Private Baldrick Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 39 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said: But this is the entire problem, is it not? The game cannot keep relying on the next generation of Fultons, Beaumonts or Davys to keep clubs afloat. RL doesn't attract investment because it offers pitifully low returns - at best. Who has actually made a return from their investment in RL? Caddick at a push perhaps? And it wouldn't suprise me if most of that will be down to property values in LS6. As long as the game keeps offering those poor returns, it is going to stand still. None of the incumbent chairmen will want to take risk without the opportunity of sufficient reward because it increases their personal cost base, but none of them are making investments to maximise the reward. That's why we have players earning less in real terms, clubs achieving less media coverage (not withstanding the recent TV figures) and clubs still running at a defecit. So much money is going into the game from some admittedly passionate individuals, simply to try and keep the lights on, but nobody has realised that most of the bulbs have already blown. Ken Davy isn't going to be able to subsidise those cheap season tickets at Huddersfield forever, yet so little progress has been made in growing that club that only a fool, or an equally passionate and wealthy Giants fan, would take it on. Nobody new is going to invest in RL when the sport offers such poor financial returns, not helped by how inaccessible the sport is to much of the UK (never mind foreign markets), and the hostility that many in the "RL Family" have to outsiders. I don't understand why McDermott felt the need to drop Barcelona and Copenhagen into the conversation, but his overlying point is right. If RL is going to progress, it needs to make it easier for people, sponsors and broadcasters to buy it - and that means spreading beyond the M62. If the powers that be want a team in New York, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Dublin or where ever, why not simply relocate 5 or 6 existing superleague clubs to those cities? Castleford, Wakefield, Salford, Warrington, Hull KR could all be moved to the big cities and play from the facilities available in those cities. Maybe there is the odd Leeds fan or 2 happy to see their team relocate to some exotic city? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Clothesoff Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 19 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Buddy, ths horse is dead. Let it rest in peace. Horse pies? Sounds good to me. How much is a pint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatmichaelsays Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 33 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said: If the powers that be want a team in New York, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Dublin or where ever, why not simply relocate 5 or 6 existing superleague clubs to those cities? Neither Super League nor the RFL have that power. The clubs are private entities. This isn't about 'pin in map' expansion. However, it doesn't change the fact that, as it stands, it's very hard for most of the UK to 'buy into' RL even if they wanted to. The emphasis should be about encouraging an environment where RL clubs can be an attractive investment not only for the people already in the game, but for people coming into the game from the outside. Personally, I believe licencing is the best way to do that but I know that's not a universally popular opinion. SL should be imposing high standards, measuring the right criteria, and encouraging growth. If enough clubs reach those standards, that's good for the entire league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Baldrick Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said: Neither Super League nor the RFL have that power. The clubs are private entities. (1.) This isn't about 'pin in map' expansion. However, it doesn't change the fact that, as it stands, it's very hard for most of the UK to 'buy into' RL even if they wanted to. (2.) The emphasis should be about encouraging an environment where RL clubs can be an attractive investment not only for the people already in the game, but for people coming into the game from the outside. (3.) Personally, I believe licencing is the best way to do that but I know that's not a universally popular opinion. SL should be imposing high standards, measuring the right criteria, and encouraging growth. If enough clubs reach those standards, that's good for the entire league. (1.) I beg to differ, that is what it is ALL about to many expansionists. (2.) What does that mean in plain English? Sounds pretty impressive in management speak. If you are talking about an attractive financial investment then all I would say is no one makes money from 'investing' in rugby league. (3.) What, like they did the last time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatmichaelsays Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 55 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said: (1.) I beg to differ, that is what it is ALL about to many expansionists. (2.) What does that mean in plain English? Sounds pretty impressive in management speak. If you are talking about an attractive financial investment then all I would say is no one makes money from 'investing' in rugby league. (3.) What, like they did the last time? I'll do one and three first.... 1 - You understand that "expansionists" aren't one big homogenous group, don't you? There are different ways to approach the issue of how we grow the sport, and there are many different forms of expansion. The "pin in map" approach is a non starter when clubs are private entities - current owners want their clubs where they are, and new owners will decide where their clubs are based. 3 - As above - there is not "one approach to rule them all" when it comes to licencing. The old system measured the wrong things, encouraged the wrong behaviour and didn't measure other key elements. That's what any new licencing system should address. Just because a handful of clubs made a pigs ear of it during licencing last time, it does not mean that licensing in any form is wrong. As for point two.... Adam Pearson touched on this issue in a recent interview. The sport struggles to attract people into the sport because the investments that they are encouraged to make are so limited (the system is structured so that no one team can run too far ahead) and returns on investment are so low (if they even exist at all). The system is structured like that because the current cohort of chairmen / owners are focused more on limiting their cost base and mitigating risk, rather than growing their clubs through increased ticket and merchandising revenue, increased commercial revenue and increased investment in digital. How do we address that? By doing a number of things. Firstly, I'd tackle the hostile culture that the "RL family" has to outsiders - it's frankly embarassing. I'd restructure the competition to encourage and reward those clubs that can grow, rather than keep clubs running at the pace of the slowest man, and I would try and ensure that the competition reflects the unique circumstances that certain clubs face. It's ridiculous that a club in London operates at the same cap as a club in West Yorkshire when the cost of living is so drastically different. But above all else, the sport needs to increase (what us marketing tossers call) its 'market penetration'. The sport doesn't lack penetration because it doesn't advertise enough or because there aren't enough posters around during Magic Weekend. The sport lacks penetration because it's almost invisible and extremely difficult to engage with to all but a small part of northern England. This isn't a problem the sport can advertise its way out of. The clubs and the sport can do more but, to really make a difference, expansion has to play a role and to do that, we have to encourage outside investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Why have no Big City League fans mentioned Beijing yet? Loads of multi millionaires to throw money at the club and with some clever marketing crowds would be massive. With a population of 21m, even if 1% of them got season tickets (a conservative estimate given how easy marketing RL in new markets is) the average attendance would be 210,000 so they’d need a new stadium but it would be amazing. Widnes should look into moving there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 5 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said: I'll do one and three first.... 1 - You understand that "expansionists" aren't one big homogenous group, don't you? There are different ways to approach the issue of how we grow the sport, and there are many different forms of expansion. The "pin in map" approach is a non starter when clubs are private entities - current owners want their clubs where they are, and new owners will decide where their clubs are based. 3 - As above - there is not "one approach to rule them all" when it comes to licencing. The old system measured the wrong things, encouraged the wrong behaviour and didn't measure other key elements. That's what any new licencing system should address. Just because a handful of clubs made a pigs ear of it during licencing last time, it does not mean that licensing in any form is wrong. As for point two.... Adam Pearson touched on this issue in a recent interview. The sport struggles to attract people into the sport because the investments that they are encouraged to make are so limited (the system is structured so that no one team can run too far ahead) and returns on investment are so low (if they even exist at all). The system is structured like that because the current cohort of chairmen / owners are focused more on limiting their cost base and mitigating risk, rather than growing their clubs through increased ticket and merchandising revenue, increased commercial revenue and increased investment in digital. How do we address that? By doing a number of things. Firstly, I'd tackle the hostile culture that the "RL family" has to outsiders - it's frankly embarassing. I'd restructure the competition to encourage and reward those clubs that can grow, rather than keep clubs running at the pace of the slowest man, and I would try and ensure that the competition reflects the unique circumstances that certain clubs face. It's ridiculous that a club in London operates at the same cap as a club in West Yorkshire when the cost of living is so drastically different. But above all else, the sport needs to increase (what us marketing tossers call) its 'market penetration'. The sport doesn't lack penetration because it doesn't advertise enough or because there aren't enough posters around during Magic Weekend. The sport lacks penetration because it's almost invisible and extremely difficult to engage with to all but a small part of northern England. This isn't a problem the sport can advertise its way out of. The clubs and the sport can do more but, to really make a difference, expansion has to play a role and to do that, we have to encourage outside investment. He said ' plain English ' , try again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertAM Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 11 hours ago, Eddie said: Why do you think that will be the case? A number of lower league clubs are thriving and I don’t think any of the current SL teams will be defunct except possibly Toronto (hopefully not). Which ones do you think will have disappeared and why? There are enthusiastic supporters who will go to any length to support their club home and away and I make it a point to get out to the welcome party's that we throw here for visiting fans but almost all of them told me it's a struggle to maintain numbers never mind bring in new (younger) fans. So without any other solid forms of income I'd say clubs who cannot regularly get crowds in the 1000--2000+ range will struggle to survive. I don't like it, being a proud northerner by birth I'm all for a thriving heartland club scene but the game is struggling and the sooner it is addressed the better. What is the answer (other than deep pocketed knights in shining armour) you tell me?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, RobertAM said: There are enthusiastic supporters who will go to any length to support their club home and away and I make it a point to get out to the welcome party's that we throw here for visiting fans but almost all of them told me it's a struggle to maintain numbers never mind bring in new (younger) fans. So without any other solid forms of income I'd say clubs who cannot regularly get crowds in the 1000--2000+ range will struggle to survive. I don't like it, being a proud northerner by birth I'm all for a thriving heartland club scene but the game is struggling and the sooner it is addressed the better. What is the answer (other than deep pocketed knights in shining armour) you tell me?? I wouldn't say thriving , but certainly it is interesting in the Championship at the moment , compared to 10 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solly Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 hour ago, GUBRATS said: He said ' plain English ' , try again If that wasn’t plain English then there really is no hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 minute ago, solly said: If that wasn’t plain English then there really is no hope. You said ' lots ' , but no actual substance , like plenty on here do , you're as clueless as the rest of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Tonks Sidestep Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 6 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said: I'll do one and three first.... 1 - You understand that "expansionists" aren't one big homogenous group, don't you? There are different ways to approach the issue of how we grow the sport, and there are many different forms of expansion. The "pin in map" approach is a non starter when clubs are private entities - current owners want their clubs where they are, and new owners will decide where their clubs are based. 3 - As above - there is not "one approach to rule them all" when it comes to licencing. The old system measured the wrong things, encouraged the wrong behaviour and didn't measure other key elements. That's what any new licencing system should address. Just because a handful of clubs made a pigs ear of it during licencing last time, it does not mean that licensing in any form is wrong. As for point two.... Adam Pearson touched on this issue in a recent interview. The sport struggles to attract people into the sport because the investments that they are encouraged to make are so limited (the system is structured so that no one team can run too far ahead) and returns on investment are so low (if they even exist at all). The system is structured like that because the current cohort of chairmen / owners are focused more on limiting their cost base and mitigating risk, rather than growing their clubs through increased ticket and merchandising revenue, increased commercial revenue and increased investment in digital. How do we address that? By doing a number of things. Firstly, I'd tackle the hostile culture that the "RL family" has to outsiders - it's frankly embarassing. I'd restructure the competition to encourage and reward those clubs that can grow, rather than keep clubs running at the pace of the slowest man, and I would try and ensure that the competition reflects the unique circumstances that certain clubs face. It's ridiculous that a club in London operates at the same cap as a club in West Yorkshire when the cost of living is so drastically different. But above all else, the sport needs to increase (what us marketing tossers call) its 'market penetration'. The sport doesn't lack penetration because it doesn't advertise enough or because there aren't enough posters around during Magic Weekend. The sport lacks penetration because it's almost invisible and extremely difficult to engage with to all but a small part of northern England. This isn't a problem the sport can advertise its way out of. The clubs and the sport can do more but, to really make a difference, expansion has to play a role and to do that, we have to encourage outside investment. Is that the same Adam Pearson who in Jan 2018 reckoned that the game was going to make changes in the next 3 months to become a real threat to RU within 6 months? Funnily enough I'm still waiting to see any evidence......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 6 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said: I'll do one and three first.... 3 - As above - there is not "one approach to rule them all" when it comes to licencing. The old system measured the wrong things, encouraged the wrong behaviour and didn't measure other key elements. That's what any new licencing system should address. Just because a handful of clubs made a pigs ear of it during licencing last time, it does not mean that licensing in any form is wrong. So what were " the wrong things " ? How did that " encourage the wrong behaviour " ? , What was that wrong behaviour ? What " key elements " ? How would you " address ' it ? All in nice simple plain northern English please , with no David Brent male genitals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatmichaelsays Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 46 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: So what were " the wrong things " ? How did that " encourage the wrong behaviour " ? , What was that wrong behaviour ? What " key elements " ? How would you " address ' it ? All in nice simple plain northern English please , with no David Brent male genitals Let's start with an easy one.... There was a KPI in the old licensing system that was based on clubs getting an average gate of (IIRC) 10,000. Most clubs weren't achieving that and the way they responded, instead of going out and finding new audiences and thinking about how they market themselves, was to cut ticket prices dramatically across the board. Wakefield did it, Bradford did it and Huddersfield are still doing it. It meant that they cut their profit margin massively, giving discounts to people who would have paid full price, in the hope that enough people would be tempted by the bargain basement prices. It didn't work. The clubs devalued their product, didn't sell the added volume to make up the lost margin and in the case of Wakefield and Bradford, hit the financial buffers. The criteria of "average gates of 10k" encouraged the wrong behaviour - it encouraged discounting and under-selling of the sport from which, in many cases, it still hasn't recovered. The criteria should have been a ticket revenue target. Its more meaningful, less easily manipulated and encourages more strategic thinking. Simple enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatmichaelsays Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 2 hours ago, GUBRATS said: He said ' plain English ' , try again Which parts are you struggling with? Do you need me to write it in crayon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said: Let's start with an easy one.... There was a KPI in the old licensing system that was based on clubs getting an average gate of (IIRC) 10,000. Most clubs weren't achieving that and the way they responded, instead of going out and finding new audiences and thinking about how they market themselves, was to cut ticket prices dramatically across the board. Wakefield did it, Bradford did it and Huddersfield are still doing it. It meant that they cut their profit margin massively, giving discounts to people who would have paid full price, in the hope that enough people would be tempted by the bargain basement prices. It didn't work. The clubs devalued their product, didn't sell the added volume to make up the lost margin and in the case of Wakefield and Bradford, hit the financial buffers. The criteria of "average gates of 10k" encouraged the wrong behaviour - it encouraged discounting and under-selling of the sport from which, in many cases, it still hasn't recovered. The criteria should have been a ticket revenue target. Its more meaningful, less easily manipulated and encourages more strategic thinking. Simple enough for you? That is just a general lack of marketing indemic within RL and indeed plenty of other sports , far too often the one thought given to marketing is the on field performance , when in fact that should be completely ignored when looking to increase your attendances And thank you for the reply in English Maybe try one of the others ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said: Which parts are you struggling with? Do you need me to write it in crayon? So you've just answered a simple question simply , so why the insult ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatmichaelsays Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 minute ago, GUBRATS said: That is just a general lack of marketing indemic within RL and indeed plenty of other sports , far too often the one thought given to marketing is the on field performance , when in fact that should be completely ignored when looking to increase your attendances So we're agreed that the old licencing system encouraged wrong behaviour. Just because the criteria in that system was flawed, it doesn't make all licencing systems flawed, which is rhe suggestion I was responding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said: So we're agreed that the old licencing system encouraged wrong behaviour. Just because the criteria in that system was flawed, it doesn't make all licencing systems flawed, which is rhe suggestion I was responding to. It isn't that it's flawed , it's just that it is and always will be subjective , both in the criteria selected and the application of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatmichaelsays Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: So you've just answered a simple question simply , so why the insult ? You know what, fair point - that was too far. Consider it withdrawn. But equally, I don't think that anything there is "David Brent genitals". Sometimes things don't have a simple explanation because they aren't simple. This is one of them. RL has a lot of complex issues - despite what a lot might like to think, they aren't easy to explain and neither are the solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solly Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 hour ago, GUBRATS said: You said ' lots ' , but no actual substance , like plenty on here do , you're as clueless as the rest of us The difference between the clueless is the direction they're looking. I'm not a marketer yet you keep demanding answers and details from me that I'm not privy to. If you want those answers from people who don’t have them, don’t get upset if all you get is basic concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said: You know what, fair point - that was too far. Consider it withdrawn. But equally, I don't think that anything there is "David Brent genitals". Sometimes things don't have a simple explanation because they aren't simple. This is one of them. RL has a lot of complex issues - despite what a lot might like to think, they aren't easy to explain and neither are the solutions. Your original post wasnt specific enough , allowing different interpretations of it , I was more specific in my question as you were in your reply , " generalisations ' on subjects like licencing can end up looking like a ' superiority ' contest , as you say it can get complicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 22 minutes ago, solly said: The difference between the clueless is the direction they're looking. I'm not a marketer yet you keep demanding answers and details from me that I'm not privy to. If you want those answers from people who don’t have them, don’t get upset if all you get is basic concepts. The ambiguity of " basic concepts " just draw questions on details , if you aren't willing to supply answers to those questions, then expect Criticism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIWIT Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Back in the days of the old 6-team NHL, those clubs had extensive amateur farm systems. Each club scouted and signed promising young hockey players to contracts and moved them to one of their junior development teams – essentially academies – who played in leagues and competed for their own national championship. When the NHL doubled in size a universal draft was instituted. But most of those junior teams and leagues continued to exist, just without the direct ownership of the NHL team. Rights fees were negotiated with the NHL so that the junior club was essentially paid for any drafted player who signed with an NHL team. Between that and the money they make from attendance and local sponsorships – the national TV deal is a pittance – junior hockey has continued to thrive. I don’t know if such a system would work in the UK. In fact I doubt it – attendance in junior hockey in Canada rivals that of the Championship/League 1 which is why I have always thought them comparable – but it’s something to look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solly Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 51 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: The ambiguity of " basic concepts " just draw questions on details , if you aren't willing to supply answers to those questions, then expect Criticism Willing?!? What does it mean if you criticise me for not being able to supply those details after I've told you that I am unable to supply those details? Bloody hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.