Kear sees the light on franchising

[Jimmy B]

I was and am in favour of the changes that have been brought to Rugby League, although of course there is a downside: Trojan quite rightly cites the status of the challenge cup-although that might have diminished anyway. I loathe Murdoch, but that gores for media moguls in general as far as I'm concerned. But not to have a SKY deal like all other major sports wouldhave been suicidal. My big quibble with the original deal was that it sold the game short. Rugby League could have negotiated a far better deal.

Rugby League did indeed sell itself short, but just as non SL Clubs had to take or leave what was offered, in my opinion so did Rugby League. Sky knew that their offer of

[shrek]

Jimmy B' date='Jul 2 2010, 03:02 PM' post='2066877']

Self interest regarding staying in SL is a direct by-product of the

[Pride & Heritage]

Do you really really really, come on hand on heart be honest really, believe that the game would be better today without that SKY contract.

Without that

[l'angelo mysterioso]

All clubs are skint because they are paying players too much. Certainly too much for them to sustain long term, how bad is it that most of the clubs in the sport are actually making a loss every year. That is why we need to set a more realistic salary cap that can be afforded by all of the teams competing in the division. That way more money can be passed to the smaller clubs in the lower divisions and would remove the huge gulf between the divisions, creating an increase in the number of strong clubs right across the game.

why were they skint before?

how many sports club of any kind make a profit? The object of the exercise is to have sustainable debts

yes let's give some money to Blackpool, Doncaster etc etc, that shoiuld sort it.

when the SKY deal came along the clubs couldn't even sustain themselves short term never mond long term.

have you any thoughts on a tv deal for rugby league that's better than the current one?

[The Parksider]

All clubs are skint because they are paying players too much. Certainly too much for them to sustain long term, how bad is it that most of the clubs in the sport are actually making a loss every year. That is why we need to set a more realistic salary cap that can be afforded by all of the teams competing in the division. That way more money can be passed to the smaller clubs in the lower divisions and would remove the huge gulf between the divisions, creating an increase in the number of strong clubs right across the game.

Awwww P & H I wanted Tro to answer that

Anyway I appreciate your answer but cannot agree with it.

The free gangway enables "Rugby" players to cross codes and back.

It enables RL players to go to RU for more money.

Maybe you should consider that reduced wages may see established players more likely to go to the NRL or go to Union, and the best young RL players to switch codes if they feel they can/want to make a living out of Rugby.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

In this doom and gloom scenario.

If the non SL clubs all went bust. Many of their fans would go to watch their nearest SL club (I know plenty of former Oldham fans who now go to Wigan for example).

If RL consisted of 12 or 14 pro clubs all getting an extra 2000 or so fans from extinct NL clubs, would that be better for the sport in the long term than having 30+ clubs, over half of whom barely break the 1000 barrier?

Or,

Should sport be about opportunity and dreams. That even a small club with poor ground/fanbase could one day grow and get into the SL?

Tough one.

Depends on the aim.

On the playing development front, and in some aspects club development, then it is better to have a stable league as clubs can concentrate on long-term aspects rather than the "now".

On a spectator front, it's worse. Spectators want to see their club go as high as they possibly can. It's why they support them. If they feel they can't go that high, they won't get much support. Hence, why the bigger clubs get bigger crowds, and the smaller clubs get smaller crowds. I know there's more to do with it than that (marketing, etc.), but you can't always sell a ######!

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

I suppose you could make an educated guess (why not try it sometime?) that the empty stadia of Bridgend and The Stoop are the making of the RFL and not SKY (note the suggestion rather than the declaration).

Seems to be at odds with everything you've posted for the last few years.

[The Parksider]

Seems to be at odds with everything you've posted for the last few years.

I say suppose, you say seems........

I say toma.toe you sat tomay toe....

Let's call the whole thing off......

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

I say suppose, you say seems........

I say toma.toe you sat tomay toe....

Let's call the whole thing off......

I say

"You appear to have changed your tune".

What say you?

[bendyas]

I say

"You appear to have changed your tune".

What say you?

I say.. Are you still banging on about this?

Same old faces, same old arguments.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I say

"You appear to have changed your tune".

What say you?

your lass was on Inspector George Gently last night.

[LOWFIELD]

Only 2,600 at Salford V Harlequins last night in a nothing match. P+R add at least another 1k, millions of pounds are been lost

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I say.. Are you still banging on about this?

Same old faces, same old arguments.

welcome back Ben

[The Parksider]

Only 2,600 at Salford V Harlequins last night in a nothing match. P+R add at least another 1k, millions of pounds are been lost

What about the other side of the coin. Les Catalans relegated Fev promoted - any nett loss in spectators there?

Any loss of a major international??

[The Parksider]

I say

"You appear to have changed your tune".

What say you?

I think you need to explain what I'm whistling now as opposed to before. Mind reading isn't my strong point amongst other major weaknesses.

[LOWFIELD]

What about the other side of the coin. Les Catalans relegated Fev promoted - any nett loss in spectators there?

Any loss of a major international??

WHAT has that got to do with anything. NO P+R is costing the game millions

If they finish bottom and Fev top then the switch would be acceptable, why should they be favoured over Rovers or anyone else for that matter.

Why should Rovers be excluded?

Rugby league is supposed to be inclusive of all. Richard lewis in his role at sport England states in the funding application if your organisation excludes or partially excludes any person or persons the funding is not for you.

Then there he is as RFL chief excluding half the clubs in the game

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Salford have of course been relegated from Super League

in 2000 they finished 9th with an average attendance of 4,448. The attendance for their game against London was 3,011.

in 2001 they finished 10: it would have been lower if Wakefield hadn't had points deducted.. The average for that year was 4,170. the London game attracted 3,967

in 2002 they were relegated a mere one point above wakefield.

They played wakefield with six games left with six games left: attendance 3,217. Their attendance for the home game against London was 2,211. Average attendance 4,199. A rise of 29-a big price to pay for these non existent relegation battles.

There are clubs who have major problems attracting crowds. Some of them are amongst the oldest most famous clubs in the game, some aren't.

There are probably clubs outside of SL who can do better given the cash and the right people running them.

Widnes: highly likely

Fev: right personnel and a good off field operation and actual genuine proper improvements to an already high quality stadium happening some time soon: but would need a big cash injection although they are well run off the field these days

Leigh: well they couldn't do much worse than last time and promotion and relegation battles don't even come into it.

Barrow: need a new ground, some people feel they depend on the largesse of one person too much, but a sustainable SL club up there is attractive.

Leigh in particular were notorious for being promoted one year and relegated the next pre SL. What good did that do for clubs like them and for the game?

The crowd for the salford quins game was poor, but sadly typical and I can't see the influence of no promotion and relegation upon it. But then I'm a disgrace and speaking to me is like speaking to a young child.

[The Parksider]

WHAT has that got to do with anything. NO P+R is costing the game millions

If they finish bottom and Fev top then the switch would be acceptable, why should they be favoured over Rovers or anyone else for that matter. Why should Rovers be excluded?

Rugby league is supposed to be inclusive of all. Richard lewis in his role at sport England states in the funding application if your organisation excludes or partially excludes any person or persons the funding is not for you.

Then there he is as RFL chief excluding half the clubs in the game

You can be promoted for me, I'm just pointing out thet the RFL do not want the Catalans, Crusaders or Quins relegating. Likely to cause their demise and take the game in France and new areas backwards.

The closed shop of SL seems to me to be a method of ensuring these expansion clubs can build and develop the game elesewhere other than the M62 mate. If you believe expansion at SL level is a nonsense then I will understand. The RFL won't.

But the cost of any set up we go for has two sides to it P & R may bring more spectators one way, it may lose spectators another. However spectators is not by any sense of the imagination the biggest or the only income our game has.

For instance if SL ends up being an all M62 league with a lot of small clubs SKY could cut the contract - who knows. If a club goes up and they can't compete will they take any away fans once the going gerts tough? Will they draw any occasional fans at the big clubs???

Maybe Fev should not be denied a right to be promoted in a purist sense, but if they were promoted would they be able to compete??

[tonyXIII]

I think we have pretty much exhausted the rational arguments on here and we are left with entrenched positions where few are willing to accept that there are two sides to every coin.

Personally, I think P&R was not working because the promoted teams could not recruit players of the quality needed in the time they had available. I know that HKR managed it, but the others were just taking it in turns to be promoted/relegated. Licensing offered a different way of organising things, with a chance to build stability. It also alienated some clubs. I think that aspect has been badly handled and the cake is being divided unfairly, but I have no control over that.

Most importantly, licensing has not been given a chance to work yet. We have not even completed one cycle of it. It may turn out to be a flop, but to advocate scrapping it now is nonsense. Instead, we should look more closely at ways to alleviate the problems faced by the non-SL clubs. And, before anybody says "more money", please remember that few clubs have shown any inclination not to squander money in the past.

[1976PMJwires]

I think we have pretty much exhausted the rational arguments on here and we are left with entrenched positions where few are willing to accept that there are two sides to every coin.

Personally, I think P&R was not working because the promoted teams could not recruit players of the quality needed in the time they had available. I know that HKR managed it, but the others were just taking it in turns to be promoted/relegated. Licensing offered a different way of organising things, with a chance to build stability. It also alienated some clubs. I think that aspect has been badly handled and the cake is being divided unfairly, but I have no control over that.

Most importantly, licensing has not been given a chance to work yet. We have not even completed one cycle of it. It may turn out to be a flop, but to advocate scrapping it now is nonsense. Instead, we should look more closely at ways to alleviate the problems faced by the non-SL clubs. And, before anybody says "more money", please remember that few clubs have shown any inclination not to squander money in the past.

And still paying got it

[The Parksider]

I think we have pretty much exhausted the rational arguments on here and we are left with entrenched positions where few are willing to accept that there are two sides to every coin.

Personally, I think P&R was not working because the promoted teams could not recruit players of the quality needed in the time they had available. I know that HKR managed it, but the others were just taking it in turns to be promoted/relegated. Licensing offered a different way of organising things, with a chance to build stability. It also alienated some clubs. I think that aspect has been badly handled and the cake is being divided unfairly, but I have no control over that.

Most importantly, licensing has not been given a chance to work yet. We have not even completed one cycle of it. It may turn out to be a flop, but to advocate scrapping it now is nonsense. Instead, we should look more closely at ways to alleviate the problems faced by the non-SL clubs. And, before anybody says "more money".......

Hull.K.R did not "manage it" without

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Hull.K.R did not "manage it" without

Edited July 3, 2010 by l'angelo mysterioso

[tonyXIII]

And still paying got it

No.

[tonyXIII]

Hull.K.R did not "manage it" without

[The Parksider]

I agree but there are problems with 'rich backers'. If the money comes from one sugar daddy it can easily end in tears and rich lawyers.

Yes of course, all it can take is a rich backer to pull out and several SL clubs could be stuffed in an instance.

If you look at Superleague it's either well off clubs with good turnovers from high attendances or not so well off clubs backed by rich businessmen.

Except for er, Cas and Wakefield, and guess who are most tipped to be out!

To be fair these two clubs manage to stay away from the bottom of the league, which is a good effort, but if say they went to make way for Toulouse - who promise rich backing in SL and Widnes who have a rich backer, then we will finally end up with 14 SL clubs all with money and 22 small NL clubs all with no money.

The gulf between the divisions will then be enormous.

There'll be no practical prospect of P & R and the only way to be promoted will be by default i.e. a rich backer pulling out of an SL club.

Then we may see a small NL club get in- but what chance will they have?