Toulouse or London

[David Shepherd]

On the original question, I hope it's London. With a shrinking pot of money, I don't think we can afford another French team that will add zero to our main funder's bottom line. Unless the mythical French TV deal comes to pass.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

34 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

'Very small crowds' which averaged enough to score the second highest in the IMG grading and higher than Wakefield and Salford that season. In their debut season. Where they finished bottom. And higher than Widnes in their last SL season.

I know that's not necessarily your point and I agree with most of what you say however I don't think that it is strictly fair to bash them for the crowds they got. I think it was should realistically be expected.

As Harry himself points out it is very tricky to be able to build a SL standard squad only after being promoted from the Championship. Whoever comes up is fighting an uphill battle unless they can spend SL money in the Championship. 

Some if their announced crowds did look suspect compared to the highlights view of the stadium 

[glossop saint]

13 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Some if their announced crowds did look suspect compared to the highlights view of the stadium 

So are we just to make up numbers for ourselves that suit our arguments? If we don't trust them then who's do we trust?

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Harry you are almost there - you realise you are pretty much advocating for what IMG are planning, yes it is ridiculously hard for a promoted side from the Championship to hit the ground running in SL, thankfully the promoted team has a chance to grow properly rather than just trying to survive relegation.

Not in a million years am I advocating the IMG fundamentals, Mr Beaumont has shown there is a way to do it, but there is no other championship club with a benefactor who can finance it like he has done I hear you say.

Mr Beaumont is not mega rich, but sufficiently so to finance a team for a number of years till he found the right formula, now my friend having "shown how it can be acheived" are there others out there from the heartlands or even a native of a town - as Mr B - who may have enough spondulic's to decide to have a go themselves?

But that time may have passed us by Chris, I fear that IMG's methods will be the end of any new entrepreneurial involvement, which is not a very good outlook.

You say "thankfully the promoted team has a chance to grow properly than just trying to survive" have you already dismissed the possibility of a team in the Championship next year replacing one of them In SL in 2025?

[Rovers13]

I don’t think people’s are grasping the concept Harry tbh.sky are what’s holding up the sport.  Toulouse having 100k in their stadium makes not one jot of difference to the tv deal. Sky want bums on chairs at home not in stands. Until sky get more subscribers for he sport the tv deal will continue to dwindle. 

[Harry Stottle]

57 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

On the original question, I hope it's London. With a shrinking pot of money, I don't think we can afford another French team that will add zero to our main funder's bottom line. Unless the mythical French TV deal comes to pass.

David, are you dismissing the potential, if it comes to pass great, but how long will it take and should we keep rolling that over season on season it if doesn't?

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not in a million years am I advocating the IMG fundamentals, Mr Beaumont has shown there is a way to do it, but there is no other championship club with a benefactor who can finance it like he has done I hear you say.

Mr Beaumont is not mega rich, but sufficiently so to finance a team for a number of years till he found the right formula, now my friend having "shown how it can be acheived" are there others out there from the heartlands or even a native of a town - as Mr B - who may have enough spondulic's to decide to have a go themselves?

But that time may have passed us by Chris, I fear that IMG's methods will be the end of any new entrepreneurial involvement, which is not a very good outlook.

You say "thankfully the promoted team has a chance to grow properly than just trying to survive" have you already dismissed the possibility of a team in the Championship next year replacing one of them In SL in 2025?

I'd say the opposite regarding investment - business people like certainty and with IMG they have a standard that is known and what they need to achieve, just throwing money at a squad as has just been shown is not a guarantee of anything, equally to counter your argument an investor might look at what's just happened to Featherstone and think it's not worth it.

 

I've not dismissed anything regarding next year, I personally think that SL will go to 14 teams in 2025 but that's just my gut feeling.

 

Anyway with you admitting  you think a team from the Championship could come up next year you seem to be admitting that IMG plans aren't a closed shop and promotion is achievable?

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

David, are you dismissing the potential, if it comes to pass great, but how long will it take and should we keep rolling that over season on season it if doesn't?

would you have relegated Catalans in their first season?

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

would you have relegated Catalans in their first season?

Their we go again though as much as people think Catalan have brought to the sport (which they have) it makes no difference what they do to the sky tv deal as they have their own tv deal. We need money now not in 5/10 years time clubs are on their knees in debt. 

[Trinity1873]

13 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I've been to Ripon....can't believe it's considered a city....just a sort of market square car park with a Boots and 2 pubs....the workhouse museum is good though 

It's got a Cathedral and it is the oldest City in England [and the 4th smallest City in England as well] It is deemed a City because of it's ancient Royal Charter 

[crashmon]

I very much doubt either London or Tolouse will spend a lot on improving the quality of their squads if they think they will be back in the Champ in 2025.   The only way you will get them to really invest is if they know they have 3 or so years to build a competitive side.

But if you give them this, whats the incentive for Champ sides to then invest if they know they can't move up until 2028.

There is no easy answer (unless you happen to be a chairman of the 11 other SL clubs who are safe in mediocrity right now)

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

would you have relegated Catalans in their first season?

Yes, any team in a competion for points and they get less than their contemporaries in a league system then they are the one who should be relegated, tell me it is fair to relegate someone who gained more points? 

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

I don’t think people’s are grasping the concept Harry tbh.sky are what’s holding up the sport.  Toulouse having 100k in their stadium makes not one jot of difference to the tv deal. Sky want bums on chairs at home not in stands. Until sky get more subscribers for he sport the tv deal will continue to dwindle. 

Sky want a good product with quality clubs and players. Big clubs playing in front of big crowds at quality stadiums are far more likely to attract floating viewers in my opinion than than small ones, playing in front of small crowds at rubbish stadiums.

[Tommygilf]

Didn't both Toulouse and London take it to the last week/2 weeks in their most recent super league seasons before they were relegated?

[Rovers13]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sky want a good product with quality clubs and players. Big clubs playing in front of big crowds at quality stadiums are far more likely to attract floating viewers in my opinion than than small ones, playing in front of small crowds at rubbish stadiums.

I totally agree with that too. But for sky to pay more money imo they need more paying subscribers. And yes you might get that with fuller stadiums but no guarantees either. But I totally agree empty stadiums looks terrible on tv. 

[Trinity1873]

6 minutes ago, Trinity1873 said:

It's got a Cathedral and it is the oldest City in England [and the 4th smallest City in England as well] It is deemed a City because of it's ancient Royal Charter 

OOPS, sorry folks ,i've gone off the Thread title,i hope you will forgive me, it is my first post. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 minute ago, Trinity1873 said:

OOPS, sorry folks ,i've gone off the Thread title,i hope you will forgive me, it is my first post. 

Welcome to the forum - interesting info about Ripon!

[Rovers13]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sky want a good product with quality clubs and players. Big clubs playing in front of big crowds at quality stadiums are far more likely to attract floating viewers in my opinion than than small ones, playing in front of small crowds at rubbish stadiums.

The big problem we have as a sport too is we’re a tv filler for sky. They could drop us tomorrow for say darts golf snooker etc. we don’t hold sky down and have their hands tied, hence why we’re in a very dodgy situation because if sky do pull the plug god knows what will happen tbh. So we’re at the whim of a company who could just walk tomorrow which frightens me to death tbh. 

[crashmon]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Didn't both Toulouse and London take it to the last week/2 weeks in their most recent super league seasons before they were relegated?

London had a pretty good FT team back in 2018 which had been blooded in several previous seasons in the middle eoghts vs SL teams, so where much better prepared than the current PT squad.  Assuming a big IF they get past Tolouse, I don't see them getting close to the 2019 performance (but I do think they will win 2 or 3 games)

[Chrispmartha]

21 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

Their we go again though as much as people think Catalan have brought to the sport (which they have) it makes no difference what they do to the sky tv deal as they have their own tv deal. We need money now not in 5/10 years time clubs are on their knees in debt. 

Featherstone Rovers would not have brought any extra money in from Sky Sports though would they.

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Featherstone Rovers would not have brought any extra money in from Sky Sports though would they.

Putting any team in SL won’t change the financial position like I’ve said only sky can do that. 

[Chrispmartha]

20 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes, any team in a competion for points and they get less than their contemporaries in a league system then they are the one who should be relegated, tell me it is fair to relegate someone who gained more points? 

Is it fair to relegate a team that we're purposely put into the league to try expand it?

But you probably don't think Catalans should have been put in in the first place anyway?

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Rovers13 said:

Putting any team in SL won’t change the financial position like I’ve said only sky can do that. 

So what's your point?

Id also suggest that a league with teams like London, Catalans or Toulouse in them are more attractive to Sky than a league with team like Featherstone in there instead.

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

So what's your point?

Id also suggest that a league with teams like London, Catalans or Toulouse in them are more attractive to Sky than a league with team like Featherstone in there instead.

This is not about my team or any team no one of the teams will make sky pay more like I’ve said until they get more bums on seats at home watching RL they won’t pay anymore if anything less and less. 

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

This is not about my team or any team no one of the teams will make sky pay more like I’ve said until they get more bums on seats at home watching RL they won’t pay anymore if anything less and less. 

It's not just the amount of 'bums on seats' It's also about the demographic of those bums on seats and what that means to advertisers.