Jump to content

Promotion vote  

238 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you promote to Super League

    • London
      40
    • Toulouse
      119
    • Featherstone
      44
    • Leigh
      16
    • Bradford
      5
    • Widnes
      8
    • Halifax
      6
  2. 2. Who would you promote to Championship

    • Barrow
      28
    • Newcastle
      168
    • Workington
      19
    • Doncaster
      8
    • Keighley
      5
    • Hunslet
      5
    • Rochdale
      5


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

With no other broadcaster who will in most probability not come close to what even Sky's reduced bid will be we have nothing to negotiate with Eddie.

How does SL make the offering as attractive as possible, leaving aside 'we have two French teams in the competition' that isn't on the cards yet.

Well for a start SL clubs need to stop being so negative (listen to Michael Carter on this week’s full 80 minutes podcast as an example of negativity and defeat), show themselves to be open to expansion (Toronto 🙄) so Sky don’t think they’re dealing with a declining game played in about 10% of the country and pay accordingly.  Increasing the salary cap might help too, so the clubs who can afford it can attract and retain better players, the buzz around SBW’s signing in the national media was incredible, and it was utterly wasted by SL. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Other than financial stability, more assets than nearly every club in the game, and a set of fans who rebuilt their ground into a stadium to be proud of.

Eh??? They rebuilt the bloody stadium ffs. Posted a fiscal surplus. Been in 4 grand finals in ten years. Own their ground. Have training facilities SL clubs have used. Embraced disabled and womens rug

I'm just loving the outpourings on this thread....  its going to go nuts when fev are announced.....🤣🤣🤣🤣

Posted Images

26 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

With no other broadcaster who will in most probability not come close to what even Sky's reduced bid will be we have nothing to negotiate with Eddie.

How does SL make the offering as attractive as possible, leaving aside 'we have two French teams in the competition' that isn't on the cards yet.

It's about offering as much value as possible to the broadcaster(s) - about providing them with access to an audience that will not only want to sit on their sofa every Thursday and Friday night, but will also crave the products that Sky's advertisers offer. In short, it's about making it as desirable as possible to justify the value being sought and to increase the pool of interested buyers. 

This isn't the sort of thing that you address with a hastily-made decision by a committee that's assembled in a matter of weeks. It's the sort of thing that you address over years of careful audience, marketing, advertising and product development.

Unfortunately, the clubs decided that doing that was too difficult and expensive. The result is that not doing it looks likely to cost the game around £10m a year. 

The deadline is here, and Super League is trying to rush its homework the night before it's due. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'd actually love to know if a proper effort has ever been made by Super League to see what would appeal to French TV companies and what would drive a decent TV deal that covers French clubs and expansion. It seems crazy that talk aren't happening around what would be possible with two French SL teams and Toulouse being admitted. Similarly has anyone ever floated what the interest would be if they would be if for say a 4 team French conference? Has anyone approached them and said if you guarantee to pay £8 million a year for 5 years we will give you that? Small change to a TV company for plenty of content. It may seem crazy to actually tailor the offering to what the customer may want and pay for.....

Considering the Super League review of Canada I severely doubt it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

It's about offering as much value as possible to the broadcaster(s) - about providing them with access to an audience that will not only want to sit on their sofa every Thursday and Friday night, but will also crave the products that Sky's advertisers offer. In short, it's about making it as desirable as possible to justify the value being sought and to increase the pool of interested buyers. 

This isn't the sort of thing that you address with a hastily-made decision by a committee that's assembled in a matter of weeks. It's the sort of thing that you address over years of careful audience, marketing, advertising and product development.

Unfortunately, the clubs decided that doing that was too difficult and expensive. The result is that not doing it looks likely to cost the game around £10m a year. 

The deadline is here, and Super League is trying to rush its homework the night before it's due. 

So with a lack of years of preperation it is very much as I say, sit back and be told what we will recieve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Tommy, can we not say to Toulouse come back when you get a TV contract

It's not Toulouse's or Catalans' responsibility to get a TV contract. That's literally Elstone's job description. 

Seriously, we don't expect individual heartland clubs to be responsible for securing their own TV contracts (and I suspect that fans of most clubs should be careful about wishing for that particular slippery slope) - why do we expect the same of clubs outside the UK? 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So with a lack of years of preperation it is very much as I say, sit back and be told what we will recieve.

My point is that this situation was never inevitable. 

It only became inevitable once the Super League clubs decided that doing something to increase the value of Super League was either unnecessary, too expensive, too difficult or a combination of the three. 

Now they're facing up to the cost of that decision, one that poses a very real existential threat to some clubs, and rather than addressing it, they're looking to double-down on the decision and find someone or something to blame. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

It's not Toulouse's or Catalans' responsibility to get a TV contract. That's literally Elstone's job description. 

Seriously, we don't expect individual heartland clubs to be responsible for securing their own TV contracts (and I suspect that fans of most clubs should be careful about wishing for that particular slippery slope) - why do we expect the same of clubs outside the UK? 

Yes its an odd one. If the talked about reduction in the UK TV contract comes into being this is one way the shortfall could be bridged, or even result in additional wealth. SLE should literally be doing all it can to drive additional revenue streams to benefit all clubs, not drinking from the same well all the time.

Edited by Damien
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

My point is that this situation was never inevitable. 

It only became inevitable once the Super League clubs decided that doing something to increase the value of Super League was either unnecessary, too expensive, too difficult or a combination of the three. 

Now they're facing up to the cost of that decision, one that poses a very real existential threat to some clubs, and rather than addressing it, they're looking to double-down on the decision and find someone or something to blame. 

As you say in the previous post, that is now Elstone's responsibility, but there is one thing that crosses my mind, is SL really that important to Sky and moreso to Comcast?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As you say in the previous post, that is now Elstone's responsibility, but there is one thing that crosses my mind, is SL really that important to Sky and moreso to Comcast?

We better start hoping so, otherwise its back to pay as you play...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As you say in the previous post, that is now Elstone's responsibility, but there is one thing that crosses my mind, is SL really that important to Sky and moreso to Comcast?

What's important to Sky and Comcast is content that will make them and their shareholders money. If rugby league content makes money, it is important to Sky and Comcast. 

Rugby League's (and most specifically, Elstone's and the Super League club ownership group's) job is therefore to improve and demonstrate the value of that content - and the best way to do that is to create a demand for it. 

The reason we're talking about a potential £10m fall per annum is because the game hasn't done that. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

For the uninitiated, what visionary insights did he share? 

He’s happy being a northern sport (and proud of it), Toronto don’t offer anything to SL, there are too many RL clubs in the three divisions and we need to look at what some of them offer - etc. On the same podcast Mick Hogan was on being really positive and saying about how they are expanding the community game in the NE and have a plan to win SL by 2030 - polar opposites. Give it a whirl. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eddie said:

He’s happy being a northern sport (and proud of it), Toronto don’t offer anything to SL, there are too many RL clubs in the three divisions and we need to look at what some of them offer - etc. On the same podcast Mick Hogan was on being really positive and saying about how they are expanding the community game in the NE and have a plan to win SL by 2030 - polar opposites. Give it a whirl. 

The absolutely irony of Carter saying that cannot be understated 🤣

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eddie said:

He’s happy being a northern sport (and proud of it), Toronto don’t offer anything to SL, there are too many RL clubs in the three divisions and we need to look at what some of them offer - etc. On the same podcast Mick Hogan was on being really positive and saying about how they are expanding the community game in the NE and have a plan to win SL by 2030 - polar opposites. Give it a whirl. 

Ah, his usual fare then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The absolutely irony of Carter saying that cannot be understated 🤣

That’s what I thought. If there was a national fan poll for one team to be booted out of SL for offering the least, odds on it would be them.
 

I have absolutely nothing against their fans btw, I’m sure they’re as passionate as anyone. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

That’s what I thought. If there was a national fan poll for one team to be booted out of SL for offering the least, odds on it would be them.
 

I have absolutely nothing against their fans btw, I’m sure they’re as passionate as anyone. 

On the fans absolutely. But for Carter, people in glass houses ffs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Eddie said:

He’s happy being a northern sport (and proud of it), Toronto don’t offer anything to SL, there are too many RL clubs in the three divisions and we need to look at what some of them offer - etc. On the same podcast Mick Hogan was on being really positive and saying about how they are expanding the community game in the NE and have a plan to win SL by 2030 - polar opposites. Give it a whirl. 

I hate the too many clubs nonsense. We need more clubs!! We need clubs up and down the land ffs.

What we don't need to do is waste money funding some clubs in the Championship to be full time and others part time. The money that a team finishing in the top two of the Championship gets is more than what funds all of League 1. There is the money to fund lower leagues at a sustainable part time level but instead the game tries to placate some clubs over others.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Any club given 5 years relegation exemption with full funding, an owner willing to top up and a good attendance of fans who would populate the terraces and stands to supplement the income, SHOULD do very well.

And, have a good away following to appease the other Owners/Chairmen/Clubs, who ticks all those boxes? 

Would there be a glass ceiling though for some clubs ?

For example could Halifax, Leigh and Fev realistically regularly get 10k crowds at the end of the 5 year period ? Could either run an academy given their proximity to other 'bigger' clubs ? 

Same question for Bradford, Widnes, London and Toulouse, answers must be yes and yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Magic XIII said:

Would there be a glass ceiling though for some clubs ?

For example could Halifax, Leigh and Fev realistically regularly get 10k crowds at the end of the 5 year period ? Could either run an academy given their proximity to other 'bigger' clubs ? 

Same question for Bradford, Widnes, London and Toulouse, answers must be yes and yes.

London, Bradford and Newcastle are the only 3 non-SL clubs running academies currently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Magic XIII said:

Would there be a glass ceiling though for some clubs ?

For example could Halifax, Leigh and Fev realistically regularly get 10k crowds at the end of the 5 year period ? Could either run an academy given their proximity to other 'bigger' clubs ? 

Same question for Bradford, Widnes, London and Toulouse, answers must be yes and yes.

I doubt attendances will be a criteria.

For the academy question, I would say yes to all.  The level of auditing these last time around was very basic.  Some Clubs levels have naturally improved as they value that route, others have dropped away or out.

imo, the requirements have already been bounced around some clubs and the decision lies between a couple of clubs already. TO, I believe, are one (the video and promotion wasn’t done without good reason) and Leigh or Fev.

I would prefer TO or London.  I feel LB backing of more money by Hughes will be spent in the right way, on the team and development.  TO already have this in place, so imo, it’s theirs to lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Magic XIII said:

Would there be a glass ceiling though for some clubs ?

For example could Halifax, Leigh and Fev realistically regularly get 10k crowds at the end of the 5 year period ? Could either run an academy given their proximity to other 'bigger' clubs ? 

Same question for Bradford, Widnes, London and Toulouse, answers must be yes and yes.

With Wigan 7 miles, Warrington 10miles and Saints 13 miles is it nessacary for Leigh to have an academy? the community clubs of the town produces lots of players that go to these and other pro clubs, would I be correct in thinking that hopefuls that London sign come from further afield,  but I would say if it was a condition of entry to SL Mr Beaumont would re-establish once more Leigh Centurions Academy.

I would also say the same applies to Fev, and Halifax district probably produces as many pro players than most.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...