bobbruce Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 Squash clubs pay £55 for each court they have capped at four so £220 max. Then each adult member pays £15 but I think that can be reduced depending on how many members a club has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 17 minutes ago, Dave T said: The RFL doesn't generate enough income to run the game well - but nobody really wants to pay for it. For some reason people seem to think the pro game is full of billionaires acting like Scrooge. The Sky deal needs to deliver a quality top flight alive and can't afford to fund the whole sport. Things like this seem perfectly sensible, although I do understand why people get peed off when something is introduced. But people need to look at the bigger picture. What’s the bigger picture here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Gordon Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 As others have said, it will inevitably mean a noticeable drop off in playing numbers in 2022, which may have the effect of reducing government funding. How will the RFL explain falling numbers to government agencies? It will also be a ball ache for those volunteers chasing people up to register - already a painful job. I like to get everyone I can to re-register between January and February. This will be much harder in 2022. I'd rather keep registration free and ask clubs to pay an RFL levy. It would be easier all round for us to just raise the annual sub amount and then skim off the RFL's share (which I agree they need). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 15 minutes ago, Spidey said: What’s the bigger picture here? That the sport needs to increase income to be funded properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 6 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said: As others have said, it will inevitably mean a noticeable drop off in playing numbers in 2022, which may have the effect of reducing government funding. How will the RFL explain falling numbers to government agencies? It will also be a ball ache for those volunteers chasing people up to register - already a painful job. I like to get everyone I can to re-register between January and February. This will be much harder in 2022. I'd rather keep registration free and ask clubs to pay an RFL levy. It would be easier all round for us to just raise the annual sub amount and then skim off the RFL's share (which I agree they need). As a club you can still choose to do it that way. I know my old amateur club pays it that way. It also means they don’t put off some family’s who wouldn’t be able to pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Gordon Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 Just now, bobbruce said: As a club you can still choose to do it that way. I know my old amateur club pays it that way. It also means they don’t put off some family’s who wouldn’t be able to pay it. Not according to yesterday's email: Registration for the 2022 season and Our League Active will open in the New Year and you will sign-up as you have done in previous seasons via GameDay with the simple addition of a payment window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said: Not according to yesterday's email: Registration for the 2022 season and Our League Active will open in the New Year and you will sign-up as you have done in previous seasons via GameDay with the simple addition of a payment window. This is one of the main stumbling blocks the teams are raising. In the presentation it mentions clubs may be able to pay centrally. But no detail yet on how this will work. Like everything the devil is in the detail and there isn’t enough in the public domain yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 6 minutes ago, Dave T said: That the sport needs to increase income to be funded properly. That’s ultimately the case. The RFL have to balance the books, the general feeling is they’re doing this via the community game and not the pros I know all of the clubs are having funding cuts, for community clubs they weren’t getting direct funding per say but now have significantly increased league fees I’m not against fees, but what we’re seeing here is a cost of around £150 rising to £1500 per team - it should have been much more gradual. The RFL are trying to list discounted tickets and the like as a benefit for individuals - they’re not winning people over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 50 minutes ago, Spidey said: That’s ultimately the case. The RFL have to balance the books, the general feeling is they’re doing this via the community game and not the pros But that makes very little sense given that they are cutting funding to the pro game and openly discussing offloading several semi pro clubs. 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 More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 7 hours ago, nadera78 said: 1. £24? That's not even a round of drinks 2. Every sport I've ever played requires a similar fee, I'm amazed RL's never done this before Spoken like a true amateur. Hear Hear! It amounts to a cheap pint of bitter a month, big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RigbyLuger Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 7 hours ago, chisholm said: Finally what about the unemployed player who is to proud to say they can't afford this ? Will they just stay away rather than say this . Couldn't their mates chuck in a quid or two each to pay his/her fee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 1 hour ago, gingerjon said: But that makes very little sense given that they are cutting funding to the pro game and openly discussing offloading several semi pro clubs. It’s all relative. The pro game are having funding cuts. The community game and having extra charges imposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 29 minutes ago, Spidey said: It’s all relative. The pro game are having funding cuts. The community game and having extra charges imposed There’s no more family silver for the RFL to sell. I understand a lot of the worries but can’t really see an alternative given that the RFL should have been doing this already. 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 More sharing options...
Spidey Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, gingerjon said: There’s no more family silver for the RFL to sell. I understand a lot of the worries but can’t really see an alternative given that the RFL should have been doing this already. The RFL could have used the money they got from the SL to cover the costs of the community game first before giving out cash to the Championship & League One. The vast majority of players at SL Academies are provided to them by community clubs after 10 years development The RFL up to now have not disclosed how much it was costing to run the community game - community clubs simply don’t trust them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 6 minutes ago, Spidey said: The RFL could have used the money they got from the SL to cover the costs of the community game first before giving out cash to the Championship & League One. The vast majority of players at SL Academies are provided to them by community clubs after 10 years development The RFL up to now have not disclosed how much it was costing to run the community game - community clubs simply don’t trust them The reduction in funding will be costing everyone. Coventry don't think they should feel a cut. Community clubs don't feel they should feel the cut. I have no doubts some SL chairmen don't feel they should feel the cut. SL clubs will have to fill financial blackholes, probably from the banks or owners. Clubs and the game lower down who don't have backers will need to get income elsewhere, this seems a perfectly reasonable way of doing it. I do understand some people being unhappy, and I see people are complaining it hasn't been communicated and they don't know what the payment is for, but let's be honest, in this scenario it wouldn't matter what the RFL did, its a new cost and never going to be accepted with open arms. But there is no greed here it's clearly survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death to the Rah Rah's Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 I don’t even know where to start with all this. I would like to see the results of the consultation as I’ll bet it has ignored all the concerns of the regional leagues. the whole process has been nothing more than a ‘tick box’ exercise to show Sport England that they have consulted with clubs. the RFL seem intent on driving the ‘pay to play’ tax through at any costs. The ‘benefits’ are a joke, what bloody good is a saving on tickets to watch the RL challenge cup! why hasn’t the costs associated with running the amateur game been made public and open to scrutiny by the local clubs and league managements? what benefits are the community clubs now receiving that they didn’t get under the BARLA umbrella? Why hasn’t this been brought in as a club affiliation fee with a cap at say £2500 per club as opposed to the individual fee? Community clubs are now being penalised for doing the player development work for the sport of RL. every club administrator in the country can see the potential damage and negative effect on playing numbers, but all these concerns have been ignored. Usual show from the RFL !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idrewthehaggis Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 For me the issue of a lack of transparency is a huge issue. The fees aren't the issue. What the monies will be spent on by the blessed RFL is. If the figures involved were known, people could gain clarity. That they aren't, just makes you feel suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 8 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said: For me the issue of a lack of transparency is a huge issue. The fees aren't the issue. What the monies will be spent on by the blessed RFL is. If the figures involved were known, people could gain clarity. That they aren't, just makes you feel suspicious. Yep. There’s a feeling they’re trying to get more money in than will go out. Hence the worry it’s a subsidy for the administration of the pro game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
del capo Posted October 17, 2021 Share Posted October 17, 2021 Hunt and Denning ( both have sharp business brains ) for the NCL went through the books at the RFL offices at Salford Quays several months ago. They were shown breakdown figures and it costs £700k approx to service the 'core' community game each year. 7 employees at a cost of approx £200k totally dedicated to just that for starters. Sport England have told the RFL they will no longer pay for that type of expenditure., preferring instead to fund the 'expansion ' stuff - disability, women etc... This levy will raise approx £400k each year, substantially short of what is really needed and nothing will be spilling over to the Pro game. Who pays for that going forward ? The RFL can't and the pro game won't. All community clubs have had the picture presented to them more than once. Some Leagues think they can get appropriately qualified volunteers to provide the same services the RFL currently give., Really? Where from ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted October 17, 2021 Author Share Posted October 17, 2021 2 hours ago, del capo said: Hunt and Denning ( both have sharp business brains ) for the NCL went through the books at the RFL offices at Salford Quays several months ago. They were shown breakdown figures and it costs £700k approx to service the 'core' community game each year. 7 employees at a cost of approx £200k totally dedicated to just that for starters. Sport England have told the RFL they will no longer pay for that type of expenditure., preferring instead to fund the 'expansion ' stuff - disability, women etc... This levy will raise approx £400k each year, substantially short of what is really needed and nothing will be spilling over to the Pro game. Who pays for that going forward ? The RFL can't and the pro game won't. All community clubs have had the picture presented to them more than once. Some Leagues think they can get appropriately qualified volunteers to provide the same services the RFL currently give., Really? Where from ? Yep know volunteers are not the answer. I’m a bit interested in the other £500k that’s required on top of the £200k in salaries. For the most part running sports league is labour costs to manage administration of it. clubs pay for kits, pitches, training, referees, insurance etc IT infrastructure would be one thing, but as this is shared with the pro game - has this been shared out accordingly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.