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

[Big Picture]

2 hours 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?

More than likely the money exists, the question is whether those who have it want to invest in a small regional sport whose footprint is largely confined to smallish economically disadvantaged towns.

[Scotchy1]

19 hours 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?

There is an obvious levelling down. Its Self-evident. 

The salary cap levels down, its why it exists. 
The level to which it levels down, and whether that is a good or bad thing are up for debate, but that it does level down isnt really. The alternative would be that every player plays for the club they would do even if the cap didnt exist and no player had left a club because of cap pressure. Something we know isnt true. 

[Scotchy1]

There is an argument that sky pay what it roughly costs to put on the competition. They value it not at some premium or market pressure but at its cost and that is a responsive figure. 

The practical application of that is that sky may very well expect the money they pay to be spent on players rather than investing in growing the assets of clubs or going in the back pockets of owners. 

There is a logic that sees the players as the raw materials and sky seeing the cheaper the raw materials, the cheaper the end product. Conversely the more expensive the raw materials, the more valuable the product. 

There is a common wisdom within the sport and especially on here which is almost the opposite of that, which sees us looking to 'cream off' a portion of what sky pays for our own priorities. Whatever the merits of that, it does create the question of why would sky pay £40m for a competition that costs £30m to put on? Why do Sky want to pay money to go in solidarity payments to a competition(s) they dont screen?

[Oxford]

23 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

There is an obvious levelling down. Its Self-evident. 

The salary cap levels down, its why it exists. 

Now I'd say it's there to keep top clubs at the top otherwise there would be a system in place to even it up a bit.

And there's nothing self-evident about it.

[Scotchy1]

29 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Now I'd say it's there to keep top clubs at the top otherwise there would be a systame in place to even it up a bit.

And there's nothing self-evident about it.

That may also be true however that isnt necessarily counter to there being a levelling down. It can both protect the top clubs position and level down. In fact it is likely that that is the case. 

However it is self-evident that the SC does cause a levelling down. Do you really believe that if we scrapped the cap then the big teams wouldnt sign any more or better players?

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

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. 

Would that be new clubs replacing existing clubs or additional clubs? If it is the first option then where are the player's coming from?

[Harry Stottle]

56 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Now I'd say it's there to keep top clubs at the top otherwise there would be a systame in place to even it up a bit.

And there's nothing self-evident about it.

I was just going to answer in much the same fashion,  thank you.

[Harry Stottle]

55 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

That may also be true however that isnt necessarily counter to there being a levelling down. It can both protect the top clubs position and level down. In fact it is likely that that is the case. 

However it is self-evident that the SC does cause a levelling down. Do you really believe that if we scrapped the cap then the big teams wouldnt sign any more or better players?

If they were available of course they would, and as I eluded to earlier the gap will just keep on growing betwen those who have and those who haven't.

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Scotchy1 said:

That may also be true however that isnt necessarily counter to there being a levelling down. It can both protect the top clubs position and level down. In fact it is likely that that is the case. 

However it is self-evident that the SC does cause a levelling down. Do you really believe that if we scrapped the cap then the big teams would sign any more or better players?

Saying something is self-evident alot doesn't make it so.

The SC was brought in for several reasons and failed at most of them but it has produced a lot of sensible economics from clubs.

I have no doubt that abolishing the SC would cause a few to go broke chasing success.

The concept of levelling down is for those who want to see and moan about decline which usually comes about with increased disenchantment and disillusion.

 

[GUBRATS]

Has the SC protected all clubs from financial issues ? No , although other issue are evident with those who have 

Has the SC spread out the talent and therefore the trophies ? No , although we have seen clubs with inovative coaches get very close 

If we dumped the SC would the 2 points above improve or get worse ? , I'd guess they'd get worse and the gap would open more and we'd potentially see some push the financial boundaries too far 

 

[Scotchy1]

6 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Saying something is self-evident alot doesn't make it so.

The SC was brought in for several reasons and failed at most of them but it has produced a lot of sensible economics from clubs.

I have no doubt that abolishing the SC would cause a few to go broke chasing success.

The concept of levelling down is for those who want to see and moan about decline which usually comes about with increased disenchantment and disillusion.

Regardless of whether you favour it or not, or whether it is a good idea or not. If you accept that the SC stops the bigger clubs buying more, better players, as they would otherwise do. You accept there is a levelling down. That is what the levelling down is. 

All sports with a salary cap do so to level down. Its the most direct consequence of a salary cap existing. Whatever the other benefits of merits of it. A salary cap stops the best teams being as good as they would otherwise be. 

[Scotchy1]

32 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

If they were available of course they would, and as I eluded to earlier the gap will just keep on growing betwen those who have and those who haven't.

And that is a levelling down.

Like everything there is a balance to be found, this is a much more difficult thing to do when there is such a massive financial and commercial disparity between the big clubs and the rest. 

[Oxford]

2 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Regardless of whether you favour it or not, or whether it is a good idea or not. If you accept that the SC stops the bigger clubs buying more, better players, as they would otherwise do. You accept there is a levelling down. That is what the levelling down is. 

You need to let the bone go now and again

The SC stops clubs going broke at its best.

Although the problem of competing for better players is an economic one in the market that does not mean a leveling down nor do better players make for a logical jump in quality.

[Scotchy1]

20 minutes ago, Oxford said:

You need to let the bone go now and again

The SC stops clubs going broke at its best.

Although the problem of competing for better players is an economic one in the market that does not mean a leveling down nor do better players make for a logical jump in quality.

better players obviously makes for a logical jump in quality. 

It really isnt a controversial point to say that the salary cap stops clubs building a squad as good as they could do without it. If it doesnt, it serves no purpose at all. 

The economic aspect of the SC, that is that it stop clubs over-spending on players, would not exist in the world you create. That being that the top clubs would not build better squads without it. There is no driver or market force that would make a player more valuable in that none SC world. 

After all, if the SC doesnt hold the top clubs back, they would simply have exactly the same players they have now and nobody else would be offering to pay them more so there would be no reason for the top clubs to pay them anymore. 

If spending capacity does correlate with squad quality then the SC being a restriction of spending capacity is also a restriction of quality. 

If what you are saying is true, then the hard cap should immediately be removed and replaced with a cap based on percentage of turnover. This would be fairer on the players as it allows them to share in the growth of revenue, and would have no effect on the competitiveness of the league.

[Oxford]

7 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

better players obviously makes for a logical jump in quality. 

No they don't when we had a poorer quality compariritively even the moderate Aussies looked like world beaters. We has all sorts of top grade players in most clubs and all that happened was they exposed how lacking we were.

Levelling up came from a wider understanding and acceptance & willingness to change throughout the game.the evidence for that is threefold Aussies don't stand out like they used too, coaches are very careful who they sign from downunder & more of our players can cut the mustard in the NRL.

[Scotchy1]

Just now, Oxford said:

No they don't when we had a poorer quality compariritively even the moderate Aussies looked like world beaters. We has all sorts of top grade players in most clubs and all that happened was they exposed how lacking we were.

Levelling up came from a wider understanding and acceptance & willingness to change throughout the game.the evidence for that is threefold Aussies don't stand out like they used too, coaches are very careful who they sign from downunder & more of our players can cut the mustard in the NRL.

Yes they do, better players are the measure of quality. 

As i said, its not really controversial that the SC is a levelling down mechanism. Its why it exists. If it were a financial protection mechanism then it couldnt be a hard cap. It would need to be related to the position of each club. The definitive proof that it isnt a financial protection mechanism is that some clubs would go bust spending the cap. They can't afford it. 

It isnt even controversial that there should be some sort of mechanisms to increase competitiveness. All sports have them. 

There is a balance to be struck, i dont think the SC in any way finds that balance. It stops ambitious smaller clubs 'catching up' and overcoming the inherent advantages of the big clubs, it stops the big clubs pushing each other to improve as quickly as they otherwise would. It keeps the big fish big, the small fish small and the pond pretty tiny. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Would that be new clubs replacing existing clubs or additional clubs? If it is the first option then where are the player's coming from?

I am not going to insult you, the answers are obvious to all fans who have been involved in the game. You need to invest in your local community /schools, give them pathways and heroes to look up to and aspire to(that both short and long term), also you need bums on seats stars and headline grabbing signing to make boost media coverage and increase sponsorship. This is the basics were ever you are. 

[Rupert Prince]

6 hours ago, Oxford said:

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

It struck me that your issue or comment was imaginary, it certainly did not make sense to me. 

[Oxford]

2 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

It struck me that your issue or comment was imaginary, it certainly did not make sense to me. 

You didn't understand that I thought there may not be any PE & we might be wasting time discussing it if it was?

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Scotchy1 said:

Yes they do, better players are the measure of quality. 

Yes that's true but that doesn't mean having them brings up the level of any competition.

 

1 hour ago, Scotchy1 said:

As i said, its not really controversial that the SC is a levelling down mechanism. Its why it exists.

The SC is not a levelling dowm mechanism, and it is not why it exists.

1 hour ago, Scotchy1 said:

There is a balance to be struck, i dont think the SC in any way finds that balance.

No it doesn't, not on its own. It's always been half an answer.

[Rupert Prince]

7 minutes ago, Oxford said:

You didn't understand that I thought there may not be any PE & we might be wasting time discussing it if it was?

One can imagine that there are many things we all are discussing that are speculative.

But there are consequences for investment and/or the lack of it!

[Oxford]

6 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

One can imagine that there are many things we all are discussing that are speculative.

But there are consequences for investment and/or the lack of it!

Speculative is one thing imaginary quite another.

I was just hoping there was at least some substance to this one.

I think I'll come back to this one when it joins the land of the living.

[JohnM]

One does not really invest in rugby league. One tends to donate. 

[Tommygilf]

19 hours ago, Oxford said:

The SC is not a levelling dowm mechanism, and it is not why it exists.

Of course it is, its designed to stop Leeds, Wigan etc spending twice as much as other teams and having reserve squads as good as some competitors to keep the competition competitive.

That Leeds, Wigan etc have worked out that it can work even better for them with a low cap has only widened the gap further.

[GUBRATS]

8 hours ago, JohnM said:

One does not really invest in rugby league. One tends to donate. 

Does one ?