League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Liverpool Rover]

So it’s four from Super League and two from the RFL. That would just lead to them being accused of putting Super League first.

[fighting irish]

On 10/09/2021 at 11:50, Ackroman said:

I was just wondering how far I could go without going off topic. Is there anything in particular?

 

I liked the post and was interested (when you said you could go on) to hear what else you had to say? 

[Ackroman]

On 11/09/2021 at 15:12, fighting irish said:

I liked the post and was interested (when you said you could go on) to hear what else you had to say? 

Well the natural conclusion from these studies of American sports and University investment is that there is a role for someone to look at how this works in RL. A whole game view on the sport.

So for example maybe half a dozen clubs in the UK have the resources to attract naturally gifted individuals who have grown up in the right environment for RL. The right number of schools, community clubs and fan base. Pouring more money into those environments is potentially a waste because the socio-economic conditions for RL are already fulfilled. This extra money therefore gets "invested" in talent but often that talent is no better than what you can produce yourself because the environment is as good as it gets. The Leeds team that won everything was based on their own academy players, so why move away from that model? 

The Canadian RL ladies 9's model is based on this principle. Whereby fans are members of the League (not the club) and the League chooses where to put teams. So they select the type of stadium they want, the location for a fan base and potential participation. They re investing holistically in creating rivalry and competition.

RL in this country has actually followed that principle where investment in SL by Sky has actually been in the League. However the clubs involved have chosen to invest in themselves. Probably one reason why Sky are miffed at the state of the comp now in relation to 15 or so years ago.

So if I was influencing the clubs I would insist on a budget for the clubs for players, a budget for academies that are owned and run by the RFL, not the clubs - with a draft system. A budget for the league to invest in infrastructure - so for example you promote Bradford to SL as they have the pedigree in all areas but are weak on infrastructure - so that's where the League invest. Centralised ticketing & marketing so fans can buy tickets to league matches at any stadium as a set of packages. Targets for penetration into schools and community clubs by the RFL - not the clubs. I think there is a growing realisation that the modern youth follows individuals and not team so we have to look at developing stars of the game - not star clubs at the detriment of others. This should actually save money!

The above top league works on a franchise basis but is inclusive, so you may start with 10 teams but plan to have 20 in 10 years time. 

Also I think the mistakes the game has made are now obvious when we look at how people consume entertainment. Owners of clubs have personalised their clubs when actually they are brands as far as young consumers are concerned. The fact Sky has asked for a re-brand has shown how poorly thought out this has been because all the owners have done is redrawn a badge! A proper re-brand invests and focusses on weaknesses and opportunities not in enhancing strengths which can become overcooked. RU has made this mistake by investing it's money in players so squads are now massive, allowing some of them to become impact players - looks good on TV but has created significant welfare problems with high impact injuries increasing.  In RL it's to create a number of fixtures that put player welfare at risk and offers consumers the same 2 teams, too often weakening the ability to sell exclusivity. One podcast I listened to made a very good point that it doesn't matter how many teams are in the league, it's who they play and how often they play, as the play-offs smooth out discrepancies.

 

[sweaty craiq]

Thought Wigan were £6m in debt and losing £1m pa??

[Liverpool Rover]

Kurt Haggerty has his say, although most people would say “yeah but he would say that wouldn’t he.”

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/leigh-coach-feels-rugby-league-would-benefit-from-return-of-licensing/

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Rover said:

Kurt Haggerty has his say, although most people would say “yeah but he would say that wouldn’t he.”

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/leigh-coach-feels-rugby-league-would-benefit-from-return-of-licensing/

An opinion he is entitled to 

One I disagree with , which am also entitled to 

[The Future is League]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Rover said:

Kurt Haggerty has his say, although most people would say “yeah but he would say that wouldn’t he.”

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/leigh-coach-feels-rugby-league-would-benefit-from-return-of-licensing/

A 14 team super league would be great with no loop fixtures, but and it's a big but as there would have to be a criteria for it and that's where certain super league clubs would fail to meet the criteria.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, The Future is League said:

A 14 team super league would be great with no loop fixtures, but and it's a big but as there would have to be a criteria for it and there where certain super league clubs would fail to meet the criteria.

Not very often you're right , but this time

[Padge]

7 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Thought Wigan were £6m in debt and losing £1m pa??

Linky DInky?

[sweaty craiq]

25 minutes ago, Padge said:

Linky DInky?

Oki Koki

 

Fans' Forum: The first hour - Wigan Warriors

[Padge]

8 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Oki Koki

 

Fans' Forum: The first hour - Wigan Warriors

Not quite as you state.

"we’ve actually made a loss in the last two years of 2 million quid – that’s what goes out in the accounts, which is such a pity, because we were actually bringing our losses down. We lost I think it was one quarter million in 2019. And we’ve got it down to 200,000 in 2020 till Covid hit but that’s like so many families isn’t it? "

A lot of other clubs are in the same situation as they also have similar debts to sport England/Government to survive the pandemic.

Nice try but no cigar.

[sweaty craiq]

41 minutes ago, Padge said:

Not quite as you state.

"we’ve actually made a loss in the last two years of 2 million quid – that’s what goes out in the accounts, which is such a pity, because we were actually bringing our losses down. We lost I think it was one quarter million in 2019. And we’ve got it down to 200,000 in 2020 till Covid hit but that’s like so many families isn’t it? "

A lot of other clubs are in the same situation as they also have similar debts to sport England/Government to survive the pandemic.

Nice try but no cigar.

Finishing the salary, the financial stuff; debt. We owed just under 6 million. That’s what’s called a soft debt, because that debt is to the Lenegan family in this particular case. So, it’s not going to get called in like a bank might call it in, we have no bank debt in that respect. That’s the only debt. That will go up to just over eight and a half million in the next period, including the debt that we’re paying off to Sport England that we’ve had to guarantee. So that’s the reality of it. That’s not a threat to Wigan, provided we get back to decent attendances, we’ve got to get back to decent attendances.

 

All you had to do was go down a bit further, when can I collect my cigar

[Padge]

7 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Finishing the salary, the financial stuff; debt. We owed just under 6 million. That’s what’s called a soft debt, because that debt is to the Lenegan family in this particular case. So, it’s not going to get called in like a bank might call it in, we have no bank debt in that respect. That’s the only debt. That will go up to just over eight and a half million in the next period, including the debt that we’re paying off to Sport England that we’ve had to guarantee. So that’s the reality of it. That’s not a threat to Wigan, provided we get back to decent attendances, we’ve got to get back to decent attendances.

 

All you had to do was go down a bit further, when can I collect my cigar

I was commenting on the £1m/year loss, the other debt is irrelevant as all businesses run on debt, that's how business work, being able to service the debt is what is an issue. Since Ian Lenegan owes Ian Lenegan the money it isn't unserviceable as it is a money go round. The debt is also mostly investment debt as opposed to operating debt, again the debt has value in where it is invested.

I presume you have never had a mortgage since you don't seem to understand these things. 

[sweaty craiq]

9 hours ago, Padge said:

I was commenting on the £1m/year loss, the other debt is irrelevant as all businesses run on debt, that's how business work, being able to service the debt is what is an issue. Since Ian Lenegan owes Ian Lenegan the money it isn't unserviceable as it is a money go round. The debt is also mostly investment debt as opposed to operating debt, again the debt has value in where it is invested.

I presume you have never had a mortgage since you don't seem to understand these things. 

What are these 9m of assets then, and who values them? 

[Padge]

10 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

What are these 9m of assets then, and who values them? 

Go and find out if you are that interested, I am not your researcher.

[Harry Stottle]

On 05/09/2021 at 10:25, Damien said:

This has all crossed my mind too and it's very valid. If we have Toulouse and Catalans in the 10 there will be some amount of complaints about French clubs taking 2 of the places. 10 makes no logical sense and decisions driven purely by money rarely work out well for the growth of the game.

Sorry for the late reply Damien just catching up on this thread, and if this has been broached further from your post I apologise.

One other point that must be taken into consideration whether people like it or not or agree with if or not is having 20% (2 from 10) of the overseas clubs which in all intense will being very few if no spectator's to the other clubs, I know the old argument that clubs should not have to budget for away fans but it is a reality and collectively if there are 13 home fixtures a season (26 French visits) that us quite a lot of money out of the game.

I don't have an opinion on it but I expect the SL Chairmen do.

[Harry Stottle]

On 06/09/2021 at 11:38, steve oates said:

I do recall it being said by Mr. McManus that SKY were not averse to the game expanding geographically, and had no wish to interfere with this. However Mr. McManus outlined that SKY did require a certain number of the clubs, in any form of Superleague, to be English clubs to attract English SKY subscribers and viewers. English Chairmen therefore were pushing the French to find their own paying TV deal....

Two French clubs probably doubles the chance of the French capturing a TV deal, and if Superleague has to provide SKY with 10 English clubs then this may be why Superleague are going for 12 SL clubs this next 2022 season and possibly cutting to 10 in 2023 if the French cannot in that time, find that deal especially if there are two French clubs.

Catalans produced one of SL's greatest games yesterday, but the handicap for the French is the lack of a TV deal and maybe but maybe the French Derbies next season (IF TO win promotion) could attract a lot of English viewers or better still convince French TV to show RL, with an French SL game on in France every week.....

All this talk of a French TV deal if there are 2 clubs in SL is all very well, but and I don't know the answer to this, if it is a subscription deal like Sky for the French public in a Pay per View format, is there the appetite in France for it to be a feasible concept, and then if it fails and is retracted by the TV companies and both clubs are in SL what then if the SKY monies are just divvied up on the English clubs, will they give up some of their share to support the French clubs? I think I know the answer to that one.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Sorry for the late reply Damien just catching up on this thread, and if this has been broached further from your post I apologise.

One other point that must be taken into consideration whether people like it or not or agree with if or not is having 20% (2 from 10) of the overseas clubs which in all intense will being very few if no spectator's to the other clubs, I know the old argument that clubs should not have to budget for away fans but it is a reality and collectively if there are 13 home fixtures a season (26 French visits) that us quite a lot of money out of the game.

I don't have an opinion on it but I expect the SL Chairmen do.

They were prepared to accept 3/12 or a quarter of teams in SL being from outside the UK to be fair.

[Man of Kent]

Good interview with the RFL’s Simon Johnson on the Forty20 podcast. 

Ever more clear the plan is for 2x10 and the interesting bit for me was Johnson did not deny the suggestion that the 20 might be selected. 

Audio only:

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/forty20-rugby-league-podcasts/id1434352450

 

[Ray Cashmere]

The biggest problem with 2x10s for me is 

2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Good interview with the RFL’s Simon Johnson on the Forty20 podcast. 

Ever more clear the plan is for 2x10 and the interesting bit for me was Johnson did not deny the suggestion that the 20 might be selected. 

Audio only:

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/forty20-rugby-league-podcasts/id1434352450

 

The biggest problem with 2x10s for me is the point on selecting the 20. If we rely solely on league position then that likely excludes Barrow & Crusaders and definitely excludes Coventry- all clubs outside of the heartlands that are slowly and sustainably building something.   And what if London and Sheffield have bad seasons? Are we seriously going to effectively remove our presence from two major cities that will have just hosted England World Cup games?

Alternatively, how can you prevent established Championship clubs like Batley or Whitehaven from being included if they have similar seasons to this?

[JAG]

I have made thread proposing a P&R/Licensing hybrid system which will bring zero restructuring of the leagues in their current state and reinvigorates all the leagues over a 4 year cycle. It creates fair promotion and relegation system and encourages long term growth over short term boom and bust philosophy. It also creates a new prestigious trophy that teams in each league can compete for without the need for any added fixtures or change of schedules.

Check it out and let me know what you think, all opinions welcome.

 

 

[Tommygilf]

39 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

The biggest problem with 2x10s for me is 

The biggest problem with 2x10s for me is the point on selecting the 20. If we rely solely on league position then that likely excludes Barrow & Crusaders and definitely excludes Coventry- all clubs outside of the heartlands that are slowly and sustainably building something.   And what if London and Sheffield have bad seasons? Are we seriously going to effectively remove our presence from two major cities that will have just hosted England World Cup games?

Alternatively, how can you prevent established Championship clubs like Batley or Whitehaven from being included if they have similar seasons to this?

The obvious answer to that, and the one intimated by Johnson, is that the teams in the competition won't be left to chance.

[Ray Cashmere]

5 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

The obvious answer to that, and the one intimated by Johnson, is that the teams in the competition won't be left to chance.

Which is fine, but that comes to my second point of it being a very difficult job telling a Batley, Whitehaven  or *insert established championship club* that they're no longer a Championship club. 

Also, is the plan for SL2 to be fully professional, on a club-by-club basis or solely part time? The former is a big financial demand whereas the latter two either: i) distort the competition or ii) further reduce the number of full time sides in this country. I'm unsure how either benefit the 'product'. 

[Tommygilf]

On 18/09/2021 at 17:58, Ray Cashmere said:

Which is fine, but that comes to my second point of it being a very difficult job telling a Batley, Whitehaven  or *insert established championship club* that they're no longer a Championship club. 

Also, is the plan for SL2 to be fully professional, on a club-by-club basis or solely part time? The former is a big financial demand whereas the latter two either: i) distort the competition or ii) further reduce the number of full time sides in this country. I'm unsure how either benefit the 'product'. 

I think the plan is for SL2 to be (mostly) fully professional. In which case, the proposition to the likes of Batley, Whitehaven etc is self evident that they will not be full time clubs. That's no controversial its exactly what they will tell you if you asked.

Its more a case of raising some clubs up to form the competition they want which maximises the available resources.

[Liverpool Rover]

45 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think the plan is for SL2 to be (mostly) fully professional. In which case, the proposition to the likes of Batley, Whitehaven etc is self evident that they will not be full time clubs. That's no controversial its exactly what they will tell you if you asked.

Its more a case of raising some clubs up to form the competition they want which maximises the available resources.

So SL2 will be no different to what it is now? Not only that but it will still be treated as it is now as a league that only exists to get out of ASAP.