Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

You can't sell structure for pound notes, structure is not a product.

It's the game at all levels that needs selling, the game is the product.

We continually allow coaches to stifle the product but believe if we change the structure we will somehow get more money for a deprecating product.

Stop playing around with the structure, it has never worked in over 125 years, we are obsessed with it for some bloody stupid reason.

Get a proper marketing strategy, using people who really know modern marketing techniques. Plan a long term strategy and do not expect, or ditch the strategy, just because there is no immediate result.

RL clubs have never, ever, liked the idea of the governing body telling them what is best, if they did we would still be playing union, but they have to wake up to the fact we have moved on 125 years and they need to be less self interested. When Lewis was in charge and was good at selling his vision to the clubs they were more willing to take a back seat, for the last few years the 'elite' clubs have had little faith in the leadership at the top of the RFL and have reverted to we know best.

Get some good senior management, preferably with no previous RL experience, but a lot of sports experience, in charge and who have a clear long term strategy you can get the clubs to back off. If we don't then those with the most to lose will make sure they lose it last.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Padge said:

You can't sell structure for pound notes, structure is not a product.

It's the game at all levels that needs selling, the game is the product.

We continually allow coaches to stifle the product but believe if we change the structure we will somehow get more money for a deprecating product.

Stop playing around with the structure, it has never worked in over 125 years, we are obsessed with it for some bloody stupid reason.

Get a proper marketing strategy, using people who really know modern marketing techniques. Plan a long term strategy and do not expect, or ditch the strategy, just because there is no immediate result.

RL clubs have never, ever, liked the idea of the governing body telling them what is best, if they did we would still be playing union, but they have to wake up to the fact we have moved on 125 years and they need to be less self interested. When Lewis was in charge and was good at selling his vision to the clubs they were more willing to take a back seat, for the last few years the 'elite' clubs have had little faith in the leadership at the top of the RFL and have reverted to we know best.

Get some good senior management, preferably with no previous RL experience, but a lot of sports experience, in charge and who have a clear long term strategy you can get the clubs to back off. If we don't then those with the most to lose will make sure they lose it last.

 

Although we have fiddled with the structure in the past in the hope it will be more attractive - such as the 8s - it's important that we're clear that this change has been forced on us due a to a significant drop in the sport's income. There are various options, but something has to change one way or another. 

The rest of your analysis I largely agree with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Although we have fiddled with the structure in the past in the hope it will be more attractive - such as the 8s - it's important that we're clear that this change has been forced on us due a to a significant drop in the sport's income. There are various options, but something has to change one way or another. 

The rest of your analysis I largely agree with. 

The reduction in the sports income isn't due to structure, we haven't just fiddled with the structure in recent years, we have been doing it for 120 years. The first "Super League" was created in the early 1900s, we tried having divisions in the 1960s and scrapped it, we eventually went divisional in the 1970s and have had numerous permutations of that structure all have failed because the underlying problems were never addressed. since

  • Like 1

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we do franchising again it must be with a blank piece of paper and 12 spots available, with zero points awarded for Academy due to clubs denied the right to run one. The franchise must also be paid for, say £5m, and the money repaid on exit whilst using the investment to promote the sport eg £60m with any decent wealth management company would generate at least £6m pa

If any ELITE club cant find £5m it is not an ELITE club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spidey said:

Huddersfield were not relegated for two seasons (maybe 3) despite being bottom of SL. I think Hunslet or Dewsbury were denied promotion. That was around 20 years ago

I think one was denied it and one rejected promotion if memory serves correctly.

We have to go back to the very early years of SL to find an example of a team being denied promotion for not fulfilling criteria. No one has ever been kept up for being "too big".

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

If we do franchising again it must be with a blank piece of paper and 12 spots available, with zero points awarded for Academy due to clubs denied the right to run one. The franchise must also be paid for, say £5m, and the money repaid on exit whilst using the investment to promote the sport eg £60m with any decent wealth management company would generate at least £6m pa

If any ELITE club cant find £5m it is not an ELITE club

Any franchise must have an academy and reserve team, and ground grading must come into the equation as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

If we do franchising again it must be with a blank piece of paper and 12 spots available, with zero points awarded for Academy due to clubs denied the right to run one. The franchise must also be paid for, say £5m, and the money repaid on exit whilst using the investment to promote the sport eg £60m with any decent wealth management company would generate at least £6m pa

If any ELITE club cant find £5m it is not an ELITE club

I doubt most clubs could find 50k to be fair.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Any franchise must have an academy and reserve team, and ground grading must come into the equation as well

Agree, but you cant penalise clubs who tick more boxes but haven't been allowed to run a Cat 1  academy in the process

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scubby said:

21 years ago I think it was - around 1999 or 2000. Hunslet won something like 13-12 over Dewsbury.

It was Dewsbury in 2000 , defeating Leigh with a drop goal , then their coach ( Niel Kelly ) took the best of their team to Widnes , who then beat Oldham in the GF in 2001 to be promoted to SL , where they then finished 7 th in 2002 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking to a bloke heavily involved in next years American SL the other night - they will take all our best players until they can grow their own which wont take too long.

Average salary is over $250k with some elite targets that the NRL couldn't defend against. 6 clubs based in Major city's cashed up to hell and a tv deal to die for

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sweaty craiq said:

Agree, but you cant penalise clubs who tick more boxes but haven't been allowed to run a Cat 1  academy in the process

How long have teams without academies being playing Rugby League compared to London and Newcastle? 

I'm told the Red Devils got rid of their academy as a cost cutting exercise, so in my opinion they don't deserve a franchise spot if ever franchising is brought back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Not going to go round in circles. .

Not going to go round in circles. The point about comparing what Newcastle and York generate now in terms of attendances and commercial revenue playing the big draws of Dewsbury and Swinton, compared to what they could and would get vs Leeds and Hull , has been debunked many times as not a serious arguement. 

Where is the evidence/concrete proof of this? There isn't any? It is your belief they will magically get lots of investment if they were in SL, nothing more. If they are getting stuffed every week, this will somehow work differently to every other sports team and the fans and sponsorship will still be pouring in?

I don't know what you are on about with your next point. Are you saying if Dewsbury or Swinton were in SL, their gates, sponsorship and revenue wouldn't go up too. Of course there would be an increase, any club would see an increase.

Debunked by who? There are no facts to debunk, you are looking at hopes, dreams and wishes.

Clubs outside of SL who have combined recieved millions from the RFL and we have nothing to show from it. 

Wakefield and Hull KR have achieved what exactly with annual funding of more than the whole of the funding in the Championship put together?

The RFL  could have built a home for Welsh RL,  they could have built a proper 3g stadium for Salford Swinton. It has gone with no roi or infrastructure to show for It.

They could have done lots of things if the SL club's funding had been reduced by just 5% and spent it in the same way, but they didn't. They could have maintained the integrity in the competition and then been attractive to multinational sponsors and TV companies, and money would not be an issue. Again though, they didn't. So it is a pipe dream like your whole argument.

Points about Sheffield and London have less weight due to the homelessness and nomadic nature of both teams.  

The game chose Leigh and kept half the cash because it was the strongest club ?

Are you trying to suggest Leigh were selected because they were not the strongest club?

Surely, the independent panel decided that Leigh were the strongest club to replace Toronto? Even stronger than the some of the teams that you suggest should be in instead of the m.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/how-leigh-won-their-place-in-super-league/

Franchising, although I am not in favour,  has clear benfits for potential investors sponsors and tv, namely because you can guarantee your investment from one bad season. 

As mentioned and you ignored,  the last time we did franchising there was no Toulouse York Newcastle.

York have existed for years, what are you talking about? Toulouse pulled out of England whilst we had franchising. Newcastle have proved nothing, they were not even good enough to win promotion from L1. 

If It was franchised London would have a perfectly suitably sized modern ground from which to build. 

You really are in Fantasyland with this one🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Based upon what factual evidence? Both Wakefield and Cas have been building suitably sized modern stadia, have either come to fruition? Somehow, London would build a competitive team, a stadium and a fan base if they were in SL. Newsflash, they were in SL, and despite the many years they spent  in the top flight, under the protection of licensing, this didn't happen, but somehow it will be different this time?

I dont want it (franchising) but I can see how people might be in favour compared to the car crash we have now,  where the weakest commercial teams in SL  kneecap the teams below who could be a threat and grow the comp, then the rfl buys of the lower league clubs by wasting millions a year with nothing to show for it.

The difference between licensing and franchising for a club like London is what exactly?

Edited by DOGFATHER
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

How long have teams without academies being playing Rugby League compared to London and Newcastle? 

I'm told the Red Devils got rid of their academy as a cost cutting exercise, so in my opinion they don't deserve a franchise spot if ever franchising is brought back

That isn't what you replied to , explain how you run an academy with nobody to play against ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

I was talking to a bloke heavily involved in next years American SL the other night - they will take all our best players until they can grow their own which wont take too long.

Average salary is over $250k with some elite targets that the NRL couldn't defend against. 6 clubs based in Major city's cashed up to hell and a tv deal to die for

Is this competition definitely happening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I think one was denied it and one rejected promotion if memory serves correctly.

We have to go back to the very early years of SL to find an example of a team being denied promotion for not fulfilling criteria. No one has ever been kept up for being "too big".

Did I dream the mergers of Huddersfield/Sheffield and Hull/Gateshead then?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Certain clubs like the ones who can generate the most money and attract the best players , coaches , medical staff etc ? , Those clubs ? , The ones with the best teams ? 

The Premier League is big enough and popular enough not to miss clubs that go down,  even if it is their big clubs. If Leeds, for example, went down then with the loop fixtures that would be all the Leeds games against Wigan, St Helens and Warrington gone, which is a good chunk of the games that the Sky money pays for. Take those games away and Sky wouldn’t want to pay as much when there are fewer of the marquee games to show than there was when Leeds were there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

Did I dream the mergers of Huddersfield/Sheffield and Hull/Gateshead then?

For the umpteenth time, Gateshead/ Hull was not a merger. Hull Sharks went bust and the RFL moved Gateshead down to Hull lock stock and barrel. As for Huddersfield/Sheffield what a con that was.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Liverpool Rover said:

The Premier League is big enough and popular enough not to miss clubs that go down,  even if it is their big clubs. If Leeds, for example, went down then with the loop fixtures that would be all the Leeds games against Wigan, St Helens and Warrington gone, which is a good chunk of the games that the Sky money pays for. Take those games away and Sky wouldn’t want to pay as much when there are fewer of the marquee games to show than there was when Leeds were there.

So you're saying the biggest clubs , with the most money don't have the best players ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

For the umpteenth time, Gateshead/ Hull was not a merger. Hull Sharks went bust and the RFL moved Gateshead down to Hull lock stock and barrel. As for Huddersfield/Sheffield what a con that was.

I think that's the point he was making 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DOGFATHER said:

Not going to go round in circles. The point about comparing what Newcastle and York generate now in terms of attendances and commercial revenue playing the big draws of Dewsbury and Swinton, compared to what they could and would get vs Leeds and Hull , has been debunked many times as not a serious arguement. 

Where is the evidence/concrete proof of this? There isn't any? It is your belief they will magically get lots of investment if they were in SL, nothing more. If they are getting stuffed every week, this will somehow work differently to every other sports team and the fans and sponsorship will still be pouring in?

I don't know what you are on about with your next point. Are you saying if Dewsbury or Swinton were in SL, their gates, sponsorship and revenue wouldn't go up too. Of course there would be an increase, any club would see an increase.

Debunked by who? There are no facts to debunk, you are looking at hopes, dreams and wishes.

Clubs outside of SL who have combined recieved millions from the RFL and we have nothing to show from it. 

Wakefield and Hull KR have achieved what exactly with annual funding of more than the whole of the funding in the Championship put together?

The RFL  could have built a home for Welsh RL,  they could have built a proper 3g stadium for Salford Swinton. It has gone with no roi or infrastructure to show for It.

They could have done lots of things if the SL club's funding had been reduced by just 5% and spent it in the same way, but they didn't. They could have maintained the integrity in the competition and then been attractive to multinational sponsors and TV companies, and money would not be an issue. Again though, they didn't. So it is a pipe dream like your whole argument.

Points about Sheffield and London have less weight due to the homelessness and nomadic nature of both teams.  

The game chose Leigh and kept half the cash because it was the strongest club ?

Are you trying to suggest Leigh were selected because they were not the strongest club?

Surely, the independent panel decided that Leigh were the strongest club to replace Toronto? Even stronger than the some of the teams that you suggest should be in instead of the m.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/how-leigh-won-their-place-in-super-league/

Franchising, although I am not in favour,  has clear benfits for potential investors sponsors and tv, namely because you can guarantee your investment from one bad season. 

As mentioned and you ignored,  the last time we did franchising there was no Toulouse York Newcastle.

York have existed for years, what are you talking about? Toulouse pulled out of England whilst we had franchising. Newcastle have proved nothing, they were not even good enough to win promotion from L1. 

If It was franchised London would have a perfectly suitably sized modern ground from which to build. 

You really are in Fantasyland with this one🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Based upon what factual evidence? Both Wakefield and Cas have been building suitably sized modern stadia, have either come to fruition? Somehow, London would build a competitive team, a stadium and a fan base if they were in SL. Newsflash, they were in SL, and despite the many years they spent  in the top flight, under the protection of licensing for years, yet this didn't happen then, but somehow it will be different this time?

I dont want it (franchising) but I can see how people might be in favour compared to the car crash we have now,  where the weakest commercial teams in SL  kneecap the teams below who could be a threat and grow the comp, then the rfl buys of the lower league clubs by wasting millions a year with nothing to show for it.

The difference between licensing and franchising for a club like London is what exactly?

So this although passive agressive is worth responding to. But I have work in 8 hours so will review and respond later today. Or tomorrow on UK time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gooleboy said:

I know, lets let's call it "Framing the Future".

Uncle Mo wasn't wrong though was he

It has to be that way now.Shape up or ship out.

What excuses have clubs  got for not having academies when they have been around for 100 years?

What excuses have certain clubs got for nor properly upgrading their grounds?

If in the recent past they have cut their academies as a cost saving exercise they shouldn't be in Super League. If they haven't got the money to upgrade their grounds they really should be in Super League.

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...