Is it time to change the ownership structure of Super League?

[gingerjon]

I believe I’m right that one of the biggest income streams, possibly the biggest, is the franchise fee. So it is in the investors’ interest to recruit more investors or else their income will dry up.

Now, can you spell “Ponzi” ...

[Big Picture]

10 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

They haven't copied the model of the NFL or the others, although the MLS does have similar elements. MLS teams are League owned, whilst NFL teams are independently owned. 

In fact the MLS ownership model was changed in 2002 to be more aligned with that of the other North American major leagues.  The details may vary a little, but they wouldn't be able to get 200 million US$ for expansion franchises without the essence being the same.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

It's not easy and for that reason probably won't happen.

It's not that US sports are collectivist in nature. It's that those you are referring to recognise that the business entity is the competition as a whole, with the clubs being cogs in that particular wheel, rather like branches of Tesco are subsidiaries of the whole.

The trick is to retain the clubs' tribalism on the field, while ensuring that they can't stand in each other's way off it.

Thats why I said "paradoxically collectivist". They operate on a "good for all" basis and make loads of money out of it - if a team isn't good for all, they move it somewhere it will be. 

The real problem RL has in this regard is the legacy of the 1895 split. That geographically and professionally stunted both us and union. Had we got a united "rugby" in England, we'd have a sport that has over 20 strong top level clubs, as well as loads beneath those. Instead of a 3 tier RL pyramid that combines puts top level sunday league teams 2 promotions away from Super League, we'd be closer to football with a much broader spectrum spread in a much more balanced way. That history can't be changed now of course but its definitely worth bearing in mind when assessing the failure of the sport to grow.

Super League as a brand needs to overcome that legacy if it wants to expand. I find comments such as Michael Carter's classic "second best sport in the north of England" as uninspiring as it is unsurprising from the recent history of RL leadership. Elstone was certainly pushing that vibe however. A rebrand, TV Docu-series, a new fresh looking magazine show and podcast; its clear what he's trying to do. Whether indeed that includes domestic expansion or not remains to be seen.

[Big Picture]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I believe I’m right that one of the biggest income streams, possibly the biggest, is the franchise fee. So it is in the investors’ interest to recruit more investors or else their income will dry up.

Now, can you spell “Ponzi” ...

Hardly.  MLS earns 75 million US$ per year from ESPN and Fox for English-language TV rights and another 15 million US$ per year from Univision for Castilian-language rights.

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

The Premier League came at the perfect time riding the crest of a wave from Italia 90 and the improvements to grounds with all seater stadia and CCTV post Hillsborough. Even the perimeter fences came down. Violence and hooliganism was greatly reduced and near gone inside grounds. Football fundamentally changed in a few short years and it became cool, for want of a better word, and almost everyone started to follow it.

I'm not sure if much really changed in RL.

Thats all true to an extent, but RL did have a whisper of a cool phase too. Not enough was made of the 95 world cup for example.

The question should be how did football change its image, and how can RL learn from that. I think Elstone understands this from his tenure.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Hardly.  MLS earns 75 million US$ per year from ESPN and Fox for English-language TV rights and another 15 million US$ per year from Univision for Castilian-language rights.

So smaller than they get each time a franchise fee is paid?

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Hardly.  MLS earns 75 million US$ per year from ESPN and Fox for English-language TV rights and another 15 million US$ per year from Univision for Castilian-language rights.

They aren't huge sums by US standards though are they though?

[Smudger06]

9 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

In fact the MLS ownership model was changed in 2002 to be more aligned with that of the other North American major leagues.  The details may vary a little, but they wouldn't be able to get 200 million US$ for expansion franchises without the essence being the same.

There's an absolutely massive difference, the MLS teams are all centrally owned by the League itself. The NFL teams are privately owned, separate entities. 

In the NFL players are employees of the team and the team holds their contract, in MLS the players are employees of the League. 

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, Damien said:

The Premier League came at the perfect time riding the crest of a wave from Italia 90 and the improvements to grounds with all seater stadia and CCTV post Hillsborough. Even the perimeter fences came down. Violence and hooliganism was greatly reduced and near gone inside grounds. Football fundamentally changed in a few short years and it became cool, for want of a better word, and almost everyone started to follow it.

I'm not sure if much really changed in RL.

I think you have an overly negative view of RL at the moment perhaps based on recent events mate.

RL moved to summer, gave itself a fresh coat of paint, invested far more off the field in the community, invested in facilities, tried to move into new markets (often poorly), introduced playoffs and Grand Final, tried licensing and various other comp structures etc. Plenty has changed and been tried in the last 25 years. 

Then we have the international changes on top. 

A lot has failed, a lot has worked. We are in a far better place than pre-SL. 

[snoopdog]

The game will never move forward unless it's governed by an independent governing body. Turkey's don't vote for Christmas, every decision a club makes is being made with complete self interest. Elstone is just a puppet with absolutely no power to take this great game forward. 

[Big Picture]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So smaller than they get each time a franchise fee is paid?

True, but then MLS is the youngest of the five major North American leagues and as their TV rights are still below the level of the older leagues they have room to grow which is part of what gives those franchises their value.  The price is partially based on the anticipation of future growth in the TV rights fees.

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They aren't huge sums by US standards though are they though?

No but then MLS is the youngest of the five major North American leagues and their TV rights have been rising in value over time.

3 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

There's an absolutely massive difference, the MLS teams are all centrally owned by the League itself. The NFL teams are privately owned, separate entities. 

In the NFL players are employees of the team and the team holds their contract, in MLS the players are employees of the League. 

MLS teams aren't centrally owned any more, they're owned by their investors now.  When Chivas USA folded in 2014, the league first purchased it from Jorge Vergara and then folded it.  If the league centrally owned all the franchises it could have folded Chivas without purchasing it first.  I was speaking only of the franchise ownership, not the player contracts.

[Damien]

27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Thats all true to an extent, but RL did have a whisper of a cool phase too. Not enough was made of the 95 world cup for example.

The question should be how did football change its image, and how can RL learn from that. I think Elstone understands this from his tenure.

That's certainly true. There have certainly been opportunities lost when the game hasn't capitalized on increased interest. 1995 and 2013 certainly spring to mind. That is why next year's World Cup is key with a far more professional approach than either of those years, more money invested and much more guaranteed FTA coverage. As importantly more competitive teams than either of those years too.

Football has always been huge with teams, players and support everywhere. Of course we can and should learn from all sports but quite often Football is a different beast entirely.

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I think it's time to change a broken system.

See my expanded article from this week's League Express.

Strangely some parts of that were in my blueprint for the lower tiers when licencing was introduced

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Can you name another sporting competition that began 24 years ago that will have trebled its size in terms of the number of teams by 2022, while boosting its income by a much bigger factor?

But it is association football Martyn , THE primary sport of the world , it was always going to end up in the US eventually , just as it will end up dominating everything else everywhere eventually 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

 

The trick is to retain the clubs' tribalism on the field, while ensuring that they can't stand in each other's way off it.

This was my primary aim when trying to get the 20 at that time lower tier clubs to start working together at the introduction of licencing 

[Smudger06]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

True, but then MLS is the youngest of the five major North American leagues and as their TV rights are still below the level of the older leagues they have room to grow which is part of what gives those franchises their value.  The price is partially based on the anticipation of future growth in the TV rights fees.

No but then MLS is the youngest of the five major North American leagues and their TV rights have been rising in value over time.

MLS teams aren't centrally owned any more, they're owned by their investors now.  When Chivas USA folded in 2014, the league first purchased it from Jorge Vergara and then folded it.  If the league centrally owned all the franchises it could have folded Chivas without purchasing it first.  I was speaking only of the franchise ownership, not the player contracts.

Naw It's single entity (parent & subsidiaries) as provided & upheld by Fraser v MLS. 

[Bostik Bailey]

Martin Sadler does come up with some 24carat guff.

[Rupert Prince]

5 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I think it's time to change a broken system.

See my expanded article from this week's League Express.

Yes.  It needs to be that sort of symbiotic relationship. 

Currently though the RL owners are saps who pay through the nose for the privilege of owning a club.  The proposal here is to have a NFL-like pseudo owner who actually intends to make money out of it.

Its the right idea, if people would just agree.  But we have a situation, as an example, of 3 clubs, Trinity Fev and Cas who are based in one Council district and all of them have poor stadiums.  It will be a stretch to get them to agree, compromise, merge.

[GUBRATS]

52 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

Martin Sadler does come up with some 24carat guff.

Yes just 125 years too late 

[kev p]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

As there are more variables than only governance and ownership structures, I'd say it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that that is the secret.

It's like saying that the reason the NRL is more successful than Super League is because the weather is better. 

Plenty of sports have grown without the governance and ownership structure that MLS has. 

MLS is about the 4th attempt at a professional football league in USA. all the others went bust. they may be going better this time as they didnt aim too high. 

[Bostik Bailey]

I’m sure the likes of McManus and Moran and previously Kokash would love to give up a proportion of their investments to get a share of the state of the art facilities at Weldon Road an Bell Vue. 
 

there is just one flaw in this guff, not all clubs have the same assets, some clubs have invested in off field, whilst other club have continued to play big bucks to sign players whilst denying their paying customers basic hygiene facilities.

once certain West Yorkshire clubs get their facilities up to 21st century standards then perhaps the game can more forward. Until then the game will always be held back.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

I’m sure the likes of McManus and Moran and previously Kokash would love to give up a proportion of their investments to get a share of the state of the art facilities at Weldon Road an Bell Vue. 
 

there is just one flaw in this guff, not all clubs have the same assets, some clubs have invested in off field, whilst other club have continued to play big bucks to sign players whilst denying their paying customers basic hygiene facilities.

once certain West Yorkshire clubs get their facilities up to 21st century standards then perhaps the game can more forward. Until then the game will always be held back.

As I put , Martyn is 125 years too late 

[The Daddy]

19 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

once certain West Yorkshire clubs get their facilities up to 21st century standards then perhaps the game can more forward. Until then the game will always be held back.

Its come to the point now where I think that those clubs should just be kicked out. How long have their stadiums been an issue? 

[Smudger06]

24 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

I’m sure the likes of McManus and Moran and previously Kokash would love to give up a proportion of their investments to get a share of the state of the art facilities at Weldon Road an Bell Vue. 
 

there is just one flaw in this guff, not all clubs have the same assets, some clubs have invested in off field, whilst other club have continued to play big bucks to sign players whilst denying their paying customers basic hygiene facilities.

once certain West Yorkshire clubs get their facilities up to 21st century standards then perhaps the game can more forward. Until then the game will always be held back.

Assets would need to be spun off before change of ownership. 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

Its come to the point now where I think that those clubs should just be kicked out. How long have their stadiums been an issue? 

Since circa 1947