Catalans Travel

[Harry Stottle]

29 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Tell us Harry! 

Just reading another thread and you say this you wrote:-

"We are always loathe to put certain things in writing at work for things that involve interpretation - and I think this is a good example of why not. The problem is that people don't really like ambiguity, but it's life, there will absolutely be some"

That's exactly why I said listen for yourself.

Edited February 29 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

So just read through the thread, and many are penning solutions and having a moan like sticking a wet finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, just listen to the podcast and take in what Mr Jones says then comment it isn't hard, you just may learn something worthy to react upon, some will be sympathetic to Catalan others will say it is the right way to go.

PS @Martyn Sadler I have listened to all your podcasts and whilst I don't nessacarily agree with all the content I do find them informative, the one that resonated with me the most was when Mr Robert Hicks was your guest and he emphasised on referees giving 'subconscious' decisions! 

[Worzel]

5 hours ago, Copa said:

I’m pretty certain the NRL pays for travel expenses. If they didn’t clubs like the Cowboys and Warriors would suffer significantly.

If Super League covered clubs travelling expenses to France for clubs, and the UK for Catalans, out of pooled revenues before then giving each club an equal central distribution afterwards then that would be fine. I'm all on board with that.

But that's not what's happening here. Instead, we're expecting one single club to pay the UK/France travelling costs for every club, including themselves. It distorts the competition, disadvantaging one club.  

[Damien]

I just don't understand why we wish to put barriers in place. We should want clubs to work and not try and hinder them. At even a basic level one club having to pay say £12.5k to travel (just spitballing £500 x 25 people) spreads the cost in a much more manageable way than one club having to pay for 13 games at home and £162.5k, on top of say another £162.5k traveling to England.

If clubs don't want to pay then just take that amount out of their funding and pay it centrally. In the grand scheme of things it's a small amount. Same difference but it shouldn't need to come to that.

[JohnM]

SuperLeague equality?  Some SL clubs are more equal than others?   Should London Broncos for example pay the travel expenses of all visiting clubs?

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I just don't understand why we wish to put barriers in place. We should want clubs to work and not try and hinder them. At even a basic level one club having to pay say £12.5k to travel (just spitballing £500 x 25 people) spreads the cost in a much more manageable way than one club having to pay for 13 games at home and £162.5k, on top of say another £162.5k traveling to England.

If clubs don't want to pay then just take that amount out of their funding and pay it centrally. In the grand scheme of things it's a small amount. Same difference but it shouldn't need to come to that.

I think it does ultimately come down to having proper commercials structures in place and I don't think we really gave too much thought to how overseas clubs are brought into what us ultimately the UK's pyramid. 

As a starting point, I'm perfectly comfortable with charging for a place in SL for new clubs. Catalans were a series of small clubs playing in front of modest crowds and SL has been a great vehicle for them. There is clearly a commercial benefit to them, and my understanding is that as opposed to them buying in, they were paid to join. I think that was the first mistake tbh, although there is an argument that we didn't have any proof of concept of SL being worth anything to a new club - Catalans are the poc really. So I can understand why they went down that route after a series of failures with London, Paris and Gateshead. But I think with a bit of vision, the commercial terms could have been a bit tighter here, whether that was around them having to be self funded, maybe by their governing body, or their media deals, or selling sponsorship in their territory etc. 

But I think broadly speaking, Catalans worked, irrespective of any commercial arrangement. I do think the problem came a few years later once Toulouse were added, then TWP and then Ottawa. Whilst I don't think 100% consistency is compulsory, it is helpful in terms of overseas clubs knowing what the financial commitment is, whether that be an entrance fee, an annual license fee, covering costs, whatever, they can all work. But I am bug on transparency, and I really don't like Catalans' terms being changed. By now I think they are as good as a founder member of SL and they should have equal rights etc and I think we could make a case to draw a line in the sand under their current agreement and have new agreements for future. 

[Damien]

47 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think it does ultimately come down to having proper commercials structures in place and I don't think we really gave too much thought to how overseas clubs are brought into what us ultimately the UK's pyramid. 

As a starting point, I'm perfectly comfortable with charging for a place in SL for new clubs. Catalans were a series of small clubs playing in front of modest crowds and SL has been a great vehicle for them. There is clearly a commercial benefit to them, and my understanding is that as opposed to them buying in, they were paid to join. I think that was the first mistake tbh, although there is an argument that we didn't have any proof of concept of SL being worth anything to a new club - Catalans are the poc really. So I can understand why they went down that route after a series of failures with London, Paris and Gateshead. But I think with a bit of vision, the commercial terms could have been a bit tighter here, whether that was around them having to be self funded, maybe by their governing body, or their media deals, or selling sponsorship in their territory etc. 

But I think broadly speaking, Catalans worked, irrespective of any commercial arrangement. I do think the problem came a few years later once Toulouse were added, then TWP and then Ottawa. Whilst I don't think 100% consistency is compulsory, it is helpful in terms of overseas clubs knowing what the financial commitment is, whether that be an entrance fee, an annual license fee, covering costs, whatever, they can all work. But I am bug on transparency, and I really don't like Catalans' terms being changed. By now I think they are as good as a founder member of SL and they should have equal rights etc and I think we could make a case to draw a line in the sand under their current agreement and have new agreements for future. 

In my opinion RL in England has an obligation to try and grow the game in the rest of the UK and also in France, due to its history and existing presence. This can only improve the game internationally and can only enhance the standing of SL as a competition. SL is all the better with Catalans in it and is a more attractive competition as a result. These benefits aren't one way. The very concept of SL recognised this with the 2 places that were meant to be set aside for French SL clubs (and one for a Welsh club).

Sure SL has been great for Catalans, which is great for SL and RL, but that has directly been because of the model used, even at that in the early days they were close to folding at one point. Making it impossible for new clubs to join, or prohibitively expensive in terms of ongoing cost, doesn't make RL or SL any better nor does Catalans never coming into existence and still being a series of small clubs playing in front of modest crowds.

I am not against selling places in SL but it's a completely different discussion to this topic of Catalans paying travel costs. It also requires a sea change in the setup and proper ring fencing for any team that buys a place. SL and RL needs to be in a very different place with very different attitudes.

At the end of the day RL is not in a position of power. We don't have stacks of countries in Europe playing the game at a high level, we have one, a tiny presence in France and even smaller one in Wales. If we had loads of clubs and countries playing the game and could pick and choose from a long list of applicants then sure we be more stringent and charge. We don't, we have RL in a bad way in a country like France and clubs like Catalans who needed all the help they could get to proper and thrive.

Ultimately I do think RL in this country also has a major missionary role and encouraging new clubs and getting RL stronger in other countries can only benefit it and SL.

Edited February 29 by Damien

[Dave T]

30 minutes ago, Damien said:

In my opinion RL in England has an obligation to try and grow the game in the rest of the UK and also in France, due to its history and existing presence. This can only improve the game internationally and can only enhance the standing of SL as a competition. SL is all the better with Catalans in it and is a more attractive competition as a result. These benefits aren't one way. The very concept of SL recognised this with the 2 places that were meant to be set aside for French SL clubs (and one for a Welsh club).

Sure SL has been great for Catalans, which is great for SL and RL, but that has directly been because of the model used, even at that in the early days they were close to folding at one point. Making it impossible for new clubs to join, or prohibitively expensive in terms of ongoing cost, doesn't make RL or SL any better nor does Catalans never coming into existence and still being a series of small clubs playing in front of modest crowds.

I am not against selling places in SL but it's a completely different discussion to this topic of Catalans paying travel costs. It also requires a sea change in the setup and proper ring fencing for any team that buys a place. SL and RL needs to be in a very different place with very different attitudes.

At the end of the day RL is not in a position of power. We don't have stacks of countries in Europe playing the game at a high level, we have one, a tiny presence in France and even smaller one in Wales. If we had loads of clubs and countries playing the game and could pick and choose from a long list of applicants then sure we be more stringent and charge. We don't, we have RL in a bad way in a country like France and clubs like Catalans who needed all the help they could get to proper and thrive.

Ultimately I do think RL in this country also has a major missionary role and encouraging new clubs and getting RL stronger in other countries can only benefit it and SL.

I agree with the vast majority of that, although whilst I agree we should be supporting France, we do have to work within the constraints of the funds we have. We are a relatively poor sport, and I'm not sure how much missionary work we can afford in France, so we do need to be sharp with commercials. 

From a purely commercial point of view, I do firmly believe Catalans get far more out of this partnership, although I think Catalans bring some softer benefits that can't always be measured in pounds and pence. 

But as long as every sponsorship deal and every tv deal and every bit of central funding is driven from the UK, there will always be this imbalance.*

I've often made the point that I think we should be in partnership with the French governing body for things like this, rather than Catalans having to deal with it directly. 

 

*as much a failing of the governing body as anyone

Edited February 29 by Dave T

[Sitona]

Catalans travel costs last year were close to £500000, so probably would be the same, in total, for them to pay for clubs to go to Perpignan. I am not sure that it is sustainable for one club to pay out close to £1million per year for travel alone. If this is to happen, I suspect that the club will fold very quickly and we will revert to a M62 sport.

[Worzel]

For anyone wondering how such a ridiculous, short-sighted, unbalanced decision could be made, I’m just here to remind you that rugby league, a sport that’s not won a major new sponsor or commercial partner in the last 15 years, promoted its serially failing sponsorship sales person to head the whole organisation…

Edited February 29 by Worzel

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

For anyone wondering how such a ridiculous, short-sighted, unbalanced decision could be made, I’m just here to remind you that rugby league, a sport that’s not won a major new sponsor or commercial partner in the last 15 years, promoted its serially failing sponsorship sales person to head the whole organisation…

Is tgat what is termed as climbing the ladder?

Must admit that resume does not bode very well, and the decision makers do like to award the jobs from within.

Q. Have you listened to this Catalan topic on the podcast?

[Tommygilf]

8 hours ago, Worzel said:

For anyone wondering how such a ridiculous, short-sighted, unbalanced decision could be made, I’m just here to remind you that rugby league, a sport that’s not won a major new sponsor or commercial partner in the last 15 years, promoted its serially failing sponsorship sales person to head the whole organisation…

Always said Rugby League is just as bad as Union with Jobs for the Boys.

It's just their boys tend to bring more with them...

[Worzel]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Always said Rugby League is just as bad as Union with Jobs for the Boys.

It's just their boys tend to bring more with them...

They all fail upwards. It's unbelievable. The man has achieved nothing. Nothing at all. In any other organisation he'd have been replaced by somebody better, at least 6 roles ago. We just settle for mediocre people.

It's depressing. Such potential in our sport, wasted by people with the strategic insight and vision of a mole. 

[Worzel]

13 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Is tgat what is termed as climbing the ladder?

Must admit that resume does not bode very well, and the decision makers do like to award the jobs from within.

Q. Have you listened to this Catalan topic on the podcast?

Yes I have. 

“I’m not sure we would withdraw central funding but who knows what that might become. The travel will change in terms of going out to Catalans and who pays for the travel in 2025. The Dragons will pick up that bill now. It’s been talked about but we haven’t got into that detail yet, that’s something we will do quickly so everyone knows how the land lies. Toulouse already do that so in effect we are bringing Catalans in line with what Toulouse are doing.”

It's not ambiguous. It's very, very clear. The MD of RFL Commercial, who is wholly unqualified for his job and certainly hasn't earned it through results, thinks that French teams somehow have to demonstrate some sort of special "return on investment" for their TV revenue, in a way that UK clubs do not. I'd simply ask who has brought more to British rugby league in the last 20 years for example, Catalans or Castleford? And that wouldn't be the only positive comparison. It's disgracefully disrespectful, as well as being bad strategy for the sport's growth.

Catalans generate 1/12th of the content, and so earn 1/12th of the value. We're not doing them some sort of charitable favour, the central distribution is not some form of subsidy, it is income earned by Catalans through their work. 

Every time the sport starts to make progress, usually as a result of some people outside the sport making things happen, the incompetent "jobs for the boys" cabal manage to find a way to mess things up. How many times?

 

 

Edited March 1 by Worzel
Typo

[Click]

I can understand Toulouse paying for travel costs while they are in the semi professional leagues, but to have Catalans pay for all travel while in a fully professional division is a joke.

Lots of things seem to be on the up for RL in this hemisphere, but there is always something that reminds you how small time our sport truly is.

[Archie Gordon]

25 minutes ago, Worzel said:

...

Catalans generate 1/12th of the content, and so earn 1/12th of the value. We're not doing them some sort of charitable favour, the central distribution is not some form of subsidy, it is income earned by Catalans through their work. 

I agree with the thrust of the post - Catalan brings more value than, say, Castleford. But I don't believe that the incumbent clubs deliver (on average) 1/12 of SL's annual value. There is an inherent/latent/residual non-zero value to SL itself, irrespective of which clubs are in it.

[Phil]

Jealousy 

shouldn’t we be raising standards instead of trying to drag Catalan down? 

[whatmichaelsays]

On 29/02/2024 at 12:15, Dave T said:

But as long as every sponsorship deal and every tv deal and every bit of central funding is driven from the UK, there will always be this imbalance.*

*as much a failing of the governing body as anyone

The Asterix is the key part in that, because we've had some high profile members of the board of SL Europe going on record with statements like "why hasn't Catalans secured a TV deal?", "why aren't they bringing any new sponsors?", and "our sponsors aren't allowed to advertise in France", which is an incredibly disingenuous given that it's the role of SLE - not the Catalans - to sell the commercial rights in Europe. You can therefore make the argument that the benefit of Catalans in SL looks unbalanced because SLE has failed to fulfil its remit. 

Blaming the Catalans for not securing a French TV deal is the same as blaming the board at Salford for not getting a better deal with the BBC on the basis that they're the closest club to Media City.   

 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

I agree with the thrust of the post - Catalan brings more value than, say, Castleford. But I don't believe that the incumbent clubs deliver (on average) 1/12 of SL's annual value. There is an inherent/latent/residual non-zero value to SL itself, irrespective of which clubs are in it.

I can agree with that, there's definitely something in it. But whatever the incumbent value is, once you've deducted that then 1/12th of the remainder is what each club provides. Ultimately Sky and others pay for content, which is created by all of the teams competing. Even the "biggest" club can't create content without playing another club. And of course Catalans have been in the league for over 20 years, so you can't argue they haven't been an equal generator of whatever that "incumbent value" is either. They're certainly not the smallest contributor, by any measure.  

 

Edited March 1 by Worzel

[Dave T]

58 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The Asterix is the key part in that, because we've had some high profile members of the board of SL Europe going on record with statements like "why hasn't Catalans secured a TV deal?", "why aren't they bringing any new sponsors?", and "our sponsors aren't allowed to advertise in France", which is an incredibly disingenuous given that it's the role of SLE - not the Catalans - to sell the commercial rights in Europe. You can therefore make the argument that the benefit of Catalans in SL looks unbalanced because SLE has failed to fulfil its remit. 

Blaming the Catalans for not securing a French TV deal is the same as blaming the board at Salford for not getting a better deal with the BBC on the basis that they're the closest club to Media City.   

 

Agreed. I think it's reasonable to charge for early years, but if after 20 years you haven't been able to monetise French presence (very strong at that) then it is on you. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Worzel said:

Yes I have. 

“I’m not sure we would withdraw central funding but who knows what that might become. The travel will change in terms of going out to Catalans and who pays for the travel in 2025. The Dragons will pick up that bill now. It’s been talked about but we haven’t got into that detail yet, that’s something we will do quickly so everyone knows how the land lies. Toulouse already do that so in effect we are bringing Catalans in line with what Toulouse are doing.”

It's not ambiguous. It's very, very clear. The MD of RFL Commercial, who is wholly unqualified for his job and certainly hasn't earned it through results, thinks that French teams somehow have to demonstrate some sort of special "return on investment" for their TV revenue, in a way that UK clubs do not. I'd simply ask who has brought more to British rugby league in the last 20 years for example, Catalans or Castleford? And that wouldn't be the only positive comparison. It's disgracefully disrespectful, as well as being bad strategy for the sport's growth.

Catalans generate 1/12th of the content, and so earn 1/12th of the value. We're not doing them some sort of charitable favour, the central distribution is not some form of subsidy, it is income earned by Catalans through their work. 

Every time the sport starts to make progress, usually as a result of some people outside the sport making things happen, the incompetent "jobs for the boys" cabal manage to find a way to mess things up. How many times?

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but prior to the bit from the podcast you quote, was it not said that the clubs over here were pushung for this with Catalan having secured a TV deal?

[ATLANTISMAN]

Quote from one CEO 

Apart from a jolly for the fans Catalan Dragons bring nothing to Super League and really should just go back and play in their own competition.

Edited March 1 by ATLANTISMAN

[Worzel]

48 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but prior to the bit from the podcast you quote, was it not said that the clubs over here were pushung for this with Catalan having secured a TV deal?

The French SuperLeague TV deal isn't a paid deal, it's an exposure deal. But that's irrelevant.

Catalans already have a TV deal, with Sky. You don't get paid for providing viewers in the region your club is based in, you get paid for providing content that Sky then sell to their viewers and use to sell subscriptions, everywhere. For example, Manchester City get paid TV rights money by UEFA for competing in the Champions League, and most of that money is paid by broadcasters in non-UK markets. 

Just because the leaders of some clubs are myopic "local sport for local people" businessmen without the ability to think beyond the next £75k, doesn't mean the sport's own commercial leadership should be influenced by daft ideas emanating from them. 

[GeordieSaint]

On 28/02/2024 at 22:47, ATLANTISMAN said:

There is an underlying internal campaign from a few clubs to get rid of Catalans 

4 clubs in total 

 

30 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Quote from one CEO 

Apart from a jolly for the fans Catalan Dragons bring nothing to Super League and really should just go back and play in their own competition.

Name them…

[Worzel]

27 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Quote from one CEO 

Apart from a jolly for the fans Catalan Dragons bring nothing to Super League and really should just go back and play in their own competition.

I'd respectfully suggest that the CEO in question is an idiot. Feel free to name and shame.

Catalans Dragons bring a fully-resourced club to SuperLeague, delivering elite performance as a result of having the budget to do so from their commercial engine. We don't have 12 of those in total. I can think of at least 4 current SuperLeague clubs who don't come anywhere near that definition, so that CEO should be looking at those organisations first.

Of course we all know that the CEO probably runs one of those very same weak clubs, so they won't...