Jump to content

Secondary TV contract - BBC 🆚


Recommended Posts


1 minute ago, Mr Frisky said:

Its like 2 goldfish in a small bowl just swimming in circles going over the same thing time after time after time...... let me know when you have seen the castle....

Why do you think the lower tiers should receive some of SLs TV revenue ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So , you don't know , but think it's fair , basically just because , if that's the case just say you don't know why 

What do you think they'll want in return ? 

I think its a good thing to do. I think thats why several other sports do it.

I have no idea what they will want in return. Given if any funding does come in it will be less than the current amount where as far as I can tell there is no obligation attached I do not see why there would be for less funding. That said I'm not opposed to any club receiving central funding, including and most importantly indeed Super League clubs, being subject to a certain amount of scrutiny over how it is being invested.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

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

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 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...