Final Whistle: Money, money, money – and why rugby league has so little of it

[RigbyLuger]

The lack of investment in the women's game, lets say at Castleford for example, is nothing to do with IMG or anything else than themselves. Imagine if they'd, say like York, had done so, they might have a couple of Grand Final wins now rather than lose the coach and players they had. Say.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Your right. Oldham should be eternally grateful for the £32k combined they have got over the last two seasons  

Now, remind me, why did it go down?

Was it because the SL contract went down and the RFL’s own commercial arm and events also declined?

And isn’t that what IMG is there to attempt to solve?

[Roughyed Rats]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Now, remind me, why did it go down?

Was it because the SL contract went down and the RFL’s own commercial arm and events also declined?

And isn’t that what IMG is there to attempt to solve?

The deal going up or down is of minimal significance to clubs outside the top flight as we don't see hardly any of it anyway, and we are not naïve enough to believe that will change. 

Edited January 2 by Roughyed Rats

[Tommygilf]

As a sport in England we were amongst the first to adopt a closed shop. We explicitly separated the amateur game from the "professional" basically from the start - recognising that the requirements and aims of a top level professional team and that of an amateur club are very different.

What has been happening since basically 1895 is the problem that the professional tier of the pyramid isn't broad enough, and essentially it has not grown enough to create a substantial pyramid itself. We have been dawdling towards a similar precipice between amateur and professional now between Full Time and Part Time. 

We also cannot delude ourselves here, if SL does not bring in the money, there will be essentially no RL. 

I also despise the false equivalence being made between hard working amateur community clubs and lower league basket cases.

[JonM]

17 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I also despise the false equivalence being made between hard working amateur community clubs and lower league basket cases.

I think this a fair point. If we have to prioritise ruthlessly, I'd rather the RFL provided funding to community clubs running dozens of youth teams than to propping up semi-pro clubs supported by a few hundred old men (and tbf, they largely have done so already.)

However, there's also a false equivalence between say Leeds, Catalans or Wigan and say Salford. The latter are only separated from the Bradfords etc. by incumbency effects.- take away the SL funding and they don't look much different to Halifax, Sheffield Eagles or most of the championship.

Also worth noting that well run (and funded) clubs can move between categories - Hull KR being a prime example and perhaps Leigh, but I think Oldham would've been in the basket case category until very recently and have obviously moved out of it.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

The deal going up or down is of minimal significance to clubs outside the top flight

It dropped from 75k to 15k for League 1.

That's not minimal significance.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

It dropped from 75k to 15k for League 1.

That's not minimal significance.

It's huge and was far and away the largest cut of all the leagues pro rata. The equivalent would have been SL clubs going from £1.8 million to £360,000.

It was always the most unfair cut to me because even cutting from day £75k to say £45k instead wouldn't have cost much in the grand scheme of things but would have been made sustainability much easier for L1 clubs.

Edited January 2 by Damien

[gingerjon]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's huge and was far and away the largest cut of all the leagues pro rata. The equivalent would have been SL clubs going from £1.8 million to £360,000.

It was always the most unfair cut to me because even cutting from day £75k to say £45k instead wouldn't have cost much in the grand scheme of things but would have been much made sustainability much easier for L1 clubs.

Yup. Completely indefensible.

[dkw]

3 hours ago, Roughyed Rats said:

The deal going up or down is of minimal significance to clubs outside the top flight as we don't see hardly any of it anyway, and we are not naïve enough to believe that will change. 

That's simply not true, the drop for league 1 clubs was enormous due to the drop in value of the deal.

[Sports Prophet]

On 31/12/2024 at 20:08, Martyn Sadler said:

I see some people have criticised the article at the head of this thread.

It's an article that appears in the January edition of Rugby League World magazine.

Earlier this week I was telephoned by a very wealthy Super League club owner telling me how interesting he had found the piece and wanting further discussions about the way in which major sports are structured.

I think at last there is an openness to new ideas about structure and governance that would be designed to maximise the chances of genuine financial and spectator growth for Super League.

I hope that means that some changes will be on the way.

So I'm happy to acknowledge that some people on here are already so knowledgeable that it didn't tell them anything new.

But not everyone is in such a fortunate position that they can't learn anything.

I'll deal with a few individual comments individually.

 

 

On 31/12/2024 at 20:10, Martyn Sadler said:

Good for you!

If we want to learn something new, maybe we should ask you to write something.

You’re the journalist Martyn, not me. You are writing for a magazine which is targeting the initiated and it is fair to say that those subscribers and readers all have a fair knowledge of the sport and its history.

I just felt the topic (a very interesting one) deserved more research and insight with commentary from historic club owners and RL administrators and even some former TV execs with knowledge of the infancy of SL and the sports TV contracts at the time.

It’s the only piece of criticism your articles have ever had from me, so don’t get too defensive. Maybe I could have been a little more gentle with my comments. Criticism is good, although granted it can feel very different when there is a pile on, which wasn’t my intention.

[OriginalMrC]

17 hours ago, Damien said:

It's huge and was far and away the largest cut of all the leagues pro rata. The equivalent would have been SL clubs going from £1.8 million to £360,000.

It was always the most unfair cut to me because even cutting from day £75k to say £45k instead wouldn't have cost much in the grand scheme of things but would have been made sustainability much easier for L1 clubs.

And we lost 3 clubs as a direct result of this cut - London Skolars, Coventry Bears and West Wales Raiders. 

[Wakefield Ram]

18 hours ago, JonM said:

I think this a fair point. If we have to prioritise ruthlessly, I'd rather the RFL provided funding to community clubs running dozens of youth teams than to propping up semi-pro clubs supported by a few hundred old men (and tbf, they largely have done so already.)

However, there's also a false equivalence between say Leeds, Catalans or Wigan and say Salford. The latter are only separated from the Bradfords etc. by incumbency effects.- take away the SL funding and they don't look much different to Halifax, Sheffield Eagles or most of the championship.

Also worth noting that well run (and funded) clubs can move between categories - Hull KR being a prime example and perhaps Leigh, but I think Oldham would've been in the basket case category until very recently and have obviously moved out of it.

Both Leigh and Hull KR are where they are due to wealthy benefactors funding them. No problem with that but that's the reality.

RL is a pyramid. Where do SL players and officials start their involvement? At amateur clubs. 

Take away amateur clubs and there will be no SL in a few years.

Edited January 3 by Wakefield Ram

[Martyn Sadler]

14 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

 

You’re the journalist Martyn, not me. You are writing for a magazine which is targeting the initiated and it is fair to say that those subscribers and readers all have a fair knowledge of the sport and its history.

I just felt the topic (a very interesting one) deserved more research and insight with commentary from historic club owners and RL administrators and even some former TV execs with knowledge of the infancy of SL and the sports TV contracts at the time.

It’s the only piece of criticism your articles have ever had from me, so don’t get too defensive. Maybe I could have been a little more gentle with my comments. Criticism is good, although granted it can feel very different when there is a pile on, which wasn’t my intention.

I'm perfectly happy with, and I would encourage, reasoned criticism of anything I write.

But uninformed criticism can be frustrating particularly when, as you say, it provokes similar posts.

[Click]

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I'm perfectly happy with, and I would encourage, reasoned criticism of anything I write.

But uninformed criticism can be frustrating particularly when, as you say, it provokes similar posts.

Just out of interest, what made his criticism "uninformed" ?

[iffleyox]

2 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

And we lost 3 clubs as a direct result of this cut - London Skolars, Coventry Bears and West Wales Raiders. 

Is Cov right? I thought they ‘just’ became Midlands Hurricanes?

[OriginalMrC]

13 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

Is Cov right? I thought they ‘just’ became Midlands Hurricanes?

No, while technically Hurricanes are a continuation of the Coventry Bears league 1 club they are a new club with new owners and they play in Birmingham now. Coventry Bears still exist as an amateur club and are still based in Coventry.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I'm perfectly happy with, and I would encourage, reasoned criticism of anything I write.

But uninformed criticism can be frustrating particularly when, as you say, it provokes similar posts.

That would be fair, in theory. The problem some of us have though Martyn is that you assume we're all uninformed and that you're more informed. I'm sure I'm not the only person on this forum who has done work with clubs, been a sponsor at times and still know some senior club figures even if just socially now. Some of us represent the businesses, partners and future investors the sport needs, and are far more informed than you may imagine.

Disagreement with you is not always ignorance. To be fair my first comment re: Mr Wood was a bit tetchy I'll accept that, I just find that particular hobby horse of yours a bit grating based on my own experience (and that of others still involved in the game) so always feel the need to challenge it, but other than that the article was well worth the read and my other comments were constructive. 

Edited January 3 by Worzel
Typo

[Martyn Sadler]

11 minutes ago, Worzel said:

That would be fair, in theory. The problem some of us have though Martyn is that you assume we're all uninformed and that you're more informed. I'm sure I'm not the only person on this forum who has done work with clubs, been a sponsor at times and still know some senior club figures even if just socially now. Some of us represent the businesses, partners and future investors the sport needs, and are far more informed than you may imagine.

Disagreement with you is not always ignorance. To be fair my first comment re: Mr Wood was a bit tetchy I'll accept that, I just find that particular hobby horse of yours a bit grating based on my own experience (and that of others still involved in the game) so always feel the need to challenge it, but other than that the article was well worth the read and my other comments were constructive. 

Your comments were constructive and always are and I'm perfectly happy to debate with you and with everyone else on this forum.

Sometimes I'll criticise what you post and vice versa. But that's part of the process of posting on any debating forum.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, Click said:

Just out of interest, what made his criticism "uninformed" ?

He seemed to suggest that the article should have been trying to do something that it wasn't intended to do.

Rather than "uninformed" I would describe his criticism as misplaced.

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

RL is a pyramid. Where do SL players and officials start their involvement? At amateur clubs. 

Take away amateur clubs and there will be no SL in a few years.

Absolutely true.

That doesn't make Rochdale Hornets equivalent to Mayfield, or Oldham equivalent to St Anne's or Waterhead, or Fev equivalent to Sharlstone or Fev Lions.

[Wakefield Ram]

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Absolutely true.

That doesn't make Rochdale Hornets equivalent to Mayfield, or Oldham equivalent to St Anne's or Waterhead, or Fev equivalent to Sharlstone or Fev Lions.

Guess all I am saying is that SL clubs rely on amateur and semi-pro clubs. The idea that SL clubs generate all the income on their own is not accurate. 

Without the rest of the pyramid of the game, SL wouldn't survive. So clubs both amateur and semi-pro deserve a share of central funding. 

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Guess all I am saying is that SL clubs rely on amateur and semi-pro clubs. The idea that SL clubs generate all the income on their own is not accurate. 

Without the rest of the pyramid of the game, SL wouldn't survive. So clubs both amateur and semi-pro deserve a share of central funding. 

I think that the clubs that deliver most deserve most funding. Some SL clubs deliver good value at their level, others don't. Same all the way up-and-down the ladder. Handing almost everything to the top 12 clubs - and then treating all 12 equally - is a really inefficient way of divvying up scarce resources.

[Toby Chopra]

2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think that the clubs that deliver most deserve most funding. Some SL clubs deliver good value at their level, others don't. Same all the way up-and-down the ladder. Handing almost everything to the top 12 clubs - and then treating all 12 equally - is a really inefficient way of divvying up scarce resources.

I feel this forgets why we have a TV deal in the first place. The reason the SL clubs get what they get is to pay for a full time televised rugby competition. If we're not providing that, then there will very quickly be no money at all for anyone. And given the TV money doesn't even cover the salary cap these days then I don't think we'll gain anything by penalising poorly performing SL clubs and weakening the product.

It's certainly true that some SL clubs are run less well than others, so if we can replace them with better options via the gradings then we should. But once a club is in SL, we should support it to put the best product on the park the same way we do their rivals.

[Archie Gordon]

8 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I feel this forgets why we have a TV deal in the first place. The reason the SL clubs get what they get is to pay for a full time televised rugby competition. If we're not providing that, then there will very quickly be no money at all for anyone. And given the TV money doesn't even cover the salary cap these days then I don't think we'll gain anything by penalising poorly performing SL clubs and weakening the product.

It's certainly true that some SL clubs are run less well than others, so if we can replace them with better options via the gradings then we should. But once a club is in SL, we should support it to put the best product on the park the same way we do their rivals.

I'm certainly not suggesting we threaten the existence of a FT elite comp. I agree that would be self-harming. 

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Guess all I am saying is that SL clubs rely on amateur and semi-pro clubs. The idea that SL clubs generate all the income on their own is not accurate. 

Without the rest of the pyramid of the game, SL wouldn't survive. So clubs both amateur and semi-pro deserve a share of central funding. 

No, you only said they rely on amateur clubs in that post.

The semi pro clubs are as close to those as SL clubs, if not further as the semi pro clubs heavily rely on SL clubs far more than amateur clubs as a direct source of players.

The other tiers do deserve some share of the funding, but invariably, the dependence on SL for bringing those funds in means the health of that competition necessarily has to be at the forefront of the sport's actions - especially when that funding is under threat.