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

 

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.

 Plus the fact that those 30% from each club might cancel their Sky subscriptions, either that or they'll only watch the soccer, which could eventually reduce the money given to RL when they measure viewing figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

It's an example, I'm not suggesting I know anything. In this example the accountant might have asked a marketing or business estimate for a best and worst case scenario.

Talking to my wife about accounting often helps me get to sleep when I'm struggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus the fact that those 30% from each club might cancel their Sky subscriptions, either that or they'll only watch the soccer, which could eventually reduce the money given to RL when they measure viewing figures.

Again this isn't a real example. I haven't got any insider information this is just an example of how accountants tend to think.

In your example they'd probably realise that 30% of 2 of the smaller clubs wont make a huge variance on sky's numbers outside of the normal seasonal peaks and troughs. 3600 lost supporters and probably only half would have a subscription anyway, I'd imagine that's well within statistical fluctuations of subscriptions. So maybe 1500 lost sky subscribers at most.

* the 3600 figure I've pulled out of the ether is a complete guess based on 2 roughly equal clubs getting a 6000 crowd each making a combined 12000 potential supporter and losing 30% personally I think it would be higher but this is just and example of the mental process

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't see a SL 2 happening. The clubs are not going to vote to get even less sky money per head and can anybody see Sky suddenly offering us more? If it stays at 14 I wonder if toulouse would get a shot. I'd hate to lose either Castleford or HKR and I question the wisdom of losing a club which can consistently get 7/8000 without being a regular top eight side. The game also loses the only proper derby and a couple of the biggest games in the year. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 12 clubs give 24 weeks of competition, I am intrigued where the extra 2 weeks come from if 10 is not acceptable to give 24?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the show. Andy and Martyn raised some good points but Stevo yet again ruined the show by being needlessly negative, puerile, ill informed and not in the least bit constructive.

There's a difference between playing devils advocate and spouting incoherent nonsense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Oh no!

"Footprint of the competition" What???

I can only assume it means geographical spread.

Red Rooster sees the inevitable end to London (there's one long footprint gone there then RR?) but the Daddy Merged feels the opposite with some sort of central funding to preserve at least one foot in England extending beyond the M62. I dunno, but there's less chance of "commercial contracts" reverting back to M62 land (apart from Hovis), and that veritable sage Hudgell predicted that London Mk7 or Mk8 or whatever would end up centrally funded, and that SL would be 12. I cannot deduce from that London's rejection from SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am watching this thread with interest, I have long lost the will to argue my main point, not because I think I didn't have a point but because its repetitive, bowever it is interesting that slowly more and more people are pushing what I have been saying.

 

So I will say it once again and hope my fingers don't leap up away from the keyboard screaming oh no not again, its all about the money, you can have any dammed structure you like but if the money can't support it you will fail.

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.

I don't really care how it's done as long as the clubs get a season's notice of it.

What will probably happen, this being RL, is some crackpot idea will be announced at the last moment to become effective next year, leaving some clubs high and dry with no way of playing themselves out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am watching this thread with interest, I have long lost the will to argue my main point, not because I think I didn't have a point but because its repetitive, bowever it is interesting that slowly more and more people are pushing what I have been saying.

 

So I will say it once again and hope my fingers don't leap up away from the keyboard screaming oh no not again, its all about the money, you can have any dammed structure you like but if the money can't support it you will fail.

I thought you meant slowdive's reference to the Hull derby being "the only proper derby".

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an example, I'm not suggesting I know anything. In this example the accountant might have asked a marketing or business estimate for a best and worst case scenario.

Talking to my wife about accounting often helps me get to sleep when I'm struggling.

Yeah I know it wasn't based on anything, I'm just intrigued how accountant x could work out a drop in support of y%, whether it be 1% or 99%. Again, not knocking what you've said, there just seems to many variables for anyone (real or not) to consider what a loss in punters would be. Anyway, that's probably too much like hard work for me before I've had a coffee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Not a chance. Nigel Wood already ruled it out.

 

London adds nothing. People who live in Twickhenham do not know that they exist; they struggle to get any kind of sponsorship at all and their crowds are below 2,000 (many of whom are away fans). Sky rarely show their games.

 

Yet somehow people will argue that they attract sponsorship to the game! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the names the same, licensing for Championship, use Championship for ALL expansion then allow P and R between Championship and SL. Promoted team gets a 12 month stay from relegation. Bottom team from Championship has to apply to stay in there like the old Football League set up.

Best number for me is 12 in SL but like has been said what is the best way to do it?

May have to set in place 2,3 or even 4 year plan to make it fair rather than saying "Next year we are doing x, y and Z". And if we do make changes, this time LETS STICK TO IT. Grr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know it wasn't based on anything, I'm just intrigued how accountant x could work out a drop in support of y%, whether it be 1% or 99%. Again, not knocking what you've said, there just seems to many variables for anyone (real or not) to consider what a loss in punters would be. Anyway, that's probably too much like hard work for me before I've had a coffee!

Going by the 30% rule and last season's averages, the two likely discussed rumours would see:

Hull FC/Hull KR - Hull United

(11,433 + 7,546 = 18,979) * 0.7 = 13,285 (a loss of 5,694)

Wakefield/Castleford - Wakefield Tigers

(8,172 + 6,710 = 14,882) * 0.7 = 10,417 (a loss of 4,465)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by the 30% rule and last season's averages, the two likely discussed rumours would see:

Hull FC/Hull KR - Hull United

(11,433 + 7,546 = 18,979) * 0.7 = 13,285 (a loss of 5,694)

Wakefield/Castleford - Wakefield Tigers

(8,172 + 6,710 = 14,882) * 0.7 = 10,417 (a loss of 4,465)

Which, under reduced costs, would see an upturn in kerching.

 

It was the "projections" aspect that threw me, and I know 30% was a random figure (and this is nowt to do with RidingPie!) my uncertainty comes from how any accountant anywhere in the world would be able to forecast how people would react, whether it is a sports club, or moving a supermarket or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's one of the problems of this approach. Though much of the process could be based on solid facts, some of the projections will be best/worst case projections (and probably the mean between them).

It doesn't count the human cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know it wasn't based on anything, I'm just intrigued how accountant x could work out a drop in support of y%, whether it be 1% or 99%. Again, not knocking what you've said, there just seems to many variables for anyone (real or not) to consider what a loss in punters would be. Anyway, that's probably too much like hard work for me before I've had a coffee!

not an account's job , maybe?    

 

Accountants do the sums: the measurement, disclosure or provision of assurance about financial information that helps managers, investors, tax authorities and others make decisions about allocating resources.

 

Anyway, looks like we are building yet another forum house made of speculative cards on a foundation of supposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't merge clubs who have 100 years of history, you kill one of them

Our challenge is to unite the game again, give hope to those not at the top table, expand the player pool in both France and here and create a high intensity top tier with a raised cap to better prepare us to beat the Aussies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweaty, we're not really talking about merging clubs. We are talking about how accountants think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we are building yet another forum house made of speculative cards on a foundation of supposition.

i.e. "The fact of believing something is true without any proof"???

What proof do we have of what is going to happen, but I guess there's good guesses and bad guesses that can be based on what has been said.

1. I do recall that Nigel Wood ruled out central funding for London Broncos recently so their continuation depends on David Hughes. Mr. Sadler spoke of reducing the "footprint of the game" which London's demise would do in spades, do you think Holmes we can fairly deduce from that Hughes may pull out London Broncos?

2. It has been speculated that Superleague could be 10 clubs, that even has come out of the mouth of a Superleague CEO. However Mr. Sadler categorically states the contract is for a minimum of twelve clubs and that the proposed changes do not involve any contract negotiation with SKY. Thus 12 is therefore the logical limit for reduction?? Elementary my dear Holmes?

3. Equally speculated has been the wishful thinking that "SL1 + SL2 = 20 clubs = more SKY money" Again Mr. Sadler quashes the idea that there are any negotiations for more money and that SKY are not driving anything here. The deal remains at £16.8million for a Superleague of a minimum of 12, and again as has been said this is about the top clubs getting more money. Does it take an accountant to do this sum....

£16,800,000. divided by 14 = £1.2M each but £16,800,000. divided by 12 = £1.4M. Even a bloodhound can work that out. DR was purported to save SL clubs £100K a season. A drop to 12 will give them £200K extra a season. Nothing for the second tier.

Enough clues to more than suppose it's 12 clubs sharing the existing SKY money and no London???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Equally speculated has been the wishful thinking that "SL1 + SL2 = 20 clubs = more SKY money" Again Mr. Sadler quashes the idea that there are any negotiations for more money and that SKY are not driving anything here. The deal remains at £16.8million for a Superleague of a minimum of 12, and again as has been said this is about the top clubs getting more money. Does it take an accountant to do this sum....

What Sky want is enough good quality content to fill their summer schedules at the lowest price they can get away with. In the absence of any serious competitors bidding against them they will pay what they think is enough to keep SL in business and not a penny more.

It really is as simple as that.

If the clubs want more money from the TV deal then they need to get another broadcaster interested. I do hope someone at the RFL has been in contact with BT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I fear you may be highly disappointed. However I stand to be corrected on whether in the recent mumblings we are discussing it has been said that this is more than just a reduction in SL so the big clubs can get more money, and that P & R is any part of the plan.

We NOW know that there is no more money from SKY and the moves are to give SL clubs more of what SKY do pay. How P & R can work between a Superleague that is enriched by £300,000 per club (which is the salary cap for the second tier) and which will turn over over £6,000,000 per club against a league that has no no backing and who will be used to supply players to SL I'm afraid i don't know??

As for choosing who goes where don't hold your breath about next year being about a competition to avoid relegation. The 17 year history has been entirely about manipulating who goes where. On the field Batley, Keighley, Hunslet and Dewsbury all earned the right to go up and didn't, then Fartown were reprieved from relegation three times, Catalans, London and Wales were protected from relegation, and Halifax. Leigh and Barrow refused licenses. I see no seas change in the policy?? RFL/SLE pick.

Finally (sorry about this) I'm amazed you think that Cas and HKR's relegation or "step down" would allow them to "get themselves together" and that they would benefit from not playing Leeds and Wigan. To be removed from a league in which you are removed from a £1,400,000 annual subsidy, and removed from a league where a visit from Leeds and Wigan can pull you 8,000 to 10,000 fans would be devastating. Again a check of the SL history books will demonstrate how the relegation of Oldham, Workington, Leigh and Halifax left them far from getting themselves together.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Sky want is enough good quality content to fill their summer schedules at the lowest price they can get away with. In the absence of any serious competitors bidding against them they will pay what they think is enough to keep SL in business and not a penny more.

It really is as simple as that.

I get pulled up for stating opinion as fact, so you'd best sprinkle a few IMHO's in there.

But it's an opinion I share as again the evidence of events was both games proffesionalised and the smaller game shifted to summer so SKY can have Rugby all year round. That's our strength - we supply RL in the gap between RU seasons.

What I am unsure of is are the Superleague club chairman basing their proposed changes to Superleague on a desire to keep the "product" they sell to SKY to a high quality? After all what would SKY pay if we were a semi professional game??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. It has been speculated that Superleague could be 10 clubs, that even has come out of the mouth of a Superleague CEO. However Mr. Sadler categorically states the contract is for a minimum of twelve clubs and that the proposed changes do not involve any contract negotiation with SKY. Thus 12 is therefore the logical limit for reduction?? Elementary my dear Holmes?

 

 

Not necessarily that simple though.

 

The current TV contract may dictate 12 teams, but that runs until the end of 2016. Who is to say that they won’t reduce to 12 in 2015, and then relegate another two at the end of 2016? If the game believes this is the right thing to do, then it is up to them to sell it to Sky to get it in the next contract.

 

There is too much short term planning going on – if it is genuinely believed that a 10 team division will be better for the game, then there are definitely ways that this can be delivered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017