IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[Tommygilf]

27 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

Sky do not pay less because super league is worse quality. 

Sky pay less because they think less people will unsubscribe if they don't show super league than they thought/ much less competition in market from BT. 

The quality on pitch isn't that relevant. Sky paid the most for the Premier league in recent years when it was probably at its lowest quality (2015). Quality has risen since but Sky in real terms pay a third less now but for better quality games 

Competition and demand drives prices for TV rights. We've never had the former, we have a solid if unspectacular form of the latter.

[Hemi4561]

50 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

Sky do not pay less because super league is worse quality. 

Sky pay less because they think less people will unsubscribe if they don't show super league than they thought/ much less competition in market from BT. 

The quality on pitch isn't that relevant. Sky paid the most for the Premier league in recent years when it was probably at its lowest quality (2015). Quality has risen since but Sky in real terms pay a third less now but for better quality games 

If that's the case then why can't the sky money be distributed far more equitably across all the teams? Give the SL teams, 750k,champship 500k, and L1 300k? The lower league teams would all thrive, be far more competitive within their own divisions, and should be able to better cope with promotionand and relegation. The quality of SL would dip, but should become more equal, but this would not have a negative effect on revenue from Sky if as you say they don't care about the quality. Many others on here seem to be Insistent that SL must be better to get a better deal but you are saying that it doesn't matter from Sky's point of view? 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Hemi4561 said:

If that's the case then why can't the sky money be distributed far more equitably across all the teams? Give the SL teams, 750k,champship 500k, and L1 300k? The lower league teams would all thrive, be far more competitive within their own divisions, and should be able to better cope with promotionand and relegation. The quality of SL would dip, but should become more equal, but this would not have a negative effect on revenue from Sky if as you say they don't care about the quality. Many others on here seem to be Insistent that SL must be better to get a better deal but you are saying that it doesn't matter from Sky's point of view? 

Sky pay for a full time top flight, not a glorified part time one. I'm not sure why Sky would pay £25 million for SL when only £9 million is being spent on it. I think under your plan Sky would quickly drop their funding accordingly then you will find there is sweet fa left for the Championship and League 1.

[ghost crayfish]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Sky pay for a full time top flight, not a glorified part time one. I'm not sure why Sky would pay £25 million for SL when only £9 million is being spent on it. I think under your plan Sky would quickly drop their funding accordingly then you will find there is sweet fa left for the Championship and League 1.

Exactly right.

On the topic of investment in Super League, it isn't just about giving cash to clubs to pay existing players more and 'maintain the status quo'. It's about keeping the best players in the comp, stopping the talented juniors leaving, giving the competition more ability to attract good players, evening out the playing field, not to mention how the clubs and sport overall presents itself on and off the pitch. This all costs money and it is what people expect from top level sport. Either the game commits to a plan for doing that, or it commits to continuing the slow decline we've seen.

If Super League is allowed to descend (any further) below the standards people expect from a professional competition, people will slowly turn away and the sport will continue its evolution back into a semi-professional village sport. This would probably still result in current lower league clubs dying, as overall interest dwindles.

The IMG plan shows a logical, common sense and professional approach that the game in England hasn't had from the top in a decade. Unlike the Super 8s and the various other schemes the RFL has come up with, there is no sense of panic or finger crossing at all. They presented a very simple plan for growth and to me, it's a massive relief.

[Hemi4561]

8 hours ago, Damien said:

Sky pay for a full time top flight, not a glorified part time one. I'm not sure why Sky would pay £25 million for SL when only £9 million is being spent on it. I think under your plan Sky would quickly drop their funding accordingly then you will find there is sweet fa left for the Championship and League 1.

I was responding to the post that the value sky put on the game is determined by their judgements about subscriptions, not quality. If that is the case then they may pay more than is distributed to the clubs just so as to not lose subscribers. His view seems to be that the quality of what they show does not determine its value, only how subscribers might react. 

Edited October 3, 2022 by Hemi4561
Typo

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

1 hour ago, Hemi4561 said:

I was responding to the post that the value sky put on the game is determined by their judgements about subscriptions, not quality. If that is the case then they may pay more than is distributed to the clubs just so as to not lose subscribers. His view seems to be that the quality of what they show does not determine its value, only how subscribers might react. 

There is a relationship- if super league is really rubbish then people stop watching and unsubscribe from Sky 

Ultimately Sky payment is not actually based on viewing figures, it's on subscriptions. Hence why RL gets much more money than darts- darts rates better but doesn't bring in unique subscribers 

Take NRL- much higher quality but Sky will pay under £1m a year. Why? Because very few people would cancel if they dropped it 

[Dave T]

It's always an interesting debate this one. 

SL clubs get branded greedy for wanting more money, yet all we have here is fans of lower clubs asking for more money for their clubs. 

Maybe some self awareness would help here. Whenever you are suggesting more money for your club, you are literally doing what you are moaning about. 

[redjonn]

13 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Right.

And, even if it were that simple, the upshot is less money for the game as a whole.

So what every rugby league fan should therefore want is a better top level league that gets more money for its TV contract.

And that requires money and investment.

But some people on here are arguing against that.

Taken in isolation yes -  "So what every rugby league fan should therefore want is a better top level league that gets more money for its TV contract."

To take an extreme just to make a point - The monies and hence investment may well be needed but surely not by no investments into other leagues and helping to destroy the other clubs below.   

The point is either one thinks we can just have a top division or alternatively we need both a top division and reasonable championship type leagues below.

 

[redjonn]

48 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's always an interesting debate this one. 

SL clubs get branded greedy for wanting more money, yet all we have here is fans of lower clubs asking for more money for their clubs. 

Maybe some self awareness would help here. Whenever you are suggesting more money for your club, you are literally doing what you are moaning about. 

I don't think that's the debate above that I'm reading.  It seems more about the distribution of any monies and whether it should be allocated differently.

Now of course if a fixed pot then any argument about that will mean less for some and more for others. 

I think its too simplistic and unfair to say that anyone whom questions the distribution across the sport of any TV monies is solely interested in feathering the nest of his chosen club.

 

[ATLANTISMAN]

The future anyway in a few years is an in house produced APP my prediction is ALL matches streamed on an APP with one match per round FTA.

Do the maths it only needs 100000 subscribers at £ 250.00 a year to reach £ 25 Million and so on.

Production costs  nowadays are far less than 10 years ago.

 

This is one of the reasons why i see SL ripe for an American sports investment takeover.

Paul

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by ATLANTISMAN

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I don't think that's the debate above that I'm reading.  It seems more about the distribution of any monies and whether it should be allocated differently.

Now of course if a fixed pot then any argument about that will mean less for some and more for others. 

I think its too simplistic and unfair to say that anyone whom questions the distribution across the sport of any TV monies is solely interested in feathering the nest of his chosen club.

 

You have rather missed my point. I am not calling anyone greedy. I am saying the opposite. 

There are people who are calling SL clubs greedy, and then demanding more money lower down (which just so happens to be where their clubs are sitting).

There is a suggestion that they are thinking for the good for the game whereas SL clubs and fans are just being greedy - when in fact some people believe funding the top tier to be the best it can be is best for the sport. Similarly, there is a valid argument that we should ensure proper levels of funding at lower levels of the pyramid.

But too many people seem to think that you can only believe something if it is to the benefit of your own team. Despite them demonstrating those exact behaviours they complain about.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

The future anyway in a few years is an in house produced APP my prediction is ALL matches streamed on an APP with one match per round FTA.

Do the maths it only needs 100000 subscribers at £ 250.00 a year to reach £ 25 Million and so on.

Production costs  nowadays are far less than 10 years ago.

 

This is one of the reasons why i see SL ripe for an American sports investment takeover.

Paul

 

Fantasy stuff that Paul.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Fantasy stuff that Paul.

It is And even after all that we are still worse off than now once you strip out the associated expenses.

[redjonn]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You have rather missed my point. I am not calling anyone greedy. I am saying the opposite. 

There are people who are calling SL clubs greedy, and then demanding more money lower down (which just so happens to be where their clubs are sitting).

There is a suggestion that they are thinking for the good for the game whereas SL clubs and fans are just being greedy - when in fact some people believe funding the top tier to be the best it can be is best for the sport. Similarly, there is a valid argument that we should ensure proper levels of funding at lower levels of the pyramid.

But too many people seem to think that you can only believe something if it is to the benefit of your own team. Despite them demonstrating those exact behaviours they complain about.

I didn't think you were calling anyone greedy or by implication. I just thought the way you put your comment seemed to ignore the underlying points being made, which of course may have benefitted other clubs more given a fixed pot of gold.

Your second part of your second paragraph is/was the point I thought people where making.  Despite poor use of terms such as super greed which I would agree is annoying and rather deflects from sometimes a good point/argument.

 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

Taken in isolation yes -  "So what every rugby league fan should therefore want is a better top level league that gets more money for its TV contract."

To take an extreme just to make a point - The monies and hence investment may well be needed but surely not by no investments into other leagues and helping to destroy the other clubs below.   

The point is either one thinks we can just have a top division or alternatively we need both a top division and reasonable championship type leagues below.

 

I think we do have a reasonable Championship below? Bit boring this year as it was achingly predictable, bar a single semi final result, but nothing that couldn't be fixed by equal distribution within the division, quotas on overseas players etc.

The cuts to League 1 were too severe and wouldn't cost too much to reverse.

Edited October 3, 2022 by gingerjon
clarity

[gingerjon]

34 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

The future anyway in a few years is an in house produced APP my prediction is ALL matches streamed on an APP with one match per round FTA.

Do the maths it only needs 100000 subscribers at £ 250.00 a year to reach £ 25 Million and so on.

Production costs  nowadays are far less than 10 years ago.

 

This is one of the reasons why i see SL ripe for an American sports investment takeover.

Paul

 

Do you know anyone who is going to pay £250 a year for rugby league streaming?

[wiganermike]

3 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Taken in isolation yes -  "So what every rugby league fan should therefore want is a better top level league that gets more money for its TV contract."

To take an extreme just to make a point - The monies and hence investment may well be needed but surely not by no investments into other leagues and helping to destroy the other clubs below.   

The point is either one thinks we can just have a top division or alternatively we need both a top division and reasonable championship type leagues below.

 

The source of division of opinion comes with what people would consider constitutes a reasonable championship type league. This comes down to the level of funds they believe clubs should be given to function with. Whatever level of funding that is personally I think the most important factor is that it should be the same figure for all clubs within a division. During the period of licensing and before the Championship was a very competitive competition with a fairly low salary cap level (c.£300k IIRC) where clubs were part time operations.

Whether you support(ed) them or not the introduction of the 3x8s structure was the start of the current inequality in the Championship. The need for Championship top 4 to have at least near parity in the middle 8 phase led to the vastly uneven funding distribution we now see at Championship level and the raising of the cap at that level to a point where very few have the funds to spend it. This was exacerbated when first Toulouse returned and then Toronto joined League 1 as the cap was raised further to allow them to use their spending power to reach SL.

Toronto are no more and Toulouse are likely to return to SL for 2024 (and are considered likely to stay there under the proposed system of grading). However the Championship will still be left with the legacy of the changes made due to the 3x8s and those two expansion clubs. That is a model of inequality in funding distribution that is no longer necessary and an inflated cap level that will no longer be necessary as success on the pitch will no longer be the sole arbiter for reaching the top division.

The unequal distribution model for whatever funds are available should definitely be the first thing to go from 2024. The salary cap level should also be lowered so that the Championship can return to being a more competitive league for (at least predominantly) part time clubs. This will allow clubs to use some of whatever funding does eventuate on the establishing and improving of the club infrastructure that will go towards improving their club grade rather than trying to keep up with one or two clubs that are splashing the cash.

The bone of contention will always be the level of funding that is given to the individual clubs at Championship (and League 1) level. Some clubs (and their supporters) that have been at the top end of the Championship for a few years will have become accustomed to operating with the higher levels of funding and may want a continued level of funding that allows them to run (if they choose to) a full time team. Some people will think that enough funding to run a part time club and team will be sufficient. IMO though the level of funding is important to the clubs the level of the permitted salary cap within the competition is more important, as lowering it will make it more likely that some portion of funding at least will go towards the building of infrastructure which the proposed system appears to want to encourage.

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I didn't think you were calling anyone greedy or by implication. I just thought the way you put your comment seemed to ignore the underlying points being made, which of course may have benefitted other clubs more given a fixed pot of gold.

Your second part of your second paragraph is/was the point I thought people where making.  Despite poor use of terms such as super greed which I would agree is annoying and rather deflects from sometimes a good point/argument.

 

The problem is that the point is lost when it is framed as Super Greed etc. So I'm afraid I can't give the benefit of the doubt to people who rant, call clubs greedy, seem surprised that all comps around the world are structured like this and just ask for more money without offering any rationale other than 'because SL are greedy'.

What are the actual benefits to upping L1 funding by £100k for example? People just throw numbers about left right and centre without them meaning anything. We also heard the stories about how all the clubs would go bust after the last round of funding was cut, and L1 and Championship clubs were being thrown to the wolves. We even heard the same would happen here, we would be going to 20 and the other 17 clubs (or whatever the number is) could rot.

There are no reasonable arguments being presented here, it is basically just an 'us v them' debate with a lot of melodrama.

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

The source of division of opinion comes with what people would consider constitutes a reasonable championship type league. This comes down to the level of funds they believe clubs should be given to function with. Whatever level of funding that is personally I think the most important factor is that it should be the same figure for all clubs within a division. During the period of licensing and before the Championship was a very competitive competition with a fairly low salary cap level (c.£300k IIRC) where clubs were part time operations.

Whether you support(ed) them or not the introduction of the 3x8s structure was the start of the current inequality in the Championship. The need for Championship top 4 to have at least near parity in the middle 8 phase led to the vastly uneven funding distribution we now see at Championship level and the raising of the cap at that level to a point where very few have the funds to spend it. This was exacerbated when first Toulouse returned and then Toronto joined League 1 as the cap was raised further to allow them to use their spending power to reach SL.

Toronto are no more and Toulouse are likely to return to SL for 2024 (and are considered likely to stay there under the proposed system of grading). However the Championship will still be left with the legacy of the changes made due to the 3x8s and those two expansion clubs. That is a model of inequality in funding distribution that is no longer necessary and an inflated cap level that will no longer be necessary as success on the pitch will no longer be the sole arbiter for reaching the top division.

The unequal distribution model for whatever funds are available should definitely be the first thing to go from 2024. The salary cap level should also be lowered so that the Championship can return to being a more competitive league for (at least predominantly) part time clubs. This will allow clubs to use some of whatever funding does eventuate on the establishing and improving of the club infrastructure that will go towards improving their club grade rather than trying to keep up with one or two clubs that are splashing the cash.

The bone of contention will always be the level of funding that is given to the individual clubs at Championship (and League 1) level. Some clubs (and their supporters) that have been at the top end of the Championship for a few years will have become accustomed to operating with the higher levels of funding and may want a continued level of funding that allows them to run (if they choose to) a full time team. Some people will think that enough funding to run a part time club and team will be sufficient. IMO though the level of funding is important to the clubs the level of the permitted salary cap within the competition is more important, as lowering it will make it more likely that some portion of funding at least will go towards the building of infrastructure which the proposed system appears to want to encourage.

I agree with this. 
 

And it is important to remember, that the inequality here is driven by the RFL and the Championship in how they structure their funding distribution. Super League don't have the same model, they distribute their share equally (broadly speaking).

We can all debate the % given to each division and the governing body, I do think that's one for them - but the biggest flaw with funding imho is that Newcastle and Featherstone are expected to compete in the same division with hugely different central funding.

[Hemi4561]

41 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The problem is that the point is lost when it is framed as Super Greed etc. So I'm afraid I can't give the benefit of the doubt to people who rant, call clubs greedy, seem surprised that all comps around the world are structured like this and just ask for more money without offering any rationale other than 'because SL are greedy'.

What are the actual benefits to upping L1 funding by £100k for example? People just throw numbers about left right and centre without them meaning anything. We also heard the stories about how all the clubs would go bust after the last round of funding was cut, and L1 and Championship clubs were being thrown to the wolves. We even heard the same would happen here, we would be going to 20 and the other 17 clubs (or whatever the number is) could rot.

There are no reasonable arguments being presented here, it is basically just an 'us v them' debate with a lot of melodrama.

If your first paragraph is aimed at me the say so, I will not be offended, nor will I change my mode of expression to suit you or anyone else. We hold diametrically opposed views on this subject which we are both entitled to Hopefully on others we may share more common ground. But to be clear, my rationale for my standpoint is not simply that "SL are greedy" it is a belief that top down growth, or the trickle down effect does not necessarily produce the best results. 

[Dave T]

Just now, Hemi4561 said:

If your first paragraph is aimed at me the say so, I will not be offended, nor will I change my mode of expression to suit you or anyone else. We hold diametrically opposed views on this subject which we are both entitled to Hopefully on others we may share more common ground. But to be clear, my rationale for my standpoint is not simply that "SL are greedy" it is a belief that top down growth, or the trickle down effect does not necessarily produce the best results. 

It isn't just aimed at you, that position is quite a common one in these discussions. 

I don't think our views are completely at odds here, I believe we should fund the whole pyramid, I'm certainly not in the camp that believes all money should be retained by SL clubs. 

But I have yet to hear a compelling argument that our % splits are fundamentally wrong. What do we think we will get from substantially higher funding of 2nd and 3rd tier RL?

[Hemi4561]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It isn't just aimed at you, that position is quite a common one in these discussions. 

I don't think our views are completely at odds here, I believe we should fund the whole pyramid, I'm certainly not in the camp that believes all money should be retained by SL clubs. 

But I have yet to hear a compelling argument that our % splits are fundamentally wrong. What do we think we will get from substantially higher funding of 2nd and 3rd tier RL?

I will get back to you on that, more the subject of a dissertation than a precis knocked up on an ancient mobile phone. 

[Derwent Parker]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

It isn't just aimed at you, that position is quite a common one in these discussions. 

I don't think our views are completely at odds here, I believe we should fund the whole pyramid, I'm certainly not in the camp that believes all money should be retained by SL clubs. 

But I have yet to hear a compelling argument that our % splits are fundamentally wrong. What do we think we will get from substantially higher funding of 2nd and 3rd tier RL?

No, it's aimed at me too!

I too agree with you on many things and agree with you that we should fund the whole pyramid. and I dont think you are in the camp that believes all money should be retained by SL clubs. 

but we do disagree about the share of fundings.

because of the way the CF is distributed [social media, crowds, finances] etc. on top of a basic amount. We dont really know an exact figure for each league - But as a guide: - [for arguments sake only]

1.8M/2M per SL team

180K/200K per Ch team 

18K/25k per L1 team

That is not fair?  

A True figure looking after the game as a whole, it should be aimed nearer £1.5M, £1M, .5M - that's virtually impossible now and should have been that way from start. But could be reversed slowly and over a longer period.

Unfortunately, at the last Sky reduction, the hit could have been absorbed by the SL teams protecting the small amounts the other 2 leagues get, but instead {Greed] did get in the way and the biggest hit was to the poorest teams. Hence when the Super Greed name appeared.

you do realize the wage that your poorest [cheapest player] is probably more than what some L1 teams get to run a full side?

Would you rather lose that one player or potentially a full L1 team.

P.S - saying Super Greed is "Banter" and too be honest if that, upsets anyone, they probably should not be on here and as regards ranting - there are quite a few SL supporter's that rant on here

 

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by Derwent Parker
spelling

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

No, it's aimed at me too!

I too agree with you on many things and agree with you that we should fund the whole pyramid. and I dont think you are in the camp that believes all money should be retained by SL clubs. 

but we do disagree about the share of fundings.

because of the way the CF is distributed [social media, crowds, finances] etc. on top of a basic amount. We dont really know an exact figure for each league - But as a guide: - [for arguments sake only]

1.8M/2M per SL team

180K/200K per Ch team 

18K/25k per L1 team

That is not fair?  

A True figure looking after the game as a whole, it should be aimed nearer £1.5M, £1M, .5M - that's virtually impossible now and should have been that way from start. But could be reversed slowly and over a longer period.

Unfortunately, at the last Sky reduction, the hit could have been absorbed by the SL teams protecting the small amounts the other 2 leagues get, but instead {Greed] did get in the way and the biggest hit was to the poorest teams. Hence when the Super Greed name appeared.

you do realize the wage that your poorest [cheapest player] is probably more than what some L1 teams get to run a full side?

Would you rather lose that one player or potentially a full L1 team.

P.S - saying Super Greed is "Banter" and too be honest if that, upsets anyone, they probably should not be on here and as regards ranting - there are quite a few SL supporter's that rant on here

 

 

I think this is a good illustration of my point earlier in the thread. 

Why on earth would SL clubs absorb the losses from a reduction? That isn't reasonable on any level as a proposal. What is so special about tiers 2 and 3 that they are protected from any commercial reduction? 

And then onto your proposed numbers, ignoring the fantasy numbers (the game doesn't get £37m per annum, and you forget the central costs too), but your proposal sees over half of all SLE's TV money given away to non-SL clubs. Again, on what level is that a sensible, rationale, or logical suggestion? 

Your proposal is no more than "you lot are greedy, give us the wonga instead, but we definitely aren't greedy". 

You are proposing spending £19m per year on tier 2 and 3, from a £37m TV deal (as I say the numbers are not accurate anyway, but let's play along). £5.5m on a 3rd tier comp. For what exactly, what benefits will that bring? 

[JohnM]

Add to that a feeling that some clubs will make better use of any central funding than others. Is the RFL to dictate how any money is used to ensure that each team pays it's players more and spends less on ground maintenance for example?