Toby Chopra
-
Posts
2,653 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Toby Chopra
-
-
38 minutes ago, Leonard said:
To be fair, he's getting none of that debt back and never was. So great he is helping the club but hardly the big gesture suggested.
True, but if he's effectively handing back the club in the state he took it on - and is personally a few hundred thousand quid lighter - you can't ask much more than that.
-
4
-
-
2 minutes ago, The Future is League said:
I do think the next part of the IMG plan after 2024 will be the standard of grounds, and unless Cas, Wakey and even Bradford get their acts together as regards bringing their grounds up to a decent standard they won't get into Super League in the future
Nothing about their approach suggests that. They're not interested in micromanaging the state of each ground, they just want to ensure that the facilities for broadcasting, social media, sponsors and executives are up to snuff, as those are the channels through which they're going to try and drive up revenues.
Providing the rest of the ground is a/ safe and b/ has a minimum capacity for a sustainable Superleague team, then they're not too fussed and the existing minimum standards take care of that.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:
Good int it.
Well, if you agree with a return to licensing - which this is, and we shouldn't be shy about saying it - then it's a pretty good way of doing it. It's more transparent and measurable than last time.
Some obviously don't agree with the licensing approach, which is their prerogative.
-
50 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:
So how will catchment change yearly ?
It won't.
-
2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:
There seems to be some confusion over the period of time that everything is judged on. Fax seem to believe that everything is judged over a 3 year period where some teams seem to think that it is only performance judge over the 3 year period so which is it?
Most categories are three year averages: performance, almost all finance, crowds, viewing figures, foundation spend. This adds up to around 75% of the total grading score.
The remaining measures are snapshots at a point in time, things like stadium or catchment.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Damien said:
This is great news:
NEWCASTLE THUNDER General Manager Keith Christie has paid tribute to former Semore Kurdi as the League One club prepares to potentially re-enter the rugby league pyramid in the third tier.
The north east club shocked the rugby league fraternity when they announced that Thunder would be withdrawing from League One following financial issues.
However, with former owner Semore Kurdi taking all of Newcastle’s debt with him following his exit from the club, Newcastle have a more stable base to put forward a business model to the RFL.
Fair play to Kurdi. I was quite scathing of him earlier but it seems he's done the right thing in terms of seeking a buyer and handing over the club debt free. Good luck to them.
Interesting also that their preference is to play in L1, and think moving a single league holds risks for a number of clubs.
-
3
-
-
Just now, Martyn Sadler said:
Thanks. Your point about yo-yo clubs has been my argument for many years.
And I agree with your second paragraph.
But we have to secure a route to that nirvana that doesn't do untold damage on the way.
Then I just don't see the new system as structured bringing untold damage the way that you do.
Whether it's a sticky outcome for London next year, or some Championship clubs having to adjust to not annually playing for promotion, this is a change that can be managed without crisis. Not least because it's exactly the path we've been on for months now and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
-
20 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:
I'm not misunderstanding anything.
The problem is that there is a tension between the long term aims of this process and the short term outcome, which could derail the whole thing if not dealt with properly.
Everyone hopes that ultimately there will be twelve Grade A clubs. I would be surprised if there weren't at least nine by the end of next season.
But until there are twelve, the game would be foolish to close the door to ambitious other clubs, regardless of whether they are a couple of decimal points behind some other clubs below them in the league table.
In that connection, one point worth making is that we all have faith that the scores have been correctly calculated. But I was talking to one club owner yesterday whose score was adjusted by 0.5 of a point at the last minute because of a miscalculation, allegedly by IMG.
If that club were in 12th or 13th position in the overall ranking, any calculation error could have enormous financial consequences.
Then why did the clubs vote for it? Nothing unexpected has happened. Keeping the "door open for ambitious clubs" in reality means annual yo-yo-ing by the same few clubs, also with calamitous financial implications, as recent history has shown us.
It's time to move on from such an unstable and value-destroying system to something more stable and growth oriented. There will be a place for every club in the structure, it just won't look like it did before. that's ok.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:
We're probably going to look ridiculous yes. But it's a matter of sporting integrity. The clubs have bought into this system and whenever it was brought in there was going to be this 1 transitional season where everything's in flux.
However, the fates have conspired to throw up the most ridiculous possible scenario. We have a team who are simultaneously a basket case in 24th place but also a key strategic target for growth. Through an unlikely series of events they find themselves an incumbent in SL at the time of this great realignment, and will find themselves relegated next season whatever they do.
This is not a reason to start tinkering, either the system is right or it isn't. This scenario will never happen again because in future years a woefully undercooked club wouldn't be in SL in the first place. If Toulouse had won that game there's be no issue. We can't come up with a system, agree on it and then abandon it immediately because we have to live with undesirable consequences for a maximum of 1 season.
great post. Calm and considered.
-
30 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:
Tony Sutton needs to realise that he is the CEO of the RFL and make a decision.
If next season is a disaster, it will be him who carries the can.
Whether London gets battered all year, or don't finish bottom and are removed, it won't be a disaster. By the start of the next season it will be forgotten and for most people not even noticed at all.
-
2
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:
If you want one club to be a passenger in Super League from the opening game next season, then it isn't needed.
The obvious thing for the Broncos to do now is to continue with a part-time squad and accept the inevitable.
I think that would be a PR disaster for the game, particularly in London.
We will look ridiculous.
We've had teams get battered all season before, as have teams in other sports. It's not great but it happens and it won't be that big a deal. And if it does, sadly no-one in London or the South East will notice because unfortunately the sport has almost zero visibility these days down here beyond the scattering of existing fans.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:
IMG are certainly not clowns - they have performed an important service with the grading system they have introduced.
But ultimately it isn't IMG who manages the game - it's the RFL and nowadays RL Commercial Ltd.
As with any consultancy project, you have to decide whether to adopt all the recommendations or modify some of them.
The clear modification that needs to be made is that Grade B clubs should be able to be relegated or promoted from or into Super League regardless of their ranking among the Grade B clubs.
That means that, as things stand, the Broncos would be able to strive to beat the Giants, Tigers, Red Devils or Leopards in avoiding that relegation spot.
The same thing applies with promotion. If a Grade B team wins the Championship Grand Final, it should be promoted regardless unless there are 12 Grade A clubs.
My other concern with the grading system is that in my view each club should have been required to achieve a certain minimum standard for each of the headings if it is to be regarded as a Grade A club.
If a club scores top marks on fandom and performance, but, for example, could only manage one point out of 4.5 on finance, then I don't think it should be granted Grade A status, even if its points gained from other sources suggest that it should be.
That's why I think we should have been given the full picture, not just the aggregate score, for each club, which can obscure as much as enlighten.
I think you're misunderstanding the intention of the system Martyn.
It's not intended to make promotion and relegation a common occurrence, it's intended to select the 12 best-equipped clubs with which to grow the competition and provide (differing) elements of protection so that growth isn't lost by one bad year on the park.
Once the transition year is past, changes to the line up will only occur if on- and off-field failure is sustained. It's effectively a return to licensing, albeit in a more dynamic way.
IMG are not interested in expending their media and marketing resources of 7League, endeavour etc on teams if some of the efforts are effectively wasted each year. They want a stable competition to work with.
-
1
-
-
I fully back the gradings approach as a means to an end, but for the record I'd be happy to remove the catchment part as it isn't needed to achieve the desired goals and conflicts with the approach taken in the rest of the criteria.
I also agree some of the sections such as crowds and revenues could have the thresholds moved around a bit to reward more clearly the clubs that are making the most of their Superleague place as opposed to treading water.
But the results would be largely the same and isn't a dealbreaker for me.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Damien said:
I remember saying ages ago that this criteria was the starting point and that I can see it changing over time. When we get to the stage of having more than 14 A clubs then its going to start to become pretty worthless. Compared to where we are now it would be a nice problem to have.
Many of the metrics used in this criteria are far too low for what we should be striving for in our elite league but at the moment its a good starting place to try and get 14 clubs up to a better standard.
As I've said before, I see the gradings as a transitional phase because we don't have a enough strong clubs to have a self contained league yet.
If we ever get to 12 - or even 10 - I'd expect the model to change to something much more like the NRL or NFL, where the clubs are constituent franchises in a centralised competition which demands certain common standards.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
I think you can compare with soccer because the work to get Asian (and other diverse groups) to attend and participate is often done at very local levels and has very little to do with Messi turning out for Inter Miami.
I'd say it's a bit of both. Football "looks" much more global and welcoming than it did 30-40 years ago, in part due to the proliferation of international and European football on our screens and the internationalisation of playing squads.
When I first went to Spurs nearly 40 years ago me, my dad, a couple of security guards and Garth Crooks were the only non-white faces in the building! It's very different now and that helps you build a more diverse fan base, across multiple categories.
But you then have to convert it on the ground, and hope you get into a virtuous circle.
So I'd say rugby league does have to try and tell some stories which shows the game isn't just played and watched by northern white men, and then work off that on the ground.
We don't have loads to work with, but it's not nothing - I think we could tell the stories of our Pacifika players much more prominently and that just starts to shift perception. Then you have to convert on the ground.
It won't deliver a massive change in fortunes overnight, but I think we have a number of clubs based in diverse areas who if they could go from "basically none" to "a few" non-white fans would see early dividends.
-
7
-
-
2 hours ago, sam4731 said:
To be fair, I'm not necessarily suggesting that we should withdraw any central funding, what I am saying is that there are far too many clubs that rely on that funding to continue with their operations, which is why we see clubs struggle when they are relegated and lose that funding.
The broadcasting money should enhance clubs in the top flight not prop them up. I'd suggest that it makes some clubs lazy when it comes to generating their own revenue streams because they know they can rely on that central funding.
TV money isn't "propping them up" it's a legitimate part of their income and budget.
Saying they shouldn't rely on it is like saying it's somehow wrong to count money you earn on a Tuesday as part of your family income. It makes no sense.
No other professional sport looks suspiciously at broadcast income in this way, it's as valid a part of income as tickets sold and shouldn't be treated any differently.
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:
I was going to describe them as the group that's always in the kitchen at parties, but that would mean that they would be invited to parties in the first place...
Hey, I do some of my best work in kitchens at parties!
"Actually, I think you'll find..."
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:
I Don't do any social media apart from this site, but I go to watch my team home and away whenever possible and spend my money, but it could be that I am not as important as someone sat on their brown one clicking away on his computer, someone who never goes near a ground or spends a penny on the game.
That can't be right surely.
Crowds and non-central revenues (which is mostly determined by crowds) make up about 30% of the grading.
Digital makes up 7.5%.
So according to the criteria you attending is 4x more important than someone engaging with the club via social media.
So rather than saying you're "not important" it actually says fans are the most important factor of all.
So no need for worry Harry!
-
2
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Much is being made about the LED screens, but think about what they actually mean:
A consistent offering to sponsors for the whole league (not just individual clubs though they obviously benefit), this is also increased by the new TV deal having every match produced to broadcast quality.
Right now, at some clubs the pitchside advertisement on offer for potential club and league sponsors is no better than when colour TV was first introduced.
The premier league etc insist on this and by having them it enshrines best practice across the league. It also, in conjunction with the other facilities points, works ti guarantee a minimum standard across the league that is corporate, media and broadcaster friendly.
Absolutely. All the stadium criteria are about making Superleague fit to attract better - and higher paying - sponsors, investors and broadcasters on a league-wide basis, not about seeing each club as an island.
Seeing everything through the prisms of individual clubs is a mindset we've long struggled with for historical reasons, whereas we need to boost the attractiveness of the competition as a whole.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:
Maybe part of the ‘kick back’ is that this exercise has exposed that?
The grading system isn’t perfect i don’t think any system would be but it is part of a longer term strategy, IMG weren’t brought in to just do this in fact id say thr structure is only a small part of their remit, once this fully kicks in in 2025 that’s when we’ll see what they are all about imo
Spot on.
As we saw with earlier threads on IMG we have 50 pages of uninformed obsessing over the gradings, when the main thing IMG will be doing is using 7League and Endeavour etc to transform marketing, media and promotional efforts so we improve how the sport - through its shop window of Superleague - is perceived and consumed.
We hope this then feeds through into better commercial deals. IMG won't get paid if it doesn't.
The point of the gradings was to choose the 12 best equipped clubs in a broad sense to do that with.
Nothing about the gradings surprises me at all, and I'm just a bloke on the internet who likes to read the documents. So why some clubs are expressing surprise and anger is beyond me.
If I can fault IMG over anything it would be:
a/ Not stressing the point that its work will primarily be done through the channel of Superleague, and any wider dividend for the game will come via Rugby League Commercial's share of contracts, and a general improvement in the game's perception. Some people still think they're going to act like social workers addressing every problem the game has from top to bottom.
b/ The system is designed to make the clubs in Superleague more secure for good reason, and they will only be replaced if they go into crisis. P&R is over and a (dynamic) licensing is back.
None of this is secret. Anyone who cared to pay attention rather than moan could understand it. And I understand why IMG didn't go out of their way to stress these points - why invite a load of complaint from people who don't really want to engage and struggle to move on from how the game looked 40+ years ago.
But I think with hindsight they could have been a bit braver and left no-one in doubt of the change to come. If the sport lost its nerve because of that and backtracked then it isn't IMG that would ultimately suffer.
-
7
-
-
14 hours ago, sam4731 said:
Personally I think that too many teams are propped up by central funding. If you can afford to be in SL you should get a place and that means not being reliant on CF to stay afloat.
The investment through sponsors and broadcasting is meant to be an investment in the competition, not its constituent parts. After all, how many of us have complained about the marketing strategy of SL. Well if they had greater funds to accelerate it, would we have a better marketed competition?
We can debate how many teams should be in SL, and I can see merit in different numbers, but your analysis of what "central funding" is and what it's for, is completely wrong.
Even the phrase 'central funding' is a relic from a previous time and fails to reflect what 95% of it is - the money paid by a single broadcaster to fund a full-time professional rugby competition which it will then show. Paying for running full time clubs is exactly what the money is for and always has been. The money didn't exist before 1996. Superleague - and therefore the money itself - wouldn't exist without it.
No other sport tries to do without TV money, in fact the bigger the TV share of revenue the healthier the sport usually is.
Moving onto the number - I used to be open to 10, but I now realise there's very little talent to distribute from those bottom teams and the extra funds distributed won't move the dial in bringing in better quality players from the NRL.
14 - with existing money split 14 ways - will just add two more weak teams at the bottom and weaken the strugglers we already have, which is the opposite of what we've been trying to achieve. The competition would get worse
So stick with 12, until we either have a better TV deal that allows non-dilutive expansion, or the new teams come in with substantial external funding to bridge the gap. (Like NRL Dolphins)
-
1 minute ago, HawkMan said:
Interesting comments on BBC Sport website RL HYS thread. Fans asking for action similar to soccer fans stopping ESL, protesting, some actual direct action, demos outside grounds, sit- ins etc. Peaceful obviously, but if the footy powers bowed to pressure no reason the jellyfish at RFL shouldn't too.
The vast majority of the clubs voted for it, in every tier. A small number of aggrieved fans of a small number of clubs are shouting loudly, despite the fact that all this has been known for months. It'll barely make a ripple.
-
29 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:
No option satisfies everyone but this one seems to have been designed to upset folk.
Only the folk who were always going to get upset: ie 2 or 3 clubs on the fringes of SL who under the old system might have wangled a cheeky year in SL before going straight back down, and 2-3 clubs who are nowhere near that but suffer from a massive sense of entitlement.
The majority knew what they were voting for when the decision was made and are quietly getting on with things today.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, Damien said:
A pretty wishy washy statement. Hughes should have been aiming for improvements in all these areas anyway, he shouldn't need this report to tell him the obvious. 8.07 may be a B on paper but its absolutely no where near what is needed.
24 minutes ago, Damien said:A pretty wishy washy statement. Hughes should have been aiming for improvements in all these areas anyway, he shouldn't need this report to tell him the obvious. 8.07 may be a B on paper but its absolutely no where near what is needed.
It's still a way more grown up statement than what we've seen from some other clubs. He's not feigning surprise or offence, he's basically acknowledging there's a way to go until London can become an established superleague team again, and indicating he's going to stick around a bit longer to try to achieve that. Could have been a lot worse.
-
2
-
Castleford stadium.
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
Wakey and Bradford, yes. They'll be very comfortable and looked after in the existing/new executive facilities. They won't be on the terraces.
Cas? Not yet. They need to get the work done or they're in trouble.
If they do get the work done, then definitely. A rocking Jungle atmosphere combined with brand new executive facilities will be one of the best experiences in rugby league.