Radders - RFL, financial strategy

[Odsal Outlaw]

Radders getting a lot of grief on this thread, but I think he makes some valid points.  Our resource allocation is poor, our auditing of those resources even poorer and the decision to spend £100k's on a trip to Dubai with half a squad and no coach when we can't fund development officers was ridiculous. 

Personslly i think it was refreshing to see someone challenge the status quo.

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

Radders getting a lot of grief on this thread, but I think he makes some valid points.  Our resource allocation is poor, our auditing of those resources even poorer and the decision to spend £100k's on a trip to Dubai with half a squad and no coach when we can't fund development officers was ridiculous. 

Personally i think it was refreshing to see someone challenge the status quo.

I agree he makes some valid and necessary points but his perspective is SL and coach biased. It's bound to be because everything revolves around his livelihood and ability to maintain his position. That's natural and normal but needs to be remembered as the context of his statements.

It is also true to say that some people seem to be allowed to challenge the status quo and some are, shall we say er .......not?

[Adeybull]

2 hours ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

Radders getting a lot of grief on this thread, but I think he makes some valid points.  Our resource allocation is poor, our auditing of those resources even poorer and the decision to spend £100k's on a trip to Dubai with half a squad and no coach when we can't fund development officers was ridiculous. 

Personslly i think it was refreshing to see someone challenge the status quo.

Indeed.

But he blew it by getting his facts so spectacularly wrong.  Now, all folk have been talking about is how badly he screwed up.  Not about the other, more substantive points he made?

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

Radders getting a lot of grief on this thread, but I think he makes some valid points.  Our resource allocation is poor, our auditing of those resources even poorer and the decision to spend £100k's on a trip to Dubai with half a squad and no coach when we can't fund development officers was ridiculous. 

Personslly i think it was refreshing to see someone challenge the status quo.

He said nothing new, but got his facts very wrong. Nothing impressive in that in the slightest.

[Odsal Outlaw]

5 hours ago, Adeybull said:

Indeed.

But he blew it by getting his facts so spectacularly wrong.  Now, all folk have been talking about is how badly he screwed up.  Not about the other, more substantive points he made?

All people on this thread are talking about is the inaccurate 40% fact. Will the wider RL community? Probably not.  They'll just take the general theme of the message that I referenced which really is the RFL being poor and yes, they might mis quote the 40% number occasionally.  

The positive for me is that more people are starting to challenge the competence of the RFL.

[Lowdesert]

20 minutes ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

All people on this thread are talking about is the inaccurate 40% fact. Will the wider RL community? Probably not.  They'll just take the general theme of the message that I referenced which really is the RFL being poor and yes, they might mis quote the 40% number occasionally.  

The positive for me is that more people are starting to challenge the competence of the RFL.

A few points made me post the OP.  The percentages - were they right?  the audit thing and where allocated money was spent.  Seems the percentages quote was wrong but questioning the audit just shows, to me, that whole process hasn't been made clear.  

As long as Hull achieve the audit requirements, it is for Hull, themselves to develop it to whatever level they want.  It is their system and the auditor will audit accordingly and make recommendations or observations for correction or improvement.  LR can add as much as he likes for the better.

To make a comment regarding clubs spend of allocated money must, imo, be aimed at someone.  Maybe HKR after the defeat!

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

All people on this thread are talking about is the inaccurate 40% fact. Will the wider RL community? Probably not.  They'll just take the general theme of the message that I referenced which really is the RFL being poor and yes, they might mis quote the 40% number occasionally.  

The positive for me is that more people are starting to challenge the competence of the RFL.

The problem is that it just distracts from the real issue. Clubs cant keep blaming the RFL when they go belly up.

These are all private limited companies, the RFL facilitates and splits the central funds. They pay funds for things like coaching and Academy setups but ultimately the clubs are responsible for driving the bulk of the money required to make themselves work.

I suggest no other governing body has to deal with as much nonsense as the rfl do.

[The Parksider]

6 hours ago, Oxford said:

I agree he makes some valid and necessary points but his perspective is SL and coach biased. It's bound to be because everything revolves around his livelihood and ability to maintain his position. That's natural and normal but needs to be remembered as the context of his statements.

It's quite nonsensical to accuse Radford of self preservation when given fair time he turned Hull FC right round and started to win stuff and now has a top squad who will hopefully be getting the fans back. He had no need to come out and say anything about matters such as governance funding and structure. I'd be quite sure he didn't say anything that Mr. Pearson would not approve of. so that may be a clue for you.

 

[The Parksider]

49 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

To make a comment regarding clubs spend of allocated money must, imo, be aimed at someone.  Maybe HKR after the defeat!

A top professional has apparently embarrassed himself because he lost a friendly?

Listen carefully to what they all say - don't listen in isolation - and you will hopefully realise that Hull as a club want Hull.K.R. back in Superleague, they want the Hull derby back, Pearson is on good terms with Hudgell.

If the Hull coach attacks the RFL like this it's far more likely his boss is worried that Rovers will be runaway winners of the Championship yet miss out on promotion to a poor SL club as Bradford did against Wakey - then what? HKR don't come back to SL and Hull lose out from that for another season.

Both clubs want rid of the system, both chairmen have themselves come out against the RFL and on one occasion they jointly made a statement against the RFL pictured together under the Humber Bridge.

 

 

[The Parksider]

7 hours ago, Adeybull said:

Indeed.

But he blew it by getting his facts so spectacularly wrong.  Now, all folk have been talking about is how badly he screwed up.  Not about the other, more substantive points he made?

Come on Adey, you've had this on the Bradford threads. They will attack him because they can't make substantive counter points against what he Radford (and his boss) were saying. Well done to the RFL??.

Leeds.v.Bradford used to be good for 20,000 crowds

Hull.v.Hull.K.R. used to be good for 20,000 crowds.

The RFL through this structure has managed to lose both these fixtures, which is a disgrace when the game is struggling financially. .

 

.

 

 

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

Come on Adey, you've had this on the Bradford threads. They will attack him because they can't make substantive counter points against what he Radford (and his boss) were saying. Well done to the RFL??.

Leeds.v.Bradford used to be good for 20,000 crowds

Hull.v.Hull.K.R. used to be good for 20,000 crowds.

The RFL through this structure has managed to lose both these fixtures, which is a disgrace when the game is struggling financially. .

 

.

 

 

Ok, here goes, he wants an audit of what they spend the central funds on, that should take 5 minutes max.

RFL: Ok, we gave you £150k last year - what did you spend it on?

Club X: Well our club wage bill was around £800k.

RFL: cool, see you next year.

 

The money being allocated to these clubs is miniscule when compared to their running costs - this is not some act of philanthropy - why would we want the RFL wasting their resources on audits? What good will come of it, and what does he expect to change on the back of it. This money will, and always has, and always will, pay the bills.

[sweaty craiq]

What people do not understand is the strategy behind the lower league funding. Most companies incentivise their sales force to achieve the strategic objectives of the company, i.e. If you want to expand your market share of product A you lean your commissions accordingly. The RFL wanted to grow the sport via more FT clubs to give it options in the future, e.g. Replace smoothly a poor performing club or change the structures etc The first year it got the salary cap wrong and Wakey survived by using their advantage, the second year a club with cash and facilities won promotion, but at the expense of a club not deemed to be failing by many. So HKR go down with £800k of funding and a clear path of how to get back up, nothing wrong with that as it's what the objectives are. Where the plan goes rat pooh is when a club has no interest in challenging for a current SL spot but sneaks into the money, that was intended for a more ambitious club to prepare for SL.

The objectives are great, but we have clubs who have few fans, no backer and simply want to be the best part time club in RL.

we must have a two ten structure based around being FT with a minimum cap, with a competitive part time structure beneath it for those not ready, unable or unwilling to fund FT RL

[The Parksider]

9 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

The RFL wanted to grow the sport via more FT clubs to give it options in the future, e.g. Replace smoothly a poor performing club

No they didn't at all.

Solly said what they wanted to do and that was to create jeopardy through a season long promotion and relegation battle.

They gave the top two Championship clubs c.£500K each to be able to put a competitive team out to make the system work and it didn't work. Leigh failed.

It was Beaumont who went to the RFL and told them to stick it, and he then broke the salary cap and HE professionalised Leigh.

The RFL haven't grown any Full time clubs Craig. They've destroyed one though.

 

 

 

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

A top professional has apparently embarrassed himself because he lost a friendly?

Listen carefully to what they all say - don't listen in isolation - and you will hopefully realise that Hull as a club want Hull.K.R. back in Superleague, they want the Hull derby back, Pearson is on good terms with Hudgell.

If the Hull coach attacks the RFL like this it's far more likely his boss is worried that Rovers will be runaway winners of the Championship yet miss out on promotion to a poor SL club as Bradford did against Wakey - then what? HKR don't come back to SL and Hull lose out from that for another season.

Both clubs want rid of the system, both chairmen have themselves come out against the RFL and on one occasion they jointly made a statement against the RFL pictured together under the Humber Bridge.

 

 

There was more to my post than you attach.

My comments where based on what one person said, not what they all say.  

Is it possible to twist a post so much in one go?

 

[Adeybull]

7 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

...The RFL haven't grown any Full time clubs Craig. They've destroyed one though.

Parky, the RFL did not destroy anything?  They put in place a system that allowed (or encouraged, depending on your POV) an owner to lead his club to destruction. And another almost to that. Not that any system can really prevent an owner doing that anyway?  As we saw in Bullscrash volumes 1 & 2?

As has already been said elsewhere, this system may or may not create more financial jeopardy than other systems.  My view is that is does, as you know. But the club owner makers the choices that determine his club's fate within the system, not the RFL.

Was that sort of what you really meant?

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

No they didn't at all.

Solly said what they wanted to do and that was to create jeopardy through a season long promotion and relegation battle.

They gave the top two Championship clubs c.£500K each to be able to put a competitive team out to make the system work and it didn't work. Leigh failed.

It was Beaumont who went to the RFL and told them to stick it, and he then broke the salary cap and HE professionalised Leigh.

The RFL haven't grown any Full time clubs Craig. They've destroyed one though.

 

 

 

Its not what's said its what's not by most politicians that matters. Licencing destroyed the Championships and created non competing SL clubs who sat comfortably knowing that by spending less and less they could reduce debts. To grow we must expand, we have a culture of tightly grouped pro clubs going back 100 years. We did not have the RU luxury of picking county clubs to give geographic spread, and allegiance is the core of English sport, hence the hate of the proposed SL mergers in 95 for those it involved.

Derek broke no cap, he simply stated that in hindsight you cant have a level comp with 2 sets of rules on what you can spend, common sense really and that he was prepared to guarantee what he wanted to spend as all owners should imo. The cap then changed and Leigh won promotion in a comp that was much harder than the previous year to come through

This year will now have huge jeopardy as Leigh have shown that SL clubs have something tangible to lose, the problem is the T8 clubs with nothing to play for. Two tens with min salary spend and an open ended cap based on profit/no losses that encompasses P&R between them ticks most boxes and can easily become liquid dependent on the quality trying to force a way in

[LeytherRob]

2 hours ago, The Parksider said:

No they didn't at all.

Solly said what they wanted to do and that was to create jeopardy through a season long promotion and relegation battle.

They gave the top two Championship clubs c.£500K each to be able to put a competitive team out to make the system work and it didn't work. Leigh failed.

It was Beaumont who went to the RFL and told them to stick it, and he then broke the salary cap and HE professionalised Leigh.

The RFL haven't grown any Full time clubs Craig. They've destroyed one though.

 

 

 

So the RFL are responsible for the acts of the owner when something negative happens but not when it's positive? Surely you must see the hypocrisy of that statement.  

[Oxford]

9 hours ago, The Parksider said:

It's quite nonsensical to accuse Radford of self preservation when given fair time he turned Hull FC right round and started to win stuff and now has a top squad who will hopefully be getting the fans back. He had no need to come out and say anything about matters such as governance funding and structure. I'd be quite sure he didn't say anything that Mr. Pearson would not approve of. so that may be a clue for you.

 

I didn't accuse him of self anything Parky. I merely said you have to view the context of his remarks which includes the nature of his job and the league he coaches in. As for it being a clue to Mr Pearson and any insights that might reveal about him, evidence a bit slim there I think.

[The Parksider]

18 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

So the RFL are responsible for the acts of the owner when something negative happens but not when it's positive? Surely you must see the hypocrisy of that statement.  

 

I don't see your point Rob?

The RFL remain responsible for a system that has wasted £Millions and wasted clubs.

"Ultimately the reason for the Bulls' demise is the crazy competition structure that has been imposed on the clubs over the last three years. Whichever clubs were relegated in. 2014 were going to struggle financially, and when the 2-12s, 3-8s system was introduced a couple of years ago, it was fairly obvious that the Bulls would be tempted to go all out to gain immediate promotion, and that if it didn't work they would be in danger.

They nearly pulled it off, and if they had, Green would have been lauded as a hero by the Bulls supporters.

But if you were trying to create a competitive structure that will kill clubs, you couldn't do much worse that invent the structure we now have".  MARTYN SADLER

I'm not sure what you mean as "positive" if you mean Beaumont busting the salary cap and spending £Hundreds of thousands to get promotion that was not good.

Why? Because the system the RFL rejected would have promoted Leigh in 2015 and Leigh would have just finished 2016 in Superleague and would still be in it next year and all Beaumont's investments could have been spent building his SL club.

This is the point.

[Saint Toppy]

23 hours ago, The Parksider said:

Come on Adey, you've had this on the Bradford threads. They will attack him because they can't make substantive counter points against what he Radford (and his boss) were saying. Well done to the RFL??.

Leeds.v.Bradford used to be good for 20,000 crowds

Hull.v.Hull.K.R. used to be good for 20,000 crowds.

The RFL through this structure has managed to lose both these fixtures, which is a disgrace when the game is struggling financially. .

 

The RFL didn't lose these fixtures, 2 of those clubs did.

The structure didn't get the Bulls relegated or put them in a financial mess and the structure didn't relegate HKR, they ended up in the Championship because of their poor performances on the field.

Some may not like the 3x8 structure but the majority voted to introduce it. Even those that didn't want the 3X8 the majority of them still want some sort of structure that permits promotion & relegation meaning there will be winners & losers every year with some potential big crowd fixtures being lost. 

[The Parksider]

21 hours ago, Adeybull said:

Parky, the RFL did not destroy anything?  They put in place a system that allowed (or encouraged, depending on your POV) an owner to lead his club to destruction. And another almost to that. Not that any system can really prevent an owner doing that anyway?  As we saw in Bullscrash volumes 1 & 2?

As has already been said elsewhere, this system may or may not create more financial jeopardy than other systems.  My view is that is does, as you know. But the club owner makers the choices that determine his club's fate within the system, not the RFL.

Was that sort of what you really meant?

 

 

The system DID create more financial jeopardy. It's not a matter of "May". There were two alternatives on the table. Pearsons alternative was for straight P & R with a two year SL license for the winners. Radford (through his ventriloquist Pearson) is quite right.

The alternative Pearson and five other SL club owners were denied would have put all of the prize money for the CC clubs firmly back in SL leaving the 12 championship clubs their £150K subsidy.

Then the 12 club championship could have played out semi-professionally on the old £300K cap and the inevitable winner Leigh could have been promoted 2015 and could have finished their first season in SL last year 2016 and be going into their second season now 2017.

You can't blame the owners for failing to restrain themselves, it's the RFL that run the game and after all the SL Salary cap is in place in SL to restrain the owners for the good of the competition and for the financial health of the game isn't it? so why did the RFL allow Beaumont to smash the £1M CC cap? It was to save their own face.

As for Bradford in the Championship under Pearsons system you will have to tell me if they'd still have gone bust on a £300K salary cap with a £150K subsidy?? 

 

 

 

 

[The Parksider]

14 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

The RFL didn't lose these fixtures, 2 of those clubs did.

The structure didn't get the Bulls relegated or put them in a financial mess and the structure didn't relegate HKR, they ended up in the Championship because of their poor performances on the field.

Some may not like the 3x8 structure but the majority voted to introduce it.

 

 

Read Sadlers article six clubs did not vote for it, and several who may have voted against it didn't because voting for it had on offer the release of hundreds of £thousands of pounds from the new SKY contract. Two clubs who voted for it are out - so it's quite clear the turkeys only voted for it to get at the money, and so this isn't a system the clubs really want, and I doubt if anyone would vote for it today.. Your democracy argument doesn't work, again read Sadler's piece on this. Same for anyone else who doesn't know or understand what happened.

Then consider the other structure that was on the table. Had that been adopted Bradford may well not have been in a mess because in the Championship they would have been forced to compete to a part time salary cap.

Irrefutably this system caused a big mess and the problem in debating it is most people have not seen Sadler's article or have short memories. The RFL have a lot to answer for.

 

[Saint Toppy]

5 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

The system DID create more financial jeopardy. It's not a matter of "May". There were two alternatives on the table. Pearsons alternative was for straight P & R with a two year SL license for the winners. Radford (through his ventriloquist Pearson) is quite right.

The alternative Pearson and five other SL club owners were denied would have put all of the prize money for the CC clubs firmly back in SL leaving the 12 championship clubs their £150K subsidy.

Then the 12 club championship could have played out semi-professionally on the old £300K cap and the inevitable winner Leigh could have been promoted 2015 and could have finished their first season in SL last year 2016 and be going into their second season now 2017.

You can't blame the owners for failing to restrain themselves, it's the RFL that run the game and after all the SL Salary cap is in place in SL to restrain the owners for the good of the competition and for the financial health of the game isn't it? so why did the RFL allow Beaumont to smash the £1M CC cap? It was to save their own face.

As for Bradford in the Championship under Pearsons system you will have to tell me if they'd still have gone bust on a £300K salary cap with a £150K subsidy?? 

 

The alternative option was equally as flawed as the system chosen.

By granting a 2 yr licence it would effectively relegate the 11th placed team - How is that fair that the worst team doesn't go down ?

For the team coming up their fixtures are essentially meaningless in their 1st year. They can rest players, chop & change their team and not give a damn about the results because they're protected from relegation unlike the rest of the teams in the league.

[Saint Toppy]

4 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

Read Sadlers article six clubs did not vote for it, and several who may have voted against it didn't because voting for it had on offer the release of hundreds of £thousands of pounds from the new SKY contract. Two clubs who voted for it are out - so it's quite clear the turkeys only voted for it to get at the money, and so this isn't a system the clubs really want, and I doubt if anyone would vote for it today.. Your democracy argument doesn't work, again read Sadler's piece on this. Same for anyone else who doesn't know or understand what happened.

Then consider the other structure that was on the table. Had that been adopted Bradford may well not have been in a mess because in the Championship they would have been forced to compete to a part time salary cap.

Irrefutably this system caused a big mess and the problem in debating it is most people have not seen Sadler's article or have short memories.

 

By your argument 6 clubs did vote for it, plus the RFL, hence the majority won.

I'm not defending the 3x8 system because I'm not a particular fan of it, nor do I particularly like the alternative Pearson put forward either because that too has flaws. Personally I thought we should have stayed with  a form of licencing. The flaws there wasn't with the system more with how the RFL applied the criteria for licence selection. Had they used a clear and rigid set of criteria and rigorously applied it instead of constantly fudging things to suite their own means from 1 week to the next then I think it would have worked.

[The Parksider]

48 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

The alternative option was equally as flawed as the system chosen.

By granting a 2 yr licence it would effectively relegate the 11th placed team 

For the team coming up their fixtures are essentially meaningless in their 1st year. They can rest players, chop & change their team and not give a damn about the results because they're protected from relegation unlike the rest of the teams in the league.

 

1

That's a desperatley poor defence.

It would have been Leigh up and 12th. placed Wakefield down.  Where do you get 11th place relegated from?? This year nobody would go up or down.

As for not giving a damn Toppy you could not be more wrong.

Was it not Wakefield who did not actually give a damn for half a season in 2015?? YES it was

Are you saying leigh will not give a damn - that is absurd Leigh have shown their ambitions already with even more investment from Beaumont.