Dragons confirm they have to pay next year

[Sports Prophet]

14 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

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.

Can’t they broadcast the away games as well?

[Sports Prophet]

11 hours ago, JohnM said:

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, .....

I like it!

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Can’t they broadcast the away games as well?

Indeed, in this New model of broadcasting, they can show 50+ games a year that involve French teams, and can show more that help the narrative of the comp that these French teams are competing in. 

IMO the blanket coverage should be huge for international rights, but unfortunately we are starting from such a weak position, it is difficult to capitalise on it. 

[RigbyLuger]

12 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. 

IMG are the new bogeyman. If they do something good, they'll get no credit from some, but they'll be quick to blame for anything negative.

[Worzel]

11 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

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.

You can guess. I’ll go on the evidence, which is that whatever we were doing before was both highly incompetent, and not working by any measure you choose to pick. 

I’m not sure bringing in experts who only make money by increasing the value of the sport’s commercial revenues is such a bad idea. Radical, I appreciate. 

 

 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, RigbyLuger said:

IMG are the new bogeyman. If they do something good, they'll get no credit from some, but they'll be quick to blame for anything negative.

Classic ‘League of Gentlemen’ “you’re not from around here” rugby league fan reaction. 

[Eddie]

On 25/05/2024 at 21:58, Anita Bath said:

Are IMGs fingerprints on this?

And if a french team apply for entry to league 1?

Why stop at France. Gateshead and Cornwall are a long way from the M62. Lets charge them as well.

Oh for the days of David Oxley

And Cumbria. 

[Hopie]

1 hour ago, RigbyLuger said:

IMG are the new bogeyman. If they do something good, they'll get no credit from some, but they'll be quick to blame for anything negative.

To be fair, there are also those who credit them with things that would have happened without their help. Plenty of completely opposite positions in these kind of discussions.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Hopie said:

To be fair, there are also those who credit them with things that would have happened without their help. Plenty of completely opposite positions in these kind of discussions.

Like what?

[sam4731]

2 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

IMG are the new bogeyman. If they do something good, they'll get no credit from some, but they'll be quick to blame for anything negative.

Does the bogeyman do good?

[sam4731]

21 hours ago, JohnM said:

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, .....

I think it would be better to assign each club a partner club and they pay for all the away travel of said club. In addition to this every club pays into 'travel fund' which subsidises travel for the regular partnership deals. You could even throw in a club travel exchange scheme which allows for players to exchange places with the opposition to save on individual player travel costs.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the most elegant.

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, sam4731 said:

I think it would be better to assign each club a partner club and they pay for all the away travel of said club. In addition to this every club pays into 'travel fund' which subsidises travel for the regular partnership deals. You could even throw in a club travel exchange scheme which allows for players to exchange places with the opposition to save on individual player travel costs.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the most elegant.

Surely the simplest is you just pay for your own travel. 

[JohnM]

5 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Surely the simplest is you just pay for your own travel. 

Exactly my point. If Wigan paid for Cats to visit and Cats paid for Wigan to visit, the costs cancel out, and equate to them both paying for their own travel.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, sam4731 said:

I think it would be better to assign each club a partner club and they pay for all the away travel of said club. In addition to this every club pays into 'travel fund' which subsidises travel for the regular partnership deals. You could even throw in a club travel exchange scheme which allows for players to exchange places with the opposition to save on individual player travel costs.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the most elegant.

Doesn't really sound that simple to be honest.

[sam4731]

26 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Surely the simplest is you just pay for your own travel. 

Paying for your own travel? Like a 1 step system? Far too complicated. 

[sam4731]

20 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Exactly my point. If Wigan paid for Cats to visit and Cats paid for Wigan to visit, the costs cancel out, and equate to them both paying for their own travel.

 

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

Doesn't really sound that simple to be honest.

*whoosh*

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Surely the simplest is you just pay for your own travel. 

Absolutely - some might want to travel Ryanair via Girona with a layover, some might want private flight into Perpignan same day return. Can only do that if you choose.

[Taffy Tiger]

On 25/05/2024 at 21:48, Rowan said:

That's the thing about Super League (Europe) if that is still its grandiose title - if any club comes from Europe they are made about as welcome as an attack of flu.

Have to disagree . Catalans were accepted into SL in 2006 and were given an exemption from relegation . They finished bottom in 2006 and would have been relegated without this exemption in place . The exemption continued until SL Franchising 2009-2014 , meaning they had been exempt from relegation for 9 years , enough time to strengthen their team and build a foundation , and time that no other SL club was afforded . If that's not being made to feel welcome then I'm not sure what is !!

[Taffy Tiger]

On 26/05/2024 at 09:52, Harry Stottle said:

I hope you all realise that if - and I think this confirms as I said earlier that Toulouse will be in SL next season - that with the loop fixtures we are operating if both Catalan and Toulose are in placings that are Odd or Even they will both be in the same half of the loop fixtures that could mean in 2025 up to 4 British clubs subject to making making 6 trips to France excluding any Challenge cup draws, as I said I consider this to be a decision of the SL Chairmen before there is a chance it happens to them.

Hi Harry , I don't think this means that Toulouse are guaranteed a place next season . I think that your post when combined with Tommygilf's correction to 4 visits max per year , is more likely to demonstrate that the league will expand at some time to 14 clubs , of which Catalans and Toulouse will almost certainly be 2 of those 14 . At that point teams would only need to travel to France twice in a season as loop fixtures would disappear. 

[sheddingswasus]

On 25/05/2024 at 19:51, The Future is League said:

Is this down to the RFL or Super League clubs?

If clubs can't afford a once a year trip to France to play for competition points they really shouldn't be in Super League

So maybe the English clubs should pay the travel for the Dragons to come this way. Only fair!

[Taffy Tiger]

I genuinely don't see the problem with French clubs paying travel expenses . It does sound a lot but there were no objections made when it was mentioned that Catalans and Toulouse were happy to join a 12 team SL with no CF, although SL clubs would then pay their own travel expenses.

 

When you consider Mark S's that each trip costs around £50k , that equates to £600k for each team in the season (12 games as 13th is against each other) 

With a 12 team SL they would be paying £ 600k a season out of £ 1.3M CF , leaving a £ 700k surplus for them.

In a 12 team SL with no CF , they wouldn't have to pay for away travel , but would still be £ 700k out of pocket .

Considering ( from what has been allegedly reported) that both French clubs would be happy with the no CF arrangement , the option for CF and pay away travel expenses is a much better one for them than no CF . 

UK SL clubs are worse off with Catalans and Toulouse paying travel expenses instead of receiving no CF . With a 12 team SL including Cats and TO , the remaining 10 UK clubs would receive approx £ 1.5M CF , an increase of £200k , but would then need to spend £100k of this on travel expenses to France, leaving UK clubs £100k better off.

 

I think Cats and TO will be more than happy to pay expenses and receive £700k CF on top .

[Martyn Sadler]

19 hours ago, Worzel said:

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 

Irony was notable by its absence in the comment to which I replied.

You seem to enjoy passing judgement on things you clearly know very little about.

Of course you are perfectly entitled to do that, but the correct description of that habit is ignorance, not irony.

[Archie Gordon]

5 hours ago, Worzel said:

...

bringing in experts who only make money by increasing the value of the sport’s commercial revenues ... 

Only? 

[Londonbornirishbred]

In an ideal world, Catalans will win SL then threaten to leave the competition due to this "backwards/backwater" stance from Superleague.

Rugby League has survived 130 years in England and will continue to do so, with or without the French (Welsh, Canadians, Londoners), but it must ask itself if "survival" is an acceptable aim? If it truly wants to expand, then it needs to really get an understanding as to why Wigan/Leeds/St Helens aren't putting up "House Full" signs every week. If the game wants to really grow, then it first needs to become "must see/must attend" fodder for Sports fans in its heartlands. 

As for the £500k a year IMG are getting? Are Catalans contributing to that? If so, why, given that they are an EU country and will have different demographic and marketing regulations?

Making them pay £30-£40k per club to visiting teams sends a message to any POTENTIAL outside investor that any hope of anything other than "survival" will require a huge shift in management/control at the very top of the game.

Put in laymans terms. The Yanks could have bought Cornwall RL or London Broncos for a fraction of what they spent on Wrexham, but they'd of had to jump through far too many hoops and tick countless boxes to do so, whilst being regarded as "outsiders" by the rest of the game for at least 4 generations and accused of causing every woe we indlict on ourselves as am added bonus.

[Anita Bath]

Lets face it….they are required to pay these costs, not because its a long way (so is London) but because they are French. Suppose they relocated to Calais and London moved to Dover. Would they still be paying?