League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[sweaty craiq]

12 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Unless no one gets promoted next year, top 8 and 2 down. 

Real incentive to build then next year for ambitious championship clubs.

 

[Martyn Sadler]

6 hours ago, redjonn said:

Thanks for your response. 

Agree in general but to bear in mind that yep the player pool is huge but also a massive club pool to fill.   Rugby League has a relative small professional club pool to fill with that limited player pool. So relatively I'm not sure how limiting the player pool really is or has been to the professional game. All-be-it if it continues drying up as seems to be it or if our better young players continue go off to NRL then its all  part of the downward spiral here and inter-related..  

I don't think the trickle of young British players to the NRL will become a flood.

And in any case, there is an analogy with Welsh rugby union in the 70s, who kept losing many of their best players to Rugby League, but they were able to give opportunities to other players who turned out to be great stars in a golden period for them.

And in any case, if young British Rugby League players can land big contracts in Oz, that should be a selling point for persuading youngsters to play the game.

[Martyn Sadler]

6 hours ago, Scubby said:

So we are going to give £600k each to tiny towns like Workington, Swinton, Batley and Whitehaven to help them discover that they are not the San Francisco 49ers. And when they get pummelled for a couple of years we will punt them out and offer that place in some kind of auction house bid off to the large queue waiting to splash the cash?

Also, if Wakefield, Salford, Huddersfield and Hull KR are currently paying some of their SL squad players £15k (or less) on £1.65m central funding, what will they be able to pay them on 40% of that? This sort of plan is Route66 back to part time professional RL in the UK. 

If you'd tried to misrepresent my proposal to the greatest possible extent, I don't think you could have done a better job.

[gingerjon]

14 ... 12 ... 10 ... 36 under a big tent ...

Not one of the ideas will actually address the fundamental problems the game faces.

Which is probably why it's all the clubs seem to want to talk about.

[phiggins]

No problem with scrapping the idea of 14, but what bothers me is that there will have been one or two clubs that tabled or supported the theory that it would be unfair to relegate anyone, who now want to stick with 12 now they’ve won one or two games and opened up the gap from Leigh.

Its no way to run the sport, these decisions need taking away from the clubs.

[Dave T]

12 hours ago, Scubby said:

Well they lost 1500 in crowd average, 8700 (2017) to 7200 (2019). I would imagine corporates, merchandise and other things would have been down on that special season. They would have benefitted from reaching the GF in 2017 and the boost that gives the commercial department.

I would imagine 2022 income will be between £4m to £4.5m million based on season ticket dropped sales and lack of commercial and corporate facilities. Central funding will be down £200-300k on 2017. Crowds will be circa 6k to 6.5k if lucky (that's 2200-2700 down on 2017).

So it was made up. Cool

[Scubby]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

14 ... 12 ... 10 ... 36 under a big tent ...

Not one of the ideas will actually address the fundamental problems the game faces.

Which is probably why it's all the clubs seem to want to talk about.

At this point what needs to be done is...

• We think a massive change of focus and strategy is needed
• We are setting up an independent strategic board to implement any change
• We are looking at 3-5 years to make this shift
• We are setting the bar here and - at the moment - only X,Y,Z clubs would be invited to apply to any new competition based on X,Y,Z criteria. 
• Our financial aspirations for 2025-2030 are X which will deliver Y

As you were until this board completes the first phase of its work.

[Scubby]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So it was made up. Cool

No it is something I haven't looked into for a while, but it stuck in my mind after listening to an extended interview with the former CEO Steve Gill. It was around the Denny Solomona saga (maybe 2015) and he was asked why they only offered £75k and his reply was that they were currently only turning over around £3-£4m on gates of just over 6,000. That included the central handout.

So no it wasn't made up. And for 2022 I am probably not wrong either. You disagree?

[zorquif]

 

11 hours ago, Griff said:

Nevertheless, it's what they base their decisions on.

If nobody watches a sport, they won't pay to screen it.

It's just business sense to them.

Ah yes, this I can get on board with. But it isn't what I was talking about. As you will see below (I added the bold), Martyn is talking about "Rugby League subscription numbers". That is not "Rugby League viewers". I want to know how Sky decide that someone is a "Rugby League subscriber". 

On 10/08/2021 at 09:03, Martyn Sadler said:

My "really matter" comment was made in relation to Sky subscriptions, not in a wider sense.

You seem to misunderstand that it's a realistic comment, not an arrogant one.

Clearly it's vital for Rugby League to broaden its audience.

But unless you have information from the inner sanctums of Sky that I'm not party to, then your comment about subscription information "barely registering" is fanciful. My information is that Sky watch their subscription database like a hawk. In discussions about the next contract the dedicated Rugby League subscription numbers were the top item on the agenda.

Having said that, I think there is clearly a great scope for Sky and Rugby League to cooperate in providing a product with wider appeal.

But in the short term that will have little impact on the amount Sky is willing to pay for the contract.

 

[Damien]

10 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I don't think the trickle of young British players to the NRL will become a flood.

And in any case, there is an analogy with Welsh rugby union in the 70s, who kept losing many of their best players to Rugby League, but they were able to give opportunities to other players who turned out to be great stars in a golden period for them.

And in any case, if young British Rugby League players can land big contracts in Oz, that should be a selling point for persuading youngsters to play the game.

It's not really conducive to having a quality top flight with stars and having a league that broadcasters are willing to pay handsomely for. No wonder the TV deal has decreased.

[Dave T]

15 hours ago, Scubby said:

Cas are currently running a team on £1.7m and a historic loyal following. Even with 20 years of SL and some success they struggle to turnover £4m (and the get 40% of that from Central funding).

Yes they have to show they can grow as a club and add real value to the bigger competition. If they can't then they are a small town that cannot grow with the times.

 

57 minutes ago, Scubby said:

No it is something I haven't looked into for a while, but it stuck in my mind after listening to an extended interview with the former CEO Steve Gill. It was around the Denny Solomona saga (maybe 2015) and he was asked why they only offered £75k and his reply was that they were currently only turning over around £3-£4m on gates of just over 6,000. That included the central handout.

So no it wasn't made up. And for 2022 I am probably not wrong either. You disagree?

In 2015 they turned over £4.1m

In 2016 they turned over £4.6m

In 2017 they turned over £6m

Nothing on a quick google search since. 

So yes, you did make up the claim that Cas are struggling to turnover £4m. It was a strange post that adds to the false narrative that really shouldn't go unchallenged.

I expect the turnovers will take a big hit for a fair while at all clubs, but that wasn't your point, so the 2022 point is irrelevant.

[Scubby]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

In 2015 they turned over £4.1m

In 2016 they turned over £4.6m

In 2017 they turned over £6m

Nothing on a quick google search since. 

So yes, you did make up the claim that Cas are struggling to turnover £4m. It was a strange post that adds to the false narrative that really shouldn't go unchallenged.

I expect the turnovers will take a big hit for a fair while at all clubs, but that wasn't your point, so the 2022 point is irrelevant.

So I wasn't wrong they were struggling to hit £4m back then?

you have 2018, 2019 and 2020 then? By 2022 it will show 2017 was a rogue year or the start or something special? You can't have it both ways.

Castleford have nothing in their current make up to increase turnover other than being top of the league and getting a few thousand latent fans. That is not going to happen anytime soon - they will be bottom half in 2022 and 2023 (crowds are on the slide and central distribution is falling).

Their corporate and commercial operations are like something from the 1980s for such a famous club. They haven't invested in what is required to be successful. They are now vulnerable and they never should have been.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Scubby said:

So I wasn't wrong they were struggling to hit £4m back then?

you have 2018, 2019 and 2020 then? By 2022 it will show 2017 was a rogue year or the start or something special? You can't have it both ways.

Castleford have nothing in their current make up to increase turnover other than being top of the league and getting a few thousand latent fans. That is not going to happen anytime soon - they will be bottom half in 2022 and 2023 (crowds are on the slide and central distribution is falling).

Their corporate and commercial operations are like something from the 1980s for such a famous club. They haven't invested in what is required to be successful. They are now vulnerable and they never should have been.

I mean why didn't you just say £2m and then when challenged claim you were talking about 1985?

There were far better teams out there to use in your example - or even just raise the number to £5m which is still too low for our clubs.

[gingerjon]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

In 2015 they turned over £4.1m

In 2016 they turned over £4.6m

In 2017 they turned over £6m

 

In 2018, no one died ...

In 2019, no one died ...

In 2020, ...

[Dave T]

Just now, gingerjon said:

In 2018, no one died ...

In 2019, no one died ...

In 2020, ...

i'm not sure of your point

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

i'm not sure of your point

There is none. It is an obscure online reference thrown in for whimsy.

[Scubby]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I mean why didn't you just say £2m and then when challenged claim you were talking about 1985?

There were far better teams out there to use in your example - or even just raise the number to £5m which is still too low for our clubs.

I used Castleford because I remember it was a strange thing to say in an interview as a defence of trying to sue Sale for Solomona. I also remember thinking how the hell can a leading SL club say they only turn over £3-£4 million pounds when nearly half that gets given to them? I was genuinely shocked and it was a basic admission that we have a ceiling. Maybe he was pleading poverty I don't know but it stuck in my head.

Apologies for not consulting companies house for the subsequent 5 years and using this board to comment tittle tattle  However, my point was that if Castleford had that ceiling in the good times they will probably struggle to hit that figure again now the central distribution is being slashed, the team is struggling more and crowds are vulnerable atm.

You are not off the hook either for picking a figure out of the air from 4 years ago!  Why didn't you use 2019 or 2020 or 1985?

I used Castleford because sometimes they can command 10k gates, they punch above their weight given their geography, they do mix it with the big guns but they are such a meagre operation and doing nothing to help themselves other than paint watercolour stadium pictures.

[Harry Stottle]

15 hours ago, Scubby said:

I wonder if Leigh would have a legal grounds to challenge a relegation on percentages (i.e an incomplete season).

As a fan I wouldn't want them to.

[Scubby]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As a fan I wouldn't want them to.

I don't agree either but legally I think it would be a valid case.

[Dave T]

30 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I used Castleford because I remember it was a strange thing to say in an interview as a defence of trying to sue Sale for Solomona. I also remember thinking how the hell can a leading SL club say they only turn over £3-£4 million pounds when nearly half that gets given to them? I was genuinely shocked and it was a basic admission that we have a ceiling. Maybe he was pleading poverty I don't know but it stuck in my head.

Apologies for not consulting companies house for the subsequent 5 years and using this board to comment tittle tattle  However, my point was that if Castleford had that ceiling in the good times they will probably struggle to hit that figure again now the central distribution is being slashed, the team is struggling more and crowds are vulnerable atm.

You are not off the hook either for picking a figure out of the air from 4 years ago!  Why didn't you use 2019 or 2020 or 1985?

I used Castleford because sometimes they can command 10k gates, they punch above their weight given their geography, they do mix it with the big guns but they are such a meagre operation and doing nothing to help themselves other than paint watercolour stadium pictures.

I used all data available - there isn't anything available past those dates. 

And I agree with the point you are making - whether the number is £4m or £6m - we need them to be higher - and the same goes for the other clubs, bigger and smaller.

[phiggins]

16 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I don't agree either but legally I think it would be a valid case.

Agreed, wouldn't want them to, but have to question who was initially saying it was unfair to relegate somebody and what, if anything, has changed their mind?

[Scubby]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I used all data available - there isn't anything available past those dates. 

And I agree with the point you are making - whether the number is £4m or £6m - we need them to be higher - and the same goes for the other clubs, bigger and smaller.

So does the actual discussion need to be (or start with), the competition needs to be generating X amount/metrics by 2025 0r 2030 or whatever. What strategies will allow that to happen?

Anything else is just pure denial of the Castleford, Salford et al current situation, Sky renewal deal, commercial performance or whatever. You have to have a target? Hence why 36 clubs are being asked what fits for them essentially.

[JM2010]

8 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I don't think the trickle of young British players to the NRL will become a flood.

And in any case, there is an analogy with Welsh rugby union in the 70s, who kept losing many of their best players to Rugby League, but they were able to give opportunities to other players who turned out to be great stars in a golden period for them.

And in any case, if young British Rugby League players can land big contracts in Oz, that should be a selling point for persuading youngsters to play the game.

Completely agree Martyn. I've said something similar in the past. Kids involved in RL have the opportunity to play SL and also the chance to earn good money in the NRL. It should definitely be a selling point and is similar, but obviously on a smaller scale, to basketball players having the opportunity to go to the NBA or overseas  football players getting the chance to go the Premier League. It should definitely be used as a selling point.

Also, if young players are getting signed by NRL clubs and they can be replaced by up and coming English players then the player pool for Emum and gets stronger 

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, Scubby said:

So does the actual discussion need to be (or start with), the competition needs to be generating X amount/metrics by 2025 0r 2030 or whatever. What strategies will allow that to happen?

Anything else is just pure denial of the Castleford, Salford et al current situation, Sky renewal deal, commercial performance or whatever. You have to have a target? Hence why 36 clubs are being asked what fits for them essentially.

I know this answer probably won't be satisfactory as it is a bit fluffy, but I think it always will be fluid. 

It's why I disagreed with your point last week on the £10m threshold etc. - at some point, we end up with half the teams under that and then the minimum thresholds become worthless. 

I genuinely believe minimum standards, an ambitious salary cap and a form of licensing is probably the way to go. I think you have to create an environment where clubs can thrive, and those who struggle will sink and be replaced by others (in a less blunt way than auto P&R) - but that is all a bit abstract. But that is fine many strategies will be a little bit more conceptual, with some firmer KPI's underneath, but I don't think we need to get too hung up on things like Turnover, which I think is an outcome, rather than an input. If a club can nail it with a smaller turnover, fine, but the theory should be that weaker clubs should fall to the bottom and become so weak that there is a clear rationale for them to be replaced. 

 

[Scubby]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I know this answer probably won't be satisfactory as it is a bit fluffy, but I think it always will be fluid. 

It's why I disagreed with your point last week on the £10m threshold etc. - at some point, we end up with half the teams under that and then the minimum thresholds become worthless. 

I genuinely believe minimum standards, an ambitious salary cap and a form of licensing is probably the way to go. I think you have to create an environment where clubs can thrive, and those who struggle will sink and be replaced by others (in a less blunt way than auto P&R) - but that is all a bit abstract. But that is fine many strategies will be a little bit more conceptual, with some firmer KPI's underneath, but I don't think we need to get too hung up on things like Turnover, which I think is an outcome, rather than an input. If a club can nail it with a smaller turnover, fine, but the theory should be that weaker clubs should fall to the bottom and become so weak that there is a clear rationale for them to be replaced. 

 

It's like a fluffy kitten lol. At the moment the game is just adjusting its ambitions based on how much a single broadcaster is prepared to pay and how happy or cross they are. How on earth do we get out of that cycle without saying we need the game to be worth X in revenue each year and to do that it requires Y and Z from the authorities and stakeholders?

I have mixed views on the ECB and The Hundred but they certainly didn't just think of how they could appease the 18 existing (some barely existing counties). They were thinking about the value of franchises and cross-partnerships with countries like Australia and India. It may work or fail but the intention is pretty transparent. They have probably given the BBC this content for peanuts because they wanted to break Sky's stranglehold on domestic cricket.

Each sport has its own model but it has to be more than this. ATM we are just rich pickings for the NRL to leech from the UK game what it needs (including it seems internationals) and leave the (part-time) carcus to rot like another NSW or Queensland Cup.