Catalans Travel

[phiggins]

What is the governance structure that we have now? Is Super League Europe still a thing, or was that ruined by the attempt to take over and subsequent realignment?

If it's an RFL call on how to distribute their central funds, then that might be a factor, given Catalans aren't RFL members.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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.

Yes, I certainly assumed there was more in it than "heard it down the pub". He's been in the game a long time, I'd assumed it was well-sourced. 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

This was from the Champions League website 10 years ago, so absolutely outdated, I have no idea whether it is still done like this: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

No, it's very different now, only 15% is linked to TV market value, everything else everyone else has an "equal" shot at getting although a lot of it is performance-based. The detailed split today is:

25% Participation (each of the 32 clubs in the group stage get an equal share of this slice)

30% Co-Efficient Ranking (you get a greater share of this depending on last 10 years Champ League results, so rewards clubs who have created the long-term value of the comp)

30% Performance (earned by points secured in the group, and bonuses for knock-out stage progression)

15% TV Market Pool (split proportionately by the value of TV rights in team's country market)

Clearly something like this would be over-engineered for Super League, we'd be splitting pennies not pounds, but it clearly supports the principle that your contribution in creating content (short and long term) is the main determinant of your revenue share. Again, bear in mind this is a model agreed in a sports league where clubs like Real Madrid have far greater bargaining power than, say, Sparta Prague. And yet even in that voracious environment they don't chose to use their power to squeeze the pips out of other participants. 

Rugby League's myopic, short-sighted culture still has a lot to learn. 

Source: https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/0277-158b0bea495a-ba6c18158cd3-1000/20220704_circular_2022_47_en.pdf

 

[Worzel]

On 07/03/2024 at 17:22, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

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!

Thanks bud. There's no perfect answer, only ever the "least bad" idea (certainly in a sport like ours where we have challenges and resource constraints eh?), and you can only work out what that might be by chatting about it. 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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. 

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day

[Dave T]

44 minutes ago, Worzel said:

No, it's very different now, only 15% is linked to TV market value, everything else everyone else has an "equal" shot at getting although a lot of it is performance-based. The detailed split today is:

25% Participation (each of the 32 clubs in the group stage get an equal share of this slice)

30% Co-Efficient Ranking (you get a greater share of this depending on last 10 years Champ League results, so rewards clubs who have created the long-term value of the comp)

30% Performance (earned by points secured in the group, and bonuses for knock-out stage progression)

15% TV Market Pool (split proportionately by the value of TV rights in team's country market)

Clearly something like this would be over-engineered for Super League, we'd be splitting pennies not pounds, but it clearly supports the principle that your contribution in creating content (short and long term) is the main determinant of your revenue share. Again, bear in mind this is a model agreed in a sports league where clubs like Real Madrid have far greater bargaining power than, say, Sparta Prague. And yet even in that voracious environment they don't chose to use their power to squeeze the pips out of other participants. 

Rugby League's myopic, short-sighted culture still has a lot to learn. 

Source: https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/0277-158b0bea495a-ba6c18158cd3-1000/20220704_circular_2022_47_en.pdf

 

I suppose it depends what you want to achieve with central funding - I think there is an argument for many different systems. I'm mot a fan of 60% being heavily weighted to the best teams tbh. I do prefer a flatter system of distribution. 

Whilst it may look 'fairer' in reality, only 25% of that is set, with the other 75% weighted to the stronger teams and leagues.

Tbh, despite my view that it's a reasonable position to charge for participatuon/costs etc. if I was in charge, I would just prefer a more even system of sharing the risk, share the rewards. 

Edited March 11 by Dave T

[Worzel]

33 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I suppose it depends what you want to achieve with central funding - I think there is an argument for many different systems. I'm mot a fan of 60% being heavily weighted to the best teams tbh. I do prefer a flatter system of distribution. 

Whilst it may look 'fairer' in reality, only 25% of that is set, with the other 75% weighted to the stronger teams and leagues.

Tbh, despite my view that it's a reasonable position to charge for participatuon/costs etc. if I was in charge, I would just prefer a more even system of sharing the risk, share the rewards. 

Yeah I wouldn't have that sort of performance skew either, you'd basically be giving some successful teams double or triple the budget as others. In our sport that would be a disaster for the wider comp, like Wigan in the 1980's. 

I think in future, when the competition has value and we've more people who want to enter the comp and can field a competitive side, then it makes sense to charge a participation fee. I'd love us to get there. That's how new clubs enter US sports leagues, and in-effect part of the way the NRL selects new areas (even if indirectly by making local governments provide expensive facilities). I just don't think it should be only for some locations, and we're a long way from having competition for places whilst we've so few A-Grade clubs already anyway. 

 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Yeah I wouldn't have that sort of performance skew either, you'd basically be giving some successful teams double or triple the budget as others. In our sport that would be a disaster for the wider comp, like Wigan in the 1980's. 

I think in future, when the competition has value and we've more people who want to enter the comp and can field a competitive side, then it makes sense to charge a participation fee. I'd love us to get there. That's how new clubs enter US sports leagues, and in-effect part of the way the NRL selects new areas (even if indirectly by making local governments provide expensive facilities). I just don't think it should be only for some locations, and we're a long way from having competition for places whilst we've so few A-Grade clubs already anyway. 

 

I do think there are two main issues at play here. Firstly, the failure to plan effectively when Catalans were invited. And secondly, the inability to capitalise on moving SL into new territories. 

I'd rather we address those issues and focus on root causes. We just never seem to learn. 

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I do think there are two main issues at play here. Firstly, the failure to plan effectively when Catalans were invited. And secondly, the inability to capitalise on moving SL into new territories. 

I'd rather we address those issues and focus on root causes. We just never seem to learn. 

To be fair to the decison-makers of 20+ years ago, clubs at the time were clearly fine with paying travel expenses. It was a known factor, hardly a surprise, and they will have costed it and then decided to proceed on that basis because they believed in the overall goals. Probably because the TV contract was better, but it was a decision nonetheless. Catalans have more than lived up to their side of the bargain in terms of on-field and commercial performance.

The lack of a French TV deal is the league’s problem, not one club’s. If it was Catalans responsibility they would have written that into the initial participation agreement, with a deadline and contingencies. To now attempt to renege on it all is a bit “bad faith” in my book, and one of the issues I have with it. Just doesn’t sit right with me morally.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

To be fair to the decison-makers of 20+ years ago, clubs at the time were clearly fine with paying travel expenses. It was a known factor, hardly a surprise, and they will have costed it and then decided to proceed on that basis because they believed in the overall goals. Probably because the TV contract was better, but it was a decision nonetheless. Catalans have more than lived up to their side of the bargain in terms of on-field and commercial performance.

The lack of a French TV deal is the league’s problem, not one club’s. If it was Catalans responsibility they would have written that into the initial participation agreement, with a deadline and contingencies. To now attempt to renege on it all is a bit “bad faith” in my book, and one of the issues I have with it. Just doesn’t sit right with me morally.

I think you're probably giving the clubs of 20 years ago a little too much credit. I genuinely expect they didn't think strategically and saw the costs from one French club as something they can handle. And I expect they would still be the same if only Catalans were in the UK pyramid, but as we've seen with the challenges around Toulouse, Toronto and Ottawa, and New York - the lack of plan has just led to weird inconsistent arrangements that don't bind together very well. Whilst the majority of those have fallen by the wayside, Toulouse are here and graded in a SL spot at the moment. This could mean that we will have 2 x French teams again. And in 10 years maybe there'll be another. And another, we don't know, but maybe that should be the aim. I do think this is a ham-fisted attempt to provide consistency for French clubs, as throwing another French team in is not cheap. That's why this needed considering in the future. Catalans should never have been seen as standalone, the plan should always have been for them to succeed and then more to follow. 

Agree on the lack of TV deal. My main point in all of this is that the governance and planning around all this is poor, and it is still weak, we don't appear to have learnt anything yet. 

 

[phiggins]

12 hours ago, Worzel said:

To be fair to the decison-makers of 20+ years ago, clubs at the time were clearly fine with paying travel expenses. It was a known factor, hardly a surprise, and they will have costed it and then decided to proceed on that basis because they believed in the overall goals. Probably because the TV contract was better, but it was a decision nonetheless. Catalans have more than lived up to their side of the bargain in terms of on-field and commercial performance.

The lack of a French TV deal is the league’s problem, not one club’s. If it was Catalans responsibility they would have written that into the initial participation agreement, with a deadline and contingencies. To now attempt to renege on it all is a bit “bad faith” in my book, and one of the issues I have with it. Just doesn’t sit right with me morally.

But what were the overall goals?

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

But what were the overall goals?

Super League wanted a French team to replace PSG. They went looking for one, sensibly in the rugby league heartlands to not make the same mistake twice. Toulouse and UTC put their hands up and applied, we then chose UTC after a process. 

So a bit like the Windrush Generation, we invited some people over because we needed them for our own reasons at the time, and now they’ve contributed to our “society” for a while and have fully committed themselves to the objective, we’ve decided to treat them like instead we’re doing them a favour and they should just suck up whatever we deign to give them. 

Doesn’t sit right with me, I wouldn’t treat people or business partners like that. 

[Harry Stottle]

21 hours ago, Worzel said:

We can all relax again... 

 

 

Even if it means some clubs will be paying for multiple trips to France, as I said previously that maybe the basis of this but if not and once the clubs realise it then I expect it will rear it's head.

Perhaps Mascord did not listed to Rhodri Jones on the TRL podcast, he said that there was a very real chance that Catalan will be requested to pay for UK based teams travel to Perpignan from '25.

PS for requested read will be told to pay for UK based teams to travel to Perpignan, it will not be negotiable.

Either the Authorities relieve Toulouse of this expenditure or add Catalan in, realistically what do you think will happen?

[Harry Stottle]

36 minutes ago, phiggins said:

On the main point. Why did they want a French team to replace PSG? What benefits for the sport did they want to achieve with it and how would it be measured?

It was mooted that improving the game in France would attract more bodies to take up the sport, in turn improving the National team and giving a credible N. Hemisphere opposition for GB/England, well that fell flat didn't it.

[Lowdesert]

56 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Whilst I can agree with the last line, let's not try and make asking Catalans to pay travel costs comparable with the Windrush scandal.

On the main point. Why did they want a French team to replace PSG? What benefits for the sport did they want to achieve with it and how would it be measured? I doubt this was thought through, which is why we have a club who are well run and doing well, but the sport isn't necessarily better off for it, while there are explicit costs associated.

It must have been thought through as the RFL invited French clubs to tender for a place in SL after PSG finished.  Catalans won it.  I would have thought the details of this discussion would have been in that Tender and answer your question.

[Dave T]

42 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It was mooted that improving the game in France would attract more bodies to take up the sport, in turn improving the National team and giving a credible N. Hemisphere opposition for GB/England, well that fell flat didn't it.

I think it's quite easy to see the potential benefits of expanding SL into France, not least competition attractiveness through strong clubs. Things like media deals, sponsor deals, player development, international competition etc. They are all really good arguments for it. 

The problem here, and I am absolutely repeating myself is that poor planning up front and literally having a strategy that involves no more than putting a team in SL means that many of those benefits have been largely unrecognised. 

Not having a plan for costs, or future growth in France, or player quotas for development, or an international strategy that aligns, or a commercial arm that delivers in Europe and not just the North of England is negligent.

I think they just thought sticking a team in was the end game, when in reality it was the start. None of the above benefits will just happen. 

Edited March 12 by Dave T

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

It must have been thought through as the RFL invited French clubs to tender for a place in SL after PSG finished.  Catalans won it.  I would have thought the details of this discussion would have been in that Tender and answer your question.

It was a decent amount of time that past though wasn't it? In between, hadn't Gateshead come and gone? 

[Lowdesert]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It was a decent amount of time that past though wasn't it? In between, hadn't Gateshead come and gone? 

Yes.  2000 season.

I think PSG went under 1999 and the Dragons tendered in 2005 and came in for the 2006 season.  
 

 

 

[Lowdesert]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think it's quite easy to see the potential benefits of expanding SL into France, not least competition attractiveness through strong clubs. Things like media deals, sponsor deals, player development, international competition etc. They are all really good arguments for it. 

The problem here, and I am absolutely repeating myself is that poor planning up front and literally having a strategy that involves no more than putting a team in SL means that many of those benefits have been largely unrecognised. 

Not having a plan for costs, or future growth in France, or player quotas for development, or an international strategy that aligns, or a commercial arm that delivers in Europe and not just the North of England is negligent.

I think they just thought sticking a team in was the end game, when in reality it was the start. None of the above benefits will just happen. 

IIRC, Ian Leneghan was invited to a TO meeting/meal to explain what TO needed to bring to SL.  One of his points was to bring a television deal.  That tends to make me think that Catalans hadn’t had to provide one (details of the Tender) so TO needed to.  This was not a hard and fast requirement though as IL just went over as a representative of SL clubs.

IMO, as good as these SL owners were as businessmen, collectively the weren’t as organised or forward thinking as they should have been.

[Worzel]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Hmm. This is a very one-sided assessment. Catalans have benefited far, far more than UK RL has from their admittance. 

It's the specific set of circumstances that led to a French club being in the Super League. There was not some grassroots campaign from France for us to help them rescue the game there, or implant a commercial engine for their benefit. Super League wanted a club in France for Super League's own reasons. It's good that Catalans have benefited from it, what else would we want, an exploitative relationship where they didn't?

Sports business growth is about creating win-wins so the collective value grows, ironically given the process comes through watching win-losses on a field. A rising tide lifts all boats.

 

[glossop saint]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

It was mooted that improving the game in France would attract more bodies to take up the sport, in turn improving the National team and giving a credible N. Hemisphere opposition for GB/England, well that fell flat didn't it.

The argument used above was that we don't know how much more the money would have fallen if we didn't have Catalans. A similar point can be made here.

Catalan being in SL is about so much more than money without wanting to drift away from money which this is focusing on. Some of which is quantifiable, some of which isn't. And some of which it will be impossible to know. Oh well it gives us all an opportunity to go around in circles never changing our minds.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

IIRC, Ian Leneghan was invited to a TO meeting/meal to explain what TO needed to bring to SL.  One of his points was to bring a television deal.  That tends to make me think that Catalans hadn’t had to provide one (details of the Tender) so TO needed to.  This was not a hard and fast requirement though as IL just went over as a representative of SL clubs.

IMO, as good as these SL owners were as businessmen, collectively the weren’t as organised or forward thinking as they should have been.

Agreed 100%

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

It's the specific set of circumstances that led to a French club being in the Super League. There was not some grassroots campaign from France for us to help them rescue the game there, or implant a commercial engine for their benefit. Super League wanted a club in France for Super League's own reasons. It's good that Catalans have benefited from it, what else would we want, an exploitative relationship where they didn't?

Sports business growth is about creating win-wins so the collective value grows, ironically given the process comes through watching win-losses on a field. A rising tide lifts all boats.

 

I'm not sure we are strongly disagreeing on this point, I just think your slant is unnecessarily negative on this. 

As long as I've watched the game (40ish years) there have been calls for more support for France, there still is. I've listed what I think are the potential benefits that could be realised with a well implemented strategy, but many of those things could also be recognised with other territories. 

France was the natural place to play, in the same way NZ was for the NRL, but it was hardly a pot of gold sitting waiting to be taken. 

And if it was an exploitative relationship, I'd argue that the UK game have been the worst exploiters around.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure we are strongly disagreeing on this point, I just think your slant is unnecessarily negative on this. 

As long as I've watched the game (40ish years) there have been calls for more support for France, there still is. I've listed what I think are the potential benefits that could be realised with a well implemented strategy, but many of those things could also be recognised with other territories. 

France was the natural place to play, in the same way NZ was for the NRL, but it was hardly a pot of gold sitting waiting to be taken. 

And if it was an exploitative relationship, I'd argue that the UK game have been the worst exploiters around.

I’m not negative overall, honest. I think it’s been a relationship of mutual benefit, as all good ones are. Clearly it has been good for Catalans, but you can’t deny they’ve put their own shift in. Then on the flip side I think Super League has also benefitted, certainly more than it has from several other clubs who’ve participated in the league in the same time period… and nobody is asking other clubs to take on additional liabilities!

That said, I am negative on retrospective attempts to renegotiate the terms of that relationship, which I think shows bad faith and not how I’d run any organisation, and it’s important to remember how this all started to make sure we frame today’s debate properly. 

I think a case can be made for franchise buy-ins, and a case can be made for charging “rent” to foreign teams who wish to join (whether I agree or not). I just don’t think a moral case can be made for moving the goalposts for an existing partner like this. Doesn’t pass my “smell test” is all. 

[Tommygilf]

I think the sport needs to be wary of ending up in a reductive "we provide this" mentality, especially with gradings coming in. Only (English) Grade A clubs will be getting TV money at this rate.