Relegation Off?

[lingaro]

sounds like more drivel that has fallen out if Peacocks slack jaw.

[RP London]

Just now, lingaro said:

sounds like more drivel that has fallen out if Peacocks slack jaw.

Peacock answered the question perfectly well.. Mark Chapman asked it.. at least throw stones at the correct person from your glass house. 

[Saint Toppy]

On 18/07/2021 at 09:58, ShropshireBull said:

Castleford with their stadium generated revenue of 6 million quid in 2017.  Their full stadium on tv is a better advert for the Sport than Huddersfield. 

 

1/3rd of that £6M came from the RFL through the SkyTV money & BetFred sponsorship, same as everybody else, plus they also got the £100K that year for winning the hubcap.

[Saint Toppy]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

That´s literally what I said, that the teams would have to take a cut. I don´t understand how you writing ´of course´ before something I said changes the meaning or is some groundbreaking point. Leeds are sponsored by Leeds Building society, that´s a pretty high net sponsor to me. I didn´t say blue chip and didn´t state that amazon would be marching in to sponsor Newcastle so you can take your straw man down now. 

Newcastle are a bad example as a football team because the brand has been damaged by Ashley and the commercial deals they sign are undervalued as Ashley uses the club as a cheap billboard for his companies. 

Newcastle don´t attract a ´few hundred fans´ and once again, did I not say not to bring up the straw man of clubs outside SL only attract x fans playing halifax and dewsury when the whole point was they have great potential to grow if in SL. 

The question is will adding teams in commercially attractive areas with decent population centres with infrastructure in space be able to make up the gap that spreading the tv money around 14 ways ? I clearly think yes

Your do realise probably about 1/3rd of current SL clubs are barely viable now and there's a real possibility they'll go under when the reduced TV deal comes in. Even club owners like Pearson have said there's tough times to come over the next few years and they're a relatively stable & wealthy SL club.

Adding additional clubs to SL now and taking even more money away from the clubs already in severe financial trouble is just pure madness, especially when the clubs who might join have shown no indications that they'll bring anything substantially more to the table and have nothing more than speculative potential.

I can't work out whether your living in a dream world or whether your just deliberately choosing to ignore the reality the sport, clubs and the economy finds itself in at the moment

[Smudger06]

The Super League Clubs won't be taking a reduction from this next TV Deal. 

Very negative thinking. 

They will get the same as they have been used to getting the last 5 years. 

PLUS non exclusivity means they can give games to the BBC, YouTube & OurLeague (better sponsorship exposure + ads) as well as offer PPVs on OurLeague as can the Championship so these new areas opening up could well make up the shortfall (which is basically the Championship and League 1 central revenue pools) 

[Big Picture]

37 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Nice 1 RP  

Really sounds like this thread is based on a nothing then.

It does doesn't it, based on something said which was preceded by the word "if".

[crashmon]

On 18/07/2021 at 09:37, The Blues Ox said:

The sport already looks like a two bob sport when we have to promote a team to SL and then when we do we take away the funding from them that every team in SL gets and would have given them some hope to try and compete and then people slate them when, as expected, they fail to win a game all season. In the mean time other chairman of certain clubs are laughing their cocks off all the way to the bank.

I realy do not get the obsession with putting a team from London in to SL. There is a saying about doing the same things over and over and getting the same result.

Its not about putting a London team in Superleague

its how do you engage the population outside the M62, who don't even know the RL exists.  Like I said before you would fill 200K for a England v NZ International in Union. In League you would be lucky to get 60K for a world cup final.

Where I live, Basketball, Icy Hockey and Netball have more awareness than RL does.

 

[crashmon]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

2013 final got 73,000. Semi got 67k. 

I was at both games (3 actually)...

You can't compare with 2013.  The sport has gone backwards since 2013. 

[Saint Toppy]

21 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

The Super League Clubs won't be taking a reduction from this next TV Deal. 

Very negative thinking. 

They will get the same as they have been used to getting the last 5 years. 

PLUS non exclusivity means they can give games to the BBC, YouTube & OurLeague (better sponsorship exposure + ads) as well as offer PPVs on OurLeague as can the Championship so these new areas opening up could well make up the shortfall (which is basically the Championship and League 1 central revenue pools) 

The Championship and L1 clubs receive approx £7.5M, the RFL approx £2.5M and the SL clubs the remaining £30M in the current deal. For the SL clubs to still be receiving the same after a £10M cut then nobody below SL including the RFL would have to receive anything at all, and thats not going to happen.

[Saint Toppy]

8 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Congrats, you´ve managed to use a variation of fantasy land three times. If clubs are only viable with the tv money that´s an argument for licensing, the problem being with that is the very clubs at risk would be the ones kicked from the competition anyway (Wakefield or Cas if they don´t sort out ground, Salford). If clubs wouldn´t survive a 400 k drop by a move from 12 to 14 teams then every single one of those clubs is dead anyway if they get relegated no?

Again, if I need to repeat judging a club based on crowds in lower leagues compared to what they can get in SL they I might have to make my own passive agressive remark about not working out whether you can read.

Nothing to the table? Newcastly have grown from a few hunder to pulling over 1000 in League 1 their final season, have an academy and have everything in place to be closer to 2000 next season whilst playing the likes of Batley and Dewsbury.

Toulouse have moved in with the Union club and if they come up are in a city of half a million people with a 2nd French team in the comp for broadcasters and 2, probably 3 with a magic weekend game in France, french derbies to promote the sport. Nothing to the table? Ok ... 

Finally, you are assuming that Sky after two years will give SL the same money as now if we stay at 12 teams after we´ve already had 2 years of no relegation battle and the same teams consistently win the trophy or make the playoffs. They will likely offer less as cable subscriptions decline further if we offer that product. 

On the economy, the UK economy is expected to grow by 7.2 % this year according to both the OECD and BofE. Admittedly there was a 9% drop in UK due to covid but that´s a pretty robust recovery. 

Teams like Newcastle and Toulouse are set up to challenge at the top of the table and not scrabble around the bottom. 

Polite note, if you are incapable or unwilling to actually have a conversation and not a series of straw man, pass agressive remarks I´ll just use mute. 

Again your completely ignoring the current state of the clubs and the game as a whole. Its not just a £400K drop, these clubs have lost millions over the course of the pandemic and only a small number of them have wealthy owners who can cover these debts.

Can you just not see that asking clubs to take another £400K drop at a time when they're struggling with massive debts and Covid loan repayments will just put the final nail in the coffin for many of them, and for what, some expansionist dream. Maybe one of the expansionist clubs will manage to become successful (and thats a big if), whats the point if you've bankrupted 4-5 existing clubs in the process and only end up with a 9 or 10 team SL ?

[Saint Toppy]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

The government isn´t going to let clubs that are paying their way back go to the wall before elections... if clubs are generating revenue, payments will be staggered. Again, what about relegation ? By your own logic any club that goes down next season is dead anyway. It´s not a dream, Toulouse and Newcastle would easily match whatever Salford bring to the table (currently playing out of that terrible box) .

Also, if we stagger it over the next few years then I think it is manageable... Next year is 12, season after is 13, season after is 14 and we are negioting with sky or someone else with teams like Toulouse and Newcastle in the conversation to stregthen our hand in negiotiatons. 

The clubs didn't borrow money from the Government, the RFL did. The Government couldn't give a rats **** who's in SL and who isn't, its the RFL they'll be chasing for the repayments.

It will be 2024 before any new TV deal comes into play, so maybe for 2024 it would be viable for an expansion and use it as a bargaining tool with the TV companies. The clubs and the game as a whole just isn't in any sort of shape to go ahead with expansion before this.

[The Blues Ox]

There is a pretty easy solution to this but it would have to wait until Leigh's relegation would be confirmed. So firstly announce that there will be no relegation from SL this year but the team that were due to get relegated as a thanks for staying in the division would then have to give up all their TV money. At around about the same time announce that the Championship playoffs will be scrapped in favor of a 2 up system that will see Fev and Toulouse promoted to SL. In exchange for such a generous gesture they will also be required to give up all their TV money for the following season.

This is going to create exactly what most people want with a 14 team SL, it gives a little bit of extra money to be distributed between the elite 11, and it also ensure that teams that could have been in danger of relegation will be safe for another year.

[Saint Toppy]

22 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

If clubs go bankrupt because of government calling in loans of RFL in swing seats they will care. Government will fudge it before next election then come after money. That gives clubs 4-5 years to get back on track. Again, are we cancelling relegation then because on your own logic any club that goes down is dead? 

I don´t see why Sky would agree to give more money unless they´ve seen these new teams in the comp and seen the potential. 

You just have no understanding do you of just how bad a financial position the clubs and the game is in at the moment do you ?

 

[fighting irish]

On 17/07/2021 at 18:28, DI Keith Fowler said:

If you wanted to fudge it to 14 you'd announce one team gets promoted on the field and the other is judged on last years applications and let London/York in claiming they were second to Leigh. Won't happen because the money's not there but that's how you'd do it. 

i just wanted to clear up any possible mis-understanding from my first response to this post. I was just being silly, with that crack about waving a wand and clicking my heels......... so please don't be offended? I agree with you, that what you propose  is a sensible way forward, to move from 12 to 14 in a mixed fashion. Cheers.

[fighting irish]

4 hours ago, lingaro said:

bet you voted brexit too

Ha ha, what makes you think that? It  sounds like you've got a story to explain that one. 

[Smudger06]

55 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

The Championship and L1 clubs receive approx £7.5M, the RFL approx £2.5M and the SL clubs the remaining £30M in the current deal. For the SL clubs to still be receiving the same after a £10M cut then nobody below SL including the RFL would have to receive anything at all, and thats not going to happen.

The money has gone below the agreed level whereby SL don't have to give a share to the Championship or League 1.  

So no, no one is getting a payment outside SL, you forget the £3.5m that goes towards Clubs Charitable Foundations. 

[GUBRATS]

As I understand it you have to play a certain number of games to make the play offs 

How about you have to play a certain number of games to be relegated ? 

I ask this as Leigh's game at home to Wire is now OFF , postponed , apparently due to Wire not having enough players due to covid , bloody marvelous

 

[Griff]

8 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

If there is no relegation from Super League and the Championship grand final winners are not allowed into Super League that will drive even more people away from the sport.

It's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

It doesn´t , instead of screwing one team, it screws the three with no tv money and also every club that is playing for a playoff game and the extra revenue. Leigh are down. Next season, 1 down and 2 up until we hit 14. 

Screwing 3 Championship teams? I don't see the problem.

[tms]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

As I understand it you have to play a certain number of games to make the play offs 

How about you have to play a certain number of games to be relegated ? 

I ask this as Leigh's game at home to Wire is now OFF , postponed , apparently due to Wire not having enough players due to covid , bloody marvelous

 

In the championship G Clubs are required to have played 70% of their league fixtures (16 out of 22 in the Betfred Championship) to qualify for the play-offs. BUT the bottom two teams in the Betfred Championship will be relegated – irrespective of how many fixtures they have played

[Rupert Prince]

In the absurd event of p&r, it is doubly absurd to detarmine promotion by a play off system.

Such a system could allow say 4th team... miles behind on points... to get promoted over a team top of table by loads of points.

And if someone says that would never happen, then why bother with the play offs anyway!

[Smudger06]

22 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

In the absurd event of p&r, it is doubly absurd to detarmine promotion by a play off system.

Such a system could allow say 4th team... miles behind on points... to get promoted over a team top of table by loads of points.

And if someone says that would never happen, then why bother with the play offs anyway!

Doubt anyone would say it couldn't happen.

Recently a team from 5th beat York at York, Leigh at Leigh, Toulouse at Toulouse and came within 23 minutes of Super League playing away at Toronto. Generally the teams that qualify for Playoffs are pretty good. 

[Wholly Trinity]

18 hours ago, Clogiron said:

That statement doesn't bear witness to past history, The Cougar's paid out a six figure sum to sign Daryl Powell then a week later Slimey Mo at the behest of the Dirty Digger pulled the rug from under them, of course he did it only in the best interests of the game,same as the position he took up as head of the European Super League.

Featherstone could well be the new Keighley.

Despite the digs at the facilities in WMDC and the relative improvement in stadium quality provided by Fev, the "powers that be" do not want more than one club in the top flight, but definitely want to keep one.

It is a true hotbed of RL, even considering the recent decline in participation.  (3/10 women's SL teams).

The obvious answer was the M-word, but we know the history of that. 

IMHO, if/when one of the current teams gets a significant stadium improvement, the other will be dropped like a stone. Further, I'd say Trinity would be their preferred choice due to a slightly bigger potential following for a successful team. Fans who see this death race are dismissed as paranoid tin-hatters, but the existential threat is real and increasing.

I would say successive local governments over the last 50 years have missed an opportunity to develop the unique selling point of a district where RL is the only professional sport. They haven't been convinced by the long-term potential of RL.

 

[RP London]

11 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

In the absurd event of p&r, it is doubly absurd to detarmine promotion by a play off system.

Such a system could allow say 4th team... miles behind on points... to get promoted over a team top of table by loads of points.

And if someone says that would never happen, then why bother with the play offs anyway!

Except that 4th place team could still be the best team/squad to go up. The butterfly effect of time travel is a major consideration. If you change one thing, even the smallest tiniest detail, you can change everything thereafter. 

A team that is in a system with the play offs knows it needs to make the play offs as the first stage, then after they have to be on top form for knock out rugby. Therefore you enter the play offs at your peak. Before that you can rest players at points during the season, you can try out new combinations, youngsters etc knowing that the key is to hit the play offs with the best set up and with everyone in peak condition. Like it or not that's what they can do. 

Teams may aim for the top for an easier ride through and to take confidence but other teams decide to do it a different way.

If clubs know from day one that they must come top to go up then they plan and structure everything from day one of pre season (maybe even squad selection) to win every single league game. 

You cannot say, while we have the play offs, that the team that comes top is the best team etc because it just isn't the system in place and other teams are playing that system to the best of their advantage.. 

[Forever Trinity]

On 18/07/2021 at 14:00, lucky 7 said:

Lets not forget that Wakey have been promising a new ground or a total refurb of thier ground for over 20 years and it's still a total dump.

Every time there are rumours meantioning about Super League and stadia they get some plans drawn up on the back of a fag packet

Well don't let the fact that they have just put up around £500,000 of new floodlights up well 3 out of 4 posts so far for accuracy, the East Stand is down to be demolished and replaced at the end of the season and the North Stand upgraded. Granted the latter is related to building work and permission at Stanley in Wakefield where the new ground was going to be. There could be delays who knows with our Local Authority but as it stands thats where Wakefield are.