Sky Sports halves offer for TV rights

[Tommygilf]

Fun (or rather slightly depressing) fact for you. All but 2 of Leeds' u17s are playing for free next year.

Now you can rightly point out how wrong that is from Leeds. It is, and I'd gladly and wholeheartedly agree with you how they are taking advantage. It also shows the real financial problems facing the game right now. FWIW, this is all over a budget of around £24000, which is itself quite depressingly low.

Equally, or perhaps more worryingly, you do have to wonder how bad the offering is from the other nearby clubs if young lads have signed up for this instead of being tapped up by them! I mean this is suggesting you literally couldn't pay them to go to "x".

[Scotchy1]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm being 100% honest with you. If I'm a good young Rugby player, good enough to play for England at Youth level and even get a run out with one of the top 1st teams in Super League, I am not being told I have to drive an hour plus each way to Hull KR or Cas for peanuts because of a draft pick system. 

Plenty of players do that. All the time. Realistically the scenario you are describing here is that if you were 18 and lets say Hull KR offered you a contract, and only Hull KR offered you a contract you would retire from the game. That clearly isnt going to happen. Its a preposterous notion.

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Your system "might" work if promotion and relegation wasn't a factor and all academy players were paid the same. It would forcibly make all clubs, and their academies, equal. Even then, it would require a hell of a lot of "sweetening" for the RFL and the big Super League academies to give up their decades invested in advantage. I'm sure those who have latterly invested in their academies like Warrington and Huddersfield would see it as a kick in the teeth too as they were declared equal to clubs who have invested virtually nothing. And even then, it doesn't remove the outside competition from Union too.

It would require no P+R certainly. Im not sure why they would need to be paid the same. 

It wouldnt make all clubs and their academies equal because those academies wouldnt exist. 

And you are right, it would require that the clubs who have the current 'baked in' advantage give that up, but any talent equalisation measure requires that. 

And it doesnt remove the threat of outside competition but that threat exists now, and isnt really a huge threat. There arent a huge amount of players leaving the sport at 17/18 to because they are offered better union contracts. Only one i could really think of is Mclelland

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Fun (or rather slightly depressing) fact for you. All but 2 of Leeds' u17s are playing for free next year.

Now you can rightly point out how wrong that is from Leeds. It is, and I'd gladly and wholeheartedly agree with you how they are taking advantage. It also shows the real financial problems facing the game right now. FWIW, this is all over a budget of around £24000, which is itself quite depressingly low.

Equally, or perhaps more worryingly, you do have to wonder how bad the offering is from the other nearby clubs if young lads have signed up for this instead of being tapped up by them! I mean this is suggesting you literally couldn't pay them to go to "x".

That's worrying from a club like Leeds. You are right though players will always take less to go to a club like Leeds than a less appealing rival.

[GUBRATS]

So the answer is to scrap all the academies , the players play at their community clubs ( no super clubs like ' Pat's ' or ' Blackbrook ' ) till 18+ , they are then selected for RFL run regional academies , with a draft 2 years later 

Sorted

[gingerjon]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Fun (or rather slightly depressing) fact for you. All but 2 of Leeds' u17s are playing for free next year.

Now you can rightly point out how wrong that is from Leeds. It is, and I'd gladly and wholeheartedly agree with you how they are taking advantage. It also shows the real financial problems facing the game right now. FWIW, this is all over a budget of around £24000, which is itself quite depressingly low.

Equally, or perhaps more worryingly, you do have to wonder how bad the offering is from the other nearby clubs if young lads have signed up for this instead of being tapped up by them! I mean this is suggesting you literally couldn't pay them to go to "x".

I don't know the answer to this: what are U17 players playing in U17 competitions in other sports normally paid?

[GUBRATS]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's worrying from a club like Leeds. You are right though players will always take less to go to a club like Leeds than a less appealing rival.

Which again shows why it is so difficult for a team like Leigh to run an academy 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Scotchy1 said:

Plenty of players do that. All the time. Realistically the scenario you are describing here is that if you were 18 and lets say Hull KR offered you a contract, and only Hull KR offered you a contract you would retire from the game. That clearly isnt going to happen. Its a preposterous notion.

They do it for the clubs with the best academies, Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Wire. They don't for the worse academies because they're only being paid peanuts (on top of everything else).

If you were an England youth international, far more clubs than just Hull KR would offer you a contract, suggesting otherwise is preposterous. 

2 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

It would require no P+R certainly. Im not sure why they would need to be paid the same. 

It wouldnt make all clubs and their academies equal because those academies wouldnt exist. 

And you are right, it would require that the clubs who have the current 'baked in' advantage give that up, but any talent equalisation measure requires that. 

And it doesnt remove the threat of outside competition but that threat exists now, and isnt really a huge threat. There arent a huge amount of players leaving the sport at 17/18 to because they are offered better union contracts. Only one i could really think of is Mclelland

The insistence on no p + r is problematic.

I'm sure why they'd need to be paid the same, or at least a high basic level, because you wouldn't want to go to a rubbish club that doesn't pay much either as an 18 year old full timer. Especially if you were forced to through a draft.

Clubs (and the RFL who benefit from their strong academies) wouldn't just "give up" an advantage for no benefit or recompense, especially when they hold voting rights. How do you accomplish that? 

[Tommygilf]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's worrying from a club like Leeds. You are right though players will always take less to go to a club like Leeds than a less appealing rival.

Which is demonstrating a worrying trend

[Damien]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Which is demonstrating a worrying trend

Its crazy how in the 90's fairly average kids were getting thousands to sign for clubs. Friends of mine who had no chance of making it professionally got thousands. Now we seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I don't know the answer to this: what are U17 players playing in U17 competitions in other sports normally paid?

Well in RL at Leeds last year as u16s they were paid something. Indeed this year 2 of them are supposedly being paid at least 4 figure salaries.

Of course it depends on the level and the sport you are playing. I imagine Man United's u17s are financially supported more than Doncaster Knights' u17s are.

In any case something is more than nothing.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Damien said:

Its crazy how in the 90's fairly average kids were getting thousands to sign for clubs. Friends of mine who had no chance of making it professionally got thousands. Now we seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum.

In the 90s our top clubs compared themselves to football teams, now they compare themselves to the bottom of Super League. The effort and expense they put in reflects that, as does the reported Sky TV offer.

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Its crazy how in the 90's fairly average kids were getting thousands to sign for clubs. Friends of mine who had no chance of making it professionally got thousands.

And some are suggesting that is exactly what Leigh should do 

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well in RL at Leeds last year as u16s they were paid something. Indeed this year 2 of them are supposedly being paid at least 4 figure salaries.

Of course it depends on the level and the sport you are playing. I imagine Man United's u17s are financially supported more than Doncaster Knights' u17s are.

In any case something is more than nothing.

And so we lose more players

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

And so we lose more players

Actually, a lot are staying on, though undoubtedly many will be being told by their parents to prioritise their A Levels/College.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

And some are suggesting that is exactly what Leigh should do 

If you want a good academy, that is what you need to do???

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If you want a good academy, that is what you need to do???

Pay top money to players who aren't anywhere near good enough to make it ? , Seriously ? 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Actually, a lot are staying on, though undoubtedly many will be being told by their parents to prioritise their A Levels/College.

I think by the time it comes to underpaying (or not paying) at this point, we’ve already lost a fair few. And I think we’re very lucky that RU is going through a bit of a rough time else they’d realise they’ve got some easy pickings among lads who wouldn’t need to be paid that much.

[gingerjon]

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

Its crazy how in the 90's fairly average kids were getting thousands to sign for clubs. Friends of mine who had no chance of making it professionally got thousands. Now we seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum.

And some losers are rejoicing in the retreat.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Pay top money to players who aren't anywhere near good enough to make it ? , Seriously ? 

Oh sorry I didn't realise you wanted a rubbish academy! My bad!

[Damien]

I think its only fair that young players are fairly compensated. Young players give up an awful lot and make a lot of sacrifices. They are not pieces of meat to just pay poorly and assign to teams around the country against their wishes. The less players get paid and the worse they are treated the more appealing other professions become , whether that is RU or a career outside sport completely.

[GUBRATS]

25 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So the answer is to scrap all the academies , the players play at their community clubs ( no super clubs like ' Pat's ' or ' Blackbrook ' ) till 18+ , they are then selected for RFL run regional academies , with a draft 2 years later 

Sorted

Bump , sorted 

[newbe]

Thought this topic was about Sky money.

[Scotchy1]

27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They do it for the clubs with the best academies, Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Wire. They don't for the worse academies because they're only being paid peanuts (on top of everything else).

If you were an England youth international, far more clubs than just Hull KR would offer you a contract, suggesting otherwise is preposterous. 

That is obviously not the case because Youth internationals dont only play for Leeds or Wigan. 

Under the current system yes plenty of clubs would offer you a contract and you would have your pick. But that wouldnt be the case under the suggested system, but the consequence of that isnt that players just retire. 

The hypothetical isnt would you choose to play for Leeds or Hull KR. Its would you play for Hull KR or retire. 

27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The insistence on no p + r is problematic.

I'm sure why they'd need to be paid the same, or at least a high basic level, because you wouldn't want to go to a rubbish club that doesn't pay much either as an 18 year old full timer. Especially if you were forced to through a draft.

Clubs (and the RFL who benefit from their strong academies) wouldn't just "give up" an advantage for no benefit or recompense, especially when they hold voting rights. How do you accomplish that? 

There should be a basic level of pay for full-time pro's that much is obvious. But that is the case now. It still doesnt make sense that that would need to be the same? 

The insistence on no P+R isnt problematic. It just doesnt fit.

But as i said in the first post on this. A draft wouldnt be the end state but a tool to getting us towards our ultimate goal. If the ultimate goal is that a more even league creates a better product and that attracts more people and more money, then that is the recompense. A slice of a bigger pie. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think by the time it comes to underpaying (or not paying) at this point, we’ve already lost a fair few. And I think we’re very lucky that RU is going through a bit of a rough time else they’d realise they’ve got some easy pickings among lads who wouldn’t need to be paid that much.

Absolutely, if RU could find a city to make a professional club work in Yorkshire we'd suffer massively.

[Damien]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Absolutely, if RU could find a city to make a professional club work in Yorkshire we'd suffer massively.

The one big advantage that RL currently has over RU is that clubs can sign players to professional contracts a year sooner. Players wants to play in professional systems as early as possible and it makes a huge difference. Fanciful notions of drafts at 18 or 20 and making players stay at amateur clubs negates that.