Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm saying that some money should have been spent to build them a stadium??

Quoting part of a post is a great way to make a point against something not being said btw, well done.

How much is ' some ' Tommy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

How much is ' some ' Tommy ?

About the same as they were pumping into the championship each season for... what?

£40 million a season has served us fantastically we're in such a great position now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Significant 7 figure investment at least.

 

So what % of their central funding would you suggest ? , Bearing in mind the need to spend to maintain the stadiums from a H and S point of view , and of course the potential to lose your central funding every year ? , So using central funding to plan for a 10 stadium build isn't really viable , outside money as the likes of Leigh and indeed Leeds have managed to source is the only way 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

About the same as they were pumping into the championship each season for... what?

£40 million a season has served us fantastically we're in such a great position now...

Sorry , I obviously thought you meant individual clubs money , not the pre distribution money , so you mean instead of ' giving ' the lower tier clubs cash , we should have built individual clubs a stadium , this despite other clubs finding funding individually ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Sorry , I obviously thought you meant individual clubs money , not the pre distribution money , so you mean instead of ' giving ' the lower tier clubs cash , we should have built individual clubs a stadium , this despite other clubs finding funding individually ? 

The luck of having a benevolent council shouldn't be the determining factor in an RL club's success. That epitomises the total lack of strategy that plagued RL from day dot. 

We were getting £40 million a season. For the first time ever the governing body had cash to support clubs strategically with long term goals. For Wakefield that might be helping them buy back the land the stadium is built on - so that any council support could go to actually building something. Likewise support for clubs like Oldham, Sheffield, Swinton could have left the game in South Yorkshire, East Lancashire and Manchester in a far stronger position than currently.

Instead we decided that trebling League 1s central funding and creating a championship of two massively imbalanced funding blocks in a vain attempt to impersonate Unions full time second tier (a failure btw) was an excellent way to invest in the games future!

Instead the sports assets from this period of unprecedented, and unlikely to be repeated, investment amount to a hole in Bradford that the Bulls said was unworkable for them and left for a season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wonderful thing hindsight, from day 1 part of the SKY TV money should have been put to one side for the development of facilities.

Clubs whose grounds weren't up to scratch should gave been able to apply for match funding or even very low interest loans from the the RFL umbrella, who could have linked up to a major bank to modernise stadiums and in the case of the Swinton's and Oldham's of this world, work in tandem with the local authorities to find these clubs a permanent home.

Unfortunately that ship has now sailed and we are left with the mess of years of mismanagement and falling standards both on and off the pitch.

I can't see where any billionaire will be willing to stick £100 million on the table as a starting point to get Martyn Sadler's proposal off the ground, plus it's too 'american' a concept for our game.

Before the game rushes into yet another restructure, the RFL need to find out what people's perception of the game is, and that can only be done by a forensic review from the top to the bottom of the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Instead, that money has been ###### up the wall to see a handful of teams get slightly bigger crowds whilst the rest of the game has shrunken massively

And it always get blamed on other clubs rather than the (big) rich ones or who should be the pace setters, these clubs are the leaders in our game it is those who set the height of the bar, but you know what it is not the fault of other clubs that they can no longer jump as high as they once could.

There have been a few of us on these pages who for a few season's now have expressed an opinion that the sport is losing it's sparkle, the number of boring televised games has been increasing season on season, that is not the fault of the teams that do not get television exposure, it is down to those who are aired around 10 times a season, the quality of players is reducing as time passes, the rules are stifling the sport, the standard of the on field (and off field) officials is not as good as in previous seasons, and the gamesmanship that is so prevalent is disgusting, I used to have great pride in telling football fans how honest our game is as opposed to the mass cheating that goes on in the 11 a side game, sadly those days are well and truly behind us.

I for one am not at least bit surprised that if true Sky are saying improve or lose any future contracts, and that statement is not only directed at the governing body it is also at those who set the standards, those who's exposure is most prominent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Genuine question: how many of those full timers are dual reg/loan and how many are primarily contracted to the 'hybrid' club? What do the latter group do when their part time team mates are at work? 

I'd guess that most do work for the foundation, but some of the higher earners will just play/train.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I for one am not at least bit surprised that if true Sky are saying improve or lose any future contracts.....

Something has been said but AFAIK it's around some of the matches that were televised during this contract not being up to scratch. I can't see SKY criticising this last two years too much as COVID has been a great spoiler, before that maybe we were losing our way.

Looking back, the best TV with the most fans interest revolved around the big clubs games including loop fixtures in which crowds held up very well, and I assume TV interest for these was also high as well.  People on here may have enjoyed such as  London.v.Salford as purists/for a change (like I do)  but I feel this was the area where SKY are not happy.

That two clubs are planned to be cut signals that SKY are happy with loop games, but unhappy with sub-standard teams. It therefore seems to me that is that and it's business as usual. The bottom line is that people are always saying it's boring when clubs play each other so many times, which is a personal view, however the overall view of the TV audience and audiences at grounds beg to differ and they pay the money, with the latter providing the atmosphere.

It's a shame some posters were rude to Mr. Sadler he keeps a great tradition and a great read alive in the "Rugby Leaguer", he's a fan and is perfectly allowed to play "League structures" which we have all done done years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing how the Sadler plan addresses two issues.

1.  It's nice that a sixth placed team has the incentive to earn an extra £240,000 in funding but it's not clear how they could hope to achieve that on funding of £80,000.

2.  At a time when Sky are whinging that the games aren't as good as they used to be, is this the time to be introducing a huge number of lop-sided games into the fixture list ? I watched West Wales v Widnes.  But not for long.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Moove said:

Where do we get these mythical multi-millionaire newcomers from?

Whenever someone comes up with a different way forward we get the same response.

I assume that you have a house and a car … how did you get those.  Did you just sit on your ar$e and moan that no one is going to give you the money or did you find a way to make money?  It’s the same process that a club or a sport has to go through.

There are people out there that want to invest in sport.  No doubt there will be multi-millionaires - and people that have connections with big hitters - that were born in and maybe followed their local RL team.  These people will have made their money in a competitive environment where there are few restrictions as to how they grew their business.  But RL has a massive drawback and that is the ridiculously low salary cap which I believe is the biggest barrier to attracting big investment.  Try explaining to a multi millionaire that you want their investment BUT no matter how much they want to invest the club can only spend the same amount on players as a basket case club down the road.  Total lunacy!

Scrap the SC and make it a percentage of turnover then clubs have a better chance of finding these ‘mythical’ multi-millionaires.

Or do you have a better way forward?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

 But RL has a massive drawback and that is the ridiculously low salary cap which I believe is the biggest barrier to attracting big investment.  Try explaining to a multi millionaire that you want their investment BUT no matter how much they want to invest the club can only spend the same amount on players as a basket case club down the road.  Total lunacy!

Scrap the SC and make it a percentage of turnover then clubs have a better chance of finding these ‘mythical’ multi-millionaires.

Or do you have a better way forward?

Nice - but it doesn't really solve Sky's issue with there being too many one-sided games.  It just makes it worse,

  • Like 1

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

The luck of having a benevolent council shouldn't be the determining factor in an RL club's success. That epitomises the total lack of strategy that plagued RL from day dot. 

We were getting £40 million a season. For the first time ever the governing body had cash to support clubs strategically with long term goals. For Wakefield that might be helping them buy back the land the stadium is built on - so that any council support could go to actually building something. Likewise support for clubs like Oldham, Sheffield, Swinton could have left the game in South Yorkshire, East Lancashire and Manchester in a far stronger position than currently.

Instead we decided that trebling League 1s central funding and creating a championship of two massively imbalanced funding blocks in a vain attempt to impersonate Unions full time second tier (a failure btw) was an excellent way to invest in the games future!

Instead the sports assets from this period of unprecedented, and unlikely to be repeated, investment amount to a hole in Bradford that the Bulls said was unworkable for them and left for a season.

I completely agree about strategy and the support of clubs and areas. Whether it is through their fault of their own or not I hate to see clubs like Oldham and Swinton being nomads and once proud RL areas fade. RL is much weaker for it.

The previous TV deal saw every SL club get an extra £500,000 and Championship and League 1 clubs get unprecedented levels of funding. Would SL clubs have really missed say £100k of this? It really wouldn't have been unfeasible for everyone to have took a little less and been putting away £2 million a year and they would all have still been better off than the previous TV deal. With all the usual grants available it really wouldn't have been unfeasible to create strategic hubs and bolster the game where it is fading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Whenever someone comes up with a different way forward we get the same response.

I assume that you have a house and a car … how did you get those.  Did you just sit on your ar$e and moan that no one is going to give you the money or did you find a way to make money?  It’s the same process that a club or a sport has to go through.

There are people out there that want to invest in sport.  No doubt there will be multi-millionaires - and people that have connections with big hitters - that were born in and maybe followed their local RL team.  These people will have made their money in a competitive environment where there are few restrictions as to how they grew their business.  But RL has a massive drawback and that is the ridiculously low salary cap which I believe is the biggest barrier to attracting big investment.  Try explaining to a multi millionaire that you want their investment BUT no matter how much they want to invest the club can only spend the same amount on players as a basket case club down the road.  Total lunacy!

Scrap the SC and make it a percentage of turnover then clubs have a better chance of finding these ‘mythical’ multi-millionaires.

Or do you have a better way forward?

I found a way to make money to buy the house and car. That isn't what was suggested by the poster I replied to though so you've got a bit over excited about not a lot.

I'm all for new ideas but just because it's a new idea doesn't automatically make it right.

The idea (which I replied to) that we all of a sudden centralise all clubs, franchise them out for a seven figure fee, and all of a sudden the millionaires who are queueing at out door to get involved in RL are suddenly going to buy a franchise doesn't seem to be (a) based on anything other than a wing and a prayer, (b) doing anything to improve the value of the product we're selling, or (c) doing anything to increase participation levels which is one of the major problems the sport faces.

The rest of your post I've no idea why that's aimed at me as I never mentioned anything about salary cap. I'm all for reworking that and have said so many times in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

The luck of having a benevolent council shouldn't be the determining factor in an RL club's success. That epitomises the total lack of strategy that plagued RL from day dot. 

I am sure you will be aware Tommy that LSV didn’t cost the council a penny. Leases and land were traded for development of a college, a clubhouse and pitches, a stadium LSV and a state of the art facility for Leigh harriers - which helped to produce Keely Hodgkinson who won silver in the 800m earlier this week in Japan. The developer got to build a hotel a supermarket and a pub, plus new houses

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Griff said:

Nice - but it doesn't really solve Sky's issue with there being too many one-sided games.  It just makes it worse,

Nice … but your response doesn’t really solve SKY’s issues either as it appears that you are advocating to retain what we already have tried which has failed to deliver increased income and investment.

We have to accept that creating an artificial level playing field has failed … that is why we have 31 pages on here … and in the idea I put forward clubs irrespective of size will still get their share of the SKY money.

What I am proposing is that the sport needs an incentive to attract investors.  If we had scrapped the SC a few years ago then possibly Salford with Koucash’s investment may be the leading club in SL.  And maybe, just maybe that might have attracted other investors.  And who knows a club currently struggling might attract a investor.

Finally, what is wrong with having some clubs that are bigger than others.  I have supported Cas all my life but I am totally frustrated that because the game has failed to grow we have to have a SC than rewards smaller or less well run clubs.

Or do you have a cunning plan that you would like to share?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moove said:

I found a way to make money to buy the house and car. That isn't what was suggested by the poster I replied to though so you've got a bit over excited about not a lot.

I'm all for new ideas but just because it's a new idea doesn't automatically make it right.

The idea (which I replied to) that we all of a sudden centralise all clubs, franchise them out for a seven figure fee, and all of a sudden the millionaires who are queueing at out door to get involved in RL are suddenly going to buy a franchise doesn't seem to be (a) based on anything other than a wing and a prayer, (b) doing anything to improve the value of the product we're selling, or (c) doing anything to increase participation levels which is one of the major problems the sport faces.

The rest of your post I've no idea why that's aimed at me as I never mentioned anything about salary cap. I'm all for reworking that and have said so many times in the past.

Please accept my apologies as I totally misunderstood your quote.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

That would make some more sense than Sadler’s established professional sides in the same conference as clubs who would get beat by NCL sides. 

We already have Major leagues and Minor leagues.

In our case each pro/semi pro team has its own minor league via our local amateur league system.

The only reason it is being brought up on here now is by the SL teams followers who dont want to give an equal share of central funding [greed]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/08/2021 at 11:51, Damien said:

Its common sense. You don't need to be Nostradamus to see its a terrible idea that is flawed beyond belief.

And as I've said whatever funding model you choose it wont work. Going to the other extreme splitting diminishing TV revenue evenly 32 ways results in only a few full time clubs. This means poor games and terrible standards. Even at that you still have vast inequalities due to the size of clubs and we will still have very one sided games. We see that now in Super League with 12 clubs getting the same and running full time clubs. All of those issues are compounded many times over when 32 teams get only something like £600,000 each.

With your structure clubs still have to gamble to compete or they are perennial whipping boys. Nothing changes that. Its fantasy stuff.

Splitting revenue will mean teams having to drop an overseas or "marquis player" etc and cut their costs.

This will allow other teams the ability to improve their teams.

It does not mean poor games and terrible standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Madness, isn't it.

Imagine if football abandoned P&R and divisions, and split clubs and funding into local conferences, perhaps with a Manchester conference of Manchester United, Manchester City, Salford, Oldham, Rochdale, Wigan, Bolton, Stockport and Macclesfield. 

We'd quickly see attendances, ratings and TV money drop off a cliff. You could hardly design a better way to ruin it.

As you suggest, the top of the game needs to grow its cake to fund (in part) the game beneath - as the Premier League does with the EFL - not Sadler's completely wrong-headed approach that would see the bottom feed off the top and shrink the cake overall.

It's difficult to imagine a more wrong-headed post than this one.

Football is a different sport with different pressures, but it doesn't need to reform.

What we need to do is widen the pool of clubs that can actually win something, while allowing clubs to grow bigger over time.

Our current structure doesn't allow them to do this.

My proposal, because of the way fixtures would be structured, would go a significant way towards achieving that aim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

We have a hard division between amateur and Semi Professional clubs and players, why wouldn't we have one between Semi-Pro and Full Time Professionals?

typical SL answer 

Pull up the drawbridge keep off my money and let everyone else fight over scraps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

typical SL answer 

Pull up the drawbridge keep off my money and let everyone else fight over scraps

It simply illustrates the point that clubs drive the administration of the game, rather than the other way round.

Unfortunately the World Cup postponement is another illustration of this unfortunate fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree.

The reason our biggest clubs are getting smaller is because the competition as a whole is getting small time and the good momentum built up over the previous 15 years has slowed significantly over the past decade.

I don't think that is unconnected to how the other clubs have not grown to come close to matching them in ambition and size and that we have had maybe 3 clubs capable of short term getting more than 6/7k crowds in Super League be involved in the Championship in that time. (Only one of whom, Toronto, have actually played in Super League and they didn't get the chance to play at home in that time).

Saying the solution to Wigan and Leeds struggling to enthuse crowds in the numbers they did a decade ago is to say "here! Play Swinton, Batley and Coventry Bears!" does seem as though it rather misunderstands the problem quite fundamentally.

People want to be part of something getting bigger, not shrinking. Likewise, I'm sure fans of Batley, Leigh, Doncaster, West Wales etc want to play the big clubs because they deserve to be there playing them, not because of some misplaced (and lop-sided) charity.

The gulf between Wigan and Leeds and Swinton, Batley and Coventry Bears!" is because the latter have not been given the £1.8 million a year each as the SL teams have had that luxury. People outside SL do understand the problem and it is quite fundamental.

Yes People want to be part of something getting bigger, not shrinking. Likewise, I'm sure fans of Batley, Leigh, Doncaster, West Wales etc want to play the big clubs because they deserve to be there playing them, GIVING ALL TEAMS A FAIR SHARE IS NOT CHARITY.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • John Drake changed the title to League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...