Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

Just now, PhilCarrington said:

I've seen the Skolars' bus. It's a proper coach. Go to Hunslet this weekend and see for yourself. Martyn's idea may not be sensible, but you are coming up with the worst reason for rejecting it.

Super League clubs set for more crunch talks over league restructure plans - YorkshireLive (examinerlive.co.uk)

SL clubs dont want 14 [ dilutes CF] surprise

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


11 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Like you say it's all about ££££ and they wasn't going to vote for a further reduction in TV which 14 teams would have meant. So for the foreseeable future we are stuck with loop fixtures.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, PhilCarrington said:

I've seen the Skolars' bus. It's a proper coach. Go to Hunslet this weekend and see for yourself. Martyn's idea may not be sensible, but you are coming up with the worst reason for rejecting it.

Not really. OK... They have a proper bus now. They previously travelled on a kind of glorified minibus thing. My point was simply that his idea expects élite professional teams to be mixed up with clubs that are barely above amateur. Can West Wales Raiders for example, even be trusted to turn up with a full team away at Catalans ... And then again away at TO XIII?? I suggest they would struggle to get their strongest team out for two away trips to France. They are barely capable of getting 17 players out every week for domestic fixtures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, zorquif said:

Why? Sky don't know whether I would cancel if they dumped rl, or if that is the reason I subscribe

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.

  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Derwent Parker said:

I read that as 10+10 possibly/probably will happen but they can’t agree on how to get there.

If they stuck with 12 teams next year, I make it they would have to relegate three from SL, with one up and six down from the Championship for 2023. Not much difference, really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

I read that as 10+10 possibly/probably will happen but they can’t agree on how to get there.

If they stuck with 12 teams next year, I make it they would have to relegate three from SL, with one up and six down from the Championship for 2023. Not much difference, really. 

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

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 🤣

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, ...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

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...