Toby Chopra

As has been pointed out by others before, Toulouse and London, and any other non-heartland hopeful, are potentially some of the biggest losers from the new model. Which certainly goes against the charge that it's all about IMG picking their big market favourites.

The likely London/Wakefield swap is a quirk of the transition year, not indicative of the system as a whole. If there is lots of up and down in the following years it will be because weak SL clubs keep getting into major trouble despite the advantages of the new system and get replaced. But they'd have to be in serious decline for that to happen. It's certainly possible - we know who the likely candidates are. But if those weaker 4 or 5 clubs find a level of stability and that helps them grow, then there will be very little change, and that is my expectation of what will happen. As for whether this is good for the game overall, we will just have to see how it pans out.

We haven't decided to keep P&R. This is a fundamental misreading of the IMG model which many have made, perhaps because it's so ingrained as an idea. The model is specifically designed - in principle - to keep the same clubs in SL, to allow them to build sustainably, and also allow the competition as a whole to invest its brand and presentation without jettisoning 1/12 of that investment each year. There are two reasons we didn't move explicitly move to fixed term licenses or a full NRL-style closed shop. Firstly, it would be politically very difficult to get through, so we've fudged it so people still labour under the misapprehension that there's some sort of P&R in place. This is regrettable and I wish we'd been more honest. Secondly, and more crucially, as things stand we simply don't have 12 or even 10 clubs strong enough to definitely know they'll still be strong in 5 years or so. So we've had to keep a door open for potential replacements. But the idea, once we get through the transition year, is for the clubs to be pretty fixed, barring disasters. If we ever get to 10 grade As I'd expect the door to be shut properly, and only be opened for properly funded expansion clubs, like the NRL do. This is the reality of the IMG model - soft or dynamic licensing if you will, but not P&R. I know why many would hate this. And I can't hand on heart tell you I know for sure it'll work, overall. But it's important to see it for what it really is.

Spot on, although once inside the flagship comp there still needs to be a pretty high minimum spend too.

Well, yes, but also to protect the value of an asset (Odsal) that's in theory owned by everyone, in the hope they can exit without a loss while not leaving the Bulls homeless and Odsal a landfill site. But all that's probably too much to hope for now. It all goes back to the original deal, which looks a lot worse in hindsight now we know that the Bulls aren't a SL club and there's no money coming to redevelop Odsal.

Worthless as a sporting venue - or at least worth less than the £1.2m the RFL paid for the lease. But certainly not worthless if sold on the free market.

But this hasn't been in secret. And I don't believe Nigel pushed the deal through the RFL in 2012 as part of some grand plan to eventually own the Bulls. He's just been opportunistic with the circumstances after his RFL departure. We've known the terms of the lease for a long time. That doesn't make it a good deal at all, and with hindsight the RFL shouldn't have entered it. But if the stakeholders had wanted to pull the plug on this in previous years they could have - albeit likely crystallising the loss. Maybe now the time has come.

The history of clubs leaving their historical home without a proper long term option to move too is not good. Perhaps Bradford have reached the point where they have no other option. But I can see why they'd try everything to stay and hope to redevelop, as something gets lost for good once you leave, unless you have a purpose built replacement ready to go.

The way I read it, the £100k yearly loss is incurred by the annual repair costs of keeping it as a safe sporting venue, even after the rents. So, yes, past spend won't be recovered. But if Odsal is sold to developers I find it hard to see that they'd only get £700,000k for that site. What they seem to be looking for is a buyer who will take on the stadium as a sporting venue for the existing tenants (or at least the Bulls) In that circumstance, yes, they'll make a loss. Reading between the lines, I wonder if the RFL have leaked this either to put pressure on the Bulls to up their bid - or to soften up public opinion for when they sell the lease back to the Bulls at a loss. I can't decide which yet!

I think that's overly conspiratorial. The details and the RFL's justification of of the Odsal purchase were public at the time and although a lot of people grumbled, it was signed off by Richard Lewis and the RFL board. Which is ultimately the clubs themselves. What no-one predicted in 2012 was that the Bulls - who were still a SL club at the time - would go into sharp decline, lowering the value of the asset. And that nothing would have changed 12 years later. Should they have predicted that? Quite possibly. But it's simple bad management for all to see, dodgy dealings not really necessary. The fact that Nigel took over the Bulls later shows what a small time sport we are, but doesn't mean it's corrupt. The fact is the RFL could still get out of this lease with minimal losses if it sold out to non-sport developers (and got Bradford council's agreement to do so). But that would leave the Bulls homeless and complete their transition into another Oldham-type club: great history but forever dependent on others for a home. In 2012 I can see why some people wanted to avoid that, but perhaps now in 2024 it's time for the RFL to accept that "saving historic Odsal" and dreaming of a resurgent Bulls just aren't a priority any more.

Love it! Bramley and Rydale-York were lineal World Champions. And well done Saints for breaking that Aussie dominance:)

What was the Batley-Cas attendance? These are the sort of ties there would be more of if the SL teams were put in a round earlier, so it would be interesting to see how much interest it generated.

Why would Fax lose money on the game? I get there wouldn't be many away fans but surely more locals than normal would turn out to see one of the top Superleague teams?

Agree wholeheartedly with your analysis, and if the experts tell us that this is good for growth then I'm all for it. It hasn't really resulted in me watching any more rugby league, two or three SL games a week is enough for me, usually the Thursday and Friday games. So it's nice to have the choice on a Friday and I have switched games a couple of times when the first choice became a bit of a procession. I'm planning to try and catch a bit more NRL this year in the mornings.

Agree. Perhaps, if COVID hadn't happened, there was some sort of plan that would have monetised a global rugby star to fix the holes in the TWP business model, but the price of that was a much worse team overall, and that rarely ends well. I look back on it all with a fond memory of idealistic dreams, like most things pre-2020!