New TV deal negotiations / Perilous finances (Merged threads)

[Cheshire Setter]

1 minute ago, Rupert Prince said:

I repeat, who are the viable full time clubs? 

Go on then, I’ll be brave enough to throw the first five in:

Saints, Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Hull? They’re the ones that seem big enough to command sufficient investment and sponsors. And of course Cats if the competition can support an overseas club still.

[Cheshire Setter]

3 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

But I doubt we'll ever be in the position where the RFL (or any other body) could dictate it down to the clubs.

Emotions aren't rational, sport isn't rational.

Personally speaking, if Warrington and Widnes were both struggling clubs in older stadiums, I’d have no problem supporting a merged club under the ‘Cheshire’ moniker. Especially if it meant the two councils joint-funded a 10,000 seater sports complex somewhere between the two towns.

I also know plenty who wouldn’t support such an idea though.

[Rupert Prince]

4 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Go on then, I’ll be brave enough to throw the first five in:

Saints, Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Hull? They’re the ones that seem big enough to command sufficient investment and sponsors. And of course Cats if the competition can support an overseas club still.

I'm struggling to find any more.

Bradford is a big loss.  But they ought to.

Huddersfield is the "home", possibly.

There are 3 teams in the borough of Wakefield, that ought to produce one between them.

London are the great white hope that springs eternal.

I here people talk of York and Newcastle.

Outside of your 6 it would take hard and inventive choices to pick another 6.

[Steve Slater]

36 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Wakefield are only as good as the top 4 championship sides? Really?

 

Yes, Really!

The best comparison would be with Fev. Ever since the heady days of Neil Fox came to an end they were the poor relations compared to their neighbours for nearly 30 years before they were lucky to be allowed into SL in 1998, despite not having a suitable stadium. Up until that point attendances were pretty similar over those 30 years.

 Ever since, while credit must go to them for managing to stay there for 22 years, their stadium has gone further downhill whilst Fev's has improved immeasurably, and they are still miles behind them with regard to facilities and commercial success. But yes, they do have a half decent side paid for by the Sky money, but is this because they have been channelling money that should have gone on stadium improvements into their squad?

Promote one of the top 4 Championship sides and they will get over £1M more in central funding, Fev have never had the chance to show what they could do with that extra money.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Steve Slater said:

Yes, Really!

The best comparison would be with Fev. Ever since the heady days of Neil Fox came to an end they were the poor relations compared to their neighbours for nearly 30 years before they were lucky to be allowed into SL in 1998, despite not having a suitable stadium. Up until that point attendances were pretty similar over those 30 years.

 Ever since, while credit must go to them for managing to stay there for 22 years, their stadium has gone further downhill whilst Fev's has improved immeasurably, and they are still miles behind them with regard to facilities and commercial success. But yes, they do have a half decent side paid for by the Sky money, but is this because they have been channelling money that should have gone on stadium improvements into their squad?

Promote one of the top 4 Championship sides and they will get over £1M more in central funding, Fev have never had the chance to show what they could do with that extra money.

But maybe Fev are where they are because they have not been in Super League doing what Wakefield have done? Being in the Championship has allowed them to live sustainably within their means and grow. If we had a role reversal for 22 years between Fev and Wakefield then maybe Fev would be like Wakefield now and vice versa.

Super League is not some sort of panacea. Scraping to get by and clinging on in Super League by your fingertips is no good for many clubs. We have leagues so that all clubs can have a place for their level and there is no shame in that.

[Blind side johnny]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

But this brings me back to my previous question - what are SLE offering in their tender doc?

I understand the wider frustrations around growth of the comp, presentation etc. but even on a basic level, we do not know that what is being offered is the same.

I think the couple of cards we hold is that we have never really given everything away, and as a sport we are flexible and happy to try a new event. I think this is where we need to focus our efforts - because I agree with your principle that if we offer the same this time, we will get less. But we don't know that is what is being offered.

To be fair Dave, why would you reasonably expect to have this information?

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

What an odd post. Clubs being run in a sustainable way and not having cashed up full time clubs, due to huge inequality in TV funding, steamrollering over part time ones is looking after the RL family. Having a competitive and equal Championship is looking after the RL family. Giving big full time wages to over the hill players in the Championship so they can hammer part time players isn't a wise use of funds.

Well, maybe I misread your post but you certainly seemed to be of the opinion that any money spent on Championship clubs in general is wasted.

Your arguments about inequality are quite true but, of course, were borne of the cack-handed 8's scheme, now consigned to the dustbin.

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

In the putting on and coordination of games at neutral venues at short notice to covid standards.

So paid directly to whoever the SL hosts were?

Interesting.

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Own grounds being Batley/Dewsbury/Fev and possibly Whitehaven. So 10/14 are raking it in - which is a sizeable majority. Most clubs did a deal with players and staff then claimed the 80% furlough. Loadsa money in the Championship - look at York for example

 

You said: "Couple of points 1) every championship club I am in contact with is in a strong financial position due to full sky money being paid, furlough, and season ticket/sponsors not taking money back ie huge % of income with little paid out." Implying that the Championship clubs en masse were coining it, and you are still making that assertion based upon "every championship club I am in contact with". How many are these and who are they?

Clubs did a deal with staff and claimed 80% furlough - that doesn't equate to money in the bank: it was the money that was paid to the staff, and not all of it in many cases.

Creating a false impression that there is loads of money in the Championship is potentially quite damaging to those Championship clubs.

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Agreed. If we used the money more wisely, we’d see far greater results than paying to keep teams on a ventilator. 

Could we see your DNR list Hela?

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Well, maybe I misread your post but you certainly seemed to be of the opinion that any money spent on Championship clubs in general is wasted.

Your arguments about inequality are quite true but, of course, were borne of the cack-handed 8's scheme, now consigned to the dustbin.

Well no because I never said that.

I have no issue with funding League 1 and Championship clubs to allow them to compete and travel on a part time basis. Those clubs in the Championship playing on a part time basis seem to be building and doing okay with the money they get.

I have huge issues with giving some clubs in the Championship a huge advantage and funding a select few clubs to be full time. This is just money being wasted to provide a retirement home for players too old for Super League or those that never were good enough in the first place. That funding discrepancy between the haves and have nots does not exist in Super League or League 1, it should not exist in the Championship.

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Could we see your DNR list Hela?

Any team without any Academy set up or some form of academy programme (be in linked with a college/Uni etc). 

[Spidey]

58 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Personally speaking, if Warrington and Widnes were both struggling clubs in older stadiums, I’d have no problem supporting a merged club under the ‘Cheshire’ moniker. Especially if it meant the two councils joint-funded a 10,000 seater sports complex somewhere between the two towns.

I also know plenty who wouldn’t support such an idea though.

That description was mostly true in 1995....

[Blind side johnny]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think there is merit in questioning whether any slice of money than comes from central funding delivers a return on investment, and that includes funding that works its way into the Championship and League One. 

We don't have an endless pot of money in this sport, demands on those resources exceed the supply so yes, let's start questioning whether putting it into the pockets of journeymen players who bounce from one-year contract to one-year contract is the best use of that funding? If we decide that it is, fine but if not, question where it can be put to better use. 

Does the money that goes into the Championship expand the game's player pool? Does it have commercial benefits? Does it increase the audience reach of the sport? Does it add value to broadcast contracts? I don't have those answers but I don't think it's unfair to suggest that if the return on investment isn't there, it's not unreasonable to question why the game is still investing there and not in areas that would deliver a better return. 

Well you can simply extend such a ROI analysis across the board in British RL and decide that nobody actually fits the criteria.

Remove any funding from the Championship and you immediately reduce the player pool. The shortfall won't be filled by the amateur game, as some might claim, given that this area of our port is also struggling to attract players.

You obviously have a lot of experience in business and I am sure that you have seen many scenarios where continuing to cut away "dead wood" to improve the health of a business has ultimately resulted in total failure.

[Blind side johnny]

1 hour ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Go on then, I’ll be brave enough to throw the first five in:

Saints, Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Hull? They’re the ones that seem big enough to command sufficient investment and sponsors. And of course Cats if the competition can support an overseas club still.

Remove their money men and they also aren't viable. I contend that there are no viable businesses (clubs) in British RL and there probably never have been.

[Blind side johnny]

8 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Any team without any Academy set up or some form of academy programme (be in linked with a college/Uni etc). 

Arbitrary and a death sentence for the sport.

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Arbitrary and a death sentence for the sport.

Why would the game mourn teams that offer absolutely nothing to the growth of the sport and are effectively on life support due to a handout while community clubs produce player after player and get little to no remuneration?

[whatmichaelsays]

3 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Well you can simply extend such a ROI analysis across the board in British RL and decide that nobody actually fits the criteria.

Remove any funding from the Championship and you immediately reduce the player pool. The shortfall won't be filled by the amateur game, as some might claim, given that this area of our port is also struggling to attract players.

You obviously have a lot of experience in business and I am sure that you have seen many scenarios where continuing to cut away "dead wood" to improve the health of a business has ultimately resulted in total failure.

I'm not suggesting an answer to that question, but I think it's fair to ask the question. With respect to the players I'm about to mention, is there really a return on investment in using central funding to give one-year contracts to Craig Hall, Jarrod Sammut and Macgraff Leuluai? 

Does having a Championship club in [town] improve the levels of youth participation and the quality of talent in that club's immediate catchnment area? Does either diminish if club in [town] wasn't F/T? Would that central funding be better spent on, for example, increasing the funding for schools rugby, for development officers or for creating regional centres of excellence? 

At some point, you reach a conclusion that, as uncomfortable and unpopular as it might be the sport can't really afford to keep throughing good money after bad. If funding Championship clubs to be FT delivers a return, great. If it doesn't, it's not unfair to question that investment. 

[Blind side johnny]

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Why would the game mourn teams that offer absolutely nothing to the growth of the sport and are effectively on life support due to a handout while community clubs produce player after player and get little to no remuneration?

If you ask then you can never understand.

[distantdog]

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Why would the game mourn teams that offer absolutely nothing to the growth of the sport and are effectively on life support due to a handout while community clubs produce player after player and get little to no remuneration?

Could i ask if that is the definition of a community club officially held by the RFL? 

[Hela Wigmen]

22 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

If you ask then you can never understand.

So a vague answer and not a proper one, then? 

Again, why would distributing money towards causes, eg amateur clubs with a proven track record of producing players who play 50+ Super League games, instead of distributing it towards some clubs in the professional structure, who have no assets, no academy, little ambition and and no ground, be worse for the game than what we do now?

[fighting irish]

19 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

Yet Elstone was appointed, after SLE broke away, to increase commercial income, wasn't he?

I'm afraid history might record that Robert Elstone's greatest achievement was putting the boot into Toronto Wolfpack.

[fighting irish]

19 hours ago, M j M said:

I'm sure he was. I fundamentally disagreed with the breakaway and the quite transparent reasons for it. However it remains impossible to judge his performance given what is happening and what happened before he came.

What isn't hard to be certain of now is that the 2017-21 deal gave the game a period of unprecedented revenues, stability and certainty. We knew this at the time and we also knew that Sky were paying somewhat over the odds for their own reasons - but again the critics ignored this in their efforts to pursue an agenda against Nigel Wood.

What were Sky's reasons for paying ''over the odds''?

[fighting irish]

8 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Haven’t the packages already been split this time round? Super League is one, Lower tiers plus Cup and internationals the other?

I hope so, and I hope there's some alternative bidders.

[fighting irish]

7 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Why do people think that RL deserves a bigger TV deal than it currently has? 

The whole argument for a bigger contract seems to be based on nothing more than "we'd like one and we think we deserve it", which doesn't strike me as a good negotiating position. 

We offer a low-value audience to advertisers (at a time when media space is getting cheaper), RL isn't a massive driver of subscriptions and we're not offering anything new to broadcasters that we don't currently offer. 

I'm not privy to the negotiations but if the proposition being put to broadcasters is basically the same as what Elstone and the club execs are offer under the current contract, it deserves to be bent over the barrel. 

I'm listening, but without the numbers, your opinions are on a par with the ''we'd like one and we think we deserve it'' brigade.

What I hope, (god help us) is that Elstone does have an idea of the sum of our market value to Sky's advertisers and also the  number and value of sky subscribers we do bring in.

If not, we have absolutely nothing (in terms of negotiating power) to counter Sky's reduced offering.

If Sky knows that Elstone is ignorant of these vital facts, they might lowball him, just because they can.

Lastly, with regard to something new, we should have Toronto and of course, we should expect good things to happen to subscriber numbers after the next World Cup.

Where, for goodness sake, are the people who have confidence it our sport?