Dave T

I think they are very tight lipped on successes of SL+. I'm pretty confident that people are not paying £50 a month for SL though. And definitely not for 12 months of the year. And not 75k of them. And if we did get that many, are we happy with that level of visibility?

Leading agent Graeme Taylor sets out how rugby league can be transformed – Total Rugby League I appreciate this is a newspaper article now, but it feels like we were wise not to go with this guy. Anyone who uses the fag packet calculations approach for SL+ and comes up with income of c£45m deserves to be dismissed pretty quickly.

I suppose the unanswered question here is at what cost? We could have done exactly the same thing with PE a few years ago with twice the amount of money, but there was a cost of c40% of commercial income (that's an indicative number, I can't remember the actual proposal). We can judge the inflow based on what we have been told, and the above seems perfectly sensible, but it's the outflow part that is missing.

I'll go along with the fantasy stuff here. Based on what we 'know' from the media, we have a £30m fee for 50% in RLCom (and potentially some TV rights that they will give to their pals at DAZN). If we view that simply as a PE deal, it looks horrible. So, how does it become a good deal? For me, it needs to be something like: 1. £30m 'buy-in' for 50% of voting rights/board seats (on an independent board). This can be seen as a sweetener to clubs. 2. Commercial agreement to handle profit share above an agreeable level. 3. Further investment of £xm to support initiative delivery on an ongoing basis - this may be goods/expertise rather than cash. Any investment would be ringfenced for comp/game development, and not central funding distributions. It is very easy to see this kind of partnership working, and that £30m being an initial upfront payment to clubs, and ongoing operational investments. The issue is that that two options above are very, very different - I suppose we will see what comes out in the wash.

To be fair, I think it's just Mascord being Mascord. There is a tendency for people on the internet to oversell their own ideas, which don't stack up and won't ever really be tested. On the overall point, I don't have an issue with improving our scheduling, which can factor in trying to make it more appealing to our overseas markets, but it is no way a primary driver.

This doesn't have anything to do with my quote - the negativity hasn't been focused on fans moaning about the level of cash their club will get at all.

The problem is that the whole post got off to a bad start, being based on a totally flawed premise. This is what they claimed: "Those negetive pretty much highlight one primary thing. - How much will my club get? Oh that is not much." I mean this just isn't true and there is zero evidence here to support that. Let's be honest, the main contributors to this discussion generally follow cash-rich clubs - personally, I care little for how much my club gets, I'd be happy if it was zero and all funding centralised - that's for the Wolves' board and Simon Moran to worry about. This level of conversation about people worrying about their own club just hasn't been a feature of the debate at all. It is a tactic used to belittle people's opinions.

This is the vehicle for pretty much all commercial income. You are making the assumption that this is a friendly partnership with no interest in extracting value (which would be perfect), whereas there is another model more akin to PE. I tend to agree with you that it is more likely to be the former, but that does need to be watertight contractually.

Once again we are in a place of trying to make people look small time by focusing on the offer. This is fine if we arent selling something. But it would appear we are - a 50% share in RLC. That has a value. I'd have no issue with letting expertise in with no 'buy-in', but they wont be getting a share in the org, it would be a commercial agreement. Not unlike IMG, but a closer relationship than treating them like outsiders.

Mascord banging the drum for games 4 to 7 being staged for the Aussie market with DAZN. I wonder what value he sees for Hudds v Hull FC at 10pm on a Saturdsy evening.

Pretty much all of this is just made up.

I dont disagree with some of those points, but I feel some are overstated, or somewhat niche. But I am a fan of all the little things being done well, so I do agree to an extent.

Nobody is claiming he will own the clubs. He is negging the governing body. This is why owners are fine with it. Just as they were fine with it when they ousted Wood, and Johnson.

This is where I disagree. Presentation has been a big focus for the last couple of years and has hugely improved imo. I do share some frustration at comp level, but Magic this year imo was a huge step forward, and recent comments from Wood suggests that fan experience will be a big focus. Facilities have improved hugely.

Not all takeovers are friendly. You know that. Somebody threatening you while trying to buy you is absolutely a red flag.