Secondary TV contract - BBC 🆚

[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,

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Derwent Parker said:

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

The only people who mention it are free from it

You shouldn't assume everyone thinks like you. 

At some stage though we have to face into the fact we don't have the funds to sustain some clubs. It's up to clubs whether they want to continue and sink into oblivion, or try and be part of a brighter future. 

And I'm not just blindly advocating mergers, I don't think they particularly work in the UK market, but when a club is little more than a town name and a shirt design, everything should be on the table. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, idrewthehaggis said:

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,

When I mentioned mergers, I was more referring to partnerships at low levels, I don't think forcing mergers of larger more successful clubs is going to happen. 

I agree on some of the centralisation, maybe this should have started with Academies and Women's teams, but effectively they just gave the clubs even more power by creating those aligned to existing clubs. 

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

You do - you just dont want to say it

Psychic now? Or simply spouting untruths as per?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, idrewthehaggis said:

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.

What money was wasted by the game on Toronto? I thought they were self-funded?

[Futtocks]

Oh Christ, is this thread's long and painful decline into DID!/DIDN'T!/DID!/DIDN'T!/DID!/DIDN'T!/DID! linger any longer?

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

You do - you just dont want to say it

There was a reason I kept asking ' why ' 

The only answer seemed to " because we did it before , and other sports do it " , no actual genuine " I think because ........... " 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

You shouldn't assume everyone thinks like you. 

At some stage though we have to face into the fact we don't have the funds to sustain some clubs. It's up to clubs whether they want to continue and sink into oblivion, or try and be part of a brighter future. 

And I'm not just blindly advocating mergers, I don't think they particularly work in the UK market, but when a club is little more than a town name and a shirt design, everything should be on the table. 

Yes but , when a club that is little more than a town name and a shirt design ' merges ' it becomes a club without a town name and a shirt design , so what then is actually left ? 

[M j M]

Mergers are simply not the answer if they create a new club at the same level as the existing ones. It would simply destroy a large chunk of one or both sets of fan bases.

You could make an argument for them if clubs come together for a higher purpose - ie to get a Cumbrian Super League club. But our structure, for good or bad, makes that difficult.

One thing Johnson got right on the BBC podcast was that being a northern sport was our strength. Being a stronghold in lots of local communities is another. We simply shouldn't be destroying these strengths on the back of fag packet ideas

 

Slashing away at existing clubs and existing supporters is no way to grow the game, we can't expand from such a stated position of weakness.

Edited September 17 by M j M

[gingerjon]

15 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

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

One set of 8s - the mediocre one - was interesting. The majority of the rest of the split was deathly.

[Dave T]

32 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

One set of 8s - the mediocre one - was interesting. The majority of the rest of the split was deathly.

I think with a tweak and open minds the Super 8s could have been more successful. 

Unfortunately the top 8 did need a form of points reset at the break - I'm not sure how some would have taken to that. The principle of the top teams playing each other was sound - but often the positions were relatively settled. I quite liked the idea of your position dictated where you played your games - you play everyone below you at your ground and points started at zero. 

I haven't thought that through, so not sure if that even works logistically! 

Edited September 17 by Dave T

[frank]

14 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

What money was wasted by the game on Toronto? I thought they were self-funded?

No money was wasted on Toronto in fact it was the reverse. Same with Leigh

[frank]

2 minutes ago, frank said:

No money was wasted on Toronto in fact it was the reverse.

 

[Dave T]

13 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

There was a reason I kept asking ' why ' 

The only answer seemed to " because we did it before , and other sports do it " , no actual genuine " I think because ........... " 

That simply isn't true. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

Mergers are simply not the answer if they create a new club at the same level as the existing ones. It would simply destroy a large chunk of one or both sets of fan bases.

You could make an argument for them if clubs come together for a higher purpose - ie to get a Cumbrian Super League club. But our structure, for good or bad, makes that difficult.

One thing Johnson got right on the BBC podcast was that being a northern sport was our strength. Being a stronghold in lots of local communities is another. We simply shouldn't be destroying these strengths on the back of fag packet ideas

 

Slashing away at existing clubs and existing supporters is no way to grow the game, we can't expand from such a stated position of weakness.

Mergers should never be forced, but when we have clubs very local to each other basically on life support, maybe without a home, nobody should be too proud to discuss/ consider them. 

The 1994/5 debacle around Mergers has definitely tainted thinking on them in this country. 

[Just Browny]

53 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I quite liked the idea of your position dictated where you played your games - you play everyone below you at your ground and points started at zero. 

I haven't thought that through, so not sure if that even works logistically! 

I'd vote for this.

Mostly to see Wigan deliberately losing games to ensure they didnt have to beg the football team for seven uses of their ground.

[Derwent Parker]

6 hours ago, M j M said:

Mergers are simply not the answer if they create a new club at the same level as the existing ones. It would simply destroy a large chunk of one or both sets of fan bases.

You could make an argument for them if clubs come together for a higher purpose - ie to get a Cumbrian Super League club. But our structure, for good or bad, makes that difficult.

One thing Johnson got right on the BBC podcast was that being a northern sport was our strength. Being a stronghold in lots of local communities is another. We simply shouldn't be destroying these strengths on the back of fag packet ideas

 

Slashing away at existing clubs and existing supporters is no way to grow the game, we can't expand from such a stated position of weakness.

That's what i was saying in the previous answer to Dave T 

"People only mentioned Mergers - when they know they are free from it"

Mostly the SG clubs - who wish all the "small clubs" merge - which means fewer clubs which funny enough means mote dosh for Super Greed clubs

 

[Derwent Parker]

20 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Psychic now? Or simply spouting untruths as per?

I knew you were gonna say that!

[idrewthehaggis]

My fault. "Waste" is probably too strong a word. Gamble might have been better. The miscalculation was not obviously RFL's but TWP's own backers. It was a difficult venture. Although it did keep Parkside on the bonnie go in his mature sunset years, which might have been its true legacy in hindsight.

Mergers. I could see merged facilities. A Heavy Woolen super stadium, the West Cumbria Dome? But clubs, like Toronto and Parky, that's gone too.

 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

That's what i was saying in the previous answer to Dave T 

"People only mentioned Mergers - when they know they are free from it"

Mostly the SG clubs - who wish all the "small clubs" merge - which means fewer clubs which funny enough means mote dosh for Super Greed clubs

 

All you do with comments like that is show how your brain works I. E. Self-interest. 

I care little about how much money my club gets, clubs will adapt to survive, but I do see a fair bit of self-interest here - arguments for Cov to have their money protected versus other clubs - disguised as people saying it's best for the game and then calling SL clubs Super Greed. 

If clubs are weak, can't secure enough funding, can't attract crowds, investment etc. nothing should be off the table. But it should all be self-driven, I don't believe in forcing these things. 

[Harry Stottle]

On 16/09/2021 at 17:21, Dave T said:

You shouldn't assume everyone thinks like you. 

At some stage though we have to face into the fact we don't have the funds to sustain some clubs. It's up to clubs whether they want to continue and sink into oblivion, or try and be part of a brighter future. 

And I'm not just blindly advocating mergers, I don't think they particularly work in the UK market, but when a club is little more than a town name and a shirt design, everything should be on the table. 

But as Derwent refers to Mergers is best advocated by the Nimby's amongst us.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

But as Derwent refers to Mergers is best advocated by the Nimby's amongst us.

Whilst others go hysterical at the mere mention of this m word.