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

[LeeF]

9 hours ago, Damien said:

If the Championship and League 1 was faced with a pro rata 50% cut then this could be pretty much be achieved simply by removing the inequality in the Championship that sees the top few teams in the Championship getting considerably more than the rest. As people don't like clubs dominating the rest I'm sure people would have no objection to that. It would make for a much fairer Championship and and a more level playing field and many Championship clubs are doing fine with this lower level of funding as is.

I agree but the proposal is that SLE keep all the TV money except if they want a feeder club in a lower league

[LeeF]

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Most likely, it'll pick and choose members to be part of the club that positively impact the image and scope of the competition.

That may include dumping both Castleford and Catalans for example.

If you think the 2 clubs named are the first ones to be dumped in order to improve the competition then........

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Will it? It certainly will if it continues to operate the way it does now

I stipulated the "GAME" will be in a precarious position Tommy not just SL, it is so very true that if the foundations are not looked after the penthouse won't be safe.

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

No SL, no money. Its that simple. 

If SL doesn't put on a good enough product sky don't pay for it

No SL by name if there is no Sky money, and the product in my opinion is not as good as it was a few years ago.

So if Sky pulled out and the sport is left to fend for itself there will always be a top division and a scale going down according to abillity, we may not have televised RL but that doesn't bother me I go to watch games beit in any of the pro divisions or in the NCL, NW Mens, or junior football.

Lets be totally honest and open about it, the funding supplied to clubs in SL is just to provide opposition to the top 4 or 5 clubs, no funding and no 12, 10, 8 or even 6 team SL. 

In fact there could be an about turn in that no funding to some SL clubs could have dire consequences, whilst some Championship clubs who have been used to getting by on much less money could find themselves coping much better than some present SL clubs.

The sport will never die away, the volunteers who have kept it going since it's inception will still be about - no volunteers means no players means no game, those who derive pleasure from watching the game at any level it's played will still be well catered for, those who don't think the game exists below SL will be the one's who suffer.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Depends if P/R is maintained. 

LeeF's suggestion was that without Super League funding the championship clubs will die (some will be killed off)

Terminology changed so as not to confuse.

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

The RFL would need to find a way monetise the Championship PDQ, eg TV rights/digital rights/Our League streaming, comp and other sponsorships.

Not sure how much that could be worth but it seems certain the days of a Championship inflated above it’s value are over.

And a complete severing of any ties between the RFL and SL will be on the cards surely should funding below SL cease.

[Harry Stottle]

9 hours ago, gittinsfan said:

After this reduction,Sky obviously are'nt very happy with the product.Maybe it's SL who should up their game.

That can't be right surely!

[Harry Stottle]

8 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

I think we all know that Championship and Championship 1 clubs are not going to get any central funding.

So what I want to know is what have the Championship and Championship 1 clubs been doing to find a broadcast partner and other partners to replace the money that they will lose from central funding?

What are they proposing?

 And let’s be Frank and blunt there is not very much time left.

If the seasons are to be March going forward, about 15 months, but wouldn't the SL advise the RFL of it's intention to withhold funding, at least that will give some Clubs/Chairmen time to turn off the lights and close the doors. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

I agree but the proposal is that SLE keep all the TV money except if they want a feeder club in a lower league

I don't agree with this Lee, If withhold funding SL will effectively be reducing the monies that the RFL have to manage, there has to be a split of the two controlling bodies, the RFL can either sit back and take it on the chin or fight back.

The RFL cannot allow SL to act like the school bully, I am sure there are many ways that the RFL can make life very uncomfortable for SL, there is only one way to counteract the actions of a bully and that is to stand up to them. Interesting times ahead. 

[Moove]

39 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

And a complete severing of any ties between the RFL and SL will be on the cards surely should funding below SL cease.

Doubtful due to the RFL still providing referees, admin etc. More likely the funding would just reduce to payment for those services provided rather than additional monies to distribute to lower league clubs.

[Damien]

 

10 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

If getting shown on TV was imperative for the championship getting central funding they would have restarted this year. It isn't so they didn't.

Everyone knows that. Even the people that like to pretend otherwise secretly know it. The lower leagues were just gifted to Sky because they had no value in the hope of getting some coverage.

At least now with true separation the lower leagues can now reap these millions and keep it all for themselves.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

 

Everyone knows that. Even the people that like to pretend otherwise secretly know it. The lower leagues were just gifted to Sky because they had no value in the hope of getting some coverage.

At least now with true separation the lower leagues can now reap these millions and keep it all for themselves.

The meltdown is incoming evidently 

[Damien]

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

I agree but the proposal is that SLE keep all the TV money except if they want a feeder club in a lower league

There is nothing in the proposal saying that as far as I can see but at this point no one know so its not really worth getting in to. Yes it is for SL TV rights but it does not mean SL has to keep all the money. Despite what some fantasists think SL could have kept all the money the last time but treated the lower leagues very well.  I think hand on heart no one really thinks that Sky were paying £1 million a year to League 1 for rights.

Unlike some I do want the lower leagues to be funded as I think tiers and different levels to give opportunity and spread the game are very important. Again unlike some I believe that Super League has a responsibility towards the wider game. That level of funding just has to be realistic and enough for a sustainable part time level. Any more than that is wasted money.

[Toby Chopra]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I don't agree with this Lee, If withhold funding SL will effectively be reducing the monies that the RFL have to manage, there has to be a split of the two controlling bodies, the RFL can either sit back and take it on the chin or fight back.

The RFL cannot allow SL to act like the school bully, I am sure there are many ways that the RFL can make life very uncomfortable for SL, there is only one way to counteract the actions of a bully and that is to stand up to them. Interesting times ahead. 

This is trying to reheat an arguement which has already been settled. 

When the game was on the verge of splitting, a peace deal was done in September 2018 where the split of future TV revenues was agreed by all parties, along with restoring P&R, which kept the whole sport under RFL auspices. 

Simply wanting to stick to an agreement that everyone has recently signed up to does not make someone a bully, although it's not only in rugby league that we see such reality twisting language being used! 

[Scotchy1]

10 hours ago, yipyee said:

Is that the same unsustainable business model as SL then

The championship sold the rights to sky and got funding because of this. It wohld appear that the chanpionship can still sell their tv rights to whom ever

No, SLs business model doesn't involve being funded by the lower leagues 

[Tommygilf]

9 hours ago, gittinsfan said:

You keep on saying that the Championship have no value to Sky. If SL. had kept all Sky money for the last 5 years, could you honestly hand on heart,say that SL. would be in a better place.There would have been no P&R (PROBABLY) and Cas and Wakefield would still have the same grounds.In a few years time if Champ and L1 clubs have fallen by the wayside,you may realise what value these clubs were to the game of Rugby League.

Over the past 6 years, plus next year in the final deal, the Super League money will have funded around £70 million into the RFL and lower divisions according to the reputable Mr Davidson (£10 million a year). League 1 to the tune of circa £7million, and the Championship vastly more.

Interestingly, that figure is around what Super League is now looking to have invested through private equity.

Nobody, including me, is saying these clubs have no value. Just that £10 million a season is very generous and in the current climate is under no obligation to be matched. It seems plenty of people are "taking stock", and giving a very generous amount to the championship seemingly hasn't delivered the return.

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

Not true. All clubs have always received a share of all TV money 

Hence "largely"

They've not been funded to the tune of 600k plus though, and Super League is now a separate body negotiating its own deals.

[Scubby]

There is a very valid question about what SL and the RFL have done to the sport to make it more valuable to partners over the course of the last 5 years?

The insane chopping and changing of the structure (how S8s increases quality at the top I never understood), inability to stick with anything, attendances wobbling and even declining at powerhouse clubs. The Toronto decision (in) and decision (out) looks like an absolute dog's breakfast - Sky and other potential partners really don't give a #### about the detail they just view the car crash and react accordingly!

We could argue currently we are getting what we deserve in value.

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

And how much would you have to give to Fev or whoever to ensure they could run and therefore be your feeder club if they have no other central funding? Could Wakefield or Salford afford the same? 

Whatever it costs to pay the loan players wages

This strawman is fun!

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

If you think the 2 clubs named are the first ones to be dumped in order to improve the competition then........

They were examples. I could have given 5 more.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I stipulated the "GAME" will be in a precarious position Tommy not just SL, it is so very true that if the foundations are not looked after the penthouse won't be safe.

Yeah but what we've seen is that if the penthouse club doesn't bring in the money then the cleaner doesn't get paid. Here we are!

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

There is a very valid question about what SL and the RFL have done to the sport to make it more valuable to partners over the course of the last 5 years?

The insane chopping and changing of the structure (how S8s increases quality at the top I never understood), inability to stick with anything, attendances wobbling and even declining at powerhouse clubs. The Toronto decision (in) and decision (out) looks like an absolute dog's breakfast - Sky and other potential partners really don't give a #### about the detail they just view the car crash and react accordingly!

We could argue currently we are getting what we deserve in value.

There is certainly an element of reaping what you sow. We have done nothing to grow the competition to have something better to sell, that is clear. Money has been wasted, 9% on other competitions, that provide no value to Sky. Sky, quite rightly, probably think why should I pay the same.

The trouble is I fear we are going down the path of doing more of the things that have led us to this position rather than turning around and going down a different path.

[Scotchy1]

28 minutes ago, Damien said:

There is nothing in the proposal saying that as far as I can see but at this point no one know so its not really worth getting in to. Yes it is for SL TV rights but it does not mean SL has to keep all the money. Despite what some fantasists think SL could have kept all the money the last time but treated the lower leagues very well.  I think hand on heart no one really thinks that Sky were paying £1 million a year to League 1 for rights.

Unlike some I do want the lower leagues to be funded as I think tiers and different levels to give opportunity and spread the game are very important. Again unlike some I believe that Super League has a responsibility towards the wider game. That level of funding just has to be realistic and enough for a sustainable part time level. Any more than that is wasted money.

I don't think anyone believes we shouldn't have the lower leagues, but there is serious question about how much they are funded and for what purpose.

7 years of record funding as a competitor to SL has seen an uncompetitive league, stagnant crowds, no TV audience and and massively devalued SL. It obviously doesn't make sense to continue doing that

[Moove]

23 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I don't agree with this Lee, If withhold funding SL will effectively be reducing the monies that the RFL have to manage, there has to be a split of the two controlling bodies, the RFL can either sit back and take it on the chin or fight back.

The RFL cannot allow SL to act like the school bully, I am sure there are many ways that the RFL can make life very uncomfortable for SL, there is only one way to counteract the actions of a bully and that is to stand up to them. Interesting times ahead. 

For someone of such experience this seems like quite a childish take on the situation. There's no bullying of the RFL going on here, they are a shareholder of SL as well don't forget. If anything over the last six months the noises are that SL want to move closer to the RFL not further away and a reduction in broadcast revenue isn't exactly a surprise.

If this 50% reduction comes to pass then somewhere we need to make savings of £20m (no mention of whether Sky Try funding is continuing separately). If you need to save money as a business you don't do it by destroying (or at the very least significantly contracting) pretty much the only part of the business which brings in money.

Not forgetting of course that the other money makers (Challenge Cup and international rights) would also be made significantly weaker if our top tier is made significantly weaker. SL simply absorbing the 50% reduction to maintain the status quo for Keighley, Hunslet et al would be lunacy.

FWIW I wouldn't want to see funding completely stop but I think there at least needs to be some common sense applied and we need to look at where there is value to be gained below SL otherwise it's just a downward spiral.

In a way I think SL and the lower leagues have made some similar mistakes in terms of building an attractive, sellable product while the money has been there to do so. But throwing more money at the same things for even longer expecting different results (or worse, being content with the same results) is never a good idea - and yes the same applies to much of what SL has done for its own competition over the years as well.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Terminology changed so as not to confuse.

In fairness Harry, some are zombies of clubs anyway kept going for the benefit of a handful of enthusiasts. For as many Leighs or Londons we have (not)Swintons or Oldhams. That's fine, but when belt's tighten it doesn't need a rocket scientist to work out where funding will be cut first.

The lower divisions, to paraphrase what Harold Macmillan I believe said (and I assume you are a fan), "have never had it so good". Now they are facing a period of hardship but are in control of their own destiny.