RP London

Exactly.. 100% agree.. I really don't understand the other argument. They'll go down to 5 as they are still "showing every game live" but not paying for 1 and pocketing the cost as profit.. I can't see them having an issue at the moment.. come the next contract though this whole debacle could cost us in trust.

That's a really odd take on it.. the first paragraph especially.. they are showing 6 because they can as they are already paying for the production, however the ones not on a main channel make them no money at all.. they show 2 for profit... I don't know why that isn't the clear sight on this to be honest.. everything else is irrelevant.. profit on 2 cost on 6.

Right its a Friday night lets all go to the pub and hope that come monday this has all been sorted... it will wont it?? Well i'm off there now anyway even if no one else joins me!

Mate, it will. What else is going to happen? are we back to people taking legal action.. that would be just a fantastic addition to the shoot (replace some vowels) show that is going on at the moment... in the end we will just be sat here singing Cher songs... or we move forward knowing that next year will be better.

That is different to what you were saying to Gav at this point.. there is a difference to an agreement and "they want 6 games". The agreement may well be that they will show them, they may not be at all fussed if they only have 5 as long as they have the ones that are revenue generating, in fact they may be very happy to just have 5 and pocket as profit the money they would have spent on production. As I have said a number of times, without the contract we just dont know. I think some reflection on both parts would be good as your gung ho on the fact that SKY would want 6 and Gav is gung ho on the fact that they dont... neither of you actually know.

if its marketed right there could be a whole new set of fans brought into both sides... may not be the sort we want or the publicity we want afterwards but still "no publicity is bad publicity"?

indeed but that contract could read (for all we know) "you MUST cover those games and provide the footage to RL commercial for £0" At which point they do think "brill, no production costs, now we just pocket that money as profit". Without the contracts we are all just speculating, no single view has any more weight to it than any other. I personally think that this could be seen as "no big deal" by sky in terms of this contract. It almost certainly will have an effect on the next one in terms of trust and the way the RFL handle this and what they can promise (re the thread about Nigel Wood) will potentially see future issue for sure.

sorry that is not evidence to say categorically that Gav is wrong... without the actual contract in front of us that is not provable.

But, to be fair, that is just shutting your eyes to the economies of it. They have x amount of game to show on their main channels per year. They are the revenue generating games, becuase they are the ones you are selling the advertising for. The ones hidden on SkySports+ bring in no revenue from advertising but cost you in production value. To not have to send the production teams to those games etc is, arguably, a saving, therefore would they complain that much, if at all. Their revenue generating games are still happening and, arguably, would have more eyes on them now meaning you could charge more for the advertising space (it would be negligible but still) As I said I think there is a fair argument either way on this.

I know this is being contrary but if all we are doing is assuming then I dont think we do HAVE to assume it that way. Its as safe to assume that all they want are the games to fill the main channels as the others are an additional cost for very little gain as there is no advertising on it etc. I could see both arguments having equal merit to be fair.

more importantly they haven't paid for 6 games a week have they? they are available on Sky+ (or whatever it is) but if they didnt show one of those a week they will save on production value on something they would gain very little from.

To be fair I think they are doing a lot to shore up the game in "manchester" at the moment when you look at what they are doing with Salford! Trying to expand where it may not be wanted and putting potential competitors to take the support from existing clubs in those areas though does not seem to be "shoring up the game" on its doorstep.. it could be simple spreading support that 2 clubs have across another one which makes 3 not so viable teams instead of 2 strong one.. certain names like St Helens and Wigan potentially add more to the game than Liverpool and Manchester.. however, add into those historic clubs Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle... now you have something (arguably) Again though its not zero sum.. just becuase we cannot make Liverpool or Manchester work (and as above arguably we are just without those 2 does not mean we shouldn't be trying it in other areas.

They could simply say, right we'll sell of the players to anyone who wants them. Then each time has to contribute 2-3 long term loans/season long loans to salford to bring the squad up to scratch (and not just the worst/youngest players etc).. play that out, fringe players get game time and put in the shop window. They'll make a fist of the matches, doesnt cost the RFL a fortune in wages etc etc

dissaray seems strong.. it would cause a slight hiccup but its not insurmountable and it really wont make a massive impact. The beauty of having play offs really.. Again its happened before in competitions in other sports so precedents have been set and wee can look at those examples to see what worked and what didnt depending on the way the league was decided. In the end you have to play with the hand you are dealt, all the teams are trying to make this work without Salford going under but if that cannot be achieved then they will just have to do the best they can. it is not a perfect situation and therefore there cannot be a perfect solution, we just have to accept that, for this year.

I totally get what you are saying, I dont 100% agree with it but I do get it. What I dont get is the argument that if we cannot do that (in a totally different environment, one with already viable alternatives for the RL lovers on the doorstep) then we should not be looking at any other form of expansion with "pop up clubs"... even though in areas they are working (Sheffield, Midlands, Newcastle [though that nearly fell over]) without any real help from the RFL etc

Didn't they add Manchester to their badge a few years back, which IIRC didnt go down all that well?

a quick google brought up this article which gives a very quick overview of the situation when they folded: https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/manchester-rangers-withdraw-team-after-league-one-snub cant really blame people if they are in it for a professional club to perhaps pull out when they dont get to their aim as they can then, perhaps, concentrate on other business ventures.

Thats the strangest argument... Because it doesnt work in 2 cities that are hugely dominated by football then it cannot work elsewhere... There are many reasons why clubs succeed or fail, very few are the same from one place to the next. While we have not established footholds in Liverpool or Manchester we do have teams in those "areas". Teams have appeared in Sheffield, Newcastle, Birmingham and with some concerted effort from the RFL and the League Community these could be good strong growth areas. What these "pop up" clubs all have in common though is that they have to be built independently of any sort of "grand plan" or funding and normally by "interested individuals" rather than a really well planned out strategy supported by the governing body. Do things differently and we may see some vastly different results. But not having one single Manchester club and one single Liverpool club is not a reason not to look elsewhere. Those cities are covered by other clubs (however, i would add having a team branded Manchester or Liverpool would be no bad thing).

I'd agree with much of this, ditching them now IMHO would be reprehensible.. this should be starting to build into exactly what their expertise is. Yes they bit before has been badly handled but this is their wheelhouse now, to get rid of them at, what you would have to assume was, a major cost when we don't have 2 pennies to rub together would be utter short-sightedness (so I expect it to happen!)

Without bringing the other code into this too much, they went through this a couple of years ago losing a number of clubs in one season and not sure what the impact was on the TV deal but a precedent has been set so all the clubs will know exactly what is at stake rather than it being supposition or anything. Its why the league has rallied around as much as they have IMHO. Just bringing another club up now would be a bad idea and would potentially cause more issue in terms of quality of games etc, however, whatever the impact is on the league they come out of bringing them in to fulfill the contract so as not to have a reduction of TV money would be worth it potentially... but doubt it would happen for many other reasons.

I've got to ask about the boxing gloves.... its an RL team and seahorses are hardly know for their.. well.. hands let along "boxing"... at least Kangaroos are known to box... and have "front paws" so boxing gloves arent so much of a stretch..

Sorry but in terms of players, they are paid a pittance for what they do in the most part, the odd one gets a nice chunk. They are the ones earning the money for the club in the end, without them there is no sponsorship there is no TV deal so why shouldn't the Super League players earn from the Super League income? This isn't a socialist utopia (not that one could ever exist) If the money went down to other clubs and all players were paid the same do you really think the game would be in a better state... becuase you'd be back to a semi pro game and that standard too which would lose all TV money and end up with an amateur game very quickly after that. The economics is very simple.

Wow, just wow! Read the room mate.. everyone on here wants a strong Salford, the clubs have literally gifted Salford money to keep them going.. to say that they want Salford gone and are not showing any support is wildly off the mark to almost being Trumpesq.. What else can the "RFL Family" do but the above? What did Salford do for other teams that were going to the wall?

is the last instalment a role of sellotape to stick them all together with?

Its not particularly PC but they could go back to just being The Crusaders.... we could then have a cross code match between The Crusaders and Saracens... Its a marketeers dream! (and the police's nightmare!)