Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Martyn Sadler

New league structure revealed

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Adeybull said:

There have been adverse comments from some SL chairmen about "foreign" clubs in SL - I suspect because of the perceived impact on gates, costs etc for their own clubs - and Hudgell made his views on Bradford clear in a recent interview.

Have you actually read Hudgell 's interview?

Share this post


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

Why would it take a SL intermediary to sell games not selected by Sky?

Why would Sky be prepared to allow a competitive broadcaster in, when they currently do not?

Why would Sky elect to show non-SL games now, when they have not done so hitherto?

What makes you think Sky will offer the same deal next time round? (I expect it to be less).

Do you think 100k extra subs at £15/month (£12/month income, as - like pretty well everyone else, you seem to forget VAT) is realistic?

SL doesn't have the infrastructure and expertise. 

Sky would get £5m for something they currently could screen but don't bother

Sky wouldn't screen them, they would be screened through an OTT service like the OurLeague app

I have no reason to believe it would be less. RL is a valuable commodity in a competitive market.

I think far more than 100k subs is realistic. Far more than 100k people watch RL on Sky per week and pay far far more than £15 For it. Even more don't pay what sky charges on average somewhere between 200 and 300k watch RL on Sky and over a million can watch on the BBC .

However even if they didn't. Even if we only got 50k subs, SL would still be 2.5m up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If your choices are death or mere survival you are already in an existential crisis.

This is my problem with the lower leagues position. It is in no way a forward looking position, it's not trying to address any of the problems the game faces.

It basically boils down to keep giving us your money and we will keep trying to replace you so you can struggle like we do. 

No it does not.

Nowhere have I argued that the non-SL clubs should receive a cut of the TV money for the SL TV rights, unless they can provide something back in return. Which at present, in a number of ways, they (or some of them) do.

What I HAVE argued includes:

1 - The non-SL clubs should be able to try and secure their own TV rights deal/s.  At present they cannot.  Whether there is indeed "no value" in those rights, as you asserted, could then be tested.  My own view is that broadcasters will see a mortally-divided game, and take full advantage to the detriment of everyone. And the non-SL clubs would need to somehow secure the services of (and be able to pay for) the likes of an Elstone and a strategy to try and make the competition much more marketable.  A prospect for which I am not holding my breath.

2 - There has to be an objective and achievable method of clubs gaining promotion to SL, rather than being admitted only if they met whatever criteria SL specificed.

3 - There has to be a means of preventing a club relegated from SL from being so much better financed than the rest of the clubs in the Championship that it is likely to bounce straight back.

4 - The words of John Donne, in "no man is an island", are highly pertinent to the current situation. Diminish part of the game, and you diminish it all.

  • Thanks 1

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HKRBob said:

Have you actually read Hudgell 's interview?

Yes. He said Bradford would face resistance from himself and other (un-named) SL club owners should they ever be in a position to be eligible for SL. His justification seemed to be because of how he believed Bradford had been treated in the past, and especially because of what happened that gave rise to the current ownership, together with insinuations about how the present iteration of the club was/is funded.

The reference to Hudgell was specific to his comments about Bradford.


The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Gledhill said:

 

The Super League clubs have decided they the 8s don’t work to ensure they survive in Super League and continue to receive the current levels of central funding.

They know that under the current system there is far too much jeopardy at play for them to take the gamble. 

This power grab is all about shutting the door and propping up clubs that are hemorrhaging money (the three clubs that made a profit excluded). 

 

 

 

  

 

Not sure this is true. It’s actually likely that more teams will be relegated in the the proposed 1up 1 down system than have during the current 8s. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

SL doesn't have the infrastructure and expertise. 

Sky would get £5m for something they currently could screen but don't bother

Sky wouldn't screen them, they would be screened through an OTT service like the OurLeague app

I have no reason to believe it would be less. RL is a valuable commodity in a competitive market.

I think far more than 100k subs is realistic. Far more than 100k people watch RL on Sky per week and pay far far more than £15 For it. Even more don't pay what sky charges on average somewhere between 200 and 300k watch RL on Sky and over a million can watch on the BBC .

However even if they didn't. Even if we only got 50k subs, SL would still be 2.5m up.

Scotchy bud, just wondering about tv rights.  Everything I've seen says sky owns the rights to champ (and league one.)   

I ask because if that's the case, the plan you lay out uptop could be seen as problematic (depending on the financial split) for sky.  Mind you I quite like your system, I just have no faith in our capitalist overloards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

Scotchy bud, just wondering about tv rights.  Everything I've seen says sky owns the rights to champ (and league one.)   

I ask because if that's the case, the plan you lay out uptop could be seen as problematic (depending on the financial split) for sky.  Mind you I quite like your system, I just have no faith in our capitalist overloards.

Sky rent the rights rather than own them. For 3 more years.

For now, Sky currently pay for the championship rights and dont screen them, they do nothing with them. If they were to make some money from those, along with the SL games they don't screen, being sold through a streaming platform why wouldnt they?

Share this post


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

No it does not.

Nowhere have I argued that the non-SL clubs should receive a cut of the TV money for the SL TV rights, unless they can provide something back in return. Which at present, in a number of ways, they (or some of them) do.

What I HAVE argued includes:

1 - The non-SL clubs should be able to try and secure their own TV rights deal/s.  At present they cannot.  Whether there is indeed "no value" in those rights, as you asserted, could then be tested.  My own view is that broadcasters will see a mortally-divided game, and take full advantage to the detriment of everyone. And the non-SL clubs would need to somehow secure the services of (and be able to pay for) the likes of an Elstone and a strategy to try and make the competition much more marketable.  A prospect for which I am not holding my breath.

2 - There has to be an objective and achievable method of clubs gaining promotion to SL, rather than being admitted only if they met whatever criteria SL specificed.

3 - There has to be a means of preventing a club relegated from SL from being so much better financed than the rest of the clubs in the Championship that it is likely to bounce straight back.

4 - The words of John Donne, in "no man is an island", are highly pertinent to the current situation. Diminish part of the game, and you diminish it all.

I referred to the lower leagues position, not yours.

I would be absolutely fine with the none-SL clubs trying to secure their own tv deal. I very much doubt they would get anything for them. This wouldnt be the first time they have tried to sell them, premier were the only ones who wanted them before and wouldnt pay.

I definitely agree that the championship and L1 need an Elstone. My hope is that the current internecine conflict sees there being a clear demarcation in responsibility and accountability between the two competitions and the RFL. Right now, and certainly under Wood, we had very few with executive power wearing many hats and serving many masters.

I disagree that there needs to be an objective and achievable method of clubs gaining promotion. Objective and achievable leaves the game reactive and not proactive, unable to plan, It leaves the game in the lap of the gods, hoping for growth and not able to work towards it. In that context i agree with your 3rd point but it wouldnt really be relevant.

On your last point, 1 part of the game finances the entire game. Growing that part of the game means we have more to spend on other parts of the game. Shrink that part of the game and there is less to spend on other parts of the game. In your words a large part of the game arent aiming for or planning for growth or sustainability. Their aim is simply survival. Focusing on putting in place a structure to protect them to the detriment of the clubs who actually sustain the game financially guarantees the death of both parts.

SL cant give £5m a year to the lower leagues, it can't give a further £9m to the RFL if it doesnt bring it in itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes. He said Bradford would face resistance from himself and other (un-named) SL club owners should they ever be in a position to be eligible for SL. His justification seemed to be because of how he believed Bradford had been treated in the past, and especially because of what happened that gave rise to the current ownership, together with insinuations about how the present iteration of the club was/is funded.

The reference to Hudgell was specific to his comments about Bradford.

I was just intrigued as we read the same article, but came away with differing views of what he said. 

I read the things you stated in the context of his dislike of your chairman rather then your club. I think he even said he wanted a thriving Bradford team.  

 

Share this post


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

You’re making too much out of this.  The RFL Council has its constitution, which will lay out the rules for voting rights. I’m sure clubs from outside of England could apply to be full members if they so desired and there are mechanisms for this. It’s really nothing more than that.  You can go on all you want about foreigners etc  that’s not the driving force at all it’s simply that some clubs are not full members, That’s how the organisation is set up

 

I understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Fair enough but let me tell you this.  If anyone expects a savvy American investor to put out millions to join a League structure which will not even give him/her a vote in said structure, is naive.  Why would they put forth such a large investment with no say in the League?  

Not everyone is as trusting or has the nature of the the kind and benevolent Mr.  Argyle of Toronto.

If anyone wants a future expansion this situation should be corrected and quickly.

 

No point in telling me, I have no input... plus I have no idea whom has a vote... just pointing out we don't know. Doesn't mean agree or disagree with the situation. Plus whether someone has a vote doesn't mean they couldn't wield influence if they have something the other party or parties would like. Would seem to be that such a savvy and rich investor with money coming out of his ears would be able to influence positively to his cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, redjonn said:

No point in telling me, I have no input... plus I have no idea whom has a vote... just pointing out we don't know. Doesn't mean agree or disagree with the situation. Plus whether someone has a vote doesn't mean they couldn't wield influence if they have something the other party or parties would like. Would seem to be that such a savvy and rich investor with money coming out of his ears would be able to influence positively to his cause.

RL continues to ignore clear realities and has no vision.  I know these are common complaints on the forum and trouble many.  I really don't know if the mindset is there to take the game to the next level...too bad really because the opportunity is there but little minds continually seem to command/control the power structure.

All clubs in Rugby League should have a voice and be part of the process....thats the starting point and we are not even there yet...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HKRBob said:

I was just intrigued as we read the same article, but came away with differing views of what he said. 

I read the things you stated in the context of his dislike of your chairman rather then your club. I think he even said he wanted a thriving Bradford team.  

 

His severe dislike of Chalmers was clear. But he made it pretty clear that his views (and he implied those of the unnamed others) would not alter whilst the club was under its current ownership.  And that, should the current iteration of Bradford (which one can only HOPE will be more stable and last a lot longer than the previous ones) ever be a candidate for SL, there would be the resistance I indicated.

My point, which I made at the time, was not that he and seemingly other owners took exception to things that had happened in the past.  Nor that they had concerns about the establishment and financing and ownership of the current iteration.  He is perfectly entitled to raise questions, as indeed have Bulls fans (including me). The clear implication was the RFL (which would be Wood) was complicit - but was there anything else that pretty well everyone already (including Bulls fans) thinks, that he wanted to tell us?  The extensive serial interventions of the RFL are in any case a matter of record, and Bulls supporters told Rimmer what they thought about that to his face last Autumn .

My point was that the SL club owners, according to Hudgell, clearly believed it was in their power to overide any promotion that might be won on the field, because they objected to things that may or may not have happened some time ago off the field. And that, by implication, they not the structure, had the power to decide who could and could not be admitted to SL.  And that, by extension, such powers could be used whenever else they deemed a club, that had earned promotion on the field, not be one they wanted in SL.

Edited by Adeybull
  • Like 5

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Sky rent the rights rather than own them. For 3 more years.

For now, Sky currently pay for the championship rights and dont screen them, they do nothing with them. If they were to make some money from those, along with the SL games they don't screen, being sold through a streaming platform why wouldnt they?

Corporations work in funny ways!  We see a way to show games they aren't and cutting them in, they see a fledgling competing service that could grow, attract investors and cut them out.

I remember watching a documentary a year or two ago about the TV industry (can't remember what it's called) but the take away was subscriptions are really just sprinkles, the ice-cream (big money) is in the advertising.   

Corporations are greedy ####ers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

Corporations work in funny ways!  We see a way to show games they aren't and cutting them in, they see a fledgling competing service that could grow, attract investors and cut them out.

I remember watching a documentary a year or two ago about the TV industry (can't remember what it's called) but the take away was subscriptions are really just sprinkles, the ice-cream (big money) is in the advertising.   

Corporations are greedy ####ers.

Sky bring in about £11bn in revenue from Subscriptions sales, about £900m from advertising.

RL isnt going to cut them out whilst they are buying the TV rights. Sky are getting the best of both worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Sky bring in about £11bn in revenue from Subscriptions sales, about £900m from advertising.

RL isnt going to cut them out whilst they are buying the TV rights. Sky are getting the best of both worlds.

your point is well made.. subscription revenues are indeed vastly greater than advertising.

The quality of the product, ie rugby league, must have to spread out much wider than mere RL spectators if it has to earn money for the tv companies. People all over the country need to value the product, rugby league, to pay for the subscription.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

your point is well made.. subscription revenues are indeed vastly greater than advertising.

The quality of the product, ie rugby league, must have to spread out much wider than mere RL spectators if it has to earn money for the tv companies. People all over the country need to value the product, rugby league, to pay for the subscription.

You are coming along Rupert, slow but sure, we will get you there in the end but only if you promise to stay on the straight and narrow.

"Run With The Pack!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kayakman said:

All clubs in Rugby League should have a voice 

“Why should the French teams and Toronto not get a vote?” 

Because the game is a British game funded by a British TV contract. Mind your own business.

“We are all established teams in the various leagues and should at least get a vote”

Clubs who can trace their history back to 1870’s are “established” You forget your owner himself set a five year target to see how things would go for TWP hardly a long term commitment.

Toronto and Toulouse should have a vote if this is really a global game.

It’s not a global game. Here it’s an English/French game with a bit of Wales. How have you managed to re-invent what is fundamentally a two county game as Global?

What have we done to  be excluded? what do you think we have been doing for the last two years? 

Lying about player development, pretending there were loads of American investors, plotting to turn Superleague transatlantic, and boasting about a non existent North American TV contract.

The reason they don't get a vote is because many people are afraid of foreigners taking over RL.

See the "global" answer above, TWP don’t get a vote because of the garbage they talk, and the pie in the SKY plans that won’t happen, certainly now the world cup may be cancelled in North America.

If anyone expects a savvy American investor to put out millions to join a League structure which will not even give him/her a vote in said structure.  

Not a single American investor followed Argyle who isn't an American himself, and if he's an "investor" he certainly is not making any return just big fat losses.  American investors will not want to lose £Millions on a foreign game. There certainly won’t be any in the future without that World cup that now looks dead. You have been making up "Rich American investors" for two years.

RL continues to ignore clear realities and has no vision.  I know these are common complaints on the forum and trouble many.  I really don't know if the mindset is there to take the game to the next level...too bad really because the opportunity is there.

It’s just not there. You are delusional my good friend as are the “many” dreamers you talk about on this forum who number about 20, there are over 100,000 keen RL fans in this country and these dreamers do not represent those fans one iota. Ask the 4,000 Widnes fans if they are troubled by the possibility TWP and the American fantasy will not come about?

Edited by The Parksider
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Sky rent the rights rather than own them. For 3 more years.

For now, Sky currently pay for the championship rights and dont screen them, they do nothing with them. If they were to make some money from those, along with the SL games they don't screen, being sold through a streaming platform why wouldnt they?

If as expected there could very well be a split, being that SL does not like or will not respect the outcome of a democratic process (a bit like the Brexit remoaners) should the full council reject their proposals, then SL if a split does eventuate they will have no say, absolutley didilly squat, to roll anything up to sell as a package to any broadcaster.

In that case the non-SL clubs should try to do what is best for them, even if they were to say use it as some form of promotional tool to a "free to air broadcaster" only covering their expenses.

If that results in SL recieving a much reduced offer for their product then tough titty, it would be of their own making, and for this contributor a welcome result.

Edited by Harry Stottle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kayakman said:

You are coming along Rupert, slow but sure, we will get you there in the end but only if you promise to stay on the straight and narrow.

"Run With The Pack!"

I wish Toronto well, with effort they might well succeed.

But I will be even more happy once we see home grown North American players leaving both RU and American Football clubs and turning to professional RL.

And it would be nice to see a feeder league of amateur clubs based around Toronto region.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

If as expected there could very well be a split, being that SL does not like or will not respect the outcome of a democratic process (a bit like the Brexit remoaners) should the full council reject their proposals, then SL if a split does eventuate they will have no say, absolutley didilly squat, to roll anything up to sell as a package to any broadcaster.

In that case the non-SL clubs should try to do what is best for them, even if they were to say use it as some form of promotional tool to a "free to air broadcaster" only covering their expenses.

If that results in SL recieving a much reduced offer for their product then tough titty, it would be of their own making, and for this contributor a welcome result.

It wouldn't. How many people are prepared to pay for SL is unaffected by how laypeople would watch the championship for free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted, given John's admonishment.

I don't agree - I thought it was relevant - but he is the boss.

Edited by Adeybull
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read that in the print edition. The words 'private equity firm' should ring BIG alarm bells for the clubs - these boys ain't in the business for the good of anything other than themselves and have a nasty habit of promptly transferring great wodges of their own debt onto their new acquisitions (see Mariana Mazzucato's 'The Value of Everything' for an idea of how they work).  I tend to agree with you about how this may be the thinking going on in what passes for the minds of SL club owners, but if I was them I wouldn't go touch a private equity firm with a VERY long bargepole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

Read that in the print edition. The words 'private equity firm' should ring BIG alarm bells for the clubs - these boys ain't in the business for the good of anything other than themselves and have a nasty habit of promptly transferring great wodges of their own debt onto their new acquisitions (see Mariana Mazzucato's 'The Value of Everything' for an idea of how they work).  I tend to agree with you about how this may be the thinking going on in what passes for the minds of SL club owners, but if I was them I wouldn't go touch a private equity firm with a VERY long bargepole!

 

Deleted, as above

 

Edited by Adeybull

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...