Sign in to follow this  
kiyan

Should RL be a sport or business?

Recommended Posts

A conversation has developed in another thread about the requirements for a Rugby team. I have read many a thread on a similiar topic: crowd numbers, facilities, development, etc.

I may be abit old fashioned but to me a sporting competition should be only about 1 thing - the players on the field and the score at the end of the game.  The team that wins the most is the best in the league.

All this talk about minimum fan numbers, minimum stadium requirements, and all whole raft of requirements that have nothing to do with the game of rugby to me is wrong.

Surely, if you get the rugby right the rest follows?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kiyan said:

A conversation has developed in another thread about the requirements for a Rugby team. I have read many a thread on a similiar topic: crowd numbers, facilities, development, etc.

I may be abit old fashioned but to me a sporting competition should be only about 1 thing - the players on the field and the score at the end of the game.  The team that wins the most is the best in the league.

All this talk about minimum fan numbers, minimum stadium requirements, and all whole raft of requirements that have nothing to do with the game of rugby to me is wrong.

Surely, if you get the rugby right the rest follows?

 

If you get the Rugby right, but the business wrong, you end up with no club.

If you get the business right but the Rugby wrong, you end up with a lousy club.

This is not a binary choice.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, kiyan said:

A conversation has developed in another thread about the requirements for a Rugby team. I have read many a thread on a similiar topic: crowd numbers, facilities, development, etc.

I may be abit old fashioned but to me a sporting competition should be only about 1 thing - the players on the field and the score at the end of the game.  The team that wins the most is the best in the league.

All this talk about minimum fan numbers, minimum stadium requirements, and all whole raft of requirements that have nothing to do with the game of rugby to me is wrong.

Surely, if you get the rugby right the rest follows?

 

Read up on Fulham RLFC's rise to promotion into RL's top division in 1981 and Carlise's journey from brand new club to the top division shortly afterwards. They were almost defunct shortly afterwards as the business was a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

If you get the Rugby right, but the business wrong, you end up with no club.

If you get the business right but the Rugby wrong, you end up with a lousy club.

This is not a binary choice.

I agree!

But surely there is no need for a governing body to enforce minimums. If you get the rugby right, you will get the fans, if you have the fans you have the money to provide the facilities.

Otherwise you have the RFL shutting  out a team like Cas because of facilities despite them being the best team this year by a country mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Read up on Fulham RLFC's rise to promotion into RL's top division in 1981 and Carlise's journey from brand new club to the top division shortly afterwards. They were almost defunct shortly afterwards as the business was a disaster.

My question is not about teams that went belly up. The question is about rumoured minimum requirements for stadia and 6000 average gate.

If they were imposed, the current best rugby team in Europe (Cas) would be kicked out, as would Salford. Wakefield, while worse teams would be promoted.

Is SL about the best rugby team , or is it about best business team  like NRL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, kiyan said:

My question is not about teams that went belly up. The question is about rumoured minimum requirements for stadia and 6000 average gate.

If they were imposed, the current best rugby team in Europe (Cas) would be kicked out, as would Salford. Wakefield, while worse teams would be promoted.

Is SL about the best rugby team , or is it about best business team  like NRL?

If you look at the sides who have dominated the top of RL over the last 5 years i.e. Warrington, Saints, Hull, Wigan, Leeds then they all have something in common outside of rugby on the field. They have the best facilities, the best infrastructure and the biggest crowds. For 2017, Castleford have pooped the party which is fantastic. However, they know more than anyone that if they are still going to be there in 3-5 years then they will have to become a better business. Because if they aren't then they will eventually lose their high profile players and their coach to bigger businesses (whether that is here or the NRL). So that means getting better facilities, sponsors and corporate income.

SL is desperate for more bigger businesses to increase growth. They have lost one big player in Bradford and a lot of the clubs in SL at the moment are incomplete in one way or another beit in crowds, no youth system, no facilities etc.

Edited by Scubby
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since 1895, we've had no shortage of great Rugby teams who have done the business on the pitch. Swinton, Hunslet, Bradford, Oldham - they have all had great times when it comes to winning matches. All of them have also flirted with extinction, due to lack of good business management, among other factors.

This may be the internet, but the argument is not black & white. Some guarantee of financial stability should be a condition of membership of the top league. Otherwise, if a club crashes and burns, the usual suspects will gleefully spread the news in the most biased and damaging (to the sport as a whole) way possible. And it won't just be backwards-yearning Rugby League fans; Rugby Union journalists and their fellow-travellers will do the same.

Edited by Futtocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be a business. But is a shared business, because it relies on other teams. The truth is that for a professional sport an attendance of 6,000 is pathetic.  I'm a Toronto fan but believe we should be pulling even larger crowds even in League One. Teams in the SL that are scraping around 4000 have really got to up their game, because it looks terrible as a TV spectacle. They are just making up the numbers to fulfill the TV contract. However this model is not going to last. Games will be made available on demand on a pay for view basis over the internet. If a club can;t sell viewership they will not be an asset. Teams like Salford offer few viewers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, kiyan said:

I may be a bit old fashioned but to me a sporting competition should be only about 1 thing - the players on the field and the score at the end of the game.  The team that wins the most is the best in the league.

 

Should RL be a sport or business?

Well I think you may have asked about the root cause of a lot of frustration and posting on here. Most people haven't put it quite so plainly though. At the risk of having my cake and scoffing it it's a sport first but absolutely should be run like a business rather than a annual meeting of the terminally blinkered and limited.

Mind you having experience with the way an awful lot of businesses are run TGG is already there. Business does tend to be up it's own bottom about how wonderful it is and tail riding the money making power of the people at the good end of their spectrum.

And from what I've gleaned from the business oriented posters on here the combination of RL fan and Business person is a rarefied mixture of two sets of " Well, I could do better than that!";)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While a few people have added to topic no one has addressed the question.

Is rugby a sport and best team wins, or is it a business in which case we the best run club with the most supportes win?

If so, is the most hine fans, or the most away fans, or the most fans on social media (does owners count in that), biggest stadium the list goes on...

Or is it simply a sport and the team is dependant on the score at the hooter?

My preference is obvious!

EDIT: Having just read this post back, the spelling and grammar is terrible!  Indeed at points it makes little sense and I should edit it; however so hope you forgive the mistakes and read the sentiment.

Edited by kiyan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kiyan said:

Is rugby a sport and best team wins, or is it a business in which case we the best run club with the most supportes win?

Yes, at the moment RL is a sport where the best team wins one of the three trophies on offer at the final whistle and badly run business that tries to do everything for everyone achieving very little of that and upsetting everyone in the process. Having said that from the evidence of forums TGG fans permanently get out of the wrong side of bed so they're hardly a barometer to go by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a false dichotomy as the two are not mutually exclusive; thus, presenting it as a choice is not a valid question imo.

Even Cas who are being presented as the case for on field only were a business basket case a few years ago and were also stone dead last. They turned around the off field business as best they could (see the Steve Gill/Fulton interview in RLW from a few months back) and on field success has blossomed. Even despite this, they recognise that they need to move to a new facility to improve revenue streams. On field success is now only part of a plethora of things clubs will be aiming for, though it is still the primary aim for most clubs as businesses. This is intensified by salary capping meaning that off field facilities etc become far more important.

So its not that being the best business outweighs being the best on field team, but that being the best business generally allows you to focus on being the best team on the field more. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kiyan said:

While a few people have added to topic no one has addressed the question.

Is rugby a sport and best team wins, or is it a business in which case we the best run club with the most supportes win?

If so, is the most hine fans, or the most away fans, or the most fans on social media (does owners count in that), biggest stadium the list goes on...

Or is it simply a sport and the team is dependant on the score at the hooter?

My preference is obvious!

EDIT: Having just read this post back, the spelling and grammar is terrible!  Indeed at points it makes little sense and I should edit it; however so hope you forgive the mistakes and read the sentiment.

No. Everyone has answered your question by telling you it's not one or the other, it's both. What's more, it's always been both, from 29th August 1895 onwards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory someone like Michael Carter could close the whole Wakefield operation down except for the 25 first team squad men and minimum required support staff. They will play behind closed doors on matchdays, no home or away fans at games. No merchandise, corporate, web site or social media. The SL central funding would go solely towards the team and the whole focus would be performing on the pitch under the new name Team A.

Sporting wise Team A may still be in exactly the same position in SL as they are now. They have completely removed the business from the club. Then it would be all down to the sport on the field wouldn't it? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clubs need to be self sustainable IMO. If a clubs reliant on a sugar daddy and the sugar daddy walks away then what? Someone could bankroll Hemel into the SL but if they walked away what happens then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, West Leeds Riviera said:

Clubs need to be self sustainable IMO. If a clubs reliant on a sugar daddy and the sugar daddy walks away then what? Someone could bankroll Hemel into the SL but if they walked away what happens then?

My thoughts exactly. Every club needs to be run as a sustainable business. This is true in all sports. There are lots of RL clubs that are completely dependent on funding from external sources. If that funding stops then the club ceases to exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

My thoughts exactly. Every club needs to be run as a sustainable business. This is true in all sports. There are lots of RL clubs that are completely dependent on funding from external sources. If that funding stops then the club ceases to exist. 

Like some clubs relying on away fans rather than growing their own fanbasefan base 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nadera78 said:

What's more, it's always been both, from 29th August 1895 onwards.

No from before then, cos that's how we got in lumber in the first place and how we ended up where we are today.

Trying to ignore and work without London is the weight we're carrying to Calvary! Trouble is the stations of our cross are all those moments we've cocked it up and missed an opportunity with the full-back lying prone 30 metres away, ball in hand and standing across the line!

Edited by Oxford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both

It always has been

The decision to pay players broken time rather than go professional was a business decision.

What matters is how that business is managed and grown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/8/2017 at 1:09 AM, kiyan said:

A conversation has developed in another thread about the requirements for a Rugby team. I have read many a thread on a similiar topic: crowd numbers, facilities, development, etc.

I may be abit old fashioned but to me a sporting competition should be only about 1 thing - the players on the field and the score at the end of the game.  The team that wins the most is the best in the league.

All this talk about minimum fan numbers, minimum stadium requirements, and all whole raft of requirements that have nothing to do with the game of rugby to me is wrong.

Surely, if you get the rugby right the rest follows?

 

Last Saturday, I saw a group of lads play a game in Kalundborg.  That was sport.

On television, I see lots of professionals playing rugby league for to businesses.   It was broadcast by a broadcasting company, who sell subscriptions and advertising.  That is business. 

There is plenty of time for the purity of sport, just do not whine about wanting to be in Super League too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎20‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 0:09 AM, kiyan said:

A conversation has developed in another thread about the requirements for a Rugby team. I have read many a thread on a similiar topic: crowd numbers, facilities, development, etc.

I may be abit old fashioned but to me a sporting competition should be only about 1 thing - the players on the field and the score at the end of the game.  The team that wins the most is the best in the league.

All this talk about minimum fan numbers, minimum stadium requirements, and all whole raft of requirements that have nothing to do with the game of rugby to me is wrong.

Surely, if you get the rugby right the rest follows?

 

If it was an amateur sport with little or no cash beyond what could be raised form subs and the local chippy then yes

Where it is about a team providing entertainment in a world that pushes athletes to the limit and demands a better viewing experience for the fan year on year in competition with other sports then no - far more complex

Sport or business - you cant differentiate any more i'm afraid - its now both

No business no sport = no sport no business = vicious circle

Genie out of the bag

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2017 at 7:16 AM, kiyan said:

While a few people have added to topic no one has addressed the question.

 

The question has been addressed by posters. It's the question that's flawed. It's not a simple one or the other answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general over a period of time the most money wins the most prizes, some clubs may muscle in briefly, but it does tend to be briefly. 

If you think pro sport isn't a business you need to find an alternative universe to live in because this one isn't for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - Dec 2017

Rugby League Books On Sale Here

League Express - Every Monday