Championship Meeting #2

[Mumby Magic]

3 hours ago, Rovers13 said:

It was my fault last time I hold my hands up when I’m in wrong I won’t derail this one sorry for the last thread. 

Rascal

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

7 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I think that distribution of money should be looked at. I think that League 1 clubs should be getting more money, though I think that should come with some caveats of community work, such as development officers. And that should be the case for all pro/semi pro clubs. However I don't think that is a conversation for us on this board to have very easily given we don't know figures involved. It is a huge decision that needs proper analysis and thinking of by an independent (none club) body. And one made easier by having more money, which comes about from having a stronger SL, and so requires more investment in SL. It really is a tough decision. 

Looking at the figures that have been thrown about, it's probably unrealistic to expect any L1 or Championship clubs to be able to afford to run development work. I agree that the funding model for the entire game needs looking at. I also wouldn't bother with a League 1 - I'd go with a full-time pro comp and semi-pro comp, both with minimum standards. If clubs reach the relevant minimum standards, and can guarantee a minimum spend of X for SL and Y for the Championship, then I'd stick them in their respective comps and then work out a format that gives the desired amount of fixtures. And I would leave those leagues as is (i.e. no P&R) for the duration of the TV deal (e.g. 3 years). That way, everybody knows their budgets for the duration of the TV deal. Leagues can then be revisited when the next TV deal comes around. If clubs in tier 2 have worked on their minimum standards and have owners who are prepared to underwrite to the tune of X, then they can get put in to tier 1 for the next cycle. As it stands, there's seemingly constant fire fighting as clubs have no idea what their budgets are, and there's the ongoing threat of clubs dropping out causing yet another restructure. We've got to be more pragmatic as a sport given the limited amount of money floating about.

[Rovers13]

2 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Looking at the figures that have been thrown about, it's probably unrealistic to expect any L1 or Championship clubs to be able to afford to run development work. I agree that the funding model for the entire game needs looking at. I also wouldn't bother with a League 1 - I'd go with a full-time pro comp and semi-pro comp, both with minimum standards. If clubs reach the relevant minimum standards, and can guarantee a minimum spend of X for SL and Y for the Championship, then I'd stick them in their respective comps and then work out a format that gives the desired amount of fixtures. And I would leave those leagues as is (i.e. no P&R) for the duration of the TV deal (e.g. 3 years). That way, everybody knows their budgets for the duration of the TV deal. Leagues can then be revisited when the next TV deal comes around. If clubs in tier 2 have worked on their minimum standards and have owners who are prepared to underwrite to the tune of X, then they can get put in to tier 1 for the next cycle. As it stands, there's seemingly constant fire fighting as clubs have no idea what their budgets are, and there's the ongoing threat of clubs dropping out causing yet another restructure. We've got to be more pragmatic as a sport given the limited amount of money floating about.

My guess what’s making it stall is champ clubs have lost a lot of money with no tv deal as it as a knock on effect with sponsors too. so adding travel costs etc too they will be trying to avoid. 

[glossop saint]

Just now, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Looking at the figures that have been thrown about, it's probably unrealistic to expect any L1 or Championship clubs to be able to afford to run development work. I agree that the funding model for the entire game needs looking at. I also wouldn't bother with a League 1 - I'd go with a full-time pro comp and semi-pro comp, both with minimum standards. If clubs reach the relevant minimum standards, and can guarantee a minimum spend of X for SL and Y for the Championship, then I'd stick them in their respective comps and then work out a format that gives the desired amount of fixtures. And I would leave those leagues as is (i.e. no P&R) for the duration of the TV deal (e.g. 3 years). That way, everybody knows their budgets for the duration of the TV deal. Leagues can then be revisited when the next TV deal comes around. If clubs in tier 2 have worked on their minimum standards and have owners who are prepared to underwrite to the tune of X, then they can get put in to tier 1 for the next cycle. As it stands, there's seemingly constant fire fighting as clubs have no idea what their budgets are, and there's the ongoing threat of clubs dropping out causing yet another restructure. We've got to be more pragmatic as a sport given the limited amount of money floating about.

I agree with your first sentence. Though I would want to increase those figures to enable them to do so. For me I think that increasing that player pool, or even just interest from work in schools etc, combined with internationals is possibly the biggest thing that we need to do to ensure that the sport not only survives but thrives in years and decades to come. That to me is the 'whole game solution' that everyone goes on about. Not a championship club having a full time ex international or a League 1 club signing a marquee over the hill former SL player.

However to do this SL clubs will need to reduce their funding. Hopefully they will see the long term benefit of those development officers/community projects and will do so. Unlikely though. And to ask then to reduce their funding so that a lower league club can spend more on one or two players is just not going to happen.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

My guess what’s making it stall is champ clubs have lost a lot of money with no tv deal as it as a knock on effect with sponsors too. so adding travel costs etc too they will be trying to avoid. 

You're probably right. Cornwall are likely throwing a spanner in the works

[Rovers13]

Just now, glossop saint said:

I agree with your first sentence. Though I would want to increase those figures to enable them to do so. For me I think that increasing that player pool, or even just interest from work in schools etc, combined with internationals is possibly the biggest thing that we need to do to ensure that the sport not only survives but thrives in years and decades to come. That to me is the 'whole game solution' that everyone goes on about. Not a championship club having a full time ex international or a League 1 club signing a marquee over the hill former SL player.

However to do this SL clubs will need to reduce their funding. Hopefully they will see the long term benefit of those development officers/community projects and will do so. Unlikely though. And to ask then to reduce their funding so that a lower league club can spend more on one or two players is just not going to happen.

Schools is out though RL will be banned in every school soon, I get maybe going in and talking etc but having no RL to see or play won’t help. 

[glossop saint]

1 minute ago, Rovers13 said:

Schools is out though RL will be banned in every school soon, I get maybe going in and talking etc but having no RL to see or play won’t help. 

All the more reason to work to increase (or at least stop the reduction of) the player pool/fan pool. That is a job for the 'whole game', SL, Champ, League 1.

[Rovers13]

Just now, glossop saint said:

All the more reason to work to increase (or at least stop the reduction of) the player pool/fan pool. That is a job for the 'whole game', SL, Champ, League 1.

Yeah I agree mate going to be tough though but that’s why IMG are here hopefully. 

[glossop saint]

25 minutes ago, ChristianB said:

The argument seems to boil down to L1 being unsustainable with 8 clubs.

If we are to assume that this is the case, that might imperil the continued existence of certain great old clubs and promising new ones.

I think we can all agree that such a scenario would be extremely bad news.

I agree. Though my point still stands. How many people is positions of power will forgo their money to help that? Hopefully enough. But where from, SL? Championship?

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, glossop saint said:

I agree. Though my point still stands. How many people is positions of power will forgo their money to help that? Hopefully enough. But where from, SL? Championship?

It’s tough because SL clubs lose it esp with debt their in product they sell will decrease, then champ clubs with now no tv deal or sponsorships decreasing they will need it more than ever now, going to be a long road mi thinks before we can smile again. 

[glossop saint]

1 minute ago, Rovers13 said:

Yeah I agree mate going to be tough though but that’s why IMG are here hopefully. 

Which is what they are doing with the grading. Or what they are trying to do. Personally I would have more development/community assessment, and controversially more on the potential. That would go down like a lead balloon in some quarters. That would have seen the likes of Newcastle have higher scores based on the past decade or so I imagine.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

6 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

Schools is out though RL will be banned in every school soon, I get maybe going in and talking etc but having no RL to see or play won’t help. 

It won't be banned, but it might need the RFL to be proactive in providing reduced-contact variants of the game as an introductory level for schools.

[Hopie]

1 hour ago, sheddingswasus said:

Interesting comment by Oldhams MD Mike Ford ahead of last week’s meeting 

“ Ford said it was time to put club interests on the back burner and to vote for the game’s welfare, to such an extent that clubs should be prepared to help each other.

We are all in this together. And while we can all find reasons to put our own club first, we need to vote for whatever option is considered best for the game as a whole. We’ve discussed this at board level and it’s the board’s view as well as mine.“

 

Heard him talking on the BBC podcast a while back, he seems exactly the kind of person who should be speaking about the future, and others should listen so he stays involved.

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, glossop saint said:

Which is what they are doing with the grading. Or what they are trying to do. Personally I would have more development/community assessment, and controversially more on the potential. That would go down like a lead balloon in some quarters. That would have seen the likes of Newcastle have higher scores based on the past decade or so I imagine.

Yeah I’m guessing grading wasn’t all on IMG yes it was their idea but bet clubs had a massive say too. 

[Colin James]

7 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

My guess what’s making it stall is champ clubs have lost a lot of money with no tv deal as it as a knock on effect with sponsors too. so adding travel costs etc too they will be trying to avoid. 

Most Championship clubs have no money. It's easy to sit saying 'do what is best for the game' but if you're running a club on extremely tight margins there's not much room for charity. If you're in a boardroom having planned, budgeted and recruited for the Championship in 2024 and you're being asked to throw all that in the bin to do something that will help L1 clubs but potentially damage your own what will you do?

It's extremely unfair to paint Championship clubs unwilling to scrap their plans for 2024 as unreasonable or selfish.

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

It won't be banned, but it might need the RFL to be proactive in providing reduced-contact variants of the game as an introductory level for schools.

It’s banned in fev high school a hotbed of RL. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

It’s banned in fev high school a hotbed of RL. 

But reduced-contact variants aren't banned. Some schools just don't want the risk, so the game needs to be smart and come up with meaningful offers that reduce the risk. With the brain injury risks being more widely known, we're going to be seeing fewer and fewer players sticking with full contact RL in the coming years IMO. But that means that there needs to be a low-contact alternative to keep these people involved in the sport.

[Griff]

20 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Looking at the figures that have been thrown about, it's probably unrealistic to expect any L1 or Championship clubs to be able to afford to run development work. I agree that the funding model for the entire game needs looking at. I also wouldn't bother with a League 1 - I'd go with a full-time pro comp and semi-pro comp, both with minimum standards. 

No more winning promotion on the field of play. Just wade in and sign some full time players. If you can find enough of them.

[Rovers13]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

No more winning promotion on the field of play. Just wade in and sign some full time players. If you can find enough of them.

Don’t want to go off topic but that’s what fev do the full time players do a lot of community work. Or did no idea now what will happen as they worked for fev foundation which club set up years ago. 

[Griff]

1 minute ago, Rovers13 said:

Don’t want to go off topic but that’s what fev do the full time players do a lot of community work. Or did no idea now what will happen as they worked for fev foundation which club set up years ago. 

Lots of clubs have foundations.  Sheffield were first to set one up.

But if you're working for the foundation you're not employed full time by the club.

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

Lots of clubs have foundations.  Sheffield were first to set one up.

But if you're working for the foundation you're not employed full time by the club.

Probably not think it’s a top up wage for full timers tbh. As we had full timers but don’t think we trained full time. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Rovers13

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

No more winning promotion on the field of play. Just wade in and sign some full time players. If you can find enough of them.

And tick the other relevant boxes in terms of off-field standards, development work etc.

I appreciate that many think that P&R is integral to the sport in this country, but I disagree. There just isn't the money in the game to justify it IMO. Football is the only sport that can justify it, because they have countless full-time pro clubs and are awash with money compared to RL. County cricket is completely underwritten by the central funding that comes from their internationals (£120 million goes to the counties each year), so they can have P&R between their championship because it doesn't materially impact their income. Club RU is a complete basket case and has seen 3 top tier clubs and 1 second tier club go to the wall in the past year. Having P&R in RL is completely impractical and unsustainable IMO.

If a club can demonstrate they have reached the required minimum standards and are prepared to underwrite their playing budget to the tune of X, then they get a shot in the top league. It just wouldn't be through P&R.

[Rovers13]

Is IMG just involved in SL or the whole game? Just wondered if they are in on the champ meetings. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Rovers13

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

And tick the other relevant boxes in terms of off-field standards, development work etc.

I appreciate that many think that P&R is integral to the sport in this country, but I disagree. There just isn't the money in the game to justify it IMO. Football is the only sport that can justify it, because they have countless full-time pro clubs and are awash with money compared to RL. County cricket is completely underwritten by the central funding that comes from their internationals (£120 million goes to the counties each year), so they can have P&R between their championship because it doesn't materially impact their income. Club RU is a complete basket case and has seen 3 top tier clubs and 1 second tier club go to the wall in the past year. Having P&R in RL is completely impractical and unsustainable IMO.

If a club can demonstrate they have reached the required minimum standards and are prepared to underwrite their playing budget to the tune of X, then they get a shot in the top league. It just wouldn't be through P&R.

I've got a colander with fewer holes.

[Phil W]

We have a fans meeting at Newcastle Thunder tomorrow night to hopefully agree what we need to do to save things up here. Given our name's on the letter from the other day, hopefully we get a good turnout and some optimism to give the League One clubs on Wednesday.