Derek Beaumont

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, dealwithit said:

And if DB walked away? I know there’s plenty of other clubs reliant on a single owner, but it’s such a concern. Clubs should be working towards sustainability, and if that means spending less on players then that’s what it means. 

It's simply a numbers game , to be sustainable in SL Leigh need 8,000 + averages in the LSV , they would be able to spend full cap without owner input , that's how it is set up 

[Oxford]

We criticise refs without whom the game wouldn't work, and we criticise people who keep clubs going with their own money.

 

What does that say about us?

[PEANUT HEAD]

11 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

I would argue that we shouldn’t need to rely on an owner continually dipping into their own pocket. 

How do think most of the SL clubs survive, even the successful ones run at a loss.

[LeeF]

56 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

There have been no multi year deals since 2018, everyone is signed on 1 year deals, I think the lessons have been well and truly learnt from the days of handing out 3/4 year deals in 2017/8

Interesting way to operate. Might cause issues with getting better SL standard players but understandable 

[dealwithit]

8 minutes ago, PEANUT HEAD said:

How do think most of the SL clubs survive, even the successful ones run at a loss.

And that’s my point. The foundations are not solid to begin with. You’ve also got more complicated questions like what is the role of SL clubs in developing talent? What is the RFL’s role? Should every SL team have an academy? 

[LeeF]

50 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Lee, it's very easy to shed contracts after relegation as SL contracts all contain the same clause, so Billy Brilliant can have a 10 year £1m a season contract for SL but nothing if the club is relegated - hope that helps

Good attitude 

[LeeF]

45 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Centrally? Around 300kish? Same as the increase for next season 

It’s ok as they will only offer 1 year deals. My question was the drop from £1.8m to c£700k or more likely less with a new TV deal

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

Good attitude 

Worse when they have those contracts in the championship with no relegation clause for finishing outside the top 4. Perhaps they should have put that clause in themselves.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Good attitude 

Outside SL , yes it is 

[GUBRATS]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Worse when they have those contracts in the championship with no relegation clause for finishing outside the top 4. Perhaps they should have put that clause in themselves.

Been over this before , there is a list of clauses you can legally put in a contract , not finishing in a certain position isn't allowed , HTH 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

It’s ok as they will only offer 1 year deals. My question was the drop from £1.8m to c£700k or more likely less with a new TV deal

That is valid and tbh who knows as it is entirely reliant on the new TV deal. 

The difference between team 12 SL funding and top end Championship funding for this season is around 300k though. 

[LeytherRob]

11 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Interesting way to operate. Might cause issues with getting better SL standard players but understandable 

Maybe, but i'd rather it was done this way than the days of giving Sam Barlow a 5 year deal, or Sam Hopkins a 3/4 year deal about 2 months before going down. If Derek does decide to call it a day, we're not on the hook for anything financially.

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Part of the submission is ownership. Having a single owner willing to stump up 1.8 million 1 moment then walk out midseason the next isn't going to look good.

How much an owner is willing to refuse or not refuse is not part of the submission.  

[Rupert Prince]

8 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Maybe, but i'd rather it was done this way than the days of giving Sam Barlow a 5 year deal, or Sam Hopkins a 3/4 year deal about 2 months before going down. If Derek does decide to call it a day, we're not on the hook for anything financially.

The downside is that better players would gravitate to teams offering longer contracts. 

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

How much an owner is willing to refuse or not refuse is not part of the submission.  

Ownership is, alongside "ability to construct a competitive squad".

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Rupert Prince said:

The downside is that better players would gravitate to teams offering longer contracts. 

Once in SL any club can offer any length of SL contract , because upon relegation they are all void 

The better players sign for bigger richer clubs , and also for the clubs they might win trophy's at , always have , always will 

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

Good attitude 

Luv me not another one

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't have a problem at all and indeed often agree with Mr Beaumont on several wider game issues that he has brought up such as P/R and international clubs.

I just don't get the hero worship and contradictory statements, and won't hesitate to point out where they are flawed. As you say he acted "rightly or wrongly", that can't help Leigh's case now. He spent beyond his means dragging the club and league into disrepute - yet is now claiming he can spend more than that, after the pandemic? Really? 

We all know what happened at Leigh that year was an unethical midseason clearout of players on inflated contracts as a result ultimately of financial and contract mismanagement. That is squarely at DB's door. For all that I'd bag Michael Carter for being unambitious or Gary Hetherington for being tight on the purse strings, neither have upped sticks midseason because the team didn't finish in a good enough position - and both have had plenty of reason to do so in recent times.

So as I say, in a licensing scenario, the only major negatives Leigh face is the prospective market share and that episode. 

I hope you never have to earn a living

[Oldbear]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

We criticise refs without whom the game would work, and we criticise people who keep clubs going with their own money.

 

What does that say about us?

And bizarrely we also complain that we can’t attract enough wealthy individuals to invest. I don’t know Mr Beaumont, and will almost certainly never know him, but he seems to love the sport, and his club, so as long as financially he knows what he’s getting into why shouldn’t he do what he says he will do. I’m no Leigh fan, but I have no dislike of them either, I just hope that all clubs, whoever they are, get treated fairly in this application process, and long standing views, whether warranted or not, don’t become part of the process, stick to the facts please! (However since this is SL I won’t hold my breath).

[LeeF]

9 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

Maybe, but i'd rather it was done this way than the days of giving Sam Barlow a 5 year deal, or Sam Hopkins a 3/4 year deal about 2 months before going down. If Derek does decide to call it a day, we're not on the hook for anything financially.

Signing Sam Barlow in the first place though .....

[The Blues Ox]

11 hours ago, dealwithit said:

And that’s my point. The foundations are not solid to begin with. You’ve also got more complicated questions like what is the role of SL clubs in developing talent? What is the RFL’s role? Should every SL team have an academy? 

SL teams don't have to worry too much about developing talent while they can raid areas that would offer nothing to SL like Fev and Halifax of their talent.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

SL teams don't have to worry too much about developing talent while they can raid areas that would offer nothing to SL like Fev and Halifax of their talent.

That proves the point

[Harry Stottle]

On 18/11/2020 at 13:59, Tommygilf said:

Why have you brought up Toronto?

I was bringing up two characters one who seemingly you wanted to succeed in LiVolsi despite putting his own conditions forward and refusing to be be transparent with his abiliity to fund his team until he got the answer he desired, and the other by your comments you would prefer to fail even though he has said he can and will prove his finances.

[Harry Stottle]

Hide behind the laughing Emoji Tommy, but it was audible from 50 miles away you screaming, stamping your feet and throwing your toys out of the pram when the chancer LiVolsi was rejected. 

[Robin Evans]

55 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hide behind the laughing Emoji Tommy, but it was audible from 50 miles away you screaming, stamping your feet and throwing your toys out of the pram when the chancer LiVolsi was rejected. 

Argyle bails mid season. Livolsi comes across as a chancer and refuses to declare his hand..... foot stomp and much lashing and gnashing of teeth.

Delbert always had the money. He took an unorthodox way of getting shut of those who in his opinion weren't up to it. Always had the money and will declare his hand come what may. Yet he's made out to be be'elzebub's firstborn.

I personally think the blokes a bit of an a-hole..... he's a gobsheeite with lots to dislike about him. His financial security he gives leigh isn't one of them.

The double standards here are here in robust fashion.