (unless he's gagged in some way?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been on the agenda for months and the top teams along with sky will get what they want. Some S/L clubs find it hard now they would be in alot of trouble if they don't do what sky want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify this, the Super League clubs meet next Wednesday and there will be a presentation to them discussing a range of options.


 


But this isn't being driven by Sky, although it's worth bearing in mind that the Sky contract does specify a minimum of 12 clubs and 24 weeks of competition, so the ten-team scenario seems highly unlikely.


 


In my view the Super League clubs would be remarkably stupid to reduce the size of the competition. In doing so they would not be addressing the main issue which, as I said on the programme, is the game's apparent inability to generate commercial income. Reducing the footprint of the competition would only make that job even harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting how they choose the 10 Clubs in SL1.

 

I for one won't be happy if we miss out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up Martyn, I'll look forward to hearing the results of meeting. I think we all know that something is going wrong commercially with the sport (and most of us have many differing suggestions of what is wrong), how to fix it though is a different matter all together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's worth bearing in mind that the Sky contract does specify a minimum of 12 clubs and 24 weeks of competition, so the ten-team scenario seems highly unlikely.

Thanks for this info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting how they choose the 10 Clubs in SL1.

 

I for one won't be happy if we miss out!

That's the flaw in the 10 Clubs in SL1 plan, everyone is ok with it...

 

... as long as they are in SL1 competition.

 

In my opinion, at the moment, I think only Castleford fans are aware they might face the chop. But fans of the other 13 clubs would be adamant - with good reason - why they MUST be in SL1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify this, the Super League clubs meet next Wednesday and there will be a presentation to them discussing a range of options.

 

But this isn't being driven by Sky, although it's worth bearing in mind that the Sky contract does specify a minimum of 12 clubs and 24 weeks of competition, so the ten-team scenario seems highly unlikely.

 

In my view the Super League clubs would be remarkably stupid to reduce the size of the competition. In doing so they would not be addressing the main issue which, as I said on the programme, is the game's apparent inability to generate commercial income. Reducing the footprint of the competition would only make that job even harder.

 

Any chance you can clarify whether that minimum of 12 clubs specifies a required geographic spread?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this isn't being driven by Sky, although it's worth bearing in mind that the Sky contract does specify a minimum of 12 clubs and 24 weeks of competition, so the ten-team scenario seems highly unlikely.

Thank you, so I assume the smart money is on 12 clubs.

However Hudgell predicted this long ago.

His version was with "central funding for London".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what chance a ten team superleague and an additional competition to fill the TV schedule gaps... Expanded WCC maybe?..  9's comp?.. Exiles series?..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clubs have lost focus on the main thing that can drive clubs forward: Marketing. Changing to two tiers 11, 12 14 or 16 with French, Welsh clubs won't make one smidgen of difference if clubs don't market themselves properly. After the so called boom of SL the clubs and the game didn't move forward and things get forgotten. Wasn't Waite suppose to set up a coching programme to have an ever growing list of English coaches? IN the time since we have seen Edwards, Farrell and Ford to name a few gobbled up by RU. If we through aguess as to howmany in SL were properly marketed to the hilt I'd say no more than 4. I'm not saying clubs aren't marketing I mean to their full potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What year does the current contract run to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what chance a ten team superleague and an additional competition to fill the TV schedule gaps... Expanded WCC maybe?.. 9's comp?.. Exiles series?..

Apparently one of the ideas muted could only have come from an accountant, what ever that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify this, the Super League clubs meet next Wednesday and there will be a presentation to them discussing a range of options.

But this isn't being driven by Sky, although it's worth bearing in mind that the Sky contract does specify a minimum of 12 clubs and 24 weeks of competition, so the ten-team scenario seems highly unlikely.

In my view the Super League clubs would be remarkably stupid to reduce the size of the competition. In doing so they would not be addressing the main issue which, as I said on the programme, is the game's apparent inability to generate commercial income. Reducing the footprint of the competition would only make that job even harder.

Thanks for the additional info, id be interested to hear what Brian Barwick presents in his first press conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know who will make the final decision (RFL or/and S/L) and if its a vote of some kind will all clubs get a vote or will it just be the S/L clubs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd probably take bet on two twelve.

The only problem I see is how are they are going to move the teams about?

League position would mean London would go down which I can't see happening. Ideally I think the RFL would want Hull KR and Cas to go down. Can't see Hull KR surviving without Hudgell and Cas just seem a mess, think both clubs need a step down and start again get everything together. Not having to compete with Leeds and Wigan will hopefully help them.

Then how do you choose the Championship sides going up? League position? Financially stability? Similar method to licensing.

Would be interesting to see how the RFL proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the flaw in the 10 Clubs in SL1 plan, everyone is ok with it...

 

... as long as they are in SL1 competition.

 

In my opinion, at the moment, I think only Castleford fans are aware they might face the chop. But fans of the other 13 clubs would be adamant - with good reason - why they MUST be in SL1.

London are pretty much nailed on to join Cas on the outer if it reduces to 12 which courtesy of Martyn Sadler we now know is the SKY limit and I do not think there would be too many London fans on here that would disagree with me.

One question about Super League II which is can clubs be relegated from the second tier and replaced with say Hemel Stags in five years time should Hemel's progress warrant inclusion or would it be the case of another closed shop this time with an additional six clubs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently one of the ideas muted could only have come from an accountant, what ever that means.

Being married to an accountant I think I can give you an idea. Basically it will have been looked at from a purely financing level and with no emotional weighting. Purely counting beans so to speak.

I'd suspect for example an accountant would like the idea of mergers (not sugesting this is what the person you mentioned was on about but it makes a good example). They might say, merge club a & b together, you'll potentially lose 30% support from each club, but the total is higher, and probably sustainable. They would just see the figures, not the loss of history, or the animosity created in the old fans who won't come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London are pretty much nailed on to join Cas on the outer if it reduces to 12 which courtesy of Martyn Sadler we now know is the SKY limit and I do not think there would be too many London fans on here that would disagree with me.

One question about Super League II which is can clubs be relegated from the second tier and replaced with say Hemel Stags in five years time should Hemel's progress warrant inclusion or would it be the case of another closed shop this time with an additional six clubs ?

Don't be surprised to see a centrally funded London team in the top tier. When Brian Barwick was interviewed on Boots n All and the question was posed regarding the off field performance or lack of of the Broncos he delibaratly avoided answering, I read into it that he had something up his sleeve or at least had some inside knowledge.

Despite the poor off field performances of the Broncos, I think they'll be kept in simply because, if the whole point of the restructure is to attract more sponsorship and monies into SL it would be counterproductive to leave out the only team which gives the league national scope, therefore they will strengthen London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being married to an accountant I think I can give you an idea. Basically it will have been looked at from a purely financing level and with no emotional weighting. Purely counting beans so to speak.

I'd suspect for example an accountant would like the idea of mergers (not sugesting this is what the person you mentioned was on about but it makes a good example). They might say, merge club a & b together, you'll potentially lose 30% support from each club, but the total is higher, and probably sustainable. They would just see the figures, not the loss of history, or the animosity created in the old fans who won't come back.

I know the above is purely hypothetical, but how would anyone be able to calculate a rough percentage of drop in support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017