gingerjon
-
Posts
41,679 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
253
Posts posted by gingerjon
-
-
It all very much depends on framing and why the comment is being made.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:
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.
I believe close to worthless - relative to size and what you might expect - in any sense. Although obviously more value as an open rather than restricted sale.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:
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!
Odsal being essentially worthless for a whole host of reasons has been discussed on here multiple times. I have no idea about 700k but my understanding (from others) is that it is an environmental nightmare and just massively impractical.
-
6 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:
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.
Minimal losses appears to be £500,000 on any sale and £100,000 per year minimum every year since purchase?
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, sam4731 said:
Correct but the whole 'IMG grading system' is a load of male cow waste to begin with.
Somewhat irrelevant to the venue change whereas Hughes’s failures are highlighted by the current Broncos incarnation returning to the Stoop
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, sam4731 said:
I would think getting into SL on merit is enough of a reason to be given the chance to be competitive. Let's be honest, Londons results on the field this year reflect the pointlessness of their season.
London’s IMG score is a fair reflection of David Hughes’s investment.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Ovenden Grunt said:
What about the change from having standards/morals to having none?
Once we started paying people we were deemed to be immoral.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:
https://www.totalrl.com/super-league-given-major-boost-with-revelation-of-viewing-figures-and-attendances-from-early-season-start/ sheds some light.
It's hard to parse in places but I think that 6 live games on Sky are getting 15-20% more viewers (in the aggregate) than 2 live games - e.g. 6 games in 2024 get ~300k total, 2 games in 2023 got ~250k. But it is unclear because the quoted rise might include all of SS/BBC2/iPlayer/SL+ numbers for 2024 vs. SS/C4 for 2023. Who knows.
We do know that the two early BBC2 games pulled in ~350k compared to (I think) C4 getting 200-300k across 2023.
RLonTV is saying that Saturday's Catalan-Saints game achieved: BBC3 110k, SSME 112k, SSA unknown. I think that's impressive for the channels it was on but what a shame it couldn't have been shown on BBC2 and perhaps got a 1/4m more pairs of eyes.
More broadly, as per attendances, we are being fed limited scraps this year in terms of published viewing figures and SL+ subscribers. It's hard to say whether we are moving up, down or flatlining.
I think the BARB data is also now harder to access without a subscription so there are fewer people able to just look for themselves.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Whippet13 said:
No sign of a sale, and looks an expensive liability for the RFL:
Guaranteed to lose at least £500,000 on any sale, not that one is coming, losing over £100,000 just on maintenance and upkeep, and charging the Bulls an under market rate rent.
-
37 minutes ago, N2022 said:
It does grate, in a way that rugby and cricket salaries don't, because it just seems immoral that someone can earn in a week what a nurse might earn in a decade.
Mitchell Starc will be paid £2.4m to play in the IPL, which runs for about 10 weeks. That's £240,000 per week.
-
Harry Kane was built on an ancient Indian burial ground. Nothing else makes any sense at this point.
-
1
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:
I don’t have the answers but it just absolutely grates me the disparity in income earned between the top soccer players and the 99% of the population they are representing when they pull a jersey on. All for kicking a ball.
They're the ones generating the value in the product. Absolutely right that they earn a substantial chunk of that.
-
1 hour ago, JonNgog said:
Why does rainfall affect crowds so much more over there? I have seen plenty of games in torrential rain here with the attendance completely unaffected. In the NRL it seems to cut the attendance in half.
It was a proper weather warning with full on storm conditions. There was also a 'really don't travel unless necessary' protocol in place.
-
2 minutes ago, Padge said:
I struggle to recall hearing a player picked up swearing (I remember a ref saying to an approaching player, careful mics on), the chants are obvious, prolonged and often more offensive than a one word f*%k picked up.
That's why you won't usually hear a player swearing - because the mics are controlled. (So, for example, how do you think the commentators at cricket know word for word what has been said in sledging but the noise the TV audience hears of the same moment is only of the bat?)
I'm not disagreeing that it's ridiculous, I'm just explaining why it happens.
-
1 hour ago, lucky 7 said:
This is massive for the game.
Huge kudos to Ebony Rainford-Brent for shaking the cricket charity establishment out of their cosy do-nothing approach.
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:
Can they extend the season or is that a big no no.
It's league committees and local FAs so have a guess at how accommodating they are likely to be.
I don't think double point games is likely but I have, in other leagues, seen one club surrender home advantage and they play a double header with a long-ish gap in the middle. The second game normally finishes 9-8 or something like that.
-
1
-
-
My favourite bit of the Sky coverage is when they tell you that [redacted] and [redacted] are ahead at the break.
-
1 minute ago, Padge said:
That doesn't answer the point about the chanting, its far more obvious than a player picked up on a refs mic.
Don't know. I know they have to when it's clear. Maybe they can claim that crowds are ambient noise who don't count as clear voices.
-
Just now, meast said:
I think you missed the humour?
Please make sure that all future humours are signed off in advance and appropriately marked.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Padge said:
But you can here all sorts of obscene chanting from the terraces, so it makes no sense whatsoever.
It's been the case that they have to apologise for decades. It may be ridiculous but it all dates back to the rules drawn up about appropriate content. Blame the snowflake Mary Whitehouse generation.
-
3 minutes ago, Padge said:
Do they, other programs just put up a warning before saying there may be adult language, no apology offered when it happens as you have been warned.
All live broadcasts are required to do it which is why you'll normally hear them do it within a few minutes of obvious swearing being caught on a microphone.
If they put up that the would definitely be adult language then they might not be able to broadcast before the watershed.
-
1 minute ago, meast said:
Mark Wilson:
"Apologies if you picked up any choice language on the microphone"
It's Leeds at home, it goes without saying that you'll hear bad language
I'm sure you know this but they legally have to apologise to mitigate the punishment they'll get from Ofcom.
-
The Mid Sussex Football League Premier (Division 11) is a 14 team, 26 game division.
We're into April and because of the wetness of the winter, 7 teams could still win the title, including one who somehow have to fit in 11 games between now and the end of the year.
-
2
-
-
59 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:
The middle 8s closed the gap I thought.
Yes. They helped lower the standards at the foot of Super League.
-
1
-
The Reality of the IMG Grading System
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
So they don’t want London?