Jump to content

‘A £100m offer could be made next month’


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Damien said:

This really makes no sense. It seems like loads of random sentences. 2x9s just beggars belief.

Please tell me how you would fund these 20 teams to not dumb down standards of the elite divison, not destroy SL and make it less attractive to broadcasters and fans but yet somehow keep the teams in the Championship, which is what the nonsensical SL2 really is, competitive. You've around £20 million to divvy up.

I also never said that Wakefield wouldn't be in a 14 team SL. Of course funding will reduce slightly compared to now but its growing the top flight and the pie and gets rid of loop fixtures. It is certainly better than fantasy nonsense of trying to split the funding 20 ways, which is what is needed for any sort of fantasy SL1 and SL2 cross competition nonsense to work. Even at that it doesn't.

I'm not sure what it is you don't understand. 

Graduated funding?

The central payments are split into 3 chunks. 

1. An upfront blanket payment to all clubs.

2. A payment for finishing position in the regular season graded from 1st to 20th, the higher you finish the more you get

3. A final payment dependent on how many playoff games you win. 

Tiered conferences?

Top 10 teams in SL1, next 10 in SL2. Play your own conference home and away and one game against each team in the other conference, 5 home 5 away. Total 28 rounds with cross-conference games spread through the season.

2x9?

just means 18 teams split in two. Which just means an odd number of cross conference games each week instead of an even number. The regular fixtures for each club would reduce from 28 to 25 allowing more time for internationals etc.

81 cross conference games in 25 rounds (3 per week for 22 rounds and 5 per week for 3 rounds) instead of 100 in 28 rounds (2 per week for 6 rounds and 4 per week for 22 rounds)

A single division of 14 teams would continue the current problems of cliff-edge relegation with 4 to 6 teams every year focused on avoiding potentially terminal relegation. This threat is debilitating to growth.

It's been suggested that funding is already down £450k with 12 teams. 14 teams of equal funding would reduce the pie even further. (to £1.3M?) Is that not dumbing down?

I don't think the changes will happen in 2023 but will be brought in with a new TV deal in 2024. This can be renegotiated to reflect an increase in teams from 12 to 20 (or 18). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

I'm not sure what it is you don't understand. 

Graduated funding?

The central payments are split into 3 chunks. 

1. An upfront blanket payment to all clubs.

2. A payment for finishing position in the regular season graded from 1st to 20th, the higher you finish the more you get

3. A final payment dependent on how many playoff games you win. 

Tiered conferences?

Top 10 teams in SL1, next 10 in SL2. Play your own conference home and away and one game against each team in the other conference, 5 home 5 away. Total 28 rounds with cross-conference games spread through the season.

2x9?

just means 18 teams split in two. Which just means an odd number of cross conference games each week instead of an even number. The regular fixtures for each club would reduce from 28 to 25 allowing more time for internationals etc.

81 cross conference games in 25 rounds (3 per week for 22 rounds and 5 per week for 3 rounds) instead of 100 in 28 rounds (2 per week for 6 rounds and 4 per week for 22 rounds)

A single division of 14 teams would continue the current problems of cliff-edge relegation with 4 to 6 teams every year focused on avoiding potentially terminal relegation. This threat is debilitating to growth.

It's been suggested that funding is already down £450k with 12 teams. 14 teams of equal funding would reduce the pie even further. (to £1.3M?) Is that not dumbing down?

I don't think the changes will happen in 2023 but will be brought in with a new TV deal in 2024. This can be renegotiated to reflect an increase in teams from 12 to 20 (or 18). 

You seem awfully reluctant to give any answers to the questions I posed and any examples when it comes to the financials. This is because it is unworkable. You are just rehashing arguments that were discredited on the league restructure thread.

12 to 14 elite clubs is certainly more workable than trying to prop up 20 full time mediocre clubs and wasting vast amounts on a 2nd tier that generates absolutely no TV revenue. Anything below SL should be funded to a part time level only because it contributes nothing to the overall pot and only serves to divert money away from the top flight and the very thing that Sky pay handsomely for. As we have seen by making the top flight worse then the game overall suffers and there is less for everyone. A strong SL and the entire game benefits, as per the last TV deal.

If we are to have one huge division with 2 conferences then that should be the Championship and League 1 were all teams are funded equally on a part time basis. This obviously does not preclude clubs from being full time if they desire but they should not be funded to be so, as happens now with a select group of Championship clubs. There is certainly a far stronger argument to do that at that level and at that level of funding with a clear demarcation between the full time and part time professional game.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

12 to 14 elite clubs is certainly more workable than trying to prop up 20 full time mediocre clubs and wasting vast amounts on a 2nd tier that generates absolutely no TV revenue. Anything below SL should be funded to a part time level only because it contributes nothing to the overall pot and only serves to divert money away from the top flight and the very thing that Sky pay handsomely for. As we have seen by making the top flight worse then the game overall suffers and there is less for everyone. A strong SL and the entire game benefits, as per the last TV deal.

I think the argument would be that the 2nd tier folds into the TV contract in the next negotiations rather than being sold separately and there'd be increased value there. If they're going to do this the funding for the 2nd tier in the short term would come from the title of the thread with the intention of growing the overall SL competition so the next TV deals (I think we should remember we are currently negotiating a second TV deal) are large enough to cover both divisions going forward. 

I've not formed a firm view on whether that's a smart thing to do but I think looking at it through the lens of we only have X amount so how can we pay for 20 clubs doesn't really come into it, it's sounds very likely there is going to be outside investment to get this plan off the ground. 

  • Like 1

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I think the argument would be that the 2nd tier folds into the TV contract in the next negotiations rather than being sold separately and there'd be increased value there. If they're going to do this the funding for the 2nd tier in the short term would come from the title of the thread with the intention of growing the overall SL competition so the next TV deals (I think we should remember we are currently negotiating a second TV deal) are large enough to cover both divisions going forward. 

I've not formed a firm view on whether that's a smart thing to do but I think looking at it through the lens of we only have X amount so how can we pay for 20 clubs doesn't really come into it, it's sounds very likely there is going to be outside investment to get this plan off the ground. 

What plan? If you are being taken in by the fanciful notion that we are going to go from 12 elite clubs to 20 then £100 million isn't going to go very far. It would be a colossal waste of money of a vanity project.

If we do get outside investment, and I am far from convinced that is the right thing to do, then the last thing that outside investment will want to do is prop up 20 clubs and waste all of that outside investment on clubs that add nothing to the bottom line. They is no market for outside investment to grow by simply giving small heartland teams a load of money to blow in a few seasons to then still be playing in front of small crowds and small stadiums.

Going from a position where clubs have fought having a 14 team Super League due to money to them all of a sudden welcoming Batley, Dewsbury and co just isn't going to happen, nor should it. Even the NRL don't have 20 clubs with far more money, players and corporate sponsorship than the game in the UK can dream of.

Also Sky aren't interested in paying and showing any more Rugby League than they currently do. They will not pay for the Championship and have never shown any inclination to pay for more SL games than they currently do. If they aren't interested in paying more to show 4 or 5 SL games a week at the moment they sure aren't going to be interested in paying more to show more because we rebrand the Championship to SL2. We've been there and done that when it comes to propping up the Championship to fold into the TV contract and it contributed nothing and its value after is still nothing. Lets stop wasting money on that mythical unicorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I've said it before but how many times do we have to go round with people promoting their favoured Mickey Mouse formats and ridiculous systems.

1. The divisional system with a twelve team Super League is not the root of the game's problems.  Leave it alone.

2. People are fed up of constant change. It's a sign of drift and desperation. Another change, to a ludicrous ten team league with myriad loops or to some contrived system pitting part timers against full time pros will only reinforce that. It will make things worse not better.

Deal with the real issues the game faces, not just ones which seem easy to change. It's madness.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Damien said:

You seem awfully reluctant to give any answers to the questions I posed and any examples when it comes to the financials. This is because it is unworkable. You are just rehashing arguments that were discredited on the league restructure thread.

12 to 14 elite clubs is certainly more workable than trying to prop up 20 full time mediocre clubs and wasting vast amounts on a 2nd tier that generates absolutely no TV revenue. Anything below SL should be funded to a part time level only because it contributes nothing to the overall pot and only serves to divert money away from the top flight and the very thing that Sky pay handsomely for. As we have seen by making the top flight worse then the game overall suffers and there is less for everyone. A strong SL and the entire game benefits, as per the last TV deal.

If we are to have one huge division with 2 conferences then that should be the Championship and League 1 were all teams are funded equally on a part time basis. This obviously does not preclude clubs from being full time if they desire but they should not be funded to be so, as happens now with a select group of Championship clubs. There is certainly a far stronger argument to do that at that level and at that level of funding with a clear demarcation between the full time and part time professional game.

What questions haven't I answered? 

Clearly more money is needed but the same is true with 14 clubs. At least there would be more to sell.

SL2 would initially be a lower standard, and lower funding, but not the cliff-edge financially that it is now and it would be worse still under your top flight takes all the money scheme. 

How would new teams get sustainable access to the 'elite 14' ?

Sky have shown that they're not interested in paying top dollar for the same old rubbish of 4-6 teams dominating a repetitive league. We need more variety and the opportunity for new teams to come in.

14 teams sharing out £20M wouldn't give an elite competition it would just protect the current top 4 or 5 teams. It would effectively be a closed shop with the bottom teams yo-yoing between full-time and part-time leagues, boom and bust without the opportunity to invest and grow. 

Do you believe the sport can expand and grow under the current system?

Discredited? By whom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

What questions haven't I answered? 

Clearly more money is needed but the same is true with 14 clubs. At least there would be more to sell.

SL2 would initially be a lower standard, and lower funding, but not the cliff-edge financially that it is now and it would be worse still under your top flight takes all the money scheme. 

How would new teams get sustainable access to the 'elite 14' ?

Sky have shown that they're not interested in paying top dollar for the same old rubbish of 4-6 teams dominating a repetitive league. We need more variety and the opportunity for new teams to come in.

14 teams sharing out £20M wouldn't give an elite competition it would just protect the current top 4 or 5 teams. It would effectively be a closed shop with the bottom teams yo-yoing between full-time and part-time leagues, boom and bust without the opportunity to invest and grow. 

Do you believe the sport can expand and grow under the current system?

Discredited? By whom?

How would you would fund these 20 teams to not dumb down standards of the elite division, not destroy SL and not make it less attractive to broadcasters and fans?

How do you keep the teams in the Championship, which is what the nonsensical SL2 really is, competitive?

You cant do one without failing to do the other. In reality, just as the bottom of SL struggles to be competitive on equal funding, it is impossible for small Championship clubs to be competitive with the top SL clubs even with equal funding. You aren't even proposing this but a sliding scale. Its also really odd that you think 14 teams sharing out £20M wouldn't give an elite competition and that it would just protect the current top 4 or 5 teams but yet 20 teams sharing £20 million does the opposite.  

How will you divide around £20 million to pay for your proposal? You keep rabbiting on about a sliding scale so please tell us how you would divide this £20 million to achieve this utopia for the game? I'm genuinely intrigued as to how you would do this because basic maths tells us what you are saying is impossible.

Edited by Damien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as tiered conferences. They are divisions which everyone would immediately recognise.  I am amazed people are trying to say a system that adds more loop fixtures gives huge chunks of cash to 2nd clubs whose tv rights have virtually no value and prevents clubs like Newcastle reaching their potential with an even smaller SL,  all whilst binning off clubs out of the twenty is a good idea. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

What questions haven't I answered? 

Clearly more money is needed but the same is true with 14 clubs. At least there would be more to sell.

SL2 would initially be a lower standard, and lower funding, but not the cliff-edge financially that it is now and it would be worse still under your top flight takes all the money scheme. 

How would new teams get sustainable access to the 'elite 14' ?

Sky have shown that they're not interested in paying top dollar for the same old rubbish of 4-6 teams dominating a repetitive league. We need more variety and the opportunity for new teams to come in.

14 teams sharing out £20M wouldn't give an elite competition it would just protect the current top 4 or 5 teams. It would effectively be a closed shop with the bottom teams yo-yoing between full-time and part-time leagues, boom and bust without the opportunity to invest and grow. 

Do you believe the sport can expand and grow under the current system?

Discredited? By whom?

It wouldnt because we would have more space for clubs like Newcastle and York who would be able to attract the extra income that SL exposure gives them.  2 10's is protecting the worst SL clubs to the detriment of the whole product. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Damien said:

What plan? If you are being taken in by the fanciful notion that we are going to go from 12 elite clubs to 20 then £100 million isn't going to go very far. It would be a colossal waste of money of a vanity project.

I don't know what the plan is, no one does, including you. We're just speculating on how 20 clubs could arise. I don't know why you think £100 million wouldn't go far if you gave every SL2 club 800k say you'd have over 10 years funding. I don't think there'd be any sane person who would look to bankroll it for that long but a few years is certainly possible. 

Quote

If we do get outside investment, and I am far from convinced that is the right thing to do, then the last thing that outside investment will want to do is prop up 20 clubs and waste all of that outside investment on clubs that add nothing to the bottom line. They is no market for outside investment to grow by simply giving small heartland teams a load of money to blow in a few seasons to then still be playing in front of small crowds and small stadiums.

I imagine they'll have in their mind clubs they want in the structure that will add to the bottom line. I doubt they're going to throw money at small heatland clubs in small stadiums I think they'll be looking to clubs with some level of ambition/growth potential.

Quote

Going from a position where clubs have fought having a 14 team Super League due to money to them all of a sudden welcoming Batley, Dewsbury and co just isn't going to happen, nor should it. Even the NRL don't have 20 clubs with far more money, players and corporate sponsorship than the game in the UK can dream of.

I don't think the expectation would be that Batley and Dewsbury would be in it for one. And I don't think there's a direct correlation between number of teams and wealth of the competition otherwise the Premier League would have 500 clubs. 

Quote

Also Sky aren't interested in paying and showing any more Rugby League than they currently do. They will not pay for the Championship and have never shown any inclination to pay for more SL games than they currently do. If they aren't interested in paying more to show 4 or 5 SL games a week at the moment they sure aren't going to be interested in paying more to show more because we rebrand the Championship to SL2. We've been there and done that when it comes to propping up the Championship to fold into the TV contract and it contributed nothing and its value after is still nothing. Lets stop wasting money on that mythical unicorn.

If the intention is to just rebrand the Championship SL2 then you're absolutely right. I'm not advocating doing that, I'm talking about the potential of growing the competition, reducing the gap between SL1 & SL2 to create a bigger, more vibrant and geographically diverse structure. We tried this in the TV deal previous by bringing in the middle 8s and got the biggest deal ever. I don't think we need to fall victim to fatalism. In addition we lost exclusivity with Sky in the last deal, we have the potential to sell to a second broadcaster now so Sky not wanting more games might be less of an issue.

Everything you've said is predicated on the idea that we will fund everything from the current Sky deal, that the current Sky deal will never get bigger, and that the SL2 clubs would be identical to the Championship clubs now. I'm just saying if the RFL and this investor are pushing this that they're probably not working on those parameters unless they're utterly insane. 

  • Like 3

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sweaty craiq said:

£100m will give you an annual return of at least £10m with any decent wealth investor. £2m pa on a decent sales campaign and £8m back to the clubs to drive the product and income

Which is why that *if* this money exists in the form that is implied way back at the start of this thread then it will be being put into the game with the expectation of a lot more bang for the buck than some slow burn tinkering will deliver.

  • Like 1

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

44 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Which is why that *if* this money exists in the form that is implied way back at the start of this thread then it will be being put into the game with the expectation of a lot more bang for the buck than some slow burn tinkering will deliver.

You give £8m to a SL club and it settles DL's for most then FA thereafter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

You give £8m to a SL club and it settles DL's for most then FA thereafter

To repeat: if the investment is from the source and of the scale stated earlier then those putting the money in will expect the entire landscape of the game to be altered in the fastest, simplest and most commercially attractive way possible.

A paltry return over a long time frame - which, as you said before, they could get anywhere - will not be expected and so literally all of the conversations on this thread will be irrelevant.

  • Like 4

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

11 hours ago, Damien said:

How would you would fund these 20 teams to not dumb down standards of the elite division, not destroy SL and not make it less attractive to broadcasters and fans?

How do you keep the teams in the Championship, which is what the nonsensical SL2 really is, competitive?

You cant do one without failing to do the other. In reality, just as the bottom of SL struggles to be competitive on equal funding, it is impossible for small Championship clubs to be competitive with the top SL clubs even with equal funding. You aren't even proposing this but a sliding scale. Its also really odd that you think 14 teams sharing out £20M wouldn't give an elite competition and that it would just protect the current top 4 or 5 teams but yet 20 teams sharing £20 million does the opposite.  

How will you divide around £20 million to pay for your proposal? You keep rabbiting on about a sliding scale so please tell us how you would divide this £20 million to achieve this utopia for the game? I'm genuinely intrigued as to how you would do this because basic maths tells us what you are saying is impossible.

As I said:

12 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

Clearly more money is needed but the same is true with 14 clubs. At least there would be more to sell.

£20M divided by 14 would also not support an "elite professional sport". How would this not be "dumbing down" from the current position?

The job of the league structure is not to generate income but to allow for growth and development of the sport which in turn will attract finance.

Rugby League in the Northern Hemisphere has specific challenges. It's underfunded, limited in geographical appeal and limited to the number of games teams can play. 

The current structure deters investment as the time and money required to get to the top table is prohibitive and the risk of failure is significant. Status quo is pretty much guaranteed combined with managed decline.

If a rich investor wanted to get Newcastle, say, to SL and stay there, how long would it take? What are the risks? Why would they bother?

Catalans have been the success story but their position was protected at a critical time. If they'd been relegated when they finished below Cas, where would they be now?

The game needs broader appeal to attract investment. It needs to grow to sustain that investment. The current system does not support that. 

The maximum number of teams in a single top flight division would be 14 (assuming the challenge cup and playoffs are kept). Two of those are likely to be French. In your plan these would be the only professional teams with no obvious route to get into that clique without great risk of failure. 

We can't expect to rely on £20M from a broadcaster to support the whole game, we need other investment. That could be from individuals or more diverse broadcast options.

The 20 teams would be full time. The initial tiered SL would allow a soft, low-risk entry point for clubs.

Being a single competition means the sky's the limit for their ambitions. A megabucks investor could, in theory, win the competition in the first year.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

As I said:

£20M divided by 14 would also not support an "elite professional sport". How would this not be "dumbing down" from the current position?

The job of the league structure is not to generate income but to allow for growth and development of the sport which in turn will attract finance.

Rugby League in the Northern Hemisphere has specific challenges. It's underfunded, limited in geographical appeal and limited to the number of games teams can play. 

The current structure deters investment as the time and money required to get to the top table is prohibitive and the risk of failure is significant. Status quo is pretty much guaranteed combined with managed decline.

If a rich investor wanted to get Newcastle, say, to SL and stay there, how long would it take? What are the risks? Why would they bother?

Catalans have been the success story but their position was protected at a critical time. If they'd been relegated when they finished below Cas, where would they be now?

The game needs broader appeal to attract investment. It needs to grow to sustain that investment. The current system does not support that. 

The maximum number of teams in a single top flight division would be 14 (assuming the challenge cup and playoffs are kept). Two of those are likely to be French. In your plan these would be the only professional teams with no obvious route to get into that clique without great risk of failure. 

We can't expect to rely on £20M from a broadcaster to support the whole game, we need other investment. That could be from individuals or more diverse broadcast options.

The 20 teams would be full time. The initial tiered SL would allow a soft, low-risk entry point for clubs.

Being a single competition means the sky's the limit for their ambitions. A megabucks investor could, in theory, win the competition in the first year.

No figures then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your solution to growing the game is to make Leeds Wigan and Saints competitive with Dewsbury, Whitehaven and Doncaster by bringing the first three closer down to the rest and putting everyone in the same competition, that is dumbing down. 

As a Leeds fan, I want clubs to overtake mine because they have grown and invested in doing so. Not because my club have had our limbs tied together so non-league football level organisations can pretend they're on the same level.

The irony is, that even if you did limit spending, cut funding, whatever, 25 years of the salary cap has provided undeniable proof that the big teams will still be at the top. As a player, if you're being paid peanuts anyway, you may as well go somewhere with good facilities where you will likely win something. 

If the past quarter of a century has taught us anything it is that the only way to break into the top echelon of clubs is to invest more money in doing so. Any "solution" which ignores that is no "solution" at all.

Edited by Tommygilf
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Damien said:

No figures then.

I did figures on another thread, but only as an example of the mechanism. The top teams could get as much as they do now. This was done on the premises that a decision to go to 2x10 had been made and no further finance was forthcoming. 

The point is, £19M is not enough for 12, 14 or 20 teams. We need more income not fewer teams.

19÷14=£1.36M what size and quality of squad can you get with that?

The status quo, or 14 teams, and abandoning everything outside that, is levelling down. The opportunities for growth are severely limited. The threat of relegation to oblivion would still prevent any long term investment. Going to only 10 fully funded clubs is even worse. 

The stories of Leigh, Widnes, London and Bradford would be repeated. Contracting not expanding.

It's like saying we'll only invest in infrastructure in London because that's the only place that makes any money. The rest of the country can wither and die but London would still be thriving. 

If we're interested in the whole country (sport) thriving we have to level up, not down.

The SL1 teams would only play SL2 teams once. You can only improve when you pit yourself against the best.

I would still go with 18 teams initially as Whitehaven and probably Batley are perhaps too far off the pace both playing and finance.

It would be much easier for Bradford or Widnes to attract investment if they were playing in SL, even if it's in the lower tier.

New investors would be reassured to take more risk.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

I did figures on another thread, but only as an example of the mechanism. The top teams could get as much as they do now. This was done on the premises that a decision to go to 2x10 had been made and no further finance was forthcoming. 

The point is, £19M is not enough for 12, 14 or 20 teams. We need more income not fewer teams.

19÷14=£1.36M what size and quality of squad can you get with that?

The status quo, or 14 teams, and abandoning everything outside that, is levelling down. The opportunities for growth are severely limited. The threat of relegation to oblivion would still prevent any long term investment. Going to only 10 fully funded clubs is even worse. 

The stories of Leigh, Widnes, London and Bradford would be repeated. Contracting not expanding.

It's like saying we'll only invest in infrastructure in London because that's the only place that makes any money. The rest of the country can wither and die but London would still be thriving. 

If we're interested in the whole country (sport) thriving we have to level up, not down.

The SL1 teams would only play SL2 teams once. You can only improve when you pit yourself against the best.

I would still go with 18 teams initially as Whitehaven and probably Batley are perhaps too far off the pace both playing and finance.

It would be much easier for Bradford or Widnes to attract investment if they were playing in SL, even if it's in the lower tier.

New investors would be reassured to take more risk.

I'm not sure why you keep replying and repeating yourself. If you aren't going to illustrate how what you keep proposing will work just leave it. One minute you are saying the top clubs will get as much as now the next you are saying it will be competitive. The top 5 clubs getting the same as now means the other 15 sharing about £10 million. How does that create a quality competitive 2 x 10s with competitive cross conference games. It doesn't. That is why I am asking what you propose for your tiered 1-20 in your 2 x 10s but you wont.

You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to know we need more income. Saying that does not fund the 2 x 10s that you are trying to put forward. Nor does wasting £100 million creating a glorified Championship that will do nothing to increase TV revenue. £100 million would be a once in a lifetime shot, make or break moment and to waste that propping up player wages to create a full time 2 x 10s is lunacy. We went down that roads spending millions on the Championship to fund full time teams and the TV deal was still worth nothing at the end of it. Once that money is gone its gone. Unless it is used to increase wealth and revenue and to grow the elite league to increase TV revenue then the game will just be back in the same place, or worse depending on the conditions attached.

Things like you only improve when you play against the best is nonsense to a huge degree. You only improve when you have the funding and resources to do so. There are Super League clubs that have barely progressed in 2 decades and others that still struggle with far more backing than exists at many Championship clubs. It takes far more than just playing the best teams to get better and to be competitive. Bradford and Widnes have both been in the top tier and have both fell from grace and had financial issues, being in the top tier then didn't help one bit when it came to getting investment and being competitive. Wakefield and Cas have been in SL for years and still have no real financial backer. Being in SL doesn't automatically make this investment happen like you seem to think.

Quite simply the game cannot afford more than 1 full time professional league. RU with considerably more wealth and resources doesn't even try and do it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with 2nd and 3rd tier leagues being part time and funded as such. Gimmicks like 2 x 10s, loop fixtures, cross conference games etc do absolutely nothing to solve the problems that RL faces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, gingerjon said:

To repeat: if the investment is from the source and of the scale stated earlier then those putting the money in will expect the entire landscape of the game to be altered in the fastest, simplest and most commercially attractive way possible.

A paltry return over a long time frame - which, as you said before, they could get anywhere - will not be expected and so literally all of the conversations on this thread will be irrelevant.

if you gave me £100m and let me run the game the league structure is probably one of the latter things i would look at.. there is so so so so much more that can be done with that money that would see more gain across the board than another restructure and giving money to clubs to fritter away.. The money would get to them but because of what you do with the £100m not because you divvy it up and give it to them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem for this proposed investment may not be the amount but how it is invested, by who, when and how those standards of funding allocation are adhered to by Owners/Clubs.   

I dont have any experience of such funding but imo there should be actual proof/evidence of success in those relevant areas (TBC), which fit the funding requirements.   Key indicators that have to be met, requirements v actuals, minimum spends, innovations, delivery of product (i.e number kids to pro level, sponsorship deal amounts, level of extra, TV figures, footfalls) etc.

We cannot forget that there should be things that Clubs have to foot from their own money.  Facilities maintenance, security, other staff funding (outside of essential staff/coaches). This will need some strong governance and monitoring.  A yearly 'check', or this stupid RFL 'light touch' will not be enough.

imho, I think the RFL have to be involved more than I believe Clubs want them to be.  My only issue with this will be that I don't have confidence in the current RFL leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/11/2021 at 17:50, Damien said:

Because they are 2 different divisions. They are not 2 conferences in the same division.

And yes it is pointless, boring and repetitive and that's why many are against it.

You have your terminology backwards there.  There's no such thing as "conferences in the same division", the way that structure works in the NFL, NBA and NCAA is that you have divisions in the same conference, not the other way around.

On 21/11/2021 at 18:19, sentoffagain2 said:

 So you want 10 or 12 teams same old and sod the rest.The top teams may have to come down at first but at least they will be living within their means and not spending 90% of income on players wages.Good players will be spread out over more teams as it used to be before the Bosman rule which favoured players contracts and wages over the clubs financial stability.

Where on Earth did you get the notion that the top clubs are spending 90% of their income on players?  Wigan's turnover in 2019 was 6,551,920 million £, the salary cap is less than 1/3 of that amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

You have your terminology backwards there.  There's no such thing as "conferences in the same division", the way that structure works in the NFL, NBA and NCAA is that you have divisions in the same conference, not the other way around.

I have not. I know what the terminology is in the US. We are using the terminology we would use here to equate it to what we have now. Using US terminology is nonsensical when debating our structure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RP London said:

if you gave me £100m and let me run the game the league structure is probably one of the latter things i would look at.. there is so so so so much more that can be done with that money that would see more gain across the board than another restructure and giving money to clubs to fritter away.. The money would get to them but because of what you do with the £100m not because you divvy it up and give it to them.

What would you do with it? Figures please, to stop Damien tearing his hair out? 

  • Confused 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...