Catalans fail to land new TV deal

[Gooleboy]

6 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

This statement is just a soundbite and lacks substance - what evidence do you have for this claim? I would argue that cricket is a fairly traditional British sport, and they don't have any P&R in their flagship T20 competition that makes them the most money.

But that isn't how the distribution of tv money works, so this point is irrelevant.

There is no promotion in T20 Cricket because there isn't any higher and lowe divisions, they are all equal.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

57 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

There is no promotion in T20 Cricket because there isn't any higher and lowe divisions, they are all equal.

There's minor counties and club cricket below the first class counties, so that isn't strictly true. The top level of competition in cricket is ring-fenced and has been as long as I'm aware. The only comp that they have P&R in is the county championship between division 1 and division 2. But this is a compete basket case of a competition that loses money. Relegation from the top division makes next to no impact on a team, because the central funding comes from tv revenue primarily from England games, as opposed the domestic comp.

If the cricket structure were applied to rugby league, then the top 18 clubs would be ring-fenced, and the rest would fall by the wayside. I haven't got the impression that was something you were in favour of.

[Gooleboy]

6 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

There's minor counties and club cricket below the first class counties, so that isn't strictly true. The top level of competition in cricket is ring-fenced and has been as long as I'm aware. The only comp that they have P&R in is the county championship between division 1 and division 2. But this is a compete basket case of a competition that loses money. Relegation from the top division makes next to no impact on a team, because the central funding comes from tv revenue primarily from England games, as opposed the domestic comp.

If the cricket structure were applied to rugby league, then the top 18 clubs would be ring-fenced, and the rest would fall by the wayside. I haven't got the impression that was something you were in favour of.

We can go on forever about this and everyone has their opinion, but me personally, I am a supporter of P&R. I think Clubs should have the pathway open to reach the top division by on the field achievements, same as in Football. Having a criteria regarding standards to enter the top division should be in place to run alongside as it does in Football, ie, ground facilities and financial stability. The problem with RL is that minimum standards get mentioned, but nobody seems to know what they are. They should be agreed on by the Clubs and Governing bodies and published, so everybody knows what they have to do to meet the criteria.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

46 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

We can go on forever about this and everyone has their opinion, but me personally, I am a supporter of P&R. I think Clubs should have the pathway open to reach the top division by on the field achievements, same as in Football. Having a criteria regarding standards to enter the top division should be in place to run alongside as it does in Football, ie, ground facilities and financial stability. The problem with RL is that minimum standards get mentioned, but nobody seems to know what they are. They should be agreed on by the Clubs and Governing bodies and published, so everybody knows what they have to do to meet the criteria.

And that's fine, but as yet nobody's provided a compelling argument as to why P&R is going to have a positive effect on the growth of the game. Other than a bit of short-term excitement on the occasions when it's a tight finish to the season, I can't see any benefits to relegation. Several people have put forward compelling arguments as to how it could potentially have a negative impact on long-term growth, in terms of attracting sponsors and broadcasting deals, and developing business models and developing players. If people are fans of yo-yo clubs who are in and out of the top division, then I can see why they personally would want P&R, as it gives their club something to aspire to. But I don't believe this is in the wider interests of the game.

I personally think it's dangerous for us to try and ape what football does, because football is the global behemoth that is the exception to the rule. Cricket is arguably just as big a part of traditional British sporting culture, but they've always had a ring-fenced group of clubs at the top tier, and have never had any meaningful version of P&R that allows clubs to move to the top of the competition structure. When people talk about P&R being part of our sporting culture, nobody ever cites cricket - they only cite football.

For me, rugby league's competition structure is a complete mess, and the game needs to work out what it wants to be from top to bottom. This thread started about the Catalans TV deal, so the game needs to work out if strategically it wants France to have 2 clubs in the top competition, and the anticipated benefits to sponsorship and broadcasting revenue, and the development of French players that it may or may not bring. We're all making bag-of-fag-packet assumptions about potential benefits/drawbacks of multiple French clubs in SL, but the game of RL should be conducting proper reviews in to this. And also they should conduct a review in to P&R while they're at it. What happened to viewing figures and attendances, commercial investment and player development during licencing versus P&R, for example? They should be analysing the data to help devise a strategy to best develop the sport. And if they conclude that 2 French clubs are going to be beneficial, then put 'em in SL. Conversely, if the game isn't bothered about French clubs, then why are Catalans even in there? What is the long term strategy to develop and grow the game? Until we sort this out, we can't realistically expect anything other than scrapping around living hand-to-mouth, because we're not helping ourselves by devising any sort of strategy.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

17 hours ago, Eddie said:

That is a matter of opinion, I find it interesting. Also I wouldn’t watch anything other than the top teams if there was no relegation, but again that may be just me. 

We came the wrong side of it last year

However I can categorically assure you it was exciting. Especially stood on the West Stand at Wakey for the last game

 

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Wigan v Castleford got the same as Wakefield v London on the same week. Neither were higher figures

It also had more attendees. We had the perfect storm, as good as a relegation battle will ever produce. Two teams basically in a play off to stay in SL and the figures were no different. 

The idea that relegation drives interest in terms of attendances and viewing figures isnt a matter of opinion, its measurable. The answer is clear and no amount of snark and condescension can cover that up for you.

That comparison is a nonsense and proves nothing. 

Apart from maybe showing that a game between the worst 2 teams in SL was as appealing to TV viewers as a top of the table clash involving a giant of the game. 

[gingerjon]

19 hours ago, Eddie said:

How much does money T20 cricket make …

It's not sold separately in this country but the ECB's most recent deal was for four years and totalled £1.1bn. That's for T20, The Hundred, One Day Cup and T20 Blast, as well as England internationals.

It doesn't include the World Cup or any other ICC tournament. I also don't think it includes foreign England tours.

[Eddie]

47 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's not sold separately in this country but the ECB's most recent deal was for four years and totalled £1.1bn. That's for T20, The Hundred, One Day Cup and T20 Blast, as well as England internationals.

It doesn't include the World Cup or any other ICC tournament. I also don't think it includes foreign England tours.

So if includes the ashes then t20 will be a minuscule part of that total £275m a year. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

19 minutes ago, Eddie said:

So if includes the ashes then t20 will be a minuscule part of that total £275m a year. 

And the solution to increasing their commercial revenue is to introduce P&R is it? 

Plus you do know that a home Ashes series is only once every 4 years?

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make, other than the fact that you personally enjoy P&R - which is absolutely fine. But you've provided no attempt to explain how P&R will lead to greater commercial growth of the sport, other than highlight that every so often there is a tight relegation battle which is exciting. If you can provide a compelling argument then I will happily change my mind, but as it stands, you haven't.

[bazzzz65]

On 10/12/2019 at 01:22, Gooleboy said:

As well as London did last season on the pitch, their crowds were pathetic.

I went twice last season to Trailfinders ground and both games against Salford and Wigan , the away support far outnumbered the home fans.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

13 hours ago, Dave T said:

It is amazing that TV companies keep showing relegation battles isn't it? 

They clearly know less than you. 

I can't deny a close relegation battle is exciting. But for me, that short-term excitement doesn't outweigh the long-term commercial downsides due to the instability experienced by the clubs and the competition.

Plus for every close relegation battle, there is a season where the bottom team are a basket case and end up cut adrift from the rest of the league. This offers zero excitement for me. In these situations, what do the broadcasters do? They would probably show the most exciting games that they have that week, which would be more likely to be higher up the table. Without having gone through the long-term trends of viewing figures, my guess is that this wouldn't significantly impact the viewing trends at all either way. However, if someone has the time and inclination to do the research and prove otherwise, then I'll happily stand corrected.

[Eddie]

18 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

And the solution to increasing their commercial revenue is to introduce P&R is it? 

Plus you do know that a home Ashes series is only once every 4 years?

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make, other than the fact that you personally enjoy P&R - which is absolutely fine. But you've provided no attempt to explain how P&R will lead to greater commercial growth of the sport, other than highlight that every so often there is a tight relegation battle which is exciting. If you can provide a compelling argument then I will happily change my mind, but as it stands, you haven't.

I’m not trying to get you to change your mind as I don’t care if you favour P&R or not. I’m merely saying that I do and have explained why. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

I’m not trying to get you to change your mind as I don’t care if you favour P&R or not. I’m merely saying that I do and have explained why. 

So do you accept that whilst you prefer P&R from a spectator's perspective, it probably isn't conducive to developing the commercial growth of the sport?

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

So do you accept that whilst you prefer P&R from a spectator's perspective, it probably isn't conducive to developing the commercial growth of the sport?

No I think the opposite, because commercial development depends on supporter interest. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

No I think the opposite, because commercial development depends on supporter interest. 

Agreed. So for me the solution is to ring-fence the biggest clubs with the most supporters, rather than risk losing the likes of Leeds (and previously Bradford) to relegation. Catalans' and potentially also Toulouse's supporters won't be interested in SL if they're not in it.

[Eddie]

30 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Agreed. So for me the solution is to ring-fence the biggest clubs with the most supporters, rather than risk losing the likes of Leeds (and previously Bradford) to relegation. Catalans' and potentially also Toulouse's supporters won't be interested in SL if they're not in it.

No, imho a lot of people wouldn’t be interested in a SL with no relegation and crowds would drop. Also interest in the championship would massively reduce. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

10 minutes ago, Eddie said:

No, imho a lot of people wouldn’t be interested in a SL with no relegation and crowds would drop.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I would suspect supporters of all of the clubs who were in SL would be interested in it. What happened to interest levels when we had licencing compared to P&R? 

14 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Also interest in the championship would massively reduce. 

Again, is this borne out by the evidence? Does the Championship currently draw much bigger attendances and attract more commercial interest now compared to licencing?

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

It proves that a relegation decider didnt drive interest either to the tv audience or paid attendances. 

It doesn't prove that at all. 

[Eddie]

13 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I would suspect supporters of all of the clubs who were in SL would be interested in it. What happened to interest levels when we had licencing compared to P&R? 

Again, is this borne out by the evidence? Does the Championship currently draw much bigger attendances and attract more commercial interest now compared to licencing?

Look pal this is really tedious, you’re just going round circles and asking the same questions that you asked yesterday. You may suspect something but is suspect something else, there is no evidence because it hasn’t happened yet. Though with regard to your last point if you serious think the championship wouldn’t suffer if there was no promotion then I really do give up. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

Look pal this is really tedious, you’re just going round circles and asking the same questions that you asked yesterday.

And you didn't answer any of them then either. If you come on a discussion forum, then expect people to try and engage you in a discussion. If you're finding it tedious, go and do something else with your time.

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

there is no evidence because it hasn’t happened yet.

There is evidence, because we had several years of licencing, and therefore have the capacity to compare that to the recent years of P&R. However, I have a suspicion that the evidence won't support your argument.

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Though with regard to your last point if you serious think the championship wouldn’t suffer if there was no promotion then I really do give up. 

I didn't say it wouldn't be impacted - I merely asked what the evidence suggests. I like to base my views and opinions on evidence. You haven't provided any evidence to support your arguments or convince me to change my mind.

I don't have a dog in this fight - I'm only interested in what's best for the long-term health and development of the game of rugby league. If I had to guess (which I have to, because you're not fully engaging in the discussion), I would guess that you are an advocate of P&R because it suits your club, and therefore your self-interests, as opposed to being for the greater good of the game. You haven't provided any compelling argument to the contrary.

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

And you didn't answer any of them then either. If you come on a discussion forum, then expect people to try and engage you in a discussion. If you're finding it tedious, go and do something else with your time.

There is evidence, because we had several years of licencing, and therefore have the capacity to compare that to the recent years of P&R. However, I have a suspicion that the evidence won't support your argument.

I didn't say it wouldn't be impacted - I merely asked what the evidence suggests. I like to base my views and opinions on evidence. You haven't provided any evidence to support your arguments or convince me to change my mind.

I don't have a dog in this fight - I'm only interested in what's best for the long-term health and development of the game of rugby league. If I had to guess (which I have to, because you're not fully engaging in the discussion), I would guess that you are an advocate of P&R because it suits your club, and therefore your self-interests, as opposed to being for the greater good of the game. You haven't provided any compelling argument to the contrary.

You keep asking for evidence but what I’m offering is an opinion, as there isn’t any evidence (you have provided now either).  You reference what happened 25 years ago but life was different then, as were the specific circumstances, so attendances or marketing revenue going up or down then doesn’t mean the same would happen now, under vastly different circumstances. 

Incidentally I’m a Saints fan. How does my argument affect my self interest? 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Yes it does. Which is why you didnt use the BARB figures you are usually so keen to use and why not you're hiding behind these statements rather than trying to make any sort of cogent argument.

No, the figures you used really didn't prove that. And the reason I'm not going into the figures is because you are trying to disprove something that nobody has argued. 

 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You keep asking for evidence but what I’m offering is an opinion, as there isn’t any evidence (you have provided now either).

The evidence is there. The average SL attendances haven't increased since the reintroduction of P&R, so there doesn't seem to be anything supporting your argument that interest is greater with P&R. Viewing figures are harder to gauge, as Sky have changed their channel structure in recent years, getting rid of 1, 2, 3 etc and replacing them with Arena and Main Event etc. The world didn't end when licencing was in operation (despite how badly the licencing process was implemented by the RFL).

14 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You reference what happened 25 years ago

Eh? Licencing finished just 5 years ago. Hence there is quite a bit of evidence available that we can use to make relatively informed decisions about things.

16 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Incidentally I’m a Saints fan. How does my argument affect my self interest? 

Well I didn't guess that. But then if you don't fully engage in discussions and answer questions then people have to make assumptions, which aren't always correct.

Incidentally, Saints now have the highest everage attendance in the country. Do you think it's in the best interests of SL for Saints to get relegated? How many of those supporters will be as interested if Saints are in the Championship?

You earlier made the point that London's attendances are poor. You're correct - they are really poor. As things stand, I therefore think that Saints, along with the other best supported clubs, currently have loads more to offer our elite competition than London do. London's aggregate supporters in 2019 were just 28,297. In comparison, Saints had 178,639 supporters through their gates in 2019. If I was a potential broadcaster, I know which one of those clubs I would want in the competition. If I was a potential sponsor, I would be far more interested in having over 178k pairs of eyes seeing my company branding over the course of a season compared to just 28k.

As of 2019, we have 6 clubs in SL (out of 12) that currently average over 10k attendances. So we've got a 50% chance of losing one of those big clubs to relegation and getting it replaced by a club with the capacity to average half of that. That is commercial suicide for me, and is a stupid way to run a sport that has so little money in it.

 

 

[Dave T]

23 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

It isnt a matter of opinion. 

Its measurable. We measure it. By and large games involving relegation teams just dont attract people in bigger numbers than they otherwise would.

 

23 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not trying to disprove anything. 

The figures prove the point I made that you quoted and responded to in your snarky tone. 

And this nonsense is how you are trying to save face.

 

See, this isn't true is it.

Look at your statement in the first quote:

"...games involving relegation teams just don't attract people in bigger numbers than they otherwise would..."

You then make a comparison which doesn't address that issue at all.  A valid comparison would be to look at viewing figures for Wakefield v London (or similar worst 2 teams in league) when relegation hasn't been an option. And for any comparison to be valid, the conditions need to be as consistent as possible, which makes most comparisons worthless tbh. But nobody has made the point that a relegation battle would get more fans and bigger crowds than top of the table games. 

You can keep trying to dismiss my point as snarky because it doesn't go along with your thinking, but the fact that Sky did broadcast not only this game, but also chose a relegation clash over the Saints v Wigan derby earlier in the year is a clear indication that the broadcasters value these. They also give a hell of a lot of coverage to relegation battles in Football. 

But ultimately, your 'analysis' was so narrow that it was meaningless and proved nothing. 

[bamfordsbeans]

Unlike SL,Championship crowds have improved in recent years.To take away the automatic promoted spot would have grave consequences.

The general lack of money within the game has already had a major influence in the demise of the amateur game and we simply cannot let this happen at the semi-professional level.