Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday

gingerjon

By gingerjon
in The General Rugby League Forum

Recommended Posts

Stuff Smith

Stuff Smith

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Pre SL teams played on their own merits and income, Wigan and Widnes were leaders with wigan winning CC and Widnes winning league etc now it is totally rigged.

Neither Wigan or Widnes could really afford that though.


  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

The sooner sky scraps the cash the sooner we get back to near normal.

Pre SL teams played on their own merits and income,

You do realise Sky money is clubs' income, right?

You're basically wanting amateurism to make it a level playing field.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Jughead

Jughead

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because they believe the system will be rigged like it was last time. So good for them. 

Except they’ve not said any of that. They’ve gone on about being a local sport for local people. Royston Vaysey Cougars have embarrassed themselves and the sport. It’s that exact attitude we want shot off. 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I want to see who is appointed to improve clubs. Oldham is still or should be a big market for League, who is the person at IMG that is going to assist in being a getting on the phone to cllrs funding bodies speaking to these clubs and helping them regrow. 

Sheffield Oldham NWC someone should be selling a vision to bring them up. 

That won't be happening. 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I like some of the suggestions and see the merit.

I'm still weary about licensing. Criteria just isn't judged fairly. People need convincing it will be.

Perceptions around licensing are the problem, rather than corruption or bias. But there is generally an attitude in RL that if things aren't as you agree with then it is corrupt. 

And tbh, I'm not sure what we can do about that, I think these are ingrained attitudes that are unlikely to be changed. But if we think it's the right thing to do, ultimately some voices will need to be ignored. 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because saying we dont believe you you lying bastards gives them nowhere to go. I understand completely why cougars are against it because they were cheated last time.

Did Keighley apply for SL under licensing? If have thought they'd have been some way off. 

Stuff Smith

Stuff Smith

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because saying we dont believe you you lying bastards gives them nowhere to go. I understand completely why cougars are against it because they were cheated last time.

Fair comment.  London, who "stole" their place, finished 4th in Super League 1 and 2nd in Super League 2. 

 

Big Picture

Big Picture

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because saying we dont believe you you lying bastards gives them nowhere to go. I understand completely why cougars are against it because they were cheated last time.

No they weren't cheated, the whole idea was to create a league which would be Super.  The original plan only included a few traditional standalone clubs because its drafters understood that the other clubs had nothing Super about them.  The fact that the clubs which the proposed mergers would have created wouldn't have been Super either simply underscores that.

Hemi4561

Hemi4561

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Except they’ve not said any of that. They’ve gone on about being a local sport for local people. Royston Vaysey Cougars have embarrassed themselves and the sport. It’s that exact attitude we want shot off

Your opinion, worth nothing. 

Jughead

Jughead

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because saying we dont believe you you lying bastards gives them nowhere to go. I understand completely why cougars are against it because they were cheated last time.

They haven’t raised any pertinent points or concerns about what’s been said, aside from taking offence at focus areas, which is extremely odd. Given how little detail has been released in the public domain and with another meeting lined up, I find it unusual to be so heavily against something but then bang the drum for a structure that we don’t even have. 

IMG have never proposed anything else so comparing “last time” (and by last time, I assume you mean several structures and a generation ago) is a very bitter and strange point to be at nearly thirty years on from a structure that never actually prevented them from promotion. 

As a club who have suffered from being unsustainable more than once, the most recent being within ten years, you’d think a system that didn’t force clubs to throw vast sums of cash at a playing roster, allowing other areas of importance to be left to rot and one that promotes sustainable living would be up their street but instead, they’ve looked borderline racist. 

Hemi4561

Hemi4561

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Stuff Smith said:

Fair comment.  London, who "stole" their place, finished 4th in Super League 1 and 2nd in Super League 2. 

 

And in the rest of their stay in Super League struggled to trouble the top half of the table no matter what dispensations they were given, nor how much money was thrown at them.

my missus

my missus

Posted
Posted
On 28/09/2022 at 15:09, Damien said:

What sports?

tennis, darts, snooker, and golf to name but four.

Through the fish-eyed lens of tear stained eyes
I can barely define the shape of this moment in time(roger waters)

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

So Keighley were gutted last time for nothing under the system that is being proposed but this time it will be different? I am as expanist as they come but you dont expand by gutting clubs in heartland who have everything in place to grow the game. 

Did Keighley get shafted under licensing? 

Jughead

Jughead

Posted
Posted

Saints, Featherstone, York, Bradford, Hull KR, Warrington and Wakefield are in the Vote Yes camp and Keighley are in the “France?! Can’t get a decent cup of tea in France and they eat frogs legs…and dunt even get me started on Lundun with their fancy streets and pints that cost £5, dunt they ner yer can get two fer that price in’t working man’s club at the end of road?” camp

clogdance

clogdance

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jughead said:

Except they’ve not said any of that. They’ve gone on about being a local sport for local people. Royston Vaysey Cougars have embarrassed themselves and the sport. It’s that exact attitude we want shot off. 

They are correct. Are do you think it might work in Stoke, Bristol or Northampton for example. It's not Rugby Union, and it will never be. Let's embrace what we have instead of trying to be something we can not.....well in the last 30 years it hasn't done so. Well said Keighley Cougars, I always liked them anyway. 🙂

DOGFATHER

DOGFATHER

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, wiganermike said:

I too hope that the gap in funding between SL and Championship can be narrowed, but that is to a certain extent dictated by whatever money the next broadcast deal brings in. Nobody is naive enough to think that cuts will occur below SL before they do in SL if cuts are needed due to broadcast revenue falling.

You say that, but cuts below SL were far greater below, than in SL 

For the gap to close even partially we will need to see broadcast rights income increase to pay for it. With regards to the money coming in from the broadcast deal most if not all will go to paying the wages of players.

The previous broadcast deal saw a massive uplift in funding for the game. Each SL club got an extra £300k to widen the gap even further. Sorry, but history does not back that assessment.

SL wage bills are much higher (unless you have an owner like Derek Beaumont paying for it) and require more to pay for them. Once the playing staff are paid from tv revenue I doubt clubs in either division have much left over to accrue further advantage.

Quite a few teams are not spending to the cap, Wakefield and Salford immediately spring to mind, I'd be surprised if there aren't others too, likely to be Cat B clubs, that Cat B's in the CH are likely to be targeting to replace.

The money that pays for everything else will come from other income (tickets, merchandise etc.), sponsors and the owner.

Better gates in the top tier, more travelling support buying tickets, Sponsors will be shown on Sky and Channel 4 coverage. CH clubs might get a game on Premier Sports, but otherwise they are anonymous. Potential investor can choose to align with a higher profile club playing in the top division, or a largely anonymous team in the CH, where would your sponsorship money go to raise the profile of your brand?

The ability to raise the funds to pay for all the club infrastructure is essentially what most of the grading assessment should come down too. That is the strength of the club and what each club would rely on should broadcast revenue disappear altogether.

That is the problem, and why Cat B's in the CH are always going to be behind the 8 ball. Higher gates and profile in SL means there is a far better chance of attracting money in to the club to strengthen the infrastructure and score higher than a Cat B in the CH. It was publicised either last season, or the season before Wakefield's playing budget was circa £1M, £600 - £800k less than the central funding they received. Clubs in SL will always have the luxury of doing that. Cat B's in the CH cannot afford to do that.

 

Jughead

Jughead

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, clogdance said:

They are correct. Are do you think it might work in Stoke, Bristol or Northampton for example. It's not Rugby Union, and it will never be. Let's embrace what we have instead of trying to be something we can not.....well in the last 30 years it hasn't done so. Well said Keighley Cougars, I always liked them anyway. 🙂

I didn’t drink enough last Saturday that I imagined watching a bloke from London win his 5th Grand Final, playing against blokes born in Poland and Swaziland having last year played against a French team made up of five French players, a player born in Cardiff and a player born in Guildford, having also played the 2020 final against a bloke from Kent whilst being alongside teammates from Port Talbot and Liverpool and having lined up against Salford in 2019 alongside a French halfback against a side that had a Cardiff born player and a player born in Oxford. 

Local game?

Griff

Griff

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Did Keighley get shafted under licensing? 

Not under licensing, no.

There was, of course, the buying off of 1996, which is possibly the allusion.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Griff said:

Not under licensing, no.

There was, of course, the buying off of 1996, which is possibly the allusion.

So the claim is just wrong then. 

6 other Northern clubs were relegated from the top flight upon SL's creation. But that wasn't licensing. 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.