Dragons confirm they have to pay next year

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

4 clubs could make 4 trips to France (2x away fixtures each). Then it's cup and playoff considerations.

Even then, of those clubs, not all 4 would make 2 away trips because of how loop fixtures currently work?

Are you sure Tommy, I wondered if I had got my figures correct? Yes I think you are correct.

But still let's take your figures of 4 confirmed trips, then the possibility of Cup and play offs, do you think as I suggested the possibility of that happening is the reasoning of making the French Clubs pay for the British clubs expenses?

And I will put on my tin hat saying this, the French clubs asked to be part of the RFL and not invited in, does that come into consideration?

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Another reason to shrink SL to 10 teams. Currently carrying too many small-timers.

Who's that Archie?

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Do we know the reasoning behind this before we criticise. Is it possible that Catalans were allowed in on a promise of getting a paying French tv deal which they said would cover costs. Not being able to get that does the responsibility now land on them. 

I think it is because of Toulouse having a good chance of getting a SL place and they are pre-empting the implications of this.

I don't agree with it and do think it's small time but they can't be having one French team paying for costs and the other not. Obviously self interest rules and instead of neither team paying they are going down this route.

[bobbruce]

Just now, Damien said:

I think it is because of Toulouse having a good chance of getting a SL place and they are pre-empting the implications of this.

I don't agree with it and do think it's small time but they can't be having one French team paying for costs and the other not. Obviously self interest rules and instead of neither team paying they are going down this route.

You think and I think but we don’t actually know the reasons so I find it difficult to be over critical. If it’s purely for the reasons you state then yes I agree it’s stupid but we don’t know. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think it is because of Toulouse having a good chance of getting a SL place and they are pre-empting the implications of this.

I don't agree with it and do think it's small time but they can't be having one French team paying for costs and the other not. Obviously self interest rules and instead of neither team paying they are going down this route.

Thanks for confirming my thoughts Damien.

[Cerulean]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

I didn’t mention a club. If I’d thought it was a club issue, I’d have mentioned the clubs. You’re answering a point I didn’t make. 

Take 5 minutes to reflect upon the last 2 decades’ rugby league leadership, and our continuous promotion of the next cab on the rank when his incompetent boss moves on, despite the next cab also having failed in their more junior role, all the while having their incompetence ignored by their similarly local friends in the barely-professional trade media, and you might get within a country mile of understanding the point I was making. 

The Super League clubs have had the power, money, control, influence, and profile, pretty much exclusively for the last two decades, and it is those organisations which have decided not just the direction of the sport, but issues such as the one that instigated this thread. To blame the leadership of the RFL, or an indefinable geographical entity, who do not have the power, money, control, influence, and profile, is a disingenuous deflection. It really is time we made clear who is making these decisions; who is running the sport.

But, no, I’m not within a country mile of understanding your point, and don’t suppose I ever could understand someone who seeks humour in genetic deficiencies and homosexual rape, and who  indulges in such crass generalisations.

So build whatever edifice you wish: I shall not participate in its examination.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for confirming my thoughts Damien.

Don't know if I am right but it makes sense to me.

[Damien]

   

6 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

You think and I think but we don’t actually know the reasons so I find it difficult to be over critical. If it’s purely for the reasons you state then yes I agree it’s stupid but we don’t know. 

I can see both sides but think there has to be a better solution to share costs than lumping the entire burden of a single club.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Don't know if I am right but it makes sense to me.

That is what I expressed an hour previously.

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

   

I can see both sides but think there has to be a better solution to share costs than lumping the entire burden of a single club.

Am I right in thinking the last time Toulouse were in SL both clubs had to pay travel costs. If so that would support the idea that the French clubs promised a tv deal to cover costs if multiple teams are in SL maybe. 

Edited May 26 by bobbruce

[Mark S]

A quick search would suggest that chartering a plane for 30 persons would cost around £50K. That means that the French clubs will need to have at least £1M set aside for travel. 
 

 

[Sports Prophet]

3 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

Perth to Melbourne is further than Auckland to Melbourne. AFL provide Perth teams with 12 business class flights for each melbourne trip and melbourne based clubs are complaining about it.

How great is it to hear of a sport where the tail isn’t wagging the dog? Shame the RFL aren’t that strong.

[Archie Gordon]

35 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Who's that Archie?

I suppose I ought to be brave enough to name them: Huddersfield, Salford and London each lack at least one element to be a top-flight club IMO. This is based on the licensing framework - but that's the regime we have, for better or worse.

[Gomersall]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

I suppose I ought to be brave enough to name them: Huddersfield, Salford and London each lack at least one element to be a top-flight club IMO. This is based on the licensing framework - but that's the regime we have, for better or worse.

London aren’t a top flight club under IMG grades.

[Damien]

27 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That is what I expressed an hour previously.

I'd disagree that it confirms Toulouse are in but they are obviously strong contenders and it is prudent to plan for it.

[Archie Gordon]

7 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

London aren’t a top flight club under IMG grades.

True.

What I meant was *if* I were doing licensing, I would cut the 3 clubs mentioned and elevate Wakey to a 10-team elite. I guess the Wakey-London switch is already baked in.

To relate that back to this thread, I would expect the 10 teams in my elite league to each cover their own travel costs. No carrying of small-timers.

[Liverpool Rover]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I think it is because of Toulouse having a good chance of getting a SL place and they are pre-empting the implications of this.

I don't agree with it and do think it's small time but they can't be having one French team paying for costs and the other not. Obviously self interest rules and instead of neither team paying they are going down this route.

With Toulouse in Super League with a high enough grade to make them safe enough of relegation you can alternate home games each week so a French broadcaster will have a home game to show every week.

[Lowdesert]

This is a copy of the link where the required TV contract was championed by Parksider (he maybe on here still under another name, maybe not).  
I don’t know whether there is an updated version or agreement that was made since then.

 

http://www.to13.com/actualites/super-league-ian-lenagan-et-wigan-soutiens-de-poids-pour-la-candidature-du-to/

The attached link is a record of the soirée evening in Toulouse, 14.5.2012, regarding entry into SL. For those who don't read French very well:-

 Lenegan is introduced as a President of a very powerful SL Club.  Lenegan, who has a house in France and knows Toulouse well is at the dinner, as are TO President and officials, Deputy Mayor, Vice President of Chamber of Commerce and others.  

Lenegan gives his backing to TO and that its 'the right moment' for their candidacy into SL.  Lenegan is quoted as, after his meeting with Leeds, Saints, Warrington and Wigan of course, they, 'in unison' of 'pushing' TO into SL.  Lenegan also sees TO as a 'formidable development opportunity'.

Key points came from Lenegans speech which were noted as:

1. The training of French players capable of evolving at this competition level.  - Nowhere is there any a mention of this being a 'must have' or criteria to enter SL.
2. The development of a viable financial plan. - Obvious for any business commitment.
3. Television coverage in France.  - The attached link indicates that there was to be link into Al Jazeera, France in June of that year and also retransmission of SL.  - Nowhere is there a mention of TV deals being 'must have' or criteria to enter SL.
4. A stadium and infrastructures corresponding to the specifications of the competition - SL have criteria for stadia, which Lenegan alludes to.

Lenegan did say he, Saints, Leeds, Wire and Wigan of course, were 'pushing' for TO candidacy into SL.

Lenegan did say he was 'convinced of the importance of a second French club' in SL.

Lenegan chatted with the TO President, Zaluendo and other TO Officials and said he was impressed with the Club.

Lenegan attended the meeting, 14.5.2012,  as CEO of Wigan, not 'boss of Super League'.

Lenegan did not state TO would not be allowed to enter SL without the aforementioned 'Key points'. 

 

Hope this clears up the fabricated Lenegan rubbish that keeps getting repeated time and again. He appears to have actually given his backing to TO.

[Harry Stottle]

55 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

This is a copy of the link where the required TV contract was championed by Parksider (he maybe on here still under another name, maybe not).  
I don’t know whether there is an updated version or agreement that was made since then.

 

 

http://www.to13.com/actualites/super-league-ian-lenagan-et-wigan-soutiens-de-poids-pour-la-candidature-du-to/

The attached link is a record of the soirée evening in Toulouse, 14.5.2012, regarding entry into SL. For those who don't read French very well:-

 Lenegan is introduced as a President of a very powerful SL Club.  Lenegan, who has a house in France and knows Toulouse well is at the dinner, as are TO President and officials, Deputy Mayor, Vice President of Chamber of Commerce and others.  

Lenegan gives his backing to TO and that its 'the right moment' for their candidacy into SL.  Lenegan is quoted as, after his meeting with Leeds, Saints, Warrington and Wigan of course, they, 'in unison' of 'pushing' TO into SL.  Lenegan also sees TO as a 'formidable development opportunity'.

Key points came from Lenegans speech which were noted as:

1. The training of French players capable of evolving at this competition level.  - Nowhere is there any a mention of this being a 'must have' or criteria to enter SL.
2. The development of a viable financial plan. - Obvious for any business commitment.
3. Television coverage in France.  - The attached link indicates that there was to be link into Al Jazeera, France in June of that year and also retransmission of SL.  - Nowhere is there a mention of TV deals being 'must have' or criteria to enter SL.
4. A stadium and infrastructures corresponding to the specifications of the competition - SL have criteria for stadia, which Lenegan alludes to.

Lenegan did say he, Saints, Leeds, Wire and Wigan of course, were 'pushing' for TO candidacy into SL.

Lenegan did say he was 'convinced of the importance of a second French club' in SL.

Lenegan chatted with the TO President, Zaluendo and other TO Officials and said he was impressed with the Club.

Lenegan attended the meeting, 14.5.2012,  as CEO of Wigan, not 'boss of Super League'.

Lenegan did not state TO would not be allowed to enter SL without the aforementioned 'Key points'. 

 

Hope this clears up the fabricated Lenegan rubbish that keeps getting repeated time and again. He appears to have actually given his backing to TO.

So what are we to glean from that, that his influence didn't carry much weight?

[Lowdesert]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

So what are we to glean from that, that his influence didn't carry much weight?

It was really to clear up the ‘must have a TV deal’ question which some posters have raised in general discussion Harry.

 

[JohnM]

Easy peasy to avoid allegations of restrictive practices and anti-competitive behaviour: all clubs to pay the travelling and subsistence of visiting clubs. So when it's Wigan Vs Cats, Wigan pay for Cats. When it's Cats Vs Wigan, Cats pay.

Alternatively, .....

[Worzel]

10 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

What on earth have you been smoking?

Ironic humour clearly not your thing? Strange, because you’ve always appeared to be a man of lightness and wit. It’s probably me, I’ll endeavour to improve, every day is a school day 

[Worzel]

11 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Which is all the more surprising that having a policy of seemingly always promoting from within, why they are spending so much on an outside agency like IMG > 5M for the first 12 years, then an undisclosed % of any financial improvements that may have been made after that.

You’re still banging on about IMG’s £500k service cost? They’re delivering work for that, it’s less than £50k per season per club. It’s not some sort of free skim off the top. Those of us who do marketing for a living have a good sense of how much you normally get for that sort of spend…

Clue: The first word starts with F, the second with A. 

[Worzel]

10 hours ago, Cerulean said:

So build whatever edifice you wish: I shall not participate in its examination.

I didn’t ask you to participate. You came along and volunteered yourself. This discussion isn't an airport, there’s really no need to announce your departure. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

You’re still banging on about IMG’s £500k service cost? They’re delivering work for that, it’s less than £50k per season per club. It’s not some sort of free skim off the top. Those of us who do marketing for a living have a good sense of how much you normally get for that sort of spend…

Clue: The first word starts with F, the second with A. 

Well you would stick together that being you guys who do marketing for a living, in 12 years time if IMG actually last that long time will tell if they have delivered and there is a % of any profit to be made or the RL have wasted £5 Million big ones, your guess is as good as mine.