Centralisation

[scotchy]

I said when Bradford were stripped of half their SL money, that instead of wasting it, the RFL should take that 5-600k and put it in a pot. That pot could then be used as 'cover' for 1 game every SL round in June and July when the football season is off.

 

So over those 6 weeks, 1 game per week is taken to a large stadium as an 'on the road' fixture. The only fixture played on that day with the aim of selling it out. So for instance, Leeds could take a game to elland road and try and sell 37k tickets for it. That 600k would be used to cover the profit leeds would make from a home game + the cost of renting the stadium + marketing.

 

So for instance Leeds might have an average income per fan of say £17 per fan (once season tickets and juniors etc are taken in to account) that's £255k.  plus say £50k to rent elland road and £50k to market that game, that's £355k. If leeds sell out elland road, even with average income of about £14 per fan instead, they would still have income of about £500k. Leeds then take the £255k they would have earned, plus half the £145k extra and the other half goes back in to the pot along with the £100k in costs. Leeds earn an extra £70k and the game gets a near 40k attendance everyone wins.

 

The problem now with any kind of centralised investment is that half the league have a pretty decent chance of missing out on the pay off. Give Wakefield the option of an extra 100k a year, or a vastly improved SL attendance and tv contract in 5 or so years time and they are obviously going to take the money now. Why are they going to invest 100k a year in a competition they may not be in? Similarly why would they spend money building an event that they might not be able to put on when it comes time to earn money from it?

[scotchy]

For the most part, they are not rivals.  No more than two branches of Tesco are competing.  There are a few competing for a pool or rugby league fans and that does do damage.  For the most, the overall good of the game would help them.

They are rivals in every respect, they fight for fans, for sponsors, for players, for everything. We operate in a very small market and they have to fight to survive. Everything becomes an opportunity for clubs to get advantage over one another.

 

You would see how much the local Tesco's worked together if at the end of every year the bottom performing one was closed down.

 

And again, things like centralised advertising, marketing, even infrastructure might not pay off this year, or next year, the club may not even be in the league to get the pay back for the investment it makes when that investment pays out.

 

And that isn't even addressing the fact that often this would simply in practice become a subsidy for the smaller clubs. For instance, the only way a shared shirt supplier works out is if the deal is 12 times the highest figure otherwise they simply aren't going to accept less. Now that is possibly but it would need to be built towards and that isn't going to happen when the bottom clubs are rotating. There is no 'rising tide' when the bottom keeps being taken away.

[John Omally]

And that isn't even addressing the fact that often this would simply in practice become a subsidy for the smaller clubs. For instance, the only way a shared shirt supplier works out is if the deal is 12 times the highest figure otherwise they simply aren't going to accept less. Now that is possibly but it would need to be built towards and that isn't going to happen when the bottom clubs are rotating. There is no 'rising tide' when the bottom keeps being taken away.

 

Let's say Leeds sell the most shirts (12) a year and Wakefield the least (1).

Wakefields are buying "fewer shirts" because they expect to sell less and therefore pay the highest cost per shirt price to the manufacturer.

Over the road at Headingley, Leeds buy the most expecting to sell them and pay a lower price because they are buying 12......

....now, pay attention.

Using the matrix above, Leeds pay least for 12, so how much less would they pay if they (or SL itself) were ordering 78 shirts?

 

This is the proposal.....SL order 78 shirts and they will pay half of what Leeds currently pay for 12 (if not less)....everybody wins

[Bob8]

They are rivals in every respect, they fight for fans, for sponsors, for players, for everything. We operate in a very small market and they have to fight to survive. Everything becomes an opportunity for clubs to get advantage over one another.

 

You would see how much the local Tesco's worked together if at the end of every year the bottom performing one was closed down.

......

Well, quite.  That neatly sums up much of what is wrong with the way the sport is run.  The fact is, that Tesco do not open up lots of Tesco's next to each other, so they can compete and then drop one at the end of the year as that would be crazy. 

 

Instead, Tesco spread them out according to where they can prosper.  

 

Our clubs competing to prosper would make sense if they were the only form of entertainment in town, instead there is cinema, soccer, soap operas, YouTube, the pub or getting sloshed at home.  Our product is rugby league.  To promote the sport, Toulouse should be promoted and there are a few candidates to give them room.  Instead, they are shafted, because struggling clubs are scared of them taking their place.  There would be a centralised strategy, instead we have clubs fighting over scraps. 

[The Parksider]

I said when Bradford were stripped of half their SL money, that instead of wasting it, the RFL should take that 5-600k and put it in a pot. That pot could then be used as 'cover' for 1 game every SL round in June and July when the football season is off.

 

So over those 6 weeks, 1 game per week is taken to a large stadium as an 'on the road' fixture. The only fixture played on that day with the aim of selling it out. So for instance, Leeds could take a game to elland road and try and sell 37k tickets for it. That 600k would be used to cover the profit leeds would make from a home game + the cost of renting the stadium + marketing.

 

So for instance Leeds might have an average income per fan of say £17 per fan (once season tickets and juniors etc are taken in to account) that's £255k.  plus say £50k to rent elland road and £50k to market that game, that's £355k. If leeds sell out elland road, even with average income of about £14 per fan instead, they would still have income of about £500k. Leeds then take the £255k they would have earned, plus half the £145k extra and the other half goes back in to the pot along with the £100k in costs. Leeds earn an extra £70k and the game gets a near 40k attendance everyone wins.

 

Leeds might be able to do that if the fixture was say against Cantebury Bulldogs coming over as NRL Champions. They might be able to do that if say the match was for a trophy say like the World club championship, they might be able to do that if it was the first fixture of the season when everyones up for attending a game.

 

In fact as well you know they did that ten years ago and sold 37,000 tickets.

 

I can't think of an SL game that would draw 37.000 to Elland Road, especially in June/July. Maybe Wigan is the best bet, last year the fixture drew 18,000 to Headingley.

 

But I fail to see how an ordinary league match with only 2 points at stake, against opposition Leeds will play again (and again and again) could draw a double crowd and more to Elland Road  

 

The WCC wore thinner over the years as people realised it was a glorified friendly, and wasn't THAT special and by 2013 Leeds were staging this game back at Headingley before 20,400, better a packed Headingley than a half empty Elland Road and all the overheads of renting and running the stadium.......

 

Hetherington is no marketing fool, after all IIRC he's a double glazing salesman by trade, and with the deepest respect to you, he's got the numbers, he's done the figures, and if they agreed with yours Leeds would be at Elland Road every year for the Wigan game. 

[The Parksider]

You would see how much the local Tesco's worked together if at the end of every year the bottom performing one was closed down.

 

 

 

Well, quite.  That neatly sums up much of what is wrong with the way the sport is run.  The fact is, that Tesco do not open up lots of Tesco's next to each other, so they can compete and then drop one at the end of the year as that would be crazy. 

 

I think Tescos do open up stores close to each other , think of the Tesco Supermarket as Superleague Stores and Tesco Local as Championship stores.

 

And this year they closed 53 of them?

 

No comparisons here really.

[Bob8]

I think Tescos do open up stores close to each other , think of the Tesco Supermarket as Superleague Stores and Tesco Local as Championship stores.

 

And this year they closed 53 of them?

 

No comparisons here really.

Clearly, what this should do is convert a certain number from Superstores to Metros and Metros to Superstores each year - regardless of their environ.

[The Parksider]

Maybe not centralised, but have the clubs work together more, so that clubs' aim to share best practice, what works and what doesn't and tales from the trenches. I assume Salford, say, could learn something about marketing generally from Wigan.

 

I doubt that.

 

What markets Wigan is the long long list of major trophies won  over the last 30 years.

 

On field success is what the punters want, and they get that at Wigan and Leeds and they don't get any, ever, at Wakefield and Salford.

 

Your "service" or "product" has to be right, it has to be something people want. This is one reason why the RFL aimed at a Superleague that was competitive from top to bottom because they felt this was the way to attract the most fans.

 

You can "market" all you want in terms of advertising and lose a shedload of money doing it, but if the punters don't want the product you have to improve the product. So the RFL have changed the league format to make games more meaningful, the clubs have brought in Marquee to get more star names turning out.

 

Yet we condemn the RFL when in fact they are making major policy moves to improve the product to increase ticket sales.

 

All the Marketing managers at the SL clubs really should have a right of reply on here. I can't think any one of them won't be checking out every "sales initiative" every one of their rivals/colleagues use and costing and analysing them. I can't think that on matchdays these guys and gals don't meet their counterparts in the hospitality suites and discuss how their strategies are going.

 

For clubs know full well they can feed off each others marketing successes, and rising crowds would be a marketing tool in itself. I'm sure the club directors who all by their very position of being too rich from their own businesses so they want somewhere to chuck it about would not share their own marketing and business success with their marketing staff.

 

Pricing is another marketing strategy. This works.

 

At failing Wakefield Trinity they put 1600 fans on every gate through pricing, at Bradford Bulls they turned a big drop in fans round to the tune of 3,000 a game on pricing. Marketing did it's job big time, it got the bums on seats.

 

But it wasn't cost effective. Marketing has to be cost effective....

 

I don't like these "Market and they will come" threads that start with a gross assumption that the RFL and the clubs are useless at marketing, and totally forget that they are run by businessmen who make fortunes marketing their businesses. It's just a cop out from discussing the real issues that surround the game. They also run on a gross assumption that whatever a club spends on marketing they automatically profit from it.

 

They don't, marketing can be the biggest waste of money you can spend as a business and there has to be a careful balance in terms of cost and return. This isn't incompetence, it's good business.

[scotchy]

Let's say Leeds sell the most shirts (12) a year and Wakefield the least (1).

Wakefields are buying "fewer shirts" because they expect to sell less and therefore pay the highest cost per shirt price to the manufacturer.

Over the road at Headingley, Leeds buy the most expecting to sell them and pay a lower price because they are buying 12......

....now, pay attention.

Using the matrix above, Leeds pay least for 12, so how much less would they pay if they (or SL itself) were ordering 78 shirts?

This is the proposal.....SL order 78 shirts and they will pay half of what Leeds currently pay for 12 (if not less)....everybody wins

yeah but Leeds don't pay for their shirts. They are paid for them and unless a shirt supplier is willingness to pay 12 times that amount for exclusivity they would lose out

[The Parksider]

Dr Koukash today:- "Our fan base hasn't increaed in 2 years" - sounded genuinely sad about this point

 

Fan having a go:-  "We need a better marketing plan!!"

 

Dr Koukash:- "its easier said than done"

 

Isn't it just.......

[tuutaisrambo]

Football, Union, NFL, NBA, MLB.........Run by governing bodies and very successful (most have league wide sponsorship deals as mentioned above)

 

Rugby League..........Run by the clubs with the biggest clubs having the most say........not so successful.

[scotchy]

Football, Union, NFL, NBA, MLB.........Run by governing bodies and very successful (most have league wide sponsorship deals as mentioned above)

Rugby League..........Run by the clubs with the biggest clubs having the most say........not so successful.

Except the premier league is governed by the premier league not the FA. The a viva premiership is run by premier rugby and not the RFU and MLB, NBA and NFL are all owned by the clubs. Working for the clubs.

[tuutaisrambo]

That's true but they are still run by a controlling governing body.

 

Do you think the RFL can ever make Leeds or Wigan do something they don't want to?

[scotchy]

That's true but they are still run by a controlling governing body.

Do you think the RFL can ever make Leeds or Wigan do something they don't want to?

up to a point yes.

The thing is I get what you are saying and would be in complete agreement. There does need to be more of a singularity of vision more joined up thinking and less horse trading and fudging to drag half the game kicking and screaming into whatever we choose next. The problem is that is incompatible with the structure as it is at the moment. The net is too wide and too many different things are being forced through the same gaps. Competing interests from big and small are pulling the game in different directions for it to work. What's good for leeds is often at odds with what is good for Leigh which is often at odds with what is good for toulouse which is at odds with what is good for Keighley which is at odds with what is good for Oxford.

The NFL has 1 responsibility. The NFL. What is best for the NFL is best for everyone. Everyone is an equal partner in it. Internicene rows are less of a thing because (largely) teams aren't out there doing the best for themselves. But the nfl is not there doing what is best for the nfl and there is a vision of what that is.

[Bob8]

up to a point yes.

The thing is I get what you are saying and would be in complete agreement. There does need to be more of a singularity of vision more joined up thinking and less horse trading and fudging to drag half the game kicking and screaming into whatever we choose next. The problem is that is incompatible with the structure as it is at the moment. The net is too wide and too many different things are being forced through the same gaps. Competing interests from big and small are pulling the game in different directions for it to work. What's good for leeds is often at odds with what is good for Leigh which is often at odds with what is good for toulouse which is at odds with what is good for Keighley which is at odds with what is good for Oxford.

The NFL has 1 responsibility. The NFL. What is best for the NFL is best for everyone. Everyone is an equal partner in it. Internicene rows are less of a thing because (largely) teams aren't out there doing the best for themselves. But the nfl is not there doing what is best for the nfl and there is a vision of what that is.

And yet, despite being run completely differently, american football is still a sport.  The NFL is run for the benefit of the clubs, but another american football club in Green Bay or Buffalo would find that it was completely excluded from the NFL.  

[John Omally]

They are rivals in every respect, 

 

Option a;

Castleford and Wakefield join forces and combine their revenue streams to build a 15/20,000 stadium, which they will share and which will see action for 30-34 weeks of the year, whilst enabling both clubs to use state of the art office facilities maximising revenue potential and having less debt hanging over them. 

Option b:

Castleford and Wakefield decide to go it alone with 2 separate plans to build 2 new stadiums a short drive away from each other that will see action maybe 16 weekends a year and will otherwise sit their empty like a millstone of debt around each clubs necks.

 

These "rivals" as you call them have gone for option B........well, they've been going for option B for years now with no new stadiums.

[The Parksider]

Option a;

Castleford and Wakefield join forces and combine their revenue streams to build a 15/20,000 stadium, which they will share and which will see action for 30-34 weeks of the year, whilst enabling both clubs to use state of the art office facilities maximising revenue potential and having less debt hanging over them. 

Option b:

Castleford and Wakefield decide to go it alone with 2 separate plans to build 2 new stadiums a short drive away from each other that will see action maybe 16 weekends a year and will otherwise sit their empty like a millstone of debt around each clubs necks.

 

These "rivals" as you call them have gone for option B........well, they've been going for option B for years now with no new stadiums.

 

Been here many times before.

 

It's a significant if relatively short drive on the M62 from Wakey to Cas.

 

However It's not an option to put your club in another town altogether.

 

Castleford and Wakefield join forces and combine their revenue streams to build a 15/20,000 stadium,

 

Wakefield have no money spare, Castleford have no spare money but land asset in Wheldon Road.

 

Building a ground together is not an option in reality.

 

The viable option as it stands is Castleford building a ground in Castleford wiith their developer, and retain the land asset for themselves and not for Wakefield, Then they build on their 7,000 fanbase. This is the option being taken and it will involve selling season tickets in Wakefield and Featherstone, an scouting the best young players in those places.

 

This will be in the spirit of competitiveness we see in both business and sport so twice over in sporting business.

 

Option "C" is already the plan for castleford who aim to be the big club on Calder.

[Padge]

Well, quite.  That neatly sums up much of what is wrong with the way the sport is run.  The fact is, that Tesco do not open up lots of Tesco's next to each other, so they can compete and then drop one at the end of the year as that would be crazy. 

 

Instead, Tesco spread them out according to where they can prosper.  

 

Our clubs competing to prosper would make sense if they were the only form of entertainment in town, instead there is cinema, soccer, soap operas, YouTube, the pub or getting sloshed at home.  Our product is rugby league.  To promote the sport, Toulouse should be promoted and there are a few candidates to give them room.  Instead, they are shafted, because struggling clubs are scared of them taking their place.  There would be a centralised strategy, instead we have clubs fighting over scraps.

A centralised strategy is totally different to centralised marketing.

[scotchy]

Option a;

Castleford and Wakefield join forces and combine their revenue streams to build a 15/20,000 stadium, which they will share and which will see action for 30-34 weeks of the year, whilst enabling both clubs to use state of the art office facilities maximising revenue potential and having less debt hanging over them.

Option b:

Castleford and Wakefield decide to go it alone with 2 separate plans to build 2 new stadiums a short drive away from each other that will see action maybe 16 weekends a year and will otherwise sit their empty like a millstone of debt around each clubs necks.

These "rivals" as you call them have gone for option B........well, they've been going for option B for years now with no new stadiums.

I don't disagree. But the clubs are locked in a death struggle and each would rather 'win' and see themselves grow and the other die than work together. In fact large numbers would rather see themselves lose and die than work together.

[The Parksider]

I don't disagree. But the clubs are locked in a death struggle and each would rather 'win' and see themselves grow and the other die than work together. In fact large numbers would rather see themselves lose and die than work together.

 

"I will never watch a merged club"

 

very good  point......

[Bob8]

A centralised strategy is totally different to centralised marketing.

I agree.  The objections to centralised marketing have merit, but expose the stupid short shortsightedness of how the sport of run. 

[John Omally]

"I will never watch a merged club"

 

very good  point......

 

AC and Inter, Roma and Lazio, Juve and Torino....and these are clubs whose fans have been known to get a bit tasty when these clubs meet.

 

I would never suggest a "merged" club, but a stadium...1 stadium....being used for 30+ weeks instead of 15 and serving communities less than 7 miles apart (based on the 2 development sites) has to make more long term financial sense than 2 stadiums with one having the potential to be a white elephant (should wakey go down) and the other requiring a level of regular supporter attendance not seen at Castleford for generations.

 

Events at Wakefield today mean that the folly of 2 separate projects is being realised and as far as Google will tell me, Castleford aren't any closer to breaking soil than it was back in 2007.

[The Parksider]

AC and Inter, Roma and Lazio, Juve and Torino....and these are clubs whose fans have been known to get a bit tasty when these clubs meet.

 

I would never suggest a "merged" club, but a stadium...1 stadium....being used for 30+ weeks instead of 15 and serving communities less than 7 miles apart (based on the 2 development sites) has to make more long term financial sense than 2 stadiums with one having the potential to be a white elephant (should wakey go down) and the other requiring a level of regular supporter attendance not seen at Castleford for generations.

 

Events at Wakefield today mean that the folly of 2 separate projects is being realised and as far as Google will tell me, Castleford aren't any closer to breaking soil than it was back in 2007.

 

With respect there's a groundswell of opinion that using top soccer club examples doesn't carry a debate about Rugby league.

 

The two clubs struggle for fans and players, if they aren't doing well their crowds drop and their best players get picked off. Cas were relegated twice and Wakefield are regularly basement strugglers.

 

If you put two teams into one stadium that's such a clear and obvious thin end of the wedge. Once they are geographically joined then the case for merging the club will naturally come next.

 

Wakefield can't get a stadium and Cas have to pursue one the other side of Cas to Wakefield, that there's any room for a truly central site for a shared stadium isn't the case, that there's the money isn't the case, that there's even the will isn't the case.

 

So for me it's all theory, the practice is the will of the Cas board and the will of the Cas fans is to get the stadium, increase fans, increase income and fingers crossed for Wakefield to collapse, then they become the big calder club and will look forward to growing themselves as that over the next 20 years.

 

Superleague is a hard nosed competitive sports business, you are seeing it as a friendly society which is nice in theory. 

[Padge]

I agree.  The objections to centralised marketing have merit, but expose the stupid short shortsightedness of how the sport of run.

I agree with you, my first post in this topic said as much. The club's would be endlessly bickering because they fear they are getting short changed in the deal.

If it was up to me l would not let the club's have any say in how the game is run other than for on pitch items. They should be told like it or go Foxtrot Oscar.

[themainbrace]

Going back to the OP, I was going to say that it's the sort of good idea that is likely to be overlooked. 

 

Thinking about it more though isn't Blake Solly's role the first steps along this path.  At the beginning of the season he talked about achieving 10 sell outs, I assumed he was talking about individual SL games. Maybe over time his team may grow and there will be more co-operation between the clubs.