Jump to content

Putting money in the women's game (was: Wigan Warriors: Bankrupt)


Recommended Posts

Posted
4 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

If Wigan made a profit, I'd be on the same page. They don't. So this is whole discussion is about whether or not the Leneghan family should put their hands in their own pockets for more wages. If they did I say "that's brilliant, what a great pair of lads", but I'm not throwing shade at them if they don't - Ian L is hardly sitting on Richard Branson levels of cash. 

If they want a successful women's team, they'll invest in it (including bringing in others on board).

Club foundations don't "make money" but they still employ lots of people.


  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

This sort of practice is sadly pretty common across sport. Pay in the industry tends to be lower than equivalent roles in other industries because "people want to work in sport", and the use of voluntary roles and b******t "intern" roles is common even in the Premier League and Championship football. 

The argument that women's RL doesn't turn a profit is an obvious point, but a poor one. If the role needs doing, then it should be paid. Whilst women's RL may not be a commercial venture in islolation, it is arguably part of a wider strategy to engage new audiences and should therefore be looked at "in the round" of running an RL club. I'm sure Wigan pay the coaching staff of their reserve and academy functions, and they won't be commercially viable ventures in isolation either. 

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I am very weary of people demanding that roles that don´t make money should be paid. We can´t divert unlimited resources in a sport to the non financially sustainable parts of the game. It also moves the question away from what it should be which is, ok, how can we make this part of the game wash it´s own face. 

For me, that means (like everything else) building internationals and locking in a Welsh team so we can get a kind of NH tri nations going, it doesn´t have to copy the failing male model .

Similarly, I'm weary of the expectation that commercial operations (sport or otherwise) should rely on the goodwill and benevolence of unpaid or under-paid employees.

If Wigan need the job doing, they should pay for people's time and skill. If the Wigan and/or the sport feels like women's RL is an important part of a long-term commercial strategy for the sport as a whole, then there is an argument to "pay it forward" and make the investment. 

Posted
26 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

 

RU with England have set their expectation of their Women´s world cup breaking even in UK even with full houses at twickenham. No women´s team sport attached to men´s is making money and we really don´t have money to waste. I don´t want to see clubs forced if IMG bring it in to run unprofitable parts whilst the main product is floundering. So there´s an arguement to pack it up, this seems like a reasonable compromise. 

The RU World Cup has a significantly higher cost base. 

Like I say, I understand where the commercial argument is coming from, but that doesn't necessarily make practices like this right. 

If we are going to look at women's RL in purely commercial terms - and in isolation from the rest of RL - then we have a decision to make. Either we decide it isn't going to be commercially viable and we stop doing it, or we decide that there are long-term returns to be had (be it new audiences, grants, sponsorship, media, etc) and we invest in it - but we shouldn't be expecting to spread the risk of that investment onto club employees. We become no worse than those ###### who "have a billion-dollar idea for a start-up, but we can't afford to pay you until we're making money". 

Or, we don't see women's RL as a seperate venture and instead, see it as a way of experiencing the reach and appeal of RL as a whole. 

Like I say, I don't like these poor practices and it's not an issue that's unique to RL. Whether it's voluntary positions, BS "internships", over-use of ZHCs or anything else, we should strive for better than that. 

Posted
4 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

I am very weary of people demanding that roles that don´t make money should be paid. We can´t divert unlimited resources in a sport to the non financially sustainable parts of the game. It also moves the question away from what it should be which is, ok, how can we make this part of the game wash it´s own face. 

For me, that means (like everything else) building internationals and locking in a Welsh team so we can get a kind of NH tri nations going, it doesn´t have to copy the failing male model .

You don't want fellow human beings to be paid for non-financially sustainable ventures - but then champion non-financially sustainable ventures like games v Wales. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You don't want fellow human beings to be paid for non-financially sustainable ventures - but then champion non-financially sustainable ventures like games v Wales. 

The sport’s forefathers in 1895 would be turning in their graves…

Posted
7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Sport had to make money for those lads to get broken time payments because it wasn’t a private school club. Maybe if the sport focused on how to grow rev again we could afford what financially we cannot sustain right now. 

The NRL is subsidising the WNRL because they make boatloads and yes it grows their brand but here in the UK only internationals are going to do that and again, all the nations England would face are in south so how is it ever going to make cash or break even without internationals. 

 

"what financially we cannot sustain right now. "

It seems to me that SL clubs can't manage financially right now,  yet somehow they manage to pay players and managers.

Why should the women's game be any different?

 

 

Posted
Just now, ShropshireBull said:

Because men’s game is generating millions in a TV deal and crowds to pay them. 

That’s a lazy way to look at things. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No its a non childish way to look at things. Why should they be treated different ? Because they are . How can the women’s game generate rev to pay for itself is the more interesting and important question for people seriously wanting to see the sport grow. 

Thats internationals and because the women’s game is in its infancy there is zero reason not to design a model that works towards that. That would be serious targeted investment. SL team in Scotland with travel paid for, SL team in Wales with travel covered. Annual international tournament involving Wales France Scotland and England. 

Away from the World Cup, Greece, Turkey, Serbia, Wales, Ireland and Italy all played Test matches this year.

That would seem to be a positive, no?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Posted
10 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No its a non childish way to look at things. Why should they be treated different ? Because they are . How can the women’s game generate rev to pay for itself is the more interesting and important question for people seriously wanting to see the sport grow. 

Thats internationals and because the women’s game is in its infancy there is zero reason not to design a model that works towards that. That would be serious targeted investment. SL team in Scotland with travel paid for, SL team in Wales with travel covered. Annual international tournament involving Wales France Scotland and England. 

You could fund an entire womens semi professional SL for what a SL team in Scotland would cost. Even the minimum SL funding wouldnt touch the sides of what would be needed to make a SL team a success there. The game is essentially non-existent in Scotland and unless something drastically changes it would be a colossal waste of money.

I would argue there would be far more benefit in funding a semi professional womens competition too and far more opportunities for TV and sponsors than putting resources towards a Scottish SL team. Setting up a Scottish women's team in such a league would actually be a far easier entry into the Scottish market for the sport.

  • gingerjon changed the title to Putting money in the women's game (was: Wigan Warriors: Bankrupt)
Posted
3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Perhaps but its completely irrelevant to getting the sport sustaining itself at a semi professional level. If it can’t be commercialized then what difference does it really make ? 

Were Wales to play England annually on TV and pick up between 600,000-1,000,000 for C4 , now it does have value.

And how are Wales playing England in a match like that without community investment to create a pathway for players. The kind that the WRL are actually doing? (And, I would hope, that the WRL are paying coaches to deliver and putting in the proper insurance etc.)

You can't just magic these things up.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Posted
45 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because men’s game is generating millions in a TV deal and crowds to pay them. 

Because RUGBY LEAGUE is generating millions....

Posted
13 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

We have just been talking about it in terms of what is serious investment and how actually because women don’t get paid it’s far easier to do . 

Have a women’s SL team in Wales and one in Scotland with guaranteed annual games vs England. 

It isn’t community work that will create those internationals, it’s the RFL’s ( and yes it is there responsibility) to say this is what we are doing and Welsh women will see a meaningful pathway for their sacrifice. 

Its only an investment if it generates a return and why would any Welsh women who is halfway decent at rugby not immediately switch to RU when they get annual games vs England on tv and the Welsh team currently have no guarantee of that.

in the women’s game it is actually a hell of a lot easier to set this up properly. What I suspect will happen is that it will look like a carbon copy of men’s super league and all the failures of that game (no serious northern hemisphere internationals, zero tv coverage, begging Southern Hemisphere nations for internationals and being told no) will be repeated.

Wales women formed in 2019.

They played England Lions in 2019.

No matches in 2020.

And then they've played England in 2021 and 2022.

So, they're playing annual games against England.

What else would you like to invent for them to do that they're already doing?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Posted
44 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I was talking about a women’s scot SL team and a women’s Welsh SL team. Because we were talking about the women’s game.

The club game for women (and increasingly for men) will always be a minority unable to generate rev. Any women’s league should exist really solely to grow the international northern hemisphere rl offer, where it can make a commercial dent.

Fair enough but that wasnt clear as you replied to someone quoting you talking exclusively about the men's game and it generating the revenue and crowds and calling your view lazy.

Posted
15 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

 

RU with England have set their expectation of their Women´s world cup breaking even in UK even with full houses at twickenham. No women´s team sport attached to men´s is making money and we really don´t have money to waste. I don´t want to see clubs forced if IMG bring it in to run unprofitable parts whilst the main product is floundering. So there´s an arguement to pack it up, this seems like a reasonable compromise. 

Why would the women's teams make money when the men's don't? The house of commons hearings showed that premier rugby clubs have half a billion in debts.

Posted
1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

 

We aren’t talking about Union here either .

Actually you brought it up the RU world cup. Apples and oranges but now I've pointed it out you want pears.

Posted
3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

 

Not very difficult if you read.

Second time you've questioned peoples reading skills @Dave T earlier wasn't it. Perhaps it's not the readers that's the problem but the incoherent ramblings.

Posted
1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

No its a non childish way to look at things. Why should they be treated different ? Because they are . How can the women’s game generate rev to pay for itself is the more interesting and important question for people seriously wanting to see the sport grow. 

Thats internationals and because the women’s game is in its infancy there is zero reason not to design a model that works towards that. That would be serious targeted investment. SL team in Scotland with travel paid for, SL team in Wales with travel covered. Annual international tournament involving Wales France Scotland and England. 

Only SL generates money so let’s bin off the championship & league one clubs

Posted
5 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Sport got itself into a lot of mess by giving lots of money to unprofitable championship clubs which could have gone on infrastructure to generate cash. So actually, we did throw lots of money at parts of the game that didn’t make cash and it was all wasted. 

Also, shouldn’t clubs be running at a sustainable basis? The arguement I guess for keeping Championship and League 1 is they can generate players for the profitable part of the game in SL and internationals (whenever they are held) whilst many have the potential to grow and become a commercially thriving part of the game.

In the women’s game, there is currently no part of the game that does generate profit so it’s a false comparison.

You’re changing the goal posts now.  It was about income a minute ago and now profit. If that’s the case there’s a few SL clubs that need getting rid 

Posted
6 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I was responding to your straw man on a completely different topic in the most generous way possible. I have argued before that some clubs in SL should be looked at for this reason so it’s not the gotcha you think it is . 

But Again, hopefully to the topic of women’s rugby league and paying for it. What do you actually think, should money by spent on it when it currently runs at a loss? How would you grow the revenue , do you think that’s even possible?

 

It’s not a gotcha, just responding to nonsense with nonsense. As for Womens rugby It’s absolutely the right thing to do for Rugby League as a sport to survive, and reach new audiences. The exposure from this World Cup should be a catalyst. There is a cost to run any elite club, and to qualify as elite they have a duty to all forms of the sport. If they can’t do this they shouldn’t be an elite club

Posted
41 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I see that you have made zero comments on this thread about it so maybe you have something meaningful to contribute?

You'd like a comment. Ok. I see little reason to make an admin role full-time when the players are part time(at best) or working full time to support them selves and playing basically for fun.

I'm starting to think the 'bull' in your name isnt which team you support.

Posted
4 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Well I disagree that games vs Wales would be non financially sustaining as I have posted many times that the argument in their favour is the tv coverage and ability to create rev and sponsors.

Would one academy in Wales and annual games vs Wales be able to get decent tv figures for England and a crowd ? I would say yes and that’s where the money is.

So it seems you only bother to read the parts that suit your arguement or can’t read . 

Well no. I just disagree with you. 

There is not a jot of evidence that Wales games for England would be commercially viable and that people are peapred to pay decent money (or anything) for it. 

It's no coincidence that at times we are staging our own games on our League. 

Posted

Money won't just land on our laps with regards to the women's game. If we think it's a genuine area of development for the game, then we are at the stage of it needing investment by us. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Money won't just land on our laps with regards to the women's game. If we think it's a genuine area of development for the game, then we are at the stage of it needing investment by us. 

Shouldn't that be case for all variables of our game. If you can't or won't invest in your own sports don't expect others too invest. 

Archived

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

  • 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.