Catalans Travel

[Dave T]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I agree with all that. Though I think IMG aren't daft enough to get rid of one of the big 5 or 6 RL clubs in the Northern Hemisphere either. If Catalans were like Salford or Wakey on and off the pitch it would be different, but they clearly aren't. 

I think there absolutely has to be clarity and strategy around French involvement in UK RL. As it stands there isn't that and as we've both said that won't happen because of where power lies.

Agreed, I don't think they will be anti-Catalans, but nor do I think they'll push for more French growth, outside of maybe Toulouse who are already in the system. In fact one of the first things that came up with the limit on overseas teams. 

But I also think they will be OK with Catalans paying for travel. They are a club who boast possibly the highest commercial income in Super League, yet not a penny has come into the central pit, which they draw £1.3m per annum from. Removing the emotion from this, there is a rationale here. I thought Gausch's comments were surprisingly pragmatic tbh. He appeared to agree with the UK clubs and be critical of the broadcasters. 

[ATLANTISMAN]

Basically they are wanting to take the SKY money away from them its pathetic 

[Harry Stottle]

Do people not think this is a precursor to Toulouse  joining SL next season which I am sure they will - would love to see how they got the preliminary score - and the RFL acting on most probably grumblings by the some clubs either had to drop Toulouse paying for travel or include Catalan to also pay, for some clubs it will not be forking out for just one trip if they are both in the same category for loop fixtures it could be up to a maximum of 6 trips for a UK based club - if my arithmetic is correct, in my opinion better to sort it out now than wait.

[Liverpool Rover]

The only club I could find that offered any kind of official club trip to Perpignan was Leeds. It's baffling to me that no other club seems to offer fan or corporate club trips to try and bring in some money to reduce the costs of teams travelling over, but then realised that it probably requires too much forward thinking for English Rugby League clubs.

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

The only club I could find that offered any kind of official club trip to Perpignan was Leeds. It's baffling to me that no other club seems to offer fan or corporate club trips to try and bring in some money to reduce the costs of teams travelling over, but then realised that it probably requires too much forward thinking for English Rugby League clubs.

Leigh have appointed a local travel agent to overlook the fans club trip as you put it.

[Wakefield Ram]

Aren't Catalan matches televised? Might be missing something here?

[Harry Stottle]

On 05/03/2024 at 22:08, Dave T said:

I think there absolutely has to be clarity and strategy around French involvement in UK RL. As it stands there isn't that and as we've both said that won't happen because of where power lies.

What would be the strategy you would employ if you were running the RFL?

I pointed out above it is not just 1 trip to France to fork out for, with the expected inclusion of Toulouse that will be two trips for each club, now we get to the loop fixtures, as previous if Toulouse are the 'new boys' to SL they will be deemed to have finished in 12th position and being that Catalan finished in 2nd position  they are both in the same 'even numbered' side of the loop fixture draw, meaning that the '23 finishing positions of Hull KR (4th), Warrington (6th) Leeds (8th) and Hull FC (10th) will all be making 4 trips to France with 2 of those 4 clubs making 6 trips.

Now if as you say "because of where the power lies" could it be that these clubs have already worked that out and it is they who have put most pressure on the RFL? but I still would not discount the other UK based clubs from chipping in if this is the way forward.

But on the other hand, I find it fascinating that it is four Grade 'A' clubs who may be subject to making the most trips, the ones who could best afford to do so!

[Lowdesert]

11 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

The only club I could find that offered any kind of official club trip to Perpignan was Leeds. It's baffling to me that no other club seems to offer fan or corporate club trips to try and bring in some money to reduce the costs of teams travelling over, but then realised that it probably requires too much forward thinking for English Rugby League clubs.

You might try these. https://catalansporttours.com/

I think it’s a bus travel only from whatever airport they pick up from but there are others on here that know more.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

You might try these. https://catalansporttours.com/

I think it’s a bus travel only from whatever airport they pick up from but there are others on here that know more.

Good company LD, I went on the NZ tour in '19 with them and would vouch for them, David Foti is the head of the company and a very nice chap he is.

[Worzel]

On 05/03/2024 at 22:08, Dave T said:

Agreed, I don't think they will be anti-Catalans, but nor do I think they'll push for more French growth, outside of maybe Toulouse who are already in the system. In fact one of the first things that came up with the limit on overseas teams. 

But I also think they will be OK with Catalans paying for travel. They are a club who boast possibly the highest commercial income in Super League, yet not a penny has come into the central pit, which they draw £1.3m per annum from. Removing the emotion from this, there is a rationale here. I thought Gausch's comments were surprisingly pragmatic tbh. He appeared to agree with the UK clubs and be critical of the broadcasters. 

Why on earth would Catalans put some of their commercial income into the central pot? We don't expect Leeds to. Just like Leeds, they've invested £millions in having the facilities to generate that commercial income. They earn it. 

Catalans get their equal share of the broadcasting revenue they equally contribute to the creation of, and have a higher cost to operate through needing to travel internationally 14 times per season instead of once or twice. It's quite right they do bear their own higher travel cost, but it's criminally stupid that we'd expect them to take on yet more cost to subsidise other teams just because some of the other clubs are run on a tinpot basis. 

[Worzel]

21 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Do people not think this is a precursor to Toulouse  joining SL next season which I am sure they will - would love to see how they got the preliminary score - and the RFL acting on most probably grumblings by the some clubs either had to drop Toulouse paying for travel or include Catalan to also pay, for some clubs it will not be forking out for just one trip if they are both in the same category for loop fixtures it could be up to a maximum of 6 trips for a UK based club - if my arithmetic is correct, in my opinion better to sort it out now than wait.

Yes, I agree we should read this as a strong signal that Toulouse will be in for 2025. That certainly creates a new challenge. I'd suggest that the professional, strategic-minded way of dealing with it (rather than the current small-minded one) would be to organise and pay for all clubs UK>France travel centrally, before then dividing what's left 12 ways equally. 

That would mean that each club would get slightly less TV money, including Toulouse and Catalans, but that the French teams wouldn't be spectacularly disadvantaged financially. Either we want a successful comp or we don't. Making one or two participants pay a huge additional tax to compete does not help us build and grow a competitive league.  

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Yes, I agree we should read this as a strong signal that Toulouse will be in for 2025. That certainly creates a new challenge. I'd suggest that the professional, strategic-minded way of dealing with it (rather than the current small-minded one) would be to organise and pay for all clubs UK>France travel centrally, before then dividing what's left 12 ways equally. 

That would mean that each club would get slightly less TV money, including Toulouse and Catalans, but that the French teams wouldn't be spectacularly disadvantaged financially. Either we want a successful comp or we don't. Making one or two participants pay a huge additional tax to compete does not help us build and grow a competitive league.  

I think the strong signal was given when the preliminary scores were published. I would love to see full transparency of all the clubs scoring in that matter.

[Dave T]

38 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What would be the strategy you would employ if you were running the RFL?

I pointed out above it is not just 1 trip to France to fork out for, with the expected inclusion of Toulouse that will be two trips for each club, now we get to the loop fixtures, as previous if Toulouse are the 'new boys' to SL they will be deemed to have finished in 12th position and being that Catalan finished in 2nd position  they are both in the same 'even numbered' side of the loop fixture draw, meaning that the '23 finishing positions of Hull KR (4th), Warrington (6th) Leeds (8th) and Hull FC (10th) will all be making 4 trips to France with 2 of those 4 clubs making 6 trips.

Now if as you say "because of where the power lies" could it be that these clubs have already worked that out and it is they who have put most pressure on the RFL? but I still would not discount the other UK based clubs from chipping in if this is the way forward.

But on the other hand, I find it fascinating that it is four Grade 'A' clubs who may be subject to making the most trips, the ones who could best afford to do so!

Your 2nd para is where I think there is a big challenge. It is difficult to bring in more overseas teams without a plan on how it will be funded.

I go back to my original point on this - let's work on the assumption that central funding is £1.5m per annum for rounding purposes - that if £15m per French club over 10 years. Plus c£500k per annum travel costs from having a French club. That's a further £5m over a decade. So it is a £20m 'investment' to have a French team in SL over 10 years. If that becomes two clubs, then that is £40m over a decade. That is serious money, and it would be negligent to not consider whether the UK game is right to spend that money in that way. IT makes sense that we are maybe looking for consistency as we increase overseas teams. 

People always like to then throw in the argument abut "what do Salford/Hudds etc bring to the table" - but the answer is that the UK clubs have a value as a collective. That value is in the form of UK sponsors and media partners, but wider than that, each British club is a hub for RL activity in Britain. I know we like to be critical of our clubs, but they all work in the communities, they all develop players, they all bring in sponsors, funding etc for the development of British RL. And where we think that they don't add value, we have been happy to oust them. When I started watching RL we had up to 16 British teams in the top flight - we have absolutely been ruthless in trimming to optimise value. We've had as few as 10 British clubs at times, and it may be a challenge to go lower than that.

Again, people love to criticise everything we do in Britain, but we deliver decent crowds, great TV, and a lot of high quality athletes for such a niche sport. 

But onto the question of what I'd do. Well, I do believe that we should invest in France. But I do think we should be comfortable with putting demands in place on what it costs to take part. All of the costs for Catalans so far have been from the RFL/SLE central funding pot - with no funds coming back into the central pot. As acknowledged, that is as much a failing on the SLE/RFL as much as the club (lack of strategy to capitalise on their presence), but that is why we are where we are. 

As per one of my previous posts, I'd like to see a French governing body overseeing the French teams, with them as a stakeholder in SLE. I know we'll disagree on this, but I don't have an issue with selling places with guarantees etc. (no relegation). But I also don't have an issue with us expecting some return on the £30m+ that has been 'invested' in Catalans so far. Let's be brutally honest here for a second - every penny of commercial income raised in France is going directly into Catalans' pockets - if there was a buy-in fee, it's a given that some of that would suddenly find its way into the central pot. But that should be driven by the French 'governing body' rather than the individual club, who should be responsible for themselves.

I love the French presence in SL, I'd increase it, I'd secure it. But I'd be perfectly happy to lay out the costs for the benefits that they get. That £30m+ investment has delivered a strong French RL club - I'm not sure it has delivered real tangible benefits to SL, other than the softer perception benefits - which shouldn't be undersold. There is an argument that this investment is closer to the NRL's Vegas initiative rather than the NZ Warriors investment. And Iblame that on a real lack of planning and knowing what they wanted out of it.

[Harry Stottle]

29 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Your 2nd para is where I think there is a big challenge. It is difficult to bring in more overseas teams without a plan on how it will be funded.

I go back to my original point on this - let's work on the assumption that central funding is £1.5m per annum for rounding purposes - that if £15m per French club over 10 years. Plus c£500k per annum travel costs from having a French club. That's a further £5m over a decade. So it is a £20m 'investment' to have a French team in SL over 10 years. If that becomes two clubs, then that is £40m over a decade. That is serious money, and it would be negligent to not consider whether the UK game is right to spend that money in that way. IT makes sense that we are maybe looking for consistency as we increase overseas teams. 

People always like to then throw in the argument abut "what do Salford/Hudds etc bring to the table" - but the answer is that the UK clubs have a value as a collective. That value is in the form of UK sponsors and media partners, but wider than that, each British club is a hub for RL activity in Britain. I know we like to be critical of our clubs, but they all work in the communities, they all develop players, they all bring in sponsors, funding etc for the development of British RL. And where we think that they don't add value, we have been happy to oust them. When I started watching RL we had up to 16 British teams in the top flight - we have absolutely been ruthless in trimming to optimise value. We've had as few as 10 British clubs at times, and it may be a challenge to go lower than that.

Again, people love to criticise everything we do in Britain, but we deliver decent crowds, great TV, and a lot of high quality athletes for such a niche sport. 

But onto the question of what I'd do. Well, I do believe that we should invest in France. But I do think we should be comfortable with putting demands in place on what it costs to take part. All of the costs for Catalans so far have been from the RFL/SLE central funding pot - with no funds coming back into the central pot. As acknowledged, that is as much a failing on the SLE/RFL as much as the club (lack of strategy to capitalise on their presence), but that is why we are where we are. 

As per one of my previous posts, I'd like to see a French governing body overseeing the French teams, with them as a stakeholder in SLE. I know we'll disagree on this, but I don't have an issue with selling places with guarantees etc. (no relegation). But I also don't have an issue with us expecting some return on the £30m+ that has been 'invested' in Catalans so far. Let's be brutally honest here for a second - every penny of commercial income raised in France is going directly into Catalans' pockets - if there was a buy-in fee, it's a given that some of that would suddenly find its way into the central pot. But that should be driven by the French 'governing body' rather than the individual club, who should be responsible for themselves.

I love the French presence in SL, I'd increase it, I'd secure it. But I'd be perfectly happy to lay out the costs for the benefits that they get. That £30m+ investment has delivered a strong French RL club - I'm not sure it has delivered real tangible benefits to SL, other than the softer perception benefits - which shouldn't be undersold. There is an argument that this investment is closer to the NRL's Vegas initiative rather than the NZ Warriors investment. And Iblame that on a real lack of planning and knowing what they wanted out of it.

Thank you got your considered answer Dave.

Just two questions from me,

On your point of no relegation if P&R returned, would that just be applicable to the French clubs? If so you are dead right I would not agree with it.

Secondly, if it does go ahead and both French clubs are standing the travel costs of all the other SL teams visiting them over a season, I suggest that could be deemed as their contribution to the central funding pot, in effect they would be indirectly adding value to the central pot "shareout" up front.

Also, as I have pointed out should it be acceptable that a couple of clubs could be up to financing 6 trips to France, and before it gets pointed out by some that the two French clubs will be subject to much more costs to finance their own travel, what I will say to that is they both applied to join the British League system and not invited to do so KNOWING full well their own travel cost implications.

Edited March 7 by Harry Stottle

[Worzel]

43 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think the strong signal was given when the preliminary scores were published. I would love to see full transparency of all the clubs scoring in that matter.

Yes I'd not thought of that as a driver for the Catalans change. It's a good thought and makes sense to me. It's one thing for the clubs to have one or two French trips, but making five a year does move the goalposts and you could see how that would be a tipping point for many. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

Why on earth would Catalans put some of their commercial income into the central pot? We don't expect Leeds to. Just like Leeds, they've invested £millions in having the facilities to generate that commercial income. They earn it. 

Catalans get their equal share of the broadcasting revenue they equally contribute to the creation of, and have a higher cost to operate through needing to travel internationally 14 times per season instead of once or twice. It's quite right they do bear their own higher travel cost, but it's criminally stupid that we'd expect them to take on yet more cost to subsidise other teams just because some of the other clubs are run on a tinpot basis. 

It's not about having some of Catalans' pot - it's about tapping into some of the French pot. There has to be a return 

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's not about having some of Catalans' pot - it's about tapping into some of the French pot. There has to be a return 

There does have to be a return, but Catalans don't control that and we actively have made it harder for SL to do so over the past decade.

[Tommygilf]

I actually think the interesting comparison with Catalans would be Cornwall.

The latter takes longer and is harder to get to (direct flights at a minimum). Yet its in England so you can't use the "no broadcast money" argument.

Despite that, they have been asked to sit out a competition all of their peers have entered - this is the attitude at the heart of it. English RL clubs are used to, from 100 years of history, a competition that involves an average of up to 2 to 3 hours each way (4 for the rare Cumbrian trips) coaches every week. We don't do internal flights, nor do we do European games. Culturally the game isn't on that level and it feels alien.

[Worzel]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's not about having some of Catalans' pot - it's about tapping into some of the French pot. There has to be a return 

I'm not sure I see the delineation the same way that you do, at all. Yours is based on a misconception.

We sell a TV contract based on the value of the content. Whoever helps create that content helps create that value, regardless of location. We should have the best teams in the comp, to create the best content, in order to generate the maximum value. From that pot of value, it then works like this: 1) some is skimmed off the top for the RFL and 2) the remainder is then distributed to the 12 clubs participating. Better content, better rights fees, then more available for the RFL to skim off and use for the UK game. In that sense a strong Catalans, creating more marketable content, actually increases the money going to the wider UK game.

So the money distributed to the clubs is not "UK" money to "give", it is Super League money, distributed to its participants. Any RFL "UK money" is always deducted before that happens. 

This is the same principle that has seen lower league football clubs, and the community game, benefit financially from the Premier League boom in TV rights for example. You need to conceptually separate the location of the value-driving engine from how the governing body choses to distribute their share of the resulting windfall. 

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

I'm not sure I see the delineation the same way that you do, at all. Yours is based on a misconception.

We sell a TV contract based on the value of the content. Whoever helps create that content helps create that value, regardless of location. We should have the best teams in the comp, to create the best content, in order to generate the maximum value. From that pot of value, it then works like this: 1) some is skimmed off the top for the RFL and 2) the remainder is then distributed to the 12 clubs participating. Better content, better rights fees, then more available for the RFL to skim off and use for the UK game. In that sense a strong Catalans, creating more marketable content, actually increases the money going to the wider UK game.

So the money distributed to the clubs is not "UK" money to "give", it is Super League money, distributed to its participants. Any RFL "UK money" is always deducted before that happens. 

This is the same principle that has seen lower league football clubs, and the community game, benefit financially from the Premier League boom in TV rights for example. You need to conceptually separate the location of the value-driving engine from how the governing body choses to distribute their share of the resulting windfall. 

Do you have any evidence to support the bit in bold? 

[Worzel]

34 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Do you have any evidence to support the bit in bold? 

There is years of research in sports marketing that shows that audiences prefer competitive matches, and that competition intensity is what drives customer retention and new customer growth. Ideally they want matches where the result is uncertain for the longest time possible. In football audience enjoyment of a 2-1 victory is higher than a 4-nil win, even among fans of the 4-nil winning side.

This is why American sports businesses, which are analysed to the nth degree in the most capitalistic market on earth, have formed themselves into leagues with salary caps and high levels of centrally collected and distributed revenues. They do this to make it more likely that more matches will be competitive. This is the best way for the league, and each individual club, to maximise its revenues. 

What will drive audience and so economic growth for Super League will be to have more equally competitive sides, delivering a greater number of "uncertain" matches. Catalans have added an equally competitive side into our competition, from scratch, in just 20 years. A participating club like that is more valuable to the overall product than a club who cannot consistently compete. We can all list other clubs who don't provide that.

If and when we have 12 equally competitive UK sides then we can have the debate on whether we charge a surcharge to an overseas club in order to participate. Until then, we'd be mad to restrict the ability of an obvious Grade A club to compete with its peers. It will deliver the opposite result to the one that we want. 

 

 

Edited March 7 by Worzel
Typo

[Archie Gordon]

Given that domestic comps (especially those with geographic clustering) receive less media attention than international comps, I feel that each additional French team in SL is adding value that a UK club just can't. 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

There does have to be a return, but Catalans don't control that and we actively have made it harder for SL to do so over the past decade.

Agreed, we discussed who I think should be responsible and I think we are in agreement. But I don't think that means overseas teams shouldn't have any buy in. As long as agreed in advance, I'm not a fan of moving the goalposts. 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Worzel said:

I'm not sure I see the delineation the same way that you do, at all. Yours is based on a misconception.

We sell a TV contract based on the value of the content. Whoever helps create that content helps create that value, regardless of location. We should have the best teams in the comp, to create the best content, in order to generate the maximum value. From that pot of value, it then works like this: 1) some is skimmed off the top for the RFL and 2) the remainder is then distributed to the 12 clubs participating. Better content, better rights fees, then more available for the RFL to skim off and use for the UK game. In that sense a strong Catalans, creating more marketable content, actually increases the money going to the wider UK game.

So the money distributed to the clubs is not "UK" money to "give", it is Super League money, distributed to its participants. Any RFL "UK money" is always deducted before that happens. 

This is the same principle that has seen lower league football clubs, and the community game, benefit financially from the Premier League boom in TV rights for example. You need to conceptually separate the location of the value-driving engine from how the governing body choses to distribute their share of the resulting windfall. 

I think the above is a fair view. My personal view is that there isn't material value from a UK TV deal for Catalans being there. Let's be honest, Sky cover them begrudgingly over the years. Of course that doesn't mean Catalans don't bring value, but I think there is a fair argument that there isn't a clear financial benefit. 

In similar ways that people have overstated the importance of London, Bradford and Toronto. 

I'm an expansion isn't, so I dont think we are necessarily disagreeing on the end point (that these clubs should be in SL) , I just don't really mind charging people/clubs for involvement. 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

Given that domestic comps (especially those with geographic clustering) receive less media attention than international comps, I feel that each additional French team in SL is adding value that a UK club just can't. 

At some stage though, that needs to become cold hard cash.