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

[JohnM]

If there has been so much thought and research then why isn't that being shared?

 

 

A bit like being asked to show your working-out whenanswering maths exam questions. 

 

I'd say there has been more info  about this reorganisation than any orger...by far. Revealing all the RFL's working-out would not only have crashed this forum , it would have brought the whole of the Internet down around our ears.

[nadera78]

All projections that were discussed were based on current Sky funding, however projections showed an increase in attendance and by implication TV viewers.  It was reasoned that closed, competitive and more meaningful games would improve the game as a package to sell to broadcasters.

The game's problems are not going to be solved by simply asking broadcasters for more money.

 

The fundamental problem is that we do not have the quality of players for more than 10/12 teams, and secondly that our teams are all fighting for the same players, sponsors and investors because they are all located in small, neighbouring towns.

[nathanwood7]

My problem with this is the fundamental lack of leadership being shown by the RFL. The licensing system wasn't universally popular but the RFL showed clear leadership in saying this is why we are doing this, and this is how it is going to work. A few years later it seems the RFL do not any longer have confidence in their own ability to map the way forward for the game. Instead they are trying devolve responsibility and reach agreement by committee, with the RFL seemingly forming it's views as it goes along. It's embarrassing having to watch this aired in public as every week the latest brainwave trickles out in the press - the league will split after 13 rounds, the super league name will be disbanded etc.

 

Whilst this is being spun as "consultation" it strikes me as obvious that the RFL should not be consulting on something in this way in the run up to a World Cup which should be getting all the focus. The fact that an announcement is due in September - a month before the World Cup begins is frankly ludicrous and threatens to take attention away from what should be a fantastic event. If the RFL expect us to believe that the current lack of direction is due to a planned consultation process rather than them desperately scrambling around for answers, then at the very least this timing indicates gross incompetence.

 

Finally, if the inference from all this is that licensing has not worked then there should be some accountability for the decision makers who brought the system in. Instead it is the same people who are now trying to change course in a totally different direction. If this fails will they be given another chance? And another? Of course by not offering any leadership and letting the clubs decide instead there will always be someone else to blame for any future failings. The RFL governance structure needs strengthening so that the leadership is fully accountable for the direction that it is steering the game in.

[Steve May]

A bit like being asked to show your working-out whenanswering maths exam questions. 

 

I'd say there has been more info  about this reorganisation than any orger...by far. Revealing all the RFL's working-out would not only have crashed this forum , it would have brought the whole of the Internet down around our ears.

 

There has been a lot of information put out, but none of it has included any evidence to show that people actually want it.

 

The structure is so complicated it reminds me of the awful 2007 Cricket World Cup that probably looked good to the accountants, but was an abject failure.

 

My guess/hope is that it lasts no more than two years before sense prevails.

[Dave T]

There has been a lot of information put out, but none of it has included any evidence to show that people actually want it.

 

The structure is so complicated it reminds me of the awful 2007 Cricket World Cup that probably looked good to the accountants, but was an abject failure.

 

My guess/hope is that it lasts no more than two years before sense prevails.

Shouldn't your hope be that fans flock to it due to the added 'jeopardy' elements, leading to more sponsors and increased commercial revenues? Surely you'd rather be wrong and it thrive?

 

I was strongly in favour of licensing, and to an extent still am, but even I can't deny there is quite a stale feeling to large parts of the competitions at the moment, and this appears to be shared by the clubs and broadcasters.

[Martyn Sadler]

There has been a lot of information put out, but none of it has included any evidence to show that people actually want it.

 

The structure is so complicated it reminds me of the awful 2007 Cricket World Cup that probably looked good to the accountants, but was an abject failure.

 

My guess/hope is that it lasts no more than two years before sense prevails.

It's funny you should mention accountants, because the driver for this reorganisation is a report the RFL commissioned from KPMG, who told the RFL, apparently, that what the game needed was "jeopardy", in the belief that the threat of relegation draws bigger crowds.

 

The RFL insists that the KPMG report is private and confidential, but it seems odd to think that the RFL has to commission a report from a firm of management consultants to decide how to run its own game.

 

If KPMG would like to commission me to write a report for them on how to run a firm of accountants and management consultants I would be delighted to do so, but I doubt whether they will.

 

You're correct to point out the complicated nature of the proposals, with the RFL seemingly unable to grasp the impact on any supporters who are not complete Rugby League anoraks.

 

But the real problem, as far as I'm concerned, is the 30 matches that would feature in the regular season for each club, as opposed to 27 at present, which most people accept is already too many. Our international players have one hand tied behind their back, and it will be even worse in future.

 

There is a danger that any two sides could meet six times in the season - four in the regular season (if they meet at the Magic Weekend) and once each in the play-offs and Challenge Cup.

 

The RFL must surely be able to recognise that that is far too much, and that even the most avid fans will be deterred by repetitive fixtures.

 

I'm also hearing from some player-agents that their clients are already trying to avoid clubs that they think won't make it into the top eight.

 

This system will exacerbate disparities in standard, rather than produce en even competition.

 

I would love to know what fee KPMG has received for this marvellous piece of advice.

[zorquif]

I'm also hearing from some player-agents that their clients are already trying to avoid clubs that they think won't make it into the top eight.

 

Is this not somewhat obvious? Players in wanting to play for top clubs shocker!

[petesmithfan]

There has been a lot of information put out, but none of it has included any evidence to show that people actually want it.

 

The structure is so complicated it reminds me of the awful 2007 Cricket World Cup that probably looked good to the accountants, but was an abject failure.

 

My guess/hope is that it lasts no more than two years before sense prevails.

If you find it complicated.............. you want to have a look at your self....................whats so complex about. 12 +12 = 24    8+8+8 = 24 .  Are people not just getting further entrenched trying to defend the system they have been defending for the past 5 years, despite the fact that it has be proven a poor business model!    The real truth is that most people do not give a fig, they go to watch their team play Rugby league and thats all that bothers them. Its only the Wanna be administrators on here who want to pore over every last detail.............. which is a pointless exercise as you have no say!!!  I mean come on think about it!!!  The Clubs run our game end of

Edited July 31, 2013 by petesmithfan

[petesmithfan]

Is this not somewhat obvious? Players in wanting to play for top clubs shocker!

Brilliant observation.  I am afraid Martyn is way too entrenched to see the ass he is making of himself on this.

[petesmithfan]

As for hiring KPMG that is because of the complex nature of the calculations involved.  And the RFL can not afford to retain staff to carry out one of audits etc.  For instance you have to compare different sports models, why retain staff to do this what would they do the rest of the year? 

 

Its a modern world and an organisation Like the RFL could not dream of keeping abreast of changing trends etc without outside guidance.

[Gruff]

It's funny you should mention accountants, because the driver for this reorganisation is a report the RFL commissioned from KPMG, who told the RFL, apparently, that what the game needed was "jeopardy", in the belief that the threat of relegation draws bigger crowds.

 

The RFL insists that the KPMG report is private and confidential, but it seems odd to think that the RFL has to commission a report from a firm of management consultants to decide how to run its own game.

 

If KPMG would like to commission me to write a report for them on how to run a firm of accountants and management consultants I would be delighted to do so, but I doubt whether they will.

 

You're correct to point out the complicated nature of the proposals, with the RFL seemingly unable to grasp the impact on any supporters who are not complete Rugby League anoraks.

 

But the real problem, as far as I'm concerned, is the 30 matches that would feature in the regular season for each club, as opposed to 27 at present, which most people accept is already too many. Our international players have one hand tied behind their back, and it will be even worse in future.

 

There is a danger that any two sides could meet six times in the season - four in the regular season (if they meet at the Magic Weekend) and once each in the play-offs and Challenge Cup.

 

The RFL must surely be able to recognise that that is far too much, and that even the most avid fans will be deterred by repetitive fixtures.

 

I'm also hearing from some player-agents that their clients are already trying to avoid clubs that they think won't make it into the top eight.

 

This system will exacerbate disparities in standard, rather than produce en even competition.

 

I would love to know what fee KPMG has received for this marvellous piece of advice.

 

I think you are being very condescending towards a multinational, multi-billion pound turnover company there Martyn.  They are experts at providing advice for companies on the best way to run their business to make it as profitable as possible, having done if for thousands of organisations across the world.

 

I'm sure they wouldn't ask you to write a report of how to run an accountancy firm, or any other, given you have no experience, training or qualifications to do so.

 

Im not sure what the issue with repeat fixtures is - we have them at the moment, with home and away, challenge cup, Magic, and playoffs providing up to 5 games.

 

In football Man U could play Man City up to 8 times in one season; League, FA Cup, League Cup, Champions League, and Charity Shield - their fans don't complain and would fill out the stadiums for all games.

 

And the additional fixtures is a way of increasing income - and agreed by the clubs.  Wasn't the later split their suggestion anyway, rather than the split after 12 rounds - hence they want it and want the extra games.

 

 

All the arguments and disparaging comments are baseless, arrogant and appear just to be another way to give the RFL stick, when the proposals still have to be agreed and sanctioned by the clubs.

[Pottsy]

As stated on other thread, people really need to:

1) try to differentiate between fact and opinion

2) try to be a little more courteous to one another, regardless of any difference of opinion

Is this too hard?

[Martyn Sadler]

I think you are being very condescending towards a multinational, multi-billion pound turnover company there Martyn.  They are experts at providing advice for companies on the best way to run their business to make it as profitable as possible, having done if for thousands of organisations across the world.

 

I'm sure they wouldn't ask you to write a report of how to run an accountancy firm, or any other, given you have no experience, training or qualifications to do so.

 

Im not sure what the issue with repeat fixtures is - we have them at the moment, with home and away, challenge cup, Magic, and playoffs providing up to 5 games.

 

In football Man U could play Man City up to 8 times in one season; League, FA Cup, League Cup, Champions League, and Charity Shield - their fans don't complain and would fill out the stadiums for all games.

 

And the additional fixtures is a way of increasing income - and agreed by the clubs.  Wasn't the later split their suggestion anyway, rather than the split after 12 rounds - hence they want it and want the extra games.

 

 

All the arguments and disparaging comments are baseless, arrogant and appear just to be another way to give the RFL stick, when the proposals still have to be agreed and sanctioned by the clubs.

I've dealt rather a lot with KPMG and the other major management consultants in my business life, so I think I have a reasonable insight into the way they operate.

 

You seem to have a touching but rather naive faith in their infallibility.

 

As for the extra games, the clubs may indeed believe that they will generate more income, just as a restaurant may believe that by staying open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it may also generate more income.

 

The NFL is generally regarded as the most financially successful football competition in the world, and yet they only play 17 rounds of regular-season fixtures. Just think how much money you could make as a consultant if you let them know how much money they could generate by playing 30 fixtures in a season. Maybe they are not smart enough to realise they could do that. Or is there some other reason for not doing so?

 

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, of course, and if in five years' time the new league structure is causing our stadia to burst at the seams, while we have just returned from winning the 2017 World Cup, then I will admit that my fears were unfounded.

 

Until then, I remain to be convinced.

[Doghead]

If you find it complicated.............. you want to have a look at your self....................whats so complex about. 12 +12 = 24    8+8+8 = 24 .  Are people not just getting further entrenched trying to defend the system they have been defending for the past 5 years, despite the fact that it has be proven a poor business model!    The real truth is that most people do not give a fig, they go to watch their team play Rugby league and thats all that bothers them. Its only the Wanna be administrators on here who want to pore over every last detail.............. which is a pointless exercise as you have no say!!!  I mean come on think about it!!!  The Clubs run our game end of

 

Wanna be administrators, is correct, no pleasing these people.

[Lobbygobbler]

Well, I'm looking forward to this new structure. I dont think it is complicated either. I think/hope the jeopardy element will work, but we'll have to see. I also think we will see a wave of investment at lower clubs from ambitious investors. Definitely worth a try.

[Doghead]

Brilliant observation.  I am afraid Martyn is way too entrenched to see the ass he is making of himself on this.

His performance on "back chat" was insipid, nothing like his attacks on the changes on this site.

[bobbruce]

I think it will work but only in creating an 8 team SL.

[Gruff]

I've dealt rather a lot with KPMG and the other major management consultants in my business life, so I think I have a reasonable insight into the way they operate.

 

You seem to have a touching but rather naive faith in their infallibility.

 

As for the extra games, the clubs may indeed believe that they will generate more income, just as a restaurant may believe that by staying open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it may also generate more income.

 

The NFL is generally regarded as the most financially successful football competition in the world, and yet they only play 17 rounds of regular-season fixtures. Just think how much money you could make as a consultant if you let them know how much money they could generate by playing 30 fixtures in a season. Maybe they are not smart enough to realise they could do that. Or is there some other reason for not doing so?

 

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, of course, and if in five years' time the new league structure is causing our stadia to burst at the seams, while we have just returned from winning the 2017 World Cup, then I will admit that my fears were unfounded.

 

Until then, I remain to be convinced.

Like you Martyn I've dealt with a number of senior partners at the Top 4 and don't see my faith in them as naive, just the reality that if they didn't know what they were doing they wouldn't be the size and success they are.

 

The NFL is essentially a national sport - they don't need the extra income - they get billions through endorsements, sponsorship, customers etc...  They also don't have an international scene, so on your thinking we should scrap the World Cup??.  They don't have P&R and franchise everything - is that your suggestion?

 

In fact, they have consulted Managament Consultancies in the past to advise on maximising revenues - the suggestions that came back obviously weren't the same as for the RFL i.e. additional fixtures. 

 

If a restaurant owner saw that by opening 24hrs would increase their bottom line they would do however there isn't the custom 24hrs a day.  By using that as an analogy you are suggesting that no-one would pay to see these extra games?  I disagree.

 

Finally, I assume, like you said, if our stadium are not bulging at the seams and we don't win the WC in 2017 then these proposals have failed?  Tough call for the likes of Huddersfield who need to quadruple their fan base within 4 years.  I assume you have spoken to Ken Davy and told him your proposals to fill out the John Smiths Stadium on a regular basis?  Maybe he just isn't smart enough to know these things.

[a.n Other]

I've dealt rather a lot with KPMG and the other major management consultants in my business life, so I think I have a reasonable insight into the way they operate.

You seem to have a touching but rather naive faith in their infallibility.

Did you question the findings of KPMG when they looked at clubs applications at the last licensing round? I can't remember reading anything in the paper or on here questioning their findings? Edited July 31, 2013 by a.n Other

[nadera78]

The clubs seem to think that putting on extra matches, regardless of the impact on players who are already overworked, will bring in more revenue. Actually, I think this is a false economy. The standard of play will decrease across a longer season, we'll find ourselves kicking off in January instead of the already criticised February, and the England team will also suffer.

 

Every club has those fans who attend every week, regardless of opponent. Of more interest from a financial perspective are those who pick and choose what games they will pay to watch. Milking the already committed won't get us anywhere, we need to turn the casuals into committed.

 

Under the new plans the occasional fan looks at his team's 15 home games and concludes that 6 of them are guaranteed to be of a high standard, 6 of them mediocre and the remaining 3 poor. He'll more likely than not decide to attend the first 6, make it to some of the middle group and miss out on the latter altogether.

 

On the other hand, if he sees 10 home games and knows that he is guaranteed a high standard in all of those matches, he is more likely to go to all the games. That is what the NFL banks on. A limited number of games, and of sufficiently high standard to generate interest.

 

We don't need more games, or more professional players. What we need is a higher standard of game, and a higher standard of player. That can only be achieved by creating a genuinely elite competition.

[Martyn Sadler]

Did you question the findings of KPMG when they looked at clubs applications at the last licensing round? I can't remember reading anything in the paper or on here questioning their findings?

Their findings, which I assume were technical accounts of the financial state of health of the clubs, were not made available to the media, so in that case we had to take their word for it.

 

This is slightly different, in that a proposed course of action has resulted from their report.

 

You don't need to see KPMG's report to be able to assess the proposals that flow from it, although it would be useful to be able to see it.

[a.n Other]

Their findings, which I assume were technical accounts of the financial state of health of the clubs, were not made available to the media, so in that case we had to take their word for it.

This is slightly different, in that a proposed course of action has resulted from their report.

You don't need to see KPMG's report to be able to assess the proposals that flow from it, although it would be useful to be able to see it.

So no then.

I find it strange that you as a journalist wouldn't want to question the findings of the previous involvement of KPMG. It may be slightly different but you would appear happy to accept their findings on one hand and not on the other. I would have thought any journalist would have liked to get their teeth into why club x got a licence and club b didn't and question the findings. . But it seems it wasn't questioned by the RL print media at all.

[jpmc]

The more games the better for me.

It simply means clubs need to rotate there squads better and use there younger players more, who are currently going out on DR

[Martyn Sadler]

So no then.

I find it strange that you as a journalist wouldn't want to question the findings of the previous involvement of KPMG. It may be slightly different but you would appear happy to accept their findings on one hand and not on the other. I would have thought any journalist would have liked to get their teeth into why club x got a licence and club b didn't and question the findings. . But it seems it wasn't questioned by the RL print media at all.

When the Crusaders dropped out the 14 Super League clubs selected themselves.

 

The RFL made clear that Halifax's application fell well short of the required standard. So in the end very little controversy accompanied the process.

[a.n Other]

When the Crusaders dropped out the 14 Super League clubs selected themselves.

The RFL made clear that Halifax's application fell well short of the required standard. So in the end very little controversy accompanied the process.

As I said, you seemed happy to accept the report based on KPMGS findings for all clubs back then but now it doesn't suit you, you question their findings.

Did you question why the RFL went with 14 clubs in the lady round? Wakefield had just come out of admin, Bradford and Salford were obviously basket cases.