The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)

[nadera78]

Well, that's a point. We're potentially taking money from the elite competition to subsidise second tier clubs in their attempt to become (unsustainable) full-time clubs. Wouldn't that money be better being diverted towards keeping at least some of the development officers?

Yep. Go and listen to the Wood interview on SLTV. He thinks the way to match the Aussies and Kiwis is to take money from the elite players at SL clubs and give it to part time players in the Championship. The man's a genius.

[Terry Mullaney]

Well played sir

 

I've never been a boycotter, nor have I ever understood them.  I just want what's best for the entire game.  I think this is it, others don't.  Although interestingly, the response on every other forum or facebook site I visit is much more positive than here.  TRL is becoming the place where extremists hang out.

Nailed it. Self interested hypocrites. Can't wait for the day when Fev are wiping the floor with em

[gingerjon]

Nailed it. Self interested hypocrites. Can't wait for the day when Fev are wiping the floor with em

 

What a solid argument.

 

The people who are arguing that what's needed is a structure that ensures development, increases participation and enables the spread of the game are self-interested.

 

The ones who just want to see Fev do well are doing that for the good of rugby league.

[gingerjon]

Well, that's a point. We're potentially taking money from the elite competition to subsidise second tier clubs in their attempt to become (unsustainable) full-time clubs. Wouldn't that money be better being diverted towards keeping at least some of the development officers?

 

This is Nadera's point which I think is worth repeating.

 

When you've limited funds you need to invest for the greatest impact.  We should be going hell for leather in terms of working with the community game and getting player participation and development right (& sorting out the BARLA/NCL/random leagues committees issues) - and we should concentrate proper full-time professionalism on an elite, secure division of however many clubs the game can sustain (10-12 it seems right now).

Edited July 12, 2013 by gingerjon

[Dave T]

Dave, if I thought it was just a case of removing 2 teams to boost the overall game, I wouldn't think it was such a big deal. But I read it as an admission that we aren't going anywhere. OK, perhaps we never were but to realise it....that upsets me

I cannot agree with the panic mentality sweeping the game. Licensing has had just over 3 seasons and it has now been deemed a failures. Is this RLs idea of long term planning? And bear in mind, the vocal critics were loud on twitter and elsewhere saying it was already a failure after about a year. The clubs are just flapping instead of showing some nerve.

I respect your opinion mate, but it doesn't tell me why exactly is it an admission that we are not going anywhere?

 

When we moved to 14 teams it was to admit an expansion club and Salford - neither of those have been a resounding success. I am of the opinion that we should have a strong top league, there is a fair argument that we are too stretched at the moment. 

 

People are looking at this decision and making up their own back story to it.

 

My proposal would see us drop to 12 teams, and have a clear strategy which states that we are looking to expand into new territories - strong London, Toulouse, 3rd French team and so on, and the league will only expand when we are introducing a new club.

 

On your point about Development officers - the fact is that the funding for these has been dropped. If an officer is on a measly 20k, it is probably a minimum of £30k to employ them, so having even 50 of these costs £1.5m per year. 50 wouldn't even scratch the surface if we're honest - is that £1.5m the best spend (and I expect the cost is much higher than that)?

Personally I think much of the onus should be on the clubs - it is in their direct interests.

 

The RFL are in a difficult place, remember it was them who put the Officers in place initially, but if the money is not there, then it is not there.

[gingerjon]

Salford - neither of those have been a resounding success

 

Salford are about the wealthiest club in the game now.

[Dave T]

Salford are about the wealthiest club in the game now.

Are they? How much is Koukash worth - I have looked and can't find anything - I know Moran makes some of the Time Rich Lists with a fortune of over £200m, not sure about Koukash though.

 

Having a rich backer is nothing like being a strong club though.

[Terry Mullaney]

What a solid argument.

 

The people who are arguing that what's needed is a structure that ensures development, increases participation and enables the spread of the game are self-interested.

 

The ones who just want to see Fev do well are doing that for the good of rugby league.

Go back and read my posts. Give me good solid reasons why this proposed system will prevent development, expansion and investment . Explain to me why it won't be an exciting spectacle for the punters. No one else has been able to.

As if a few Championship clubs have influenced this! There are none so blind.

[Dave T]

This is Nadera's point which I think is worth repeating.

 

When you've limited funds you need to invest for the greatest impact.  We should be going hell for leather in terms of working with the community game and getting player participation and development right (& sorting out the BARLA/NCL/random leagues committees issues) - and we should concentrate proper full-time professionalism on an elite, secure division of however many clubs the game can sustain (10-12 it seems right now).

You could argue though that our clubs are the strongest development tools we have.

 

Would it be better to have a strong Leigh, or them to be really weak and have a development officer in that area? I'm genuinely not sure, but I suspect having a strong club there is more important.

[Ackroman]

Go back and read my posts. Give me good solid reasons why this proposed system will prevent development, expansion and investment . Explain to me why it won't be an exciting spectacle for the punters. No one else has been able to.

As if a few Championship clubs have influenced this! There are none so blind.

It's lynch mob mentality. If enough people shout indignantly that it's the championship clubs and their fans fault then it must be true, so hang 'em all.

 

Just ignore the fact that a number of own goals have pushed SL into the SKY backwater with little sponsorship to boot.

[Dave T]

It's lynch mob mentality. If enough people shout indignantly that it's the championship clubs and their fans fault then it must be true, so hang 'em all.

 

Just ignore the fact that a number of own goals have pushed SL into the SKY backwater with little sponsorship to boot.

What does your last line mean? What's the Sky backwater?

 

How much is the sponsorship worth this year compared to when we had a title sponsor?

[gingerjon]

 Give me good solid reasons why this proposed system will prevent development, expansion and investment .

 

We've had it before and we've never had so many journeymen Aussies.

 

We've had it before and couldn't get any expansion clubs to stick.

 

We've had it before and crowds were lower then than now.

[Ackroman]

Further to that, I get this feeling that self interest is being levelled at those same people being blamed for the "problems" in the game.

 

It would be interesting to look at some of the decisions throughout the development of the SL brand that were based on self interest rather than strategic decision making.

[gingerjon]

Are they? How much is Koukash worth - I have looked and can't find anything - I know Moran makes some of the Time Rich Lists with a fortune of over £200m, not sure about Koukash though.

 

Having a rich backer is nothing like being a strong club though.

 

I mostly agree with that.

 

But Salford are an example of a club that are using the safety from relegation and security of a three-year licence to build.

[Ackroman]

What does your last line mean? What's the Sky backwater?

 

How much is the sponsorship worth this year compared to when we had a title sponsor?

How does Monday night, or Thursday suit?

 

They're not traditional times for the elite league to play at. We moved to summer to grab headlines not fill in between football stories.

 

I also think the lack of a title sponsor is a big problem regardless of the difference in revenue. Like anything it is by association with a big brand that SL as a brand makes sense. Without it SL as a brand is failing.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Ackroman

[gingerjon]

How does Monday night, or Thursday suit?

 

They're not traditional times for the elite league to play at. We moved to summer to grab headlines not fill in between football stories.

 

Why does rugby league play on a Sunday?

 

EDIT

How many Premier League soccer matches kick off at 3pm on a Saturday?

Edited July 12, 2013 by gingerjon

[Dave T]

How does Monday night, or Thursday suit?

 

They're not traditional times for the elite league to play at. We moved to summer to grab headlines not fill in between football stories.

Thursday is a pain, but it get's great viewing figures for Darts and Cricket.

 

Monday is a Premier League slot, so again, certainly not a backwater slot like 3pm on a Tuesday.

 

They may not suit some fans, but they are good slots.

[ckn]

I respect your opinion mate, but it doesn't tell me why exactly is it an admission that we are not going anywhere?

 

When we moved to 14 teams it was to admit an expansion club and Salford - neither of those have been a resounding success. I am of the opinion that we should have a strong top league, there is a fair argument that we are too stretched at the moment. 

 

People are looking at this decision and making up their own back story to it.

 

My proposal would see us drop to 12 teams, and have a clear strategy which states that we are looking to expand into new territories - strong London, Toulouse, 3rd French team and so on, and the league will only expand when we are introducing a new club.

 

On your point about Development officers - the fact is that the funding for these has been dropped. If an officer is on a measly 20k, it is probably a minimum of £30k to employ them, so having even 50 of these costs £1.5m per year. 50 wouldn't even scratch the surface if we're honest - is that £1.5m the best spend (and I expect the cost is much higher than that)?

Personally I think much of the onus should be on the clubs - it is in their direct interests.

 

The RFL are in a difficult place, remember it was them who put the Officers in place initially, but if the money is not there, then it is not there.

On the development officers, if you read the targets and plans that the RFL agreed with Sport England then it would make you seriously wonder how they can meet about half of the targets without development officers.  The biggest of them all is that the RFL agreed a target of 15,000 new participants by 2017.  Good luck with that one.

 

It's also worth noting that there is an identified pot of that Sport England money for the elite sport (£4.5m for 2013-17) and the rest (£11.1m for 2013-17) is meant for increasing participation and competition at grass roots and amateur level.  I'd be interested to see where that £11.1m is going if its targets are deemed to be more valuable than development officers.

[Ackroman]

Thursday is a pain, but it get's great viewing figures for Darts and Cricket.

 

Monday is a Premier League slot, so again, certainly not a backwater slot like 3pm on a Tuesday.

 

They may not suit some fans, but they are good slots.

 

I disagree. We had Friday and Saturday nights which have great pulling power for fans and sponsors.

 

Good luck pulling in the big companies for that crucial Thursday night clash.

[Ackroman]

Why does rugby league play on a Sunday?

 

 

Only in the minority in SL. You're referring to a generation ago.

 

The rest of the leagues made that move (as you well know I suspect) to grab the headlines when football wasn't playing and they've stuck to that decision in the summer era because their fan base is used to it. I don't believe it has any strategic advantage over other sports or even a trip to B&Q.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Ackroman

[Dave T]

I mostly agree with that.

 

But Salford are an example of a club that are using the safety from relegation and security of a three-year licence to build.

Maybe, but I'm not sure that's the only reason they are building.

 

Warrington built in a P&R era, so have other clubs, although there were some rash signings certainly from Warrington in the year we nearly got relegated!

 

I actually don;t think the threat of P&R makes clubs overspend, the aim for glory makes people overspend. Bradford wanted to continue to compete at the top despite their bank balance not allowing this, this was nothing to do with P&R.

[Dave T]

On the development officers, if you read the targets and plans that the RFL agreed with Sport England then it would make you seriously wonder how they can meet any of the targets without development officers.  The biggest of them all is that the RFL agreed a target of 15,000 new participants by 2017.  Good luck with that one.

 

It's also worth noting that there is an identified pot of that Sport England money for the elite sport (£4.5m for 2013-17) and the rest (£11.1m for 2013-17) is meant for increasing participation and competition at grass roots and amateur level.  I'd be interested to see where that £11.1m is going if its targets are deemed to be more valuable than development officers.

£11.1m over a 5 year period is £2.2m per year.

 

50 development staff at £30k costs per year is £1.5m - that is nothing. We can't spend money we don;t have.

 

The Development Officers were in place previously when the numbers went down, so maybe it wasn;t the right thing to do, although I don't believe that.

 

Maybe the onus needs to be on the clubs to support this more.

[Dave T]

I disagree. We had Friday and Saturday nights which have great pulling power for fans and sponsors.

 

Good luck pulling in the big companies for that crucial Thursday night clash.

Saturday viewing figures were always quite poor, and I suspect Thursday and Monday at least hold up well against them, although it is always difficult to measure as Summer sees a drop anyway.

 

On sponsors - it would be much easier to get companies bringing staff along on a Thursday than Saturday.

 

Next week our company has a load of tickets to the Golf Open in Muirfield. I got offered a ticket to any day, including the Sunday - rather than picking this slot, I went for a Friday, as that is work time rather than eating into too much of my home and family time.

 

Saturday and Sunday is much tougher for companies to offload tickets to their staff.

 

In RL this isn't the massive issue it is with other sports, as many of our sponsors are quite local, but we need to move away from this.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

Catalans and London have got the same opportunities as everyone else. It's finally a level playing field with winners and losers - that's real sport.

Except it isn't. The cost of living is far greater in London than it is in, say, Hull. So the likes of Hull will always get more 'bang for their buck' than London. To truly create a level playing field, London would need a far greater share of the SKY money, and a far higher salary cap.

[nadera78]

You could argue though that our clubs are the strongest development tools we have.

 

Would it be better to have a strong Leigh, or them to be really weak and have a development officer in that area? I'm genuinely not sure, but I suspect having a strong club there is more important.

Leigh Centurions are completely irrelevant to the future of Rugby League.

 

If they never again play in SL what would happen? People in Leigh would still play Rugby League at junior and community level. People in Leigh would still go and watch the Centurions. Other people in Leigh would still go and watch Wigan, like they do already. The best juniors produced in Leigh would still sign for Wigan and other SL clubs, like they currently do and always have.

 

On the flip side, Centurions playing in SL would not produce one single extra player than we currently see coming from the town. It would not produce any new investors in the game. It would not increase our corporate base. It would not increase our broadcast revenue. It would not increase the media attention our sport gets.

 

Leigh, as a town, is important to Rugby League. Leigh Centurions, as a club, are not. The same could be said of any number of towns in the north of England.