Archived

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

The Daddy

Rebel super league clubs now totalling nine

328 posts in this topic

i just love the way everyone keeps writing off one of the very few teams with a positive plan for the future and are not trading at a massive loss........trust me boys and girls widnes are in for the long haul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got nothing against the big clubs or whatever.

 

What i'm getting at is i think the restructure is to make the game more exciting at all levels....not just at the top.   

 

Expansion is great but at super league level it isn't working so the RFL seem to be putting their efforts into expanding the game at lower levels and then hopefully in time we'll get bigger clubs growing outside the M62.

 

THE MAIN PROBLEM WE HAVE AT THE MINUTE IS NOT LACK OF EXPANSION - It's that the game isn't anywhere near as popular as it should be in it's main core markets.

 

People are losing interest, maybe not at wigan, leeds and Warrington, but there's clearly lots of financial problems for lots of teams.

 

In business you concentrate on your core markets where you know you can make money and once they are fully utilised you think about expanding.

 

There may be lots more fans in super league than outside it but it's quicker to make the game exciting for everyone to boost sales than to wait until all the fans of anyone outside the big few have died out.

Why have you brought 'expansion' into it? We have 7 vibrant clubs. Toulouse isn't really expansion, it's putting a top flight club into an area with a strong RL presence. The same can be said for Cumbria. Salford are cashed up. That gives us 10 clubs capable of challenging one another.

 

The only way to fight off the loss of players to the NRL nd union is by having a genuinely elite top flight. 

 

Below that we need to create a stable 2nd tier where the smaller clubs can compete with one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have you brought 'expansion' into it? We have 7 vibrant clubs. Toulouse isn't really expansion, it's putting a top flight club into an area with a strong RL presence. The same can be said for Cumbria. Salford are cashed up. That gives us 10 clubs capable of challenging one another.

 

The only way to fight off the loss of players to the NRL nd union is by having a genuinely elite top flight. 

 

Below that we need to create a stable 2nd tier where the smaller clubs can compete with one another.

 

That sounds lovely for the chosen 10.

 

In 3 or 4 years time when North Wales are banging their head on your glass ceiling, how do they progress as a club?  Should they be happy to be the best of the rest?  Should it be fine for the team finishing bottom of your "elite" to get away with it, without consequences, without Jeopardy?

 

When, half way through your "elite" season it becomes obvious that x team isn't going to make the play offs, is it OK that they don't need to make an effort to avoid the wooden spoon, safe in the knowledge that they'll be back next season, funding intact?  Will that make for a good spectaor sport, will Sky love the entertainment on offer. will the sponsors lap it up and fork out millions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's top clubs who attract grass roots players in numbers and it's mainly those grass roots who go on to become our top Internationals. Contrast big ish Leeds and Wigan with any two tiny clubs. We need to create more Leeds and Wigans they attract people to watch from a distance and kids to play in the biggest numbers.

 

Don't think anyone will disagree with that Parky.  The question is how we create more Leeds and Wigans.  I don't think we'll do it by pulling up the drawbridge and creating a sealed, stale competition.  3x8 allows clubs to initially find their affordable level.  From that platform, I believe we will see growth in places where currently it is impossible to imagine a Super League club.

 

(and I don't mean WF7 :tongue: )

 

I'd have a rule to force player development too, no less than x club trained players and no more than y non federation trained players in the matchday 17, with Cap credits for club trained players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds lovely for the chosen 10.

 

In 3 or 4 years time when North Wales are banging their head on your glass ceiling, how do they progress as a club?  Should they be happy to be the best of the rest?  Should it be fine for the team finishing bottom of your "elite" to get away with it, without consequences, without Jeopardy?

 

When, half way through your "elite" season it becomes obvious that x team isn't going to make the play offs, is it OK that they don't need to make an effort to avoid the wooden spoon, safe in the knowledge that they'll be back next season, funding intact?  Will that make for a good spectaor sport, will Sky love the entertainment on offer. will the sponsors lap it up and fork out millions?

If North Wales, or any other club, show genuine signs of being able to hack it in the top flight - by which I mean have the finances, investors, supporters - to compete in the top flight then you look at ways to bring them in. That might mean increasing the number or it might mean replacing a failing club, it would depend on the circumstances the game finds itself in - ie are there enough quality players to fill an extra team? is there a club that is out of its depth and should step down to the 2nd tier?

 

It really isn't that complicated, dozens of leagues in dozens of sports in dozens of countries operate in this way.

 

btw no-one is claiming that a competitive league means every single team has a chance of winning it, but it does mean the scores are close, that games are competitive, that fans have a realistic chance of seeing their team win games, and that the bottom side in Year X has the resources needed to create a team capable of challenging in Year Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If North Wales, or any other club, show genuine signs of being able to hack it in the top flight - by which I mean have the finances, investors, supporters - to compete in the top flight then you look at ways to bring them in. That might mean increasing the number or it might mean replacing a failing club, it would depend on the circumstances the game finds itself in - ie are there enough quality players to fill an extra team? is there a club that is out of its depth and should step down to the 2nd tier?

 

It really isn't that complicated, dozens of leagues in dozens of sports in dozens of countries operate in this way.

 

btw no-one is claiming that a competitive league means every single team has a chance of winning it, but it does mean the scores are close, that games are competitive, that fans have a realistic chance of seeing their team win games, and that the bottom side in Year X has the resources needed to create a team capable of challenging in Year Y.

 

You forget one extra variable, will the elite vote to dilute their money to allow another club in? 

 

Too many ifs and buts for me there, create a structure with clear rules of progression and finance, based on on-field perfomance.  With back up criteria to ensure adequate facilities and force player development.

 

3x8 removes the need to take the massive risk of stepping up like the old Crusaders did.  If they can't hack it at the first attempt, they are safely lowered to the next level to try again.

 

I think by definition, a "competitive league" means every team has a chance of winning it.  We have a 14 team league now, where all teams receive equal central funding and are allowed to spend the same on players, it is most definitley not a competitive league, how will you create one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have you brought 'expansion' into it? We have 7 vibrant clubs. Toulouse isn't really expansion, it's putting a top flight club into an area with a strong RL presence. The same can be said for Cumbria. Salford are cashed up. That gives us 10 clubs capable of challenging one another.

 

The only way to fight off the loss of players to the NRL nd union is by having a genuinely elite top flight. 

 

Below that we need to create a stable 2nd tier where the smaller clubs can compete with one another.

Yes but i don't think the game can support a genuine elite competition there aren't enough of us with a big enough geographical spread to have a vibrant second tier under a super league of elite clubs.

 

Maybe if the grass roots game spreads out we can eventually have large teams up and down the country in a premier competition everyone else feeds into but not at the minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think anyone will disagree with that Parky.  The question is how we create more Leeds and Wigans.  I don't think we'll do it by pulling up the drawbridge and creating a sealed, stale competition.  3x8 allows clubs to initially find their affordable level.  From that platform, I believe we will see growth..

 

There's that word again. "Growth"?

 

The only thing that grows businesses that gobble up every penny you can throw at them is money, and that money is provided by private individuals.

 

If you think opening right up an annual fight for Superleague status will attract £Millionaires to clubs to "grow" them (which in reality is throw money at them) then I see your point and would hope this does happen. However we had P & R for long enough 1996-2006 and there were no great queues of rich men snapping up clubs then so why now?.

 

If however by "growth" you mean crowds will grow because of the structure, more sponsors and advertisers will move in on the game, more TV money will come in, more merchandise will be sold then on what basis? 

 

The analysis of how attractive P & R was when we had it 1996-2006 shows people did not flock to failing SL clubs, or succeeding second tier clubs in any significant number. The crowds have always been at solvent competitive Superleague clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If North Wales, or any other club, show genuine signs of being able to hack it in the top flight - by which I mean have the finances, investors, supporters - to compete in the top flight then you look at ways to bring them in. That might mean increasing the number or it might mean replacing a failing club, it would depend on the circumstances the game finds itself in - ie are there enough quality players to fill an extra team? is there a club that is out of its depth and should step down to the 2nd tier?

 

It really isn't that complicated, dozens of leagues in dozens of sports in dozens of countries operate in this way.

 

btw no-one is claiming that a competitive league means every single team has a chance of winning it, but it does mean the scores are close, that games are competitive, that fans have a realistic chance of seeing their team win games, and that the bottom side in Year X has the resources needed to create a team capable of challenging in Year Y.

But isn't that the problem that we see now where a failing club and another out of their depth still can hold positions in SL? No dropping down to the 2nd tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got nothing against the big clubs or whatever.

 

What i'm getting at is i think the restructure is to make the game more exciting at all levels....not just at the top.   

 

Expansion is great but at super league level it isn't working so the RFL seem to be putting their efforts into expanding the game at lower levels and then hopefully in time we'll get bigger clubs growing outside the M62.

 

THE MAIN PROBLEM WE HAVE AT THE MINUTE IS NOT LACK OF EXPANSION - It's that the game isn't anywhere near as popular as it should be in it's main core markets.

 

People are losing interest, maybe not at wigan, leeds and Warrington, but there's clearly lots of financial problems for lots of teams.

 

In business you concentrate on your core markets where you know you can make money and once they are fully utilised you think about expanding.

 

There may be lots more fans in super league than outside it but it's quicker to make the game exciting for everyone to boost sales than to wait until all the fans of anyone outside the big few have died out.

 

In business you concentrate on your core markets where you know you can make money and once they are fully utilised you think about expanding.

 

 

 

I could't agree more, So being as S League is the part of the League business that makes money , That is what you should concentrate on.

 

 People are just buying into this idea that Rugby league is going to surge ahead with the new Structure, If it was coming in with £5 million extra funding a year , that would have a chance, I have seen nothing about extra money coming in, Just a lot of talk about how competitive it is all going to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't that the problem that we see now where a failing club and another out of their depth still can hold positions in SL? No dropping down to the 2nd tier.

 

Isn't that part of the licensing system though, I though that any ailing club could be replaced by a suitable club at the end of the 3 year term, Only problem is that what was going to be the saviour of the game is now to be replaced by the next scheme in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does super league make money though?  I'm sure the top 4 do but the rest are struggling aren't they

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't that the problem that we see now where a failing club and another out of their depth still can hold positions in SL? No dropping down to the 2nd tier.

That's because of the decision to expand to 14. 2 fewer places means you'd have had teams fighting to get in there and could remove the failing clubs and replace them.

 

The reality facing the game is that we have the resources (quality players, supporters, investors, broadcaster, sponsors) for 12 clubs, and that's including 2 French ones, and yet we've been running with 14. The new format, if it comes in, will see us running with 24.

 

If the new format was to bring in GBPmillions in new revenue then great, but it won't. We're just diluting an already diluted product. The end result of that is a semi-pro comp, which some people admit they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I could't agree more, So being as S League is the part of the League business that makes money , That is what you should concentrate on.

 

 

 

Does Super League make money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the new format was to bring in GBPmillions in new revenue then great, but it won't.

 

KPMG (I believe I have the right company) think otherwise.

 

I ask you again, have you read the document?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In business you concentrate on your core markets where you know you can make money and once they are fully utilised you think about expanding.

 

I'm no business expert, but don't successful businesses tend to close their non-profitable outlets to concentrate on the successful profitable ones?...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Super League make money?

 

 

Yes it makes a lot of money from Sky, That's not to say it makes enough, some clubs need heavy investment by their owners, If it doesn't make enough to bring all the SL clubs up to the level of the top 4 how is it going to fund the clubs lower down as well. The only way i can see is to lower the quality of SL, Which for me is the recipe for disaster.

 

I haven't heard anyone yet talk about more money coming into the game, Lots of talk about how the new structures will be wonderful, But just which of these teams who are going to come good under the new structure are going to be generating money.

 

Sharing a given amount of money out a different way will solve nothing,  League needs to generate more money . I would have thought that would be the RFL's job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a more exciting structure will make more money and attract more investment........the current set up obviously isn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it makes a lot of money from Sky, That's not to say it makes enough, some clubs need heavy investment by their owners, If it doesn't make enough to bring all the SL clubs up to the level of the top 4 how is it going to fund the clubs lower down as well. The only way i can see is to lower the quality of SL, Which for me is the recipe for disaster.

 

That's income, which is very different from making money.

 

I haven't heard anyone yet talk about more money coming into the game, Lots of talk about how the new structures will be wonderful, But just which of these teams who are going to come good under the new structure are going to be generating money.

 

 

 

KPMG's assesment is that the current stagnated competition is not attractive to sponsors and the corporate entertainment market (I'm paraphrasing), their analysis suggests the new structure can raise commercial income.

 

 

Sharing a given amount of money out a different way will solve nothing,  League needs to generate more money . I would have thought that would be the RFL's job.

 

The RFL's job is to create a framework, it's up to the clubs to generate the income (Super League Europe Ltd, owned by the clubs sell the Sky rights and competition sponsorship).  Blame for a lack of income rests soley with the clubs, they accepted the Sky deal, they accepted the Stobart deal, when there was a cash offer on the table.

 

The remaining 12 SL clubs do receive more from the TV deal under the proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no business expert, but don't successful businesses tend to close their non-profitable outlets to concentrate on the successful profitable ones?...

 

 

So we should go down to 3 or 4 clubs then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KPMG (I believe I have the right company) think otherwise.

 

I ask you again, have you read the document?

Parts of it, although admittedly not all.

 

It's interesting that we're taking KPMGs advice on this, because they've been doing the licensing assessments and we're always being told that that system was a joke. People on here have spent years questioning the grades given to different clubs and the quality of the assessment of Crusaders, Wakefield, Bradford, etc. I'd say that the response from any consultancy depends entirely on the question you ask them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's income, which is very different from making money.

 

 

KPMG's assesment is that the current stagnated competition is not attractive to sponsors and the corporate entertainment market (I'm paraphrasing), their analysis suggests the new structure can raise commercial income.

 

 

The RFL's job is to create a framework, it's up to the clubs to generate the income (Super League Europe Ltd, owned by the clubs sell the Sky rights and competition sponsorship).  Blame for a lack of income rests soley with the clubs, they accepted the Sky deal, they accepted the Stobart deal, when there was a cash offer on the table.

 

The remaining 12 SL clubs do receive more from the TV deal under the proposals.

 

So the closest I'm going to get is, An analysis suggests  commercial income can be raised.

 

I know these are not your words, and to me they are the sort of noises Politicians make when they tell you how much better the health service is going to be when they have cut the number of beds .

 

Income, Making money, call it what you will, Its the main source of money coming into the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not have different length licences?

5 years grade a

3 years grade b

2 years grade c

1 year grade d (currently grade c with strings attached)

Newly promoted auto grade c with a list of improvements, (2 years)

Qualifications for application remain the same but can apply instantly and the chance for application remains open for 2 years,

Some years multiple applications up for renewal, also the number of teams can change so their are no clingers on and if clubs are ready to step up instantly they can do without waiting to 'displace' a current club

'Foreign' clubs can enter northen rail cup as a point to tick that box of qualification if they win it! (Foreign club to pay all extra cost of games)....

Just an idea.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting obsevation is that the general feeling is to split the money between the super league clubs....

Soccer split it about 26 ways....

20 to the current clubs,some as parachute payments

One 26th goes to grass roots

But most importantly one 26th goes to the manegment of the league and hiring costs of Richard Scudamore whos main aim is to promote and sell the rights and get sponsorship for as much money as he can squeeze out of people!!! (Not the FAs job)

They relise they need to reinvest some of the earnings

Also its a myth that sky would pay less for a reduced teams in the league

Soccer reduced the prem from 22 and sky paid more for the rights..... lets remember sky show 2 games a week regardless of how many teams are in the league!

Also sky are forced to show all the clubs a minimum amount of times

By no way do sky call the shots!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a more exciting structure will make more money and attract more investment........the current set up obviously isn't

 

the problem is the first word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017