Catalans Travel

[Worzel]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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. 

To clarify, I don't say that Catalans bring value because they are French. You could try to make an argument for that, but I don't think it's needed. Catalans bring disproportionate value because - like Wigan and Saints - they are disproportionately competitive. Our league needs more clubs capable of performing at that level, not less.

It is not in our interest to weaken one of our best organisations. Taking £1m off them and giving it to other teams in the comp does just that. 

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Worzel said:

To clarify, I don't say that Catalans bring value because they are French. You could try to make an argument for that, but I don't think it's needed. Catalans bring disproportionate value because - like Wigan and Saints - they are disproportionately competitive. Our league needs more clubs capable of performing at that level, not less.

It is not in our interest to weaken one of our best organisations. Taking £1m off them and giving it to other teams in the comp does just that. 

Again, that's a fair view, although I think it's overstated personally. You're right, we do need a competitive bunch of teams, I won't disagree with that. 

I think ultimately the point here comes down to there being a substantial cost to French teams being in the UK structure, and as things stand, those additional costs have just been paid out of the central funding for Catalans and the clubs pockets for the half a million quid or so travel. That's a lot of money for RL. They didn't prepare and plan for this up front. That has become problematic as Toulouse and TWP were admitted on different terms. That is breaking the system. 

And the root cause, ultimately goes back to these teams just being guests in a UK pyramid rather than a real stakeholder partnership. 

But one way or another, the costs of overseas teams needs to be addressed and agreed and we move on, because it ain't good to keep having these issues, and bond discussions etc. I expect that is where this is driven, they expect Toulouse to come up. 

One thing I would say, many fans do seem angrier than Gausch over this, which is interesting, because Gausch does like to get angry

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

Can I thank Dave T, Worzel, Harry Stottle et al for the very civilised way in which they are making their points on this thread?  It's good to be reminded of two things.  First, quite complex and nuanced points can be put forward, dissected by others and debated in well constructed contributions.  And second - and arguably even more importantly - we are being reminded that it is perfectly possible to disagree, but do so in a constructive and friendly tone.

Thanks guys!

[phiggins]

21 hours ago, Worzel said:

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. 

 

 

I don't disagree with the theory. But in practice, TV income has declined, and there is no practical evidence to prove it would've declined by even more had Catalans not been involved. That said, I still don't like this move, but it's a sign of where we are, and of the lack of thinking that has gone into expansion, which seems to have been to hope for the best from individual clubs. See also London, Newcastle and Toronto.

 

[Worzel]

11 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I don't disagree with the theory. But in practice, TV income has declined, and there is no practical evidence to prove it would've declined by even more had Catalans not been involved. That said, I still don't like this move, but it's a sign of where we are, and of the lack of thinking that has gone into expansion, which seems to have been to hope for the best from individual clubs. See also London, Newcastle and Toronto.

 

In practice our competitive intensity hasn't improved. We still only have 4 or 5 competitive sides. But that's not the fault of Catalans, who are now one of those consistently competitive sides. 

We will only get better value from our TV deals when that competitive intensity improves, and so we have more uncertain matches more often. That's what all the history of sports marketing tells us. Taking £1m out of the budget of one of the few teams that we have like that is a step away from that goal, not a step towards it.

Which is the reason it is a stupid idea, but of course it's a stupid idea consistent with the quality of administrators we have, and the undue power they continue to give to the voices of weaker clubs. Those weaker clubs are the problem, and their voice should be given less weight. Listening to underperformers is what gave us other daft regressive things like the "Middle 8s". We need to instead try and replicate what makes the better clubs better, and focus on that. 

[Worzel]

19 hours ago, Dave T said:

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

It is cold, hard cash already, in the form of our TV deal. If we had one less side of the quality of St Helens, Wigan and Catalans then we would have a less valuable TV contract. It's always hard to prove a negative, but I think that's pretty self-evident. Sky don't care which teams are in the league, what they care about is uncertain outcomes, and high-quality play.

We need to focus on the real issue: Making the weaker clubs better. That's what will increase our rights value further. Making one of our stronger clubs worse is not a step in the right direction. 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Worzel said:

It is cold, hard cash already, in the form of our TV deal. If we had one less side of the quality of St Helens, Wigan and Catalans then we would have a less valuable TV contract. It's always hard to prove a negative, but I think that's pretty self-evident. Sky don't care which teams are in the league, what they care about is uncertain outcomes, and high-quality play.

We need to focus on the real issue: Making the weaker clubs better. That's what will increase our rights value further. Making one of our stronger clubs worse is not a step in the right direction. 

I think this is where this becomes a bit more complex, because I agree with your hypothesis in principle, but I don't think that's the reality of what we see.

Of course, teams being strong improve the image and attractiveness of the comp and you'd expect that to be reflected in commercial rights, but I'm not sure the correlation is as direct as that. Many external factors are at play around the value of the tv rights. 

What we have seen, is that the game has sponsors that either don't trade in Catalans' territory, or in fact it is illegal for them to advertise there. So the sponsorship element isn't being recognised. 

And Sky have done the bare minimum in terms of covering the vibrant attractive Catalans games. They have shown the absolute minimum, apart from when they have taken the free content and shoved Barrie and Tez in a broom cupboard. 

In reality, I don't think Sky are that bothered about who makes up the clubs, I think they want presences in the UK, as that's where they trade, but I don't think they could care less about Catalans. Sure, they are competitive, but not enough for them to previously bother showing the games, or send commentators. But if Catalans are not competitive, somebody else will be. Just like Leeds and Wire have gone through a bad patch. 

But if we are to decide to play in France, we have to be clear about what benefit we want to drive from there. Whether that is commercial income, player development, whatever. 

Edited March 8 by Dave T

[Worzel]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this is where this becomes a bit more complex, because I agree with your hypothesis in principle, but I don't think that's the reality of what we see.

Of course, teams being strong improve the image and attractiveness of the comp and you'd expect that to be reflected in commercial rights, but I'm not sure the correlation is as direct as that. Many external factors are at play around the value of the tv rights. 

What we have seen, is that the game has sponsors that either don't trade in Catalans' territory, or in fact it is illegal for them to advertise there. So the sponsorship element isn't being recognised. 

And Sky have done the bare minimum in terms of covering the vibrant attractive Catalans games. They have shown the absolute minimum, apart from when they have taken the free content and shoved Barrie and Tez in a broom cupboard. 

In reality, I don't think Sky are that bothered about who makes up the clubs, I think they want presences in the UK, as that's where they trade, but I don't think they could care less about Catalans. Sure, they are competitive, but not enough for them to previously bother showing the games, or send commentators. But if Catalans are not competitive, somebody else will be. Just like Leeds and Wire have gone through a bad patch. 

But if we are to decide to play in France, we have to be clear about what benefit we want to drive from there. Whether that is commercial income, player development, whatever. 

Whichever club we had instead of Catalans would be in a geographic area we already have covered, so the sponsorship argument is a bit of a red herring. 

The fact Sky don't want to incur the extra costs of filming in France, quite rationally, does not mean they'd not rather show Wigan versus Catalans than Wigan versus Wakefield. Again, not for the "glamour" of a French club but because Wakefield have historically been under-resourced and uncompetitive. All the evidence shows audiences want close contests. 

We need more A-grade clubs, not fewer. Look at the match at Craven Park last night, and people's reaction to it. Two fully-resourced clubs going toe-to-toe for 80 mins. A far better product than 10 years ago when Rovers weren't fully resourced, and were fighting a relegation battle. So why on earth a comp with a number of sub-optimal clubs would want to tax one of the few A-grade clubs we do have and so make them less competitive is a mystery I'll never understand.

Well, that's not true... I do understand it: It's because our administrators aren't the best professionals available, so can't make better decisions. The MD of RFL Commercial is our failed sponsorship salesperson, who's failed upwards for 15 years. The RFL career path!

[Dave T]

Just now, Worzel said:

Whichever club we had instead of Catalans would be in a geographic area we already have covered, so the sponsorship argument is a bit of a red herring. 

The fact Sky don't want to incur the extra costs of filming in France, quite rationally, does not mean they'd not rather show Wigan versus Catalans than Wigan versus Wakefield. Again, not for the "glamour" of a French club but because Wakefield have historically been under-resourced and uncompetitive. All the evidence shows audiences want close contests. 

We need more A-grade clubs, not fewer. Look at the match at Craven Park last night, and people's reaction to it. Two fully-resourced clubs going toe-to-toe for 80 mins. A far better product than 10 years ago when Rovers weren't fully resourced, and were fighting a relegation battle. So why on earth a comp with a number of sub-optimal clubs would want to tax one of the few A-grade clubs we do have and so make them less competitive is a mystery I'll never understand.

Well, that's not true... I do understand it: It's because our administrators aren't the best professionals available, so can't make better decisions. The MD of RFL Commercial is our failed sponsorship salesperson, who's failed upwards for 15 years. The RFL career path!

On your last point, it is a touch simpler tbh if we break it down really. For overseas clubs to be admitted to the UK pyramid, incremental costs (travel) are to be funded by the new orgabisation. It's happened with both Toulouse and Toronto. I expect they want consistency and will have issues having one approach for Toulouse and one for Catalans. 

This really should have been thought through when we were winging it with our approach to admitting clubs. 

[dboy]

2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

...does not mean they'd not rather show Wigan versus Catalans than Wigan versus Wakefield. Again, not for the "glamour" of a French club but because Wakefield have historically been under-resourced and uncompetitive. All the evidence shows audiences want close contests. 

Understand your point completely...though I'm pretty sure Wakefield have beaten Wigan in SL more than Catalans (problem has been beating the teams around them).

Of course, you'd expect a Dragons team to be more competitive v Wigan anecdotally.

Sport should have an element of unpredictability.

[Worzel]

On 07/03/2024 at 16:51, Dave T said:

One thing I would say, many fans do seem angrier than Gausch over this, which is interesting, because Gausch does like to get angry

On this point, I think Gausch will be angry, he'll see it for the myopic, selfish move that it is by clubs with limited track records of organic business growth. He'll also think it makes no strategic sense for the sport. But, precisely because he's bright, he knows that the best solution for him is to persuade the local government to stump up the funds for this and he has a far better chance of doing so if they can be made to believe it's a reasonable request. 

Gausch plays chess, whilst most UK club owners can only see the one move in front of them. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Worzel said:

On this point, I think Gausch will be angry, he'll see it for the myopic, selfish move that it is by clubs with limited track records of organic business growth. He'll also think it makes no strategic sense for the sport. But, precisely because he's bright, he knows that the best solution for him is to persuade the local government to stump up the funds for this and he has a far better chance of doing so if they can be made to believe it's a reasonable request. 

Gausch plays chess, whilst most UK club owners can only see the one move in front of them. 

Gausch has been the exact opposite though.

[JohnM]

5 minutes ago, Worzel said:

On this point, I think Gausch will be angry, he'll see it for the myopic, selfish move that it is by clubs with limited track records of organic business growth. He'll also think it makes no strategic sense for the sport. But, precisely because he's bright, he knows that the best solution for him is to persuade the local government to stump up the funds for this and he has a far better chance of doing so if they can be made to believe it's a reasonable request. 

Gausch plays chess, whilst most UK club owners can only see the one move in front of them. 

Gausch plays chess, whilst most UK club owners can only see the one move in front of them. 

I don't think that last sentence is remotely true of SL club owners. There maybe one notable exception  who signs off with a , though.

[Gomersall]

Guasch not Gausch.

[Worzel]

I'm afraid to say it seems this travel subject is only a small slice of the idiocy under consideration... I honestly despair for the sport at times, it reminds me of Alan Clarke's book on The Great War, "Lions Led By Donkeys". That's our game in a single phrase right there.

 

Edited March 11 by Worzel

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I'm afraid to say it seems this travel subject is only a small slice of the idiocy under consideration... I honestly despair for the sport at times, it reminds me of Alan Clarke's book on The Great War, "Lions Led By Donkeys". That's our game in a single phrase right there.

 

Isn’t Gledhill the source of this info?

 

[ATLANTISMAN]

7 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I'm afraid to say it seems this travel subject is only a small slice of the idiocy under consideration... I honestly despair for the sport at times, it reminds me of Alan Clarke's book on The Great War, "Lions Led By Donkeys". That's our game in a single phrase right there.

 

Doesn't really mater in the end as convinced there will be a new league run by the NRL who will 100% see the bigger picture

[Worzel]

1 minute ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Doesn't really mater in the end as convinced there will be a new league run by the NRL who will 100% see the bigger picture

I'd love that to be true, but unless it's a JV with IMG then I can't see them wanting to spend that sort of money. V'landys was very "nobody's said anything really" about it last week, it just seems to be paper talk. 

[Worzel]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Isn’t Gledhill the source of this info?

 

I'd hope Mascord had a better filtering criteria than that, but if so that's good news because who cares what some random bloke down the pub in Bradford thinks about anything

[Coggo]

If Catalans & Toulouse didn't object and could make up the shortfall by other means (eg state subsidy), why not?

[Worzel]

7 minutes ago, Coggo said:

If Catalans & Toulouse didn't object and could make up the shortfall by other means (eg state subsidy), why not?

Because they have earned the money by creating the content, so they have every right to be paid it. Why should UK clubs be allowed to get the French clubs' share? 

Even in the UEFA Champions League almost all of the TV rights fees are distributed regardless of country of origin (i.e. how big the club's home TV market is), and are instead shared based on participation (as all teams create content) and performance (to reward the better teams). That's the most commercially-voracious sports market on earth outside the US. 

[Worzel]

We can all relax again... 

 

 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

On this point, I think Gausch will be angry, he'll see it for the myopic, selfish move that it is by clubs with limited track records of organic business growth. He'll also think it makes no strategic sense for the sport. But, precisely because he's bright, he knows that the best solution for him is to persuade the local government to stump up the funds for this and he has a far better chance of doing so if they can be made to believe it's a reasonable request. 

Gausch plays chess, whilst most UK club owners can only see the one move in front of them. 

So if this leads to a French third party paying for this, surely that would be a huge endorsement of the UK clubs' approach of forcing this? 

Maybe they aren't as stupid as you think. 

[Dave T]

46 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Because they have earned the money by creating the content, so they have every right to be paid it. Why should UK clubs be allowed to get the French clubs' share? 

Even in the UEFA Champions League almost all of the TV rights fees are distributed regardless of country of origin (i.e. how big the club's home TV market is), and are instead shared based on participation (as all teams create content) and performance (to reward the better teams). That's the most commercially-voracious sports market on earth outside the US. 

This was from the Champions League website 10 years ago, so absolutely outdated, I have no idea whether it is still done like this:

The net amount available to the participating sides will be divided into two – €500.7m in fixed payments (group stage allocations, performance and qualification bonuses) and €409.6m in variable amounts (market pool). The market pool amount will be distributed according to the proportional value of each television market represented by the clubs playing in the UEFA Champions League (group stage onwards), and will be split among those teams competing from a given association.

So they have had an approach of giving more money to those areas who bring in the biggest TV deals. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

I'd hope Mascord had a better filtering criteria than that, but if so that's good news because who cares what some random bloke down the pub in Bradford thinks about anything

I like Mascord, but he does get a bit excitable at times. It's a shame because plenty of his 20k followers will have read that and maybe not see the follow up post correcting it.

Edited March 11 by Dave T