Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
scotchy1

League Restructure Discussion (Merged Threads)

Recommended Posts

 

Read back David it says SL have 71 televised games, Championship 17 and league 1 1 game.  Must be some game to pay them 1.822M for it.

That is simply a breakdown of distribution of money. ie. how the game has agreed to split the pot. The Premier League contract in football pays all sorts of things outside of the Premier League - it doesn't mean that Sky and BT are paying for those things like pensions.

Edited by Dave T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The eights format basically meant that the championship clubs had to be included in the SL TV contract. If the championship clubs had a separate deal with lets say premier then when SL and Championship clubs met in the 8s there would be a conflict. The SL clubs agreed the deal brokered by Woods because Woods offered a £300,000 sweetener to skint clubs to get them on board.

The RFL holds the BBC contract for the CC and Internationals.


Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

I know Dave. And we also know the RFL receives funding from other sources than Sky - how much of THAT are Lenagan & co. claiming?

I would feel far less concerned if this whole funding argument was more transparent, and we could actually see the numbers and facts behind the argument. It would cut out a load of supposition, assumption and argument. But it has not been. And I fear it never will be made so, not least because to do so could shine light on matters that have not yet seen the light of day?

agreed. maybe in this brave new world we will get some transparency (it looks like they all enjoy having their voices heard so who knows!) - but I won't hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Padge said:

The eights format basically meant that the championship clubs had to be included in the SL TV contract. If the championship clubs had a separate deal with lets say premier then when SL and Championship clubs met in the 8s there would be a conflict. The SL clubs agreed the deal brokered by Woods because Woods offered a £300,000 sweetener to skint clubs to get them on board.

The RFL holds the BBC contract for the CC and Internationals.

I would say that sweetner has now been upgraded to 1.825M to skint clubs by the SL mafia.

Edited by Harry Stottle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

agreed. maybe in this brave new world we will get some transparency (it looks like they all enjoy having their voices heard so who knows!) - but I won't hold my breath.

Plenty of underused flying pigs round these parts, in pens labelled “Odsal stadium development”. Maybe a bit of brass to be made hiring them out to fly this “transparency” idea...?

  • Like 1

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 5:54 PM, JohnM said:

Yes. Too many rl fans hate successful people, successful clubs, successful teams .

Aint that the truth!

  • Like 1

Forever in our shadow, forever on your mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Padge said:

. The SL clubs agreed the deal brokered by Woods because Woods offered a £300,000 sweetener to skint clubs to get them on board.

that's why last tv deal didn't go out to tender and we had to accept what sky offered cos some teams would have gone bust without the said sweetener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That is simply a breakdown of distribution of money. ie. how the game has agreed to split the pot. The Premier League contract in football pays all sorts of things outside of the Premier League - it doesn't mean that Sky and BT are paying for those things like pensions.

Is it? Have you (or indeed anyone else posting on here) seen the actual wording on the contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Is it? Have you (or indeed anyone else posting on here) seen the actual wording on the contract?

My point is that the article linked to is not the contract, it is a journo breaking the payments down. I'd be stunned if Sky were that bothered who the money was shared between, as long as what they bought was provided to them.

Edited by Dave T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

I know Dave. And we also know the RFL receives funding from other sources than Sky - how much of THAT are Lenagan & co. claiming?

I would feel far less concerned if this whole funding argument was more transparent, and we could actually see the numbers and facts behind the argument. It would cut out a load of supposition, assumption and argument. But it has not been. And I fear it never will be made so, not least because to do so could shine light on matters that have not yet seen the light of day?

....and also because some of that information will be 'commercially sensitive'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

....and also because some of that information will be 'commercially sensitive'.

Indeed. As indeed, doubtless, will be the detail of the Sky contract. Which is one reason I suspect we will all still be speculating and assuming in years to come.

 


The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

No John, two wrongs indeed do not make a right. The whole chuffing lot of them should be acting more professionally - although I realise that is an oxymoron when applied to so many things in the running of the game.

I can only defend the right of response to the original declaration - or at least, to how the responders interpreted it. Lenagan & co started it by making an unscheduled and provocative declaration that was guaranteed to send at least some of the owners of non-SL clubs into collective apoplexy. Let alone uncle Gary. Indeed, I am increasingly thinking  was this intentional, to provoke precisely the sort of responses we have seen? And to have a major influence on the opinion of fans of SL clubs, since they must have known that they were promising something that - without further action and agreement - they may well be precluded from delivering as things stand?

I definitely agree that cool heads are required now. But I can only support the right of reply to the original provocative declaration, which surely could not be left unchallenged?

It doesn't have to go unchallenged, but the responses so far have just made the situation a whole lot worse. It makes the whole sport look ridiculous and unprofessional. Who would want to do business with any of them based on this?

All the response had to be was: "We disagree with the position outlined by the new SL CEO, and have called on the RFL to bring all parties together in order to resolve the matter as soon as possible."

Then they can kick lumps out of each other behind closed doors.

  • Like 2

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, John Drake said:

It doesn't have to go unchallenged, but the responses so far have just made the situation a whole lot worse. It makes the whole sport look ridiculous and unprofessional. Who would want to do business with any of them based on this?

All the response had to be was: "We disagree with the position outlined by the new SL CEO, and have called on the RFL to bring all parties together in order to resolve the matter as soon as possible."

Then they can kick lumps out of each other behind closed doors.

while I agree with the principle of this, I don't think it is too much of an issue - people are used to civil wars within sports, we have seen them in many over the years.

That said, everybody should be more professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, John Drake said:

It doesn't have to go unchallenged, but the responses so far have just made the situation a whole lot worse. It makes the whole sport look ridiculous and unprofessional. Who would want to do business with any of them based on this?

All the response had to be was: "We disagree with the position outlined by the new SL CEO, and have called on the RFL to bring all parties together in order to resolve the matter as soon as possible."

Then they can kick lumps out of each other behind closed doors.

Make that ""We strongly disagree with the position outlined by the new SL CEO, which is pre-empting the conclusions of ongoing formal discussions and negotiations of substance under the leadership of the RFL, and which does not reflect the combined view of the participants.  We have called on the RFL to bring all parties together in order to resolve the matter as soon as possible." And I'd say your argument becomes irrefutable.

On reflection, whilst I still stand by my "right to reply" argument, I think it would have been far better had these club chairmen (AND Uncle Gary, who maybe should have marshalled them...?) to have co-ordinated their response and put out a joint rebuttal statement.  A joint statement to rebut the original joint statement.  They very certainly should have cut out the ad hominem stuff, and kept their statements more to the point.

But I am now even MORE wondering if Lenagan & co - and Elwood, who I suspect to be a wily operator - knew full well just how some t least of these guys would react? And did what they did to bring that about?  And if, therefore, the various club chairmen etc have walked straight into the neatly-baited trap set for them?

  • Like 2

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dave T said:

...That said, everybody should be more professional.

There you go again, throwing RL-specific oxymorons about like so much confetti...

  • Haha 1

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

Make that ""We strongly disagree with the position outlined by the new SL CEO, which is pre-empting the conclusions of ongoing formal discussions and negotiations of substance under the leadership of the RFL, and which does not reflect the combined view of the participants.  We have called on the RFL to bring all parties together in order to resolve the matter as soon as possible." And I'd say your argument becomes irrefutable.

On reflection, whilst I still stand by my "right to reply" argument, I think it would have been far better had these club chairmen (AND Uncle Gary, who maybe should have marshalled them...?) to have co-ordinated their response and put out a joint rebuttal statement.  A joint statement to rebut the original joint statement.  They very certainly should have cut out the ad hominem stuff, and kept their statements more to the point.

But I am now even MORE wondering if Lenagan & co - and Elwood, who I suspect to be a wily operator - knew full well just how some t least of these guys would react? And did what they did to bring that about?  And if, therefore, the various club chairmen etc have walked straight into the neatly-baited trap set for them?

I agree that nothing is ever quite as it seems.

Politics will be at play on all sides.

  • Like 1

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Drake said:

I agree that nothing is ever quite as it seems.

Politics will be at play on all sides.

Indeed.

I am just hoping that, on this occasion, Andrew Chalmers exercises HIS right...to say nothing.


The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

Indeed.

I am just hoping that, on this occasion, Andrew Chalmers exercises HIS right...to say nothing.

Me too! :biggrin:

I'm just looking forward to the trip to Whitehaven on Sunday.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Me too! :biggrin:

I'm just looking forward to the trip to Whitehaven on Sunday.

Sorry, you mean there is some actual rugby taking place?  Surely not...


The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

Bury your memories; bury your friends. Leave it alone for a year or two.  Till the stories grow hazy, and the legends come true.  Then do it again - some things never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

Sorry, you mean there is some actual rugby taking place?  Surely not...

Hard to believe, I know...


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Gledhill said:

Andrew Chalmers will be releasing his statement tomorrow morning.

Can you ask him not to?

  • Haha 3

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the Championship and League One chairman have known for some time, the Super League clubs do not have the power to change the central funding or competition structure without full agreement of the RFL. 

Since the Super League clubs broke away from the RFL, the RFL are acting in the best and wider interests of 60% of the sport of Rugby League and are their doing the job of representing their member clubs from the Championship and League One. 

The Super 8s and central funding are remaining.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Quite correct OTB, but that is not the reality of it, is it, no more proof required than only 4 SL winners in 22 years, the salery cap really does what it was designed to do doesn't it?

As they are no of course it doesn't - i think a main reason, coincidentally, is finance - not every team can afford to max out the salary cap - although i'd assume there are other factors in play such as being able to attract top players in the first place, if choosing between two teams who could offer similar pay packets, as a player you'd be looking at trophy potential etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Drake said:

Can you ask him not to?

I believe there's only Bradford needed for the full house John. 

Widnes and Catalans won't release a statement because they agree with Leeds and the Championship/League One clubs.

At least we saw a great game of Rugby League last night between Bradford and Widnes, if a little fiery at times.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...