Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Smudger06

Brian McDermott's Big City Team League

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Do fans of lower-tier pro soccer clubs continue to follow their clubs, or do they give up on them?  Their continued existence suggests the former, so what would stop fans of those pro RL clubs continuing to follow their clubs?

Ok.. I've been a follower of American Sports and I like the draft system.. I would love to see it come in here in a way but you just cant do it.. and there are a few reasons.. not least is the fact that our college/university system is not set up like that.. we dont have massive donners paying huge amounts of money to support the sporting infrastructure of the univeristies.. we dont have huge leagues within the universities that make huge money and massive stadiums that fund the system.  we have academies run by clubs, you are not going to get those clubs, who have invested large amounts of money into the system, to then be happy to not reap benefit of those players that they have produced. 

equally we have a system of transfers and paying money for players. This negates the need for drafts.. after all as you point out drafts arent as simple as pick them and they play for you there is all sorts of horsetrading around it too (John Elway similarly to your example and many others).. there are also free trades (like our out of contract players) etc so we already have a perfectly good system set up, its just a bit different.. 

it aint broke, there is no need to fix it.. but all teams at the top level should have academies, and for new clubs they should be asked to provide a full plan of how one will be introduced (to think you can have one up and running, producing players or top quality on inception of the club is utter madness but plans should be in place of how that is begun and fines handed out for missed timings).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RP London said:

Ok.. I've been a follower of American Sports and I like the draft system.. I would love to see it come in here in a way but you just cant do it.. and there are a few reasons.. not least is the fact that our college/university system is not set up like that.. we dont have massive donners paying huge amounts of money to support the sporting infrastructure of the univeristies.. we dont have huge leagues within the universities that make huge money and massive stadiums that fund the system.  we have academies run by clubs, you are not going to get those clubs, who have invested large amounts of money into the system, to then be happy to not reap benefit of those players that they have produced. 

equally we have a system of transfers and paying money for players. This negates the need for drafts.. after all as you point out drafts arent as simple as pick them and they play for you there is all sorts of horsetrading around it too (John Elway similarly to your example and many others).. there are also free trades (like our out of contract players) etc so we already have a perfectly good system set up, its just a bit different.. 

it aint broke, there is no need to fix it.. but all teams at the top level should have academies, and for new clubs they should be asked to provide a full plan of how one will be introduced (to think you can have one up and running, producing players or top quality on inception of the club is utter madness but plans should be in place of how that is begun and fines handed out for missed timings).

 

A draft system could work in the UK, but it would require a massive investment and levelling up and simultaneously a hand over of control to a third party. 

It would also need the bigger clubs to give up the privileged position they have at the moment and the smaller clubs to invest more in a shared resource

For an expanding game which wants to penetrate new areas a draft system would be really good. It could add more interest to the lower leagues, make more efficient use of resources and player pool.

I'm not sure our system is good, there are many ways in which it doesnt work, but a draft system requires a massive change in culture, a huge change in thinking, the removal of P+R etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Parksider said:

The reality is that investment in Rugby league comes mostly from dyed in the wool Rugby League people, who come from Rugby league land.

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. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Anyone know what the price of a pint is in Seoul? Do they do pies over there too? Think I’m going to do Seoul away this year. 

Buddy, ths horse is dead.

Let it rest in peace.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


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

He said ' plain English ' , try again

If that wasn’t plain English then there really is no hope. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.........

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

He said ' plain English ' , try again

Is that not plain english?

I think people, especially on a thread like this, deliberately conflate any statement that isnt a broad sweeping sweeping statement with management speak. 

I think this is because they want to find some contradiction and hold it up and say you hate x club because you arent applying criteria in the same way to different clubs

But that isnt really how it works. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

Edited by GUBRATS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

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...