Are Leeds too big a club to be relegated?

[Konkrete]

Another thing to bear in mind is that Leeds are the only SL club based in a major UK city. I would be interested to see if those who are so nonchalant about their possible relegation would complain when our game is pushed even further to the margins of the media. Being perceived as a northern game is bad enough, being a small-town northern game we may as well give up on any kind of national media attention.

Spot on.

[Padge]

Saints had a pretty big "exceptional item" in 2013/14 that accounts for the vast majority of the £1M loss and that was for the new cladding around the stadium. They were going through arbitration with the Architects over the 'defect' in the original design so are expecting to get the majority of this money back.

Even if they dont its not a real impact on the financial stability of the club because the board of drectors covered these costs.

 

As a whole, Saints are in a pretty strong financial position now as they have their own stadium and no external creditors. The only money they owe is in 'Directors loans' to the current board. Like Warrington they've invested heavily in new training facilities in the last few years and also took over and invested in the stadium catering after the business that was running it got into financial difficulties.

 

Okay so they're not making huge profits (though they are expecting to make a profit in 2015/16), and dont have huge wads of cash sat in the bank, but the wealth of their directors and their willingness to invest their own money in the club wjhen required puts the club in a good position.

 

This is exactly the point I was making, directors deciding to invest in facilities that become assets in the way that Saints and Wigan are doing (and others) is what is vital to the game. The directors running these clubs realise that the future is not in spending in quick burn out assets (players) but long term slow return facilities for spectators and players. Clubs with the ability to do this are few and far between, we need more and a lot further between.

[The Parksider]

Despite Bradford being relegated, the game goes on.

Despite Rangers being relegated, the game goes on.

We overthink things.

 

So as long as there's 12 clubs in SL regardless of who they are, and what facilities and resources they have, and what attendances they draw the game goes on does it?

 

Does it go on with a static or reduced TV deal, does it go on with no TV deal at all??

 

Does it go on once it's back to semi pro, and no decent players play it anymore as there's no money in it, Does it go on as a small regional amateur game played on the park pitches.

 

Of course it does. 

 

But the business deteriorates - of course it does.

 

I would be interested to see if those who are so nonchalant about their possible relegation would complain when our game is pushed even further to the margins of the media. Being perceived as a northern game is bad enough, being a small-town northern game we may as well give up on any kind of national media attention.

 

Exactly.......

 

I think too many people under think this, Superleague is a business that is underfunded and clubs are often on the brink so the underlying business strength is highly important.

 

Rangers is soccer, soccer is never a good comparison.

 

If Leeds go down they face being stopped from coming back up through a lesser salary cap like Bradford.

 

I'm sure the value of the SPL would plummet if Celtic and Rangers were not there with their big derby games and crowds. Bradford/Leeds used to pull in crowds well in excess of 20,000

 

I'd be sure the TV companies would not stand for Hamilton Academicals being allowed to stay in the SPL by the SPL restricting Rangers spending in the division below.

 

As Padge says we need strong businesses in SL this needs some proper thought.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

This discussion is all a bit academic - even the current mis-firing Leeds outfit would tear the middle eights to shreds.

[Oxford]

In a very interesting post Parky I noticed this,

 

".....when a club that is far less of an assett to Superleague just won in a heavily loaded game."

 

heavily loaded in what sense?

[MikeW]

In a very interesting post Parky I noticed this,

 

".....when a club that is far less of an assett to Superleague just won in a heavily loaded game."

 

heavily loaded in what sense?

I would guess in the sense that the four SL middle eight clubs have a cap of super league proportions whilst the Championship clubs have a championship sized one but they then play on a "level" playing field.  Also the super league players have been in a much tougher competition prior to the start of the middle eights so are possibly more prepared for the step down in competition than the step up the champ clubs face.

[Oxford]

I would guess in the sense that the four SL middle eight clubs have a cap of super league proportions whilst the Championship clubs have a championship sized one but they then play on a "level" playing field.  Also the super league players have been in a much tougher competition prior to the start of the middle eights so are possibly more prepared for the step down in competition than the step up the champ clubs face.

But in reference to which particular game which is what Parky seemed to say?

[Dave T]

1 - So as long as there's 12 clubs in SL regardless of who they are, and what facilities and resources they have, and what attendances they draw the game goes on does it?

 

2 - Does it go on with a static or reduced TV deal, does it go on with no TV deal at all??

 

3 - Does it go on once it's back to semi pro, and no decent players play it anymore as there's no money in it, Does it go on as a small regional amateur game played on the park pitches.

 

4 - Of course it does. 

 

5 - But the business deteriorates - of course it does.

 

 

6 - I think too many people under think this, Superleague is a business that is underfunded and clubs are often on the brink so the underlying business strength is highly important.

 

7 - Rangers is soccer, soccer is never a good comparison.

 

8 - If Leeds go down they face being stopped from coming back up through a lesser salary cap like Bradford.

 

9 - I'm sure the value of the SPL would plummet if Celtic and Rangers were not there with their big derby games and crowds. Bradford/Leeds used to pull in crowds well in excess of 20,000

 

10 - I'd be sure the TV companies would not stand for Hamilton Academicals being allowed to stay in the SPL by the SPL restricting Rangers spending in the division below.

 

11 - As Padge says we need strong businesses in SL this needs some proper thought.

1 - Yes. It does.

 

2 - It wasn't reduced without the Bulls or London in it, something we were told would happen (with London).

 

3 - there is no reason that would happen because Leeds have a bad season, in the same way it hasn't happened without Bradford in SL.

 

4 - your scenario simply won't happen. There is zero evidence to suggest it will. Not one iota.

 

5 - Maybe so, but that brings us onto my main point here, that the comp is setup for clubs like Leeds to be a success. They get the biggest crowds in the league - have a massive turnover, a very good stadium, a great youth structure and plenty of investment. Even if for pure sporting reasons they did actually find themselves relegated, they should absolutely be strong enough to come back up. This is not the same as the Bradford Bulls, who found themselves where they are due to funding issues, rather than Leeds' issue of losing a couple of almost irreplaceable players.

 

If this discussion was about investors pulling out of Leeds and them being in financial difficulty I would have more agreement with your view. That is what would be terrible for the sport.

 

6 - So imho point 6 is not a big issue. This isn't about Leeds as a club struggling, this is about them losing a few games. They are not a Halifax, or Workington, or Oldham, or even Bradford.

 

7 - Scottish soccer is more reliant on just a couple of clubs than SL is, Scottish Football is not a bad comparison for some things with RL. Plenty of small clubs who struggle to get great income.

 

8 - Bradford's issue though is more around the funding again. Leeds would be able to utilise a high cap. If you think the cap would stop them getting promotion, then how did they get relegated in the first place if the cap is a barrier to promotion?

 

9 - It has, but Scottish football is even more extreme than SL. Leeds and Bradford used to get 20k (I think they even peaked at 24k) - but they also used to get 11k for those games.

 

10 - That situation isn't happening. If it is then they won't be relegated using your theory, so nothing to worry about.

 

11 - we can have a strong business with or without any individual clubs. If not, then tbh, our business is even weaker than we think. 10 years ago had we been having this discussion about Bradford, I'm sure you'd have used your point about becoming semi-pro and being based on parks. That didn't happen. Sure we'd rather have 10k at Bradford than 3-4k at some of the grounds, but that 10k should have allowed clubs to be stronger than a 3k one.

[Exiled Wiganer]

Wigan were very near to relegation 10 years ago (and were relegated just after I started watching them). It was a memorable season and our crowds rose - all dramas need some jeopardy. The club would have been fine and the game would have been fine had we been relegated. It would take Leeds many years away from the top table for their deep roots to be eroded sufficiently for them to be at risk of not coming back strongly.

[Dave T]

J word alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Parksider]

But in reference to which particular game which is what Parky seemed to say?

 

Leeds end up in the same place as Bradford i.e. the Championship.Leeds then end up with a decimated team as the best players stay in Superleague and Leeds can't find any decent players to replace them and if they could they are salary capped below the SL clubs.

 

Same scenario as Bradford have suffered.

 

Then when they have to play a play off against an SL club to get back up, even a woeful one, they are at a major disadvantage, so instead of returning to being a big assett to Superleague they end up trapped in the Championship.

 

It would be worth looking at what a superleague would look like with the 12 best supported clubs against a superleague that had lost say both Bradford and Leeds. Two different Superleague average attendance figures could be extrapolated.

 

2003 would be a good example when Bradford and Leeds were by far the two best supported clubs. take out their attendances and pop in Leigh and Salfords both clubs whom went up into SL just after that year.

 

Then you would see a massive nett loss in paying fans, and that could be further extrapolated to losses in consequent years. But if we believe sport is sport then paying fans don't matter, however this daft system was entirely about that.

 

OK Mr. O?

[The Parksider]

Wigan were very near to relegation. The club would have been fine and the game would have been fine had we been relegated. It would take Leeds many years away from the top table for their deep roots to be eroded sufficiently for them to be at risk of not coming back strongly.

 

The current system is keeping a big club with a rich owner away from the top table............

 

I'm fine with the lot of them being relegated but this isn't soccer.

 

Relegated clubs lose their best players to SL because SL has the money and they get that from SKY.

 

This system can ruin a big club by stopping it building a team adequate to return to SL whilst handing a relatively massive subsidy to busted flushes like Wakefield.

 

SKY bosses will now know full well they are subsidising mega failure at the expense of clubs with rich owners.

 

This situation is a business situation and is nothing to do with sport. In Short Wakey are being subbed by SKY to stop Bradford getting back in SL. Madness.

 

Thousands of paying fans lost to the game year on year and Marc Green's money stays in his pocket whilst penniless Carter swans about in SL.

[Oxford]

"OK Mr. O?"

 

Well, no Mr.P! (sounds like a musichall double act!)

 

".....when a club that is far less of an assett to Superleague just won in a heavily loaded game." What I wanted to know was which game was that one, that's all!

 

 

 

196

[Spidey]

Losing a Leeds to the SL would be detrimental to the overall numbers - however their loss would only be felt at one game per season for the other 11 "businesses" in SL it'd probably be only for one season - players have shown loyalty to Leeds for some time I doubt there'd be a mass exodus and will find themselves back in SL soon enough

The clubs that would benefit would be the Championship clubs - a big club like Leeds could boost that fixture a la Rangers

Not that I think for one minute Leeds will find themselves relegated - however if you accept a P&R environment you need to accept the risk of losing a big club (eg Leeds) as well as the reward of maybe gaining one (eg Bradford) - otherwise you're back to licencing

[yipyee]

This discussion is all a bit academic - even the current mis-firing Leeds outfit would tear the middle eights to shreds.

wakey just beat them, Huddersfield ran them close with half a team and dodgy ref decision for final try, we will see about hull kr this weekend....if cas fall into the bottom 4 they also beat Leeds....

Leigh ran them close with a weaker side than their current one and Leeds had a stronger side...again a wrong decision in the final 2mins costing Leigh the game....

I dont see how you can be so confident that the middle 8s would be a breeze!

[Adeybull]

If Leeds WERE to get relegated - and there is no WAY on this planet that is ever going to happen given the still-vast gulf in quality between them and the likely other SL and Championship contenders - then they would be straight back up ANYWAY the following season.

 

Reason?  Following the Leigh precedent, they would lodge a bond or whatever with the RFL to underwrite them being able to continue to spend the SL salary cap amount.  The RFL would thus allow them to so spend.  They would blow everyone away in the Championships and then in the Middle Eights, and back up we come.  And Leeds are so strong financially that they could easily accommodate a temporary knock.

 

And Big Nige and co would be ecstatic, because (in their strange, parallel universe) it would vindicate their new system.  Even if it made for a joke of a Championship that year.

 

I can't help but feel that this is precisely what they had in mind for Bradford to do last season?  Except they sort of overlooked the impact of the massive cut in salary cap, and the massive impact of loss of income (after effectively little the relegation year before as well) and the fact that Green is a sensible businessman and no starry-eyed sugar daddy.  Plus of course the "spend above the cap if you can prove you can afford it" rule was not then in place. 

 

Bulls were beyond broke when they were relegated. Absent a sugar daddy, or a SL club in meltdown (a one-off event that so nearly allowed the impossible) IMO this guaranteed once down you have very little chance of crawling back. If Leeds WERE to be relegated (NEVER HAPPEN!!!) they are financially secure and strong enough to get straight back.

[The Parksider]

which game 

 

Wakey.v.Brad

[yipyee]

Leeds vs Bradford in the million pound game....

now THAT would sell out Odsal!!!

[The Parksider]

Losing a Leeds to the SL would be detrimental to the overall numbers - however their loss would only be felt at one game per season for the other 11 "businesses" in SL

Not that I think for one minute Leeds will find themselves relegated - however if you accept a P&R environment you need to accept the risk of losing a big club (eg Leeds) as well as the reward of maybe gaining one (eg Bradford) - otherwise you're back to licencing

 

Bradford used to have 15.000 paying customers a game and a lot went to away games and at Leeds they used to bring more fans than Leigh actually have.

 

Remember when Leeds had one bad season? It wiped 4,000 fans off their average.

 

The nett loss of paying fans to the game if Leeds went down and could not get back up would be immense, as it is with Bradford.

 

Let them go down that's sport, but don't block their return and salary cap them out of the only chance they have to return, that's bad business.....

[Spidey]

Bradford used to have 15.000 paying customers a game and a lot went to away games and at Leeds they used to bring more fans than Leigh actually have.

Remember when Leeds had one bad season? It wiped 4,000 fans off their average.

The nett loss of paying fans to the game if Leeds went down and could not get back up would be immense, as it is with Bradford.

Let them go down that's sport, but don't block their return and salary cap them out of the only chance they have to return, that's bad business.....

Leeds take about 2k to say Warrington

Wire will average at least 10k per game

That's 110,000 for the season

Nett loss to Warrington means they'd end up with 108,000 - hardly an impact to them - 2%

[terrywebbisgod]

wakey just beat them, Huddersfield ran them close with half a team and dodgy ref decision for final try, we will see about hull kr this weekend....if cas fall into the bottom 4 they also beat Leeds....

Leigh ran them close with a weaker side than their current one and Leeds had a stronger side...again a wrong decision in the final 2mins costing Leigh the game....

I dont see how you can be so confident that the middle 8s would be a breeze!

Did Saints beat Leeds?It's also amazing how many games win from "dodgy decisions".

Leeds certainly have the talent to breeze the middle 8. Whether they will remains to be seen.

[The Parksider]

(The SKY contract) wasn't reduced without the Bulls or London in it...............

 

The SKY contract was paid at a slightly higher annual rate and extended to 5 years on the basis that Superleague was £68,000,000 in debt.

 

How good was it? Five top clubs thought it was a very poor contract and Koukash thought it was terrible and voted against it.

 

It was signed in January 2014 when Bradford and London WERE IN SL so contractually SKY could not reduce the contract without breaking it. So I think you have that all wrong?

 

How dismayed SKY are with Bradford trapped outside of SL and how more dismayed they would be if Leeds went  is pretty darn obvious.

 

But you probably won't be able to find that out at the next contract 2019 because the RFL (If they are allowed to negotiate it then) probably won't dare continue a system that hasn't delivered the paying fans promised and has lost many paying fans at one of the best supported clubs.

[Lobbygobbler]

Leeds take about 2k to say Warrington

Wire will average at least 10k per game

That's 110,000 for the season

Nett loss to Warrington means they'd end up with 108,000 - hardly an impact to them - 2%

Depends on the location and away support of a replacement team. Leeds away support is nowhere near as high as it should be with regards to home support.

Leigh would take 4k to Wire, so would actually be beneficial to Wire.

I dont think Leeds will go down, but it is great thinking about it! If they end up in the middle 8s it would be great crowdwise and the thought of them playing the Bulls is mouthwatering

[Oxford]

Wakey.v.Brad

Thanks Parky!

 

I hate to say this but I'd like to see Bulls back in SL but they don't seem like the same club at all to me!

There's something definitely missing!

 

I don't like to choose between clubs for P-R much better to let the system and its rules and what happens on the pitch decide that!

[Dave T]

1 - The SKY contract was paid at a slightly higher annual rate and extended to 5 years on the basis that Superleague was £68,000,000 in debt.

 

2 - How good was it? Five top clubs thought it was a very poor contract and Koukash thought it was terrible and voted against it.

 

3 - It was signed in January 2014 when Bradford and London WERE IN SL so contractually SKY could not reduce the contract without breaking it. So I think you have that all wrong?

 

4 - How dismayed SKY are with Bradford trapped outside of SL and how more dismayed they would be if Leeds went  is pretty darn obvious.

 

1 - Not sure why you keep quoting the £68m number, it is of no relevance. Clubs have always had debt, there just so happened to be a feature from George Riley on this one. 

 

2 - which top 5 clubs? I only ever saw Koukash and I think Lenegan openly critical of it. Those clubs signed the deal. Evidence on this?

 

3 - Fair point about the Bulls and London being in, got my dates mixed up.

 

4 - It is not the system that is trapping Bradford using your logic it couldn't trap Leeds. What you are basically saying is that Leeds may get trapped, but to do that one of Leigh, Fev, London etc would have to be promoted in the first place - therefore proving that the system does not trap clubs.