GUBRATS Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 33 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Who, but new clubs in new areas expands that pool? The likes of Leigh or Halifax would just be taking the 4th or 5th choice (at best) youngsters from the same areas. If we.are going to insist on the player pool being a consideration for toronto then it is for everyone and that would mean there are only 3 clubs in with a shout of joining SL, Toulouse, newcastle and london. Everyone else will dilute the pool You confuse clubs with area's , again , as you always do when petty point scoring , grow up and join the debate or don't even bother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, GUBRATS said: Agree , and why they haven't received the central funding is appalling Its combining long and short terms aims I guess. If the funding is being used centrally by SL to produce a lot of this fresh new content and branding (which is clearly designed with a younger audience in mind) at least I can see its being put to good use, rather than being divvied out to the other clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said: Its combining long and short terms aims I guess. If the funding is being used centrally by SL to produce a lot of this fresh new content and branding (which is clearly designed with a younger audience in mind) at least I can see its being put to good use, rather than being divvied out to the other clubs. The challenge is that this isn't what the central distribution had been budgeted for. In the last TV deal it was agreed that each SL club would get £1.8m (for arguments sake). So 11 x UK clubs, equals £19.8m per year of TV money being invested in UK RL. The clubs aren't pilfering this money away, nobody is making money from RL. Once we end up with another overseas team, we then route £1.8m of that money outside of UK RL. That needs to be agreed. I have no issues with the decision being that in this round of TV deal the budgeted £19.8m per year will continue. People need to be very careful what they are arguing for - if TWP are in SL for 10 years, and the TV money stays the same, the argument is for the UK game to invest almost £20m over a 10 year period into Canada RL. Before TWP were mentioned I don't think anybody thought that was a good idea. I'm not sure why there is a belief that giving the money to TWP would be great and the right thing to do, and that the money going to the 11 existing clubs would be wasted and not deliver any benefits for the game in this country. Maybe this additional £120k or so will deliver more marketing, player development etc. We really need to get away from this "heartland = bad" narrative that is being created. It is no more backward than "expansion = bad". That point isn't aimed at you personally by the way Tommy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Szymala Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Robin Evans said: Leigh are my favs this year. They're on fire atm..... Main challengers not as convincing just yet. Too early to speculate who they will replace London Broncos are coming back. Danny Ward has the secret formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dave T said: The challenge is that this isn't what the central distribution had been budgeted for. In the last TV deal it was agreed that each SL club would get £1.8m (for arguments sake). So 11 x UK clubs, equals £19.8m per year of TV money being invested in UK RL. The clubs aren't pilfering this money away, nobody is making money from RL. Once we end up with another overseas team, we then route £1.8m of that money outside of UK RL. That needs to be agreed. I have no issues with the decision being that in this round of TV deal the budgeted £19.8m per year will continue. People need to be very careful what they are arguing for - if TWP are in SL for 10 years, and the TV money stays the same, the argument is for the UK game to invest almost £20m over a 10 year period into Canada RL. Before TWP were mentioned I don't think anybody thought that was a good idea. I'm not sure why there is a belief that giving the money to TWP would be great and the right thing to do, and that the money going to the 11 existing clubs would be wasted and not deliver any benefits for the game in this country. Maybe this additional £120k or so will deliver more marketing, player development etc. We really need to get away from this "heartland = bad" narrative that is being created. It is no more backward than "expansion = bad". That point isn't aimed at you personally by the way Tommy. I don't disagree Dave, such a dichotomy is unhelpful and not really necessary in many respects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Dave , to me they earned the money by being promoted , simple as We are a sport , too much enfasis on what clubs contribute off field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Just now, scotchy1 said: You said we needed to how many of those teams we could let in before they dilute the pool. I used Toronto ana stand in for those teams And I also said we can stand the 20 they've so far taken , but need to be careful just how many more can be accomadated , this time preferably before they enter the structure , so down to SL right now to decide what they want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, scotchy1 said: Areas dont play pro RL, clubs do If you want clubs and areas to be distinct rather than interchangeable then the fact they play RL in Leight the area is irrelevant to Leigh the club Either way the point remains, there are only three clubs outside SL who will make a real tangible difference to the pro player pool. London, newcastle and Toulouse. The areas where those clubs are located are already producing players , yes they might produce more if they make SL , just like Batley , Halifax or Rochdale , or they might not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Future is League Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: But they wont, because they dont run academies. You yourself have argued why it would be a waste of time and money to do so. In my opinion clubs should spent more money on junior development and less on has been's and never was players from the NRL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, The Future is League said: In my opinion clubs should spent more money on junior development and less on has been's and never was players from the NRL Which clubs and how ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: But they wont, because they dont run academies. You yourself have argued why it would be a waste of time and money to do so. Old argument , how many academies will the RFL allow ? Last time some Championship clubs tried to run them , there was not enough opposition to play , so please enlighten everybody on how you suggest it should work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 32 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: Dave , to me they earned the money by being promoted , simple as We are a sport , too much enfasis on what clubs contribute off field The TV money is less about what is earned on the field though. The money is split as an investment in certain areas - i.e. we pay the RFL to cover costs. We split money across lower divisions to support development. When agreeing the last funding model, there was no agreement to invest central funding into Canada - it would have been seen as a ludicrous thing to do. Of course that shows the issues about rushing things in in the middle of a TV deal, but if TWP were prepared to self-fund what was there to lose? The next negotiations are the ones where TWP (and other potential clubs) should be wrapped up in (or excluded from, as per whatever the agreement is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Another Groundhog Day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Just now, scotchy1 said: Its your assertion that there is a limit of numbers of clubs we can have Academies was the question ? , How many academies ? , And last time what happened ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 27 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: The money isnt split as an investment. It's a division of revenue earned by the shareholders of Super League. It belongs to the clubs in SL. And the money that goes to the lower divisions, that you have spent years telling us is SLE's and should be kept by SLE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Just now, scotchy1 said: Is given to the RFL as something akin to a solidarity payment (and some for services rendered) And I have never said it should be kept by SL, you have made that up. I have simply said what it is. A payment from SL to the rest of the game. So the SL clubs, acting as SLE decide where the money goes? Great, so I was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Dave T said: The TV money is less about what is earned on the field though. The money is split as an investment in certain areas - i.e. we pay the RFL to cover costs. We split money across lower divisions to support development. When agreeing the last funding model, there was no agreement to invest central funding into Canada - it would have been seen as a ludicrous thing to do. Of course that shows the issues about rushing things in in the middle of a TV deal, but if TWP were prepared to self-fund what was there to lose? The next negotiations are the ones where TWP (and other potential clubs) should be wrapped up in (or excluded from, as per whatever the agreement is). Well we shouldn't have to long to wait to see what, why and who is involved in the next TV contract negotiations, we are not that far from the present one terminating at the end of the 2021 season, surely there will be some protracted discussions before it is agreed unless Sky say this is it take it or leave it and it is the best offer on the table. It also seems logical to me to suggest that Mr Elstone will only be the go between for Leneghan, McManus and Co and the TV companies (whoever they may be), so lets consider that negotiations commence in middle of this year which seems a reasonable timescale, not to long after I think we will all be aware of what SL's intention is regarding structure, funding etc, and wether the TV company(s) agree with SL's proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Jesus christ that's a stretch. There is no such 'investment' just an allocation of tv revenue. The situation you described simply didn't happen. There was no agreement for central distribution to go to the UK or france of anywhere else. It wasnt a case that a canadian club wasnt budgeted for because it isnt an investment it's a distribution of funds to shareholders. Well it did happen. They agreed distributions with zero going to Canada. The money being routed to the RFL and the lower divisions didn't just happen by accident. IIRC you have been stating recently how London Broncos still hold their shares in SLE. Does that mean they are getting a distribution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, scotchy1 said: No they didnt And nobody said it happened by accident. The allocation of tv revenue isnt set out as an investment of X amount to england, y amount to france, z amount to the heartlands. Such a thing would be crazy. It wouldn't be crazy, but I also didn't state that happened. I stated that when we agreed the distribution, Canada wasn't even on the table, so was not agreed as part of the distribution. We knew we had 1 French team in SL, we knew how much that cost. The financial planning clearly laid out where the funding would go. To then route £3.6m to Canada in the last 2 years of that deal is absolutely a change to plans and would need to be agreed. And my evidence? They have decided not to invest in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Click Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: That's just circular nonsense. You have it completely ass-backwards and are describing a situation that just didnt happen and would be ridiculous. The money distributed by SL to its shareholders isnt a targeted investment limited to certain areas. So the Broncos have had a full share, as they are still shareholders of Super League? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Click Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: What is happening with the shareholding is an absolute mystery. Currently either London are shareholders and SL are in breach of the articles of association which not only give them the rights to but the obligation to play in SL, Or London arent shareholders, SLE havent updated companies house and are in breach of the articles of association by keeping David Hughes as a director and not transferring that directorship to Toronto. If we believe what we see, then currently the situation is that London are shareholders and should be playing in SL, Toronto arent and shouldnt, David Hughes is a director but shouldnt be and the allocation that should go to London has gone to the rest of the clubs. Right, so the money that is being discussed is given from Sky to the SL clubs who decide where it should go? Not to the SL Shareholders. Certainly sounds like investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: What is happening with the shareholding is an absolute mystery. Currently either London are shareholders and SL are in breach of the articles of association which not only give them the rights to but the obligation to play in SL, Or London arent shareholders, SLE havent updated companies house and are in breach of the articles of association by keeping David Hughes as a director and not transferring that directorship to Toronto. If we believe what we see, then currently the situation is that London are shareholders and should be playing in SL, Toronto arent and shouldnt, David Hughes is a director but shouldnt be and the allocation that should go to London has gone to the rest of the clubs. Which fills everybody with confidence that SL is capable of running SL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairfolly Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Kayakman, Please explain why Leigh belong in S.L. They were in S.L., they got relegated so are now in the Championship where they belong. Maybe at the end of this season they may get promoted. If they do get into S.L. that is where they will belong.At the end of the season wherever your club finishes is where they will belong. Pretty simple really. It is a long season,you will finish where you deserve to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TboneFromTO Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 11 minutes ago, fairfolly said: Kayakman, Please explain why Leigh belong in S.L. They were in S.L., they got relegated so are now in the Championship where they belong. Maybe at the end of this season they may get promoted. If they do get into S.L. that is where they will belong.At the end of the season wherever your club finishes is where they will belong. Pretty simple really. It is a long season,you will finish where you deserve to. It was hyperbole stating his desire for Leigh to join Toronto in the top flight. One I don't share but hey-oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said: It was hyperbole stating his desire for Leigh to join Toronto in the top flight. One I don't share but hey-oh. Who do you want TB ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.