League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Dave T]

Just now, Scubby said:

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 to 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 but the intention is pretty transparent. They have probably given the BBC this content for peanuts because they wanted to break Sky 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 leach 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.

I think it comes down to "revolution vs evolution". 

I think both can work, but we just need to have a strategy, work towards it.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

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.

So you think that Sky will reduce their offer to broadcast Super League because Dominic Young, Harry Rushton and Herbie Farnworth have chosen to join NRL clubs at an early stage of their careers!

That is surely stretching credulity a little too far.

[steve oates]

13 hours ago, Griff said:

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

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

It's just business sense to them.

Indeed..........  Absolutely spot on......

So the question then becomes what format will maximise the SKY audience.? No good decrying "loop" fixtures if a third game between 1. Saints and 2. Wigan pulls in a TV audience bigger than a first showing of  Wakefield.v.Salford.

Of course when it comes to TV audiences I'd guess 3. Bradford's repeat clashes with 4. Leeds were always good for a big audience on SKY, so like it or not they fit the bill....  5. Hull and 6. HKR also fit the bill....7. Warrington games against these clubs are getting to be big games too.

That appears to be at best the basis for maximising any deal with SKY. If only 8. Widnes were the power they were, if only 9. Cas and 10. Wakey were not hampered by poor grounds those ten clubs logically would be the biggest TV pull. Then if 11. Catalans and 12. Toulouse made up the number to 12 clubs with a French TV deal all the 10 English clubs could split the SKY deal ten ways and have lot's more money than they do now to compete and find the best players they can.

So that's the sensible option then Griff? (and I am not at all disagreeing)??

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

So you think that Sky will reduce their offer to broadcast Super League because Dominic Young, Harry Rushton and Herbie Farnworth have chosen to join NRL clubs at an early stage of their careers!

That is surely stretching credulity a little too far.

It's odd you keep criticising people for being obtuse and misrepresenting your posts when you nearly always do the same.

Not keeping our best prospects means that the standard of the competition diminishes year on year, as we have seen. This means the game struggles for star players in the competition and this reduces bums on seats. Attendances decline, as we have seen. All of this makes it a less attractive competition to broadcasters, who naturally will pay less for a poorer product, as Sky are now doing.

[Griff]

51 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Indeed..........  Absolutely spot on......

So the question then becomes what format will maximise the SKY audience.? No good decrying "loop" fixtures if a third game between 1. Saints and 2. Wigan pulls in a TV audience bigger than a first showing of  Wakefield.v.Salford.

Of course when it comes to TV audiences I'd guess 3. Bradford's repeat clashes with 4. Leeds were always good for a big audience on SKY, so like it or not they fit the bill....  5. Hull and 6. HKR also fit the bill....7. Warrington games against these clubs are getting to be big games too.

That appears to be at best the basis for maximising any deal with SKY. If only 8. Widnes were the power they were, if only 9. Cas and 10. Wakey were not hampered by poor grounds those ten clubs logically would be the biggest TV pull. Then if 11. Catalans and 12. Toulouse made up the number to 12 clubs with a French TV deal all the 10 English clubs could split the SKY deal ten ways and have lot's more money than they do now to compete and find the best players they can.

So that's the sensible option then Griff? (and I am not at all disagreeing)??

Happily, it's not my job to decide.

[lucky 7]

16 hours ago, wiganermike said:

If the 14 team single season and the split of funding was the only issue (pathetic and ultra short-term thinking though it is) then if the governing bodies still want 2x10s then perhaps we could have 1 up, 1 down this year as planned and then in 2022 relegate 3 of the 12 in SL, promote 1 from Championship and have the three relegated clubs join those finishing 2nd to 8th in the Championship in the second 10. Funding can stay the same next year, we still get to 2x10 (+16) by 2023 and every club (bar those 10 in League 1) get the opportunity to earn their place within the set up.

I think that Rimmer favoured a 14 team Super League for 1 season shows to me he will do everything he can this season to make sure that Leigh don't get relegated. That for me is worrying. Surely he isn't going to put obstacles in the way of the team that wins the Championship Grand Final is he?

[Martyn Sadler]

42 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's odd you keep criticising people for being obtuse and misrepresenting your posts when you nearly always do the same.

Not keeping our best prospects means that the standard of the competition diminishes year on year, as we have seen. This means the game struggles for star players in the competition and this reduces bums on seats. Attendances decline, as we have seen. All of this makes it a less attractive competition to broadcasters, who naturally will pay less for a poorer product, as Sky are now doing.

A rather strange accusation!

You appear to resent the fact that sometimes people might disagree with you.

For from misrepresenting you, I quoted you fully but then commented on the implications of what you said.

If all our star players were heading to Australia you might have a point, but in fact the number of youngsters who have departed is small and I would guess that most of them will return as better players, helping to make Super League a better product.

There are some Rugby League supporters who see the downside in everything and you are in danger of becoming one of those people.

[Scubby]

55 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's odd you keep criticising people for being obtuse and misrepresenting your posts when you nearly always do the same.

Not keeping our best prospects means that the standard of the competition diminishes year on year, as we have seen. This means the game struggles for star players in the competition and this reduces bums on seats. Attendances decline, as we have seen. All of this makes it a less attractive competition to broadcasters, who naturally will pay less for a poorer product, as Sky are now doing.

Exactly, this isn't something that happens overnight. It is a slow painful decline. It started with established UK players in their mid-to-late 20s, then got younger and younger and younger.

If only half of the Dominic Youngs, Harry Rushtons, Herbie Farnworths, Will Pryce, Bailey Hodgson, Oliver Gildarts are successful, then these guys won't be going at 18 or early 20s they will be going at 15/16 - signed on development contracts on money that some SL squad players are getting now.

If you were an NRL club, why wouldn't you have scouts across the north of England looking at players in the 14-16 bracket. A $50k development contract is peanuts to an NRL club.

Sam Burgess today would have been signed by an NRL club at 16.

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Exactly, this isn't something that happens overnight. It is a slow painful decline. It started with established UK players in their mid-to-late 20s, then got younger and younger and younger.

If only half of the Dominic Youngs, Harry Rushtons, Herbie Farnworths, Will Pryce, Bailey Hodgson, Oliver Gildarts are successful, then these guys won't be going at 18 or early 20s they will be going at 15/16 - signed on development contracts on money that some SL squad players are getting now.

If you were an NRL club, why wouldn't you have scouts across the north of England looking at players in the 14-16 bracket. A $50k development contract is peanuts to an NRL club.

Sam Burgess today would have been signed by an NRL club at 16.

It's simply bizarre that those within the game, and seemingly even its journalists, are that blinded that they can't see the bigger picture and that all of the issues facing Super League are interlinked. It's like some people can only focus on one issue without realising that is a symptom of a much larger cause. That is why what we have seen for 2 decades is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic type stuff. The only person who seemed to get that fundamental changes were needed and that the game needed to take a radically different approach was Richard Lewis. 

[Martyn Sadler]

27 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's simply bizarre that those within the game, and seemingly even its journalists, are that blinded that they can't see the bigger picture and that all of the issues facing Super League are interlinked. It's like some people can only focus on one issue without realising that is a symptom of a much larger cause. That is why what we have seen for 2 decades is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic type stuff. The only person who seemed to get that fundamental changes were needed and that the game needed to take a radically different approach was Richard Lewis. 

Obviously we can't all have your insight, intelligence and magical ability to spot icebergs in the distance.

But it's interesting you mention Richard Lewis and you credit him with a "radically different approach", by which I assume you mean the introduction of licensing.

When Richard first was appointed at the RFL, in my first interview with him I told him that conventional promotion and relegation was unsustainable in Rugby League. He strongly disagreed and said they would remain in place during his tenure.

A few interviews later, he had completely changed his tune and agreed with me that things had to change.

The problem was that he didn't think it through sufficiently to make a success of the licensing system.

[Martyn Sadler]

54 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Exactly, this isn't something that happens overnight. It is a slow painful decline. It started with established UK players in their mid-to-late 20s, then got younger and younger and younger.

If only half of the Dominic Youngs, Harry Rushtons, Herbie Farnworths, Will Pryce, Bailey Hodgson, Oliver Gildarts are successful, then these guys won't be going at 18 or early 20s they will be going at 15/16 - signed on development contracts on money that some SL squad players are getting now.

If you were an NRL club, why wouldn't you have scouts across the north of England looking at players in the 14-16 bracket. A $50k development contract is peanuts to an NRL club.

Sam Burgess today would have been signed by an NRL club at 16.

The NRL clubs have some major financial problems at the moment.

I'm not sure they are as strong or as well-equipped as you clearly think they are.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The NRL clubs have some major financial problems at the moment.

I'm not sure they are as strong or as well-equipped as you clearly think they are.

I agree that they do not have solid foundations and they are not as secure as some people seem to believe.

However, that they have access to more immediate cash and can pay players at all stages of their career better than Super League clubs is an observable fact. 

[JonM]

7 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The NRL clubs have some major financial problems at the moment.

I'm not sure they are as strong or as well-equipped as you clearly think they are.

Fundamentally though, it's a AUS$2 billion tv contract versus a £52M tv contract. To my mind, there really isn't much point worrying about players going to the NRL, it should be seen as something attractive for players, not something to fight against

[Scubby]

23 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The NRL clubs have some major financial problems at the moment.

I'm not sure they are as strong or as well-equipped as you clearly think they are.

By the NRL/RPLA rules everyone has to spend 95% of their A$10m cap each year if they want to or not. They can't pay £800k like Salford or Wakefield. That is £5.6m equivalent in sterling.

Then they will be looking for cheap pickings from elsewhere to mix with players like Tedesco who can command 10% of the cap.

It is no co-incidence that a club like Canberra (who has trouble getting Sydney and Queensland stars to relocate) went after a glut of cheaper English equivalents. Pay A$500k for John Bateman or A$900k for Angus Critchton. Pay A$300k for Ryan Sutton or $A600k for Matt Lodge. Even write off £150k in transfer fees to get George Williams for A$500k instead of paying A$1m to tempt Mitch Moses.

The thing is even the cheaper salaries for British players are 2-3x what they are getting here. Add on the favourable exchange rate and you are laughing. Looking for hidden young gems in the British game is much more profitable than paying overs for a 16-year-old from Penrith that everyone is after.

It is what top level football has been doing for decades.

[OriginalMrC]

While everyone here seems to be bickering we are another week down the line where nothing has happened. Seemingly SL clubs can't agree on anything. Shockingly Champ and L1 clubs seem to be only finding info out via press stories. A shocking way to treat the 'RL family' 

[Hela Wigmen]

Leigh being replaced by Fev, not Toulouse would cause an epic meltdown on here. Part of me wants to see it. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, OriginalMrC said:

A shocking way to treat the 'RL family' 

Whole game solution fans are rarely that bothered about anyone lower than sixth place in the second tier.

[Derwent Parker]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Whole game solution fans are rarely that bothered about anyone lower than sixth place in the second tier.

Most aren't bothered about anybody outside top 10 in top tier

[Scubby]

5 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Leigh being replaced by Fev, not Toulouse would cause an epic meltdown on here. Part of me wants to see it. 

It will of course cause a meltdown...

....followed by a slow decline in interest, followed by less people posting on here (I'm sure there is a heavy decline already), followed by LE reviewing whether it is worth it continuing, followed by LE being unsustainable as a weekly paper, followed by the closing down of a dedicated RL publication, followed by ............. followed by.......... followed by....

Many of the people who post the most have been here for a decade or more. They were 20-something, 30-something or even already old miserable ######## when they arrived. They have seen it all, they are close to giving up because the sport doesn't want to help itself.

Sky's latest offer shows something drastic is needed. No one is queueing up to save RL. No one. Most of its own supporters want to destroy it.

[David Shepherd]

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

Leigh being replaced by Fev, not Toulouse would cause an epic meltdown on here. Part of me wants to see it. 

There would be a world-wide shortage of nappies.

And it would be absolutely hilarious.

#UpTheChuffingRovers

[Scubby]

16 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

While everyone here seems to be bickering we are another week down the line where nothing has happened. Seemingly SL clubs can't agree on anything. Shockingly Champ and L1 clubs seem to be only finding info out via press stories. A shocking way to treat the 'RL family' 

The game at the moment is consumed with cutting its cloth even if it means kicking L1 into the ditch for the sake of a £1m per year. It is the wrong conversation and so short sighted it is depressing.

Why isn't the game thinking how can the top tier earn £50m per year so we can provide a 10-15% distribution of that to support a thriving semi-professional game? Promotion and relegation, Leigh/Toulouse/Featherstone/Wakefield scrapping over a £1m 12th placed bone is a fight to the bottom. In the end, the whole game will be semi pro and the revenue the game earns will reflect that.

[OriginalMrC]

17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Whole game solution fans are rarely that bothered about anyone lower than sixth place in the second tier.

The thing is it's supposedly a whole game solution but it's anything but (I realise this is the point you are making). Self interest rules 

[fighting irish]

4 minutes ago, Scubby said:

The game at the moment is consumed with cutting its cloth even if it means kicking L1 into the ditch for the sake of a £1m per year. It is the wrong conversation and so short sighted it is depressing.

Why isn't the game thinking how can the top tier earn £50m per year so we can provide a 10-15% distribution of that to support a thriving semi-professional game? Promotion and relegation, Leigh/Toulouse/Featherstone/Wakefield scrapping over a £1m 12th placed bone is a fight to the bottom. In the end, the whole game will be semi pro and the revenue the game earns will reflect that.

I was just thinking about the Rugby League ''family''.

Imagine a real family, where the Dad loses his job and has to take another, on 3/4 pay.

The parents get together and discuss the dilemma and due to their reduced income, they decide to take the youngest of their 3 kids up the mountain, above the snow line and leave them up there!

Now because they have less money worries, they can focus more attention on the eldest two children believing they can achieve elite standards of education. This should guarantee a bright future, for the surviving children.

It turns out, that the Dad's brother has just built a hotel, on borrowed finance and catapulted his own income into the stratosphere.

But being a RL family, it never occurs to the poor dad to ask his big brother, how he did it, but someone suggests to his wife (in Aldi's) that he should ask his brother for some advice. 

Swallowing his pride, cap in hand, the poor dad, goes to his brother, to ask him how he did it.

His rich, successful brother refuses to tell him.  

[Scubby]

4 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I was just thinking about the Rugby League ''family''.

Imagine a real family, where the Dad loses his job and has to take another, on 3/4 pay.

The parents get together and discuss the dilemma and due to their reduced income, they decide to take the youngest of their 3 kids up the mountain, above the snow line and leave them up there!

Now because they have less money worries, they can focus more attention on the eldest two children believing they can achieve elite standards of education. This should guarantee a bright future, for the surviving children.

It turns out, that the Dad's brother has just built a hotel, on borrowed finance and catapulted his own income into the stratosphere.

But being a RL family, it never occurs to the poor dad to ask his big brother, how he did it, but someone suggests to his wife (in Aldi's) that he should ask his brother for some advice. 

Swallowing his pride, cap in hand, the poor dad, goes to his brother, to ask him how he did it.

His rich, successful brother refuses to tell him.  

But he does offer him 10" pizzas for the next couple of years and the Dad bites his hand off.

[Martyn Sadler]

52 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I agree that they do not have solid foundations and they are not as secure as some people seem to believe.

However, that they have access to more immediate cash and can pay players at all stages of their career better than Super League clubs is an observable fact. 

They certainly have done until now and I hope they can overcome the financial impact of the pandemic.

I just think at the moment there is a great deal of financial uncertainty throughout the Rugby League world.

Even the NRL may have to pull its horns in eventually on TV deals.