League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Martyn Sadler]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I really don't see how the Sadler proposal makes attracting investors much easier than now?

I set out six points to answer that question. Which of them do you think are invalid?

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If I had millions and wanted to take Coventry Bears to Super League I could do that already?

Maybe so, but we need to create a more stable environment for all the clubs, whether or not they have millionaire investors.

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

As for League wide investors, such as a PE firm, they want as much bang for their buck no? So if 14 can do the job of 36 then that will be enough for them.

How do you think they view their "bang for their buck"?

What exactly does it consist of?

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's like watching one of those TV shows about a failing business where the owner blames everyone else for not understanding the business idea and that everyone else is wrong The reality is always that its simply a terrible idea.

Given that it hasn't been implemented, it can hardly be a failing business.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

Oh my, are you really trying to compare Rugby League to GAA in Ireland? Comical.

We just need rugby league to ally with the Northern Independence Party and then become a focal point of identity and activity during a brutal war in which "we" earn our hard fought freedom and the newly independent state then uses rugby league as a national vehicle all levels of society to show how distinctly not British it is.

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Griff said:

What happens if we have 37 clubs ?   Or 35 ?

There would be either 70 or 74 loop fixtures to even things up

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I really don't see how the Sadler proposal makes attracting investors much easier than now?

If I had millions and wanted to take Coventry Bears to Super League I could do that already?

As for League wide investors, such as a PE firm, they want as much bang for their buck no? So if 14 can do the job of 36 then that will be enough for them.

Dr Koukash wanted to take Salford to the title with his millions but was refused to do so!

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

No, I'm simply asking you a question about a sport that seems to contradict your earlier assertion.

I don't want to shock you but €15 million is not the same money and is not enough to sustain a fulltime professional competition. That is also for Gaelic Football and Hurling and across multiple broadcasters and territories. GAA is also the national sport of Ireland and a religion. It really is a very lazy and tenuous comparison.

[Gerrumonside ref]

11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

We just need rugby league to ally with the Northern Independence Party and then become a focal point of identity and activity during a brutal war in which "we" earn our hard fought freedom and the newly independent state then uses rugby league as a national vehicle all levels of society to show how distinctly not British it is.

Only if we can have whippets on our flag!

Or chips with gravy!

[Martyn Sadler]

13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

We just need rugby league to ally with the Northern Independence Party and then become a focal point of identity and activity during a brutal war in which "we" earn our hard fought freedom and the newly independent state then uses rugby league as a national vehicle all levels of society to show how distinctly not British it is.

You are normally rather wittier than that.

[Gerrumonside ref]

@Martyn Sadler

I think it’s fair to say that the plan has had a ‘mixed’ reception on these pages.

Has it been received more favourably by your contacts within the sport itself?

Are there any named or unnamed sources at any clubs who wish to take forward your proposal at this stage?

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't want to shock you but €15 million is not the same money and is not enough to sustain a fulltime professional competition.

Perhaps I can shock you by pointing out that I never said it was.

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

That is also for Gaelic Football and Hurling and across multiple broadcasters and territories. GAA is also the national sport of Ireland and a religion.

But it's still an amateur, not even part-time professional, sport, and so contradicts your assertion. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

It really is a very lazy and tenuous comparison.

In the context of your comment it was a very relevant comparison.

[Damien]

17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

We just need rugby league to ally with the Northern Independence Party and then become a focal point of identity and activity during a brutal war in which "we" earn our hard fought freedom and the newly independent state then uses rugby league as a national vehicle all levels of society to show how distinctly not British it is.

To be fair there's worse ideas on this thread.

[Derwent Parker]

4 hours ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   Load of Bulls--t saying £6ook only allows £24k a player .In a 14 team division clubs would have income from entrance money.Average 7000 at a modest £15 and there is income of over £1.3 million + advertising and corporate income.Have a hybrid of full time and part time players in each team.

correct

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Perhaps I can shock you by pointing out that I never said it was.

But it's still an amateur, not even part-time professional, sport, and so contradicts your assertion. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

In the context of your comment it was a very relevant comparison.

The only one who is getting upset is a journalist who doesn't like the opinion of others and can't take criticism of his idea.

GAA across RTE, TG4, Eir Sports, BBCNI and Sky combined still doesn't get big money. €15 million a year (about £12 million) for both league and All Ireland Gaelic Football and Hurling. The bulk of that comes from RTE and Sky certainly don't pay the same money or anywhere near what they pay for Super League.

Below is what you replied to. Absolutely none of the nonsense you are spouting contradicts that. Maybe you should read posts properly instead of seeing red.

Full time professional sport is big business and is what Sky pay for. Don't expect the same money for a part time competition.

[GUBRATS]

Not much ' work ' been done this afternoon is there ? 

I think it's a cracking idea 

[Scubby]

19 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Not much ' work ' been done this afternoon is there ? 

I think it's a cracking idea 

Have you even read it? Do you understand it?

@Dave T has been off the board today, we are avoiding work in his honour!

[Scubby]

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

The conference system would not be commercially or viable with the teams that Martyn would fill it with. Two even conferences of ten is still carrying some weak teams and we´d have to lock the teams in for several years before you put p and r back in. 

 

His proposal gives a fixture list for SL Leaders Catalans of London x2, North Wales x2, West Wales x2, Whitehaven, York, Halifax and Bradford - 40% of 25-game season.

It would also mean that Catalans would not have a home fixture against at least 3 of Hull, Saints, Wigan, Warrington, Leeds and Hull KR.

This is going to raise standards and attract more commercial income  

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Dr Koukash wanted to take Salford to the title with his millions but was refused to do so!

Agreed! Though sadly a lot of what he advocated for (Salary cap increases and marquee players) were brought in! It does need to go further.

To win then it would be difficult currently, but to get to Super League it is eminently possible right now to take that approach.

[Martyn Sadler]

55 minutes ago, Damien said:

The only one who is getting upset is a journalist who doesn't like the opinion of others and can't take criticism of his idea.

I can assure you that I'm not getting upset and that by being on here I'm actively seeking the opinion of others.

I welcome criticism of my ideas, even from people who don't understand them.

55 minutes ago, Damien said:

GAA across RTE, TG4, Eir Sports, BBCNI and Sky combined still doesn't get big money. €15 million a year (about £12 million) for both league and All Ireland Gaelic Football and Hurling. The bulk of that comes from RTE and Sky certainly don't pay the same money or anywhere near what they pay for Super League.

At least I can agree with you on that. But it's not bad money for an amateur sport played in a country with a small population.

 

55 minutes ago, Damien said:

Below is what you replied to. Absolutely none of the nonsense you are spouting contradicts that. Maybe you should read posts properly instead of seeing red.

Full time professional sport is big business and is what Sky pay for. Don't expect the same money for a part time competition.

It's very strange that you should think I'm seeing red when we're having a debate. Why should I do that? Is it because it makes you angry when I point out the inconsistencies in your arguments? Perhaps you're imagining in others what you see in yourself. If so, you probably need to calm down.

The point is that what Sky will pay for a sport doesn't depend on whether it's full-time or part-time or indeed amateur, but on how many viewers and subscribers it attracts.

[Martyn Sadler]

35 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

The conference system would not be commercially or viable with the teams that Martyn would fill it with. Two even conferences of ten is still carrying some weak teams and we´d have to lock the teams in for several years before you put p and r back in. 

 

Again, you're making the fundamental mistake that all the critics of what I've proposed have made, that current standards will stay the same forever.

[Scubby]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

It's like watching one of those TV shows about a failing business where the owner blames everyone else for not understanding the business idea and that everyone else is wrong The reality is always that its simply a terrible idea.

Not enough love and understanding!

[Martyn Sadler]

19 hours ago, redjonn said:

Often the problem with many grand ideas or suggestion is the practical or pragmatic getting from current to the all singing vision/idea without the whole edifice collapsing.

I remarked earlier that this was the most valid point made in response to my proposal.

How do you transition from one system to another without damaging the essence of what you have?

I've thought about this since giving an initial response.

This is what I would suggest to overcome that problem.

We know that the next Sky contract will run for two years from 2022 to 2023. The competition structure could and probably will remain in its current form in those years.

So the first opportunity for change will be in 2024.

If I ran the RFL I would put my system out immediately to be considered by both broadcasters and potential investors, three years ahead of the earliest time at which it might be implemented.

I would go into great detail, with a full potential fixture list and season timetable, explain it to them in terms of its impact on their business and let them digest it and then react to it.

The advantage of that would be that:

1 The RFL would be planning in advance before deciding to introduce a new structure, which it rarely does.

2 There would be no firm commitment to adopting this structure if it is rejected by the organisations it approaches.

3 The RFL could also put forward alternative proposals to test their strengths and weaknesses, both against the status quo and against what I'm proposing.

4 We would have the time to prepare a marketing campaign for the new structure to get it off on the front foot, although perhaps I am being over-optimistic on that score.

But I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Damien]

24 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The point is that what Sky will pay for a sport doesn't depend on whether it's full-time or part-time or indeed amateur, but on how many viewers and subscribers it attracts.

They won't pay as much as I said. I never said they won't pay anything or won't show it.

I recall the start of Super League Sky going from paying a few hundred thousands a year to tens of millions to fund an elite fully professional full time league. They did not pay this for a part time league. Sky have no interest in showing the part time Championship bar the odd game. By your logic this should be just as attractive as Super League. Quality, standards and attractiveness are intertwined with a league being full time, part time or amateur. That directly leads to viewers and subscribers.

Similarly RU leagues the world over got many millions going from amateur to professional. This money wasn't flooding in to fund a part time or amateur game.

Sky have said they want more. I don't think giving them less and a worse product is that.

 

[Martyn Sadler]

16 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No , noone is going to put money into Batley or the like to improve it up and the sport will be bust before standards get to that level. The places you have teams are simply not big enough markets. . The money isn´t there for this model. We´ve got 25 million. Even with my two tens the money is very tight and that´s based on York´s Newcastle London, Toulouse growing the commercial pie. 

Batley aren´t growing anything. 

 

Poor old Batley!

What have you got against them?

You can't look into the future and predict which clubs have growth potential and which clubs don't.

There are too many factors at play.

[Martyn Sadler]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

They won't pay as much as I said. I never said they won't pay anything or won't show it.

I recall the start of Super League Sky going from paying a few hundred thousands a year to tens of millions to fund an elite fully professional full time league. They did not pay this for a part time league. Sky have no interest in showing the part time Championship bar the odd game. By your logic this should be just as attractive as Super League. Quality, standards and attractiveness are intertwined with a league being full time, part time or amateur. That directly leads to viewers and subscribers.

Similarly RU leagues the world over got many millions going from amateur to professional. This money wasn't flooding in to fund a part time or amateur game.

Sky have said they want more. I don't think giving them less and a worse product is that.

 

Let's not forget that when rugby union was amateur its TV contracts made a massive contribution to the overall health of that sport.

My personal view is that rugby union was far better to watch in those days than it is today, although it lacked the hype that today's version of rugby union has, and which has drawn in lots of new fans.

As we've seen with the Hundred, the ultimate arbiter of how valuable a sport is tends to be the effectiveness of its marketing strategy.

There's little point in having a game played at a very high standard if we don't know how to market it.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

As we've seen with the Hundred, the ultimate arbiter of how valuable a sport is tends to be the effectiveness of its marketing strategy.

There's little point in having a game played at a very high standard if we don't know how to market it.

I do completely agree with you there. The sport should have been investing money from the last bumper TV deal in this area, in a similar way to what the NRL did with their whole digital and media division, though obviously on a much smaller scale. 

It's a travesty that the current deal was largely wasted with no investment and no real improvement on how the game went about things. We wasted the opportunity to fix the roof while the sun was shining.