Sky Sports halving offer-What are the ramifications for Championship and Championship 1 clubs?

[EssexRL]

Disruption can be a good thing depending how it’s responded too. On the face of it though, it’s hard to see how many lower league clubs could continue as semi pro if they lose the Sky money. I’d imagine it would make a lot of difference to clubs like mine. This risk ‘may’ create innovative solutions and thinking at club and league levels but history suggests otherwise. Perhaps the WC will help to renew outside interest including investors. It will be one of the first post COVID major sporting events and on binational TV. 
 

Modern sport at RLs level of aspiration  needs money and we don’t have it. It’s a catch 22. Without exposure we can’t get funding, without funding we can’t get exposure. As things stand the future doesn’t look great but, to get a bit philosophical, we make our own futures so how does the Championship & L1 respond? 

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Given that the distance in quality between the Championship and lower SL clubs seems to get smaller every year, I would imagine the Championship teams with a huge difference in funding will be wondering what exactly have those SL clubs been spending their money on. So to answer the question about what those clubs would have done with an extra 75m, I would imagine the answer would be Jack all.

Keeping the game alive.  Why do you think Bateman has come back...  because Wigan are paying him a fortune.  How do you want to keep star players?  Pay them with washers?  If we want to see attendances and TV audiences we need players like Bevan French.  Grace.  Etc...  If we don't pay them they will be lost to the game and as the NRL expands we will see the best go to Australia.  If SL had 20 million a year more there would be academies and reserves and clubs outreaching for future talent.  

The trouble is the Championship weights is money to the top of its pyramid because the selfish ones at the top want all the money so they can aspire to a brief sojourn in SL before bankrupting themselves.  The lower reaches get the dregs.

The structure is flawed.  

[Wakefield Ram]

Players at all levels will just have to accept less. It will make for a more interesting competitive Championship. SL needs to improve its product. I only watch the odd game now, much slower than the NRL with too much lying on at the tackle, too many one man runs followed by a kick downfield. And you know Wigan, Saints, Leeds and Warrington will win the trophies before a ball is kicked. 

[Scotchy1]

3 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Players at all levels will just have to accept less. It will make for a more interesting competitive Championship. SL needs to improve its product. I only watch the odd game now, much slower than the NRL with too much lying on at the tackle, too many one man runs followed by a kick downfield. And you know Wigan, Saints, Leeds and Warrington will win the trophies before a ball is kicked. 

You will get more of all that if we pay players less

[Wakefield Ram]

25 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

You will get more of all that if we pay players less

If the product and outcomes in terms of who wins stay the same, then the game stagnates. Purists might enjoy an "arm wrestle" but casual spectators are bored. Sky"s offer reflects the value of the product. If SL wants a better offer, then they need a more exciting product. If the players lie on even more and make the game even slower, then Sky's next offer will be even lower.

[Scotchy1]

11 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

If the product and outcomes in terms of who wins stay the same, then the game stagnates. Purists might enjoy an "arm wrestle" but casual spectators are bored. Sky"s offer reflects the value of the product. If SL wants a better offer, then they need a more exciting product. If the players lie on even more and make the game even slower, then Sky's next offer will be even lower.

If your issue is quality of the game and predictability of champions, lower wages mean poorer players and a bigger gap between the big clubs and smaller ones.

[Wakefield Ram]

So if a player is paid £30000 instead of £50000 he will become a poorer player? 

 

[JM2010]

3 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

So if a player is paid £30000 instead of £50000 he will become a poorer player? 

 

I think the point is that these players might go elsewhere and the next crop of juniors might decide to get an alternative career if the money isn't there 

[Scotchy1]

7 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

So if a player is paid £30000 instead of £50000 he will become a poorer player? 

 

No, he'll probably go part time, to Union or to the NRL

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

If the product and outcomes in terms of who wins stay the same, then the game stagnates. Purists might enjoy an "arm wrestle" but casual spectators are bored. Sky"s offer reflects the value of the product. If SL wants a better offer, then they need a more exciting product. If the players lie on even more and make the game even slower, then Sky's next offer will be even lower.

Woaahh ! , Hang on ,you can't say that on here , the GF was a classic , not boring at all 

[Oldbear]

5 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Keeping the game alive.  Why do you think Bateman has come back...  because Wigan are paying him a fortune.  How do you want to keep star players?  Pay them with washers?  If we want to see attendances and TV audiences we need players like Bevan French.  Grace.  Etc...  If we don't pay them they will be lost to the game and as the NRL expands we will see the best go to Australia.  If SL had 20 million a year more there would be academies and reserves and clubs outreaching for future talent.  

The trouble is the Championship weights is money to the top of its pyramid because the selfish ones at the top want all the money so they can aspire to a brief sojourn in SL before bankrupting themselves.  The lower reaches get the dregs.

The structure is flawed.  

Regarding your first point, I agree that if we want to keep and attract stars we need to pay them however what we don’t need is inflated salaries for washed up journeymen. By all means pay Bevan French, but not Josh McCrone. As to setting up more academies, it’s a nice thought but clubs won’t do that without either being forced to or being incentivized to do so. Your Championship point is pretty accurate though.

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, Oldbear said:

Regarding your first point, I agree that if we want to keep and attract stars we need to pay them however what we don’t need is inflated salaries for washed up journeymen. By all means pay Bevan French, but not Josh McCrone. As to setting up more academies, it’s a nice thought but clubs won’t do that without either being forced to or being incentivized to do so. Your Championship point is pretty accurate though.

That's nice but sport, and particularly the pro sports market, doesn't always work so perfectly or simply. You can pay the same transfer fee or wages for two players but won't necessarily get equal results.

Equally, I'm sure some clubs would have higher aspirations than Josh McCrone but because of their status and facilities have to pay as much to get a players of his calibre that others have to pay to get vastly better. Its one of the flaws of the current salary cap system.

[Mr Frisky]

5 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Players at all levels will just have to accept less. It will make for a more interesting competitive Championship. SL needs to improve its product. I only watch the odd game now, much slower than the NRL with too much lying on at the tackle, too many one man runs followed by a kick downfield. And you know Wigan, Saints, Leeds and Warrington will win the trophies before a ball is kicked. 

Really dont think SL is a lot slower than the NRL. SL has always been a better watch than the NRL, but that's subjective I suppose - yes the NRLs overall quality is better than SL but better games? ( and certainly better atmosphere) - they are usually behind SL in those respects. Think by the fact that you say you dont watch very much SL means you have fallen for the NRL on a pedestal falsehood that everyone bangs on about. Give me Wigan V Saints on good Friday in the sun infront of a full house for atmosphere and intensity over any NRL game you can mention anyday - and I dont even support a SL club and yes I used to live in Oz and attended many NRL games.

You have to remember the NRL doesn't have to compete with the monster that is Premier League Football as the UK press probably gives football 90% of the sport headlines and publicity. In Oz NRL and the ARL fight over say 80% of the headlines - and it depends where you live in the split between those 2. Also once the Summer starts and Cricket is N1 no one really talks about the Football codes - in the UK football is Nr1 by far even in their off season.

[PhilCarrington]

5 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

So if a player is paid £30000 instead of £50000 he will become a poorer player? 

 

He'll definitely be a poorer player!

[Rupert Prince]

3 hours ago, Oldbear said:

Regarding your first point, I agree that if we want to keep and attract stars we need to pay them however what we don’t need is inflated salaries for washed up journeymen. By all means pay Bevan French, but not Josh McCrone. As to setting up more academies, it’s a nice thought but clubs won’t do that without either being forced to or being incentivized to do so. Your Championship point is pretty accurate though.

The game needs investment and with it we can develop players and with players we can grow the top flight.

[Oldbear]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

That's nice but sport, and particularly the pro sports market, doesn't always work so perfectly or simply. You can pay the same transfer fee or wages for two players but won't necessarily get equal results.

Equally, I'm sure some clubs would have higher aspirations than Josh McCrone but because of their status and facilities have to pay as much to get a players of his calibre that others have to pay to get vastly better. Its one of the flaws of the current salary cap system.

All very true, however some of our clubs often fall into the trap that because a player has an Aussie accent and was on the books of an NRL club he will be a superstar and pay accordingly. The player himself is hardly likely to say he is being overpaid (perhaps McCrone is not a good example there given that he didn’t get paid for some of his time at TWP!), so the clubs really need to do their due diligence. Of course if everyone had academies that produced talented players we might not be so reliant on filling the rosters with journeymen overseas players and could focus on the true game changers.

[Oldbear]

19 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

The game needs investment and with it we can develop players and with players we can grow the top flight.

Not disagreeing with you at all, I just say that if we give clubs the money with no strings there is no guarantee it will not be wasted on journeymen imports. A proportion of TV money should be ringfenced for academies and a further proportion for development.

[The Blues Ox]

The thought that SL clubs would spend money on player development is quite frankly laughable. They already sign all the junior talent that is available. Less money for Championship teams just means they will be less likely to take a chance on unproven young SL talent and more will be lost to the game. Its a vicious circle but its one that is started at the top of the game. The game on the whole needs a massive overhaul and its pretty easy to see why the product is becoming less and less sellable.

[tag]

Found this earlier, it’s an interesting read and draws some worrying conclusions. 
https://shura.shu.ac.uk/11664/3/Plumley Staring into the abyss.pdf

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, Oldbear said:

All very true, however some of our clubs often fall into the trap that because a player has an Aussie accent and was on the books of an NRL club he will be a superstar and pay accordingly. The player himself is hardly likely to say he is being overpaid (perhaps McCrone is not a good example there given that he didn’t get paid for some of his time at TWP!), so the clubs really need to do their due diligence. Of course if everyone had academies that produced talented players we might not be so reliant on filling the rosters with journeymen overseas players and could focus on the true game changers.

Again that's lovely but assessing "true game changers" is hardly an exact science at senior level nevermind junior competitions. Adam Cuthbertson hardly lit up the NRL yet in some ways defined Leeds' treble winning season, similarly Coote for Saints, whereas G. Burgess or Widdop hasn't come close to that. The single addition of Matt Parcell turned Leeds from relegation material to Super League champions in 2017.

Super league clubs fall into that trap for 2 reasons, 1 because in general the Aussie competitions are of a higher intensity than ours, and 2 because many unknown Antipodeans become superstars of super league all the time.

Basically its like any sporting competition, it comes down to the quality of recruitment relative to the club.

[DC77]

12 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

If the product and outcomes in terms of who wins stay the same, then the game stagnates. Purists might enjoy an "arm wrestle" but casual spectators are bored. Sky"s offer reflects the value of the product. If SL wants a better offer, then they need a more exciting product. If the players lie on even more and make the game even slower, then Sky's next offer will be even lower.

I completely concur. Another poster on here made a few points (with likes in double figures so clearly there’s many who think the same) that catering solely to the purists is harming the growth of the sport. If RL was thriving, with very healthy viewing figures and stadiums more or less full then absolutely no problem, but that isn’t the case. Nor are there any star names for kids to want to emulate, or viewers to want to watch. You either continue to cater to the purists (and to be fair it’s their game, a game they have poured money and time into), or you look to widen the appeal of the game.

To me as an outsider - who would love to see the game grow - the answer is staring the sport in the face: make it more open and attacking, more eye catching runs, more of the maverick plays that Rangi Chase made with a behind the back psss that went viral, and far less of the attritional stuff (the wrestle, the five straight up hits and kick). RL at its best is very appealing. I love watching games of Wigan at the old Wembley. Watched Wigan vs Leeds the other day with Robinson, Tuigamala, Offiah and co. lighting up the place. People knew them because they stood out, you cannot stand out like that now. Sure the defences were far more open, but that made for eye catching attacking play, which created the stars. Shut down attacking play you don’t create stars. You can’t make a highlight reel of attritional play. That stuff won’t go viral. Kids generally don’t want to be the next Barrie McDemott (great bloke that he is), they want to be the next (insert name of attacking player here). The top 10 (or even top 50) most famous footballers are attackers, same as basketball, same as any sport. Creative play will always generate the most interest. RL is shifted too much towards the defensive/attritional side (as is RU, hence it hasn’t had a star name in 15 years). 

[yipyee]

16 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

In Football as in Rugby Leage there are loads of fans who prefer to sit at home and watch the game on TV, BUT there are also enough Football fans who get along to watch the game live that makes the 'staw aways' of no concern, In Rugby League we do not have that luxury, if all those who claim to love the sport went along we would be in a very much healthier state than we are now.

What are the clubs doing to bring in the customers though

[yipyee]

15 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

This isn't what happened. 

The TV value is Super Leagues, that's why sky pay it to super league and not the RFL

This is what happend WAKE UP

The SL sold a new system that offered jeopody at every game.

This included the Champ clubs so they got a cut of tv money.

It was a load extra for the top 4 because of this!

The bash fixtures was also included in the deal along with the free stream from france.

This has also disappeared.

Small minded decision making has ended up being costly as predicted 

[Harry Stottle]

19 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

If your issue is quality of the game and predictability of champions, lower wages mean poorer players and a bigger gap between the big clubs and smaller ones.

So what changes, be sensible we have only had 4 winners in 20 odd years and only 3 winners in the last 15,  It can't get much to be a much bigger gap than that can it?

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, yipyee said:

What are the clubs doing to bring in the customers though

Where are all those that know we have attendance problems, they are the one's who useually moan but still do nothing about it, it's very simple get up out of the chair, get along to the ground, put a hand in a pocket, and watch some live Rugby League Football.