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

[ckn]

To be fair to KPMG, something I rarely am, they'll answer the question put to them.  I'd like to see the scope of the report.  For example, if they were asked to analyse the game and work out how to end a flat season for those below the top 8 in SL and also to see if the Championship could be revived then the answers of "bring in some jeopardy for SL and provide a big cherry of SL for the Championship clubs by reintroducing P&R" would be a perfectly acceptable and valid answer.  If they were asked "how do we improve the game as a whole, especially improving elite performance" then it's, in my opinion, a seriously sub-standard answer.

[Pottsy]

I'll hold my hands up and say I REALLY don't like these proposals either, Nadera. Ultimately, I don't think they do anything for either the elite or the genuinely aspiring Championship clubs.

However, in the interests of balance, it's worth pointing out that the crowd projections aren't based on 'guesswork' and have actually been calculated afaik using current/historic crowd averages.

This obviously works on the assumption that these trends will hold up under the new system which is obviously where there's plenty of room for debate.

[thundergaz]

I don't get it either. Are we really going to pretend that Swinton (aka Warrington A), to pick on one example, need to be pushing for elite status?

I really think the genuinely ambitious Championship clubs have missed a trick here. Dropping four clubs from the top flight would free up between £4.8-5.2million in central funding which, using the RFL's own figures, would be enough to fund a FULLY PRO 10-team second tier.

I really don't get why, other than Sheffield, none of the Championship clubs have twigged to the fact that they've been offered an illusion.

I also worry that the sliding scale payments in the second tier will lead to a rather predictable "###### or bust" scenario.

That's the problem barring 4 teams in the current championship every other club is DR with a SL club. So like you say them that are DR with a SL club can't have any ambition for top flight rugby so why include them in SL2? it baffles me if I'm honest. I hate to see the state some will be in next season when the DR stops.( that's if the under 23s are coming back like the RFL have stated). Also the clubs that are not DR with a SL club I can only see 3 of them at the very most who will go full time.

[Pottsy]

The uncomfortable truth here, Gaz, is that there simply aren't 24 clubs with the potential to join the elite.

What's worse is that these changes render the Championship a qualification process (and a slightly dubious one at that) rather than a vibrant competition in its own right. They also rob the championship of any kind of fitting climax (ie, there'll be no real 'champion' and the 'final' will be fairly meaningless and might not even feature a Championship club!).

Meanwhile, this system brings with it an inequitable funding system which I fear will drive some clubs close to oblivion again.

Let me be clear. I'm massively in favour of a return to some form of genuine P&R whereby it's guaranteed that each year a Super League club is relegated and a Championship club is promoted (please note, this system doesn't do that!)

But I also think we need to retain some of the benefits that we should've garnered from licensing.

I fear that the system the RFL is pushing through is one of those things that appears to offer something for everyone but in reality won't really be of long term benefit to anyone.

[nadera78]

I'll hold my hands up and say I REALLY don't like these proposals either, Nadera. Ultimately, I don't think they do anything for either the elite or the genuinely aspiring Championship clubs.

However, in the interests of balance, it's worth pointing out that the crowd projections aren't based on 'guesswork' and have actually been calculated afaik using current/historic crowd averages.

This obviously works on the assumption that these trends will hold up under the new system which is obviously where there's plenty of room for debate.

If there is genuine evidence for any of this then they should publish it all and let us see it. But, of course, that would leave them with targets to hit in future years and questions raised if the changes don't bring about the claimed benefits.

[Pottsy]

If there is genuine evidence for any of this then they should publish it all and let us see it. But, of course, that would leave them with targets to hit in future years and questions raised if the changes don't bring about the claimed benefits.

You've answered your own question without even having to ask it there, Nadera

[Dave T]

Steve, what you're forgetting is that stability doesn't generate income for management consultancies such as KPMG.

 

And let's not forget, as some other posters have pointed out, how clever they are, so we must follow their advice.

 

Which management consultancy ever recommended stability?

 

I may quote your comments, or some of them, in League Express on Monday, even at the risk of provoking another missive from the RFL.

Quite a few would Martyn. They are getting paid to carry out their review, not based on what their results are.

 

We use consultants in our business and quite often the recommendations will be minor, or even reigning our ideas in.

[Steve May]

To be fair to KPMG, something I rarely am, they'll answer the question put to them.

 

 

They will.

 

And I'd put money on that the question was vague and ill-thought out.  And that KPMG weren't too troubled by that.

 

People hire consultants for lots of reasons.   I'd say about 10% of the time they need to buy in some genuine expertise in a technical area that they can't cover in house (I'd also say that this is the bit I work in, but then I would say that).  

 

90% of the time they just want to avoid responsibility for taking decisions - it's a very easy thing to say "We've spent a lot of money on these consultants, so what they've said must be right"

 

As a general rule, the bigger the consultancy the more likely they are to be working in that second role.  

[Martyn Sadler]

To be fair to KPMG, something I rarely am, they'll answer the question put to them.  I'd like to see the scope of the report.  For example, if they were asked to analyse the game and work out how to end a flat season for those below the top 8 in SL and also to see if the Championship could be revived then the answers of "bring in some jeopardy for SL and provide a big cherry of SL for the Championship clubs by reintroducing P&R" would be a perfectly acceptable and valid answer.  If they were asked "how do we improve the game as a whole, especially improving elite performance" then it's, in my opinion, a seriously sub-standard answer.

Absolutely correct.

 

Unfortunately the RFL insists that their report is private and confidential.

 

And I was talking to a leading club official who told me that the clubs would also like to know how much the report cost.

 

That information is also private and confidential.

[Pottsy]

You're all getting a bit sidetracked by the whole KPMG issue and are speculating about what the process involved.

The truth is that whether KPMG instigated these proposals or simply provided affirmation to one of Nigel's existing ideas, it was the RFL's decision (backed by the clubs) to go with them.

There are elements of this process that I'm dubious about but I don't see how you can start speculating about what questions the RFL might or might not have asked KPMG. The truth is we simply don't know.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

1, So do you know how much money clubs received?

2, This structure hasn't been used before. The splitting of the leagues is a great idea and could allow for teams to grow gradually and provides them with a chance of sustained growth with the funding being on offer. The only blinkered self interest I can see now is your appeared hatred off all clubs in the Championship that want this move. I can only assume this is as a result of a fall out with the club you supported.

3, No

4, Maybe.

The levy varied then there was the money non sl clubs received from SKY and the ninety grand a year they receive now

The underpinnings are the same and they are the ones that matter to you And those who think the same as you. Hatred? What on earth are you talking about? Hatred is an emotion to be used sparingly and doesn't even appear on the radar when thinking about football clubs ffs. I respect any sports organisation that tries to survive with the historical baggage that rugby league has carried around with it for over a century. Support? You know nothing. I disassociated myself as a matter of principle relating to the conduct of people associated with the club not the club itself or those tasked with running it whom I hold in high regard

So why aren't you operating double standards? There is no current sponsor for sl and people like you have been dragging it down for as long as its existed why shouldn't there according to what you say be a connection... For what it's worth I doubt whether there is

[ckn]

Absolutely correct.

 

Unfortunately the RFL insists that their report is private and confidential.

 

And I was talking to a leading club official who told me that the clubs would also like to know how much the report cost.

 

That information is also private and confidential.

 

I've worked with many of the big consultancies on things like this, it's usually substantially cheaper to have the report kept to a limited distribution.  The big companies don't want their techniques and advice strategies routinely opened up to public scrutiny so they ensure that they're compensated suitably for the loss of control of their intellectual property.  Consultancies are like law firms in that their precedents and boilerplate is massively valuable IP that they'll protect like a rabid dog over a bone.  It may not be the RFL being secretive on this but actually them wanting to save what can be a considerable sum of money for the privilege of releasing it to a non-RFL audience.  That'll be the same for the cost, they really don't want their costs to be known as that sets benchmarks for other companies to negotiate against.

 

Think of it like the weekly online version of LE.  If you sold a license to a company to view one issue unlimited times internally, you're going to be quite tough in the terms to ensure that they don't give it away to anyone else.

[a.n Other]

So why aren't you operating double standards? There is no current sponsor for sl and people like you have been dragging it down for as long as its existed why shouldn't there according to what you say be a connection... For what it's worth I doubt whether there is

Care to point me to the posts where I have been on here talking SL down?

[Derwent]

 

They will.

 

And I'd put money on that the question was vague and ill-thought out.  And that KPMG weren't too troubled by that.

 

People hire consultants for lots of reasons.   I'd say about 10% of the time they need to buy in some genuine expertise in a technical area that they can't cover in house (I'd also say that this is the bit I work in, but then I would say that).  

 

90% of the time they just want to avoid responsibility for taking decisions - it's a very easy thing to say "We've spent a lot of money on these consultants, so what they've said must be right"

 

As a general rule, the bigger the consultancy the more likely they are to be working in that second role.

Quite often they are able to, more or less, write their own terms of reference. The client doesn't really know what he wants, the consultant suggests a way forward, client agrees in the absence of any counter-ideas and so the consultant is then off down the path of what he thinks should happen without much recourse to the client. Once the consultant is in control of the process with a compliant client then you aren't going to get a good outcome. As the old saying goes - consultants are people who borrow your watch to tell you what time it is, and then save you almost enough money to pay their fees.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Care to point me to the posts where I have been on here talking SL down?

You have consistently denigrated the way sl is structured regarding access to it ie the licensing system

But it isn't just you... Check what I have said and without doubt there are far worse than you and again I doubt whether it has been an issue regarding sponsorship same as people who have misgivings about the current proposals

Still no answer to my question

Or any back up to your ridiculous 'hatred' comment

Edited August 2, 2013 by l'angelo mysterioso

[ckn]

Please just discuss the topic, enough of the badgering for answers to questions, if you're not getting an answer that suits you then you're not likely to ever get one.

[a.n Other]

Or any back up to your ridiculous 'hatred' comment

See your posts. It is them that lead me to believe you hated ambitious championship clubs. Perhaps hate is far too strong a word. Dislike is probably more apt.

[longboard]

Don't worry. There'll be another boatload of changes before 2020.

 

Or a raft of them!

[Pottsy]

Please just discuss the topic, enough of the badgering for answers to questions, if you're not getting an answer that suits you then you're not likely to ever get one.

x2

[Pottsy]

I've worked with many of the big consultancies on things like this, it's usually substantially cheaper to have the report kept to a limited distribution. The big companies don't want their techniques and advice strategies routinely opened up to public scrutiny so they ensure that they're compensated suitably for the loss of control of their intellectual property. Consultancies are like law firms in that their precedents and boilerplate is massively valuable IP that they'll protect like a rabid dog over a bone. It may not be the RFL being secretive on this but actually them wanting to save what can be a considerable sum of money for the privilege of releasing it to a non-RFL audience. That'll be the same for the cost, they really don't want their costs to be known as that sets benchmarks for other companies to negotiate against.

Think of it like the weekly online version of LE. If you sold a license to a company to view one issue unlimited times internally, you're going to be quite tough in the terms to ensure that they don't give it away to anyone else.

Let's not also forget that this report probably won't paint a particularly favourable picture of the finances/future prospects of a number of clubs.

You can hardly blame the RFL, in its role as custodian of the game, for not allowing this information to slip into the public domain.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

See your posts. It is them that lead me to believe you hated ambitious championship clubs. Perhaps hate is far too strong a word. Dislike is probably more apt.

Well we are getting somewhere

The perception was entirely yours how can you dislike a football club especially ones that operate within the historical parameters of rugby league . i have no negative feelings or thoughts towards any clubs and haven't expressed any: suggest you check

Edited August 2, 2013 by l'angelo mysterioso

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Please just discuss the topic, enough of the badgering for answers to questions, if you're not getting an answer that suits you then you're not likely to ever get one.

I don't want one that suits me

I just want one

But fair enough

Lets let dead horses lie and brick walls stand

[thundergaz]

Well we are getting somewhere

The perception was entirely yours how can you dislike a football club especially ones that operate within the historical parameters of rugby league . i have no negative feelings or thoughts towards any clubs and haven't expressed any: suggest you check

I've got to admit you either don't like change or you have got something against my/used to be your club or champ clubs in general. as any champ club gets mentioned in the same sentence as a SL club or its league you shoot it down or try to.( I'm not having a go by the way just a general observation). Edited August 2, 2013 by thundergaz

[nadera78]

You're all getting a bit sidetracked by the whole KPMG issue and are speculating about what the process involved.

The truth is that whether KPMG instigated these proposals or simply provided affirmation to one of Nigel's existing ideas, it was the RFL's decision (backed by the clubs) to go with them.

There are elements of this process that I'm dubious about but I don't see how you can start speculating about what questions the RFL might or might not have asked KPMG. The truth is we simply don't know.

From my perspective it seems as if no-one, apart from the RFL, is overly enthusiastic about these proposals. If there was huge support for them, or even majority support, then it would all have been agreed by now. I think there is widespread disagreement over what to do, and even what the problem they're trying to fix actually is. That's why we've had so many proposals and counter-proposals, and I think we'll end up with this new format mainly because no-one's really come up with a better idea.

 

But no-one seems prepared to step back and ask one simple question - what is it that we're trying to achieve?

 

If we did that then we might be able to progress with the task of finding an appropriate answer.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I've got to admit you either don't like change or you have got something against my/used to be your club or champ clubs in general. as any champ club gets mentioned in the same sentence as a SL club or its league you shoot it down or try to.( I'm not having a go by the way just a general observation).

You don't have to admit anything of the kind

Because if you check none of what you say is the case

If you want to see some shooting down of your club check out its face book page

Edited August 2, 2013 by l'angelo mysterioso