Elstone talks TV deal, Private Equity and next season (ish)

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Victorian? Built in 1926. 

Bet it looked old then

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Bet it looked old then

Now, now Tommy.

[Hela Wigmen]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Lots of jeapordy games on show in 2019 Hela, lots of eyes on those not very successful teams, the point being Sky will show what is interesting to the punters, that is high on their reasons for picking games to be televised.

Sky show what brings in the audience and for the majority of the year, like every year, it’s the bigger clubs. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

The point being made was that the cap keeps the spend low and it lacks ambition when one of the things the cap does is drive spend on other areas, in this case the investment can be in areas of infrastructure that is both good for the game and can help to give advantages to the individual clubs. 

The likes of these three clubs aren't lacking ambition, as claimed, they are investing in other areas to get every advantage, which is one of the things the cap was to do. As we saw in the past, clubs used to just run their stadium into the ground and invest in players, which doesn't help the strength of the club necessarily. 

I don't disagree with anything you wrote but there comes a point when you run out of off the field facilities to invest in so you would if you are a club with disposable income or a willing backer were your ambition on the field is being held back by clubs who struggle to invest in on the field and off the field. 

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I don't disagree with anything you wrote but there comes a point when you run out of off the field facilities to invest in so you would if you are a club with disposable income or a willing backer were your ambition on the field is being held back by clubs who struggle to invest in on the field and off the field. 

So you suggest ?

[ELBOWSEYE]

58 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you suggest ?

I didn't know I was required to suggest, but for what its worth we should be encouraging investors and clubs to spend on both fronts and not artificially cap spending which ws supposed to level up the sport but infact levels of down the sport. 

[Oxford]

11 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I didn't know I was required to suggest, but for what its worth we should be encouraging investors and clubs to spend on both fronts and not artificially cap spending which ws supposed to level up the sport but infact levels of down the sport. 

I don't believe it does level down the sport and I've never seen any evidence to support this claim, though I've seen it made innumerable times on Total forum pages. Maybe Rudolph William Louis Giuliani produced the details for the report this is based upon?

[ELBOWSEYE]

8 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I don't believe it does level down the sport and I've never seen any evidence to support this claim, though I've seen it made innumerable times on Total forum pages. Maybe Rudolph William Louis Giuliani produced the details for the report this is based upon?

My god using his full name, impressive

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I didn't know I was required to suggest, but for what its worth we should be encouraging investors and clubs to spend on both fronts and not artificially cap spending which ws supposed to level up the sport but infact levels of down the sport. 

You don't have to offer an alternative , but it increases your point if you do , unfortunately as Oxford has pointed out , you're wrong 

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Sky show what brings in the audience and for the majority of the year, like every year, it’s the bigger clubs. 

Yes agreed, the majority of the year, so you agree with me, Sky will show what interests people.

[Hela Wigmen]

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes agreed, the majority of the year, so you agree with me, Sky will show what interests people.

Sky show what brings in the audiences. 

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I didn't know I was required to suggest, but for what its worth we should be encouraging investors and clubs to spend on both fronts and not artificially cap spending which ws supposed to level up the sport but infact levels of down the sport. 

There is no leveling down Elbow, just 4 Championship winners in 25 years is testament to that and of that only 3 winners in the last 15 years, no cap and the gap of those capable will not improve, possibly add Warrington to replace the Bradford of the early years and that will be where the Champion team comes from in the next 25 years.

What would you spend an increased cap on, we won't be able to match the saleries the best are on in the NRL, perhaps one step up on those who can't get a contract in the NRL but that won't be many, an increased cap will not make more British lads available, what it will be spent on is increasing the wages of those we already employ - not a bad thing - but more of those who can command better wages will end up at the 4 wealthiest clubs.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Sky show what brings in the audiences. 

Exactly so. Glad you now realise that.

Seriously though, Sky now know that screening jeopardy brought in auduences, if they allow SL to decry them of it with a closed shop I will be very surprised.

[Rupert Prince]

14 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Sky show what brings in the audience and for the majority of the year, like every year, it’s the bigger clubs. 

So we need more bigger clubs.

[Hela Wigmen]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly so. Glad you now realise that.

Seriously though, Sky now know that screening jeopardy brought in auduences, if they allow SL to decry them of it with a closed shop I will be very surprised.

Don’t patronise me. No, Sky know showing what brings the audience in is what they want to show, as proven by the amount of games televised for the big 4/5 clubs. 

[Harry Stottle]

59 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Don’t patronise me. No, Sky know showing what brings the audience in is what they want to show, as proven by the amount of games televised for the big 4/5 clubs. 

Don't be so touchy Hela.

OK, we are agreed Sky will air what they envisage the punters want to see, but if they *allow SL to go back to a closed shop the alternative of jeapordy games to screen will not available to Sky, nor will the Championship play off's should they also wish to screen those.

There is no saying how any season will pan out before it commences, we could have 1 or 2 front runners so far ahead in SL alternatively 8+ teams could be vying for top spot and play off positioning, the same at the top of the Championship, at the base of SL 1 team could be so far away from the rest that there will be no jeopardy fixtures or like in '19 with 4 or 5 weeks of 4 teams slugging it out and the last day all any one of the 4 could be relegated.

What would you do if you were the Sky planner, risk all on the top of SL providing all that is required in compelling viewing or wanting to keep your options open in having alternatives available and the power to choose?

* I say allow because I think it will ultimately be Sky's decision and not SL's to end P&R, SL would have to put it to Sky and I think it will be a discussion topic in the TV contract negotiations, should SL be contemplating such a move.

[Dave T]

15 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I don't disagree with anything you wrote but there comes a point when you run out of off the field facilities to invest in so you would if you are a club with disposable income or a willing backer were your ambition on the field is being held back by clubs who struggle to invest in on the field and off the field. 

I suggest it's one of the reasons why we have increased the cap and added marquee player allowances, clubs can spend a lot more than they could just 5 years ago for example. 

I'm not arguing there shouldn't be increases in the cap, but it needs to be one the game can fund, I'm not the person to decide what that level should be, and tbh those dipping their hands in their pockets are absolutely the ones who should. 

But there are plenty of advantages that money can still be spent on, from youth systems, transfer fees, facilities, sports science, coaching, training etc which are all off-cap. 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly so. Glad you now realise that.

Seriously though, Sky now know that screening jeopardy brought in auduences, if they allow SL to decry them of it with a closed shop I will be very surprised.

They seemed fine with it previously. One thing I would say about RL figures is that they are relatively stubborn, they don't increase massively, they don't drop off a cliff. And we have had various systems over the years, with the same being true. 

I'm OK with whatever system we use, but I dont think Sky are overly concerned for the sake of a few thousand viewers here and there. 

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

They seemed fine with it previously. One thing I would say about RL figures is that they are relatively stubborn, they don't increase massively, they don't drop off a cliff. And we have had various systems over the years, with the same being true. 

I'm OK with whatever system we use, but I dont think Sky are overly concerned for the sake of a few thousand viewers here and there. 

Yes they did seem fine with it previously, but I think they may have learned a something since then.

I put another question to Hela in the next post,  woukd you like to answer that please Dave?

[ELBOWSEYE]

13 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

You don't have to offer an alternative , but it increases your point if you do , unfortunately as Oxford has pointed out , you're wrong 

To simply say your wrong is not really a answer to the posting and thats all you and Oxford did. You didnt say the introduction of the cap stopped clubs from going bankrupt / insolvency, it didn't the rate seems just as high as previosly, you didn't say how the cap levelled the playing field, it didn't 4 GF winners since its inception. I am not saying scrapping the cap will improve or solve the games problems because the solution is not black or white. 

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Don't be so touchy Hela.

OK, we are agreed Sky will air what they envisage the punters want to see, but if they *allow SL to go back to a closed shop the alternative of jeapordy games to screen will not available to Sky, nor will the Championship play off's should they also wish to screen those.

There is no saying how any season will pan out before it commences, we could have 1 or 2 front runners so far ahead in SL alternatively 8+ teams could be vying for top spot and play off positioning, the same at the top of the Championship, at the base of SL 1 team could be so far away from the rest that there will be no jeopardy fixtures or like in '19 with 4 or 5 weeks of 4 teams slugging it out and the last day all any one of the 4 could be relegated.

What would you do if you were the Sky planner, risk all on the top of SL providing all that is required in compelling viewing or wanting to keep your options open in having alternatives available and the power to choose?

* I say allow because I think it will ultimately be Sky's decision and not SL's to end P&R, SL would have to put it to Sky and I think it will be a discussion topic in the TV contract negotiations, should SL be contemplating such a move.

Do SKY worry about the the supposed lack of jeopardy with NFL, or baseball or basketball or Indian cricket league.

 

[Oxford]

4 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Do SKY worry about the the supposed lack of jeopardy with NFL, or baseball or basketball or Indian cricket league.

About as much as they worry aboyt my ingrowing toe nail.

They are obsessed with football which relies on P&R for it's culture.

But I have a related question to all this:

Is the PE involvement real, does this money actually exist?

[Rupert Prince]

5 minutes ago, Oxford said:

About as much as they worry aboyt my ingrowing toe nail.

They are obsessed with football which relies on P&R for it's culture.

But I have a related question to all this:

Is the PE involvement real, does this money actually exist?

What SKY need is space to fill their schedules.

Money?           It will exist once someone signs on the dotted line.

[Oxford]

7 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

What SKY need is space to fill their schedules.

Money?           It will exist once someone signs on the dotted line.

So once again Rupert we're discussing and taking up positions about an imaginary issue?

[ELBOWSEYE]

6 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

There is no leveling down Elbow, just 4 Championship winners in 25 years is testament to that and of that only 3 winners in the last 15 years, no cap and the gap of those capable will not improve, possibly add Warrington to replace the Bradford of the early years and that will be where the Champion team comes from in the next 25 years.

What would you spend an increased cap on, we won't be able to match the saleries the best are on in the NRL, perhaps one step up on those who can't get a contract in the NRL but that won't be many, an increased cap will not make more British lads available, what it will be spent on is increasing the wages of those we already employ - not a bad thing - but more of those who can command better wages will end up at the 4 wealthiest clubs.

Maybe the answer is not within the existing teams, there is no way enough clubs long term will be able to match the more financially successful clubs some may replace like Warrington have with Bradford. Some clubs will have a few good seasons, (cas, Salford and Huddersfield) but long term no major changes. Maybe the answer is new clubs who have the financial backing to smash the boundaries. We have as a sport wasted possible chances with Paris and Toronto, possible getting Tolouse as well as Catalans is another chance. As for whether the game has levelled down or not you could say the whole game has dropped a few levels but not closed the gap from the top few to the rest.