redjonn

Yep you have a point but my other point was that in being in SL or possibility it gives better potential to exploit commercially as per my second paragraph which I repeat: "Of course can argue whether those championship clubs may not have sufficient monies to compete in SL. But being in SL does in itself enable clubs to raise more income. Both commercially and via gates. Although gate money is not the most important, commercial & hospitality plus the TV money are the bigger factors." Yes we need standards but ones that are strongly enforced so that a real harsh penalty if club is mismanaged.

I don’t go along with your NFL analogy as it’s a vibrant, high profile, money generator irrespective of the draft system. However, I do agree with your premise of failure but unfortunately the risk rewards is not balanced enough in RL. Whilst sport is not quite raw commercial business clubs never-the-less it is business all be it a special sort of business arena. Hence I never understand why going into administration is considered such a disaster in the current SL environment, yep a major issue for the sport as an indicator. It ain’t good for the image if too many are faced with it and it is far better that we have none. However going into administration is an opportunity to renew and start again, well it should and could be. The problem is that no harsh sanction awaits the club in reality of whatever the theory, i.e. they seem to be able to keep playing in the same league rather than being sent down a number of leagues. Thus the risk whilst embarrassing and hard to readjust it isn’t one that is enough to make the club consider the risk too high. Plus it stops any ambitious club and one that may subsequent be better run to take it spot. So the system allows some clubs to not be so worried about its management because at worse it goes into admin, removes its debt and then can continue where it left off, all-be-it with a minor points reduction. It still keeps its position in SL, able to take advantage of better commercial opportunities it would not have if it dropped out, as well as TV monies that will always make them more commercial secure than the ambitious club that the system stops it being replaced with. May as well take the risk on continuing with poor management of the club because the worst is... walk away from debts and stay in the SL.

Maybe,,, but Hunslet with that spend will never make it to a promotion into SL place, more likely to have them relegated into a league that all have around whatever their spend is. Whereas other Championship clubs that have more money to spend will be in those promotion places. Of course can argue whether those championship clubs may not have sufficient monies to compete in SL. But being in SL does in itself enable clubs to raise more income. Both commercially and via gates. Although gate money is not the most important, commercial & hospitality plus the TV money are the bigger factors. Plus the potential of promotion can bring in more people prepared to invest in a ambitious club... maybe not... but with possibility of promotion they is more chance of existing owner or new investor to invest more through a transitional period until able to attract the extra commercial and hospitality opportunities whilst also receiving TV monies. Especially if some drop down payment is made if a club is relegated then even if bounce up an down they may be more able to continue to sustain an improvement. Personally I would prefer a 10 club SL league structure but with P&R.... to and from a 2nd 10 league tier.

Why not achieve the same intensity of games by having a league of x8 (can always play each other x3 times as per the 12into3x8) from the start without the shenanigans of the first part or x10 size league..

Most successful business expand from position of strength in their core market. RL often wants to expand without the core being solid and hence finds it ain't the resources or capability to sustain its effort to expand. I want expansion but sometimes the focus has to be on its core market until its healthy and then target expansion. Growing at the grass roots is all expansion should be at the moment. The core and that includes international game should be its major focus.

It is useful to have some understanding in order to see if anything can be replicated. My superficial view is: They (RU) have P&R and resisted the option a few years ago to ring fence and remove P&R - a decision that seems to have been the right one, using Exeter as a positive, although could use Worcester & Newcastle as not so positive. Either way P&R hasn’t harmed the success story of club RU in England in recent years and one could argue it has been beneficial to the championship level. They still have an elite top layer with P&R as does the successful French club RU. Obviously, the money coming into RU enables them to implement their strategic plans. The money comes from a strong international game which not only generates cash in its self it brings huge exposure. That exposure brings huge commercial benefits to the clubs that would not have been there without the international games exposure. Now the top clubs are probably able to attract commercial interest irrespective of the international game. However, without that international backdrop they would not have been able to get to where they are now. Premiership attendances are not much higher than SL outside of the top x3 or x4 teams. The difference is of course the commercial interest and hence sponsorship and hospitality income. In addition the fans demographics are different and they can command higher turnstile pricing. So for me changing league structures will not make a huge difference. Although I think having P&R can open up the possibility of extra investment at the championship level. As it does in RU. The key focus surely for RL has to be on developing the international game and attracting/widening the demographics of the paying public. Not league structures as I don’t see that bringing the transformation needed, even if some small improvement which I doubt will be the case.. After all one of our once high exposure competitions, the challenge cup, is dying with regard to attendances outside of the final. The challenge cup should be one of our major media exposure and interest generators. That needs more attention than just changing the SL structure. It should be a key platform for driving interest rather than allowed to wither away as it is with regard to attracting wider interest in the sport. Anyway I don’t know the strategy of the RFL as it seems to be clouded by league structures but has to include international and demographics issues as well as reinvigorating the challenge cup and not just SL competition. Both need to be strong vehicles to maximize media exposure.

Maybe, but off the top of "me head" I can't think of anything more jeopardizing than being in the relegation zone without a 2nd bite of dropping into another tier, starting again against teams that have a lower budget nor experience of the higher league and hence more likely to be one of the x4 that continue to stay in the 1st tier in the next season. So accepting being realistically consigned to the bottom 4 of the first tier of 12, the team may get ready for the 2nd tier by resting key players, not breaking every sinew once the club and coach recognize they will be dropping into the 2nd tier, etc etc, so that they are better prepared for the next set of 2nd tier play-off games (or whatever they are called) to maximize being in the top 4 and hence still in the top tier league the following season. Personally I agree with those contributors who see it as making it harder for championship clubs to be promoted than the simple P&R as distinct to the so called jeopardy of the 2nd tier x8..

Of course all teams will try. But surely the importance of the game impacts with the focus and hence level at which a team may perform. Otherwise why do we think that a team playing in a semi or Grand Final or some other important game talk about the magnitude of the game and hence must impact the focus, desire and level of commitment that extra few "degrees". Its not a question of not consciously trying, of course they will, but the importance of the game must imho often diminish the level of intensity a team brings to bear. I mean how often does the level and sheer despration of defence improve in play off type games or games with more meaningful outcomes than standard games.

But the question for me is it better than a simple x2 leagues of 12 with P&R. The two weakest teams at the time still go down and hence more intense competition if your theory is correct. Also and something that has been said many times in the thread is the x8 pool classed as the first stage of play-offs. That's what they seem to be called and hence is the gate money pooled as per today's play-off games. Thus if your a club that gets relatively big attendance is their not possibility you lose monies getting pooled money rather than own gate money.

Just wondering how you promote or price the split format to fans as in season ticket. sponsors and commercial hospitality. Do you have different pricing structures for the different level of competitions before split and after split. That is championship teams charge more and SL teams charge less for the 2nd tier of games. Thinking particularly from a commercial or sponsor perspective as I would be concerned that you would expect it to be less attractive to sponsors and commercial of current SL teams with regard to the 2nd tier. Lets not forget that sponsorship/commercial is typically bigger income stream than gate money.

Absolutely spiffing.... I had a devil of a job persuading the butler to change the ole champers.... Had to get the chauffeur to use his more persuasive ways....the old boy just doesn't like change.

Good point... nope I wasn't expecting a thank you and certainly don't when I contribute to a charity cause. But it wasn't quite the same as charity. But in hindsight If it was me and the type of thing I would have done with my business before retiring was to offered something that still gave me profit but gave something back to those that contributed..... for example offered a discount to hospitality package which may have got me more likely to attend games there than just the Leeds one, e.g. take my saints supporting son to the saints game on a higher margin ticket. I could think up other ways they could have turned it to a promotional advantage whilst providing something in return to the contributor even if it was just a small discount to a full ticket price for a game the person that contributed wouldn't normally go,,, after all they have the details of where the various people are from and could have come up with a tailored approach. But nope wasn't expecting anything but maybe more general information but then again I didn't read the clubs web site and hence there may have been as I assume they kept their fans fully updated at the time.

Good point... its a different board and I do hope they can rebuild the club to its former successful self. Although I will think more than twice with regard to similar situation ever arising at another club and the "save our club money bowl" coming out. However, on reflection the club through its community work does deserve to succeed.

Too be honest I find it difficult to conjure up any sympathy for any of those that run the Bradford club. Yep, for the fans I have a lot but maybe I'm bias as like a lot of people I contributed towards their "save the club" fund although a Leeds supporter. OK it wasn't a massive amount but it would have paid for my season tickets at Leeds, so it was a reasonable amount. Never heard anything since, once the money went out my account. So unfortunately I don't give a ................

I like the CAP approach in RU... a base amount with additional credits to increase based upon academy players.

well yeah... but what are the pie's like

mmmmm Morecambe... they have won the best pies in football award and featured heavily on TV because of the homemade pies they make at the football stadium. Seems a good fit to me because I've always wanted to try their pies since hearing about how good they are on TV.

The salary cap should be significantly increased. But could take an idea from RU with their salary cap and introduce additional payments to clubs based upon their own Academy players in the squad. In most sports I know clubs use transfers as means of bringing in income to enable themselves to operate. So I can't see any problems with the like of Wakefield having to rely on transfer of players. Investing in a strong academy to have players to play for the club as well as sell on is a reasonable operating model and one used by many sporting clubs. Particular if central funds are diverted to support academy development, with more going to those less strong clubs than the stronger as a way of tilting the balance.

Having managed a marketing group I'd like to know what the players think marketing is... lots of people that I speak to that don't work in the various marketing roles that exist often have me shaking my head as they generally equate the narrower promotion or advertising to marketing,

But in those conditions I wouldn't expect him to be able to play at his top standard, especially if just back from injury. He did what he had to do, very effectively and solid as he needed to be in the conditions. That is he played to the conditions as did Wigan very effectively, a pity Hull didn't have the intelligence to fully adapt their game. He did knock on once but it was not in a particular "advantageous" part of the field. The only real opportunity he had he took very skilfully for the conditions. Not bad when you consider. To add, sometime even if he isn't "on song" it is enough for him to be there to attract "high alert" attention from the opposition, that in itself causes undue anxiety by the opposition which doesn't help with the nervous energy drain.

Nope they are not all mad and useless, far from it. But they don't always make the best decisions as often the benefit of hindsight tells us. I personally don't think the different structures will make a huge difference. However P&R or jeopardy is introduced the funding change together with the introduction of a aspiration possibility bringing in more investment will be the key change. So having 2 x12 or x2 into x3 structures will make little difference. Although with the funding change lower down they will be able to point to the structure being the difference even if it isn't. Union has the huge benefit of the international game which brings the huge exposure and subsequent monies from media, sponsorship and higher commercial hospitality prices that enable them to support whatever strategic directions or tactical goals they hope to achieve. We need money to support expansion through the grass roots as well as strengthen the core northern base in England and southern France. We will always have the chicken and egg scenario until we build a strong home & French international representative game. Something that has never been at the forefront of any strategic decisions of the RL.

Although I am not in favour of the format I must agree with you that it is relatively straight forward, especially if you compare it to the current play-off system. Some rugby league fans still fail to grasp the detail and especially non rugby league fans get to the point of rolling their eyes to show distain before one completes explaining the current play-offs, especially when you mention that the beaten teams from the qualifying play-off have a second bite and even if they get beat in the qualifying play-off they can go on and win it via the preliminary play off. By this time their are shaking their heads without mentioning the club call. So all in all at least explaining the play-offs will be easier.

Marketing includes getting the product right. That currently includes the structure around the game that partly turns a good game into a good product. Of course other aspects need to be included in "marketing". I'm guessing you are focusing on the narrower aspect of promoting the game or from an overall perspective the product. I apologise if I have made an incorrect assumption on how you define marketing, no slight intended. Currently we have a great game but not a good product.

I don't see why it will be any different that the straight forward option. In the 2 into x3 surely the bottom 4 that drop out will into 2nd tier will me fairly consistent over the seasons with a group of clubs including some of the current stronger championship teams bouncing back and forth. However, not able to contend with the top teams and hence still getting high scoring defeats. The key is increasing the intensity and I think that the bottom grouping of teams in the straight forward option will have high intensity games with the "immediate" relegation threat. The drop of 4 teams into he 2nd tier will be more of a safety net in that x4 teams come back again to the first stage of the tier. I just don't see how the gate receipts for the x4 teams that drop into the 2nd stage tier will get increased crowds. There gates will fall to the championship levels... surely that is what the current evidence shows what 2nd tier gates will look like. OK, that may prove to be wrong but it is a risk to introduce the new 2 into x3 structure that it will not be the case, so why go for the complexity. The other point for me remains that will be playing teams too many times in the x2 into 3 leagues structure and associated play-offs (just counting the league games not challenge cup). That surely leads to the risk that fans will decide not to attend all the "repeat games" in respect to both home and away games. They will be more choosy. Of course the way in which season tickets are packaged could be a factor but surly they will cost more for the extra games. As some clubs offer grouping rather than full season tickets then I think fans will be more choosey. I think the overall attendances will not go up - they will be shared across more game. Of because of increased games the cost base will go up.

But surely its promotion and relegation that brings in the potential investment because of the aspirational hopes. If those teams that have the aspiration can see they could achieve the goal of promotion each of those teams will invest more (assuming investment into the club) and then those teams are more competitive, increasing crowds, etc, etc etc... The question is how does the 2 into x3 structure offer better than the straight forward x2 divisions with P&R. The same will be achieved. If it's because more monies will be allocated to the lower tier in the x2 into x3 then it could also have more monies allocated into the other straight forward structure. The question always for me how does the x2 into 3 achieve something much more than the straight forward.