zylya

Correct.

I agree that none of the clubs, in an ideal world, would be dealing with less funding going forward. I think League 1 represents fantastic value for money, whereas I think SL and the Championship offer lower vfm. Part of that is because the actual cost of League 1 is so low as an overall figure. 1.875% of the previous SL TV deal if all figures are correct i.e. £750,000 for league 1 on a £40 million TV deal - for comparison, if they retained the same percentage on the lower figure, each club would receive just over £45,000 rather than the 0.8% they'd be getting IF the £20,000 per year figure is correct - which would be easier for clubs to manage and would be a proportionate decrease.

Some of the League 1 clubs in the Heartlands have had around a hundred years to drive the revenues required... Coventry has been in the league since 2015, so six years as a semi-professional team which includes a year of COVID. If you don't think League 1 is worth the money it's currently costing, then just say that. Either you think that League 1 is worth the £750,000 that it's getting in central funding or you don't. Which is it?

Be a huge shame if this happens. Despite a lot of comments saying that RL will never take off in the South, the truth is that almost every attempt has either been half-assed or unsupported. When I played in the London Leagues back in the early 2010s there were a load of development officers around making stuff happen. They all got pulled and teams started collapsing. Of the 5/6 teams playing in that League in 2014 I think it was, only 1 of them still exists in any capacity. I think the Southern Conference League is a great idea, but it's so poorly supported by the RFL. The tables they post on Twitter look like someone didn't in Microsoft Word. No branding, nothing to make it seem interesting. Great they they streamed the SCL 2019 Grand Final, but can't just hope for one strong day a year.

You can definitely go too low. I generally don't think discounts are a good way to drum up new business at the best of times - except as very specific, time-limited offers (e.g. have a very cheap game at the start of a season to get people interested, or have an early-bird price). A discounted season ticket doesn't leave you lots of opportunities to make that money back. With that said, I think things like "U16s go free" are a good idea because you're hopefully creating future supporters for your product.

The RFL have been assigned an amount which they can distribute. The understanding, based on this topic, is that they're cutting around £50,000 from League 1. That's a decision, and that's what I'm criticising. Is it a tough decision? Yes - but I disagree with the one they've made and have outlined my reasons. Additionally, SL & RFL haven't done enough to keep the commercial income high - a huge drop in funding can hardly be blamed on the League 1 clubs yet they're facing an 80% reduction on an overall reduction of about 37.5% (£40m - £25m). And even if we take the previous Sky deal as overpriced and this one as more realistic to the value of SL, there's still the real question of why the RFL hasn't done things like develop the international game or create some other source(s) of revenue to fill this gap. The whole "difficult decisions" is a cop out - it's chickens coming home to roost.

It's over-simplistic just to look at players that have taken up the game - what about fans who are watching the Bears each week? Fans who are buying RLWC tickets for the Coventry game? But yes, the opportunity cost is definitely the thing to look at. But of course we're hypothesising, it's a discussion forum. Are you really saying that we can't make any argument unless we have 100% of the stats available to us? How would I even get the figures on who plays RL in the Midlands? Do these figures even exist in a meaningful format? If there was some transparency coming through from the governing body, we might be able to make these calculations more accurately. Based on my opinion of what I see in the game, I see Coventry doing more good work with £50,000 than the 12 Super League clubs, mostly because £50,000 for Cov is a much higher percentage of their budget than £50,000 for the SL clubs. I mean, if you have all these numbers available, and you can demonstrate quite clearly that I'm wrong then I'd happily change my mind. I just don't see how removing £50,000 from Cov (and all the other League 1 clubs for that matter) is going to help the whole game.

I'll take the hit on this for being lazy with my wording. You're right that it's the Super League clubs that made the decision on total funding to the RFL, although it is still the RFL that makes the decision on how to distribute that funding that SL gives them, for example between operations, Championship and League 1 etc so they're not entirely blameless. Especially considering that the RFL haven't done near enough to increase their own commercial revenues. Massively missing the point to hone in on that pedantic issue when there's a much more important discussion going on about where the money would be best spent.

I'm not saying that SOME amateur teams don't do an amazing job getting fixtures played - that's not the issue here and we shouldn't conflate the two. And though Cumbrian clubs in the NCL will often have to play a handful of away games in East Yorks, they'll also have some games that are a lot closer - e.g. other Cumbrian teams. Coventry won't have any close games, no local derbies to create any interest. They'd also be playing against amateur in teams in a league that, IIRC, doesn't allow any payment. They'd be done as a semi-pro outfit.

The point is that the RFL is essentially saying that it's worth potentially ruining a semi-pros club future so that the Super League clubs can share an extra £50,000 a year and everyone's solution is "well we could stick them in an amateur league." I don't get why you guys are so fixated on the amateur leagues - it's not the solution here. I'm sure they're great for the clubs that are in them, but that doesn't make it the best place to put a League 1 club because the RFL can't stick with anything for more than 10 minutes. To take a club that has turned itself semi-pro and say "sorry that we set you up with all this stuff and sorry that you've worked hard to build your club up on that basis - how do you feel about 200+ mile trips every other week for no money instead?" Shambles.

Amazing how people can come into this topic and start throwing around suggestions for an amateur league for Cov to play in like that sorts everything out. A pro/semi-pro club can be in a league with extra travel because they have the funding to do so. An amateur club needs to be in a league that's relatively local because, get this, they don't have the funding for travel and their players aren't getting paid. Believing that you can stick Coventry in an amateur league with round trips of over 200 miles and think that's going to work out is the height of delusion. Creating a situation where they have to take a significant step backwards and do extra work to fulfil fixtures - assuming the opposition even travel for the away games. Absolute madness. As though anyone outside the heartlands would try to build their club towards the pro ranks when they see how easily the RFL will abandon them over £50,000.

TBF they'll probably lean on their academy pretty heavily for this. I mean, yes it takes time for an academy to come to fruition, but it's not like they're starting the academy now. I imagine there's a number of academy players who will be thinking that this could be a chance for them to develop with Championship-level rugby and get themselves in the shop window to be seen by a SL club. Probably see quite a young side next year with some of their current U19s jumping into the squad. Additionally, in Union, there's a number of very decent clubs who are part-time - Richmond in the Championship probably being the highest level example, but also teams like Rosslyn Park, Blackheath etc. When Richmond got back to the Championship after their big relegation when Union turned professional, they deliberately stayed semi-pro (i.e. part time players) and use a lot of players who work in the city - i.e. whose jobs are much better paying than even full-time rugby would be. I imagine the Broncos coaches know a lot of the coaches at these clubs, so they might be able to find some a couple of good players there. A couple of years ago, they ran a trial day for "local" community clubs (although local was as far as Oxford) to help form their reserves grade - in some ways going part-time might open up opportunities for players who could play higher but can't manage a full time schedule. With all that said, I imagine there's going to be at least some short-term pain in this restructure, and possibly some long-term pain as well. Huge shame.

One thing that I really agree with in this article is the idea that geographical expansion of the game and growth in the heartlands have to go hand in hand and can happen simultaneously, rather than being at war with one another.

If they even come at all...

For the most part, I didn't really feel like any of the questions were answered. I get that sometimes it can be tough because you can't give much detail in this format when matters are ongoing, but it didn't inspire a lot of confidence!