Secondary TV contract - BBC 🆚

[GUBRATS]

So basically because others do it , and to be ' nice ' 

No such thing as a free lunch 

[LeeF]

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Right here:

 

The key word is “may”. As you know that does not mean that you do

[Tommygilf]

54 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The key word is “may”. As you know that does not mean that you do

So you admit you wrongly assumed?

[Dave T]

It isn't controversial to share the money across divisions. Its probably what everyone here thinks should be done, and is no surprise that the SL clubs also feel the same, despite all the super greed childishness. 

Without funding we hear that these clubs will die, and it is not a controversial view that the game will be weaker with fewer teams. 

What that level is is the debating point, but I suspect there is a lot of politics at play. Everyone is taking a cut, and we adapt to survive. 

The bit I worry about is the youth development, is there still ring fenced funding for things like the Foundation, youth coaching and Sky Try schemes? Or is this basically the stuff we are talking about as the likes of Coventry, Newcastle etc were part of that scheme? 

[GUBRATS]

26 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It isn't controversial to share the money across divisions. Its probably what everyone here thinks should be done, and is no surprise that the SL clubs also feel the same, despite all the super greed childishness. 

Without funding we hear that these clubs will die, and it is not a controversial view that the game will be weaker with fewer teams. 

What that level is is the debating point, but I suspect there is a lot of politics at play. Everyone is taking a cut, and we adapt to survive. 

The bit I worry about is the youth development, is there still ring fenced funding for things like the Foundation, youth coaching and Sky Try schemes? Or is this basically the stuff we are talking about as the likes of Coventry, Newcastle etc were part of that scheme? 

Which is why I was asking the question ? 

Do the SL clubs genuinely want to pass some of their hard earned to the lower tiers ? , Or do they just feel obligated as it's happened in the past ? 

Are they really bothered if some heartland clubs disappear ?

Are they only really bothered about losing expansion clubs that might one day become SL clubs giving the competition more credence and therefore income ( as long as they don't become genuine competition , which might explain them not being very generous to Toronto ) ?

What do they want in return ? 

[Cerulean]

13 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Given that the sum total of every deal combined for rugby league outside of Super League stands, in total, at £0, I think we can assume that, yes, it is self evident that the distribution from Super League to the rest of rugby league through the TV deal is above what it would be if left to market value.

That, as I suspect you well know, is a disingenuous inference from a dubious premise.

However: the money passed on to the lower divisions could be seen as the buying of essential support services. Or not, if you don't want it to seem like that, or if you believe that Super League could exist comfortably without this particular underlying structure, or any underlying structure, or if you could be certain that Super League could develop (and pay for) a different underlying structure of its own design.

[GUBRATS]

40 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

What that level is is the debating point, but I suspect there is a lot of politics at play. Everyone is taking a cut, and we adapt to survive. 

Indeed , what is a ' fair ' level ? 

That for some will allow survival , for others probably not , is it ' fair ' to means test ? 

 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Cerulean said:

That, as I suspect you well know, is a disingenuous inference from a dubious premise.

However: the money passed on to the lower divisions could be seen as the buying of essential support services. Or not, if you don't want it to seem like that, or if you believe that Super League could exist comfortably without this particular underlying structure, or any underlying structure, or if you could be certain that Super League could develop (and pay for) a different underlying structure of its own design.

That's fundamentally different things though. 1 is the value to Super League and RL. The other is the market value of TV broadcasting rights. 

Conflating the two does nothing for clarity or facts.

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Which is why I was asking the question ? 

Do the SL clubs genuinely want to pass some of their hard earned to the lower tiers ? , Or do they just feel obligated as it's happened in the past ? 

Are they really bothered if some heartland clubs disappear ?

Are they only really bothered about losing expansion clubs that might one day become SL clubs giving the competition more credence and therefore income ( as long as they don't become genuine competition , which might explain them not being very generous to Toronto ) ?

What do they want in return ? 

I don't think SL clubs will be paying £2m out of a sense of duty - they certainly didn't to Toronto, and have been mean-spirited with Leigh. 

I make this point often, I don't think there are evil greedy people running the game, I simply think it is people trying to do their best - the problem is they can't all agree on what is best, and they all have vastly different skillsets/CV's on running their club and/or the game. 

Let's be honest, the TV money dropped to such a level that it would have been easy for SL to say we can't afford to fund lower divisions. But I don't think anybody thinks that is a good thing to do.

EDIT: I think sometimes we are guilty of overthinking it, particularly the Toronto point, and make it like a soap opera. In reality, the Toronto expansion was out of the blue and weird - but was self-funding (that was the sales pitch) - I don't think the SL clubs trusted Argyle one bit and refused to hand over a couple of million for this 'billionaires' plaything. I don't think things are as calculated as how competitive a team is etc. Within the fanbase the view on TWP was very split - it is no surprise it also was within the leadership of the game.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Indeed , what is a ' fair ' level ? 

That for some will allow survival , for others probably not , is it ' fair ' to means test ? 

 

Fair is also a bit of a red-herring. Affordable, may be the better word. 

I think we are at a point where a radical overhaul is needed. And I don't mean 2 x 10 or owt like that, I mean the whole governance piece and funding allocations. I do think there is a discussion to be had on mergers and feeder clubs at the lowest levels, rather than sustaining some clubs on life-support. 

I think there is a discussion to be had on what is the purpose and contribution of each lub, so yes, maybe there is something around means test.

[Damien]

I'm surprised the question mark on Gubrats keyboard still works it gets that much use.

[GUBRATS]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Fair is also a bit of a red-herring. Affordable, may be the better word. 

I think we are at a point where a radical overhaul is needed. And I don't mean 2 x 10 or owt like that, I mean the whole governance piece and funding allocations. I do think there is a discussion to be had on mergers and feeder clubs at the lowest levels, rather than sustaining some clubs on life-support. 

I think there is a discussion to be had on what is the purpose and contribution of each lub, so yes, maybe there is something around means test.

That'd keep us busy on here , means testing and criteria

Anyway better get some work done , I don't get paid for spending time on RL MBs , unlike some

[GUBRATS]

Just now, Damien said:

I'm surprised the question mark on Gubrats keyboard still works it gets that much use.

Maybe if people tried answering the unpalatable questions truthfully we'd get somewhere ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Damien]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Maybe if people tried answering the unpalatable questions truthfully we'd get somewhere ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

They don't have to just sit there answering your questions. Over the last 3 pages you have done nothing but ask more and more questions whilst offering absolutely nothing. People make lengthy replies and you respond with a lame 1 line questions. That is not a discussion or debate.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

They don't have to just sit there answering your questions. Over the last 3 pages you have done nothing but ask more and more questions whilst offering absolutely nothing. People make lengthy replies and you respond with a lame 1 line questions. That is not a discussion or debate.

Replies , not answers , that's the clue 

[gingerjon]

52 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

That, as I suspect you well know, is a disingenuous inference from a dubious premise.

However: the money passed on to the lower divisions could be seen as the buying of essential support services. Or not, if you don't want it to seem like that, or if you believe that Super League could exist comfortably without this particular underlying structure, or any underlying structure, or if you could be certain that Super League could develop (and pay for) a different underlying structure of its own design.

The value to the game is a different thing to the market value to a broadcaster (or anyone else).

Right now, all the evidence, is that the lower tiers of professional and semi professional rugby league have £0 of value to a broadcaster.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

So you admit you wrongly assumed?

No I assumed nothing. You may or you may not but then you probably know that 

[Kayakman]

48 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think SL clubs will be paying £2m out of a sense of duty - they certainly didn't to Toronto, and have been mean-spirited with Leigh. 

I make this point often, I don't think there are evil greedy people running the game, I simply think it is people trying to do their best - the problem is they can't all agree on what is best, and they all have vastly different skillsets/CV's on running their club and/or the game. 

Let's be honest, the TV money dropped to such a level that it would have been easy for SL to say we can't afford to fund lower divisions. But I don't think anybody thinks that is a good thing to do.

EDIT: I think sometimes we are guilty of overthinking it, particularly the Toronto point, and make it like a soap opera. In reality, the Toronto expansion was out of the blue and weird - but was self-funding (that was the sales pitch) - I don't think the SL clubs trusted Argyle one bit and refused to hand over a couple of million for this 'billionaires' plaything. I don't think things are as calculated as how competitive a team is etc. Within the fanbase the view on TWP was very split - it is no surprise it also was within the leadership of the game.

It started off as a weird new idea, caught on, once in SL promised funding was welched on, could have been a great success for everyone involved but it devolved due to indifference from Elstone et al. and bills were not paid etc.

History will view it as a huge missed opportunity by SL and RL in general....in the long term it may be seen/probably will be seen as a fatal error not to go with it.....too bad really.   Sad.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

It started off as a weird new idea, caught on, once in SL promised funding was welched on, could have been a great success for everyone involved but it devolved due to indifference from Elstone et al. and bills were not paid etc.

History will view it as a huge missed opportunity by SL and RL in general....in the long term it may be seen/probably will be seen as a fatal error not to go with it.....too bad really.   Sad.

We don't need to go round this all again, and I agree it should have been embraced more once the club was up and running and had proven there was a market in Toronto, but I also think the complete lack of trust around Argyle was perfectly valid. I do think however that funding could have been agreed with guarantees, or even paid 12m in arrears if there were real concerns. 

It won't be a fatal error, it will go down as a missed opportunity to follow through on a positive and exciting initiative.

[Kayakman]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We don't need to go round this all again, and I agree it should have been embraced more once the club was up and running and had proven there was a market in Toronto, but I also think the complete lack of trust around Argyle was perfectly valid. I do think however that funding could have been agreed with guarantees, or even paid 12m in arrears if there were real concerns. 

It won't be a fatal error, it will go down as a missed opportunity to follow through on a positive and exciting initiative.

I really hope it doesn't but i think that it might.    I've been following from a distance what is going on and I hate to say it but some folks clearly predicted the lowered TV contract etc.  There does not seem to be much vision or an ability to have a good long term plan and then the fortitude to carry it out.....if Toronto was still in the SL I think these things would have certainly played out differently and for the better.   I guess some folks just don't like new things and then balk.

[steve oates]

14 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

Of course, if you take the foundations away from anything in life the top will fall at some point.

The foundations of the game are not as you indicate i.e. clubs in the very lower reaches of the pro-game.

Have a look at the strength and spread of the National Conference league, womens super league, North west Youth, Yorkshire juniors and schools leagues etc.

We'd benefit greatly if a load of SKY money went into that, and it's those set up,s are why the top isn't falling.

London Skolars, West Wales, Coventry, Hunslet, Doncaster etc  aren't the "foundations" of the game.

[Derwent Parker]

On 13/09/2021 at 20:03, Tommygilf said:

Well the product is second division RL, its clearly not worth the amount it has been getting for 6 years from Super League - though I don't think SL should cut off all funding.

You do - you just dont want to say it

[Derwent Parker]

On 13/09/2021 at 17:17, GUBRATS said:

Yes I know it's lived past the 8s , but was it the introduction of the 8s that convinced SKY to pay what they did ? , Who's decision was it to end the 8s ? , And were SKY consulted ? 

The 8s were the most interesting part about SL.

I believe that the Sky money is down because 8s were cancelled - BY SL because All SL clubs sh*****g themselves that maybe, just maybe one of these years the 4 champ clubs would finish top and force 4 SL clubs down.

So they pulled up the drawbridge and all secretly - some not so secretly want to stop P&R altogether to protect their millions

[Derwent Parker]

On 14/09/2021 at 09:28, Dave T said:

Fair is also a bit of a red-herring. Affordable, may be the better word. 

I think we are at a point where a radical overhaul is needed. And I don't mean 2 x 10 or owt like that, I mean the whole governance piece and funding allocations. I do think there is a discussion to be had on mergers and feeder clubs at the lowest levels, rather than sustaining some clubs on life-support. 

I think there is a discussion to be had on what is the purpose and contribution of each lub, so yes, maybe there is something around means test.

You mentioned Merger - That probably means your club is not one going to merge.

The only people who mention it are free from it

[idrewthehaggis]

On 14/09/2021 at 09:28, Dave T said:

Fair is also a bit of a red-herring. Affordable, may be the better word. 

I think we are at a point where a radical overhaul is needed. And I don't mean 2 x 10 or owt like that, I mean the whole governance piece and funding allocations. I do think there is a discussion to be had on mergers and feeder clubs at the lowest levels, rather than sustaining some clubs on life-support. 

I think there is a discussion to be had on what is the purpose and contribution of each lub, so yes, maybe there is something around means test.

I agree with this. If there was a unifying, robust central body that could collectively co-ordinate much of the running of the game, then we would see greater cohesion, transparency, fairness, organization, direction and a reduction in running costs.

I mean surely the game needs a centre of excellence and a rationization of Academies from club to region. Surely it would be better if we had central contracting?

Currently it feels partly amateurish, ad hoc and at times rigged and biased. 

Structures of competitions are not the solution to reductions in TV money, participation, attendances, the lack of talents, the development of skills sets for players, coaches and referees and some poor facilities. 

Money has been too often been wasted on speculative failures - Denver, Toronto, PE or in the backpocket of "administrators" or in ever increasing fewer hands.

The SKY money created a complancy in which alternative revenue streams were not developed or delivered.

Dave I pretty much agree with you bar mergers. I don't think realistically "regional" clubs would work unless we took the Pro 16 model and retained the local clubs in an immediate league below. And I doubt that would work,