Jump to content

Funding cuts could mean the end for Coventry Bears


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

A good way to look at it is ‘what would be the opportunity cost if the £50k was diverted to the RFL’s operations or to Super League clubs?’

The first thing that needs investigating is ‘what % of midlands players took up rugby league because Coventry exists as a semi-pro team?’ That is a pretty simple thing to do. You can then start working out my first question regarding opportunity cost. 

Without doing the above we’re all simply hypothesising. Of course the owner is going to advocate for maintaining or increasing funding - as he should. But any decision should go through the above rigour. 
 

If the £50k is to be divided by 12 SL clubs, you’d be asking what value £4,000 pounds has for a SL club. 

It's over-simplistic just to look at players that have taken up the game - what about fans who are watching the Bears each week? Fans who are buying RLWC tickets for the Coventry game? But yes, the opportunity cost is definitely the thing to look at.

But of course we're hypothesising, it's a discussion forum. Are you really saying that we can't make any argument unless we have 100% of the stats available to us? How would I even get the figures on who plays RL in the Midlands? Do these figures even exist in a meaningful format? If there was some transparency coming through from the governing body, we might be able to make these calculations more accurately. Based on my opinion of what I see in the game, I see Coventry doing more good work with £50,000 than the 12 Super League clubs, mostly because £50,000 for Cov is a much higher percentage of their budget than £50,000 for the SL clubs.

I mean, if you have all these numbers available, and you can demonstrate quite clearly that I'm wrong then I'd happily change my mind. I just don't see how removing £50,000 from Cov (and all the other League 1 clubs for that matter) is going to help the whole game.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


26 minutes ago, zylya said:

I'll take the hit on this for being lazy with my wording. You're right that it's the Super League clubs that made the decision on total funding to the RFL, although it is still the RFL that makes the decision on how to distribute that funding that SL gives them, for example between operations, Championship and League 1 etc so they're not entirely blameless. Especially considering that the RFL haven't done near enough to increase their own commercial revenues.

Massively missing the point to hone in on that pedantic issue when there's a much more important discussion going on about where the money would be best spent.

It isn't a pedantic point at all, it's quite an important point. The money that was previously being directed to these clubs is literally no longer there. The RFL can only do so much with that, everyone (including themselves) is taking a large cut. So focusing on the fact that the RFL have allowed the SL clubs to take more money is just a nonsense. 

There is a valid point about how this distribution of the £2m is made - and if we look at it on a simple basis it is probably something like £150k per Champ team and £20k per L1 team - so I suppose the debate should be centred around do clubs like Widnes, Bradford, Fev, Halifax give a better return for that £150k than L1 clubs. 

BUt either way, nobody is winning here, difficult decisions need to be made.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an ex Oxford RL season ticket holder I'd be stunned if they returned for any upgraded Conference South.

One of the reasons they packed up, not the only one, was they believed League One would fold within five years and the owners weren't willing to spend lots of money trying to turn the club around knowing they wouldn't have time to make that money back.

Those at the top at Oxford were generally less than impressed by the RFL's handling of them. There's surely no chance of them stepping back in.

RL down south and in the Midlands is on the verge of collapse as anything other than a recreational sport. The sport needs to decide how much it values that presence but make no mistake, they need their eyes open as to the consequences.

I was a season ticket holder at Oxford and supported Prescot Panthers, I am well aware teams die. I also watched South London Storm in the old Conference. I have also had a total of about 25 season tickets at Skolars and Broncos. Unless I move north, I doubt I'll be watching RL for much longer.

 

  • Like 9
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It isn't a pedantic point at all, it's quite an important point. The money that was previously being directed to these clubs is literally no longer there. The RFL can only do so much with that, everyone (including themselves) is taking a large cut. So focusing on the fact that the RFL have allowed the SL clubs to take more money is just a nonsense. 

There is a valid point about how this distribution of the £2m is made - and if we look at it on a simple basis it is probably something like £150k per Champ team and £20k per L1 team - so I suppose the debate should be centred around do clubs like Widnes, Bradford, Fev, Halifax give a better return for that £150k than L1 clubs. 

BUt either way, nobody is winning here, difficult decisions need to be made.

The RFL have been assigned an amount which they can distribute. The understanding, based on this topic, is that they're cutting around £50,000 from League 1. That's a decision, and that's what I'm criticising. Is it a tough decision? Yes - but I disagree with the one they've made and have outlined my reasons.

Additionally, SL & RFL haven't done enough to keep the commercial income high - a huge drop in funding can hardly be blamed on the League 1 clubs yet they're facing an 80% reduction on an overall reduction of about 37.5% (£40m - £25m). And even if we take the previous Sky deal as overpriced and this one as more realistic to the value of SL, there's still the real question of why the RFL hasn't done things like develop the international game or create some other source(s) of revenue to fill this gap.

The whole "difficult decisions" is a cop out - it's chickens coming home to roost.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ivarr the Boneless said:

As an ex Oxford RL season ticket holder I'd be stunned if they returned for any upgraded Conference South.

One of the reasons they packed up, not the only one, was they believed League One would fold within five years and the owners weren't willing to spend lots of money trying to turn the club around knowing they wouldn't have time to make that money back.

Those at the top at Oxford were generally less than impressed by the RFL's handling of them. There's surely no chance of them stepping back in.

RL down south and in the Midlands is on the verge of collapse as anything other than a recreational sport. The sport needs to decide how much it values that presence but make no mistake, they need their eyes open as to the consequences.

I was a season ticket holder at Oxford and supported Prescot Panthers, I am well aware teams die. I also watched South London Storm in the old Conference. I have also had a total of about 25 season tickets at Skolars and Broncos. Unless I move north, I doubt I'll be watching RL for much longer.

 

That is my impression as well. I have been attending professional games in the south since 1983, had multiple season tickets at various clubs and been involved with a community club, but I suspect that will be ending soon and my only contact, if any, with the game will be through Sky. It is disappointing as it has been the major interest of my adult life, but after all these years I don't get the feeling that areas in the south are seen as integral or important to the game any more than they were back in the 80s. Lip service will be given, but the time when successful structural support could have been given has passed. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jeff Stein said:

That is my impression as well. I have been attending professional games in the south since 1983, had multiple season tickets at various clubs and been involved with a community club, but I suspect that will be ending soon and my only contact, if any, with the game will be through Sky. It is disappointing as it has been the major interest of my adult life, but after all these years I don't get the feeling that areas in the south are seen as integral or important to the game any more than they were back in the 80s. Lip service will be given, but the time when successful structural support could have been given has passed. 

Be a huge shame if this happens. Despite a lot of comments saying that RL will never take off in the South, the truth is that almost every attempt has either been half-assed or unsupported. When I played in the London Leagues back in the early 2010s there were a load of development officers around making stuff happen. They all got pulled and teams started collapsing. Of the 5/6 teams playing in that League in 2014 I think it was, only 1 of them still exists in any capacity.

I think the Southern Conference League is a great idea, but it's so poorly supported by the RFL. The tables they post on Twitter look like someone didn't in Microsoft Word. No branding, nothing to make it seem interesting. Great they they streamed the SCL 2019 Grand Final, but can't just hope for one strong day a year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, zylya said:

Be a huge shame if this happens. Despite a lot of comments saying that RL will never take off in the South, the truth is that almost every attempt has either been half-assed or unsupported. When I played in the London Leagues back in the early 2010s there were a load of development officers around making stuff happen. They all got pulled and teams started collapsing. Of the 5/6 teams playing in that League in 2014 I think it was, only 1 of them still exists in any capacity.

I think the Southern Conference League is a great idea, but it's so poorly supported by the RFL. The tables they post on Twitter look like someone didn't in Microsoft Word. No branding, nothing to make it seem interesting. Great they they streamed the SCL 2019 Grand Final, but can't just hope for one strong day a year.

The London League and Southern Conference finals are on at 4:30 and 6:30 this Saturday at Rosslyn Park. Apart from the fixtures being shown in League Express I know nothing else and I  can't find any other information online (including why the odd Times and whether admission is being charged). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Damien said:

Expecting Coventry to play in an amateur competition where you will have players spending 10 hours traveling there and back to somewhere like Egremont just isn't feasible. For London Skolars that is probably more like 14 hours. Yes its doable but players will quickly be put off that when they can play in a nice little regional RU league and earn a little bit of money on the side.

 

Isn't that the case if they stay semi-pro on the proposed funding ? Players will be expected to do the same travelling for little more than beer money. If the funding is £20k and income from other means is similar then how do they pay a squad of 24/25 players plus coaching staff etc as well as meet all other costs of staging games such as insurance, stadium costs etc ? The players will be on absolute peanuts and a lot of them will just pack in.

  • Like 1

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jeff Stein said:

The London League and Southern Conference finals are on at 4:30 and 6:30 this Saturday at Rosslyn Park. Apart from the fixtures being shown in League Express I know nothing else and I  can't find any other information online (including why the odd Times and whether admission is being charged). 

This may be helpful:

https://www.facebook.com/londonchargersrl/posts/2165666656907258

image.png.be9c8481b86976d1721f2bfaa5b401c3.png

 

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 hour ago, Ivarr the Boneless said:

As an ex Oxford RL season ticket holder I'd be stunned if they returned for any upgraded Conference South.

One of the reasons they packed up, not the only one, was they believed League One would fold within five years and the owners weren't willing to spend lots of money trying to turn the club around knowing they wouldn't have time to make that money back.

Those at the top at Oxford were generally less than impressed by the RFL's handling of them. There's surely no chance of them stepping back in.

 

 

One day someone will write the article that needs to be written abut the end of Oxford RL. I'm not naive, there were flaws with what they were trying to do and how they were trying to do it, but that was a good board (with senior RL experience), with money, and (seemingly without anyone registering it) they pulled the plug for political as much as financial reasons.

IMO the Oxford debacle gets written off too easily as 'expansion club goes pop, like everyone always expected' whereas it was (IMO) more like 'expansion club owners take their ball home after losing faith in the future of the sport'

The message still hasn't got through I don't think.

One day....

 

 

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

39 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Isn't that the case if they stay semi-pro on the proposed funding ? Players will be expected to do the same travelling for little more than beer money. If the funding is £20k and income from other means is similar then how do they pay a squad of 24/25 players plus coaching staff etc as well as meet all other costs of staging games such as insurance, stadium costs etc ? The players will be on absolute peanuts and a lot of them will just pack in.

I believe so yes. However I don't agree with the proposed cuts to that level either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

One day someone will write the article that needs to be written abut the end of Oxford RL. I'm not naive, there were flaws with what they were trying to do and how they were trying to do it, but that was a good board (with senior RL experience), with money, and (seemingly without anyone registering it) they pulled the plug for political as much as financial reasons.

IMO the Oxford debacle gets written off too easily as 'expansion club goes pop, like everyone always expected' whereas it was (IMO) more like 'expansion club owners take their ball home after losing faith in the future of the sport'

The message still hasn't got through I don't think.

One day....

 

 

I think to be honest it wasn't helpful from the beginning to label Oxford, All Golds, Northampton (ahem), Hemel and Coventry as expansion clubs. That suggests some additional support but there was none. Sink or swim was the approach and only one club remains. If you are going to expand the sport it has to be done with a plan and proper support. These clubs were at a disadvantage from the start. The RFL have known Coventry's business model from the start so expecting the club to suddenly take a huge cut along with all the other disadvantages it faces is ridiculous. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zylya said:

The RFL have been assigned an amount which they can distribute. The understanding, based on this topic, is that they're cutting around £50,000 from League 1. That's a decision, and that's what I'm criticising. Is it a tough decision? Yes - but I disagree with the one they've made and have outlined my reasons.

Additionally, SL & RFL haven't done enough to keep the commercial income high - a huge drop in funding can hardly be blamed on the League 1 clubs yet they're facing an 80% reduction on an overall reduction of about 37.5% (£40m - £25m). And even if we take the previous Sky deal as overpriced and this one as more realistic to the value of SL, there's still the real question of why the RFL hasn't done things like develop the international game or create some other source(s) of revenue to fill this gap.

The whole "difficult decisions" is a cop out - it's chickens coming home to roost.

You cannot absolve lower league clubs of any blame for not driving enough income to survive. 

I'm afraid the bottom of the Pro pyramid does not get a free pass here. Particularly when this has been on the cards for around 3 years. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You cannot absolve lower league clubs of any blame for not driving enough income to survive. 

I'm afraid the bottom of the Pro pyramid does not get a free pass here. Particularly when this has been on the cards for around 3 years. 

Some of the League 1 clubs in the Heartlands have had around a hundred years to drive the revenues required... Coventry has been in the league since 2015, so six years as a semi-professional team which includes a year of COVID.

If you don't think League 1 is worth the money it's currently costing, then just say that. Either you think that League 1 is worth the £750,000 that it's getting in central funding or you don't. Which is it?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zylya said:

Some of the League 1 clubs in the Heartlands have had around a hundred years to drive the revenues required... Coventry has been in the league since 2015, so six years as a semi-professional team which includes a year of COVID.

If you don't think League 1 is worth the money it's currently costing, then just say that. Either you think that League 1 is worth the £750,000 that it's getting in central funding or you don't. Which is it?

I think all our clubs are worthy of investment. I don't think any of them deserve a pay cut, but Sky are paying less and the game hasn't filled that gap. 

You obviously don't think Championship clubs are worth their money as you just want to rob Peter to pay Paul. These things can't be looked at in isolation. 

But on the actual point of Coventry, if we went down a means tested route, they would score well in my eyes and be a high priority for funding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

You cannot absolve lower league clubs of any blame for not driving enough income to survive. 

I'm afraid the bottom of the Pro pyramid does not get a free pass here. Particularly when this has been on the cards for around 3 years. 

The same could be said for all clubs. As for clubs driving income to survive many have been around for decades and still rely on a director or directors putting money in. We've seen time and time again these clubs getting into financial difficulty as soon as the directors stop putting money in. I think it's reasonable that a new club who has only been in the league for 6 years should retain its funding as it hasn't had long enough to establish itself. The timing here is also off the back of Covid which has reduced the clubs revenue and increased its costs significantly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

The same could be said for all clubs. As for clubs driving income to survive many have been around for decades and still rely on a director or directors putting money in. We've seen time and time again these clubs getting into financial difficulty as soon as the directors stop putting money in. I think it's reasonable that a new club who has only been in the league for 6 years should retain its funding as it hasn't had long enough to establish itself. The timing here is also off the back of Covid which has reduced the clubs revenue and increased its costs significantly. 

The same is being said of all clubs. SL clubs get criticised by everyone and everybody shares the failures of the game overall. 

I'm not sure I could support a reduction to every club in the game apart from Coventry tbh. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dealwithit said:

The first thing that needs investigating is ‘what % of midlands players took up rugby league because Coventry exists as a semi-pro team?’ That is a pretty simple thing to do. You can then start working out my first question regarding opportunity cost. 

Without doing the above we’re all simply hypothesising. Of course the owner is going to advocate for maintaining or increasing funding - as he should. But any decision should go through the above rigour. 

 

7 hours ago, zylya said:

But of course we're hypothesising, it's a discussion forum. Are you really saying that we can't make any argument unless we have 100% of the stats available to us? How would I even get the figures on who plays RL in the Midlands? Do these figures even exist in a meaningful format?

I can probably give this a better attempt than most... 

According to https://www.coventrybears.com/team, their 1st Team squad has 3 of 23 players with hometowns in the Midlands. One of these, the youngest at age 23, is a Coventry Bears junior (along with the Midlands Regional Academy - this is significant). One of these is age 29 and had played no RL previously, only RU, so is new to the game as a result of Cov. One of these is age 27 and had played community RL in the Midlands for 3 teams, and semi-pro for 2 previous teams. Edit: There's also 2 players in Peter Ryan and Josh Dunne who are from Ireland so probably wouldn't have played RL if not for Cov.

The Midlands Regional Academy is significant because typically players would play there for 4 years (i.e. u15s - u18s), training multiple times a week, playing matches at a fairly high standard and essentially getting treated like any professional club's academy. Probably up until 2018-19 this often led to lads finishing and going to play for Coventry. Unfortunately, nobody wanted to fund the MRA after the quality dropped following the big drop in participation in the community game underpinning it. This led to the academy stopping a couple of years ago, and with it a reasonable source of players for Cov gone. 

There was a Midlands u16s community rep team in 2019 that played a City of Hull Development team and there were 2 players from Cov Juniors, broadly comparable with other teams such as Wolfhunt, Outlaws, NEW Ravens, Telford etc, which doesn't suggest vastly greater numbers of players in Coventry than elsewhere. One of these is now playing for Worcester Jaguars, having gone through Mercian Development Academy. The other is playing for Leamington Royals, as Coventry have nothing beyond u16s. 

In 2015 and 2016 Coventry ran a second team in Conference League South, potentially bringing new players into the game. Again a reasonable source of players for this team was Midlands Regional Academy players. This 2nd team was strong in 2015, weak in 2016 and then when the CLS league stopped, Coventry ceased running a second team, so no increase in participation here. 

Coventry have also had a link with Coventry Uni RL at times so arguably a new source of players. The year before Cov entered League 1, they came 1st in the Midlands 1 uni league. Since Cov entered League 1, they have come: 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 3rd, 5th, so they haven't gotten noticeably stronger and they haven't introduced a 2nd Team so no notable increase in participation either.  

The 3 satellite clubs set up obviously will increase participation, however this is funded by a RLWC2021 grant, not the League 1 money, so isn't contingent on Cov getting £80k from the RFL.

So the new players aren't showing up in their first team squad, nor the university team, they haven't ran a second team since 2016, they lose any players past u16s and the 3 satellite clubs have come about through RLWC2021 funding rather than League 1 funding. They also ran juniors at several age groups before they entered League 1. Specifically where are these new players resulting from Coventry's League 1 status? 

Edited by Saint 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

 

I can probably give this a better attempt than most... 

According to https://www.coventrybears.com/team, their 1st Team squad has 3 of 23 players with hometowns in the Midlands. One of these, the youngest at age 23, is a Coventry Bears junior (along with the Midlands Regional Academy - this is significant). One of these is age 29 and had played no RL previously, only RU, so is new to the game as a result of Cov. One of these is age 27 and had played community RL in the Midlands for 3 teams, and semi-pro for 2 previous teams. 

The Midlands Regional Academy is significant because typically players would play there for 4 years (i.e. u15s - u18s), training multiple times a week, playing matches at a fairly high standard and essentially getting treated like any professional club's academy. Probably up until 2018-19 this often led to lads finishing and going to play for Coventry. Unfortunately, nobody wanted to fund the MRA after the quality dropped following the big drop in participation in the community game underpinning it. This led to the academy stopping a couple of years ago, and with it a reasonable source of players for Cov gone. 

There was a Midlands u16s community rep team in 2019 that played a City of Hull Development team and there were 2 players from Cov Juniors, broadly comparable with other teams such as Wolfhunt, Outlaws, NEW Ravens, Telford etc, which doesn't suggest vastly greater numbers of players in Coventry than elsewhere. One of these is now playing for Worcester Jaguars, having gone through Mercian Development Academy. The other is playing for Leamington Royals, as Coventry have nothing beyond u16s. 

In 2015 and 2016 Coventry ran a second team in Conference League South, potentially bringing new players into the game. Again a reasonable source of players for this team was Midlands Regional Academy players. This 2nd team was strong in 2015, weak in 2016 and then when the CLS league stopped, Coventry ceased running a second team, so no increase in participation here. 

Coventry have also had a link with Coventry Uni RL at times so arguably a new source of players. The year before Cov entered League 1, they came 1st in the Midlands 1 uni league. Since Cov entered League 1, they have come: 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 3rd, 5th, so they haven't gotten noticeably stronger and they haven't introduced a 2nd Team so no notable increase in participation either.  

The 3 satellite clubs set up obviously will increase participation, however this is funded by a RLWC2021 grant, not the League 1 money, so isn't contingent on Cov getting £80k from the RFL.

So the new players aren't showing up in their first team squad, nor the university team, they haven't ran a second team since 2016, they lose any players past u16s and the 3 satellite clubs have come about through RLWC2021 funding rather than League 1 funding. They also ran juniors at several age groups before they entered League 1. Specifically where are these new players resulting from Coventry's League 1 status? 

Well that's quite some effort it must have taken you some time. To be honest I don't have the time to debunk all the inaccuracies in this post. I do wonder what your angle is? Several of your posts have been designed to shed the Bears in a bad light. All I can say is that a lot of what you have said is speculation, inaccurate or untrue. 

Just to take an example of the players in first team squad you've looked at their home town. Yes some were born elsewhere and some moved to the midlands relatively recently but over well over half the squad are based in the midlands. I think we can assume that a lot of these lads might now be playing RL if they weren't given an opportunity at the Bears. Our all time record try scorer is a brummie, we've got players like Josh Dunne who'd played in the Irish provincial set up but never played RL, we've got Peter Ryan Irish born and bred who is coming up to 50 appearances in league 1. To add to this I haven't even mentioned the various players who got an opportunity at the Bears and are playing at a higher level. 

Some of the rest of the things here is completely wrong and as I said I can't be bothered to go through your whole post and tell you where your wrong. All I can say is that anyone reading it should take it with a very large pinch of salt. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Well that's quite some effort it must have taken you some time. To be honest I don't have the time to debunk all the inaccuracies in this post. I do wonder what your angle is? Several of your posts have been designed to shed the Bears in a bad light. All I can say is that a lot of what you have said is speculation, inaccurate or untrue. 

Just to take an example of the players in first team squad you've looked at their home town. Yes some were born elsewhere and some moved to the midlands relatively recently but over well over half the squad are based in the midlands. I think we can assume that a lot of these lads might now be playing RL if they weren't given an opportunity at the Bears. Our all time record try scorer is a brummie, we've got players like Josh Dunne who'd played in the Irish provincial set up but never played RL, we've got Peter Ryan Irish born and bred who is coming up to 50 appearances in league 1. To add to this I haven't even mentioned the various players who got an opportunity at the Bears and are playing at a higher level. 

Some of the rest of the things here is completely wrong and as I said I can't be bothered to go through your whole post and tell you where your wrong. All I can say is that anyone reading it should take it with a very large pinch of salt. 

It's not designed to show Cov in a bad light as much as accurately reflect the overall position of participation, in counter to some of the other posts that suggest a dramatic increase in participation which there's no strong evidence for. I'd be keen to hear what stuff is inaccurate or misleading as most of it can be externally validated. 

The 2nd team stuff is a fact (look at the CLS league tables for 2015/16) and lack of over 16s (Cov's own website) is a documented fact, as is the Coventry Uni stuff (BUCS website). The Midlands u16s rep team player source is fact (as is where they're now playing), though you could argue Cov had more juniors than elsewhere and it didn't flow through to that rep team and I couldn't refute that. The Midlands Academy stuff is fact, I can probably name 10 players off the top of my head who followed that path to Cov (before returning to their junior club). I'll let you have Peter Ryan and Josh Dunne as two new players, which would take the count up to 5 - and will amend my original post accordingly as to not be misleading. I also mentioned your player from Birmingham in my original post. 

The stuff about hometown was an entirely valid way to look at it and not "speculation, inaccurate or untrue". I don't classify lads moving to the Midlands from places like Newcastle, Keighley or Hull as a new source of players, though I'm happy to accept our definitions differ here.  

Edited by Saint 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

I've heard this suggestion before and I'm sorry it just won't work. There is just not the clubs to make it work. Hemel are happy where they are, All Golds talk a good game but didn't even finish their season this year, Oxford no longer exist, and South Wales no longer exist. Its pointless even thinking about it until the Southern conference manages to grow further and clubs finish a full season. 

The Eastern Division of the CLS looks like a reasonably decent league (not a high enough standard for Coventry, but a worthwhile league in its own right), though the top three teams are a lot stronger than the others.

I'd be surprised if the Western Division can carry on (despite strong commitment by Swindon St George and Devon Sharks) as it is down to four teams and two of them forfeited multiple matches.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think all our clubs are worthy of investment. I don't think any of them deserve a pay cut, but Sky are paying less and the game hasn't filled that gap. 

You obviously don't think Championship clubs are worth their money as you just want to rob Peter to pay Paul. These things can't be looked at in isolation. 

But on the actual point of Coventry, if we went down a means tested route, they would score well in my eyes and be a high priority for funding. 

I agree that none of the clubs, in an ideal world, would be dealing with less funding going forward. I think League 1 represents fantastic value for money, whereas I think SL and the Championship offer lower vfm. Part of that is because the actual cost of League 1 is so low as an overall figure. 1.875% of the previous SL TV deal if all figures are correct i.e. £750,000 for league 1 on a £40 million TV deal - for comparison, if they retained the same percentage on the lower figure, each club would receive just over £45,000 rather than the 0.8% they'd be getting IF the £20,000 per year figure is correct - which would be easier for clubs to manage and would be a proportionate decrease.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, zylya said:

I agree that none of the clubs, in an ideal world, would be dealing with less funding going forward. I think League 1 represents fantastic value for money, whereas I think SL and the Championship offer lower vfm. Part of that is because the actual cost of League 1 is so low as an overall figure. 1.875% of the previous SL TV deal if all figures are correct i.e. £750,000 for league 1 on a £40 million TV deal - for comparison, if they retained the same percentage on the lower figure, each club would receive just over £45,000 rather than the 0.8% they'd be getting IF the £20,000 per year figure is correct - which would be easier for clubs to manage and would be a proportionate decrease.

Can't argue with that

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dave T said:

The same is being said of all clubs. SL clubs get criticised by everyone and everybody shares the failures of the game overall. 

I'm not sure I could support a reduction to every club in the game apart from Coventry tbh. 

The harsh reality is that finances are grim throughout the game.

Talk of restructure to 10  x 2 for SL is miles off when the RFL are left with  only £2m outside of the current SL to finance the rest of the pro / semi pro clubs. The finance gaps will never  be closed ( Ken Davey's spoken aim ) on that basis, with most League 1 left in a dreadful position.

Can supporting say Coventry to the expense of others be justified ? Probably not.

Is there a case for supporting League 1 more widely? Probably yes if those clubs have sustainable business plans in place.

But where will the money come from ?

The new working group recently launched has in fact it's priority task as just that ( whatever else you might read ).

And whilst all the 'shirt ripping' is going on on here spare a thought for the Community game. In the 2018 season NCL's 12 Premier sides travelled 24539 miles between them ( Kells and West Hull had almost 3k each ). A coach hire is typically £400- £650. This year not a penny in subsidy from the RFL and  from January Tier 4 and 5 between them will pay the RFL membership fees of approx £400k  yearly to help keep the  existing show on the road

And as for going amateur for League 1 that is unlikely.  Their business model  simply cannot match those of the amateur game whose structures are  more akin to those of RU. ( clubhouses , bars .multiple teams and large memberships etc )..

 I just looked at the Bears latest accounts ( and they are very well run). They  made a profit of £3k - take the RFL subsidy off them and where would they be ?   Most Northern Tier 4 clubs all have much  larger turnovers......

So yes finances are grim - very grim. Not just Up North.!.... And answers are needed urgently.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...