Championship Meeting #2

[Hopie]

Super League clubs "earn all the money" but without the foundations of the sport, the Super league clubs would not exist in the form they do. We need as many people playing the sport as possible, at every age level and at a variety of levels. 12 pro clubs and the rest amateur won't work.

Spread the money out enough to keep clubs sustainable at this difficult time, and the game as a whole will benefit in the future. Short term thinking will fill your budget this year, long term thinking will pay it for decades to come. I actually think the pro clubs should take a steadily smaller share from central funding to allow more money to be spent on development officers, and perhaps even pro level academies in areas where clubs don't operate them.

[paul hicks]

3 hours 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.“

 

the question is do we know what he means by what he said

[paul hicks]

2 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

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

or indeed Workington and Whitehaven may do so.  depends what part of the country you're in i suppose as to which is the worse journey

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 minutes ago, paul hicks said:

or indeed Workington and Whitehaven may do so.  depends what part of the country you're in i suppose as to which is the worse journey

Indeed.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

30 minutes ago, Griff said:

Do I think that?

I'm only going off how you've replied in this thread. I'm having to guess because you're being a bit cryptic.

[paul hicks]

2 hours 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.

i don't know how it works for other clubs but at leeds its actually in the contracts of the first team squad that they do a certain amount of community work through the leeds rugby foundation

[paul hicks]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

What if three more clubs go full time? Are we to split the SL funding 15 ways?

What if eight more clubs go for it? Or twelve.

It's not going to happen.

 

i thought wakefield had already committed to been full time and fev were full time as indeed were toulouse

[Fevrover]

3 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Exactly. For all the slagging off of SL clubs voting in their own self-interests, the L1 and Champ clubs are just the same. I never hear about any of them foregoing 10s of thousands of their tv money to fund development officers and grass roots activity.

10's of 1000's ,chance would be a fine thing.

[paul hicks]

1 minute ago, Rovers13 said:

We weren’t full time Toulouse were. We had An hybrid some FT some PT. But we never trained FT. 

nobody trains fulltime. how many teams spend more than a couple fo hours a day out on the training ground and then maybe only 3 or 4 days at that . 

[Griff]

6 minutes ago, paul hicks said:

i thought wakefield had already committed to been full time and fev were full time as indeed were toulouse

But not getting a Superleague share of central funds.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 minute ago, Fevrover said:

10's of 1000's ,chance would be a fine thing.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting they should be spending their limited TV money on development - they need to put out a team and have players to pay. I was just highlighting that League 1 and Championship clubs are equally guilty as SL clubs of acting in their own self-interests. None of them are acting selflessly in the 'best interests of the sport'.

Incidentally, they have all had 10s of thousands of TV funding until relatively recently.

[Griff]

12 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'm only going off how you've replied in this thread. I'm having to guess because you're being a bit cryptic.

Ok  well, to be fair, you advocated promotion and relegation based on playing full or part time. I'm merely questioning whether that's possible. Not that I think it will happen. 

I would suggest to you, for discussion purposes, that your proposal would cost the game more than traditional on the field promotion, because there'll always be a wealthy bloke backing his club if it means he'll be in Suoerleague. 

[Griff]

5 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting they should be spending their limited TV money on development - they need to put out a team and have players to pay. I was just highlighting that League 1 and Championship clubs are equally guilty as SL clubs of acting in their own self-interests. None of them are acting selflessly in the 'best interests of the sport'.

Incidentally, they have all had 10s of thousands of TV funding until relatively recently.

Development can be funded from grants. It's a bit of a red herring.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

4 minutes ago, Griff said:

Ok  well, to be fair, you advocated promotion and relegation based on playing full or part time. I'm merely questioning whether that's possible. Not that I think it will happen. 

Not only on that criteria - I stressed there would need to be minimum standards in place (stadium, player development, turnover etc).

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

I would suggest to you, for discussion purposes, that your proposal would cost the game more than traditional on the field promotion, because there'll always be a wealthy bloke backing his club if it means he'll be in Suoerleague. 

But is that a problem if the club is strong in those other areas as well? And don't we want to attract more wealthy owners to our sport? You're possibly right in that the sport may lose something, but we see it in football all the time when Saudi investors come in and start throwing money at teams to buy them success.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Not only on that criteria - I stressed there would need to be minimum standards in place (stadium, player development, turnover etc).

But is that a problem if the club is strong in those other areas as well? And don't we want to attract more wealthy owners to our sport? You're possibly right in that the sport may lose something, but we see it in football all the time when Saudi investors come in and start throwing money at teams to buy them success.

Maybe not. And maybe we should wait to see how good we are at generating income under the IMG regime.

[paul hicks]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

But not getting a Superleague share of central funds.

and quite right . if they had been good enough to stay in super league they would still be getting them. as it is London will get them 

[paul hicks]

1 hour ago, Rovers13 said:

Well if you’ve FT and PT players must be a nightmare to train and get them all there at same time, fev players did community work who were FT. 

its so easy the part time players would train in the evening and of course the full-time players would also be able to train in the evening. the full timers would be able to do extras like gym work in the daytime as well or indeed go round the schools

[paul hicks]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Development can be funded from grants. It's a bit of a red herring.

where would the grants come from because the RFL is skint

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Maybe not. And maybe we should wait to see how good we are at generating income under the IMG regime.

Yeah I don't really understand where you're coming from because you just keep giving weird, short cryptic answers instead of properly engaging, so I'll leave it there.

[Griff]

8 hours ago, paul hicks said:

where would the grants come from because the RFL is skint

Government, charities, lottery - there are agencies who'll provide funding, particularly for kids' sport.

Being a charity makes it easier to get the money.

[Griff]

8 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Yeah I don't really understand where you're coming from because you just keep giving weird, short cryptic answers instead of properly engaging, so I'll leave it there.

What's cryptic about saying that it's not a good idea to win promotion by going full time?

The rest of the Superleague clubs wouldn't stand for having their central funds reduced.  It's a non-starter.

Sure - maybe IMG will help the clubs generate lots more cash.  Maybe they won't.  If they do, I'll look at the new scenario and maybe change my view.  My own feeling is that funding will increase - but not by much.

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Griff

[sheddingswasus]

13 hours 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. 

So the Championship clubs are in favour of expansion so we have a national game, as long as they are not involved?  So myopic and selfish!

[Griff]

1 minute ago, sheddingswasus said:

So the Championship clubs are in favour of expansion so we have a national game, as long as they are not involved?  So myopic and selfish!

The travel costs, even at £5000 to visit the Cornish Riviera, are insignificant in the great scheme of things.

[sheddingswasus]

33 minutes ago, Griff said:

Government, charities, lottery - there are agencies who'll provide funding, particularly for kids' sport.

Being a charity makes it easier to get the money.

Under the IMG proposals every club will have to have a foundation set up, which is a charity. This is to develop the game. As it is a charity it is eligible for grants. The RFL.can match fund grants raised, as well as local authorities who can access funds for this purpose. Other fund raising can be matched as well. 

[sheddingswasus]

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

The travel costs, even at £5000 to visit the Cornish Riviera, are insignificant in the great scheme of things.

Agreed