Martyn Sadler - Talking Rugby League

[Terry Mullaney]

MR.SADLERS ARTICLE TODAYHaving read your article today I’m disappointed with it in that you say “The RFL’s proposals are a roundabout way of bringing back promotion and relegation”. You go on to demonstrate how chasing success has run up large debts and ruined clubs, and indicate the changes will only encourage this citing Featherstone’s growing liabilities.The article ignores how Superleague itself has encouraged clubs to run up liabilities albeit in a seperate piece you refer to heavy liabilities at HKR, so you must be aware of this. Reaching for the Superleague dream has sent Wakefield, Crusaders, Bradford bust and Salford nearly to extinction, and Cas and HKR could follow, you yourself have looked the latter's debts up.This financial mire you warn P & R will cause is already with us and has occurred without P & R in place (something the BBC's "close up north" did a TV piece on), something you are yet to really acknowledge, and I wonder why this is??On the article on the coaches views there’s the suggestion that “maybe we need to get some more money into the championship and make that full time” Even the coaches have their heads in the clouds when it comes to the games finances.Finally back to HKR and it seems Neil Hudgell is puzzling you as he refers to Superleague being “bland and lacking intensity”. League express has already posted articles about how he (like others)doesn’t want to invest any more and how clubs have chased and are still chasing his best players. These are the problems in the here and now, and just as deep as the problems you say P & R will bring.I am not priveliged enough to get close to the top people in the game, if I was I’d want to know what really was going on here, what problems and motivations are driving these radical changes - after all you can just stick one up one down into the existing league structure if all this is is just looking to re-introduce P & R and nothing more.All that fits for me is that there is already financial collapse within Superleague created during a period when SL businesses (as per Ralph Rimmer's justification of licensing)were supposed to steadily grow year on year, not go backwards and collapse.It should be considered when it comes to analysing the full reasons why the game is making these controversial proposals.....

As last week Parky, a totally one sided, unbalanced article. Why wouldn't a RL journalist ask the clubs CEO/Chairmen what was going on so as to enlighten the fans as to the reasoning behind these proposals? They're the ones paying the bills, not the coaching staff.

[GeordieSaint]

This is quiet clearly nonsense, but many fans think this is the case! This consultation allows fans to know what actually is happening. I think the RFL should continue with this initiative to educate the fans instead if letting their imaginations run wild and Chinese whispers allowing cynical and pessimistic fans to continually and needlessly damage the morale of the game from the inside out.

Out of interest, what was the RFL's response to that question?

[Griff]

Mentioned Featherstone ages ago. Their Achilles heel is that, unusually, they own their ground. Unlike most teams in the Championship, they can't just go bust and start again. Their November 2012 accounts should be out soon. They'll be interesting, I would imagine.

[oldrover]

Mentioned Featherstone ages ago. Their Achilles heel is that, unusually, they own their ground. Unlike most teams in the Championship, they can't just go bust and start again. Their November 2012 accounts should be out soon. They'll be interesting, I would imagine.

sounds like you're eager for bad news

[Dave T]

I don't understand the 'roundabout way of bringing back P&R' point - they don't need to do it in a roundabout way - in fact two of the other options explicitly bring back P&R. Why would the point be presented in this way. Either an agenda or just rubbish journalism.

[The Parksider]

As last week Parky, a totally one sided, unbalanced article. Why wouldn't a RL journalist ask the clubs CEO/Chairmen what was going on so as to enlighten the fans as to the reasoning behind these proposals? They're the ones paying the bills, not the coaching staff.

Well maybe Martyn will let you know.

There seems to be enough CEO's, Owners, and coaches prepared to open their mouths, and if I was in the dream job of RL journalist I'd love to have a chat with them.

It could be that all Martyn gets is one to one press releases in that they all ape what Mr. Wood says which I don't think anyone swallows.

But I doubt it, someone won't be able to resist telling it how it is.

Let's see.....

[Doghead]

Don't know about the 12x12 8x8x8 proposal being flawed, the attack by Martyn Sadler on this proposal is being shot to pieces by members of this board.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Out of interest, what was the RFL's response to that question?

"Nigel: The RFL does not make a single penny out of staging from Magic Weekend. All revenues generated flow to the clubs that participate, it represents a home game for them. The feedback we get about the event is that it is highly regarded by many supporters, certainly by the players who ordinarily don’t get the opportunity to play at the world’s best stadia, and valued significantly by the broadcasters who relish the prospect of showcasing all 14 clubs back-to-back over one weekend.

Personally, I am sure the event next weekend will be as exciting a spectacle as the one we enjoyed last year. It is an unique event to rugby league, showcasing the best of our sport to a wide audience and one we should celebrate unreservedly where all 14 clubs and their fans mix in a social and secure atmosphere."

[The Parksider]

I don't understand the 'roundabout way of bringing back P&R' point - they don't need to do it in a roundabout way - in fact two of the other options explicitly bring back P&R. Why would the point be presented in this way. Either an agenda or just rubbish journalism.

That's a key point, if they want P & R then they can have it just stick it in there.

So why have such a contrived roundabout way?

The point Martyn makes about poor Widnes Vikings would have gone down under P & R and the point "Featherstone need to take a serious note of financial disasters" seems to indicate that Rovers would be better off being accepted into Superleague under licensing and thus would be safe from financial disaster.

I'm astonished at the comment as under licensing Wakefield, Bradford, Crusaders and London HAVE been financial disasters under licensing. Have Castleford built their business up under licensing??

Are the loss making 5,000 crowds at Widnes financial successes? Is O'Connor stepping down from the board and inviting others to "invest" (or is that "throw money at it") another sign things are building under licensing.

Mr. Hudgell achieved promotion and a £2.3 Million debt arose mostly from operating in Superleague every year, not from getting promotion.

If anything is a roundabout way, for me it's the clubs having to find a "roundabout way" of stopping the bottom half of SL rotting through building debt, and constant defeat.

It's having to find a roundabout way of preventing CC clubs from wasting away being shut out of Superleague. Featherstone may be able to crow after their recent 3k+ crowds but they are at risk as is their ground if they go straight into Superleague and Nahaboo does not deliver the money year on year. Equally Leigh and Halifax are seeing crowds start to drop.

P & R isn't as big a price to pay as is rotting away in Superleague where crowds at so many clubs have tumbled whilst debts far greater than Featherstones have balooned. For me this is primarily about bailing out Superleague "In a roundabout way".......

Edited May 20, 2013 by The Parksider

[Doghead]

What is wrong with a format where clubs can find a level at which they are financially stable, but yet still mix it with the bigger clubs.

[The Parksider]

What is wrong with a format where clubs can find a level at which they are financially stable, but yet still mix it with the bigger clubs.

NOTHING

It just should be a format that is recognised as such.

i.e. a move to cut debt, rather than a revolutionary idea from an innovative game that will benefit all stakeholders and take TGG to the next level blah blah blah ad infinitum.

[Rarefrith]

Martyn Sadler should be receiving a copy of the latest Fev accounts soon. Thought this guy was meant to be a respected journalist?

[Dave T]

NOTHING

It just should be a format that is recognised as such.

i.e. a move to cut debt, rather than a revolutionary idea from an innovative game that will benefit all stakeholders and take TGG to the next level blah blah blah ad infinitum.

To be fair though that is happening - people know why they are making changes, because there is a recognition that people feel there is a better way. Whether there are enough people who feel this will be seen in due course.

 

People only change things if there is a better option, but to state that they are changing due to it not currently working would be foolish and pretty much undermine the comp for the next couple of years. Of course they will put positive spin on it.

[Griff]

Martyn Sadler should be receiving a copy of the latest Fev accounts soon. Thought this guy was meant to be a respected journalist?

Meaning .... what ?

[The Parksider]

To be fair though that is happening - people know why they are making changes, because there is a recognition that people feel there is a better way. Whether there are enough people who feel this will be seen in due course.

 

People only change things if there is a better option, but to state that they are changing due to it not currently working would be foolish and pretty much undermine the comp for the next couple of years. Of course they will put positive spin on it.

Yeh I know Dave, I can't blame them for spinning major changes......

But tucked away on here I'd like to discuss the real truth and I do promise not to say anything to anyone else!!

[Dave T]

Yeh I know Dave, I can't blame them for spinning major changes......

But tucked away on here I'd like to discuss the real truth and I do promise not to say anything to anyone else!!

I personally think the truth is somewhere between the two. No system is going to be a revolutionary system that will fix all the games issues - unfortunately people seem to struggle to understand this (or rather they do understand it but still use any issues as proof the system they don;t like doesn't work).

 

Clubs will go bust no matter what the system as sport is just like that and fans are fickle! There will always be lop-sided games, RL is a ruthless game at times. The Aussies may beat us for the foreseeable future - the sporting culture over there is light years ahead of over here IMHO.

 

I think our current system is ok, but we do have a few issues (or perceived issues) including:

1 - Vocal fans, media and clubs critical of no P&R

2 - vocal fans losing interest in the regular rounds (instead of seeing Leeds wins from 5th as a boost to the game, many are critical)

3 - many one-sided games

 

Now I personally think we could just carry on but I'm not sure how long we can ignore the dissenting voices within the game - our journos take every opportunity to kick the game, fans love slating it and even clubs themselves are constantly negative. 

 

I do think changes are needed, I'm not sure how radical we need to be, but the 3rd option excites me, whereas the others are a little safer.

[Pottsy]

I think it's an awful idea (3x8). It'll stregnthen the top, and weaken the lower half of superleague to championship levels. Then before you know it Hetherington and co will be after a reduced top tier with all the money to them. Richard Agar's views on it https://soundcloud.com/wakefield-trinity-wildcat/agar-gives-opinion-on-proposed

This ^^^

[Pottsy]

Let me know where my opinions are flawed.

I don't think the claims for the proposed structure can work - that's the whole point.

I don't welcome these ideas because I am very positive about our game and I don't think it needs gimmicky structures to succeed.

And this ^^^^

[Pottsy]

In the Capital One Cup maybe, they certainly don't in the FA Cup.

United do and have done for years, to be fair, Gav.

[Ackroman]

In my lifetime the game of RL has always been gimmicky in comparison to other sports. Any argument to say we haven't need of them is fundamentally flawed because they've brought significant benefits and positive PR in the past.

You're going to have to do much better than that to discredit the proposals.

[JohnM]

I don't see it as trying to discredit the suggestions.  Sure it is admirable to debate how the game can be developed structurally to secure its future, improve competitiveness on and off the field and even to increase the quality at the top level so we really can expect to beat Australian now and again.  

 

I would have expected, though to see the debate being  lead by some realistic estimates about costs, finances, viewing figures, viability and sustainability. I still think that KPMG at least should have done some modelling. I  Just don't see any realistic projections of how any of this is going to work out and therefore it is one hell of a risk.  The main proponents  for change seem to be those  who put their desire for a return to points based single season automatic P and R above anything else, as if this is suddenly going to make the game viable in areas that have already had nearly 120 years to prove it and failed. 

[The Parksider]

The main proponents  for change seem to be those  who put their desire for a return to points based single season automatic P and R above anything else, as if this is suddenly going to make the game viable in areas that have already had nearly 120 years to prove it and failed.

We know full well those who support auto p & R are in the main those who will get it for their clubs.

We also know there's about 50 of them on here.

They are hardly going to claim that they believe this is the best syetem because it's what they prsonally want for themselves?

[The Parksider]

I still think that KPMG at least should have done some modelling.

I suspect they did John, but it would probably IMHO give away the game.

I suspect the model is this. Stick with what we have and crowds will keep dropping amongst the bottom 6superleague sides and CC clubs.

Change the model and the drop in attendances will be arrested at least for a couple of seasons or so.

Hardly likely to reveal the likelihoood this is a short term plan to avert impending disaster.

[JohnM]

Quite so.

[Martyn Sadler]

Wellsy4HullFC analysed my article earlier in the thread. Below, my original comments are in italics and quote marks, and his response is in normal text.

My response to his points are also in italics and bold.

Thanks to Wellsy4HullFC for his critique of my piece.

 

 

 

"It's fair to say that I didn't find anyone who was in favour of the proposed changes, and many supporters couldn't understand why the changes were being proposed."
It's not exactly a brilliant argument to use this tiny and rather specific area of the RL community to portray an overall opinion to the reader.
It's safe to say there are a lot of people that favour the proposal, and trying to use an argument by numbers is not only a poor arguing technique in the first place, it's also dishonest when done with your particular target for survey.

 

Of course there will be many different opinions about these proposals, including from people who are strongly in favour. But the key thing, regardless of their degree of support, is whether the logic of the proposals actually stacks up

"Having said that, there is no doubt that some clubs in the Championship support the proposals, because they can see the possibility of being able to move up the league ladder, even though it would be in a fairly convoluted manner.
Under the licensing system, those clubs see little prospect of moving up to join the Super League clubs, so they clearly favour any system that appears to make that process easier."
So literally a few sentences later you've recognised that maybe some people do support a change, and given a reason why they would. It kind of makes your first point (no one supports it or understands why there needs to be a change) redundant, no?

 

I wouldn't say so. The point I'm making is that some clubs are backing the idea because of what they see as their own vested interest, whereas I would argue that pursuing promotion puts them under too great a financial strain. The licensing system should be sufficiently flexible to persuade clubs to develop to the point at which they can become full-time clubs, but without having to bankrupt themselves to do so.

"The problem is that the 'two twelves, three eights' proposal, which is clearly favoured by the RFL chief executive Nigel Wood, has so many drawbacks that the clubs should think very seriously before they jump on board with his proposals.
As does any proposal, especially the current one. ANY system adopted will have many drawbacks, many critics, and there is no way to guarantee it's the best way forward. But I think many people in the game would agree that the current system isn't working as intended.

 

The licensing system was intended to allow clubs to stabilise both in playing terms and financially, as well as securing improvements in stadium faciliites. Since licensing was introduced I think we've seen an upsurge in young players, a reduction in our reliance on overseas players, an improvement in facilities, and a club like Widnes not having to break the bank to stay in the top league. But of course it hasn't been an entirely smooth operation, with some obvious problems and clubs that continue to disappoint. Only a fool would claim that everything in the garden is rosy.

"To start with, we would see clubs reverting to playing some other clubs three times during the regular season.
I don't think the RFL and the clubs realise just how resistant the fans will be to seeing too many matches between the same clubs."
ANY option to reduce the league will see repeat fixtures. We had 6 repeat fixtures in the league from 2000-2006 (5 for the two years after). The fans hardly boycotted.
If say the fans are more resistant to watching boring mismatches between lower clubs than watching repeat fixtures between the top clubs. It probably won't be too difficult to find crowd figures to back up that statement.

 

Watching repeat fixtures is like having your favourite meal in your favourite restaurant several times a week. You'll eventually get sick of it. But I agree that mismatches are equally undesirable. But how many genuine mismatches do we anticipate in Super League? At the moment it seems to be mainly games involving Wigan against some of the lower clubs. And that could hardly have been anticipated at the start of the season, when many people were predicting that Wigan would have a difficult season.

"Secondly, although all three groups of eight clubs will have their own play-offs and a Grand Final, the only one that will mean anything will be the Super League Grand Final for the top eight clubs. The other 'Grand Finals' will be a tremendous anti-climax and it would be better not to have them."
Got to agree with you in part here, Martin. The structure for the play-offs is one of my concerns but can easily be remedied with the right set up. I'm not 100% sure what they've settled for, and I've added my two-pennies worth on other threads as to how I think they should go to guarantee everyone has something to play for. I agree that play-offs for the top of the league (when really they aren't the top of the league they started the season in) is a bit arbitrary. I don't see why the play-offs can't be for the last promotion spot for example.

 

The point is that in the middle tier, the key interest is finishing above or below fourth spot. Anything else will be a sideshow.

"The other thing to bear in mind is that the proposals could do untold damage to the Challenge Cup in 2014, which would be a shame when the tournament, at least as shown on TV, has started so well this year."
I think the reasons you cite here are incredibly exaggerated. Untold damage? The league has had relegation spots for years, yet the cup has been going along just the same. I think to suggest clubs will go easy in the cup to ensure they don't get relegated ignores the fact that if they're bottom of the league they won't be exactly that successful in the cup anyway due to their playing talent! It also ignores the fact that the Challenge Cup is one of only two major prizes on the line in British RL, and IIRC has the biggest pay day!

 

The Challenge Cup used to be the biggest prize in the game. Supporters used to dream about its arrival in the second part of the season. It used to be the trophy that any club could win. But it has been in long term decline, and that goes all the way back to the start of two divisions in the 1973/4 season, when 30 teams were split into two groups and avoiding relegation suddenly became very important. But the effect will be exaggerated in 2014 because the financial stakes will be so high.

Not to mention, this is an argument to not do something because of the effects of one transitional season. Hardly a reason to stop attempting progression. 

In all the years of P&R, I've never seen a club field a weakened side to save themselves from relegation.

 

I agree that if the proposals were clearly likely to work, the transitional season wouldn't matter much.

"They will spend up to the salary cap limit, whether they can afford it or not..."
Will they? Based on what evidence? How many clubs at the bottom during the P&R era spent up to the salary cap limit?

 

There are many examples of clubs overspending to gain promotion and/or to avoid relegation.

"We will also find that the number of young players being given opportunities in Super League next season will be well down on recent seasons, as the clubs try to recruit trusted journeymen to avoid the drop."
I think the salary cap in the NRL will make that route a lot less rewarding and clubs will continue to push youth personally. The 3x8 system will, IMO, actually help these young players develop at a better and more appropriate rate as well as they'll be facing more balanced opposition rather than the best elite teams.

 

We are already seeing signs that SL clubs are starting to recruit overseas stars for next season. Additionally, I've been told by one agent that some of the players he manages are already talking about not wanting to join teams that they think will not make the top eight under the new system.

"Unfortunately, making wholesale changes will send out the wrong message, and will make that job even harder."
Sticking with a system that many have lost faith in and is getting attacked by our own supporters also sends out the wrong message. We shouldn't focus solely on the negatives of these proposals.

 

Indeed you're right. But when you make major structural changes you have to make it clear that: 1. You have taken on board every conceivable issue that may arise; 2. Every objection, or the vast majority of them, can be overcome; and 3. You have a plan and a marketing budget to ensure that the changes will be fully explained to and supported by the Rugby League public.

"Only Hull KR have come up through being promoted and stayed up.
And Huddersfield. And Hull. And Wakefield. And Salford. And Widnes. Only Cas and Leigh haven't stayed up after one season.

 

Huddersfield would have been relegated in 98, 99 and 2000 if relegation had happened in those years. But when you look at their balance sheets you'll see that Huddersfield, Castleford, Salford and Hull KR have all taken a massive financial hit from promotion and relegation that they struggle to overcome, while Widnes had to form a new company, although the Giants are fortunate to have Ken Davy as their Chairman.



I'm all for opinion pieces, but as long as they are honest and factual arguments in there. On this occasion Martyn, I've got to say, there's a lot of oversight and contradiction in your arguments, not many facts and it just screams of forming a personal opinion and sticking to it on first instinct. 

 

On the key issues I don't agree with you. I don't think you made a strong case out in favour of Option 3, and perhaps you didn't intend to. But I still have to be persuaded of the merits of these proposals, I'm afraid.