Toby Chopra
-
Posts
2,653 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Toby Chopra
-
-
9 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:
ie The RFL have been (and still are) subsidising Bradford Bulls to the tune of ca£100k pa.....around half the total amount of central funding received by L1 clubs in 2022 (and probably a bigger % as of today)
Well, yes, but also to protect the value of an asset (Odsal) that's in theory owned by everyone, in the hope they can exit without a loss while not leaving the Bulls homeless and Odsal a landfill site. But all that's probably too much to hope for now.
It all goes back to the original deal, which looks a lot worse in hindsight now we know that the Bulls aren't a SL club and there's no money coming to redevelop Odsal.
-
10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Odsal being essentially worthless for a whole host of reasons has been discussed on here multiple times. I have no idea about 700k but my understanding (from others) is that it is an environmental nightmare and just massively impractical.
Worthless as a sporting venue - or at least worth less than the £1.2m the RFL paid for the lease.
But certainly not worthless if sold on the free market.
-
7 minutes ago, Worzel said:
It's not overly conspirational. Leaving aside the ginormous, screaming conflict of interest, the facts are this: The governing body has spent about 75% of its net worth propping up one, single failing club in West Yorkshire. It's the equivalent of the NRL sending Cronulla Sharks about $100m, maybe more. It's off the scale just on that basis alone.
Then add in what Big Nige did afterwards, and it becomes something else...
But this hasn't been in secret. And I don't believe Nigel pushed the deal through the RFL in 2012 as part of some grand plan to eventually own the Bulls. He's just been opportunistic with the circumstances after his RFL departure.
We've known the terms of the lease for a long time. That doesn't make it a good deal at all, and with hindsight the RFL shouldn't have entered it. But if the stakeholders had wanted to pull the plug on this in previous years they could have - albeit likely crystallising the loss. Maybe now the time has come.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:
Beggers belief Bradford would want the lease back. The RFL make an annual loss of £100k with a rent paying tenant, so in reality that would be a £200k drain on Bradford.
Odsal is a money pit and nobody in their right mind would take the lease on for sporting purposes.
The history of clubs leaving their historical home without a proper long term option to move too is not good.
Perhaps Bradford have reached the point where they have no other option. But I can see why they'd try everything to stay and hope to redevelop, as something gets lost for good once you leave, unless you have a purpose built replacement ready to go.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Minimal losses appears to be £500,000 on any sale and £100,000 per year minimum every year since purchase?
The way I read it, the £100k yearly loss is incurred by the annual repair costs of keeping it as a safe sporting venue, even after the rents. So, yes, past spend won't be recovered. But if Odsal is sold to developers I find it hard to see that they'd only get £700,000k for that site.
What they seem to be looking for is a buyer who will take on the stadium as a sporting venue for the existing tenants (or at least the Bulls) In that circumstance, yes, they'll make a loss.
Reading between the lines, I wonder if the RFL have leaked this either to put pressure on the Bulls to up their bid - or to soften up public opinion for when they sell the lease back to the Bulls at a loss. I can't decide which yet!
-
10 minutes ago, Worzel said:
Perfectly encapsulates how sickening this situation is. We're a sport with almost no money, to the extent that we do mad things like charge a club a bond to compete in a comp. The RFL blowing £1m supporting one club is like the Premier League dropping £250m into the coffers of one of its clubs. Can you imagine the national scandal that would create?
It's an unbelievable set of circumstances. I wouldn't expect the West Yorkshire clique of rugby league journalists and administrators to treat it as such though. All Nigel's boys.
I think that's overly conspiratorial. The details and the RFL's justification of of the Odsal purchase were public at the time and although a lot of people grumbled, it was signed off by Richard Lewis and the RFL board. Which is ultimately the clubs themselves.
What no-one predicted in 2012 was that the Bulls - who were still a SL club at the time - would go into sharp decline, lowering the value of the asset. And that nothing would have changed 12 years later.
Should they have predicted that? Quite possibly. But it's simple bad management for all to see, dodgy dealings not really necessary. The fact that Nigel took over the Bulls later shows what a small time sport we are, but doesn't mean it's corrupt.
The fact is the RFL could still get out of this lease with minimal losses if it sold out to non-sport developers (and got Bradford council's agreement to do so).
But that would leave the Bulls homeless and complete their transition into another Oldham-type club: great history but forever dependent on others for a home.
In 2012 I can see why some people wanted to avoid that, but perhaps now in 2024 it's time for the RFL to accept that "saving historic Odsal" and dreaming of a resurgent Bulls just aren't a priority any more.
-
4
-
-
14 hours ago, sam4731 said:
I have undertaken a project to find the unofficial club world champions. Let me expand.
I have gone back to the 1987 WCC (the 1976 one would have been too much work) and crowned Wigan world champions. In the next match that Wigan played, they defended that title. The first match they lost, that team became new Champions which they then had to defend and so on and so forth.
Each line is when the title passed on to its new champion.
I hope I haven't made any mistakes which would invalidate the whole thing but I hope you enjoy it for what it is, which is a bit of fun.
So without further ado, please bask in the glory of having been the world champions without even knowing it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FnrR8QuYLxsgBRW4dXt77UtsRHahbqNeEouaMAQk2Jg/edit?usp=drivesdk
Edit: Updated access now
Love it! Bramley and Rydale-York were lineal World Champions. And well done Saints for breaking that Aussie dominance:)
-
What was the Batley-Cas attendance? These are the sort of ties there would be more of if the SL teams were put in a round earlier, so it would be interesting to see how much interest it generated.
-
2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:
Yep up there with the worst draws apart from maybe London away. Club loses money and Cats probably one of the last teams you want to play on a heavy pitch where their forwards will just batter ours. I'd honestly consider switching this game to France if Fax could make the money work for them.
Why would Fax lose money on the game? I get there wouldn't be many away fans but surely more locals than normal would turn out to see one of the top Superleague teams?
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Dave T said:
So, four weeks in, how's it working for people?
I must admit, I'm loving it. Watched more RL on TV than ever, and am really enjoying having a steady stream of SL through the weekend. I haven't used SL+ so can't comment on that
Positives:
Loads of SL! I no longer have to wonder what the TV game is - they all are!
Enjoy multi-match Friday nights (guaranteed I'll be interested in at least one game)
Great highlights online
Better commentary overall as we've split up 'the mob' to cover more games.
Full match repeats - always RL on Sky Sports
Great BBC coverage
Negatives:
The Friday night overlap is a positive in many ways, but it isn't as enjoyable flicking through games as too much goes on in RL to lend itself to that. I'm coming round to 1 match per slot.
Whisper this one - spoilers
Some average production - fewer angles, poor Video Ref coverage, some below average commentary at times.
For me, it's been a great success - I expect numbers are modest, but having so much coverage guaranteed, all produced at a solid level (not perfect), and as someone who watches much of my RL on TV, I'm loving it. This is absolutely enough to make me never cancel Sky Sports.
Are other people enjoying it too?
Agree wholeheartedly with your analysis, and if the experts tell us that this is good for growth then I'm all for it.
It hasn't really resulted in me watching any more rugby league, two or three SL games a week is enough for me, usually the Thursday and Friday games. So it's nice to have the choice on a Friday and I have switched games a couple of times when the first choice became a bit of a procession.
I'm planning to try and catch a bit more NRL this year in the mornings.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Dave T said:
Obviously people like this are often pretty secretive about their wealth, but I wonder how poor he and his business are at the moment?
My understanding is that due to the 'unique' way TWP we're organised, they struggled to get government support through the various schemes, so costs were substantial, and they have sympathy for that. But I think it would be a little blind to ignore the fact that their start to life in SL had been a car crash and they put all their eggs in the SBW basket.
Agree. Perhaps, if COVID hadn't happened, there was some sort of plan that would have monetised a global rugby star to fix the holes in the TWP business model, but the price of that was a much worse team overall, and that rarely ends well.
I look back on it all with a fond memory of idealistic dreams, like most things pre-2020!
-
1 hour ago, fighting irish said:
I'm not saying it was right to leave people ''high and dry'' 'Arry, but I'm not prepared to turn a blind eye to the way he was treated by Robert Elstone, as if it was immaterial in his decision to stop pouring millions into the game.
Like most things Robert Elstone did, it made very little difference overall.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:
Where are they getting the players from for this venture? Been here before haven't we
Overall it sounds like a massive scam to me ($1.5mn please guv, here's your "team", see ya)
But if it is legit, and did get some traction, the unfortunate truth is that the English game would be pillaged for players in the early years and serious damage would be done.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:
Was The Hive ever any good for London? I note Barnet FC are planning on returning to Underhill and i imagine the stadium will be lookin for a new tenant. Perhaps its somewhere they can start to put down roots. I read they're paying a fair whack to be at Wimbledon.
On the plus side it's a short walk from a tube station and 5 minutes from the M1, so quite accessible for both London and Northern fans. The area itself isn't prime audience building territory, but staying anywhere for more than a couple of years and not putting out an awful team probably matters more.
It wouldn't be the worst option if Hughes/anyone else wanted to put together a proper multi-year plan.
-
2 hours ago, Tre Cool said:
well no, he's recently made a statement on his reasons for voting for IMG and that he now thinks some changes need to be considered.
It's still deflection though. Even if London were given maximum points for catchment, and if academy was included in foundation spend they'd still be miles off a place.
It pains me to say this because as a southerner I'd love the Broncos to be successful, but the facts on the state of the game in the south are hard to argue with.
But we'll make the most of this year as it is - so far I'm going to be going to four games this season - and I think many southern rugby league fans will give it a go too, just to see top flight RL, if not the Broncos. So hopefully there will be some decent crowds and Plough Lane is a great little stadium, much better than Ealing for SL.
But long term we need a proper plan for London RL.
-
6
-
-
40 minutes ago, Henson Park Old Firm said:
When will we find out about Salfords staduim decision. Isn't it soon?
Looks like the Salford cabinet is meeting on Tuesday to decide:
https://sccdemocracy.salford.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=133&MID=7441
-
A small anecdote, but for some reason his name is seared into my sporting memory from one of those many great games on Grandstand in the 80s - GB's draw with the Kiwis in 1985. Pinner was captain, and when Lee Crooks knocked over a last minute touchline penalty to draw the game and the series, I've never forgotten Ray French extolling "Look at the smile on Harry Pinner's face", and Pinner indeed with a huge grin.
-
1
-
-
Will be interesting to see how it plays out, and whether SL+ grows the audience,or just cannibalises it, especially when Sky have it all anyway.
I don't think you can underestimate how annoying the 48 hours blackout can become. I used to subscribe to NFL Gamepass for a few years, which allowed me to watch my own (rubbish) team that Sky rarely showed, plus use all the on-demand and catch up capability.
But as you got later in the season, it became increasingly annoying - I had to stay off the news sites for a couple of days, and I couldn't watch live the top teams matchups in the run-in, and of course the playoffs, which Sky had live exclusivity over.
In the end, I dropped Gamepass, and went to NowTV all year round - less choice and flexibility, but ultimately the best games live.
-
6 hours ago, frank said:
What's the actual dates for these games in Vegas? Going away in March and don't want to miss them.
Saturday March 2, although for UK viewers it starts at 2.30am on the Sunday.
-
11 minutes ago, EggFace said:
Fans won't adapt to the changes so te RFL has just done a own goal....lets hope a backlash from the fans, players, coaches , owners, Twitter, Youtube and forums like this might make the RFL think again.
Most fans won't have a problem. They'll still be able to watch their teams play rugby league, there will still be tackling and contact. It will just, possibly, look a bit different. It's not like it's the first time tackle laws have changed.
I think people bind it up too much with their wider complaints about the game, or a more litigious culture. In reality, the sport will mostly carry on.
My prediction is that come this time next year, more people will be complaining about the gradings than the tackling.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Odsal Outlaw said:
This is such a shame to see the direction the sport is heading in. Safety is important, but let’s also recognise that we sign up to play a sport with a level of risk. If someone gets hit on the head then send the offender off, but don’t start sanitising the game.
I remember when the shoulder charge was banned - also a poor decision.
I wonder if boxing will force punches only below the armpit?
The problem is saying the sport has "a level of risk" is too vague.
We now know what the players we love to watch are signing up for is a heightened risk of brain damage and life long injury.
Either the sport says that up front - like boxing has effectively done - or it takes action to reduce that risk.
If we choose the boxing angle of being up front about it, the risk is that the full contact game in the UK slowly dies at a youth level. That's what I'm witnessing in union down here in Sussex.
So the alternative is to try and change the sport so we can faithfully say to people it's reasonably safe to pursue a career in it.
I'm not an expert. I don't know whether these tackle rules will have the desired effect. I'm seriously doubtful about the ability of the RFL managing this properly, and what the NRL does is crucial.
But I also totally can see why they're doing something because the alternative of burying their heads in the sand and being destroyed in the courts is potentially even worse.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:
Has the RFL said anything about this yet? What dispensation have they announced?
I find it more than odd that clubs in, e.g., Tier 5 can have their applications rejected based on their ground but a SL club is accepted without having a ground at all.
It really is shocking. Not so much the lack of statement - sometimes these things have to be dealt with behind closed doors - but the very fact that a club in the flagship league has got to within 3 months of season start without a binding stadium deal. No other comparable sports league allows this, the deadline is always prior to the end of the previous season.
Some people on here were getting hysterical about the gradings and how the situation regarding London would look etc, but all that was irrelevant compared to this.
The RFL have seriously dropped the ball.
-
12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
It moves them to being a tenant of the same guy who owns them. That feels like a step forward, albeit not a massive one.
Yes, it's potentially a small step forward in terms of the ground, as there wasn't much scope for growth at Penryn. But the RL club isn't going to be the main focus of the ownership group any more and so we'll have to see what effect that has. I don't know how much they've put in each season up to now.
-
Just now, Archie Gordon said:
Perez is addressing that to the football fans who need reassuring. It's exactly what I would say to them.
True, but I also think he means it. I don't think this is a Trojan Horse for rugby league.
But I suppose we should see it all in perspective. It's still amazing that Cornwall RL has existed at all and every year they keep going - even as a tenant of Truro FC - is a win for rugby league.
-
5
-
The Reality of the IMG Grading System
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
Spot on, although once inside the flagship comp there still needs to be a pretty high minimum spend too.