Odsal Sports City

[Dave T]

Just now, Scubby said:

Bloody typical   I bet your firm is one of those pushing for a 4-day working week with you as chief protagonist!

I'm not working longer hours mate! 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

Bloody typical   I bet your firm is one of those pushing for a 4-day working week with you as chief protagonist!

Why would anybody want a 4 day working week when they can get paid for 5 days to post on total RL fans ?

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I'm not working longer hours spending any more time on here than I have to mate! 

Helped you out there!

[GUBRATS]

I've worked 68 days this year , more than enough

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Why would anybody want a 4 day working week when they can get paid for 5 days to post on total RL fans ?

I'll have to come back to you there mate, the office is calling!

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, the current state of play confirms that. 

The unbalanced funding of the Championship began with the Super 8s.

The 8s essentially killed interest in the SL play offs and replaced it with smaller levels of interest in relegation/promotion.

The remaining clubs in the league set-up had even more boring pretend tournaments to play in.

Yes. What a great time that was.

(And, I believe it was confirmed multiple times, Sky's investment was not dependent on the 8s. But their investment was lower following it.)

[Scubby]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The unbalanced funding of the Championship began with the Super 8s.

The 8s essentially killed interest in the SL play offs and replaced it with smaller levels of interest in relegation/promotion.

The remaining clubs in the league set-up had even more boring pretend tournaments to play in.

Yes. What a great time that was.

(And, I believe it was confirmed multiple times, Sky's investment was not dependent on the 8s. But their investment was lower following it.)

Martin will be along in a minute to advocate in relation to these points.

The game signed a £200m deal and by 2022 we have SL squad players at top six clubs on £15k per year (give those forbearers a medal!)

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

The reading I get from this is that Nigel is more the CFO type than CEO.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The unbalanced funding of the Championship began with the Super 8s.

The 8s essentially killed interest in the SL play offs and replaced it with smaller levels of interest in relegation/promotion.

The remaining clubs in the league set-up had even more boring pretend tournaments to play in.

Yes. What a great time that was.

(And, I believe it was confirmed multiple times, Sky's investment was not dependent on the 8s. But their investment was lower following it.)

Sky have always said they are not concerned with how we govern our game, but the ££s speak for themselves. They won't dictate what we want, but they will invest based on what we offer. 

That was the only time they ever increased money hugely (apart from the first SL deal, where we also overhauled our game). I'm sure you don't believe that is a coincidence. 

On the Super 8s, we've disagreed on this many times, your point about it killing off the playoffs is not supported by facts at all. I'm aware how many sports you watch GJ, I'm surprised you found it so difficult to enjoy the playoffs as well as the middle 8s.

The S8's had many flaws (what were the tier 3 8 playing for?) but the point you raise just isn't supported by crowds, viewing figures or anything. It's personal preference. 

We are seeing more and more unusual structures in sports nowadays and there is no reason why creative structures and comps can't work in RL if people just chill out and enjoy it. 

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

Sky invested I creased funds knowing about the Super 8s.

They covered more games than ever and embraced it. 

The clubs and fans trashed it, a coup followed and it was scrapped. 

I know which turn of events I believe was the bigger impact there. And that's not to say the S8s was the answer, but it was better than what followed which was a lack of vision and us going into our shell. 

As I said your view on this depends on whether you think the decisions were correct. There was little visionary about copying a failed gimmick from other sports. It's a fundamental to look at why something failed before you adopt something and Wood very obviously didn't do this or it wouldn't have been implemented. 

Despite a bumper TV deal we did not increase the value of SL during that TV deal and the next TV deal was drastically less. That and the fact the Super 8s was almost universally unpopular, which saw it scrapped fairly quickly, showed that these decisions and this money was wasted.

His decisions saw a contraction of the top flight from 14 teams to 12 and we ultimately now ended up with the ridiculous and unpopular loop fixtures that we have today. We also created no meaningful mid season international calendar. The community game and Southern clubs went into free fall. Much of the good work of Richard Lewis was destroyed because of his tenure.

[Dave T]

Just now, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

The reading I get from this is that Nigel is more the CFO type than CEO.

There is maybe something in that, and he was Richard Lewis' sidekick for a spell. 

I think the game need a better team of leaders rather than this reliance (perceived or otherwise) on one person 

[Scubby]

5 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

The reading I get from this is that Nigel is more the CFO type than CEO.

And Ralph is more a CFA

[Dave T]

 

 

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

As I said your view on this depends on whether you think the decisions were correct. There was little visionary about copying a failed gimmick from other sports. It's a fundamental to look at why something failed before you adopt something and Wood very obviously didn't do this or it wouldn't have been implemented. 

Despite a bumper TV deal we did not increase the value of SL during that TV deal and the next TV deal was drastically less. That and the fact the Super 8s was almost universally unpopular, which saw it scrapped fairly quickly, showed that these decisions and this money was wasted.

His decisions saw a contraction of the top flight from 14 teams to 12 and we ultimately now ended up with the ridiculous and unpopular loop fixtures that we have today. We also created no meaningful mid season international calendar. The community game and Southern clubs went into free fall. Much of the good work of Richard Lewis was destroyed because of his tenure.

I partly agree. I don't agree with many of Wood's decisions, but I dont necessarily buy that they were black and white and they were wrong. 

I can understand why he wanted to fund the lower divisions more, I can understand why he wanted ring fenced funding for things like Sky Try, I can understand why he ring fenced funding from world cup investment. I broadly agree with those (not the % splits). 

I didn't agree with the scrapping of licensing (or the way it was implemented in the first place), I didn't agree with the approach to GB, but ultimately I accept that we all have different ideas on how we'd do things and I don't think there is a right and wrong. 

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The S8's had many flaws (what were the tier 3 8 playing for?) but the point you raise just isn't supported by crowds, viewing figures or anything. It's personal preference. 

I'm doing my best to base it on a combination of personal preference *and* how they were viewed at the time, and the responses we had to them.

It really did feel like the focus of the game switched for long stretches from the top of the table and jockeying for play-off position - and then the play-offs being a step up again - to prolonged indulgence of the bottom of the table and really only at the very end did we get that burst of intensity that the play-offs, even when crowds didn't show up as they had during the league, had usually managed to provide from the off.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

 

I partly agree. I don't agree with many of Wood's decisions, but I dont necessarily buy that they were black and white and they were wrong. 

I can understand why he wanted to fund the lower divisions more, I can understand why he wanted ring fenced funding for things like Sky Try, I can understand why he ring fenced funding from world cup investment. I broadly agree with those (not the % splits). 

I didn't agree with the scrapping of licensing (or the way it was implemented in the first place), I didn't agree with the approach to GB, but ultimately I accept that we all have different ideas on how we'd do things and I don't think there is a right and wrong. 

I think the consistent across of those decisions - good and bad - is a failure of delivery and a failure to keep going with them.

But that predates Wood and has continued after him.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I'm doing my best to base it on a combination of personal preference *and* how they were viewed at the time, and the responses we had to them.

It really did feel like the focus of the game switched for long stretches from the top of the table and jockeying for play-off position - and then the play-offs being a step up again - to prolonged indulgence of the bottom of the table and really only at the very end did we get that burst of intensity that the play-offs, even when crowds didn't show up as they had during the league, had usually managed to provide from the off.

I definitely wouldnt have kept the 8s as they were, they needed a lot of work. But i found them interesting. 

I think a lot of the analysis was flawed - people looking at lower summer crowds which has been a part of the game for years as proof interest wasnt there. The execution was dire around season tickets and branding. 

I quite like some of the comparisons to F1 qualifying and Golf cuts, but as with everything we had trouble positioning it. 

So I do accept. Many of the challenges of the 8s, but I dont think the principle of what they were trying to do was necessarily bad. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think the consistent across of those decisions - good and bad - is a failure of delivery and a failure to keep going with them.

But that predates Wood and has continued after him.

Agreed. Many who hated the 8s, preferred licensing - we abandoned them both. 

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think the consistent across of those decisions - good and bad - is a failure of delivery and a failure to keep going with them.

But that predates Wood and has continued after him.

But when those decisions are fundamentally poor they should be scrapped ASAP, like the middle 8s.

People in the sport should certainly be held more accountable for these poor decisions. As is they never seem to be and seem to go from one role to the next.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

But when those decisions are fundamentally poor they should be scrapped ASAP, like the middle 8s.

People in the sport should certainly be held more accountable for these poor decisions. As is they never seem to be and seem to go from one role to the next.

Other people think your preferences are a bad idea. Licensing was pretty much as short lived, and very many were happy when scrapped. 

[Scubby]

Genuine question. Are Bradford actually playing on a full sized pitch yet at Odsal? 

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

As I said your view on this depends on whether you think the decisions were correct. There was little visionary about copying a failed gimmick from other sports. It's a fundamental to look at why something failed before you adopt something and Wood very obviously didn't do this or it wouldn't have been implemented. 

Despite a bumper TV deal we did not increase the value of SL during that TV deal and the next TV deal was drastically less. That and the fact the Super 8s was almost universally unpopular, which saw it scrapped fairly quickly, showed that these decisions and this money was wasted.

His decisions saw a contraction of the top flight from 14 teams to 12 and we ultimately now ended up with the ridiculous and unpopular loop fixtures that we have today. We also created no meaningful mid season international calendar. The community game and Southern clubs went into free fall. Much of the good work of Richard Lewis was destroyed because of his tenure.

Top post.

I also think his leadership was built on incredibly fragile alliances which collapsed like a house of cards.

The Championship clubs were lulled in by massively increased funding opportunities and the return of p/r. The poorer Super League clubs were guaranteed a central sum that essentially paid most of the Cap (which was kept low). Even expansion clubs like Toronto and Toulouse were sold to the lower league clubs on the basis of "they won't be in your league for long". 

The trouble is, when you're effectively buying supporters, then you leave yourself open to someone else with more money buying that support away from you. In the end of course it did and now we are where we are.

[Damien]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Other people think your preferences are a bad idea. Licensing was pretty much as short lived, and very many were happy when scrapped. 

I've not said what my preferences are and it is irrelevant to whether a bad decision should be persevered with to give it time when it is clear it is the wrong one and almost universally unpopular. Everyone will obviously be for and against decisions but there are some that are fairly conclusive.

It's fundamentally poor to adopt a structure that has failed elsewhere the few times it has been used. It's quite ego centric to think it would suddenly work for RL. These dangers were pointed out many times when it was announced. 

[Scubby]

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've not said what my preferences are and it is irrelevant to whether a bad decision should be persevered with to give it time when it is clear it is the wrong one and almost universally unpopular. Everyone will obviously be for and against decisions but there are some that are fairly conclusive.

It's fundamentally poor to adopt a structure that has failed elsewhere the few times it has been used. It's quite ego centric to think it would suddenly work for RL. These dangers were pointed out many times when it was announced. 

You saying the Swiss (cheese) 3x8 system was full of holes?

[The Future is League]

3 questions.

1. Should Nigel Wood replace  the invisible man Ralf Rimmer at the RFL? Even though he's done the job before

2. Should the invisible man Ralf Rimmer be allowed to continue with his job at the RFL?

3. If no to the above questions. Who would you like to see in charge of the RFL?

[Damien]

25 minutes ago, Scubby said:

You saying the Swiss (cheese) 3x8 system was full of holes?

Yes this one. Like what genius would ignore lessons like this:

SWISS chiefs last night urged Scottish football not to adopt the league system they ditched 10 years ago.

The Alpine nation has since flourished with top-flight attendances rising by 50 per cent after reverting back to a 10-team set up.

But despite loud warnings against change Scotland’s two main league bodies, the SPL and the SFL, are on the verge of rubber-stamping a switch to the 12-12-18 format previously used in Switzerland and Austria.

The new structure would mean clubs in the top two leagues playing 22 matches before splitting into a top, middle and bottom eight.

The top eight would play for the title, the middle lot would contest promotion and relegation spots in and out of the top league while the bottom eight would fight to avoid dropping to the third tier.

Switzerland used the model for 15 years, from 1988 to 2003, but after attendances fell through the floor and sponsorship and television revenue dipped they voted for change.

Swiss League spokesman Philippe Guggisberg said: “I don’t think there is an ideal solution but what we can say is there are now more spectators and the revenue from sponsors and television is going up.

“That would suggest we are doing something right because success is all about numbers. Historians might have another opinion but this is certainly the best way forward.

“In the old league average attendances were 7000-8000, now they are over 12,000. That is a 50 per cent increase.

“We are certainly stronger than 10 years ago and the package has helped make us more successful.”

Switzerland faces the same problems as Scotland given they do not have the strength in depth to increase the size of their top flight to 16 or 18 teams. And while two leagues of 12 with an 8-8-8 split was viewed as a compromise, sponsors were not keen to be associated with the bottom 16 after the split.

Guggisberg said: “We changed to a league of 10 in 2003 because the second part of the championship didn’t work.

“It was very complicated for television and sponsors who didn’t want to be associated with any meaningless matches. It is much easier to have two separate divisions.

“There are still ongoing discussions here about league reconstruction and there are a number of supporters who would like to revert to the old system.

“But the current set-up has been in operation for 10 years now and I think the majority are in favour of it.”

The Swiss initially changed to a 10-team Premier Division with a 16-team second tier. However, last season they moved to a 10-10 set-up and regionalised the remainder of the lower leagues.

Three years ago they held a referendum about re-introducing the split in a bid to create more drama but it was rejected. Guggisberg said: “The second part of the season, with eight clubs playing for the title, was as successful as the current system.

“But fans were not turning up in the same numbers, especially at the start of the season or when the games didn’t matter as much.

“There can be more excitement with a split but given we are now among the top 10 in Europe when it comes to attendances it would be a backward step to revert back to the old formula.”

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/swiss-football-chiefs-slam-scotlands-1524036