Dragons confirm they have to pay next year

[Damien]

31 minutes ago, Londonbornirishbred said:

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

And do what? Catalans ain't got that power, whether they win SL or not, as they have no other options.

[Worzel]

4 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

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.

You’re entitled to your opinions Martin, and have a great deal of opportunity to expound them at length. I’m likewise entitled to mine, and to use gentle humour to communicate it.

Whether you find it amusing has no relationship to whether or not it was funny, just as your view that I know little about certain subjects is unconnected to whether or not I actually do. I think it’s fairly likely I know a great deal more than you on many matters, some pertaining to our great sport.

The RFL invited a French side to bid to join its comp because it wanted one in it, for our benefit at the time. It wasn’t a gift. That same club delivered on its promises and more, bringing much more value than many other teams we could both name. Then because we later fail in our role to sell broadcast rights, we decide they’re “too expensive” and blackmail them to bail us out. In that context, who’s to say that in a few years’ time we won’t be asking Neil Hudgell and Adam Pearson to pay the extra costs of the longer journey down the M62 to Hull. I mean, the logic is perfectly consistent. If you justify the one, you’ve the same justification for the other. 

The total ridiculousness of that idea is kind of the whole point. But then of course I wouldn’t expect a member of the clique to see the ridiculousness… so, as they say in Perpignan, c’est la vie!! 

[Worzel]

3 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

Only? 

Yup, only. Having done this stuff for more than 25 years, I can say with some conviction that IMG are expending far more resources on the Super League project than the £500k/year retainer. They are investing money, net. This whole thing only works for them at the back end, and they know it is going to take a long time to get a return on their investment, hence the 12 years.

That being said, it’s perfectly conceivable that our commercial income could 4x or 5x in that period, so low is the starting point. They could well make a great deal of money… but our sport would be far better off for it, and they’d have earned it if they did. 

[Martyn Sadler]

4 minutes ago, Worzel said:

You’re entitled to your opinions Martin, and have a great deal of opportunity to expound them at length. I’m likewise entitled to mine, and to use gentle humour to communicate it.

Whether you find it amusing has no relationship to whether or not it was funny, just as your view that I know little about certain subjects is unconnected to whether or not I actually do. I think it’s fairly likely I know a great deal more than you on many matters, some pertaining to our great sport.

The RFL invited a French side to bid to join its comp because it wanted one in it, for our benefit at the time. It wasn’t a gift. That same club delivered on its promises and more, bringing much more value than many other teams we could both name. Then because we later fail in our role to sell broadcast rights, we decide they’re “too expensive” and blackmail them to bail us out. In that context, who’s to say that in a few years’ time we won’t be asking Neil Hudgell and Adam Pearson to pay the extra costs of the longer journey down the M62 to Hull. I mean, the logic is perfectly consistent. If you justify the one, you’ve the same justification for the other. 

The total ridiculousness of that idea is kind of the whole point. But then of course I wouldn’t expect a member of the clique to see the ridiculousness… so, as they say in Perpignan, c’est la vie!! 

If you stuck to making your point, as you have done here, then I would agree with you, as I do on this topic.

The problem is that over the last six years the total income generated by Rugby League in this country has more or less halved.

Desperate clubs call for desperate measures, even ones that in the long term would be damaging for the health of the game.

As you will know if you have run a business, decisions made under conditions of insolvency are never made with the long term in mind.

The insistence on Catalans paying the transport costs of all of their opponents is only one element of this.

Rugby League's problem is that the clubs (or a majority of the clubs) call the shots.

[Worzel]

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

Well guys I reckon this is confirmation that Toulouse are going to be in SL next year, so both clubs playing in the same division it would be unfair to have one club paying for away teams travel and the other not to, it was either both pay it or no one, I would guess that it is the decision of the SL Chairmen other than the Rugby League.

Yes I agree, that’s likely what triggered it, and I fully agree something needed to change. 

Personally I would have taken France travel costs from central funds, and then split the remaining media rights 12 ways. That would have been much more equitable: Catalans and Toulouse would have had to bear their own higher costs for travelling to the UK 13+ times per year, but not a disproportionate amount of the other clubs’ French travel. British teams would have a financial advantage on that model, but not as great, and it could at least have been described as “strategic spending” from the centre rather than the proposed arrangement which shrieks “tin pot sport” to anyone who sees it. 

[Worzel]

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you stuck to making your point, as you have done here, then I would agree with you, as I do on this topic.

The problem is that over the last six years the total income generated by Rugby League in this country has more or less halved.

Desperate clubs call for desperate measures, even ones that in the long term would be damaging for the health of the game.

As you will know if you have run a business, decisions made under conditions of insolvency are never made with the long term in mind.

The insistence on Catalans paying the transport costs of all of their opponents is only one element of this.

Rugby League's problem is that the clubs (or a majority of the clubs) call the shots.

As you can see from my response to Harry above, I understand the drivers but there are more equitable solutions to it.

What we are doing amounts to a shakedown. The local regional governments in France have spent millions of Euros in good faith supporting our competition, for decades. We are now putting a gun to their head and saying “cough up more, or that will all have been wasted”

It’s the negotiation tactics of a gangster enterprise, and we should all be embarrassed about it. If we don’t have enough money for a 12 team fully pro comp, then cut it down to 10 teams and keep the strongest. Catalans would be in the Top 3 by any measure. 

That is strategic thinking, by a rational commercial venture. Instead we’re forcing the French state to prop up Salford and Castleford. It’s as simple as that.