Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


gingerjon
 Share

Recommended Posts


34 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-finances-drop-revealed-21507431

This article seems to suggest £2million out of the £5million.

Also suggests that between 2015 and 2021, £24million was granted distributed to the Championship and League 1 (£4 million a season). 

And part of that time SKY had the rights to show all the RL matches - so we should of had more - if your argument about what sky are paying for is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

So £150k to League 1, and £1.85mill to the championship (ish). Clearly its Super League that are the problem here not looking after the lower tiers...

and dont forget 1.8 million to every single SG team - so every team in SL gets the same as the whole of the champ and about 11 times as much as the whole of League 1

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

So £150k to League 1, and £1.85mill to the championship (ish). Clearly its Super League that are the problem here not looking after the lower tiers...

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Most people aren’t interested in whose at fault, they just want it sorting!!

That's fair, but there is a lot of anti-super league vitriol knocking about based on myths and non-truths and it is important to challenge those.

Ultimately until the Championship and League 1 bring in their own paying TV deal, then their central funding is entirely dependent on what Super League gets for their competition. We've seen a huge reduction in that amount in the last round, and that has impacted on the numbers to the lower divisions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

and dont forget 1.8 million to every single SG team - so every team in SL gets the same as the whole of the champ and about 11 times as much as the whole of League 1

 

Not £1.8 million anymore so please debate in facts.

Considering SL have taken a cut, so it stands should everyone else who has hands in the pie. And considering Super League are the only ones generating the money, its reasonable to reinvest that in securing future money coming in. Otherwise, kiss goodbye to the Championship and League 1 getting any money at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

And part of that time SKY had the rights to show all the RL matches - so we should of had more - if your argument about what sky are paying for is right.

They had the rights to the Championship as well as Super League (and a portion of the CC I believe - essentially the domestic portion that Premier have taken over). Remind me again how much did Premier recon that deal would be worth paying for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That's fair, but there is a lot of anti-super league vitriol knocking about based on myths and non-truths and it is important to challenge those.

Ultimately until the Championship and League 1 bring in their own paying TV deal, then their central funding is entirely dependent on what Super League gets for their competition. We've seen a huge reduction in that amount in the last round, and that has impacted on the numbers to the lower divisions.

Well going off your location [Wakefield] let's see if you are spouting the same "facts" if your club has a couple of bad seasons and you are not getting the 1.8M whist out of SG.

different story then - wont it?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Not £1.8 million anymore so please debate in facts.

Considering SL have taken a cut, so it stands should everyone else who has hands in the pie. And considering Super League are the only ones generating the money, its reasonable to reinvest that in securing future money coming in. Otherwise, kiss goodbye to the Championship and League 1 getting any money at all.

Did every team take the same percentage cut - some L1 teams lost 66% - did Wakefield lose 66%?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

They don't in football, having 3000 Leeds fans there is costing Liverpool hand over fist on every ticket.

Nor in other major sports either.  In big time major pro leagues any money from "away fans" is trivial compared to the revenues from the home team's fans, TV, sponsorship, merchandise sales, etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Well going off your location [Wakefield] let's see if you are spouting the same "facts" if your club has a couple of bad seasons and you are not getting the 1.8M whist out of SG.

different story then - wont it?

Odd to make a point about a club I don't support!

FWIW I understand Wakefield haven't received the full central funding distribution for quite a number of years due to the state of the ground. HTH.

If I supported a club outside Super League, based on the past 25 years I'd want Super League to get the biggest TV deal possible and for that to keep increasing each time; as that would see the greatest amount go to the Championship and League 1.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That's fair, but there is a lot of anti-super league vitriol knocking about based on myths and non-truths and it is important to challenge those.

Ultimately until the Championship and League 1 bring in their own paying TV deal, then their central funding is entirely dependent on what Super League gets for their competition. We've seen a huge reduction in that amount in the last round, and that has impacted on the numbers to the lower divisions.

It was the RFL who negotiated with Sky and accepted the deal which resulted in Super League clubs acceptance of it.

Then the ' elite ' led by Lenagan,brought Elstone into the picture for 'Commercial' reasons.That didn't go very well;accept for the money going out of the sport;to Elstone.

Despite Super League being a separate entity,it was the RFL who again negotiated.This time with the government, during Covid,and the acquired a loan that some Super League clubs required.

Before the loan was given,and accepted,the two separate entities were to reunite in harmony.

The vitriol was,and continues to be,from Super League club owners,and the followers of Super League clubs.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Did every team take the same percentage cut - some L1 teams lost 66% - did Wakefield lose 66%?

 

Super League clubs probably took as big a cut as they could and still provide a League that will pay the bills for them and everyone else. Indeed it amounted to roughly £300k per club.

Odd that the central funding to League 1 went down by AT LEAST 66% per club (some much much more than that ask @Roughyed Rats) when the central funding to the Championship and League 1 from the RFL only went down by 50%. Seems that some were looked after better than others.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Nor in other major sports either.  In big time major pro leagues any money from "away fans" is trivial compared to the revenues from the home team's fans, TV, sponsorship, merchandise sales, etc. etc.

There is a cap on ticket prices for away fans in the Premier League, £30. The FSA have wanted it reduced to £20 for years. As such away attendance is capped at 3000 or 10%(ish), whichever is lower. 

As you say these are trivial sums when compared with home attendees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Odd to make a point about a club I don't support!

FWIW I understand Wakefield haven't received the full central funding distribution for quite a number of years due to the state of the ground. HTH.

If I supported a club outside Super League, based on the past 25 years I'd want Super League to get the biggest TV deal possible and for that to keep increasing each time; as that would see the greatest amount go to the Championship and League 1.

Firstly, you state in your profile Wakefield /Leeds - If you had put West Wales - I would have assumed different.

Secondly - That is where we differ, I would like everyone treat equally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

It was the RFL who negotiated with Sky and accepted the deal which resulted in Super League clubs acceptance of it.

Then the ' elite ' led by Lenagan,brought Elstone into the picture for 'Commercial' reasons.That didn't go very well;accept for the money going out of the sport;to Elstone.

Despite Super League being a separate entity,it was the RFL who again negotiated.This time with the government, during Covid,and the acquired a loan that some Super League clubs required.

Before the loan was given,and accepted,the two separate entities were to reunite in harmony.

The vitriol was,and continues to be,from Super League club owners,and the followers of Super League clubs.

There was a really good deal, the sky should have been fixed in the Championship and League 1 whilst the sun was shining. Now its back to reality across the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Super League clubs probably took as big a cut as they could and still provide a League that will pay the bills for them and everyone else. Indeed it amounted to roughly £300k per club.

Odd that the central funding to League 1 went down by AT LEAST 66% per club (some much much more than that ask @Roughyed Rats) when the central funding to the Championship and League 1 from the RFL only went down by 50%. Seems that some were looked after better than others.

So, some SG clubs lost 300k out of 1.8Million - leaving £1.77Million

Some L1 teams lost 50K out of 75K - leaving £25k

Get a grip man 

It is unfair admit it - FFS

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derwent Parker said:

Firstly, you state in your profile Wakefield /Leeds - If you had put West Wales - I would have assumed different.

Secondly - That is where we differ, I would like everyone treat equally

When you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

Treating all teams equally would be very silly. The strongest teams would annihilate the opposition on equal footing. 

Equity maybe has a place, but that is a lot of money heading to the two London clubs and I'm not sure how some fans would take that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derwent Parker said:

So, some SG clubs lost 300k out of 1.8Million - leaving £1.77Million

Some L1 teams lost 50K out of 75K - leaving £25k

Get a grip man 

It is unfair admit it - FFS

Check your maths mate. I'm humouring this because I've got a long night ahead, but I won't waste my time debating stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Check your maths mate. I'm humouring this because I've got a long night ahead, but I won't waste my time debating stupidity.

His maths is incorrect. 

However, let me put it in simple terms for you, and all the other super greed apologists, club owners, mouthpieces thereof. 

Super League is the problem, not L1 or championship clubs stealing "their" money. The Sky deal, negotiated by the RFL, or whoever is, or was, for rugby-league as a whole. Sky choose to screen Super League almost, or completely, to the exclusion of the other leagues.

They have now chosen to pay less, so that reduction in value is unquestionably because they think Super League is not as good as before. That reduction in value is absolutely nothing to do with the lower league teams, not in the quality of their games, nor in the distribution of the monies they receive.

In short Sky pay less for Super League because they believe it is worth less. 

Super League as a whole attempt to ameliorate this monetary loss by pressuring the distribution to the non super league teams, rather than admitting their failure. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Ahh the classic conflate professional teams outside of super league with amateur and junior rugby move...

To tell the truth, Super League would, like the NRL, probably run strong reserve/farm teams in the absence of the Championship and League 1, many of whom would take the form of clubs currently in those two leagues anyway.

Your last paragraph is maybe what they could do, but it would be a cost. That is no one watches or would pay to watch those games. Of course they could charge more for the normal games to subsidise as they do now for the youth and academy teams plus coaching and officials but still an extra cost.   For NRL that cost is relatively minor for many SL it wouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

His maths is incorrect. 

However, let me put it in simple terms for you, and all the other super greed apologists, club owners, mouthpieces thereof. 

Super League is the problem, not L1 or championship clubs stealing "their" money. The Sky deal, negotiated by the RFL, or whoever is, or was, for rugby-league as a whole. Sky choose to screen Super League almost, or completely, to the exclusion of the other leagues.

They have now chosen to pay less, so that reduction in value is unquestionably because they think Super League is not as good as before. That reduction in value is absolutely nothing to do with the lower league teams, not in the quality of their games, nor in the distribution of the monies they receive.

In short Sky pay less for Super League because they believe it is worth less. 

Super League as a whole attempt to ameliorate this monetary loss by pressuring the distribution to the non super league teams, rather than admitting their failure. 

That’s all over the place. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...