RFL and SL reunite

[rhinos78]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

You are still struggling to understand that the salary cap affects what clubs offer. Until you understand that incredibly basic point there is no point going any further.

The salary cap affects the value of all players. It has a depressing effect on the market for wages. It makes wages lower. That is the point of it. There is no dispute over this. It is the reason the salary cap exists.

If it doesnt do that, there is literally no reason for the salary cap to exist. Wages would be exactly the same as they are now.

No this is where your wrong again, i do understand, when i said im not clued up on market forces, i meant it, but im clued up enough for the basic level your operating on.

So we pay the best first team player thousands more than he's on now, then we can pay the second best thousands more than he's on...So on and so forth..Every player from the best 1st team player down to the worst academy player, all 50 odd of them can earn more, because paying the top guy more has allowed 'market force' to kick in and pay everyone else more...Genius...Wheres the money coming from? You know nearly every club already runs at a substantial loss right? Come on, you must do?  And it still dosnt explain  why some Academy players are payed more than others, what does explain that is a players ability. You cant honestly think that what a clubs first team players earn prevents that club from giving an Academy lad 4k instead of 3k if they wanted to...If they think an Academy lads worth a bigger contract they give them it.

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

To be fair, and I think Harry's restaurant analogy was pretty good in a way, if you run a business and you try something you dont just keep doing it when you know you have made a bit of a mess of it.. If it is not working you change and move forward again. Sometimes the initial move is a step backwards because the old system worked better than the new. Not every change is going to work or be good, the companies that fail are those that dont try, but also those that try and keep blindly on without realising when something just isnt working. 

Equally these are very strange times, what could have worked before are potentially going to be shaken to the core. There will be plenty of good companies that go to the wall for no other reason than their market has disappeared without warning and will not return, or at least not fast enough to keep them going. That does not mean the idea was bad necessarily but that the situation has changed and therefore the thinking must change. 

After the virus we are likely to go into one of the deepest and, frankly, scariest recessions we have seen since the great depression (as a businessman and history graduate i am very worried).. they MUST look at where money is leaking from the game and where they are just being stubborn due to personality issues. 

I would not necessarily disagree with the need for an independent administrator/commissioner (looking at the US models) and I think Elstone will keep his job to fulfill that role but I would guess there is a lot of doubling of workload, rent that doesnt need to be paid etc etc that can be taken out of all of this to save money with no impact on the efficiency of the running of the organisation (and actually perhaps make the running of it more efficient if they are all in the same office building etc).

to see "going back to what you had before" as intrinsically a "backward step" in terms of it being negative is something that I abhor because it is better to do that than to keep going forward... Many many projects do not get off the ground because they wont work, many also do get off the ground but are scrapped because they dont work when put into practice, same with product development and all sorts of other things. 

What evidence is there that “this hasn’t worked”? Elstone has had less than two years in the role, is that enough time to determine that things haven’t worked out? It’s typical short-termism from Rugby League and nothing more. 

[RP London]

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

What evidence is there that “this hasn’t worked”? Elstone has had less than two years in the role, is that enough time to determine that things haven’t worked out? It’s typical short-termism from Rugby League and nothing more. 

yes it is enough time to work that out.. I dont have the evidence because i dont work there but as someone with a process background i have worked on plenty of projects that work and plenty that do not and you can see some very quickly that they will not do the job that you were expecting. 

With this i would need to know exactly what the aim was and then see, with inside information, whether it was meeting those or whether it was possible to meet those in the future.. and that is the bit that is being forgotten here IMHO. Can they be met in the future. Even if this was looking like it may have worked in January we are 4 months further down the line with new uncertainty, new economic forecasting etc and to be able to look forward they may well be able to see that we are in a very different world where this just will not work. 

Without seeing what they see I cannot guess at the fact that this hasnt worked except for the fact that they obviously believe it hasnt, for what THEY (not us) were wanting this to achieve, otherwise this wouldnt be happening.

[rhinos78]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

You clearly dont understand it because if you did you wouldnt have posted that nonsense.

The premise of your post is so wrong I dont even know where to start. 

If you think its nonsense then im confident its a very good post that nails everything to a tee.

[Hela Wigmen]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

yes it is enough time to work that out.. I dont have the evidence because i dont work there but as someone with a process background i have worked on plenty of projects that work and plenty that do not and you can see some very quickly that they will not do the job that you were expecting. 

With this i would need to know exactly what the aim was and then see, with inside information, whether it was meeting those or whether it was possible to meet those in the future.. and that is the bit that is being forgotten here IMHO. Can they be met in the future. Even if this was looking like it may have worked in January we are 4 months further down the line with new uncertainty, new economic forecasting etc and to be able to look forward they may well be able to see that we are in a very different world where this just will not work. 

Without seeing what they see I cannot guess at the fact that this hasnt worked except for the fact that they obviously believe it hasnt, for what THEY (not us) were wanting this to achieve, otherwise this wouldnt be happening.

So, you think it’s not worked but provided no evidence of such a claim. From a systems and process background, you’d get laughed out of the room, wouldn’t you? 

There is little to suggest that Super League having its own administrator hasn’t worked. But there wouldn’t be on a sample size so small. 

[rhinos78]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If that makes you feel better. I hope you have a good day.

It does give me a positive energy, thanks. You also enjoy your day and better luck next time.

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

So, you think it’s not worked but provided no evidence of such a claim. From a systems and process background, you’d get laughed out of the room, wouldn’t you? 

There is little to suggest that Super League having its own administrator hasn’t worked. But there wouldn’t be on a sample size so small. 

firstly, never been laughed out of a room before with work, but have been highly thought of.. 

I am simply suggesting that things have not worked based on the evidence that those actually involved are changing it and they are the ones WITH the evidence. 

You are adamant it is too early but you have no evidence to back that up.. so if anyone is being "laughed out of the room" it is you.. you think it should continue, you are not there, you are not seeing what they are seeing and projecting but you are prepared to say to the people, some of whom could be doing themselves out of jobs, that they are wrong to end this "experiment".. 

if you think you know best fine... but I have pointed out to you where they may be coming from, I have agreed that an independent admin person may be the best way to go. but i also defer to those actually doing the work, I know from my current position that plans that we made 2 months ago are being radically re thought including the numbers of people we employ, very difficult decisions but for there to still be a business here for some people to be employed in we will have to make some sacrifices.. and we projected only a couple of months ago the need for more staff and good growth, that will now not happen. Things have changed and changed very very quickly for everyone. 

But I am done now for this.. you have no evidence to base your "opinion" on but find it ok to ridicule someone for admitting this and giving a general opinion on what reasoning may be being used.. that says more about you than me I am afraid. 

[dboy]

We have clubs who are facing going to the wall, after have their income streams interrupted for 6 weeks, and still some people think the answer is to allow those same clubs to pay an unlimited amount on player wages!

Ironically, it's the "weakest" small clubs, who are the least exposed, with the "big guns" most at risk.

Wakefield debt at the moment stands at £3k.

I'm not suggesting that that makes them a "success", but that the whole game needs to build itself a more sustainable foundation of business.

Paying players more money is fine, but it has to be regulated and be underpinned by sound business principles, not by having a sugar daddy, or Ponzi business practices.

[Hela Wigmen]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

We have clubs who are facing going to the wall, after have their income streams interrupted for 6 weeks, and still some people think the answer is to allow those same clubs to pay an unlimited amount on player wages!

Ironically, it's the "weakest" small clubs, who are the least exposed, with the "big guns" most at risk.

Wakefield debt at the moment stands at £3k.

I'm not suggesting that that makes them a "success", but that the whole game needs to build itself a more sustainable foundation of business.

Paying players more money is fine, but it has to be regulated and be underpinned by sound business principles, not by having a sugar daddy, or Ponzi business practices.

What big clubs are more at risk than a “smaller” club?

[dboy]

Hetherington is on record about the losses Leeds are suffering.

Carter is on record saying that Wfd owe £3k.

Which club is most at risk today. Not "normal" times. Today.

It's the same principle which means that lower league clubs are relatively unscathed.

The current situation is about how much you are losing - the organisations with the biggest incomes are losing the most.

[dboy]

The bigger the business, the bigger the loss.

Wages have to be sustainable. Clearly they are not.

If you are proposing that the more successful the business, the more the employees should be paid, then I'm with you all the way.

A successful business will have income streams that aren't exposed to unforeseen interruptions. For example, if your pay structure is based on income from a TV contract, that's all fine and good until that contract needs renewing - then salaries are at risk. Will players accept reduced pay if the TV money goes down (or indeed disappears)?

Good business practice says to diversify your income streams, thus reducing the risk from business interruptions. Leeds have been very good at this, but those income streams are ironically the ones most hit by this pandemic - hotel, gate receipts, hospitality.

Because Wfd don't rely on those things to the same extent, they are less exposed.

I'm not suggesting Wfd have a better business model, just that they are currently less exposed. 

As it stands today, Hull FC are closer to going out of business than Wfd, because the relationship between what's coming in and what's going out is greater (not that I am suggesting that is going to happen in any way).

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

firstly, never been laughed out of a room before with work, but have been highly thought of.. 

I am simply suggesting that things have not worked based on the evidence that those actually involved are changing it and they are the ones WITH the evidence. 

You are adamant it is too early but you have no evidence to back that up.. so if anyone is being "laughed out of the room" it is you.. you think it should continue, you are not there, you are not seeing what they are seeing and projecting but you are prepared to say to the people, some of whom could be doing themselves out of jobs, that they are wrong to end this "experiment".. 

if you think you know best fine... but I have pointed out to you where they may be coming from, I have agreed that an independent admin person may be the best way to go. but i also defer to those actually doing the work, I know from my current position that plans that we made 2 months ago are being radically re thought including the numbers of people we employ, very difficult decisions but for there to still be a business here for some people to be employed in we will have to make some sacrifices.. and we projected only a couple of months ago the need for more staff and good growth, that will now not happen. Things have changed and changed very very quickly for everyone. 

But I am done now for this.. you have no evidence to base your "opinion" on but find it ok to ridicule someone for admitting this and giving a general opinion on what reasoning may be being used.. that says more about you than me I am afraid. 

Whatever us minions on here think, it is the SL hierarchy that are suggesting a return to the RFL, so isn't it them who are thinking the breakaway hasn't worked, or do they think they will be in a better position to gain access to the £16m?

[dboy]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm suggesting there if we link players earnings to club revenue we do that properly ensuring they get a share of the good years and a say in the decision making. 

What would be unfair is the situation we have at the moment where the owners make decisions and own the assets and take the profits but when the bad times come players shoulder the losses

Carter and Brereton mortgaged their family homes to keep Wfd afloat.

The players were already lining up other clubs!

The players get their share of the profits already - good salaries, medical cover, win bonuses, image rights.

Of course, I hope the game gets bigger and everyone involved can be paid more, especially players.

A lifetime watching Wfd tells me that there a lot a players who should be giving the club money!

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

We have clubs who are facing going to the wall, after have their income streams interrupted for 6 weeks, and still some people think the answer is to allow those same clubs to pay an unlimited amount on player wages!

Ironically, it's the "weakest" small clubs, who are the least exposed, with the "big guns" most at risk.

Wakefield debt at the moment stands at £3k.

I'm not suggesting that that makes them a "success", but that the whole game needs to build itself a more sustainable foundation of business.

Paying players more money is fine, but it has to be regulated and be underpinned by sound business principles, not by having a sugar daddy, or Ponzi business practices.

A couple of years ago at a pre season friendly v Hull FC, Wakey were selling tins of beer out of plastic bags on the terraces.  

Is that part of the business model?

[dboy]

Yes, I'm sure it is.

It's not as big a part of Hull FC's model, because they don't get to keep matchdays revenues. Of course, they do sell more STs, shirts, merch. 

Are you joining us in the fight for better facilities at BV?

Welcome!

[dboy]

3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

A couple of years ago at a pre season friendly v Hull FC, Wakey were selling tins of beer out of plastic bags on the terraces.  

Is that part of the business model?

My favourite was the tins of DB in buckets, when  visiting Broncos.

[RP London]

24 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Whatever us minions on here think, it is the SL hierarchy that are suggesting a return to the RFL, so isn't it them who are thinking the breakaway hasn't worked, or do they think they will be in a better position to gain access to the £16m?

I would say the Super League have realised it doesnt really work as they had thought it would, or wont going forward because of what has happened. Whether they are in a better position to access the £16m I dont know as I would expect there will be some stipulations on where the loan goes as there is with the business continuity loans (to an extent) and therefore they may have been in there anyway. I am sure it wont do them any harm. 

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, dboy said:

My favourite was the tins of DB in buckets, when  visiting Broncos.

VB... Victoria Bitter.. the buckets were the way you could tell how close it was to the end of the match if the clock had broken.. the more on the heads of the fans the later in the game it was!

[Toby Chopra]

I don't think it's possible make points about the relative "sustainability" of clubs, or the success or not of the Superleague breakaway - or anything else for that matter - in the current situation. A financial asteroid has crashed into the economy and the damage - and change - is going to be on a level that we've not ever seen, and we don't even know how it's going to play out yet.

There are two worlds, Before Coronavirus and After Coronavirus and you just can't compare one to the other. What is clear though is that moving from one era to another is going to be hard and people are scrambling to try and make the adjustment. They will make mistakes and bad decisions, but waiting seems like a risky option too. 

[Angelic Cynic]

4 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s quite depressing, this. Whatever you thought of the vote less than two years ago, the clubs voted for this structure and the Super League clubs voted to have it own leader and to break away from the rest of the game. Whatever you thought of Elstone and Super League, it’s not even lasted two years and now we’re back at the same table, likely going to go over old ground and continue doing the same things that has got the game to where it is today. 

It just seems to be typical Rugby League, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Some of the teams decided to try and strike out and it’s lasted barely eighteen months.

Its vital the game has a strong and most importantly, independent administration/administrator. 

  It seems the plan was to improve Super League - not just get a good broadcasting deal for post 2021.

   Pearson at Hull FC was quoted as suggesting the sport would match the other code.

  So,since the date of appointment,has Super League improved to any worthwhile degree as stated in these quotes?...

   https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/6514020/robert-elstone-told-super-league-must-grow-or-the-game-could-wither-on-the-vine/

  In light of later comments by McManus it does appear he is not impressed by the officiating in the sport... 

 

[Jao 711]

On 03/05/2020 at 10:46, Harry Stottle said:

Mr Hetherington has got the biggest shiniest stadium to maintain, BUT he saw the game as a bigger package than the self motivated respects of some SL chairmen, and yes McManus was at the forefront along with Leneghan to ditch some quarters of the game for his/their own wellbeing.

Think about it Bostick, there was never any criticism from these two re Wheldon Rd or Belle Vue - for what it's worth Leneghan can't moan, being in a rented home - and I suppose the only way will ever know what they would have done is if Licencing comes back and standards to acheive inclusion into SL re Stadia are required.

 

On 03/05/2020 at 10:46, Harry Stottle said:

Mr Hetherington has got the biggest shiniest stadium to maintain, BUT he saw the game as a bigger package than the self motivated respects of some SL chairmen, and yes McManus was at the forefront along with Leneghan to ditch some quarters of the game for his/their own wellbeing.

Think about it Bostick, there was never any criticism from these two re Wheldon Rd or Belle Vue - for what it's worth Leneghan can't moan, being in a rented home - and I suppose the only way will ever know what they would have done is if Licencing comes back and standards to acheive inclusion into SL re Stadia are required.

 

On 03/05/2020 at 10:46, Harry Stottle said:

Mr Hetherington has got the biggest shiniest stadium to maintain, BUT he saw the game as a bigger package than the self motivated respects of some SL chairmen, and yes McManus was at the forefront along with Leneghan to ditch some quarters of the game for his/their own wellbeing.

Think about it Bostick, there was never any criticism from these two re Wheldon Rd or Belle Vue - for what it's worth Leneghan can't moan, being in a rented home - and I suppose the only way will ever know what they would have done is if Licencing comes back and standards to acheive inclusion into SL re Stadia are required.

Dream on Harry if you think the stadium rebuild was done for the greater glory of the game.York’s CC have a big say in this and if my memory serves me correctly we’re getting a little worried about their status as a Test Match venue.

[rhinos78]

14 minutes ago, Jao 711 said:

 

 

Dream on Harry if you think the stadium rebuild was done for the greater glory of the game.York’s CC have a big say in this and if my memory serves me correctly we’re getting a little worried about their status as a Test Match venue.

Think you have misunderstood what Harrys saying, the stadium comment isnt related to the good of the game comment. The Hetherington seeing the game as a bigger package comment is related to Hetherington being the only Superleague decision maker who voted against the Superleague split. The stadium comments in reply to a poster talking about shiny stadiums and GH being a Window salesman or sumthing. 

The conversation in question is on page 1 of this thread

[Hela Wigmen]

46 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

  It seems the plan was to improve Super League - not just get a good broadcasting deal for post 2021.

   Pearson at Hull FC was quoted as suggesting the sport would match the other code.

  So,since the date of appointment,has Super League improved to any worthwhile degree as stated in these quotes?...

   https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/6514020/robert-elstone-told-super-league-must-grow-or-the-game-could-wither-on-the-vine/

  In light of later comments by McManus it does appear he is not impressed by the officiating in the sport... 

 

Unequivocally, yes. 

I would say that as a Saints fan, perhaps but last year’s Super League was very good, IMO. 

Biased perhaps but we were excellent last year and Lachlan Coote made us a better side after the departure of the exciting, if not rounded performer of Ben Barba. At times we looked like the Saints of old, the sides of Long, Sculthorpe etc.

Salford finished 3rd and played some superb rugby at the back end of the year under a talented coach with the standout player in the competition in their ranks. If it hadn’t have been us in the Grand Final against them, I’d have been rooting for the Red Devils because of the way they played the game. Their performance at Wigan to get to Old Trafford was excellent and I’m saying that as a Rugby League fan, not a Saints fan.

The make up of the play-offs wasn’t sorted until, what, the penultimate weekend and even so, Hull only failed to get in the play-off’s based on points difference. Four sides were separated by two points.

The relegation battle was captivating and went right down to the wire with four sides still capable of relegation on the final day of the year. For the neutral, it was a great watch. 

London Broncos surprisingly come up and many “experts” and pundits compared them to their 2014 iteration that went down with a whimper. They beat Wigan at home on the first day of the season and were wrote off all year, beating Leeds and Saints x2 on the way to getting ten wins, which probably hadn’t been done too many times by teams that have come bottom. Their reputation as a club and individually for the likes of Danny Ward, Eddie Battye, Luke Yates etc went up significantly and Ward will be linked with jobs going forwards, including the vacant Hull job and deservedly so. 

On the pitch, yes, the game improved. So much so, I’m pretty certain that more people attended games live in 2019 than 2018.

Off it, didn’t we sign new deals with Betfred to sponsor the game? Magic Weekend had its own sponsor, too, in Dacia. 
 

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, rhinos78 said:

If you think its nonsense then im confident its a very good post that nails everything to a tee.

I for one am in total agreement agreement that the game as a whole cannot afford more, in saleries, I will also agree with Scotchy that some clubs could pay more if given the facility that allowed them more, but what is the point?

Those who can afford an open SC are the exact same one's who find themselves at the top vying for the honours (obviously Toronto would join that group) that we have now, but an open cap would set the trend over all the league's and club's would go out of buisness just trying to stay the same as they are today without any noticed or marked improvement, paying the same players more money WILL NOT MAKE THEM BETTER PLAYER'S, I would suggest to those who desire to abolish the SC that those clubs who can afford it should break away and form their own league, then that would prompt another question, would a league of say five or 6 club's be enough to entice SKY to pay them for screening the same games 4 or five times a season with presumably the same player's has they have now, I rather much doubt it!

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

What big clubs are more at risk than a “smaller” club?

The old saying goes the bigger you are the harder you fall, recognised by your very own Mr McManus when he was interviewed by BBC Northwest last week to comment on the 16M loan by the government.