Jump to content

Adelaide Tiger

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,430 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

5,223 profile views
  1. Of course they are connected. At the moment SL clubs have no choice but to accept the renegotiated deal with SKY. This is because some clubs see the SKY money as all they need to survive and they are happy with that situation. But, what I am suggesting - as I have suggested in my previous two posts - is that there is only one real alternative that SL club owners can take and that is to work out how expansion will work to the long term benefit of the game that gives Elstone an agreed way forward to offer a different model/system to SKY and other media organisations. BTW I am criticising owners because some appear to be putting self interest before possible long term gain if they decide not to accept expansion - and that can be with clubs throughout the UK as well as further afield. The message that this decision would send to SKY and other media organisations would be crystal clear. The SKY negotiators would come back with a reduced deal because there is no added value since the last deal. Now that a I have answered your comment why don’t you answer mine. How does deciding not to accept expansion bring more money into the game. Edit - it is farcical that owners of teams may decide not to accept expansion because of self interest but they are also in a position as custodians of the game who’s remit should be to grow the game.
  2. I responded on page 288 about what I am suggesting but it appears you either did not bother to read it or you are winding me up. Reluctantly I will go with the former. Firstly, I have never stated/expounded/elucidated that SL clubs should refuse SKY money. Can we be clear about that. My argument is based on the article a few pages ago that highlighted that the 5 clubs that generate most income are supposedly keen on retaining TWP for season 2021. The only assumption that I can draw from this is that these clubs see expansion as being a different offering to prospective TV companies which MAY result in better deals in future years both in the UK and other jurisdictions. The article also stated that the 6 teams that have lower incomes appear to be against readmitting TWP. WHY? It is my belief that these clubs feel more threatened by TWP so by voting against TWP these clubs are purely protecting their own interest and suddenly have around £163k more. Also those clubs may have one years grace from relegation should SL return with an 11 team league. Some of these clubs rely very heavily on SKY money as they have an inability/lack of ability to bring in greater income. So these clubs are content or even desperate to take the SKY money every year and choose not to support a different offering. So I am saying that it may be more advantageous for all clubs to view expansion as a means to try to generate greater income in future years. However, you can readily argue that it may not lead to greater income but In my view it is better to give something different a go than rely on SKY suddenly offering more money for the same product that they have had for 25 years. My greatest fear is that if the game decides to retain the status quo then it is quite feasible that future TV deals will be less each time. This may lead to the top clubs forming a 6, 8 or 10 league breakaway? Would you want this? That would surely lead to the binning of P&R that you want to preserve. Now that I have hopefully explained myself, why don’t you tell me how by ditching TWP and expansion this will lead to SKY or other Media companies offering more money in future deals for the same old product.
  3. At no point did I state anything about SL clubs refusing the SKY deal. That was you as usual trying to be argumentative for the sake of it. My point was the fact that we have 2 groups of clubs in SL. One group of clubs see SKY money as a way to keep themselves going so have little desire to try something different as it may not be beneficial to them whilst the other group have more financial muscle so may consider different approaches in an effort to be more attractive to investors and TV. The latter view could increase TV revenue in the long term whilst the prior view IMHO about just seeing survival as a victory just retains the status quo and in the long term could lead to a further reduction in SKY money and leads to the scenario that you paint in your final paragraph.
  4. Yep, but many fans on this site take great delight in questioning supporters of expansion about what TWP or any other expansion can bring to the game. But when we ‘expansionists’ ask what are their ideas to move the game forward without expansion they cannot provide an argument. Let’s have an equal discussion.
  5. IMHO it is about leadership. If a leader passionately believes that expansion is way forward then he has to convince the SL clubs as to the short term and long term benefits. Our game has no leader that can/will/able to do this and as we have seen the lesser clubs in terms of attracting income feel threatened and will probably vote against TWP, not because they think there is no short or long term gain, in reality they couldn’t give a chuff about that, but all they are thinking about is keepIng their club above the water. I can just vision the 11 SL club chairmen sat around a large circular table. A rep from SKY enters the room and plonks the annual pot of TV distribution money in the middle of the table. You have some SL Chairmen who look at the money and think ‘We could do better’ and you have some SL Chairmen who are positively slobbering thinking ‘This will keep the club going for one more year’. This mentality will IMHO see a gradual decline with the end game being back to semi pro.
  6. Catalans - Casey Hudds - Lawrence Hull - Ellis Hull KR - Abdul Leeds - Harrell Salford - Flanagan Saints - Fages Wakefield - Miller Warrington - wish Ben Westwood was still playing but I will go for Clark Wigan - Smithies or Bullock
  7. This is what has worried me for a long time. Let’s assume TWP are refused entry into SL. The same teams then offers nothing new to SKY. There are already rumours that the next SKY deal will be for less money. If so this may lead to a reduction to 10 teams so that those teams have the same TV money as they do now. Then as the game continues to offer the same product SKY again reduce their deal ... what happens next. I keep asking the same question on here ‘How can the game increase its income by retaining the same model’. But no one seems to be able to offer an answer.
  8. Agree with what you say. My one addition would be that the current situation has provided Elstone with an one-off unique opportunity to develop and put forward a 5-10 year strategy for SL that the game sticks to and is based upon the good of the game and not the self interest of clubs.
  9. Here is my conspiracy take as to whether to accept TWP back into SL or not. It could all be based on the fact that clubs according to a piece by Aaron Bower on 19 June 2020 will be £280,000 worse off next year after SKY and Super League agreed to a revised deal for 2021. If things have changed in the meantime and there is no revised deal then my conspiracy theory is in the bin and you can save yourself a couple of minutes by not reading the rest of the post. 1. So after TWP won the Championship decider the agreed terms meant that TWP would not receive a share of the TV income so each of the other 11 SL clubs was around £163k better off and would get a free trip to Canada. This windfall gave some SL clubs a bit of ‘breathing space‘ and they gratefully accepted the dosh. As all this was pre Covid it seemed an easy way to grab easy money for subsequent seasons if TWP remained in SL. 2. But Covid came along. Now IMHO it appears that the SL clubs - especially those with smaller income streams - may decide not to accept TWP for the 2021 season so each club will continue to have the £163k to offset the possible £280,000 deficit. As to some clubs it is easier to take the £163k than to go out and plug the gap through hard work. So again IMHO the future direction of the game is based on clubs deciding if they want the easier option to be £163k better off or not. If that is the case then it is akin to moving the deck chairs on the Titanic as in 2022 the league will be back to 12 equal shares if Leigh, Fev or London etc. are promoted. Therefore can someone please explain to me how SL can extract larger future TV deals by offering the same old thing?
  10. From what I have read the population is not declining but it has the slowest growth of the states and territories (and I have had a vasectomy so I can’t help ) But the rest of what you posted is spot on with SA looking to establish itself as the science and technology state. SA missed a massive opportunity when the Global Financial Crash hit 2008. Just before the crash I was working for a company called Hassell in their Planning team. I met with an Executive from BHP Billiton regarding the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine (the largest uranium mine in the world and fourth largest copper mine). They wanted our team to do a master plan to increase the population of Roxby Downs from 4,000 to 10,000, design a new airport and create a new camp for the FIFO workers. The Executive said that the expected cost for all the work was expected to be $2b. But during the prep work the GFC hit and work was put on hold. Unfortunately BHP finally cancelled the project a couple of years later. The SA Govt would have had a massive windfall if the project has been completed.
  11. Only $1.3 billion ... pah chickenfeed. The building next to it is the new Royal Adelaide Hospital that was completed about 2 years ago at a cost of $2.44 billion apparently it was the third most expensive public building in the world ever built. If the stadium held netball, basketball, tennis, football (and I mean football, proper football not bl00dy soccer) and replaced the Entertainment Centre then you have land releases all within a few minutes of the city centre. So the value of those land packages could finance a fair chunk of the project. But this is Adelaide and the vocal conservative rich residents that live in North Adelaide will probably be against this.
  12. Unfortunately AFL is massive in SA. Never watch the game on TV but I once went to watch the Crows play and the game went on for so long I was blatherated before it finished. And that’s by drinking Aussie lager!!!!!!! Follow the Redbacks at cricket and it’s great that an adopted Yorkshireman, Jason Gillespie has been appointed Coach. Go to some of the Big Bash games at Adelaide Oval which IMHO is the best cricket ground in the world ..... even better than God’s own ground at Headingley RL is below the horizon but the small local league keeps trundling along. A few years ago I was in Bunnings - like B&Q - and I was wearing a Qld jersey. A young lad who worked there came over and we got chatting. He played for Centrals RL. When I told him I had played the game he asked if I wanted to play for them. Either he was desperate or he had left his glasses at home because I had just passed the half century in age.
  13. It brought back great memories of the annual Wakefield Council RL tournament we used to have in the 80’s and 90’s. Our Department had only around 40 blokes from age 17-65 so getting 15 to play was always a problem so we always roped in a few players. We put one ‘ringer’ well a lad who had never played before on the wing. Early in the game he was put into space and off he went .... and went .......... and went. He was half across an adjacent pitch before he realised no one was chasing him. Our other winger that day was a young 19 year old lad who was new to the Department. He was about 5 foot 5 inches and around 7 stone but because he went jogging on a lunchtime he was press ganged into playing. He was hopeless and dropped every pass he was given. At half time he came over to me and asked if he could play on the other wing. I said ‘Is it because you are left handed’. ‘No’ he replied ‘It’s because I am blind in my left eye and can’t see what’s going on’.
  14. Great news for me and the family as we ordered 4 tickets when they first went on sale. We got an email from Ticketek saying that people have until 30 September to request a refund. After that date it is assumed that you are attending the game. However, it was reported on the local radio that capacity of the Adelaide Oval may be reduced by 50% to be around 26-27k. So I assume that after 30 September when they know how many still want to attend then they will decide if everyone can be fitted in to a checkerboard layout. It will be interesting to see how many people living interstate that purchased tickets still want to attend the game.
  15. It’s the usual RL balls up. 12 Yaks, 11 teams. I wonder how long it will take the SL club chairman to agree how to divide up the Torontonian Yak!
  • Create New...