Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

None of these.

I find it to be a fairly futile discussion that will have no impact whatsoever upon what actually happens. It reminds me of endless philosophising about "what should be done" in my very distant student days. If you enjoy a meandering discussion with little end point, then fine.

But that is the fun of joining a debating site such as this, it may be futile banter  but you can't resist in popping your head around the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Damien said:

Two huge turning points were the introduction of the salary cap and the RU going pro. Wigan went from spending over £3.2 million in wages (over £5.5 million in todays money) to £1.8 million in 2003 to comply with the new salary cap. Leeds were against it too.

Not sure what you mean but Leeds were neither against the salary cap nor up against it monetarily certainly in the Super League era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What I am suggesting is a way to perhap's entice individuals or groups of rich people to invest in Rugby League clubs,  I think all you wish for is to maintain Saints position at the very top of a sport where the financial standing is very low, you may have no desire for very wealthy to join the frame.

And by raising/abolishing the salary cap, you’re instantly more enticing than dragging clubs down to a poorer level, as we already do now. How do you sell your club or your sport to a wealthy person to then say “yeah, but you can only spend this amount”? What incentive is there to invest then?

Conversely, I think you want all clubs to be tied down to float around the levels of your club and other water treading clubs in the vein hope you drag them down enough that they stick to your level and you may one day then be deemed a “successful” club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But that is the fun of joining a debating site such as this, it may be futile banter  but you can't resist in popping your head around the door.

He loves it H. Don't let him pretend otherwise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But don't you elaborate that the better-off clubs take delight in a lower cap?

Of course the top 3 who win most things do? It reduces their costs. The clubs I've just pointed out aren't the top clubs. They want to be, but they can't use their resources to overcome the disadvantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Exactly this. 

Holding teams back is illogical and a bizarre stance to strangle clubs rather than growing clubs and subsequently, the sport. 

If Wakefield wanted to spend £1m on Cam Munster, I’m going to make a (more) conscious effort to watch Wakefield against Saints. Wakefield signing Liam Hood just makes me shrug my shoulders and is instantly forgettable. 

Absolutely.

My team has gone through one of its worst 6 year runs ever, and we have still won the League and the Cup in that time. That is the sort of inherent strength some clubs have that enabling others to spend more freely should be overcoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

And by raising/abolishing the salary cap, you’re instantly more enticing than dragging clubs down to a poorer level, as we already do now. How do you sell your club or your sport to a wealthy person to then say “yeah, but you can only spend this amount”? What incentive is there to invest then?

Conversely, I think you want all clubs to be tied down to float around the levels of your club and other water treading clubs in the vein hope you drag them down enough that they stick to your level and you may one day then be deemed a “successful” club. 

What a complete load of tripe.

I am only suggesting that those who can prove even by way of placing a bond that they can afford to spend freely in a 'Capless' system that they be allowed in, it would be as I say be an exclusive set of clubs to become a part off, something that rich people desire to be a part off, I am not tying anyone down, if it can be afforded you can join, wouldn't it be wonderful if a team like St Helen's were one of the lesser entities of such a division, that would prove how strong it would be. 

Your last paragraph in now way resembles anything like I suggested.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

And by raising/abolishing the salary cap, you’re instantly more enticing than dragging clubs down to a poorer level, as we already do now. How do you sell your club or your sport to a wealthy person to then say “yeah, but you can only spend this amount”? What incentive is there to invest then?

Conversely, I think you want all clubs to be tied down to float around the levels of your club and other water treading clubs in the vein hope you drag them down enough that they stick to your level and you may one day then be deemed a “successful” club. 

Which of course, will never happen as in a world where everyone is paid a pittance, you may as well play for a team that win. And so Wigan, Leeds and Saints will still be the strongest clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Which of course, will never happen as in a world where everyone is paid a pittance, you may as well play for a team that win. And so Wigan, Leeds and Saints will still be the strongest clubs.

May not be if the equilibrium is upset, in that they may not be the top clubs if my suggestion could be enacted on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

Martin, I've made this point, with BP time and time again.

He has never made one single suggestion as to how the game might develop and prosper, not one.

In his opinion, we are doomed not matter what we do, because the teams are based where they are.

I don't know what his motivation is for coming in here.

As far as I'm concerned his ''contribution'' is tantamount to trolling. 

You're wrong there.

Just because no solution to the game's problems exists within the current structure, it does not follow that no solution exists at all, it just means that the solution can only be found outside that structure.

It happens that I do have such a solution, and a detailed plan for how it could be realized.  Some here like @Harry Stottle, @GUBRATS and others think it's an impossible plan, in part because they think that the sort of investors needed don't exist but they are wrong.

Such men exist on both sides of the Atlantic, they just need to be identified, found and then shown a credible plan showing how they could profit from owning a franchise.  An owner doesn't need to be familiar with the game already either, Marwan Koukash for example didn't know a thing about the game before he was approached and it's likely that Richard Branson didn't either.  With suitable investors on board, the rest is simply a matter of how to implement said plan and line up the broadcast partners, sponsors, etc. needed.

It's true that a lot of money would be needed, in all likelihood a few hundred million US$.  The franchise owners would happily pay the needed money for their franchises as long as they see a path to profitability, and adopting all the best practices of other major pro leagues is that path to profitability.

There would certainly be obstacles, but to us new worlders obstacles are just things to overcome.

 

Edited by Big Picture
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

It only starts at 6 clubs because if you set the bar properly they would be the only ones who wouldn't have to get their house in order straight away. That's why they get 8 years. They are 6/12 members not a cartel!

Hull KR would arguably qualify for a 4 year licence but Castleford and Wakefield only 2 for obvious reasons or maybe not at all. That is a target on their backs with a lot of clubs happy to knock them out if they don't improve.

Put it this way, if DB at Leigh and MK at Salford could have had their time again and plough resources into creating a proper infrastructure and bid that would guarantee them a 4 or 8 year licence in SL - where could those clubs be after that period of stability? It is the yo yo-ing that stifles clubs and keeps them where they are.

I need time to respond to another poster here, who asked me some direct questions, but in the meantime, I wanted to say I think your idea is very interesting.

It's quite clear that you have been thinking seriously about this issue (perhaps for some time) and that you are unimpressed by Martin's ideas.

If I've not offended you so much, that you won't respond, I'd like to know, how you would judge which clubs are granted the 8 year licenses (and the 4 and 2 also)?

Implied in the licensing scheme is protection for traditional promotion and relegation? 

I presume also, that you would scrap the salary cap, for the qualifying clubs?

Finally, when the 2 year license holders, time is up (with one year left), on what basis can other clubs ''bid'' against them? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

You're wrong there.

Just because no solution to the game's problems exists within the current structure, it does not follow that no solution exists at all, it just means that the solution can only be found outside that structure.

It happens that I do have such a solution, and a detailed plan for how it could be realized.  Some here like @Harry Stottle, @GUBRATS and others think it's an impossible plan, in part because they think that the sort of investors needed don't exist but they are wrong.

Such men exist on both sides of the Atlantic, they just need to be identified, found and then shown a credible plan showing how they could profit from owning a franchise.  An owner doesn't need to be familiar with the game already
either, Marwan Koukash for example didn't know a thing about the game before he was approached and it's likely that Richard Branson didn't either.  With suitable investors on board, the rest is simply a matter of how to implement said plan and line up the broadcast partners, sponsors, etc. needed.

It's true that a lot of money would be needed, in all likelihood a few hundred million US$.  The franchise owners would happily pay the needed money for their franchises as long as they see a path to profitability, and adopting all the best practices of other major pro leagues is that path to profitability.

There would certainly be obstacles, but to us new worlders obstacles are just things to overcome.

 

Well believe me, no-one (in the world) would enjoy seeing you bring it to fruition more than I.

I mean that, whether you can make it happen here, or in the States.

So what are you waiting for?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Which of course, will never happen as in a world where everyone is paid a pittance, you may as well play for a team that win. And so Wigan, Leeds and Saints will still be the strongest clubs.

I think we’re already starting to see the drag down effect take hold, the way it’s going, clubs will be much of a muchness without the income generated previously but some will proclaim that as a saviour of the sport when in reality very few eyes will appear on the game the following year after a Warrington or Catalans Grand Final win. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

May not be if the equilibrium is upset, in that they may not be the top clubs if my suggestion could be enacted on.

At the end of the day any system that allowed freer spending would also come with the point that you'd have to spend a lot of money, and spend it over an extended period of time. And even then, Wigan, Leeds and Saints would still be amongst the top teams.

Any suggestion that argues you can create top teams without addressing that fundamental spending point is crucially flawed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I think we’re already starting to see the drag down effect take hold, the way it’s going, clubs will be much of a muchness without the income generated previously but some will proclaim that as a saviour of the sport when in reality very few eyes will appear on the game the following year after a Warrington or Catalans Grand Final win. 

I wouldn't totally disagree, I think the lethargy and malaise has set in over the past 5 years. If crowds don't recover next season as I think everyone is hoping, then we're going to be very stuck with the confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Well believe me, no-one (in the world) would enjoy seeing you bring it to fruition more than I.

I mean that, whether you can make it happen here, or in the States.

So what are you waiting for?

I expect just waiting for the few hundred millions dollars. Everything else is in place on paper.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Well believe me, no-one (in the world) would enjoy seeing you bring it to fruition more than I.

I mean that, whether you can make it happen here, or in the States.

So what are you waiting for?

The kind of investors needed wouldn't know me from Adam so I'd need a partner known to them who could open the right doors first.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I need time to respond to another poster here, who asked me some direct questions, but in the meantime, I wanted to say I think your idea is very interesting.

It's quite clear that you have been thinking seriously about this issue (perhaps for some time) and that you are unimpressed by Martin's ideas.

If I've not offended you so much, that you won't respond, I'd like to know, how you would judge which clubs are granted the 8 year licenses (and the 4 and 2 also)?

Implied in the licensing scheme is protection for traditional promotion and relegation? 

I presume also, that you would scrap the salary cap, for the qualifying clubs?

Finally, when the 2 year license holders, time is up (with one year left), on what basis can other clubs ''bid'' against them? 

I don't really have time to get into detail but those six clubs would have been granted A licences under the old 2008/2011 licensing system and have already had their assessments for things like running academies. There has been historical guidelines for assessment done before.

Having only been awarded 4 and 2 year initially means there are areas that need to be addressed (much like the 2-year SL deal from Sky at the moment).

So a Wakefield could no longer produce a water colour painting of a new stand for a licence and reproduce that 12 months later. Against them could be bids from the likes of London (playing at Wimbledon), Newcastle, York, Featherstone etc. and they maybe prepared to pay a larger bond and give more financial and other assurances that could allow them to jump to a 4 year licence (thus effectively bumping out Wakefield as the least viable of the renewal bids). The key is that any replacement team would have a full 12 months to prepare for SL and anyone having to drop out would have 12 months to adjust their business to go into the Championship.

The aim is that the bar is raised and the level of the bids is higher so you cannot get there by default. So within 5-10 years only 4 and 8 year licences are awarded, and beyond that 8-year ones where the competition expands as revenues grow. Also, a club may target a round of renewals to build towards etc.

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

19 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Saints & Warrington travelling to the Cumbrian clubs could really generate additional interest in Cumbria and those games could be celebrations of top-class Rugby League returning to a region that has all too often been overlooked the Cumbrian clubs would improve significantly on the back of that. Run Academies and developing junior talent 

The history of Cumbria RL was tied to the heavy industries just like in Yorkshire and Lancashire. These industries are no longer there and the Cumbrian coast is no longer awash with any great playing pool. Union and soccer playing pools have ben equally devastated. In Cumbria kids play but there are fewer teams, amateurs still play but again drastically less participation. Very few Cumbrians play at SL level, and the idea of letting Saints and Warrington go up to run up hammerings is likely to be more of a turn off. 

We just can't turn back the clock. I'm happy with your cheery optimism and whole game support, as editor of a whole game newspaper I know you  you need to do this....but I can't see that turning back the clock really does it. Nor can I see that as others suggest "better marketing", or "recruit more people to play" or "have more academies" or "attract new investment" are in any way serious suggestions. Not unless people add to the headline solution the fine details of how to practically achieve each idea and how that would then really grow the game. 

I think that means the "big ideas" are non starters, it's probably the little things that count, go to more games, take friends with you, help at the local amateur club, always talk the game up, enjoy it for what it is, Buy League express 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

 I do have such a solution, and a detailed plan for how it could be realized.  Some here like @Harry Stottle, @GUBRATS and others think it's an impossible plan, in part because they think that the sort of investors needed don't exist but they are wrong. Such men exist on both sides of the Atlantic, they just need to be identified, found and then shown a credible plan showing how they could profit from owning a franchise.  Marwan Koukash, Richard Branson..........With suitable investors on board, the rest is simple

Marwan got bored and walked away, Branson only came in because his son liked RL, but he's gone too. David Argyle had $Billions, managed to be interested for a couple of years now gone.

Terribly patronising to suggest top businessmen don't know RL exists

Very assumptive that somehow they will prefer RL to all other sports to throw their money away on.

Totally naive to believe big investors will throw their money away on any sport. 

Funny that most REAL investors in RL  grew up along the M62, even David Hughes is from Oldham........

I'll take Harry and Gubrats any day...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

Why were Featherstone not included in SL? They were not in a significantly worse position financially than many other clubs at that time, nor did they finish in a relegation place, but we're not allowed in SL, why if not for size?

Featherstone were relegated as part of the restructuring of RL into the full time SL. They were relegated alongside many teams, including the "too big to relegate" Hull FC. 6 teams were relegated that year. They didn't make the cut. If they'd have finished one place higher, they'd have made it. So they did in fact finish in a relegation place.

3 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

What reason do you think the rest of SL voted to keep Hull in SL, if, as you say,  Hull so desperately wanted to drop down a division? Or indeed, why did SL keep Bradford in more recently?

The issue wasn't SL voting Hull in, it was NFP voting Hull out. Had they not done that, they would have been relegated. You seem to have ignored this fact.

Bradford were reformed as a business whilst in SL. This was during the licensing era. They did not finish in a relegation place because there weren't any relegation places (and even if there were, they didn't finish in one anyway). Funnily enough, when relegation was brought back, Bradford finished in a relegation place and were subsequently relegated. 

The agenda you're pushing really does not appear to be there.

3 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

For the good of the game, perhaps? That was certainly published on both occasions.

If this was true, why was it good for the game? 

The only good reason I can conclude, is financially. Hull have traditionally been well supported, and have fans that travel to away games in good numbers. The 4k fans you mentioned, was quite high for the time. Ask Padge if you can borrow his Rothman's year books, to see for yourself.

4k was not "quite good for the time" at all. The average for SL in the first 2 seasons Hull were in it was about 7k. It was considerably below average.

I think you need to look at the surface figures yourself.

3 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

Was it good for the club's in the NFP in terms of bringing new fans or investment in to their clubs, knowing, even if 2 teams were run so badly they went bust, they still were not deemed worthy/big enough to replace them?

If there grounds were not deemed sufficient, that is on them. Widnes, Leigh, Hull KR, etc had no issues.

4 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

Hull were artificially kept up, in favour of Hunslet who had earned the right, why was that, if not based on size? Hunslet had ground improvement plans ready to go once they were given the green light, to get to the required standards, 

Hull did not finish bottom. They were not kept up in favour of Hunslet. If anything, Huddersfield were. The 4k capacity of SLS was clearly not deemed SL standard.

4 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

Why did the SL choose to keep Bradford in SL, throughout the various administrations, if it was not because the other SL clubs were scared of losing the income from the Bulls travelling support, or the possible damage it might do to the TV deal, losing such a big club from the top flight?

During the licensing period, they were clearly one of the biggest clubs. Why would you relegate them? They weren't artificially kept up.

4 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

Please point out where am I going wrong with my analysis?

Your initial point you made was that SL prevents bigger clubs getting relegated. You have since chosen situation were there was no relegation, or that a club below clearly did not meet criteria for promotion. Those are not examples of preventing bigger clubs going down, no matter how desperate you are to try and spin it that way. The fact you've had to go back over 20 years to try for some of these "examples" shows some huge flaws in that logic, especially considering some large clubs in that time that everyone claimed would never be relegated have indeed been relegated in those times.

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

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

None of these.

I find it to be a fairly futile discussion that will have no impact whatsoever upon what actually happens. It reminds me of endless philosophising about "what should be done" in my very distant student days. If you enjoy a meandering discussion with little end point, then fine.

I thought we were mates?

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I'm glad you mention this because I've actually thought previously that your reaction to Martyn's plan is completely at odds to your replies to @Big Picture.  Big Picture gets castigated for his big city league backed by billionaires’ vision but that is far more realistic than Martyn's plan. At least that would have some appeal to a backer/backers only funding teams in a dozen or so major cities as opposed to 36 teams, half of which play in places many haven't heard of and out of poor facilities. I know you see Big Picture's plan as being unrealistic, as do I without mysterious backers coming on board, but I genuinely find your difference in reaction interesting as to most they have the same fantasy basis. Neither are plans with a real how this can be achieved.

Even Martyn seems to acknowledge that this will initially be a dogs dinner and he is then relying on the likes of Private Equity forms and Venture Capitalists to improve teams and grow it. What happens if these failing clubs aren’t bought out or replaced? How will new venues targeted for growth be achieved? Who pays? What is the difference to all the other fantasy plans that have no backer? There is certainly no real difference to what @Big Picturesays.

Talk of failing clubs being replaced or bought out by potential investors in new venues targeted for growth is completely flawed. The whole premise starts off with half a league of failing clubs. The same kind of flaws that have held back Super League for two decades. If these mysterious backers don't come what happens to these failing clubs? Do we get no growth? Again there is no how or why people would flood in to invest money into this.

These PE and VC types are the same ones that only offered £60 million to buy into Super League. They are certainly not going to be somehow interested in giving enough for the likes of Swinton, Hunslet, Oldham et al to then fund 36 clubs. A VC could probably buy RL's bottom 18 clubs for £10 million and have change to spare, many have no assets and are worthless. Why would they even bother and not set up new clubs elsewhere, then you get more to Big Picture's thinking. Saying things like Americans love conferences is absolutely no more valid an argument than anything @Big Picture comes up with and his ideas about conferences. The lack of conferences didn’t stop people from investing in RU or wanting to set up the European Super League in Football. It’s a complete misnomer and conferences aren’t a magical answer.

As I say I find the difference in your thinking interesting because I think its evident that to the majority on here Martyn's plan is as flawed as anything Big Picture comes up and as crazy. Most importantly neither spells out on how this can be achieved, bar mysterious backers that don't exist. Big Picture's isn't a plan, but neither is Martyn's.

Let me say at the outset, that I'm grateful that you have taken the time to write this lengthy post. It is a kindness to be taken seriously and not abused (as has happened) in the manner so prevalent on this and other ''social'' media websites.

Perhaps, I should explain first, my treatment of BP and his one idea. I find it to be flawless, to his credit. I just feel that his time would be better spent canvassing for the billionaires he needs to bring his plan to fruition than spending it in here telling us all how foolish we are to waste our time, trying to deal with what actually exists.

Unless he has some practical helpful advice, which might actually improve things for someone/anyone involved in the game, then his incessant (and invariably repetitive)doomsaying is more likely to depress everyone exposed to it and on that basis it is tantamount to trolling.

Now onto Martin's plan:

I'm a rugby league fan. A true fanatic, you could say. Who, like most in here, feels aggrieved that the game is not hugely popular here and abroad. More than that, I find it hard to accept the reality of the reduced funding from SKY and the perilous position it puts the whole game in. I'm upset that this could be a turning point (a downturn) for the game on the way to oblivion. So I'm interested in potential solutions.

When I first heard of Martins plan, I hadn't read it but became aware of it because of the barrage of negative comments, so I sought it out. It is complex and I hadn't had much time to think it through, so merely asked others what their (almost exclusively negative) opinions were based on.

I'm well aware from my own life's experiences, that even ''the best laid schemes o mice an men. Gang aft agley,. An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain'', so in my first response to Martin I expressed my fears that (without much time to give it serious consideration) it might contain a flaw, similar to the middle 8's which brought more attention to the relegation battle than the Grand Final. He urged me to read it. Meanwhile, my initial request for a detailed critical appraisal of Martin's ideas met with a spate of unsatisfactory one liners. So I pressed on. I could see early on that there were elements of the plan I liked and wanted to canvass a broad spectrum of opinion (because I didn't have the time, and probably lack the ability to do it on my own) to really vet the plan and test it, for pro's and cons.

I'm still thinking about it, and haven't come to a final summing up, but despite some valid criticisms (from those who eventually relented and chipped in) I'm unwilling to throw the baby out with the bath water. Ultimately, if the plan is insufficient to solve the games problems, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have merit, like the curate's egg, good in parts. Without going into great detail, (because my conclusions aren't fully formed) I liked it for a number of reasons: 

It is rife with novelty,

It can still provide top class, intensely competitive matches for SKY.

It attempts a ''whole game'' solution, valuing the poorer clubs, rather than the heinous attitude of some, seeing them as gangrenous extremities.

It protects the clubs from fear of relegation and the horrendous financial damage it invariably inflicts.

It creates an environment where ambitious clubs can invest, over the long term and reach whatever level they aspire to, without the SuperLeague or bust imperative in todays system. 

It would engender a ''one game'' mentality where we are ''all in it together'' rather than the current dog eat dog rivalry which fuels envy and hatred amongst the fans, which I believe is responsible for many turning away, disheartened. Where is Parksider? He had a very serious grievance if I remember correctly.

It would allow failing clubs, to bow out with dignity, or be bought up (if an investor/benefactor appeared) and perhaps be moved to a different location, a la, Hemel Hempstead/Ottawa.

The list might be longer, but it's all I've got at the moment.

I'd like to finish by say I like Scubby's plan where you create a millionaires club of clubs and am eager for more detail if he'll provide it. Perhaps, a valid solution to the games problems is some kind of amalgam of the best bits of both.

Finally, to Blind Side Johnny, I'd like to think this discussion isn't futile maybe SL/RFL are watching! 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Marwan got bored and walked away, Branson only came in because his son liked RL, but he's gone too. David Argyle had $Billions, managed to be interested for a couple of years now gone.

Terribly patronising to suggest top businessmen don't know RL exists

Very assumptive that somehow they will prefer RL to all other sports to throw their money away on.

Totally naive to believe big investors will throw their money away on any sport. 

Funny that most REAL investors in RL  grew up along the M62, even David Hughes is from Oldham........

I'll take Harry and Gubrats any day...

Who said anything about investors throwing their money away?  I have something in mind where they would make money on their investment just like in other major pro leagues by following all the same practices which allowed the value of NHL expansion franchises to go from 25 million US$ to 650 million US$ in the span of 26 years and that of MLS expansion franchises from 10 million US$ to 325 million US$ in 15 years.  Franchises in such leagues don't lose money, they make money.  That explains why top soccer clubs were ready to pull out of their current leagues and join the proposed ESL.

It's quite understandable that current RL investors are from M62-land, as @Martyn Sadlerpointed out RL is seen in Britain as poor and unfashionable.  With baggage like that, the name Rugby League is itself an obstacle to the game having a prosperous future in Britain, that's why more than a few posters on here have tried to come up with other names for it.  Rebranding the sport and calling it something else altogether would probably be a requirement for my concept to succeed.

Edited by Big Picture
  • Like 1
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...