Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
scotchy1

League Restructure Discussion (Merged Threads)

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, POR said:

just a thought what happens in 2021 if anther broadcaster wins the tv rights

 

I expect they will be dealing with SLE unless they display an interest in showing the Champs clubs, then they will be dealing with the RFL for those games.

Edited by GIANTSTRIDES
add on

Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

Share this post


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

What free money? This present deal breaks down as follows (cuertosy of Spud):-

The five-year deal breaks down as follows:

The amount being paid for club and international matches will be £182,200,000 in total.

Of that total, £146,760,000, or 80 per cent, will go to Super League clubs.

£14,576,000 or 8 per cent, will go to the twelve Championship clubs in the second tier.

£1,822,000, or one per cent, will go to the Championship One clubs.

£20,042,000, or 11 per cent, will be paid for Challenge Cup and internationals coverage.

We really are in a very very dark place, if the premier teams do not see any mileage in supporting the rest of the game, and seemingly desiring to withold that meagre amount from any new contract, they must be more desperate than they are admitting to.

 

Then what’s the problem with SL claiming all their TV money. Surely the championship will just continue to sell their games to Sky. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Michael Gledhill said:

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.

How do you come up with the 60% figure? Is that just number of clubs in the pro game? What about NCL? Other community clubs? Junior sections? Masters RL?  It’s probably more like 80% EDIT actually 95% Plus

When a lot of Champ/League One clubs refer to the whole game they convieniently ignore the community game, and just mean the rest of Pro Men’s Rugby League.  They claim SL are looking after their own self interests - but the other leagues in the pro game are doing exactly the same thing

Edited by Spidey
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

How do you come up with the 60% figure? Is that just number of clubs in the pro game? What about NCL? Other community clubs? Junior sections? Masters RL?  It’s probably more like 80%

When a lot of Champ/League One clubs refer to the whole game they convieniently ignore the community game, and just mean the rest of Pro Men’s Rugby League.  They claim SL are looking after their own self interests - but the other leagues in the pro game are doing exactly the same thing

 

When they say the whole game or the good of the whole game, you know they really mean their club.

  • Like 3

Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

Share this post


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

Additionally If 4 SL clubs get relegated this time and are replaced with 4 Championship clubs watch those clubs swap sides

 

Do you see that happening then.


Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

Share this post


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

Adey, not sure if you can clarify this point for me.

In the 2014 RFL Annual Report, they state this: Early in the year, the RFL and SLE Ltd agreed a new extended television contract with Sky Sports which would take the broadcasting of our sport on Sky through to 2021. 

When I look at the RFL accounts, it clearly doesn't include the SLE portion of the broadcasting money, but looks like it does include any non-SLE portions. Wouldn't that suggest that the contract with Sky for Super League rights are with SLE? Obviously we can't tell how much that is, but it looks like Wood (SLE CEO) and Barwick (SLE Chairman) were representing SLE for that part, and taking the RFL cut for the other clubs.

Am I misunderstanding this point?

My reading of that statement, numerous times since, has been that the Sky contract was signed by Sky, SLE and the RFL as contracting parties. The RFL's involvement would presumably allow, inter alia, the inclusion of non-SL clubs as parties to the agreement, presumably by agreement between those clubs and the RFL acting on their behalf.

The SLE accounts suggest that ALL the Sky money "flows through" SLE. And they suggest that a portion of that is paid out to "the Championship Competition" The wording "flows through" is interesting, since that sounds somewhat different to, e.g. "earned by" or "generated by" or whatever. SLE is (or was) an agency company, with no employees (other than directors) and all services provided by the RFL. 

Taking the wordings together, I have always assumed that Sky pay all the money to SLE, which then distributes it to the agreed recipient clubs (along with other monies it receives, like SL sponsorship).  Whether the non-SL portion passes through the RFL accounts, or goes direct to clubs, I have no idea.  I suspect it is paid to the RFL, since the wording used is "competition" not "clubs", but it is unclear.

A quite separate issue from how the money physically flows is who is contractually entitled to it. And who is entitled to sell the rights that earn it. Given the wording in the SLE Articles of Association, and the powers conferred on the "Governing Body Share" (i.e. the RFL) I would be surprised if SLE in isolation can sell the rights. Since there are other parties involved. What I am pretty clear from the Articles they DO have the right to do is determine how the money is divvied up. What is NOT clear from the Articles is whether those rights apply to all monies "flowing through" the SLE accounts, or just to those to which SL clubs are entitled.  There must be a legal agreement covering all this somewhere. To have sight of that agreement would doubtless answer most of the funding questions raised on here!

 

  • Thanks 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
6 minutes ago, GIANTSTRIDES said:

 

Do you see that happening then.

I see clubs changing their position depending on what league they are in. Got no idea how many clubs will change places after the 8s

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the statement from Hunslet. It's like some chairmen and owners are having a competition to see who can sound least like a professional and most like a ranting one-eyed internet fan. Every statement like that I suspect only hardens the resolve of the large clubs to cast off from the rest. 

It also underlines the key underlying fact which can't be obscured here:

- Championship clubs (and Leeds), want to keep the current set-up because it works well for them.

- SL clubs (except Leeds) want to change the current set-up because it doesn't work well for them.

Whether or not one thinks change is necessary does then come down to whether one thinks the game should be organised for the benefit of the championship clubs, or the SL clubs. 

Given the vast difference in importance of the SL clubs in terms of fans, players, income and profile, I just don't see this as a difficult choice. Whether one likes it or not, the health and success of SL is far more important to the future health of the whole sport than the health and success of the championship.

No amount of ranting, conjecture, or banging on about contracts changes that. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


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

Then what’s the problem with SL claiming all their TV money. Surely the championship will just continue to sell their games to Sky. 

Composite, single agreement. What is unclear - at least to me - is whether the split is part of the agreement with Sky, or is a separate agreement between the RFL and SLE.  If the latter, then Sky are not involved and it is an issue between the RFL and SLE. If the former, then presumably it is open to the parties - by mutual agreement - to agree to separate the agreement into two agreements.

From my reading of the SLE accounts, Sky are just paying the total money, which all "passes through" SLE.  The RFL accounts suggest the Sky deal was signed by Sky, SLE and the RFL. I assume that, as a mimimum, the latter would facilitate the payment of the share to non-SL clubs.

Either way, it seems clear SLE appreciates that the current payments and split cannot be changed during the currency of this agreement. What happens after I guess very much depends on the state of hostilities between the various warring parties at the time?


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
3 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

My reading of that statement, numerous times since, has been that the Sky contract was signed by Sky, SLE and the RFL as contracting parties. The RFL's involvement would presumably allow, inter alia, the inclusion of non-SL clubs as parties to the agreement, presumably by agreement between those clubs and the RFL acting on their behalf.

The SLE accounts suggest that ALL the Sky money "flows through" SLE. And they suggest that a portion of that is paid out to "the Championship Competition" The wording "flows through" is interesting, since that sounds somewhat different to, e.g. "earned by" or "generated by" or whatever. SLE is (or was) an agency company, with no employees (other than directors) and all services provided by the RFL. 

Taking the wordings together, I have always assumed that Sky pay all the money to SLE, which then distributes it to the agreed recipient clubs (along with other monies it receives, like SL sponsorship).  Whether the non-SL portion passes through the RFL accounts, or goes direct to clubs, I have no idea.  I suspect it is paid to the RFL, since the wording used is "competition" not "clubs", but it is unclear.

A quite separate issue from how the money physically flows is who is contractually entitled to it. And who is entitled to sell the rights that earn it. Given the wording in the SLE Articles of Association, and the powers conferred on the "Governing Body Share" (i.e. the RFL) I would be surprised if SLE in isolation can sell the rights. Since there are other parties involved. What I am pretty clear from the Articles they DO have the right to do is determine how the money is divvied up. What is NOT clear from the Articles is whether those rights apply to all monies "flowing through" the SLE accounts, or just to those to which SL clubs are entitled.  There must be a legal agreement covering all this somewhere. To have sight of that agreement would doubtless answer most of the funding questions raised on here!

 

I think this is what is confusing a lot of people, SL have a contract with Sky, they have sold the TV rights, to enable the eights to function, SL needs an agreement with the RFL to pay the championship clubs just reward for the games they are going to have televised (whether the club is in the mix of the eights or not). Sky do not want to be having lots of bits of contracts for this that and the other, therefore they deal with the big player, SL, and then let them sort out the rest.

Having said that Sky pay for the Summer Bash which is a purely Championship competition so how that fits in I am not sure. 

What I am sure about is that SL are holding all the aces.

 


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
11 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

My reading of that statement, numerous times since, has been that the Sky contract was signed by Sky, SLE and the RFL as contracting parties. The RFL's involvement would presumably allow, inter alia, the inclusion of non-SL clubs as parties to the agreement, presumably by agreement between those clubs and the RFL acting on their behalf.

The SLE accounts suggest that ALL the Sky money "flows through" SLE. And they suggest that a portion of that is paid out to "the Championship Competition" The wording "flows through" is interesting, since that sounds somewhat different to, e.g. "earned by" or "generated by" or whatever. SLE is (or was) an agency company, with no employees (other than directors) and all services provided by the RFL. 

Taking the wordings together, I have always assumed that Sky pay all the money to SLE, which then distributes it to the agreed recipient clubs (along with other monies it receives, like SL sponsorship).  Whether the non-SL portion passes through the RFL accounts, or goes direct to clubs, I have no idea.  I suspect it is paid to the RFL, since the wording used is "competition" not "clubs", but it is unclear.

A quite separate issue from how the money physically flows is who is contractually entitled to it. And who is entitled to sell the rights that earn it. Given the wording in the SLE Articles of Association, and the powers conferred on the "Governing Body Share" (i.e. the RFL) I would be surprised if SLE in isolation can sell the rights. Since there are other parties involved. What I am pretty clear from the Articles they DO have the right to do is determine how the money is divvied up. What is NOT clear from the Articles is whether those rights apply to all monies "flowing through" the SLE accounts, or just to those to which SL clubs are entitled.  There must be a legal agreement covering all this somewhere. To have sight of that agreement would doubtless answer most of the funding questions raised on here!

 

Are actual 'flow through shares' issued?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue whilst a little irrelevant and a lot guesses are being thrown out there is quite a good example of the governance issues that were there.

The question of whether the RFL being party to the contract becomes quite farcical when you remember that at the time the RFL CEO was the SL CEO the RFL chairman was the SL chairman, the RFL hold a special rights share in SL, the RFL took payment for selling the SL tv rights, bundled them in with the sale of THEIR tv rights and are now arguing about whether they can force SL to stick to this structure to make sure the value of their tv rights holds even if it is to the detriment of SLs TV rights. 

Surely no one can argue that is even approaching acceptable governance. 

Share this post


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

I think this is what is confusing a lot of people, SL have a contract with Sky, they have sold the TV rights, to enable the eights to function, SL needs an agreement with the RFL to pay the championship clubs just reward for the games they are going to have televised (whether the club is in the mix of the eights or not). Sky do not want to be having lots of bits of contracts for this that and the other, therefore they deal with the big player, SL, and then let them sort out the rest.

Having said that Sky pay for the Summer Bash which is a purely Championship competition so how that fits in I am not sure. 

What I am sure about is that SL are holding all the aces.

 

I think what is confusing a lot of people is who exactly has a contract with whom?  And who has the rights to sell what?  Just because the media may have reported that SL has sold the rights, does not mean "SL" - i.e SLE necessarily has. The RL media has a long, long track record of not really being clued up about matters financial or legal - its expertise is naturally in TGG.

You believe that Sky has a contract with just SLE for the rights.  I suspect it may be a three-way agreement also including the RFL (which would facilitate payments for the Summer Bash, the Qualifiers and the MPG) - or there is a separate agreement between SLE and trhe RFL.  The wording in the RFL accounts suggests it IS a three-way agreement, and the wording in the SLE accounts suggests all the Sky money "flows through" the SLE accounts - suggesting to me SLE has been a transit operation for the funds passing to whoever is entitled to them.  But this is only surmising, based on info in te public domain.

Unless anyone is absolutely certain what the relevant agreements provide - especially regarding who has the power to sell the rights, and who has the entitlement to the monies from those rights - then we are all still guessing.  Hence my earlier question, abouyt does anyone know FOR CERTAIN?


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
4 hours ago, Dave T said:

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.

OK, but whether or not the amount of money allocated to the Championships is actually included in the contract a 'value' has been put (either by Sky or the sport) on the TV rights to those competitions (ca£2.9m/pa). As such, I'd be surprised if a wiley operator like Sky didn't take that into account when their offer for the next TV contract is made. The SL clubs may discover that they don't actually end up with more money and have simply succeeded in reducing the amount of funding received by the whole sport.

Edited by Les Tonks Sidestep
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Are actual 'flow through shares' issued?

??? Do not understand your question.  I was talking about monies "flowing through", as do the SLE accounts.

Each SL club, whoever they are from time to time, holds one share in SLE. The RFL also holds one "Governing Body" share, which is a "Golden Share" that grants the RFL considerable additional rights and powers.


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
1 minute ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

The SL clubs may discover that they don't actually end up with more money and have simply succeeded in reducing the amount of funding received by the whole sport.

That is very much my fear.


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:

That is very much my fear.

Sky have already said that the next contract will have less cash value, so any I told you so in that regard would be a waste of time.

Sky are paying for content at the end of they day and they pay £XXXm for nn games, I suspect that Sky are looking to probably pay the same or there about but squeeze more games out of the contract. This would mean the price per game is reduced even if the overall contract isn't.

The SL clubs that are reading the runes can see what is coming, they are probably also thinking (another I suspect here) that divorcing themselves from this complicated arrangement will make it easier to discuss rights with other organisations who are just interested in cherry picking the top end.


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
1 hour ago, West Leeds Riviera said:

Relegation every 3 years would give the promoted team time to build a SL team and still ensuring the worst/bottom team went down. It wouldn't be like when Catalans were exempt from relegation and Cas got relegated after finishing above them

My thoughts exactly. If you’re the worst team over the course of three years and you’re relegated and subsequently replaced by the best Championship side over three years, I can’t see any arguments. 

It also gives a promoted side three guaranteed years of Super League where they’ll receive a higher income throughout that period and gives them a fair crack at survival. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

My thoughts exactly. If you’re the worst team over the course of three years and you’re relegated and subsequently replaced by the best Championship side over three years, I can’t see any arguments. 

It also gives a promoted side three guaranteed years of Super League where they’ll receive a higher income throughout that period and gives them a fair crack at survival. 

I have no problem with a system along these lines. What I hate is clubs having to break the bank to try and survive the first year only to see all that money go down the drain.


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
1 hour ago, Michael Gledhill said:

Read Mark Moore's statement which is a truthful account of what actually happened at the meeting.

Ian Lenagan wants to reduce the central funding to the Championship. 

Why do you think everyone is releasing statements attacking Lenagan?

How many times? Whatever he wanted to do in the past, and for whatever reason he's backed off, he's now said they won't  - in public, in front of the TV  cameras. 

The lower leagues have already WON on this point. So for the non-SL chairmen to start a war over a point they've already won on seems the height of stupidity to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

My thoughts exactly. If you’re the worst team over the course of three years and you’re relegated and subsequently replaced by the best Championship side over three years, I can’t see any arguments. 

It also gives a promoted side three guaranteed years of Super League where they’ll receive a higher income throughout that period and gives them a fair crack at survival. 

As long as you get a relgation/promotion every year, i.e. it is a rolling 3-year cycle - that sort of system would answer my oft-expressed concern about the financial strains on a newly-promoted club. I can see it in turn raising other issues, but my immediate reaction is it merits much furtehr consideration.


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
10 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

My thoughts exactly. If you’re the worst team over the course of three years and you’re relegated and subsequently replaced by the best Championship side over three years, I can’t see any arguments. 

It also gives a promoted side three guaranteed years of Super League where they’ll receive a higher income throughout that period and gives them a fair crack at survival. 

Seeing teams finishing in the play-offs also get relegated would be...well, something.

Share this post


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

Read Mark Moore's statement which is a truthful account of what actually happened at the meeting.

Ian Lenagan wants to reduce the central funding to the Championship. 

Why do you think everyone is releasing statements attacking Lenagan?

Mick, Mick, please!

His lot have already conceded they cannot change what has already been committed to for the remainder of the current Sky contract. 

Once this contract is up, all bets are off ANYWAY. There was never, ever, any guarantee that anything like the present arrangement would continue after the completion of this contract.

There are far more scary windmills to tilt at than this one!

In any case "everyone" is not releasing statements attacking Lenaghan. GH, and several lower-league club owners have.  And every one, to a greater or lesser extent, has fallen into the trap of atttacking the man as well as the argument.  Once you go ad hominem - as we see all the time on here - you are already well on the way to losing the argument.

Edited by Adeybull
  • 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
1 hour ago, Roy Haggerty said:

I just read the statement from Hunslet. It's like some chairmen and owners are having a competition to see who can sound least like a professional and most like a ranting one-eyed internet fan. Every statement like that I suspect only hardens the resolve of the large clubs to cast off from the rest. 

It also underlines the key underlying fact which can't be obscured here:

- Championship clubs (and Leeds), want to keep the current set-up because it works well for them.

- SL clubs (except Leeds) want to change the current set-up because it doesn't work well for them.

Whether or not one thinks change is necessary does then come down to whether one thinks the game should be organised for the benefit of the championship clubs, or the SL clubs. 

Given the vast difference in importance of the SL clubs in terms of fans, players, income and profile, I just don't see this as a difficult choice. Whether one likes it or not, the health and success of SL is far more important to the future health of the whole sport than the health and success of the championship.

No amount of ranting, conjecture, or banging on about contracts changes that. 

Easy to say if your a Saints fan!

The funny thing is that Saints and Wigan are banging on as if they are big clubs like Celtic and Rangers. They are pretty small clubs who happen to have been successful on the pitch for a number of years. If Leigh and Saints were equally successful on the pitch, the crowd averages wouldnt be that different in stark contrast to that of Celtic compared to Dundee. The evidence is the respective Saints and Leigh crowds in the early 80s.

The only big club we have is Leeds.

Btw I personally think the game should be organised for the benefit of the championship clubs AND the SL clubs. The current system could have been tweaked (e.g. by changing the top eight to the old top 5, but leaving the middle 8s, or by having 3 up 3 down)

Edited by Lobbygobbler

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...