Archived

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

Spidey

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

762 posts in this topic

I have

there's nothing in it I don't know already

 

which teams, particularly UK Rugby League teams does News Corp own?

Does he own soccer, cricket, Rugby Union? Rugby League? speedway? baseball? NRL? etc I think not.

 

Is it not possible to check the results of and read stories about sports teams in titles other than News Corp Titles? 

 

the only Murdoch title I read is the Sunday Tmes two or three times a month: I enjoy some of the feature articles, and to see what Stephen Jones is up to. I watch the rugby on SKY because there is nowhere else I can watch the elite competition on tv. This doesn't make me a vassal of the dirty digger.

I don't read any Murdoch titles, I even refused a free "Sun" when they were giving them away with petrol. I firmly believe that Murdoch is basically evil, a little like Damien in "The Omen"  I don't like other sports being mixed up with him, especially cricket, but I regard RL as my sport. The one I've supported and played for over fifty years, and we're in bed with this monster. Sooner or later we'll come to regret it, as the Labour party did when he announced on the day of Gordon Brown's speech to the Labour conference he was switching to supporting the Tories.  When he decides to dump RL you can bet it will be at the worst possible time for the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scubby, can't do quotes on my phone so replying to your #148 post. My real issue for the Championship clubs is how are they going to fund their assault on SL. A salary cap of £1m but only with a maximum grant of £500k is a massive amount for what are basically small time rugby clubs. Throw in the requirement to fund full time staff as well means all clubs will need a massive interjection of funds from elsewhere. It is a real risk and there are going to be some casualties in the Championship.

 

out of the new tv deal there is enough money to seriously increase the grants too all clubs in all 3 leagues...something like £1.8 for ESL clubs,£1m to championship clubs & £250,000 for league one clubs and the RFL would still have £5-6m a year left over..

 

someone somewhere is pocketing a huge wedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scubby, can't do quotes on my phone so replying to your #148 post. My real issue for the Championship clubs is how are they going to fund their assault on SL. A salary cap of £1m but only with a maximum grant of £500k is a massive amount for what are basically small time rugby clubs. Throw in the requirement to fund full time staff as well means all clubs will need a massive interjection of funds from elsewhere. It is a real risk and there are going to be some casualties in the Championship.

 

Answer is that they can't! And in Season 2 £500k is only for team 1 in the ladder and any parachute payment has gone. When you get to team 3-4 you are going to £300-350k. These are clubs getting gates of 1-2k so where is the rest of the turnover coming from? The only way to spend £1m on the cap is to go for broke - "broke" being the operative word.

 

The game has no excuses not to plan for growth under the new system - either by increasing Championship payments or producing a long term strategy. The club game knows exactly how much money is coming into the game for the next 7 years after signing this massive incremental TV deal.

 

I think the club I follow (Featherstone) has dodged a massive bullet by this Nahboo guy taking his ball home. We could have set the club back 10 years signing players on salaries that we couldn't sustain for a wild shot at a loaded and contrived structure. Leigh also have form of getting into financial pickles and I hope they are planning their growth sensibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read any Murdoch titles, I even refused a free "Sun" when they were giving them away with petrol. I firmly believe that Murdoch is basically evil, a little like Damien in "The Omen"  I don't like other sports being mixed up with him, especially cricket, but I regard RL as my sport. The one I've supported and played for over fifty years, and we're in bed with this monster. Sooner or later we'll come to regret it, as the Labour party did when he announced on the day of Gordon Brown's speech to the Labour conference he was switching to supporting the Tories.  When he decides to dump RL you can bet it will be at the worst possible time for the sport.

(1) He doesn't have a majority shareholding in Sky, although it's big enough (c.37%, I think) to be what's known in financial circles as a blocking shareholding.

(2) There was reliable talk on the financial channels last week that he was looking to offload Sky to help finance his proposed take-over of Time-Warner (whose refusal of his offer was more of the 'we want more cash' variety than a straight 'go away')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

out of the new tv deal there is enough money to seriously increase the grants too all clubs in all 3 leagues...something like £1.8 for ESL clubs,£1m to championship clubs & £250,000 for league one clubs and the RFL would still have £5-6m a year left over..

 

someone somewhere is pocketing a huge wedge

 

Exactly the points I have been making. Side 12 in SL will be getting £2m per year and side 8 in the Championship will be getting £200k or less. Yet we are moving to overlapping competitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure clubs will be getting £2m a year. The RFL are funding the league structure now eventhough the new TV deal isn't due until 2017; therefore they are dipping into those funds early so reducing the 17-21 pot. Also about £30m were for player development plus internationals and the Challenge Cup so the funds available aren't £200m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure clubs will be getting £2m a year. The RFL are funding the league structure now eventhough the new TV deal isn't due until 2017; therefore they are dipping into those funds early so reducing the 17-21 pot. Also about £30m were for player development plus internationals and the Challenge Cup so the funds available aren't £200m.

 

In an interview I saw a few weeks ago, Eamonn McManus said that for the first time in the game's history the TV distribution to clubs will cover the salary cap. If the SC is now £1.9m then distribution must be close to £2m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) He doesn't have a majority shareholding in Sky, although it's big enough (c.37%, I think) to be what's known in financial circles as a blocking shareholding.

(2) There was reliable talk on the financial channels last week that he was looking to offload Sky to help finance his proposed take-over of Time-Warner (whose refusal of his offer was more of the 'we want more cash' variety than a straight 'go away')

Can't come too soon for me.  I'd have Sky tomorrow if I could be sure Rupert wasn't involved.  I feel I miss out on such a lot, both RL and Test cricket.  But I'll stick to my guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just nonsense. course they had a chance. Of course they had and still have a chance. What was stopping them from doing what Fev did.....going for an SL licence.

There was no SL licence to apply for at the outset of SL. You were in or out depending on the whim of Lindsay and his partners. It's not, therefore , nonsense. When licencing did come in later, after p and r was again removed, these clubs were not as strong as they were at the dawn of SL when they should have been given the place they had won or held on merit. If London and Paris had to be in the numbers should just have been increased in the top tier. Arbitrary removal or denial just because wasn't the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the sport isn't struggling now?

yes it is

but it isn't dying on its knees, hence the term 'lowest ebb. Go compare as they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read any Murdoch titles, I even refused a free "Sun" when they were giving them away with petrol. I firmly believe that Murdoch is basically evil, a little like Damien in "The Omen"  I don't like other sports being mixed up with him, especially cricket, but I regard RL as my sport. The one I've supported and played for over fifty years, and we're in bed with this monster. Sooner or later we'll come to regret it, as the Labour party did when he announced on the day of Gordon Brown's speech to the Labour conference he was switching to supporting the Tories.  When he decides to dump RL you can bet it will be at the worst possible time for the sport.

well that puts you ahead on points in the morality department.I'm humbled, although I suggest you be careful where you go in that direction.

 

And you are right. Rugby League should walk away from SKY right now. We don't need his tainted money, or his national broadcasting profile or two televised games a week or his rugby league magazine shows.

What's your alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Batley have consistently said that they're not up to $uperleague and never applied for entry.

 

I'd call that realistic.

If SL had not come along in the season that it did, Batley would have been promoted to the First Division from 2nd place. Are you saying they would have refused that promotion.? Nobody applied for entry to SL in the beginning. The places were handed out like candy to children.

Looking at London and Paris and even Gateshead and Crusaders in later years it looks like the wrong children were given the candy. It would have been difficult for any of the rejected clubs to do worse than those two and also Oldham, Halifax and Workington. They should have been allowed in and the chips would have fallen as they may. These clubs would have joined the other SL failures, or maybe not. ww shall never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely Widnes and Featherstone were casualties of the fans' desire to have things decided "on the field".

 

They should've won more games than Halifax, Oldham, Sheffield and Workington.

Neither finished in a relegation spot. They were removed for London, who didn't finish in a promotion spot and Paris, who didn't even exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

out of the new tv deal there is enough money to seriously increase the grants too all clubs in all 3 leagues...something like £1.8 for ESL clubs,£1m to championship clubs & £250,000 for league one clubs and the RFL would still have £5-6m a year left over..

 

someone somewhere is pocketing a huge wedge

surely it would depend on whether a club was a worthwhile investment for the future of the game, rather than just share it out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said you 'seem' to be calling someone a liar…I was reaching for an explanation

Did you see the post on Rupert Murdoch and the attached article. If you distort, swamp by repeated stories, and make assumptions on dodgy facts, you give the public the impression that something is, which, in fact, is not.

It's not outright lying but it's close and needs to be countered by an alternative take on the " facts".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scubby #181, I know the cap is being funded; just thought it was around £1.85m a year. £150k might sound like semantics but it's £9m over the 5yr contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correct

Assumptions cannot be stated as facts if the team concerned were never given the opportunity to seize their opportunity. They well have failed, they might well not. If they failed then they would have had lot's of company. Later promotees such as Cas, KR and the Giants did not. Leigh did and are still around.

The refusal of Keighley their place led to disaster and two that's TWO bankruptcies. If that's your definition of " saved" then it's different to mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dewsbury Rams did the same

Were Dewsbury and Hunslet both refused promotion for not reaching minimum standards mostly with regards to their stadia.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bradford Bulls seem to have 6,000 'fanatics' in one of their lousiest seasons: to call people who follow a football team fanatics is ridiculous. This is more than their putative replacements can hope for on the back of success. Who knows what that would translate to in the face of a weekly hammerig.

 

You invoked the term 'fanatic' and used it in terms of those who followed Bradford Bulls.

I didn't invoke anything. That's an accepted definition of the shortened " Fan" which is in common usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scubby #181, I know the cap is being funded; just thought it was around £1.85m a year. £150k might sound like semantics but it's £9m over the 5yr contract.

 

I think with the new extra allowances and things that some clubs now have a SC of £2m or maybe more is being spent in places. Whatever, we are still getting to 10x what a club like Whitehaven will receive if they stay in the Championship next season. And remember, the SL pot is incremental and divvied up x12 now and not x14 (although Bradford would argue it was x13.66).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to you I'm not a fan

If you keep switching your allegiance from team to team as you stated then you are not a fan of a particular team. That's by definition. I would rather describe you s a fan of Rugby League in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that puts you ahead on points in the morality department.I'm humbled, although I suggest you be careful where you go in that direction.

 

And you are right. Rugby League should walk away from SKY right now. We don't need his tainted money, or his national broadcasting profile or two televised games a week or his rugby league magazine shows.

What's your alternative?

I don't have one, but I'm sure there are cleverer people than me who could come up with a solution. BTW just for clarification as to where you're coming from in this discussion, perhaps you could make plain why "my club" are no longer your club. At one time if there was one person on here who could be relied upon for the inside goss. about Fev it was you.  e.g whose idea it was to play "It's over" when they kick a goal, what a brilliant idea it was to have a mascot named after a notorious sex killer and so on and so forth. I think we should be told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the article or are you just relying on good old right wing prejudice?

As an example of Murdoch's " journalism", look at what Fix, sorry Fox, news did to Obama. He was variously reported to be " a socialist" " not born in the US" despite birth certificates to the contrary, " a follower of a religious fanatic and hence suspect" although for the fundamentalist candidates this was a plus, " following a colonial agenda inherited from his father", "waging a war on the rich and about to tax the middle class to extinction" etc etc.

Fox news in the states has gone so far off course as to be regarded as untrustworthy with regards to the truth.

Murdoch, as stated in the article, is obsessed with winning and this, I think, is the reason for his initial support of British RL, so that he could kill off Kerry Packer's challenge in Australia.

He is, for all his faults, a brilliant businessman and I suspect the following contracts were because of the value the British game to Sky was good business for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be a moot point if the odds against them weren't so steep.

What would they have contributed to Super League had they been admitted? What potential did they have of becoming a club capable of being a competitive force in the game?

As much of a chance as London, Paris, Halifax, Oldham, Workington, Crusaders, Gateshead and Leigh and, at the end of the day, if they failed and were relegated, they would be in exactly the same place as the Bulls are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the people you speak of are 'fanatics' are they? Do you know what a 'fanatic' actually is?

 

The term is a misappropriation, a colloquialised version of the word.

For instance we use the word 'awful' to denote something bad, when its true meaning is to fill with awe.

The Bulls have averaged 6,000 in a disastrous humiliating season: the three clubs hoping to replace them couldn't manage that on the crest of a wave of success.

You cannot give your own meaning to a popularly accepted word. The word fan, derived from the word fanatic, has a popular common usage as a person following a sports team with all the intensity of a true fanatic, without the negative connotations inherent in the said original persons to whom the original meaning was assigned.

The meaning of words changes over time. the term Boshovik merely means the majority in Russian but became synonymous with Communism and a Tory was originally an Irish hooligan or some such but now means a Conservative party supporter.

The Bulls do seem to have 6,000 fans but have lost 10,000 of their support, I guess if you don't like the term supporter you can call them lapsed fans or whatever suits your fancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017