Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
League Express

The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)

4,790 posts in this topic

1. So if Koukash had turned up there with a 10 year deposit of £2M a year you'd have given him the hard word then? Gateshead were straight in came sixth and were the 11th. best supported club in the RFL out of nothing.Your principles are fine. Good luck with supporting Gloucester (195) Hemel (299) and Oxford (312) on their organic growth towards Superleague.

Gateshead lost millions and had to merge. If they continued, they'd have gone bust and would likely have played in front of tiny crowds getting hammered as their players left until the plug was finally pulled. If anything, that's an argument against franchising.

One novelty year does not make you a well supported club. When you're struggling yet people are still coming, that means you're well supported. There are different kinds of supporters who are at different levels of support.

2. Cas (dropped to 6292) Wakey (dropped to 7973) Fev (up to 2400) all loss making SL crowds. You confuse the principle that businesses succeed and fail on the level of profit, not the level of customers. You forget ego-driven people do not want to be seen dead at Castleford or Wakefield.

Without customers, where is the profit going to come from?

3. If you want to somehow tell me the principle of merger will leave only 9 clubs then go ahead, but I cannot see your logic at all. You've just contrived to say you can't merge any clubs because you'll end up with 9. Meaningless.

Even if it was nine it would be one more than the ridiculous surrender to the status quo that effectively will leave only eight proper Superleague clubs.

I think his point is you'd end up with 9 strongish clubs, and the rest would be nowhere near, so we'd actually contract.

Unless we've got clubs from other areas anywhere near ready to compete, there's absolutely no point in shrinking the number of Northern clubs.

4. Given another chance to do exactly what. How does P & R provide advantages to Superleague that in turn underpins the all important SKY contract?? How will it deal with the £68,000,000 Superleague losses?

Because when clubs underperform and fail, they get relegated.

In licensing, they get to continually fail.

There is little punishment for failure in the licensing. There is becoming less reward for success. SL is becoming more and more of an entertainment parade than a showcase if elite sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In licensing, they get to continually fail."

 

 

Out of interest Which club or clubs does that refer to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Bradford Bulls the gamechanger in the P&R debate ?

 

Think about this, are Bradford like the Banks a club deemed by the RFL as too big to fail. As things stand both Bradford and London are nailed on for relegation under the RFL masterplan. London's demise would have little impact in the "heartlands"  but the loss of Bradford from Super League would hit chairmen where it hurts, in the wallet, because of the size of their support and playing base.

 

Given that Investors are unlikely to put money into a club that would be playing in a second rate semi-pro competition or at best against semi-pro teams for half the season and the damage to the Super League "brand" that the loss of a "name" club to general sports fans would bring. Could this force a re-think on P&R or at the very least an insistance on conditional P&R ? 

 

It would also help London and clubs like Wakefield where investors would be more likely to put theire money in and develop a business plan without the variable of being relegated to a semi-pro competition or playing semi-pro clubs for half a season.

 

Not saying I necesarily agree with this, but it is the argument advanced by Aviva Premiership Chairmen as to why the Union Premiership needs to be ring-fenced which as been resisted by the RFU. So will this be under consideration at the Super League Chairmens meeting in January ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gateshead lost millions and had to merge. If they continued, they'd have gone bust and would likely have played in front of tiny crowds getting hammered as their players left until the plug was finally pulled. If anything, that's an argument against franchising.

One novelty year does not make you a well supported club. When you're struggling yet people are still coming, that means you're well supported. There are different kinds of supporters who are at different levels of support.

Without customers, where is the profit going to come from?

I think his point is you'd end up with 9 strongish clubs, and the rest would be nowhere near, so we'd actually contract.

Unless we've got clubs from other areas anywhere near ready to compete, there's absolutely no point in shrinking the number of Northern clubs.

Because when clubs underperform and fail, they get relegated.

In licensing, they get to continually fail.

There is little punishment for failure in the licensing. There is becoming less reward for success. SL is becoming more and more of an entertainment parade than a showcase if elite sport.

Didn't hull fc have to merge as well? How we're they doing financially at the time? I seem to remember hull vCard getting crowds numbered in the hundreds...and thousands of people wearing t shirts saying that they were one if the hundreds

The punishment for failure in licensing is amongst other things nit to get a license

Clubs like all businesses and organizations under whatever systems will fail. It seems reasonable to out in place structures, checks and balances to limit the possibility and to lessen the blow if failure

Your club has benefited from this

Otherwise without the opportunity to merge with Gateshead your club would have gone under

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't hull fc have to merge as well? How we're they doing financially at the time? I seem to remember hull vCard getting crowds numbered in the hundreds...and thousands of people wearing t shirts saying that they were one if the hundreds

The punishment for failure in licensing is amongst other things nit to get a license

Clubs like all businesses and organizations under whatever systems will fail. It seems reasonable to out in place structures, checks and balances to limit the possibility and to lessen the blow if failure

Your club has benefited from this

Otherwise without the opportunity to merge with Gateshead your club would have gone under

 

Well said, my point was that we have to stop dreaming that clubs can grow and grow through CC1 and CC to be "ready" for Superleague with the final act of a Grand Final win to take the prize. Way back around 1999/200/2001 Dewsbury and my club Hunslet attained this position and neither were promoted because they reluctantly conceded they'd get destroyed in Superleague. Huddersfield were also getting caned in Superleague but once Davey got hold of them then they started to rise through the league until they hit the top last year.

 

Ten years of sustained heavy investment that took.No wishful thinking, no dreaming, no ignoring reality

 

The only reason Gatehead did not build on that early success or London, or Crusaders, Or Paris is because those bankrolling them did not have the heavy heavy price of success. To ignore the fact that non-M62 clubs can compete in SL and can draw 10,000 crowds is to deny that money is the only driver for Rugby League as a professional sport.

 

 "P & R" certainly is not that unless someone can explain to me please why it is rather then picking at minor points??.

 

On the point about the game needing profit more than customers, I make it again.

 

Featherstone have their best crowds in years at 2,400 wakefield have hit 8,200 and Cas 7.200 with equally moderate playing success. Total - nearly 18,000 fans with certainly more fans in the area who may respond to a bit of success. The trick is to get them to one club with ONE SET OF EXPENSES. Should they merge lose 10,000 old fans, gain 4,000 new fans, then thay can pay their local players properly and stop Leeds, and Hull draining them of decent players.

 

However I don't care. I'd rather Newmarket happened and Wakefield kicked on, enough fans will find their way there in time to make a profit. They say clubs can break even on 8,000 crowds in a well built modern stadium with good facilities. Steve O'Connor and John Wilkinson said it, Bob8 said it.

 

RL would be so much stronger and would be profitable in Calder with less customers if the business model was right. If I have three loss making garages all in the same area I may decide that it's a good idea to consolidate and therefore heavily cut the cost base. I may even make more profit with less customers and with that profit I may be able to kick on and become bigger. In the end If I become bigger and more succesful/attractive to new customers I may do really well and in the end my customer base may rise significantly. This is what businesses do, they focus on profit first.

 

All RL clubs do is make losses and cry about it. Nobody looks for a decent business plan.

 

In 1999 Hull were on 4,346 crowds with 3,100 for Salford, once the merger helped save the club, and the new stadium opened, with HKR out of the way the club rose and rose eventually attracting 14,000 crowds to the KC before HKR decided to get in on the party. It was a smart move to merge and a less smart move to have two Hull clubs in SL. All IMVHO of course.

Edited by The Parksider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't hull fc have to merge as well? How we're they doing financially at the time? I seem to remember hull vCard getting crowds numbered in the hundreds...and thousands of people wearing t shirts saying that they were one if the hundreds

Hull wanted to be relegated. The clubs in the NFP voted to not let them in. They were basically left to die. Had they had a competition to play in, Hull would probably have continued in the NFP.

The punishment for failure in licensing is amongst other things nit to get a license

If that were the case, Wakefield, London and Bradford wouldn't have a license.

Clubs like all businesses and organizations under whatever systems will fail. It seems reasonable to out in place structures, checks and balances to limit the possibility and to lessen the blow if failure

It does. But I fail to see how that IS happening in licensing, and how it CAN'T happen in P&R.

Your club has benefited from this

My club benefited from a catalogue of fortunate incidents brought about by the ineptness of some and selfishness of others. I would not call what happened to my club an advert for what should happen. And nor do I agree that it should have happened just because my own club benefitted from it.

Otherwise without the opportunity to merge with Gateshead your club would have gone under

If they'd have been allowed to play in the NFP, they'd have been at their rightful level at the time.

What was allowed to happen was a joke and just because my club benefitted from it doesn't mean I think it was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1999 Hull were on 4,346 crowds with 3,100 for Salford, once the merger helped save the club, and the new stadium opened, with HKR out of the way the club rose and rose eventually attracting 14,000 crowds to the KC before HKR decided to get in on the party. It was a smart move to merge and a less smart move to have two Hull clubs in SL. All IMVHO of course.

Keep saying it. Someone will eventually believe you.

There's opinions, there's lies and then there's repeating lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. So if Koukash had turned up there with a 10 year deposit of £2M a year you'd have given him the hard word then? Gateshead were straight in came sixth and were the 11th. best supported club in the RFL out of nothing.Your principles are fine. Good luck with supporting Gloucester (195) Hemel (299) and Oxford (312) on their organic growth towards Superleague.

 

If Koukash had done that then yes that's right. He would know that before he put his money in. With that kind of investment, Gateshead could have been in SL in their third season after that.

If Khoukash didn't want to wait that long, he could have declined to invest in Gateshead. There are plenty of needy candidates already in SL, who would have welcomed his investment, like say Salford.

By the way what do you make of his offer to buy Swinton and bankroll them in a new stadium in the middle of the town with retail developments attached. Apparently he is serious if the Salford council will play ball with him. Preumably, if this came off, he would be prepared to wait for Swinton to climb the ladder to the top offered by p and r.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep saying it. Someone will eventually believe you.

There's opinions, there's lies and then there's repeating lies.

Hull were better in the immediate years before HKR were in SL, weather the decline was due to HKRs rise is another question!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hull were better in the immediate years before HKR were in SL, weather the decline was due to HKRs rise is another question!

You are right.

But they didn't have bigger crowds, like he continually says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hull wanted to be relegated. The clubs in the NFP voted to not let them in. They were basically left to die. Had they had a competition to play in, Hull would probably have continued in the NFP.

If that were the case, Wakefield, London and Bradford wouldn't have a license.

It does. But I fail to see how that IS happening in licensing, and how it CAN'T happen in P&R.

My club benefited from a catalogue of fortunate incidents brought about by the ineptness of some and selfishness of others. I would not call what happened to my club an advert for what should happen. And nor do I agree that it should have happened just because my own club benefitted from it.

If they'd have been allowed to play in the NFP, they'd have been at their rightful level at the time.

What was allowed to happen was a joke and just because my club benefitted from it doesn't mean I think it was right.

I don't know how that would have been brought about, especially with it being in the nfp clubs commercial interestd: it's certainly unique in my experience. Left to die? Certainly not by the governing body who gave them the lifeline of the merger.how did the  club getv into such a mess? They're all mad about rugby league in hull aren't they?

These clubs kept their licenses because of their strategic value in the same way that your club has a strategic value. If I remember rightly these clubs have had sanctions taken against them in the past as have several others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hull were better in the immediate years before HKR were in SL, weather the decline was due to HKRs rise is another question!

 

They won the cup and got second in the league. When they went to Old Trafford, crowds had hit 11,200.

The new season had great expectations that attracted crowds of well over 12,000 without the precious "Derby". There's a  more than even chance HKR had an effect vying for the same RL audience and players, there's certainly no chance for me the two clubs had a "symbiotic" relationship, one of the dafest things ever suggested on her, and were to each others benefit. Maybe it takes an outsider to see it, but I reckon Adam Pearson's attempts to dismantle the HKR team to his own advantage was telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how that would have been brought about, especially with it being in the nfp clubs commercial interestd: it's certainly unique in my experience. Left to die? Certainly not by the governing body who gave them the lifeline of the merger.

The governing body wanted to reduce the league. They offered clubs money (£1m IIRC) to merge to trim down the size if the league. It was the only way to keep a club in Hull. It was a very unique situation. If other clubs had taken the offer, or they didn't want to reduce the league, then God knows what would have happened to the club.

I'm not sure why the Association of Premiership Clubs chose not to include Hull. It seems some clubs were happy to try and let the club die. This situation would not ever happen again though hopefully (as we've seen new clubs form and go straight into the lower leagues).

how did the club getv into such a mess? They're all mad about rugby league in hull aren't they?

David Lloyd. The man nearly single-handedly destroyed the two biggest sports clubs in the region. It doesn't matter how rugby league mad an area are if there's someone in charge of the business wanting to destroy it. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

These clubs kept their licenses because of their strategic value in the same way that your club has a strategic value. If I remember rightly these clubs have had sanctions taken against them in the past as have several others.

I don't believe the sanctions are string enough. The whole point of licensing was to provide a club with a chance of stability. How many clubs during the franchise era have gotten themselves into trouble more than once (in only 5 years)? How long do you keep propping up a club because it's "strategic"? How long before you look for a better strategy? I don't think the image of having clubs go bust and come back in with a small slap on the wrist (a few points off a club that probably wouldn't make the play-offs anyway and no threat of relegation) is a good one.

Is a few points off a club really a sanction? And do it help the image of the league or the club itself? If anything it stifles both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"If Koukash had turned up there with a 10 year deposit of £2M a year you'd have given him the hard word then?"

 

yes that's right.

By the way what do you make of his offer to buy Swinton and bankroll them in a new stadium in the middle of the town with retail developments attached. Apparently he is serious if the Salford council will play ball with him. Preumably, if this came off, he would be prepared to wait for Swinton to climb the ladder to the top offered by p and r.

 

Looking a gift horse in the mouth over a silly principle of "fair play" in what is a made for TV sport. Then interpreting the Koukash bid for Swinton as the first stage to Superleague. Happy new year hpe all your dreams come true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won the cup and got second in the league. When they went to Old Trafford, crowds had hit 11,200.

The new season had great expectations that attracted crowds of well over 12,000 without the precious "Derby". There's a more than even chance HKR had an effect vying for the same RL audience and players, there's certainly no chance for me the two clubs had a "symbiotic" relationship, one of the dafest things ever suggested on her, and were to each others benefit. Maybe it takes an outsider to see it, but I reckon Adam Pearson's attempts to dismantle the HKR team to his own advantage was telling.

It appears Parky knows more about what drives Hull fans interest than the Hull fans themselves...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking a gift horse in the mouth over a silly principle of "fair play" in what is a made for TV sport. Then interpreting the Koukash bid for Swinton as the first stage to Superleague. Happy new year hpe all your dreams come true.

Well, your fanciful initial premise was just that. Nobody, to date, has ever offered huge money to a cc1 club and are unlikely to do so. The bit you cut out to suit your argument is still relevant. If the investor truly wanted into RL and didn't want to finance a team for several years until it got to SL, there are plenty of existing SL clubs in need of financing.

I don't know how to interpret the Khoukash, Swinton link up as to his long term ambitions and neither do you. I just find it a very interesting development.

Principals and fair play should be an important part of any sporting league's mission statement if you ask me. If you carry the lack of such to their ultimate conclusion there would be games fixed in favour of top teams and and illegal funding of players or rigging of cup draws and any number of unpleasant events taking place. Life might not be fair but we should all strive to make it so.

Your willingness to ignore rules and procedures so long as the end justifies the means is he start of a slippery slope to corruption and collusion. Even the Americans eventually abandoned laissez faire capitalism and imposed some rules and regulations. Happy New Year to you too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won the cup and got second in the league. When they went to Old Trafford, crowds had hit 11,200.

The new season had great expectations that attracted crowds of well over 12,000 without the precious "Derby". There's a  more than even chance HKR had an effect vying for the same RL audience and players, there's certainly no chance for me the two clubs had a "symbiotic" relationship, one of the dafest things ever suggested on her, and were to each others benefit. Maybe it takes an outsider to see it, but I reckon Adam Pearson's attempts to dismantle the HKR team to his own advantage was telling.

I don't see where Widnes's recent rise has affected Warrington or how Wigan's successes affect St. Helens or how Swinton's fall has helped Salford. Featherstone are increasing their attendnaces at the same time as Wakefield are increasing theirs. Your suggestion re hull KR affecting Hull just doesn't hold water unless the proximity of the two clubs is somehow different to the other clubs in the game who are in close proximity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your suggestion re hull KR affecting Hull just doesn't hold water unless the proximity of the two clubs is somehow different to the other clubs in the game who are in close proximity.

 

Well it's a suggestion that has some statistical backing, and is based on the principle of two clubs fighting over the same local resources, that's a well held principle in our game and dates back to the drive to merge teams. It's a principle that sees Leigh struggle in the face of Wigan, Hunslet in the face of Leeds, three Calder clubs in the face of each other. People can suit themselves what they want to believe but the competitiveness and success of Hull and their rise to average crowds over 12,000, was interrupted by the rise of HKR. Everyones free to decide if the principle of "resources" is true or what happened was pure co-incidence. Everyone's free to speculate whether Hull would be competitive on higher crowds with the top dogs today if HKR had not come along. Everyone's free to make what they want of it even that the "Derby" is what drives both clubs forward? The situation is playing out still and Adam Pearson's move to strip HKR of their best players is hardly a "symbiotic" move. You suit yourself, maybe all M62 clubs will grow their playing strength and fan bases together in wonderful harmony to create a game stronger in fan and playing resources than the NRL, if they do I'll owe you an apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the investor truly wanted into RL and didn't want to finance a team for several years until it got to SL, there are plenty of existing SL clubs in need of financing.

Principals and fair play should be an important part of any sporting league's mission statement if you ask me.

 

OK so a made for TV professional game £68,000,000 and more in debt, fighting for it's life, can turn down £Millions of free investment from someone if they don't conform to your fair play rules. Brilliant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's a suggestion that has some statistical backing, and is based on the principle of two clubs fighting over the same local resources, that's a well held principle in our game and dates back to the drive to merge teams. It's a principle that sees Leigh struggle in the face of Wigan, Hunslet in the face of Leeds, three Calder clubs in the face of each other. People can suit themselves what they want to believe but the competitiveness and success of Hull and their rise to average crowds over 12,000, was interrupted by the rise of HKR. Everyones free to decide if the principle of "resources" is true or what happened was pure co-incidence. Everyone's free to speculate whether Hull would be competitive on higher crowds with the top dogs today if HKR had not come along. Everyone's free to make what they want of it even that the "Derby" is what drives both clubs forward? The situation is playing out still and Adam Pearson's move to strip HKR of their best players is hardly a "symbiotic" move. You suit yourself, maybe all M62 clubs will grow their playing strength and fan bases together in wonderful harmony to create a game stronger in fan and playing resources than the NRL, if they do I'll owe you an apology.

People are also free to spout lies as well. People are also free to look at statistics, decide they don't like them, and then twist them into their favour (or just outright lie about them). It's akin to having the same belief that I am actually a fish or there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the universe. We can ignore all the facts if we want, but then what's the point in talking.

Here are the facts:

Hull FC's average attendance from 2003 when they moved to the KC Stadium:

2003 - 11,598

2004 - 11,458

2005 - 10,604

2006 - 10,866

2007 - 14,605 (year HKR entered)

2008 - 13,432

2009 - 13,244

2010 - 13,731

2011 - 12,483

2012 - 11,885

2013 - 11,728

They've never been higher since Hull KR entered. There's a fact for you.

If you think it took two years for 4,000 extra fans to decide to flock to the stadium after the cup win, you're clutching at straws.

Now can we put this myth to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so a made for TV professional game £68,000,000 and more in debt, fighting for it's life, can turn down £Millions of free investment from someone if they don't conform to your fair play rules. Brilliant.

If an oil tycoon offered the RFL £1billion to enter his own team into the league but on the premise that his team MUST win the Super League (so the refs must make sure his team wins), would you accept it?

It's free investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an oil tycoon offered the RFL £1billion to enter his own team into the league but on the premise that his team MUST win the Super League (so the refs must make sure his team wins), would you accept it?

It's free investment.

 

Would that be legal ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salary cap isn't legal, just a gentlemans agreement but the principle of it is accepted for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salary cap isn't legal, just a gentlemans agreement but the principle of it is accepted for now.

If it's not legal, how come sanctions can be invoked against non compliant clubs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salary cap isn't legal, just a gentlemans agreement but the principle of it is accepted for now.

 

What's not legal about the salary cap ?

 

I think you may be confusing it with the capping of individual players' wages.  If any player can show in court that he can earn the entire salary cap on his own, good luck to the lad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017