GUBRATS Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 1 minute ago, bobbruce said: How are you getting to that figure. Rentals for accomadation , stadium , spend on marketing , spend on paying for broadcasting , player salaries and pay offs for discarded players and coaches , general costs for transport [ not including flights ] in both Canada and the UK Clubs dont run full time on 100K a year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 16 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: That is presuming they get straight admission into SL , by the end of this season i'd suggest Mr Argyle will have had little change from 12 million , and that is with a stadium already at their disposal You are just making up figures with regards to Toronto and now Liverpool. If they are not in Super League they can start smaller and certainly wont need to spend the sorts of figures you are making up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 15 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: Rentals for accomadation , stadium , spend on marketing , spend on paying for broadcasting , player salaries and pay offs for discarded players and coaches , general costs for transport [ not including flights ] in both Canada and the UK Clubs dont run full time on 100K a year No they don’t but you just seem to be picking figures out of thin air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 12 pages on the Dr being a BS artist again? Nothing will come of this. These aren't the droids you are looking for. Move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 2 hours ago, Leonard said: 12 pages on the Dr being a BS artist again? Nothing will come of this. These aren't the droids you are looking for. Move along. I did tell them that earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 8 hours ago, scotchy1 said: If it isnt, it really should be. There will be a fair few councils who would love that sort of investment. He needs to buy Wakey then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 2 hours ago, Damien said: You are just making up figures with regards to Toronto and now Liverpool. If they are not in Super League they can start smaller and certainly wont need to spend the sorts of figures you are making up. True , so they play where ? , and you think Mr Koucash is interested in a League 1 club ? , if thats the case then as I posted pages ago £ 250 K a year and he has a club house to attend 20 sundays a year for a nice glass of red , but no world domination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellsy4HullFC Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 39 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: It takes some mental gymnastics to see starting at the very bottom as top down. Starting a pro club in the bottom pro league isn't bottom-up. Bottom-up is building up the community game and junior game and working up towards the pro game. Toronto are not a club I'd describe as bottom-up simply because they started in League 1; they're top-down because they're hoping investment in the pro game drives the community and junior games, not the other way around. That's what makes Celtic Crusaders top-down: their investment in the pro game before building the community game. The Crusaders that followed were certainly top-down as there had never been a North Wales team at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 12 hours ago, bobbruce said: No they don’t but you just seem to be picking figures out of thin air. So your estimations are what ? , and have you ever been involved with a club in SL to make those estimations ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 9 hours ago, scotchy1 said: Its pretty apparent that RL demanding investors invest where we want instead of where they want doesnt really work. You said there are plenty of councils desperate for that sort of investement , sounds like Wakey are one of those to me , but if you want to make the case for Liverpool , fire away , I'm sure you can find a viable scenario for Mr Koucash to build a SL club in liverpool inside 5 years , Love to hear[see] it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 25 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Wakefield council might be delighted to see that kind if investment. Unfortunately nobody with the money is proposing it. But the man with the money [ if he is serious , which I doubt ] might wish he did , rather than ' fannying ' about in Liverpool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 1 hour ago, GUBRATS said: So your estimations are what ? , and have you ever been involved with a club in SL to make those estimations ? I’ve no idea but then I’m not the one stating how much it’s cost him. I’m just wondering how you are getting to this figure. How much are they bringing in in ticket sales or sponsorship?. What is the accommodation costing them or travel?. How much is having games televised costing/making them?. Is it beyond the realms of possibility if they can get a sponsor to fly players to Canada and back that they could also get sponsorship for the coach and accommodations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, bobbruce said: I’ve no idea but then I’m not the one stating how much it’s cost him. I’m just wondering how you are getting to this figure. How much are they bringing in in ticket sales or sponsorship?. What is the accommodation costing them or travel?. How much is having games televised costing/making them?. Is it beyond the realms of possibility if they can get a sponsor to fly players to Canada and back that they could also get sponsorship for the coach and accommodations. Maybe its just 3 and six then , so we should see plenty of others queing up to join us , surely then no need to have the NY bidders suggesting they have what was it ? , twenty million for the 1 st 5 years to support their bid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellsy4HullFC Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 3 hours ago, scotchy1 said: So "bottom up" growth basically means not investing in the game. I can see why it hasn't been successful. No, it means investing little parts into the community and growing your base slowly at a pace that you can afford whilst putting down longer term roots. Not everyone can afford the multi millions to expand top-down. I'm not saying one is better than the other or that we should look at one or the other. What I'm saying is there should be room for both approaches as we don't seem to be knee-deep in multi millionaires willing to invest in new clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellsy4HullFC Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 I don't like this mindset we have of "We've already got clubs in x, y and z so we can't have anymore," or "Why don't investors invest in these other give instead?" If investors wanted to invest in those clubs, they would. The fact is, the big money men don't want to invest in the smaller towns, yet we're not giving then the opportunity to invest in the bigger areas because of limited funding. Why not create a League 2 that has no central funding? New clubs can start there and with their way up into the funded leagues. The ones that get investment will find their level, the ones that don't will sink and be in a semi-pro/amateur league that is still part of the structure at minimal cost rather then bring kept on life support in order to compete. If clubs like Swinton, Oldham, Rochdale, Leigh and Salford are worried about a club in Manchester taking away their custom, or Widnes worried about Liverpool, then have a think about poor Batley, Dewsbury, Featherstone, Halifax etc with Leeds on their doorstep. We need to create opportunity, and if there are only so many places available for funding, some clubs are going to need to justify their position then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulwalker71 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Given that Manchester (according to todays LE) were told to either takeover an existing club, or lodge a £500K bond, can we assume that Koukash has been told the same? Apparently there are 'no places available' in League 1 - which seems a bit weird, given that it is an 11-team league. But let's put that aside for now. Of the two options, I would think MK would be looking to take over an existing club, given that he can probably do that for less than £500K, and gain a playing roster and other assets to boot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 I'd like to add something here. Its clear, we don't have a successful model which we can copy to create a Super League club in a new area, with a guarantee of long term survival. Every year, some of our oldest pro' clubs teeter on the edge of bankruptcy/oblivion. It seems obvious to me though that if long term survival is the goal, when new clubs are dreamed of, then a broad based and vibrant community game must be part of the plan. Otherwise, the ''club'' is just a folly. A rich man's ego trip perhaps, but not a self sustaining, long term business model which generates its own income (and players). This method of spreading the game, come's from the ''something for nothing'' school of physics. The perpetual motion machine was discredited in the Victorian era, yet we still believe its possible to build the game at the top with a few quid from a rich benefactor. Gary Hetherington grumbled recently about the small player pool, well Rugby League what did you expect? We could have predicted the reduction in the availability of quality players as soon as Union went pro'. Unless we grow our own players, where will we get them? Sustainable development means growing a pyramid structure which is broad enough at the bottom to supply all the players and fans, that Super League club at the top needs. So unless your 'plan' has a community-growth component it is by its very nature a short term folly. Community development is our only hope of being in this dog eat dog world for the long haul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellsy4HullFC Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: The difference between what Crusaders did and what say Coventry is doing is that crusaders had a couple of million and a stadium to play out of. If say Coventry or Newcastle or anyone had those things thats what they will be doing. Because thats what investment is. Bottom up expansion isnt a plan, its not a choice people make. People at these clubs, and a great and vital job they do and i respect hugely, arent turning down money. They are simply doing what they can with what they have. Our choice isnt between top-down and bottom up. Both are pretty much meaningless. Sometimes we have money and clubs can do things quicker, sometimes we dont. Thats about as far as it goes. Top-down and bottom-up as concepts only seem to ever exist to say this club shouldnt be in this league. That part I agree with, but rules about salary caps etc have now been changed to allow this "spend big" approach to work at any part of the pyramid, whereas before you had to develop your own and maintain within a set budget. God knows what you were on about when you were saying about turning down money? Not sure your point there, seemed an argument no one made? Regardless, bottom-up approach is more to do with developing roots, players, etc rather than buying everything in on the quick and hoping it sticks (which sometimes works). It's investing your money in other places as a priority, not just the playing side to get you to the top. Top-down is the opposite. Money goes into playing side as a priority to be competitive, with the rest supporting that. I'm not going to argue over semantics anymore though. If it means something different to you, that's not an issue. But when people are talking about approaches to new clubs, they're going by this gist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 10 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: The problem is the few quid from the benefactor is the only new money coming in. Where there is a 'broad based and vibrant community game' clubs are dying on their feet. The fact of the matter is that investors are never going to be completely altruistic. They arent going to come in and throw money at the community game for the sake of throwing money at the community game. Our options arent anything really. We have only one option. Either we accept the money that comes in to the game from investors/rich people etc or we don't. But if we reject it we should do so fully in the knowledge that we arent doing that to redirect money to a more worthy grass-roots area, we are doing it protect the failing business model of the status quo. I don't expect anyone to be altruistic and I'm certainly not in favour of turning ''new money'' down. I'm speaking to the potential investor, not to the RFL (who might frustrate new money's entry into the game). If, as an investor you love the game and want to create a legacy rather than a flash of colour, with the life-span of a roman candle then you have to consider how long term sustainability can be achieved. Neglecting the responsibility to develop your own production line and supporting structure is not club building its delusional. A facade made of tinsel and sellotape. How many egotistical fly-by-nights have we seen over the years? They don't build clubs, or fanbases or loyalty and they damage our sports credibility. They are looking to take much more from the game, than they put in. They hurt us rather that help us. All i'm saying is you can't get something for nothing. Not for long anyway. Toronto, (its early to judge) seem to have both short term success and long term sustainability built in to their ambitions. I just hope we don't make them feel so unwelcome they just give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Providing support and stimulating community growth doesn't cost millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulwalker71 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 58 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Our options arent anything really. We have only one option. Either we accept the money that comes in to the game from investors/rich people etc or we don't. But if we reject it we should do so fully in the knowledge that we arent doing that to redirect money to a more worthy grass-roots area, we are doing it protect the failing business model of the status quo. Exactly this There is zero prospect that the wealthy business people who were willing to pay for Manchester Rangers will now suddenly pour that money into Swinton Lions or Oldham. They'll just move onto some other business project. It is clear from the LE report that these are people not previously involved in RL. All that has now happened is that money is lost to the game, and meanwhile Swinton and Oldham (just to use them as examples) carry on just surviving with little investment, small crowds, no ground of their own etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 I don't know what Leeds do, but from what you say, they are responsible about sustaining and developing their local area. That's the model I'm arguing for. Please don't think I'm suggesting anyone spends £20 million on amateur development. I know from my own efforts, it doesn't cost much, to employ a professional development officer. Employing a development man and / or using players to promote participation in the locality shouldn't consume a large proportion of the clubs budget, but as time progresses, the good will engendered will pay back for years and years, creating a real bona-fide pro' club embedded in the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Yes of course, but a reasonable ''litmus'' test of new investors ambitions for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Chopra Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 2 hours ago, fighting irish said: How many egotistical fly-by-nights have we seen over the years? They don't build clubs, or fanbases or loyalty and they damage our sports credibility. They are looking to take much more from the game, than they put in. They hurt us rather that help us. All i'm saying is you can't get something for nothing. Not for long anyway. I'm intrigued by this comment. Who has taken anything from the game in recent years? There have been wise investors and stupid. Those that over-promised and under-delivered. Some that have sounded off like prats along the way. And many clubs have hit hard times. But I can't think of a single person who's made a cent out of rugby league - they've all lost money in a game that's chronically broke. So, as much as we'd like to see a queue of investors who we could pick and choose from, we have to take what we can get and short of actual criminality, we have no business turning anyone down who want to have a go at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonM Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Going back to the RFC v FC thing - the original rugby union club in Liverpool, formed in 1857, was claimed to be the oldest "open" (i.e open to anyone rich enough to be a member) rugby club and was formed as Liverpool Football Club, not RFC. They were still considered a top club until the early 1980s and only merged with St. Helens RUFC in the 1990s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.