Catalans

[lucky 7]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

LIterally all payments have been one way for the last 20 years - from the UK TV deal to Catalans.

The clubs want to pay them less in effect.

Have you got a link to back up that claim?

[David Shepherd]

Unpopular opinion (on here at least):

Catalan take 1/12 of the Sky money, despite Sky being unavailable in France. In 20 years, they have not managed to secure a financially significant French TV contract to throw into the pot. They get the benefit of large numbers of away fans without reciprocation. Their chairman has even admitted they need to contribute to the pot.

This is an entirely fair move by SL/RFL.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The more I think about this, the more I get frustrated about the inaction of RL Commercial, and SLE before it. 

I work in a UK marketing role for a French-owned company. Indeed, we're one of the biggest employers in France and a member of the CAC40. We're also partnered with a UK rugby league club, and have a very good partnership with them . 

In the time I've been here, I haven't received a single phone call, email, flyer, LinkedIn message or anything else from RL Commercial. Nor have my counterparts in France. 

Now, I'm not sure what the approach is from RL Commercial to securing partnerships in France, but it strikes me that a French-owned business with a presence in both the UK and France, and one that is already partnered with RL in some form, would be at least worth a phone call, an email or an invite to be schmoozed at an RL event.

But maybe that's just me? Maybe it's just too easy to call in another favour from Fred Done and allow stakeholders of what was SLE to think up cheap gags about pies and make snide remarks about the number of Betfred branches in Perpignan?

Agreed.

I do recall in the early years we had BMI Baby sponsoring some stuff. Probably for free refs flights or something.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

Have you got a link to back up that claim?

They get central funding and have for 20 years. It's probably 30milion euros plus.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, David Shepherd said:

Unpopular opinion (on here at least):

Catalan take 1/12 of the Sky money, despite Sky being unavailable in France. In 20 years, they have not managed to secure a financially significant French TV contract to throw into the pot. They get the benefit of large numbers of away fans without reciprocation. Their chairman has even admitted they need to contribute to the pot.

This is an entirely fair move by SL/RFL.

I think there is a reasonable argument that can be made for this decision when you remove emotion from it. Particularly with the presence of Toulouse.

But then it does move into the territory of just because you can do something it doesn't mean you should.

But the point on Gausch is interesting. He is as hot headed as they get, and very competent at arguing therapeutic, but even he appears pragmatic here.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Unpopular opinion (on here at least):

Catalan take 1/12 of the Sky money, despite Sky being unavailable in France. In 20 years, they have not managed to secure a financially significant French TV contract to throw into the pot. They get the benefit of large numbers of away fans without reciprocation. Their chairman has even admitted they need to contribute to the pot.

This is an entirely fair move by SL/RFL.

Why should "they" secure a TV deal?

Does Gary Hetherington go to Sky Sports? Or Mr Moran? 

They provide a 12th of the matches but have, consistently, provided a ground that looks good on TV unlike a few clubs, with a competitive team that can spend to the cap, again unlike more than a few clubs. They are a popular 2nd team for lots of fans too.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think there is a reasonable argument that can be made for this decision when you remove emotion from it. Particularly with the presence of Toulouse.

But then it does move into the territory of just because you can do something it doesn't mean you should.

But the point on Gausch is interesting. He is as hot headed as they get, and very competent at arguing therapeutic, but even he appears pragmatic here.

I get the sense that Guasch knows he can't do much here, save for maybe make it worse? What if participation fees were being discussed too!

My gut feeling is this feels mean, opportunistic and is not part of an overall strategy that is about our finances.

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I get the sense that Guasch knows he can't do much here, save for maybe make it worse? What if participation fees were being discussed too!

My gut feeling is this feels mean, opportunistic and is not part of an overall strategy that is about our finances.

I broadly agree, certainly in the mean-spirited point.

I do think the Toulouse (and potentially other French teams) presence is a factor in this thoug, which makes it easier to argue the consistency point. 

I do go back to the PR point here though - if this was presented in the same way as they do in football through their value pillar it would have seemed more professional, but talking about travel costs at this level lends itself to accusations of being small time.

Irrespective of whether the decision can be justified, it's handled poorly imo. But that does appear to be par for the course.

[Worzel]

34 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Unpopular opinion (on here at least):

Catalan take 1/12 of the Sky money, despite Sky being unavailable in France. In 20 years, they have not managed to secure a financially significant French TV contract to throw into the pot. They get the benefit of large numbers of away fans without reciprocation. Their chairman has even admitted they need to contribute to the pot.

This is an entirely fair move by SL/RFL.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding how he pay-TV business model works. 

Sky pay for content, which they sell to UK viewers. They're buying content, not an audience directly. It's the content that creates the audience, indirectly. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't pay for NBA, NFL or any other US content, or even for England cricket matches played overseas. 

Catalans make a 1/12th contribution to creating that content. They get paid for that. Nothing more. 

More than that, Sky want high quality content. They prefer games between strong clubs. Catalans are a strong club, creating better content than say, Huddersfield do when they play Wigan and the result isn't in doubt. 

[Worzel]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I broadly agree, certainly in the mean-spirited point.

I do think the Toulouse (and potentially other French teams) presence is a factor in this thoug, which makes it easier to argue the consistency point. 

I do go back to the PR point here though - if this was presented in the same way as they do in football through their value pillar it would have seemed more professional, but talking about travel costs at this level lends itself to accusations of being small time.

Irrespective of whether the decision can be justified, it's handled poorly imo. But that does appear to be par for the course.

I don't think you and I are a million miles off here. It's reasonable to charge an entry fee, or ongoing royalty, to a new organisation seeking to join (wherever they are, even in the UK). That organisation can then make a choice on return on investment. Closed sports leagues around the world do this.

It's not reasonable to retroactively charge just one current member a fee. There's no "consistency" argument around location: Again, it would be reasonable to charge Toulouse now. Closed leagues all around the world increase the buy-in all the time, as their attractiveness grows. The first MLS franchises were free, Montreal later paid $40m, recently San Diego's fee was $500m. That's a key part of the business model, how the league collectively makes money for all participants and rewards the early teams who worked hard to create that value.  

It can never commercially justified retroactively, even if like you say from a PR perspective you could hide it better. Catalans were part of the group of "investors" who created the value that they are now being asked to pay for, and other "investors" aren't. 

[Damien]

47 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Unpopular opinion (on here at least):

Catalan take 1/12 of the Sky money, despite Sky being unavailable in France. In 20 years, they have not managed to secure a financially significant French TV contract to throw into the pot. They get the benefit of large numbers of away fans without reciprocation. Their chairman has even admitted they need to contribute to the pot.

This is an entirely fair move by SL/RFL.

Sky being unavailable in France is absolutely irrelevant,

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I don't think you and I are a million miles off here. It's reasonable to charge an entry fee, or ongoing royalty, to a new organisation seeking to join (wherever they are, even in the UK). That organisation can then make a choice on return on investment. Closed sports leagues around the world do this.

It's not reasonable to retroactively charge just one current member a fee. There's no "consistency" argument around location: Again, it would be reasonable to charge Toulouse now. Closed leagues all around the world increase the buy-in all the time, as their attractiveness grows. The first MLS franchises were free, Montreal later paid $40m, recently San Diego's fee was $500m. That's a key part of the business model, how the league collectively makes money for all participants and rewards the early teams who worked hard to create that value.  

It can never commercially justified retroactively, even if like you say from a PR perspective you could hide it better. Catalans were part of the group of "investors" who created the value that they are now being asked to pay for, and other "investors" aren't. 

Yes, we pretty much agree.

Probably one point - i don't think we can say we should never change things - this isn't being done retroactively, this is forward looking. But I agree it's poor form. But we have also changed terms for the RFL and the Champ teams.

I suppose there is also the unknown about what previous agreements have been in place etc.

But yes, I agree, it feels mean spirited and my general principle is that we should all share the risk and share the rewards.

 

[Worzel]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, we pretty much agree.

Probably one point - i don't think we can say we should never change things - this isn't being done retroactively, this is forward looking. But I agree it's poor form. But we have also changed terms for the RFL and the Champ teams.

I suppose there is also the unknown about what previous agreements have been in place etc.

But yes, I agree, it feels mean spirited and my general principle is that we should all share the risk and share the rewards.

 

You're right, my use of the word retroactive was incorrect. I was looking for a shorthand that said "apply a cost to an existing member that they weren't aware they'd be bearing when they decided to invest the previous 20 years in this joint endeavour" but my vocabulary wasn't up to it! (...and no, I'm not joking!) 

[Human Punk]

The UEFA champions league is worth zillions of pounds to broadcasters because it involves big, successful, well-supported European teams competing against each other. Catalans bring an element of that to SL, and we shouldn't underestimate the value of that.

This is a disgraceful move, and just another step in the diminution of the sport.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Sky being unavailable in France is absolutely irrelevant,

But it's the key bit here because, otherwise, some of those who are happy with specific Catalans measures would have to explain why clubs who have never participated in Super League, and so have never been part of any of the value Sky get from showing it, should receive millions (over the years) through Super League's TV deal.

And, of course, they should get that funding. But ...

[ATLANTISMAN]

6 hours ago, The Future is League said:

The master plan by the RFL/Super League seems to be is to get the established  French team to pay expenses to visiting teams. In the mean time one of those clubs favoured by HQ to become a Super League club again wants more money from the RFL, and this club has a history going back many years of having financial troubles. Yes i can see how their master plan will work, not.

For some reason they absolutely hate the Dragons.

[Dave T]

What all of this boils down to is one of my huge bugbears - poor governance, planning and strategy. We just bumble along making a series of short term tactical decisions.

If we are serious about French teams in the UK pyramid I think it should be through a partnership with a French governing body (even if one setup to manage this JV rather than the current governing body). 

Terms like this should be formally agreed with the governing body rather than Catalans having to negotiate these things themselves, or find sponsors or TV partners on behalf of France. It's a distraction, they should be cracking on with running a successful Rugby club.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

But it's the key bit here because, otherwise, some of those who are happy with specific Catalans measures would have to explain why clubs who have never participated in Super League, and so have never been part of any of the value Sky get from showing it, should receive millions (over the years) through Super League's TV deal.

And, of course, they should get that funding. But ...

This is an important point and there are some quite inconsistent views across the piece on this actually.

[ATLANTISMAN]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Agreed.

I do recall in the early years we had BMI Baby sponsoring some stuff. Probably for free refs flights or something.

I did the deal was cash for pitchside branding and flights for logo on Dragons shirt sleeves.

P

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

For some reason they absolutely hate the Dragons.

Do they though? It would be pretty easy to get rid of them.

[Dave T]

Just now, ATLANTISMAN said:

I did the deal was cash for pitchside branding and flights for logo on Dragons shirt sleeves.

P

Am I right in saying that's the only airline deal we had during this period?

[ATLANTISMAN]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

What all of this boils down to is one of my huge bugbears - poor governance, planning and strategy. We just bumble along making a series of short term tactical decisions.

If we are serious about French teams in the UK pyramid I think it should be through a partnership with a French governing body (even if one setup to manage this JV rather than the current governing body). 

Terms like this should be formally agreed with the governing body rather than Catalans having to negotiate these things themselves, or find sponsors or TV partners on behalf of France. It's a distraction, they should be cracking on with running a successful Rugby club.

The French governing body makes BARLA look like the Champions League

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

The French governing body makes BARLA look like the Champions League

Yeah, it's why I suggested a new governing body to cover this relationship

[ATLANTISMAN]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Am I right in saying that's the only airline deal we had during this period?

No idea airlines used to spend like mad remember we had deals with Emirates for the 4 Nations and loads of airlines for French rugby league Finnair Lot Aer Lingus United Qantas + few more not big money however it all added up also we had a deal for Malaysian way back for New Zealand.

Only airlines that spend now are Emirates Qatar and other middle Eastern airlines and to a lesser extent Turkish.

Had a great deal with Aeroflot for 2022 until mad Putin invaded Ukraine they were also sponsoring MUFC from memory think we had them up at Hull KR for 1 match then we pulled it and replaced it with support for buggers had their radio campaign though and still owe us 50K goodbye to that.

Edited October 3 by ATLANTISMAN

[The Future is League]

16 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

For some reason they absolutely hate the Dragons.

Its called fear and jealousy