IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[bobbruce]

Just now, Dunbar said:

I have been away from this thread for a few pages.  Can someone catch me up on how we got here.

Half the fun is reading the trail. 

[Tubby]

13 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Do you spend exactly the same on your car as you do on the kids bikes. 

No, but I spend more on nurturing them and making sure they’re healthy. I take it you have a different policy?

[Tubby]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's fine. It's also what has happened in Rugby League for near 2 decades.

The kids don’t just get scraps from my table and then get told they should be grateful. 

[GeordieSaint]

Just now, Tubby said:

The kids don’t just get scraps from my table and then get told they should be grateful. 

Do your kids have the ability to go make money and sell their product themselves? 

[bobbruce]

5 minutes ago, Tubby said:

No, but I spend more on nurturing them and making sure they’re healthy. I take it you have a different policy?

To do that you have to go to work and keep them happy it’s a balance like everything in life. Imagine SL saying to Sky thanks for the £20m a year but we are going to give half of it to these clubs that aren’t even on Sky. Then we are going to give their games away for free to a rival channel. 

[Tubby]

7 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Do your kids have the ability to go make money and sell their product themselves? 

Obviously not to the same extent that I do. There is a certain hierarchy, I imagine you’re familiar with the concept. 

[Tubby]

4 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

To do that you have to go to work and keep them happy it’s a balance like everything in life. Imagine SL saying to Sky thanks for the £20m a year but we are going to give half of it to these clubs that aren’t even on Sky. Then we are going to give their games away for free to a rival channel. 

I might be mistaken, but I believe you have the chronology rather confused.  And I don’t imagine Sky would mind if it was shared more equitably. 

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Tubby said:

The kids don’t just get scraps from my table and then get told they should be grateful. 

Well that's your take. Its not what I think happens in Rugby League.

[Tubby]

Just now, Damien said:

Well that's your take. Its not what I think happens in Rugby League.

On that, at least, we agree. 

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Tubby said:

On that, at least, we agree. 

Well you are contradicting yourself then.

[Tubby]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Well you are contradicting yourself then.

I think you’ve misunderstood. But that’s ok. 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Tubby said:

I think you’ve misunderstood. But that’s ok. 

No I haven't. If you can't understand how you are contradicting yourself that's okay too.

[Tubby]

Just now, Damien said:

No I haven't. If you can't understand how you are contradicting yourself that's okay too.

We agree that you don’t think that’s what happens in RL. it’s an easy misunderstanding to make. 

[Damien]

26 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Do your kids have the ability to go make money and sell their product themselves? 

If we are going with this stupid analogy then I make sure the mortgage is paid as well as a myriad of bills. I make sure that I can get to work and pay for all the things that allow me to gain an income, car, petrol, training etc. That has to be paid for to even get food on the table for the kids, which is paid for with what is left. 

That is all analogous to SL providing a minimum standard of competition to sell to Sky. That is before we even get to improving itself to have a quality product worth selling. The game as a whole gets more income if SL is as attractive to broadcasters as it can be. Make SL a worse product and the whole game suffers, as well have seen with the latest TV deal.

[Tubby]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

If we are going with this stupid analogy then I make sure the mortgage is paid as well as a myriad of bills. I make sure that I can get to work and pay for all the things that allow me to gain an income, car, petrol, training etc. That has to be paid for to even get food on the table for the kids, which is paid for with what is left. 

That is all analogous to SL providing a minimum standard of competition to sell to Sky. That is before we even get to improving itself to have a quality product worth selling. The game as a whole gets more income if SL is as attractive to broadcasters as it can be. Make SL a worse product and the whole game suffers, as well have seen with the latest TV deal.

You have a great deal of priorities which come before feeding your family. I think this is where we will disagree. Looking after the less well off members of our family/sport/society is very important to me and I absolutely understand others’ point of view that they don’t want to help those the consider ‘spongers’. I think we have to accept that we look after those (the tiny minority)who are perhaps more profligate with their money, so we can be sure we help those that need it. 
 

And no analogy is without faults. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Tubby said:

You have a great deal of priorities which come before feeding your family. I think this is where we will disagree. Looking after the less well off members of our family/sport/society is very important to me and I absolutely understand others’ point of view that they don’t want to help those the consider ‘spongers’. I think we have to accept that we look after those (the tiny minority)who are perhaps more profligate with their money, so we can be sure we help those that need it. 
 

And no analogy is without faults. 

He doesn't, if he doesn't do those things his family don't eat.

Super League earn the money. Every club in Super League contributes to that, some more than others admittedly, but in the interest of a good competition every club should get the same out of it. 

The Championship and League 1 are free to tender their broadcast rights. I believe they have this year. They still get more from the Super League money than their own broadcast deal(s), which says it all really.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Tubby said:

You have a great deal of priorities which come before feeding your family. I think this is where we will disagree. Looking after the less well off members of our family/sport/society is very important to me and I absolutely understand others’ point of view that they don’t want to help those the consider ‘spongers’. I think we have to accept that we look after those (the tiny minority)who are perhaps more profligate with their money, so we can be sure we help those that need it. 
 

And no analogy is without faults. 

A house over your head and heating and electric are priorities for most people. They are the basics we need. I can easily feed my family sustainably. What I don't need to do is give them steak every night when they aren't contributing anything to the pot and when I can't afford to. Maybe when they are paying keep and contributing to the household then they can pay for the steak themselves. 

[Tubby]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

We gave championship clubs ridiculous amounts of money and based it on finishing position so you had the matthews effect plus millions spaffed away with no infrastructure to show for it. 

Does giving Oldham Rochdale Swinton Hunslet Bradford more money create long term infrastructure that will allow them to generate rev indeoendently? No then its a waste of cash.

Sky pay for SL . so the majority of the cash needs to go to make that product the best. When we had 50million a year we wasted it on second tier wages instead of infrastructure and now dont have money to spread. 

 

I agree the unequal distribution did no one any good, other than those players who were commanding higher wages, but that is an unavoidable consequence of increased funding in any scenario. The vast majority of the income from Sky was used to increase wages throughout the sport. 

I believe sufficient funding needs to be provided to allow teams a chance at maintaining their existence, but god alone knows where that funding will come from.

But I do believe that if we let the lower leagues fall by the wayside, we are doomed. 

[Tubby]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

He doesn't, if he doesn't do those things his family don't eat.

Super League earn the money. Every club in Super League contributes to that, some more than others admittedly, but in the interest of a good competition every club should get the same out of it. 

The Championship and League 1 are free to tender their broadcast rights. I believe they have this year. They still get more from the Super League money than their own broadcast deal(s), which says it all really.

It’s a pointless argument, but we need to do enough to keep working whilst at the same time providing for our ‘family’.

But this always becomes ‘us and them’, when we used to be (and need to be) all ‘us’. 

RL is it one sport and whilst we need to make sure we provide a saleable product, we also need to keep a viable structure alive to provide the materials for that product. 
 

[Tubby]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

A house over your head and heating and electric are priorities for most people. They are the basics we need. I can easily feed my family sustainably. What I don't need to do is give them steak every night when they aren't contributing anything to the pot and when I can't afford to. Maybe when they are paying keep and contributing to the household then they can pay for the steak themselves. 

I’m not suggesting steak, merely sufficiency. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Tubby said:

I agree the unequal distribution did no one any good, other than those players who were commanding higher wages, but that is an unavoidable consequence of increased funding in any scenario. The vast majority of the income from Sky was used to increase wages throughout the sport. 

I believe sufficient funding needs to be provided to allow teams a chance at maintaining their existence, but god alone knows where that funding will come from.

But I do believe that if we let the lower leagues fall by the wayside, we are doomed. 

You could run most Championship and League 1 clubs as part timers on £25k to £100k of Central funding plus whatever else they bring in.

It appears some have grown accustomed to far more than that however.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Tubby said:

It’s a pointless argument, but we need to do enough to keep working whilst at the same time providing for our ‘family’.

But this always becomes ‘us and them’, when we used to be (and need to be) all ‘us’. 

RL is it one sport and whilst we need to make sure we provide a saleable product, we also need to keep a viable structure alive to provide the materials for that product. 

That might well depend on some clubs reassessing their circumstances and ambitions.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Tubby said:

I’m not suggesting steak, merely sufficiency. 

Which is what clubs have got. That is why well run clubs like Batley have done well.

[Tubby]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

You could run most Championship and League 1 clubs as part timers on £25k to £100k of Central funding plus whatever else they bring in.

It appears some have grown accustomed to far more than that however.

I’d be interested to see your breakdown of running a semi professional club on £25k

[Tubby]

Just now, Damien said:

Which is what clubs have got. That is why well run clubs like Batley have done well.

But not L1 clubs. Which I appreciate may not figure in the new plan.