Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum

Adeybull

Coach
  • Content Count

    1,863
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Adeybull

  1. Don't worry. I stopped posting on this forum some time ago. John Drake knows why. But I have still visited to read, from time to time. But reading this thread has merely confirmed my view. Sod it. Nothing but unpleasantness. It has long ago ceased to be a nice place to come to.
  2. I tried to discuss precisely this issue earlier in the week, when the story broke about what the other code was doing. On two threads. JD was not happy. Chalmers has now said pretty well exactly what I said. And warned pretty well exactly what I warned. And refers to the same "12 + 1" effective closed shop that I have been warning about. Check out the locked thread on the cross-code forum - and anyway, much of what Chalmers warns would be regardless of any potential and hypothetical sale of the SL competition to private equity, a sale that would bring a windfall for the SL club owners. So, is it now OK to discuss this subect on here?
  3. Deleted, given John's admonishment. I don't agree - I thought it was relevant - but he is the boss.
  4. His severe dislike of Chalmers was clear. But he made it pretty clear that his views (and he implied those of the unnamed others) would not alter whilst the club was under its current ownership. And that, should the current iteration of Bradford (which one can only HOPE will be more stable and last a lot longer than the previous ones) ever be a candidate for SL, there would be the resistance I indicated. My point, which I made at the time, was not that he and seemingly other owners took exception to things that had happened in the past. Nor that they had concerns about the establishment and financing and ownership of the current iteration. He is perfectly entitled to raise questions, as indeed have Bulls fans (including me). The clear implication was the RFL (which would be Wood) was complicit - but was there anything else that pretty well everyone already (including Bulls fans) thinks, that he wanted to tell us? The extensive serial interventions of the RFL are in any case a matter of record, and Bulls supporters told Rimmer what they thought about that to his face last Autumn . My point was that the SL club owners, according to Hudgell, clearly believed it was in their power to overide any promotion that might be won on the field, because they objected to things that may or may not have happened some time ago off the field. And that, by implication, they not the structure, had the power to decide who could and could not be admitted to SL. And that, by extension, such powers could be used whenever else they deemed a club, that had earned promotion on the field, not be one they wanted in SL.
  5. Yes. He said Bradford would face resistance from himself and other (un-named) SL club owners should they ever be in a position to be eligible for SL. His justification seemed to be because of how he believed Bradford had been treated in the past, and especially because of what happened that gave rise to the current ownership, together with insinuations about how the present iteration of the club was/is funded. The reference to Hudgell was specific to his comments about Bradford.
  6. No it does not. Nowhere have I argued that the non-SL clubs should receive a cut of the TV money for the SL TV rights, unless they can provide something back in return. Which at present, in a number of ways, they (or some of them) do. What I HAVE argued includes: 1 - The non-SL clubs should be able to try and secure their own TV rights deal/s. At present they cannot. Whether there is indeed "no value" in those rights, as you asserted, could then be tested. My own view is that broadcasters will see a mortally-divided game, and take full advantage to the detriment of everyone. And the non-SL clubs would need to somehow secure the services of (and be able to pay for) the likes of an Elstone and a strategy to try and make the competition much more marketable. A prospect for which I am not holding my breath. 2 - There has to be an objective and achievable method of clubs gaining promotion to SL, rather than being admitted only if they met whatever criteria SL specificed. 3 - There has to be a means of preventing a club relegated from SL from being so much better financed than the rest of the clubs in the Championship that it is likely to bounce straight back. 4 - The words of John Donne, in "no man is an island", are highly pertinent to the current situation. Diminish part of the game, and you diminish it all.
  7. Why would it take a SL intermediary to sell games not selected by Sky? Why would Sky be prepared to allow a competitive broadcaster in, when they currently do not? Why would Sky elect to show non-SL games now, when they have not done so hitherto? What makes you think Sky will offer the same deal next time round? (I expect it to be less). Do you think 100k extra subs at £15/month (£12/month income, as - like pretty well everyone else, you seem to forget VAT) is realistic?
  8. Who said they did? But Salford will want to protect Salford. And, for such time that each SL club has one vote on the board of SLE, the weaker clubs will be able to attempt to veto anything to their detriment. Various proponents of the Junta's proposals have said that the current deal was only passed by a small majority of SL clubs in 2014. And even then, after dangling carrots of various natures. The delicious - if tragic - irony of it all would - WILL - be when they have to resort to precisely the same to force through future proposals to replace the likes of Salford with clubs more to their liking.
  9. Er...I am sure they would like to aim for considerably more than that. But, when faced with a dominant and monied SL, then in the context of the current restructuring intentions a win would be anything that avoided facing them with an existential crisis. It is probably the best they can hope for in a situation where the game is likely to split - to the detriment of all, but to that of the weakest (and that includes clubs that may in due course get ejected from SL, once the Junta have their votes) most of all. A REAL win would be someone taking hold of ALL the game, removing ANY vested interests from a position of control, and coming up with a realistic strategy to signifiantly improve the financing of the whole game. But that potential "win" option has been precluded by the SL Junta electing instead to pursue that goal solely for themselves. As I said, I fear ultimately to the detriment of everyone.
  10. Er...you mean just like the current deal with Sky? Who own the rights, but have declined to provide a package? In any case, it would HAVE to be a resale of rights - since they would be selling their OWN rights to a broadcaster. Whether the (unencumbered) rights to non-SL RL have any or no value is currently unable to be tested.
  11. It is if you are a Championship club, given the alternative.
  12. I ask again, what would be in it for SLE? Paying for streaming rights for a separate competition, which they could then sell on to a broadcaster, would seem to be a distraction from their own competition and operations. Why would the non-SL clubs sell their broadcast rights to a competing (for viewers) business that intemds to then on-sell the rights to a broadcaster at a (presumed) profit?
  13. I think you will see, from comments on this thread, that there is very considerable scepticism over the objectivity of any future licensing, franchising or whatever. Not least, given the "licensing" experience (which I see many have used as an opportuity to kick Cas and Wakey). If the owners of the current SL clubs are the ones in charge of any future franchising or licensing, how likely is it that they would implement a process that could see their own club ejected from SL? Large flightless ugly avians and yuletide spring to mind...? And i'll say again, where has anyone suggested the Junta's actions are intended to hurt the lower leagues? Whilst hurt may well be a consequence of their actions, their intent is surely to do whatever is best for them. And the Devil take the hindmost.
  14. What, so like Sky they can then not provide any meaningful TV exposure, but at the same time prevent anyone else from doing so? What benefit to SLE of buying the rights otherwise?
  15. I don't think anyone is suggesting they ARE? At all. Why on earth should they be? What people ARE suggesting, is that a SL run by the SL club owners must invariably be run in the interests (as they perceive them) of those SL club owners! Rather than in the interests of the wider game. A rather different thing.
  16. "Merit" - i.e. finishing top of the Championship table, or winning whatever form of play-offs may be in place from time to time. There have been adverse comments from some SL chairmen about "foreign" clubs in SL - I suspect because of the perceived impact on gates, costs etc for their own clubs - and Hudgell made his views on Bradford clear in a recent interview.
  17. I suspect it could prove that it is some current SL clubs who may end up wishing they had been careful what they wished for. I can't get this multiquoting to work, but yesterday In reply to you I wrote: A split is IMO inevitable, sooner or later. And SL will become "by invitation only". Any fudge now will only put the day of reckoning off. Quite whether a split SL would have the critical mass to survive and thrive on its own in the big bad world out there, without ultimately merging with the Dark Side, is the moot point. I've said before, it may well end up as some sort of international "Super Rugby league" like the Dark Side has. If so, the weaker SL clubs (and maybe some of the stronger ones) should maybe be careful what they wish for? Since could you see the likes of Wakey or Hull KR or Huddersfield, or even Cas, making the cut? When faced with prospective new franchises from the very big cities in the UK, Europe and maybe further afield? I fully expect that, after 2021 if they cannot effect it earlier, SLE will pull up the drawbridge, make SL by invitation only and retain 100% of the TV money, regardless. And, even if a pretence of P&R IS retained, it will be a de facto 12 + 1 SL, with one club a year taking a (parachute-payment subsidised) sabbatical in the Championship, compared to whose cash-strapped clubs they should win back at a canter. If I am right, what have the clubs outside of SL to lose by opposing the Junta's intentions?
  18. I suspect that is precisely the point. They WILL pick who they want. Rather than who may or may not justify promotion/admission on merit. And remember, Hiudgell has already stated that there would be major resistance from current SL clubs to Bradford joining SL, should that (currently remote) opportunity ever arise. So, hardly surprising Chalmers is opposing the Junta's intentions?
  19. Nah mate, you've not thought this through properly. What you SHOULD be doing, is gathering together a few like-minded clubs and - more importantly - wealthy propspective club owners. Then approaching the broadcasters with your proposal for a Northern Hemisphere "Super Rugby League" that (since we know this is TGG, if only there was a bit more brass in it) will blow everything else away. And securing the mother of all TV deals, while at the same time making SL look a far less attractive competition to broadcast. THEN you have a chat with Lenagan and his junta, and suggest that selected clubs (YOU do the selecting...) may wish to play in your competition. As guests. Simples!
  20. I feel sure they could have persuaded their auditors that an asset acquired in a year, that proved not to be an asset at all, would have been best not capitalised in the first place? That presentation is just asking for trouble. If it was me, MY accounting policy would have been to capitalise the transfer fee of any player where the benefit demonstrably extended beyond the current financial year at the time the accounts were drawn up. But hey ho... A 30% increase in turnover is pretty unprecedented in this game, and I'd love to see more on how Cas actually achieved it. The wording "..driven by..." rather than "...achieved by..." does make me wonder a teeny bit... Nevertheless, If I was a Cas fan, I'd be absolutely chuffed to bits right now.
  21. If you are not a member, though, you don't get a vote. WHY such clubs are not members (or not ALLOWED to be members or CHOSE not to be members) is the real issue? Its like Norway has to do what it is told by the EU to play in their game, but has no vote and little say in making the rules. Or maybe, a bit closer to home, a bit like how Trump wants Canada to play in the NAFTA game?
  22. Presumably because any such "disenfranchised" clubs are not actually members of the RFL? According to the RFL Articles, a club does not have to be an RFL member to be allowed to play in a competition. Just has to observe the rules, as a rule-taker not a rule-maker. (Oh God, the parallels with bloody Brexit get stronger...)
  23. A split is IMO inevitable, sooner or later. And SL will become "by invitation only". Any fudge now will only put the day of reckoning off. Quite whether a split SL would have the critical mass to survive and thrive on its own in the big bad world out there, without ultimately merging with the Dark Side, is the moot point. I've said before, it may well end up as some sort of international "Super Rugby league" like the Dark Side has. If so, the weaker SL clubs (and maybe some of the stronger ones) should maybe be careful what they wish for? Since could you see the likes of Wakey or Hull KR or Huddersfield, or even Cas, making the cut? When faced with prospective new franchises from the very big cities in the UK, Europe and maybe further afield? Or maybe SL will decide sod the RFL, they will affiliate instead to the NRL and the Aussie governance? God knows what might happen? And, post-split, absent some miraculous change of financial fortunes for the "lower leagues", the whole lot will go at best semi-pro and completely part-time. And the crowds and income will fall even more.
×
×
  • Create New...