Catalans

[ATLANTISMAN]

2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Personally I'd put them in a camp site, and have them travel by coach.

Any club who wants more can pay for it themselves. As grown-ups would be prepared to anyway. 

This is up there with one of the most backward things the sport has ever done. There is not a single argument for it. Normally you think "yes, I don't agree but I understand the thinking from your point of view", but in this case there isn't a valid, rational one to be made. Anything put forward to try and justify it can be shot down in a heartbeat.

It boils down to "we have the power to make you do it, you might have the means, and we think that ultimately you will be able to because the alternative is worse". Those are the criteria of gangsters, extracting protection money. It's not how you build success together as partners of trust, in a joint enterprise. 

Genuinely think we're doomed as a sport. It's not where you start that counts in life, it's the quality of your decision-making and the effort that you apply afterwards. This demonstrates we have no chance. 

I going to spend the next month on a Cricket project so i can forget about this otherwise my head will explode:(

[Worzel]

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That isn't the only alternative though.

This is the UK pyramid and when decisions are made about whether to introduce French teams, the business case doesn't really stack up for British RL. £1.5m in central funding per annum goes to French rugby league instead of UK RL, and there are additional costs of c£500k. So to introduce a French club into SL it's probably a direct cost of £2m per annum (£30-40m so far in reality).

Multiply that by 2 or 3 and it's a huge cost.

The real alternative is that we just say no to French teams because we can't fund it.

The real root cause here is that we embark on these things without having a real costed plan. We wing it, and it leads to tactical decisions like this which can be seen as short sighted.

Dave, I'm really surprised you can't think beyond this. The whole purpose of Super League, and indeed any business venture, is not how to share out the cake that already exists but how to make the cake bigger.

1. Catalans TV revenues are not a "loss" to the game, or a subsidy. The earn them by putting a team on the pitch that competes, with which we get TV contracts and from which they earn an equal share. 

2. The only question when evaluating clubs' value to the league should be "do they enable us to grow the commercial revenues in the sport in future". By any measurable criteria, Catalans do. And if we're in the game of ranking which of the clubs bring the most value, then they're not even in the bottom half. TV companies and sponsors want one, simple thing: Compelling content, the excites audiences and consumers. Close matches, with great players, between two competitive sides are the value-creation engine. Catalans are one of the few clubs we have that do so consistently.#

Aside from the fact we shouldn't be so myopic as to think of "UK money" and "money going to France", because it's rugby league we love not some random line on a map, the <£1.5m per season that goes to Catalans is a far better investment in future value-creation than the same money being sent to Huddersfield and Castleford, to name just two alternatives.

This demonstrates a total lack of strategic thought, or the ability to even evaluate things commercially. I know that people like Rhodri Jones are muppets who've failed upwards within the RFL, never having achieved success anywhere else either, but I really do expect better decisions from the leaders of St Helens, Wigan, Leeds, Hull KR etc. 

[Worzel]

6 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

I going to spend the next month on a Cricket project so i can forget about this otherwise my head will explode:(

It makes me nauseous. It's off-the-charts bad. I knew it was coming, but that's never quite the same as seeing it happen. 

[The Future is League]

11 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Personally I'd put them in a camp site, and have them travel by coach.

Any club who wants more can pay for it themselves. As grown-ups would be prepared to anyway. 

This is up there with one of the most backward things the sport has ever done. There is not a single argument for it. Normally you think "yes, I don't agree but I understand the thinking from your point of view", but in this case there isn't a valid, rational one to be made. Anything put forward to try and justify it can be shot down in a heartbeat.

It boils down to "we have the power to make you do it, you might have the means, and we think that ultimately you will be able to because the alternative is worse". Those are the criteria of gangsters, extracting protection money. It's not how you build success together as partners of trust, in a joint enterprise. 

Genuinely think we're doomed as a sport. It's not where you start that counts in life, it's the quality of your decision-making and the effort that you apply afterwards. This demonstrates we have no chance. 

It goes back to what has alreday been mentioned and that isif they can't afford a trip to France once a year they really should be in Super League

[Worzel]

2 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

It goes back to what has alreday been mentioned and that isif they can't afford a trip to France once a year they really should be in Super League

100%. The better response from the centre, given what is happening with gradings, is to say that ability to fund your own travel to overseas clubs is a criteria for membership. If you can't, or don't want to, that's fine but you can play in the Championship as that's your level. 

Personally I'd prefer a 10 team Super League with a closer performance spread, and to have 2 other sides make the Championship a better comp. It's a win-win. 

[Harry Stottle]

16 hours ago, Gav Wilson said:

Obviously not *literally* £10m but if Catalans withdrew and SL retracted to an exclusively M62 competition, the next TV deal would see the return of a part time league, and ultimately irrelevance.

Wow, that could be an exclusive Gav:-

FRENCH TEAM WITHDRAWS FROM BRITISH RUGBY LEAGUE, SKY SLASH FUNDING, BRITISH RUGBY LEAGUE GOES PART TIME.

Yeah right OK.

[up the robins]

26 minutes ago, Worzel said:

100%. The better response from the centre, given what is happening with gradings, is to say that ability to fund your own travel to overseas clubs is a criteria for membership. If you can't, or don't want to, that's fine but you can play in the Championship as that's your level. 

Personally I'd prefer a 10 team Super League with a closer performance spread, and to have 2 other sides make the Championship a better comp. It's a win-win. 

Absolutely not for me m8 a 10 team super league would get very boring same teams over and over. 

I would rather have a 14 team comp with no loop fixtures.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, up the robins said:

Absolutely not for me m8 a 10 team super league would get very boring same teams over and over. 

I would rather have a 14 team comp with no loop fixtures.

Then, as per the reasoning behind it, those fourteen teams need to justify their presence by being able to run a full time squad and a trip to France.

If they can't then there's a competition better suited to them.

[Worzel]

13 minutes ago, up the robins said:

Absolutely not for me m8 a 10 team super league would get very boring same teams over and over. 

I would rather have a 14 team comp with no loop fixtures.

So would I, but if we don't have 12 or 14 teams able to operate at that level (including travelling to Catalans) then better we accept reality and build back from a stronger, more concentrated base. 

[up the robins]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Then, as per the reasoning behind it, those fourteen teams need to justify their presence by being able to run a full time squad and a trip to France.

If they can't then there's a competition better suited to them.

No arguments from me there, I just think a smaller comp does nothing to raise the sports profile.

[Worzel]

34 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Wow, that could be an exclusive Gav:-

FRENCH TEAM WITHDRAWS FROM BRITISH RUGBY LEAGUE, SKY SLASH FUNDING, BRITISH RUGBY LEAGUE GOES PART TIME.

Yeah right OK.

To be brutally frank, anyone who thinks that a huge shock to the quality of the comp like Catalans leaving Super League for this type of reason would not lead to a reduction in the value of our TV and other commercial rights is on cloud cuckoo land.

[up the robins]

5 minutes ago, Worzel said:

So would I, but if we don't have 12 or 14 teams able to operate at that level (including travelling to Catalans) then better we accept reality and build back from a stronger, more concentrated base. 

I just think if we reduce the comp to ten teams all that will happen is the 10 teams will spend more and make the gap between them and any other  clubs even greater making it even harder to break into super league. 

Really sad to see London go was really nice stadium and the crowds did seem steady with a sustained run in one place thought could grow.

They're what we need the media attention from having a London based team is massive.

[Harry Stottle]

20 hours ago, Worzel said:

 The RFL is basically blackmailing the regional government in France to subsidise small town clubs in England. 

So I ask who have you got in mind of the small town clubs in England.

 

12 hours ago, Worzel said:

I think you can name the small Super League clubs who would like Catalans out of the league
 

Then you subtly change your question/answer to 'small Super League clubs', and then compound it with 'who would like Catalans out of the League'.

Well no, I can't name them, firstly I don't know what constitutes to you a small town club, is it one with a population <50K, <100K <150K or even <200K?

And which clubs do you knowingly would like Catalans out of the league, I have only ever heard of two  clubs who have voiced an opinion about Catalans presence that being Huddersfield and St Helens albeit not for a couple or 3 years.

So just for Clarity Worzel, could you please be a little more specific and name names, is it just the 'small Super League clubs' or the ones 'who would like Catalans out of the league' or a combination of both.

PS, there will be one poster who thinks I should not be asking questions, but before he does let me just say this is a conversation between the two of us.

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Eddie said:

Having to pay for everyone else’s costs, in a professional sports league. 

Thank you Eddie, so there is one barrier multiplied by 11 clubs making it multiple. I couldn't think of any other barriers you could be referring to.

[Damien]

What a team add to SL isn't just a straight how much income do they bring in discussion. Catalans don't bring in any more or less income than any other team when it comes to the TV deal. Sky pay for x amount of SL games a year and they want attractive games at that, or the TV deal goes down as we see.

Catalans are a well financed club that gets good crowds, has a competitive team, spends up to the salary cap and attracts star players. They undoubtedly add to SL and make it a more attractive offering. If we had more teams like Catalans then SL would be all the better for it and we daresay would have a better TV deal too.

Edited October 2 by Damien

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I do think there is (as usual) a PR piece around this.

Talking about travel costs is a little small time, when the reality of this is that the challenge is that there is no central funding form that territory.

The Xhampions League was brought up, but the clubs from the territories that bring most TV money get a bigger share of the TV money. Which in effect is what we are talking about here.

Albeit I know naff all about football, I get the jist of you post.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Super League will be a lot weaker when they're gone.

Is that a prophecy Ginge? I hope not.

[frank]

I can see Sky paying less for what's called Super league if Catalans withdrew.

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, The Future is League said:

Without away fans going to their grounds Salford Red Devils and the Huddersfield Giants would be in deep financial hock, and both clubs have been around for over 100 years. They have had plenty of time to establish a good home fan base, which obviously both have failed on.

I wonder what their excuses are for their poor fan bases?

The popularity of football in their towns is probably the main one. 

[Worzel]

29 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So I ask who have you got in mind of the small town clubs in England.

 

Then you subtly change your question/answer to 'small Super League clubs', and then compound it with 'who would like Catalans out of the League'.

Well no, I can't name them, firstly I don't know what constitutes to you a small town club, is it one with a population <50K, <100K <150K or even <200K?

And which clubs do you knowingly would like Catalans out of the league, I have only ever heard of two  clubs who have voiced an opinion about Catalans presence that being Huddersfield and St Helens albeit not for a couple or 3 years.

So just for Clarity Worzel, could you please be a little more specific and name names, is it just the 'small Super League clubs' or the ones 'who would like Catalans out of the league' or a combination of both.

PS, there will be one poster who thinks I should not be asking questions, but before he does let me just say this is a conversation between the two of us.

You don't get to set the terms of debate, or tell me what questions I need to answer Harry, so no thanks

You know full well what I mean. Agree, or disagree, but I'm not interested in salami-slicing my point to death. 

[Eddie]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thank you Eddie, so there is one barrier multiplied by 11 clubs making it multiple. I couldn't think of any other barriers you could be referring to.

How about having to pay a bond to enter the challenge cup? 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, The Future is League said:

Their isn't one and that's why the powers that be need to stop putting hurdles in the way of the Catlans, and as pointed our earler IF clubs can't afford to take a team to France every year they shouldn't be in Super League

Hi fulture man, as I alluded to earlier it may not be just a club taking 'a team' to France every year there could be multiple times a club may have to visit France and if *Toulouse make it to SL that would be compounded, I honestly think that this is what is concerning some clubs, and rightly or wrongly want it sorting before next season commences.

*Surely the League would have to have the same conditions for both French clubs either pay travelling teams costs or not, apparently when Toulouse were in SL they paid for the travelling teams - as advised by Mr Guasch in the opening link - although seemingly Catalans did not.

[Harry Stottle]

31 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sky pay for x amount of SL games a year and they want attractive games at that, or the TV deal goes down as we see.

So when as the reduction in the TV deal been effected by none attractive games, and if so who's fault is it that games were not as attractive that in 3 years we have dropped from 40M to 21M per season.

So this season has by all reports been very good there was some excellent games as was last season with points difference separating the top 3 clubs, will that go a long way to an uplift in the contract value?

[Eddie]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So when as the reduction in the TV deal been effected by none attractive games, and if so who's fault is it that games were not as attractive that in 3 years we have dropped from 40M to 21M per season.

So this season has by all reports been very good there was some excellent games as was last season with points difference separating the top 3 clubs, will that go a long way to an uplift in the contract value?

Only if viewing figures have increased in line with the improvement in game quality and excitement. Sky wouldn’t care if the games are terrible as long as more people were watching. 

[Harry Stottle]

35 minutes ago, Worzel said:

You don't get to set the terms of debate, or tell me what questions I need to answer Harry, so no thanks

You know full well what I mean. Agree, or disagree, but I'm not interested in salami-slicing my point to death. 

 

How bloody pompous, isn't this a debating site you tell us your thoughts and I ask why, just back up your statements if they have any relevance, you made them and no I don't know what you mean that is why I asked for clarification.

You have sliced nothing to death, just headline points.

 

Edited October 2 by Harry Stottle