2 up from the champ in 2023?

[Harry Stottle]

55 minutes ago, Jughead said:

No, I haven’t. 

Well that what I have said very much looks like the descriptive you have given for some of the teams if licensing is re-intrduced "Poor quality games with a lack of genuine interest" 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

5 hours ago, Snowys Backside said:

Why wait til after 2023 ?

Keep Toulouse in and build and promote 2 this season !  (cant believe I have just said that !!)

That 1 season back in the Championship could easily kill Toulouse off.

Money Snowy money or more to the point a reduction in the funding for SL club's if two more teams are in, and just to compound it even further there is a new TV contract to negotiate which may well be a further reduction, after all Sky told SL to improve before the next contract, do you think that has been achieved?

Toulouse are a victim of their own management, they knew a team was to be relegated this season, the team they had was never going to be strong enough for SL.

It is interesting to read the @ATLANTISMAN thread re the intension Toulouse have for next season which no doubt will cost a lot of money, if they can afford it next season, they could surely have afforded to speculate on better player's this season.

[The Future is League]

12 hours ago, LeeF said:

It’s ok Cas have just bought some new coloured crayons for the next “artist’s impression” that they are looking to produce 

On the back of a fag packet 

[steve oates]

48 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Money Snowy money or more to the point a reduction in the funding for SL club's if two more teams are in, and just to compound it even further there is a new TV contract to negotiate which may well be a further reduction, after all Sky told SL to improve before the next contract, do you think that has been achieved?

You got there before me Harry and noted the reality that this is NOT just a structure thing but a major reduction of TV funding that could see the loss of quite a number of clubs.

Not sure why it's taken 3 pages for that reality to be highlighted.

Maybe a 14 club SL takes all the money and whoever is left standing once the last of the money for the lower divisions has gone makes up a second tier, without funding which was the case/funding years ago when the second tier got nothing from TV (and did not collapse)            

[Rockingchair]

I thought the whole concept of img joining rugby league was more financial investment across the leagues as a whole therefore bridging the gap between super league and the championship to make the game more competitive. Or have I read that wrong?

[Jughead]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well that what I have said very much looks like the descriptive you have given for some of the teams if licensing is re-intrduced "Poor quality games with a lack of genuine interest" 

No, my observations have nothing to do with a licensed competition, they’re my observations of a 27-28 game Super League competition, which has relegation and promotion, no matter how similar it may feel to a competition under licensed criteria. We have a semi-finalist who cannot name a twenty-one man squad a week out from one of the biggest two games this side of the equator after an intensive second half of the season for all clubs, that saw then final rounds of the regular season littered with teams in the same position and one playing an entire game with sixteen players and teams fielding weakened teams to protect their players from further rigours of fatigue and injury. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

11 minutes ago, steve oates said:

You got there before me Harry and noted the reality that this is NOT just a structure thing but a major reduction of TV funding that could see the loss of quite a number of clubs.

Not sure why it's taken 3 pages for that reality to be highlighted.

Maybe a 14 club SL takes all the money and whoever is left standing once the last of the money for the lower divisions has gone makes up a second tier, without funding which was the case/funding years ago when the second tier got nothing from TV (and did not collapse)            

Hi Steve, yes I think that the only way we will reach 14 teams is to go with Ian Leneghan's suggestion that SL keeps all the funding and to hell with the rest.

But yes those below SL clubs did survive without funding years ago, but could they do so today is the moot question?

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, Rockingchair said:

I thought the whole concept of img joining rugby league was more financial investment across the leagues as a whole therefore bridging the gap between super league and the championship to make the game more competitive. Or have I read that wrong?

I don't think that has ever been stated as an aim. 

There are strategies that would do that,  there are some that wouldn't see a bridging of the gap as being part of it in the slightest. 

We'll see which way they go,  but it has never been stated as a reason for IMG to get involved. 

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Jughead said:

No, my observations have nothing to do with a licensed competition, they’re my observations of a 27-28 game Super League competition, which has relegation and promotion, no matter how similar it may feel to a competition under licensed criteria. We have a semi-finalist who cannot name a twenty-one man squad a week out from one of the biggest two games this side of the equator after an intensive second half of the season for all clubs, that saw then final rounds of the regular season littered with teams in the same position and one playing an entire game with sixteen players and teams fielding weakened teams to protect their players from further rigours of fatigue and injury. 

 

I don't question any of that, but I do also consider your sentance "Poor quality games with little interest" will equally apply in a licenced scenario for a good number of games for a few club's, which I am sure we will have to agree to disagree on.

But on your wish to suggest a reduction in the number of games per season, it is not going to happen strictly for financial reasons, 3 home loop fixtures for an average SL club with 6,000 attendance at say average £21 entrance will be about £420K add in extras for food and drink and it's up around 1/2 Million, transfer that to the better supported clubs and you are getting close to and upwards of 7 figure totals, will Leneghan, McManus and co accept that?

[Rockingchair]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think that has ever been stated as an aim. 

There are strategies that would do that,  there are some that wouldn't see a bridging of the gap as being part of it in the slightest. 

We'll see which way they go,  but it has never been stated as a reason for IMG to get involved. 

I thought the whole idea of the two ten proposal was that those that finished in the top 8 of the championship would receive more funding? 

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Rockingchair said:

I thought the whole concept of img joining rugby league was more financial investment across the leagues as a whole therefore bridging the gap between super league and the championship to make the game more competitive. Or have I read that wrong?

IMG has never been about providing investment into clubs themselves, at any level. 

We rejected the investment option - private equity - and instead chose IMG, who've always been clear that what they're bringing to the table is a range professional services from marketing and storytelling, to providing their own streaming platform - all things weve been notoriously bad at doing ourselves over the years.

They'll be providing these services for free in the early years in with the aim that a better presented sport will generate more revenues itself, benefitting all levels, and IMG taking a cut down the road. 

The input they're providing on structure is really only a small part of it - it's IMG saying "if you structure the competition like X you'll make the most of the services we're providing."

Fans of course, because they mostly don't really care about all the commercial stuff, are focussing on the structure side if things. But it's only really a small part IMG's input. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Toby Chopra

[ivans82]

24 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi Steve, yes I think that the only way we will reach 14 teams is to go with Ian Leneghan's suggestion that SL keeps all the funding and to hell with the rest.

But yes those below SL clubs did survive without funding years ago, but could they do so today is the moot question?

They certainly couldn`t survive under the contract system where money just pours out whether you play ,are suspended , injured etc. They would have to go back to proper part time players who just got paid to train and play and thats it .

[Harry Stottle]

28 minutes ago, Jughead said:

No, my observations have nothing to do with a licensed competition, they’re my observations of a 27-28 game Super League competition, which has relegation and promotion, no matter how similar it may feel to a competition under licensed criteria. We have a semi-finalist who cannot name a twenty-one man squad a week out from one of the biggest two games this side of the equator after an intensive second half of the season for all clubs, that saw then final rounds of the regular season littered with teams in the same position and one playing an entire game with sixteen players and teams fielding weakened teams to protect their players from further rigours of fatigue and injury. 

 

Apologies for coming back to this post but having read it again, you mention the number of games and specifically use the word relegation before talking about injuries, unavailability etc, could it be that relegation intensifies the competition in your opinion?

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, Rockingchair said:

I thought the whole idea of the two ten proposal was that those that finished in the top 8 of the championship would receive more funding? 

Detail of the two ten idea has never really been disclosed. And those claiming it as a certainty appear to be backtracking somewhat now. 

[Rockingchair]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Detail of the two ten idea has never really been disclosed. And those claiming it as a certainty appear to be backtracking somewhat now. 

I guess we’ll have to wait n see then but certainly not great for the championship recruitment and budgeting not knowing what’s what till the back end of September.

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

 

Fans of course, because they mostly don't really care about all the commercial stuff, are focussing on the structure side if things. But it's only really a small part IMG's input. 

This is a really important point that gets lost. It's a bit like in licensing discussions fans would only ever talk about stadia.

If this was a structure change exercise,  we wouldn't be entering a 12 year partnership. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Rockingchair said:

I guess we’ll have to wait n see then but certainly not great for the championship recruitment and budgeting not knowing what’s what till the back end of September.

Changes will only take place in 2024 at the earliest I believe,  but I agree,  time is cracking on. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Changes will only take place in 2024 at the earliest I believe,  but I agree,  time is cracking on. 

As long as everyone knows what the situation will be at the end of the 2023 season before it begins then I don't really think anyone can complain too loudly.

Obviously they will though.

[Dave T]

Just now, gingerjon said:

As long as everyone knows what the situation will be at the end of the 2023 season before it begins then I don't really think anyone can complain too loudly.

Obviously they will though.

I'd prefer slightly longer lead times personally,  if yiu know you need to finish top 8 in the Championship to secure any funding for the following 5 years,  maybe that changes your recruitment approach for 2023.

But I'd expect clubs to be part of the discussions and to know where we are heading,  broadly. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'd prefer slightly longer lead times personally,  if yiu know you need to finish top 8 in the Championship to secure any funding for the following 5 years,  maybe that changes your recruitment approach for 2023.

But I'd expect clubs to be part of the discussions and to know where we are heading,  broadly. 

The number of clubs we're talking about that that will make a material difference to.

Is it more or less than 5?

[Rockingchair]

Because specific information is always in shadow and rumour it’s then left open to speculation. I know fax spent and and recruited a bit more last year and it was mentioned by one of our directors in the fans forum about img and extra funding for the following season so it appears some clubs have read into the speculation.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

5 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

Think it needs looking into if they can't afford it. It's been an assumption that attendances drop for the loop games. Less is more in my mind. Quality over quantity.

Oh I agree. But will that quality bring in more money than the extra quantity? Chairman think no.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

The number of clubs we're talking about that that will make a material difference to.

Is it more or less than 5?

Good point

[David Shepherd]

3 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Dont  think they knew the French gov would mandate vaccines costing them their two key players on the eve of the season and continuing restrictions would make their first home game (arguably crucial for bringing new fans in) a damp squib. 

Must have been massively disruptive on the eve of the season to lose half their spine like that. They never stood a chance really.

Edited September 16, 2022 by John Drake
Covid vax opinions do not belong in this forum.

[ATLANTISMAN]

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Money Snowy money or more to the point a reduction in the funding for SL club's if two more teams are in, and just to compound it even further there is a new TV contract to negotiate which may well be a further reduction, after all Sky told SL to improve before the next contract, do you think that has been achieved?

Toulouse are a victim of their own management, they knew a team was to be relegated this season, the team they had was never going to be strong enough for SL.

It is interesting to read the @ATLANTISMAN thread re the intension Toulouse have for next season which no doubt will cost a lot of money, if they can afford it next season, they could surely have afforded to speculate on better player's this season.

Problem Harry is that there were very few players available

 

Paul