Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by redjonn

  1. you may be right I just wanted to highlight other big (relative) income streams. Of course level of gates and season tickets are important but also the price they are sold. I always get the impression than likes of Bradford charge a relatively low amount plus a lot are junior and other concessions - I guess it depends upon the demographics of the season ticket base. I note from web site that Bradford have a early bird terrace ST for £180, a concession at £135, a junior 12-16 £45 and under 12 £0/free which gives a game price of approx £13.40, £10.40, £3.46 and £0. So depending upon the demographics and whether terrace or stand the average could be much lower and hence income could be less than or close to TV money if that is similar to other clubs depending upon gate size and demographics of ST sales. To add - me thinks 9 teams had average attendance around 8500 (Bradford) and less. a couple in the 7000's. a few in the 6000's. So I still think for some gate money will be the third income stream assuming they are doing a reasonable job commercially (sponsorship and hospitality) with sky money 2nd. SL offers better potential to exploit commercially to CC than they currently have which plus TV money narrows the gap, again depending on pricing and demographics if they have time to grow gates plus get more away fans - no doubt a benefactor can help with that transition.
  2. or they where able to exploit the extra and better commercial opportunities that SL offers, that is sponsors, hospitality, etc. Of course the TV monies would help putting gate money around third place in revenue income. Yep, they need to improve gates to fully compete but my point is they would have better commercial opportunities which gets over looked as most comments just focus on gate money. Obviously depends but for the likes of Leeds commercial sponsorship & hospitality is a major factor. Not sure if other clubs like Hull are able to maximize this major and highest revenue stream as well as the likes of Leeds are able - maybe down to better commercial focus or advantage of being in a city with many more potential sponsors than a city or region that is not as relatively economically well. So maybe board doesn't have to dig so deep....
  3. The difference is I would have P&R do that selection... rather that an individuals or group thinking based upon some criteria that would almost certainly include self interest/centered, prejudiced/bias thinking upon future factors that may well not be fully assessed and would certainly upset large pools of fans that it would be a such a negative impact as to accelerate a downward spiral rather than revitilize the sport. (not saying you are being self interest/centered just that it would be hard for any selection group not to be)
  4. Your area's are quite selective... i.e. Saints, Widnes, and Warrington are very very close to each other, e.g.... that is 5mins from saints ground to Widnes ground, 10mins to Warrington ground, etc. So why take a different approach to Pennine, Calder and Hull. I know they may be different towns but they are all blending into each other nowadays regards the suburbs. Plus a lot of people moving in from Liverpool and other surrounds that have less allegiance or none to the actual town they live in. Just looking at the logic in the longer term as the towns continue to dilute from their traditional demographic. For me that's one of the problems of ring fencing a select few. I agree with reducing the number of teams in the top league, but as per many posts and discussions I think P&R is essential to the health of the sport over the longer term and your arguments have not persuaded me one iota on P&R.
  5. Its also a business no brainer not to keep a failing entity at the top table and prevent new challengers a chance to succeed, even if they too subsequent fail - it may suit the protected entity but can stifle the overall sport or in the business analogy you like it stifles the overall economy protecting the individual failed business. . They may well surprise as in business many new comers or challengers prove to be more successful than those old laggards It shouldn't matter why a club is able finance itself especially given that many SL clubs currently only kept alive by a investor/donor so why shouldn't the same opportunity be afforded to others rather than someone dictating what the market place should look like based upon their own prejudices, bias or old thinking. Its not a business no brainer, yes it may be difficult but others clubs should be afforded the opportunity to better exploit the SL commercial opportunities and TV money than those that are currently failing. Of course providing minimum standards are met irrespective if their is a risk of an investor changing his desire to invest. That risk already exists for many in SL.
  6. I agree that it may be harder for say a Featherstone than Bradford to attract attendances, maybe impossible to achieve similar on current averages. But just maybe Featherstone could charge more and fans prepared to pay more than Bradford plus they have some increase from away support of likes of Leeds, etc. They may be able to exploit the commercial and sponsorship opportunities of being in SL better than a Bradford nowadays. Then they get the TV monies on top. Bearing in mind that commercial and sponsorship for some SL clubs is the biggest revenue stream which with TV monies can put gate money third down the list. So the gap on gate-money may not be an insurmountable, all-be-it an issue but not so great against a current Bradford than it would be relative to a Leeds. Even less so if they were in a group of 10 SL sharing a larger pool of TV money from a future TV contract than the new chairman has been brought in to achieve. OK may be wishful thinking on that point but it is achievable and helps lessen the attendance gap issue, especially if a Bradford charge very low pricing for large pool of the attendance. For all I know a lot of the likes of Bradford charges are for juniors and discretion whilst a Featherstone may be more adult full pricing with potential to charge more. I have no idea having said that just more painting a picture that the gate-money may be not such a massive factor. Yep, may not have the potential of a Bradford firing on all cylinders but as to a current Bradford unable to ignite any may be a better to give their likes a chance.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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..
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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..
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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 ................
  21. I like the CAP approach in RU... a base amount with additional credits to increase based upon academy players.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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,
  • Create New...