WCS latest Solly to the rescue.

[Saintslass]

Taking games away from clubs own stadia has a financial cost to it. The SL clubs already have to put up the cash to participate (around £350K I think it was this year) so taking the game away from their own ground adds even more financial burden on them because they will have to rent another stadium, miss out on the match day sales of food & drink, all in the hope they can then attract enough extra fans to cover these extra costs.

I didn't see any announcement regarding the SL clubs inputting financially this year?  However, if they did have to then I remember last year McManus claiming that Saints needed a minimum of 15,000 fans at Langtree Park to break even.  Therefore, given that 15,000 didn't turn up at LP, it can be assumed Saints lost out financially this time around, unless the sponsor's money assisted in some way.

[Dave T]

If it costs half a million a year to stage these three games, surely the tv deal for these three across Uk, Oz and NZ covers this? Added to sponsorship, these should be central events, with the risks and benefits shared across the clubs.

[bamfordsbeans]

If 15,000 is the break even figure -theres probably only Hull in addition to this years teams who can afford to stage the games.I hope the format continues but it needs a better effort from the SL teams to make it viable.

[JoneslessBishop]

Yeah there was a vote. Think it passed by 1 vote

[longboard]

Rugby love is never having to say you're Solly. 

 

 

 

[The Parksider]

If 15,000 is the break even figure -theres probably only Hull in addition to this years teams who can afford to stage the games.I hope the format continues but it needs a better effort from the SL teams to make it viable.

 

This is probably why there was no game for Huddersfield, albeit the Bulls put 19,000 in there for their 2006 triumph. 

 

Instead there was Saints picking up the game, but failing to get the alleged "15,000" break even.

 

Staying on the theme of a better effort and the declining Saints crowd being a worry, and adding in Solly's theme of how "SL clubs need these opportunities to benchmark themselves against the best NRL clubs on a regular basis"  Here is Gary Schofield:- 

 

"The game was depressing and predictable.....Saints were so bad Roosters could have won by double the 26 point margin......some of them actually gave up..... without getting out of third gear the Roosters had the game in the bag by half time before putting their cue on the rack.....Saints had a go for 10 minutes then caved in.......then they had another dig at the start of the second period before the match petered out....

 

The allegation here is Saints found it too tough to put up much of a show and Roosters stepped off the gas accordingly.  If Saints get a game next year anyone predict the crowd?

[The Parksider]

We need to persevere with the competition. We need to keep the NRL benchmark;

 

WHY???  See above.

 

Matches just do not work like that. If Roosters are stronger than Saints the Saints players efforts fall away pretty quickly. Then the Roosters stop going in so hard, lose concentration and the game drifts to nothing.

 

Mismatches surely are not an indication of anything or a help to anyone, What good are they beyond ringing the tills up as long as the fans put up with them??

 

This argument was used by Leigh fans who said that after losing 6 of 7 qualifying games by such scores as 50, 46, 36, 34 & 32 it was a real positive because they could use the benchmark to see what they needed to do to come back stronger this year.

 

Have they done it? No.

 

This "benchmark" business is the biggest load of spin going.

[deluded pom?]

Posting this from Australia. Two points not mentioned on this thread.

 

Firstly, Who would join an inferior league even for higher wages.

Plenty of footballers do it.

[The Parksider]

The salary cap increase may be a valid argument but realistically how many clubs could afford to pay more?

The argument for a lower salary cap was that that was the way to increase the standard was by creating was a level playing field so that the intensity in games was raised.

 

It was one of the arguments but a valid one anyway. 1995

 

Wigan 69 Leeds 12

Wigan 62 Halifax 6

Wigan 46 Castleford 6

Wigan 60 Bradford 34

Wigan 58 Oldham 10

Wigan 46 Widnes 12

Wigan 52 Salford 22

Wigan 55 Hull 16

Wigan 50 Warrington 20

 

Leaving the cap so low as to get a level competition, that is to the weakest club in SL will certainly not contribute to raising standards on the playing field. Nor will it help encourage clubs to strengthen themselves but continue to sit on the back of those clubs that do.

 

surely it's our strongest clubs that make the biggest contribution to our sport. At least the developing the talent pool.

 

It just seems perverse that some clubs strive to succeed at all levels, increase income streams resulting in increased focus and monies to help develop the sport, enhance the sporting brand as a whole helping the commercial and media revenues.  Yet for all that effort that they themselves do better than the other and by extension weaker clubs we penalize that ambition, drive and success.  

 

With respect I think you need to look at why some clubs have managed to find a good stadium, and why they "develop" the top players and why other clubs do not.

 

I think you will find that there is no great link to "drive and ambition". All clubs strive to develop the players all clubs strive to get themselves in good stadia.

 

Success attracts money men, it attracts players established and junior, and councils often are key to getting better grounds

 

Wigan, Leeds and Saints were top dogs in 1995, they still are so all they have done is maintain that advantage they had in 1985.

 

And in 1975........and in 1965

 

If you want to find Superleague "drive and ambition" you may have to go to France for it.

 

 

The silverware hasn't been shared around so the SC hasn't worked in that respect regardless of the limit. Only four clubs have ever won a GF and one of those is now in the Championship. This leaves Wigan, Leeds and Saints as our 'flagship' clubs. Are you suggesting we simply allow theses three clubs to spend whatever they want to on player contracts and the rest can sit back and watch them win every trophy ad infinitum? We've been there before in the mid '80s to the early '90s only it was a virtual one club monopoly. The simple fact is we don't have enough clubs capable of spending the type of money you are hinting at. We have to cut our cloth accordingly or do we simply cull clubs who can't cut it until we end up with a three team division?

 

Very good post.

 

SL has it's failures but my goodness they do not sit on the back of anyone.

 

At Widnes Steve O'Connor has turned round a club who were down and out, Fartown have been resurrected from the near dead as have Hull FC who were a second tier club on 3,000 crowds, HKR were once a third tier club and look at them now. Salford have the stadium and a handsome demolition of the precious Saints just the other week.

 

You will see FAR MORE drive and ambition and real achievement amongst the "lesser" SL clubs.

 

If Saints Leeds and Wigan were falsely rewarded with higher salary caps because 50 years at the top has meant plenty of investment and local amateurs playing then be careful about how those who genuinely strive to reach the same level will react.

 

It will probably be time for Hudgell to give up. O'Connor may as well go, why should Carter work so hard just to be kicked in the teeth, Koukash won't put up with it, and we could easily see several clubs entering insolvency proceedings

 

Pom's "three team division"

[Dave T]

The 15k number should be dismissed.

 

We could play on a field with nobody watching if a sponsor is prepared to pay a million quid to host it.

 

There are so many variables that 15k breakeven for one team is completely different for another.

 

Warrington last year got 13k but charged a hell of a lot more for tickets. They also sold a limited edition kit for the game. They also sold out all the hospitality for it.

 

In reality not many of us will know the costs of staging a game, but they will differ massively by club I expect - but I would be stunned if a club couldn't make a return on a 10k crowd - which really should be the bare minimum for these games anyway.

 

I do still hold the view that the risk and reward should be shared across all SL clubs anyway though.

[Sco77]

I think that the salary cap must be raised. If only to ensure we keep our best youngsters that are currently coming through.

More to the point, the grass roots system HAS TO CHANGE!

If the RFL arranged rugby league tournaments for schools in as many towns as possible, and had a prize fund for the winner of say £500-£1000 to the winning school. As well as £50 to each team for entering. (These tournaments could be played before pro matches or at half time even, to replace all of the hideous dancing that currently gets displayed. I for one would love to watch junior games) All of a sudden, the head teachers of the schools (both primary and secondary) would be thinking about playing more "inter school" rugby matches. As that prize money would really help the schools budgets.

This would then entice young kids who have never played the game other than maybe in P.E. Lessons before to actually have a go, and if they like it, they would naturally filter into the local amateur clubs. Giving us a bigger player pool.

It staggers me how hardly any secondary schools play inter schools rugby league matches!

Next I would bring back junior town teams. Maybe from u11s or u12s. One of my fondest memories with rugby was representing Warrington against Widnes at Rylands as an u12-13 player.

The clubs should have 1 (or 2 if possible) town teams, to enable more players to have the opportunity where that they can play regular games against neighbouring towns. Not only would this give the younger players something to aim for, and give them a chance to play alongside players from other amateur clubs, but it would also give a chance for the pro clubs to start to build profiles on potential players, without putting any pressure on them during the younger ages. Not to mention give more players invaluable advice about their development.

Next I would increase the amount of players that the pro clubs can recruit during the 13-15 years old bracket.

I think at the minute they are only allowed to have approx 20 players signed per age group. Now i understand that this is partly to stop certain clubs from stockpiling players, but if each pro club could have 2 teams per age group, not only does it give the pro clubs longer to watch players. But it also gives more players the experience to be part of the pro setup, in a competitive environment. Not just being invited to the pro clubs for training and 1 match after 12 weekly seasons, like what currently happens. How many times have we all heard lately about superstars not being picked up at trials etc??

[The Parksider]

We could play on a field with nobody watching if a sponsor is prepared to pay a million quid to host it.

 

That's a good point, anyone know how much Dacia will put up for how long?? 

 

I'm fully behind Solly if he's making money for the game, well done as I've already said.

 

To be fair to him he states "a great opportunity.......to grow revenues........."

[redjonn]

NRL may or may not think its a worthwhile investment in their time and effort. One thing I would have thought they would also consider in the equation:

 

Its a good advertisement for their game/NRL and the extra exposure here may increase the interest and TV eyeballs watching their game. Leading to increased TV audience which may further increase media and commercial interest to the NRL.

 

So one may be correct that they consider the quality of competition poor, but that in itself may well lead to increase in people wanting to watch the sport (namely the NRL) played at the highest level from here in the UK.

 

Maybe that's part of one of their strategic goals.  At least if I was an administrator of the NRL it seems at no cost a good way of enhancing coverage in NRL.   The TV numbers increasing or not from UK may well be something to look at for them.  Certainly if I was an administrator of the NRL I would be thinking wouldn't it be great if we could get those Poms supporting one of our teams, all-be-it initially as second team but then we will be continue driving that wedge and it may become their main team   A sort of NFL american football approach.

 

So maybe they see long term advantage and it don't cost them anything anyway.

[redjonn]

That's a good point, anyone know how much Dacia will put up for how long?? 

 

I'm fully behind Solly if he's making money for the game, well done as I've already said.

 

To be fair to him he states "a great opportunity.......to grow revenues........."

 

The hospitality at Headingley was jam-packed, full to overflowing so to speak. Dacia executives seemed happy at the coverage and number of companies in the various suites/rooms. That may well be part of their considerations in addition to retail consumers.  

[JoneslessBishop]

Good point Redjonn. All the NRL teams put their hand up to come this year as they se the benefits of interntional competition in the NRL's TV negotiations. They didn't come as they were desperate to test themselves against SL competition. I think most would have anticipated pretty big wins on the field.

Therefore, as they are doing this as a marketing activity, I think we can be confident it will continue, especially as 2 teams will be going to Oz from now on, making it hassle free for 2 NRL teams

[deluded pom?]

 2 teams will be going to Oz from now on

Has that been confirmed?

[The Parksider]

Its a good advertisement for their game/NRL and the extra exposure here may increase the interest and TV eyeballs watching their game. Leading to increased TV audience which may further increase media and commercial interest to the NRL.

 

So one may be correct that they consider the quality of competition poor, but that in itself may well lead to increase in people wanting to watch the sport (namely the NRL) played at the highest level from here in the UK.

 

Not for me

 

Good point Redjonn. All the NRL teams put their hand up to come this year as they se the benefits of interntional competition in the NRL's TV negotiations. They didn't come as they were desperate to test themselves against SL competition. I think most would have anticipated pretty big wins on the field.

Therefore, as they are doing this as a marketing activity, I think we can be confident it will continue, especially as 2 teams will be going to Oz from now on, making it hassle free for 2 NRL teams

 

Not for me.

 

The fabulous World cup we ran saw all sorts of people getting interested in the sport, thousands who came and bought tickets and went to games.

 

Dozens of posts on here expecting crowds to boom the following season and they didn't.

 

Dave T has the most logical answer, Dacia pay a load of money out for their name to be emblazoned at grounds and on TV.

 

So the RFL oblige Dacia with a tournament. It's probably as simple as that.

 

This competition may last as long as Dacia lasts.

[JoneslessBishop]

The tournament was here before Dacia Parky. Do you really think the Aussies came out of a benevolent desire to boost the game, or really thought playing SL teams in the other side of the world was the best sporting or logistical preparation for their domestic seasons? No, it was for their own commercial reason. The financial incentive from the RFL was the same as last season, but this season all the clubs wanted to come, and that was due to the NRL TV negotiations. They need interntional RL.

It seems facts at 'not for' you. Willing to bend em to keep your agenda running

[JoneslessBishop]

Deluded Pom, head of the NRL suggested that is the way the tournament should go and the RFL were quick to support the view. With both organizations on board, and Aussie clubs keen to come here, what's to stop games happening over there?

[The Parksider]

The tournament was here before Dacia Parky. Do you really think the Aussies came out of a benevolent desire to boost the game, or really thought playing SL teams in the other side of the world was the best sporting or logistical preparation for their domestic seasons? No, it was for their own commercial reason. The financial incentive from the RFL was the same as last season, but this season all the clubs wanted to come, and that was due to the NRL TV negotiations. They need interntional RL.

It seems facts at 'not for' you. Willing to bend em to keep your agenda running

 

Happy to accept your point on the Dacia thing and withdraw mine, but you must get off this "agenda" thing aping others, whatever it is? 

 

If your argument/"agenda" is strong enough it doesn't need you to make silly accusations like that.

 

Mr. Sadler was at it with his published "agenda" comment that "Fans seem to take an almost perverse delight in english teams being beaten easily". Really??

 

Enough of his fellow media commentators as he does worry that the lopsided score lines in the end are not good for the future of the tournament. 

 

I simply share the worry that once the NRL started taking our best players crowds reduced, now they are whitewashing us three times over with a fourth game mooted, I worry that these high profile games are enough to get British people taking notice yes, but what do they conclude??

 

Schoey concludes that the games showed Superleague to be as big a step down from the NRL as the championship is from Superleague. So does that say to the British public whether current fans or potential fans that to go watch Superleague is to watch something second rate??

 

If you want people contriving arguments due to an agenda just look at the posts arguing that crowds at the WCC/WCS haven't gone down, wow that's a king sized "agenda".

 

If my "agenda" is in the long run these game could be counter productive by confirming ESL as a poor product then I have one. We can get away with the WCC as it was, a weakened Leeds went in at half time level with the Aussie champions - that was a triumph of sorts, that was great.

 

But like the commentators in the media are saying (from their "agendas") it can't go on if we just get thrashed across the board. What's wrong with that view???

[JoneslessBishop]

The reason I suggest an agenda Parky is that you have run a string that is full of non-warranted criticism of the World Club Series i.e. Leeds crowds are down, failing to accept the obvious fact that prior crowds you site were full of neutral fans at Elland Road compared to just Leeds fans at headingley, and that its just an RFL are running a tournament for Dacia (who I don't believe sell cars in Australia) despite it pre dating that sponsor, and the NRL being fully behind the project to the extent they want to joint host it.

To me filling a thread with unwarranted criticism is to clearly have agenda.

Rugby League desperately needs strong interntional competitions to grow and attract interntional commercial partners (such as Dacia). What it doesn't need is fans filling forums with negativity that discourage attendance and thus the development of our sport.

Sadler's comment is quite funny, but a little unfounded. Wigan and Warrington came very close to winning last season, so fans came out in hope this season, especially after England had beaten a NZ team full of NRL players. Not in perverse delight

[The Parksider]

1. The reason I suggest an agenda Parky is that you have run a string that is full of non-warranted criticism of the World Club Series i.e. Leeds crowds are down, failing to accept the obvious fact that prior crowds you site were full of neutral fans at Elland Road compared to just Leeds fans at headingley, and that its just an RFL are running a tournament for Dacia (who I don't believe sell cars in Australia) despite it pre dating that sponsor, and the NRL being fully behind the project to the extent they want to joint host it.To me filling a thread with unwarranted criticism is to clearly have agenda.

2. Rugby League desperately needs strong interntional competitions to grow and attract interntional commercial partners (such as Dacia).

 

3. What it doesn't need is fans filling forums with negativity that discourage attendance and thus the development of our sport.

4. Sadler's comment is quite funny, but a little unfounded. Wigan and Warrington came very close to winning last season, so fans came out in hope this season, especially after England had beaten a NZ team full of NRL players. Not in perverse delight

 

1. Thank you for the reply

 

Lets therefore get it straight that my "agenda" in running this thread was to have a discussion on the WCC/WCS based  on the various strong viewpoints voiced in the media especially Lockwood's, Sadler's, and Schofield's. Not evereyone can stretch to buying these weeklies, so to share the comments on a thread makes for a good lively debate  which is what this forum is about.

 

As for the evidence of "failing to accept an obvious fact" it's a fact the crowds have gone down year on year. It's a fact Headingley didn't sell out. We agree to disagree maybe because my clear agenda is obviously opposite to your clear agenda.

 

2. How are two series in which comparable crowds have dropped and in which we lost all six five by big scores "strong international competition".

 

Remember what strong international competition really is - Australia .v.Great Britain. So why do we indulge the NRL clubs whilst they can't be bothered with the tests?

 

3. So is your agenda based on the idea that if Fans Forums have negativity it will impact on attendances???

 

Wow!! that is some agenda. I link reduced attendances to our top players going to the NRL and our top clubs clubs being thrashed by the NRL clubs - because this is all in the sporting public's gaze.

 

It's going some to think a dedicated tiny number of fans debating on a fans forum has any effect on crowds but if you decide it's a "fact"?  Tell me honestly, would you really have this forum organised so nobody would be allowed to say anything that you think puts the game in a bad light??

 

4. I don't know what point you make there but you seem to indicate that next year fans won't be coming in the same number because after three thrashings all hope is lost - that's what you seem to say?

[deluded pom?]

Deluded Pom, head of the NRL suggested that is the way the tournament should go and the RFL were quick to support the view. With both organizations on board, and Aussie clubs keen to come here, what's to stop games happening over there?

Nothing, I just asked if it had been confirmed.

[JoneslessBishop]

Parky:

1. I challenged Sadlers assertion, but we can cover that under 4. Schofield is nothing more than a shock-jock who makes a living criticizing everything and everyone with his 'everything was better in my day' assertions.

Leeds not selling out is one thing, but comparing Headigley crowds with Elland Road onnes is willful misrepresentation. It was a good crowd by Leeds standards. A slight decrease in the crowds and results should not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

2. The concept, as strong international competition, should be viewed over time. Given the expansion of the competition, and it's traction with the Aussies and commercial partners, why be so negative? Everyone is on-side in a sport that has previously struggled to maintain interntional competitions and attract sponsors.

I don't really care that the Aussies pulled out of last seasons series. Player welfare is a good enough reason. We still had meaningful, strong international competition in front of near-sell out crowds. We beat the worlds number 1 nation 2-1. Very competitive.The Aussies are committed to the WCS, and the head of the NRL sits on the board of the RLIF, which has unveiled a permanent competitive structure that is as big as anything we have ever seen. And the benefit of it is that outside of World Cups and Confed Cups being played every 2 years, national federations have the scope to organise their own tours. So if the Aussie players union want a rest every four years, then there can be a England NZ tour 1 year and an England Oz 2 years later.

3. There is no doubt that social media plays a very important role in th sports marketing world, especially within RL where there is a very loyal and engaged core support, upon whom ventures succeed or fail. Social media won't be the primary key, but will have an influence. Everyone has the right to say what they' want on it, but with rights come responsibilities, and for those who really care about our sport, they should recognise what an impact negativity can have. I'll be interested to see what positive post you have to make in coming weeks.

4. My point was evident. Sadler was being too negative. You extrapolate my positive view of fans this year to a negative view next year. Very in keeping with your agenda. I'd hope all RL fans stick with the WCS as its a key part of keeping the cash-rich Ausies and current and new commercial partners.

[The Parksider]

Parky:

1. Schofield is nothing more than a shock-jock who makes a living criticizing everything and everyone with his 'everything was better in my day' assertions.

2. Leeds not selling out is one thing, but comparing Headigley crowds with Elland Road onnes is willful misrepresentation.

3. The concept, as strong international competition, should be viewed over time. Everyone is on-side in a sport that has previously struggled to maintain interntional competitions and attract sponsors.

4. I don't really care that the Aussies pulled out of last seasons series. We still had meaningful, strong international competition in front of near-sell out crowds. 

5. There is no doubt that social media plays a very important role in th sports marketing world, especially within RL where there is a very loyal and engaged core support, upon whom ventures succeed or fail. I'll be interested to see what positive posts you have to make in coming weeks.

6. You extrapolate my positive view of fans this year to a negative view next year. Very in keeping with your agenda. 

 

Thanks for the response!!

 

1. You can't just dismiss Mr. Schofield views, one of the modern greats with a character assassination. Deal with his points. He is saying the standard of the top SL clubs has been dropping over the years and it's a fair point. Solly himelf accepts this hence the raising salary cap issue.

 

2. Well let me make it clear that the Elland Road crowds dropped year on year. They did.Then the game was moved to headingley and the crowds have continued to drop.

 

Whilst we disagree on the 17,000 staying at home point, you wish to continue to argue, you fail to accept that WITHOUT comparing the two venues crowds have seperately dropped in both venues do you agree?

 

3. The point here is do we have the time or will crowds drop again and the gap in standards continue? This is the fear of a series of pundits in the RL press. It's not my point.

 

However I agree with it just as I fear that in giving the qualifiers method of P & R "time" we just dig a bigger hole. There is a mantra that we make short term changes because we change something then abandon it quickly. This is a criticism that forgets that persevering with a bad idea is probably a worse thing to do.

 

4. Exactly and so we finish a great SL season with the Grand Final Wigan.v.Leeds, We beat the New Zealanders in a test series, Leeds take the Cowboys to 4-4 at half time and Headingley was rocking......

 

That was all great and we'd have been getting into this 2016 season on three big highs.

 

The downside was overdoing the the WCC and turning it into a series. None of the criticisms and worries would have been laid bare to the sporting public if the RFL hadn't overdone it.

 

5. You over do "social media". This is just a website for RL enthusiasts. As for a challenge to come up with "positive posts" do you mean posts where I spin something as wonderful when it's a turkey.

 

Check out this post. Superleague 2015 was GREAT, the Grand Final was GREAT the NZ series was GREAT and the WCS Final was GREAT.   The extended WCS was NOT GREAT. so on the whole I'm very positive.

 

6. You clearly said there were fans who came out in hope of good even games because Wigan and Warrington went close last year. Well nobody went close this year so what are you saying if not that those people won't come out next year because it wasn't close this??

 

Thanks for the well mannered disagreement we can beg to differ........