Is it happening???

[Scotchy1]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We have all sorts of artificial rules - it's a sports comp. 

We do. But that doesn't alter the fact that those rules stop 'clubs finding their level'.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

We do. But that doesn't alter the fact that those rules stop 'clubs finding their level'.

Cas and Wakey aren't artificially above anybody. In reality Cas are a mid-table team who have done some good stuff on the field by being well coached, and Wakey are a lower table team. 

The clubs they are above are the likes of KR, Widnes, Leigh, Fax, Fev etc. and it isn't rules that do that, these all have similar scale and spending power under any rules. 

If you were going to rank clubs across the RFL structure, Cas would probably be around 7th or 8th, and not because of rules, but because that's where they rightly sit. 

[Oxford]

I did wonder if TWP would become a more viable option in the business eyes of the NRL?

[Scotchy1]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We know the actual value for a comp with all UK clubs plus 1 French club. 

It was £200m (for arguments sake as we know that number is questionable). 

TWP was a new investment, a change to the current position. That needs a financial assessment to buy into it. 

On a similar point to the above, it is odd when some people question every scrap of funding given to the many clubs outside of SL, plus the likes of Wakey, Cas, KR etc. but want to throw money at a club on the other side of the world that was a basket case and couldn't demonstrate any tangible value in the slightest. 

That was the same value as a comp with 10 English clubs a French club and a Canadian one too. This argument doesn't work because it is predicated on the idea that the value of the SL deal was created by a structure of 11 English clubs and 1 French club. When the value didn't change when that structure changed and an option being considered for next season also not being that structure. 

If we are arguing that there is an intrinsic link between the clubs in the comp and its value it could also be said that some of the clubs within the comp at the time that value was assigned made it lower than it otherwise would have been.

There is a dissonance in your argument, your principle doesn't hold throughout it.

If we are to ask clubs to demonstrate their value then that is fine. Let's do so. I'm quite fine with the idea that if Toronto don't demonstrate their value they aren't in. But then it also becomes incumbent upon everybody else to demonstrate their value. Which we aren't doing. 

Your argument just doesn't hold up. It falls apart on even a brief examination and basically amounts to English clubs have a right to that investment. Other areas don't. 

The problem with that is that if they have a right to it, it isn't investment. And B means that that right to that place ensures that the game doesn't and cannot fulfil its financial potential. Because even a club that provides little or not value can still have it. 

[Scotchy1]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Cas and Wakey aren't artificially above anybody. In reality Cas are a mid-table team who have done some good stuff on the field by being well coached, and Wakey are a lower table team. 

The clubs they are above are the likes of KR, Widnes, Leigh, Fax, Fev etc. and it isn't rules that do that, these all have similar scale and spending power under any rules. 

If you were going to rank clubs across the RFL structure, Cas would probably be around 7th or 8th, and not because of rules, but because that's where they rightly sit. 

Where they are under rules which artificially effect their position isn't evidence that they sit where they sit because that's their natural position.

Its a perfectly reasonable expectation that under a different structure Cas and Wakefield(and possibly everyone else) would be in a different position. 

Its not controversial to say that if there was no salary cap others may have spent more than them and those clubs wouldn't have achieved what they have achieved.  

Where we are now is a product of the decisions and actions we have taken. Not just the natural.order of things.

Right now the league measures the ability to perform in the artifical context we have created. Change that context and the outcomes would be different. 

[Scotchy1]

3 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I did wonder if TWP would become a more viable option in the business eyes of the NRL?

It is an interesting thought. 

What Toronto were spending wasn't massively different from the NRL grant. We weren't talking unimaginable figures 

[Dave T]

There is a view by some that we spend too much time focusing on mediocrity, and we should focus on the top teams. 

They then spend plenty their time focusing on Championship clubs, Cas and Wakey. 

[Scotchy1]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

There is a view by some that we spend too much time focusing on mediocrity, and we should focus on the top teams. 

They then spend plenty their time focusing on Championship clubs, Cas and Wakey. 

The salary affects the top arguably much more than the bottom. 

The problems.with the bottom act as a drag to the top.

[The Great Dane]

The NRL would have to make deep fundamental changes to the SL and how it's run if they were to take it seriously and try to make it into an asset, and those fundamental changes would undoubtedly disenfranchise a lot of people, whole fanbases of people.

If they didn't take it seriously they'd own it but just leave it to run as it does while sucking up all the best talent for the NRL, which would effectively make it an official feeder comp to the NRL.

Either way most of the people in England supporting the NRL buying a controlling share of the SL would quickly realise that these fantasies of global competitions or partnerships to grow the game globally are just that; fantasies, and would lament the NRL taking over within a decade.

I highly doubt it's going to happen anyway so I guess it doesn't matter.

[Scotchy1]

4 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

The NRL would have to make deep fundamental changes to the SL and how it's run if they were to take it seriously and try to make it into an asset, and those fundamental changes would undoubtedly disenfranchise a lot of people, whole fanbases of people.

If they didn't take it seriously they'd own it, but just leave it to run as it does while sucking up all the best talent for the NRL, which would effectively make it an official feeder comp to the NRL.

Either way most of the people in England supporting the NRL buying a controlling share of the SL would quickly realise that these fantasies of global competitions or partnerships to grow the game globally are just that; fantasies, and would lament the NRL taking over within a decade.

I highly doubt it's going to happen anyway so I guess it doesn't matter.

I honestly dont understand this idea the NRL would buy in the SL to wreck or asset strip it. 

If the NRL wants to hoover up all the talent they can do so anyway. It would be a ridiculously massive outlay to do something they can and do do anyway. 

SL has no real assets to strip. 

Even the idea that they could just put the money in now and take it out of the SL tv deal doesnt make sense. There is no real return and just risk. 

The only value for the NRL is through growth and synergies which realistically are quite easy to see. 

I know negativity is the RL way but the two competitions working together being a bad thing is a new bar we have managed to limbo under

[Smudger06]

33 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

That was the same value as a comp with 10 English clubs a French club and a Canadian one too. This argument doesn't work because it is predicated on the idea that the value of the SL deal was created by a structure of 11 English clubs and 1 French club. When the value didn't change when that structure changed and an option being considered for next season also not being that structure. 

If we are arguing that there is an intrinsic link between the clubs in the comp and its value it could also be said that some of the clubs within the comp at the time that value was assigned made it lower than it otherwise would have been.

There is a dissonance in your argument, your principle doesn't hold throughout it.

If we are to ask clubs to demonstrate their value then that is fine. Let's do so. I'm quite fine with the idea that if Toronto don't demonstrate their value they aren't in. But then it also becomes incumbent upon everybody else to demonstrate their value. Which we aren't doing. 

Your argument just doesn't hold up. It falls apart on even a brief examination and basically amounts to English clubs have a right to that investment. Other areas don't. 

The problem with that is that if they have a right to it, it isn't investment. And B means that that right to that place ensures that the game doesn't and cannot fulfil its financial potential. Because even a club that provides little or not value can still have it. 

Of what investment do you speak of?

Clubs have pooled their own individual TV Rights, in order to put them to market centrally and jointly, that's the money they get back from Super League whom is merely acting in its capacity as agent to the SL Clubs. 

[Scotchy1]

3 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Of what investment do you speak of?

Clubs have pooled their own individual TV Rights, in order to put them to market centrally and jointly, that's the money they get back from Super League whom is merely acting in its capacity as agent to the SL Clubs. 

That is another way of looking at it. 

However that that is in opposition to the principle applied to Toronto. 

My view is different again. SL is a product sold by SLE, the money that goes to clubs is simply the return on what they own. 

[The Great Dane]

8 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

I honestly dont understand this idea the NRL would buy in the SL to wreck or asset strip it. 

If the NRL wants to hoover up all the talent they can do so anyway. It would be a ridiculously massive outlay to do something they can and do do anyway. 

SL has no real assets to strip. 

Even the idea that they could just put the money in now and take it out of the SL tv deal doesnt make sense. There is no real return and just risk. 

The only value for the NRL is through growth and synergies which realistically are quite easy to see. 

I know negativity is the RL way but the two competitions working together being a bad thing is a new bar we have managed to limbo under

I never said that they would wreck it or asset strip it... That's just you assuming what my opinion is and filling in the blanks, i.e. building a baseless straw man.

If they tried to make the SL into an asset they'd make changes that, frankly, would probably be for the better for the most part, but those changes would almost certainly include getting rid of pro&reg, effectively cutting the Championship and League 1 loose, and then totally restructuring the competition to better suit what broadcasters want and thus maximise broadcast rights values.

That restructure would almost certainly include chopping and changing teams to maximise broadcast value which, overtime, would see smaller clubs replaced with clubs from bigger markets with the NRL's backing. They'd also probably softly rig the competition in those big market clubs' favour to boost their success on and off the pitch.

If they didn't treat is as an asset, or just wanted to make it into a feeder comp, then there're plenty of benefits to owning it. For one thing you can control how the players are developed and streamline a feeder system into the NRL, and other such things, but more importantly you can control the rules to make it easier to get SL players into the NRL without as much trouble for the NRL clubs, like ####### off transfer fees, which are pretty much alien in Australian culture, and are found quite disgusting once they are explained to the general public, but that is another topic.

And frankly it seems to me that 'synergies' can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean in this context, but I'll tell you this; you don't buy a controlling share of a company if you mean to partner with them!

If the NRL buy a controlling share of the SL it'll be because it's in their business interests to do so, not out of some charity to the RFL/SL or the game in England, and the only 'working together' will be the NRL's benevolent dictatorship over the SL.

[Smudger06]

4 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

I never said that they would wreck it or asset strip it... That's just you assuming what my opinion is and filling in the blanks, i.e. building a baseless straw man.

If they tried to make the SL into an asset they'd make changes that, frankly, would probably be for the better for the most part, but those changes would almost certainly include getting rid of pro&reg, effectively cutting the Championship and League 1 loose, and then totally restructuring the competition to better suit what broadcasters want and thus maximise broadcast rights values.

That restructure would almost certainly include chopping and changing teams to maximise broadcast value which, overtime, would see smaller clubs replaced with clubs from bigger markets with the NRL's backing. They'd also probably softly rig the competition in those big market clubs' favour to boost their success on and off the pitch.

If they didn't treat is as an asset, or just wanted to make it into a feeder comp, then there're plenty of benefits to owning it. For one thing you can control how the players are developed and streamline a feeder system into the NRL, and other such things, but more importantly you can control the rules to make it easier to get SL players into the NRL without as much trouble for the NRL clubs, like ####### off transfer fees, which are pretty much alien in Australian culture, and are found quite disgusting once they are explained to the general public, but that is another topic.

And frankly it seems to me that 'synergies' can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean in this context, but I'll tell you this; you don't buy a controlling share of a company if you mean to partner with them!

If the NRL buy a controlling share of the SL it'll be because it's in their business interests to do so, not out of some charity to the RFL/SL or the game in England, and the only 'working together' will be the NRL's benevolent dictatorship over the SL.

Its 50% stated....   thats a partnership. Fair do's if its 51 or more. 

[Scotchy1]

15 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

I never said that they would wreck it or asset strip it... That's just you assuming what my opinion is and filling in the blanks, i.e. building a baseless straw man.

If they tried to make the SL into an asset they'd make changes that, frankly, would probably be for the better for the most part, but those changes would almost certainly include getting rid of pro&reg, effectively cutting the Championship and League 1 loose, and then totally restructuring the competition to better suit what broadcasters want and thus maximise broadcast rights values.

That restructure would almost certainly include chopping and changing teams to maximise broadcast value which, overtime, would see smaller clubs replaced with clubs from bigger markets with the NRL's backing. They'd also probably softly rig the competition in those big market clubs' favour to boost their success on and off the pitch.

If they didn't treat is as an asset, or just wanted to make it into a feeder comp, then there're plenty of benefits to owning it. For one thing you can control how the players are developed and streamline a feeder system into the NRL, and other such things, but more importantly you can control the rules to make it easier to get SL players into the NRL without as much trouble for the NRL clubs, like ####### off transfer fees, which are pretty much alien in Australian culture, and are found quite disgusting once they are explained to the general public, but that is another topic.

And frankly it seems to me that 'synergies' can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean in this context, but I'll tell you this; you don't buy a controlling share of a company if you mean to partner with them!

If the NRL buy a controlling share of the SL it'll be because it's in their business interests to do so, not out of some charity to the RFL/SL or the game in England, and the only 'working together' will be the NRL's benevolent dictatorship over the SL.

You described it being wrecked or becoming a feeder comp (in fairness it was others describing it being asset stripped but its an argument coming from the same place)

Buying SL for a feeder comp just doesnt make sense. Not only is it a pointlessly incredibly expensive way of doing it. It leaves money on the table. It would mean the NRL would need to look at a city and market like Leeds or Manchester and rather than want a share of the potential returns there, rather have less than they get now. 

WIth regards to things like transfer fees, its just not worth it. You are talking about spending tens of millions to avoid costs of tens of thousands. 

You absolutely can buy a controlling share in a company to partner with them. You buy any share in a company to partner with them. Especially a company like SLE which has no assets to sell off. 

The only value in SL is those synergies (which are pretty tangible and obvious) and in its growth. The only way anyone can make money out of it is to make it bigger. 

What the NRL, or anyone else, would be buying is a share in SLE. Not in the clubs. They will still be 100% owned (and funded) by the owners. Owning 50% of SLE means that what is good for the British clubs (the SL ones at least anyway) is good for the NRL. Its also actually better for the NRL that they structure the deal so that the opposite is true also. 

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I've been to Fulham and Palace and they're not. Fulham are rebuilding their ground now so who knows for the future but Selhurst Park is a dump.

Wealdstone are in the National League top division this season. This is their ground.

Looks a bit like Post Office Road doesn't it.

[Smudger06]

18 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Looks a bit like Post Office Road doesn't it.

Nothing like it actually. 

[Smudger06]

19 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Looks a bit like Post Office Road doesn't it.

POR is 2.5 times bigger capacity and has permenant covered seating on three sides, with open standing terracing on other, not temporary scaffold jobs like those. 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Looks a bit like Post Office Road doesn't it.

More like trailfinders , only better 

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

Its 50% stated....   thats a partnership. Fair do's if its 51 or more. 

It depends who controls the money 

[Henson Park Old Firm]

looks like the NRL will buy into super league.... but they want London to be in the top flight hence the stadium move (conspiracy theory)

[The Future is League]

8 hours ago, LeeF said:

Thanks for the reply

I’ve been lucky enough to attend Headingley on a “Hospitality” package and thoroughly agree that it was very good.

I am surprised by Warrington as their stadium is excellent and they seem, as an outsider, to do a lot of things right off the pitch etc 

Many years ago I did use one of the hospitality boxes at Odsal. Sandwiches brought from home was the catering I kid you not

Hospitality and Corporate Entertainment is definitely an area that most clubs need to not only improve but grow.

A lot of money can be made from good Hospitality and Corporate Entertainment just a shame some clubs don't do it a lot better or at all.

[The Future is League]

8 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

I've heard much worse ideas.

What is for certain is that RL in this country needs a major shake-up if it is to survive.

We seriously do need a Peter V'landys type person. A go getter. A person who wont settle for 2nd best. Look how quick he got rid of Todd Greenberg as soon as he realised Greenberg wasn't up to the job.

Are you that man John? and we all know that you have been successful in business and don't suffer fools in business

[goldcoaster]

On 10/12/2020 at 19:56, Smudger06 said:

People would even come to accept loop fixtures over time, Major League Baseball, NBA and stuff have absolutely tons of them. 

It doesn’t necessarily mean loop fixtures. Just a shortened season

18 H&A games + CC + Finals + potential champions league style tournament+ internationals. Plenty of content for broadcasters

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, The Future is League said:

A lot of money can be made from good Hospitality and Corporate Entertainment just a shame some clubs don't do it a lot better or at all.

It can if you have the businesses around you to support it