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

[Sports Prophet]

12 hours 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.

I’m not certain how you can describe my critique as “uninformed”. If anything, my criticism was that the story itself wasn’t informing.

The story spent half the time talking about the riches of baseball players. Then transferred to the question at hand, confirming pay TV deals that most people buying the magazine would be well aware of already and then closed by insinuating that the marketing budget was too small.

That’s hardly a groundbreaking article and if a rich SL club owner found your article insightful enough to ask you to lunch to discuss further, then dare I suggest it, the label of “uninformed” should be pinned on the rich SL club owner.

Edited January 4 by Sports Prophet

[iffleyox]

On 03/01/2025 at 13:43, OriginalMrC said:

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.

Fair - though I suppose as a Midlander who has attended both at times I still tend to think that equals a league 1 club, and the Bears (so is actually a net improvement to West Mids RL)* whereas losing the other two was indeed a net loss, no argument.

 

*I totally realise die hard Cov Bears fans don’t see it like that but standing back a bit ‘Canes playing at the Alex is much better if it’s sustainable (if doing a lot of heavy lifting there) - and represents a reversal of the usual lower league expansion club change of ownership where money tends to decrease and grounds get progressively worse with each move…

Edited January 4 by iffleyox

[OriginalMrC]

37 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

Fair - though I suppose as a Midlander who has attended both at times I still tend to think that equals a league 1 club, and the Bears (so is actually a net improvement to West Mids RL)* whereas losing the other two was indeed a net loss, no argument.

 

*I totally realise die hard Cov Bears fans don’t see it like that but standing back a bit ‘Canes playing at the Alex is much better if it’s sustainable (if doing a lot of heavy lifting there) - and represents a reversal of the usual lower league expansion club change of ownership where money tends to decrease and grounds get progressively worse with each move…

Agree completely with what you are saying here but my heart still says I'd rather be watching a Coventry team. I used to volunteer for the Bears and it's just not the same following the Hurricanes. Had funding not been cut I have no doubt we'd likely still have a team in Coventry.

[Martyn Sadler]

On 03/01/2025 at 23:44, Sports Prophet said:

I’m not certain how you can describe my critique as “uninformed”. If anything, my criticism was that the story itself wasn’t informing.

The story spent half the time talking about the riches of baseball players. Then transferred to the question at hand, confirming pay TV deals that most people buying the magazine would be well aware of already and then closed by insinuating that the marketing budget was too small.

That’s hardly a groundbreaking article and if a rich SL club owner found your article insightful enough to ask you to lunch to discuss further, then dare I suggest it, the label of “uninformed” should be pinned on the rich SL club owner.

My response to your critique of the article came earlier in this thread in which I suggested that as you are so clearly informed about the issues I discussed that you should be writing about them yourself.

My comment about "uninformed" responses was aimed more generally at posters who criticise articles without giving any rationale for their views.

I'm not quite sure what an article has to do in order to be "groundbreaking", but I suggest that very few articles written by anyone than Einstein-like figures would qualify.

And as a matter of interest I was yesterday visiting a leading Super League club, whose MD made a point of seeking me out to congratulate me on that article and saying it crystallised his views on Super League's lack of financial success in recent years.

Later today you'll find it quite easy to work out who that MD was.

The article may be tabled at the next club owners meeting.

So it may not have been groundbreaking, but it may be consequential, which is probably more important.

[M j M]

With apologies to Mr Burns... I'm beginning to think that club MDs and Chairmen are not the brilliant administrators we thought they were.

[JohnM]

10 minutes ago, M j M said:

With apologies to Mr Burns... I'm beginning to think that club MDs and Chairmen are not the brilliant administrators we thought they were.

I don't think they are meant to be administrator's are they?

[Damien]

25 minutes ago, M j M said:

With apologies to Mr Burns... I'm beginning to think that club MDs and Chairmen are not the brilliant administrators we thought they were.

It beggars belief that club MD's and Chairmen are now having an epiphany on the back of one article when the failings in Rugby League on this front, and many others, have been obvious for decades.

Of course these pleasantries also may happen due to the seeming 'I'll scratch your back you scratch mine' relationship that figures within the game seem to have with the RL press.

[JohnM]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

It beggars belief that club MD's and Chairmen are now having an epiphany on the back of one article when the failings in Rugby League on this front, and many others, have been obvious for decades.

Of course these pleasantries also may happen due to the seeming 'I'll scratch your back you scratch mine' relationship that figures within the game seem to have with the RL press.

Not sure I agree. I detect a certain amount of confirmation bias at play on all sides of the discussion, but the use of the word "besotted" implies the suspension of Clifford's Principle: It is always, everywhere, and for anyone, wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence.

[Toby Chopra]

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

It beggars belief that club MD's and Chairmen are now having an epiphany on the back of one article when the failings in Rugby League on this front, and many others, have been obvious for decades.

Of course these pleasantries also may happen due to the seeming 'I'll scratch your back you scratch mine' relationship that figures within the game seem to have with the RL press.

Indeed. There's nothing in the article that could be described as a lightbulb moment on UK rugby league's struggles. If it's really that enlightening to SL club leaders then I think the most useful thing it's done is highlight that inadequate club leadership is a major source of those struggles.    

[Martyn Sadler]

4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Indeed. There's nothing in the article that could be described as a lightbulb moment on UK rugby league's struggles. If it's really that enlightening to SL club leaders then I think the most useful thing it's done is highlight that inadequate club leadership is a major source of those struggles.    

Extraordinary arrogance towards a group of people who are digging deeply into their own pockets to keep their clubs alive.

In fact many club owners are quite recent arrivals and don't have the knowledge that you seem to believe they should have.

[Martyn Sadler]

30 minutes ago, Damien said:

It beggars belief that club MD's and Chairmen are now having an epiphany on the back of one article when the failings in Rugby League on this front, and many others, have been obvious for decades.

Of course these pleasantries also may happen due to the seeming 'I'll scratch your back you scratch mine' relationship that figures within the game seem to have with the RL press.

"Snigger all you like, but rugby union can learn plenty from Rugby League."

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

"Snigger all you like, but rugby union can learn plenty from Rugby League."

Yeah, this article has been discussed on here already.

[M j M]

9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

"Snigger all you like, but rugby union can learn plenty from Rugby League."

An article that reveals how absymal and deluded union administrators are. It's easy for Rugby League to look good in comparison to fantasists who think their sport is as big, or has a right to be as big, as soccer.

[Worzel]

11 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Extraordinary arrogance towards a group of people who are digging deeply into their own pockets to keep their clubs alive.

In fact many club owners are quite recent arrivals and don't have the knowledge that you seem to believe they should have.

I think this is a key point. There are a lot of new owners or investors in rugby league, and we shouldnt assume they're as well-versed in the things we've failed at (or opportunities we've failed to take) in the past as even some of the people on this forum. By the very nature of our presence here, we're a very niche subset of relatively older and "engaged" people in the rugby league ecosystem. If they don't become aware of some of this historic stuff, then we're always at risk of making the same strategic errors.

There's no harm in some people in the game stating "the obvious" from time to time to help us avoid that. 

[M j M]

4 minutes ago, Worzel said:

There's no harm in some people in the game stating "the obvious" from time to time to help us avoid that. 

Stating the obvious is very useful.

Stating the ridiculous is not.

[Toby Chopra]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Extraordinary arrogance towards a group of people who are digging deeply into their own pockets to keep their clubs alive.

In fact many club owners are quite recent arrivals and don't have the knowledge that you seem to believe they should have.

Being rich doesn't excuse people from criticism when they fail. In fact given their role as custodians of UK rugby league, the more criticism and scrutiny the better. That's a role the press should be carrying out.   

If the owners don't understand the modern nature of the business they're in, then they need to hire MDs or CEOs that do. If the executives they hire don't understand it either, then that really is on the owners, with a side order of criticism for the executives for stealing a living.    

I don't understand why you are willing to forgive such a lack of understanding of modern sport in UK RL's leadership, a lack of understanding which no other UK sport with pretentions of being a national player comes anywhere near.

Edited January 8 by Toby Chopra

[Toby Chopra]

12 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I think this is a key point. There are a lot of new owners or investors in rugby league, and we shouldnt assume they're as well-versed in the things we've failed at (or opportunities we've failed to take) in the past as even some of the people on this forum. By the very nature of our presence here, we're a very niche subset of relatively older and "engaged" people in the rugby league ecosystem. If they don't become aware of some of this historic stuff, then we're always at risk of making the same strategic errors.

There's no harm in some people in the game stating "the obvious" from time to time to help us avoid that. 

In the fields that these owners made their money in, they wouldn't dream of making an acquisition or entering new market without a ton of research and having the right people in place. That's why they're successful. It's frustrating that for some this all goes out of the window when they make the laudable, but I guess for some emotional, foray into rugby league. It's their business acumen as much as hard cash that we need.         

[JohnM]

Perhaps (or perhaps not) there are posters on here who have, or have had, significant careers, experience, track records, etc in business enterprises in a range of commercial sectors and enterprises and so may be contributing on an informed basis. 

[Worzel]

34 minutes ago, M j M said:

Stating the obvious is very useful.

Stating the ridiculous is not.

I think one of Martyn's key points was that rugby league should have set the TV revenue distribution methololgy differently from the outset: We should have assumed it was the sport's money, rather than the clubs' money, and held back a larger central slice for strategic use (whether marketing, pathway development, or even - heaven forbid! - additional support for new territories), before the clubs got their distribution from what remained. He could maybe have articulated the benefits more clearly, but that was a point I took away. 

That isn't ridiculous. We now don't have the "fat" in the TV deal to be able to do that today, so it's all a bit "bald men fighting over a comb", but in any future improved state we don't want to make the same mistake and I think re-stating that obvious strategic error was well worth doing. 

 

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

I think one of Martyn's key points was that rugby league should have set the TV revenue distribution methololgy differently from the outset: We should have assumed it was the sport's money, rather than the clubs' money, and held back a larger central slice for strategic use (whether marketing, pathway development, or even - heaven forbid! - additional support for new territories), before the clubs got their distribution from what remained. He could maybe have articulated the benefits more clearly, but that was a point I took away. 

That isn't ridiculous. We now don't have the "fat" in the TV deal to be able to do that today, so it's all a bit "bald men fighting over a comb", but in any future improved state we don't want to make the same mistake and I think re-stating that obvious strategic error was well worth doing. 

 

Genuine question: does anyone remember what share of the initial 17m the Superleague clubs got?  

My vague recollection - but I can't find the source - is that it was £900,000 each, which adds up to about 65% of the deal. That's not too high in my view, given that the main purpose of the money was to transform the sport by paying dozens of players to play full time, rather than part-time. None of them got rich on that sort of money and there was still several million left over for other purposes including RFL programs. 

And within three years we were forced into a renegotiation which cut the funding to 12m/pa - coincidently roughly the amount the SL clubs were getting. A substantial cutback in their distribution at that point would have imperilled the full-time move just three years after it started, so I think that was unavoidable too.

Basically, I don't think we really ever had a period where we were unjustifiably giving too much to the SL clubs at the expense of promoting the game more widely - either we were promoting it in some form, or there was no money left.

Then, in the 2014 mega-deal, the distribution to SL clubs was 55% of the total deal (22m of 40m). Again, not too much in my view for the flagship competition driving the sport.  We could argue here though that the 5m a year we were giving to Championship and L1 clubs might have been better spent on grassroots, marketing and the emerging digital transformation to fuel the longer term growth that we have lacked.                      

Edited January 8 by Toby Chopra

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

We should have assumed it was the sport's money, rather than the clubs' money,

We did that, and the RFL head honcho, who needed a broad base of support for his house of cards, decided to pump huge amounts of that money into the Championship and League 1 to spaff on players at that level.

[Martyn Sadler]

3 hours ago, M j M said:

Stating the obvious is very useful.

Stating the ridiculous is not.

In that case you'd better stop doing it.

[Angelic Cynic]

4 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

In the fields that these owners made their money in, they wouldn't dream of making an acquisition or entering new market without a ton of research and having the right people in place. That's why they're successful. It's frustrating that for some this all goes out of the window when they make the laudable, but I guess for some emotional, foray into rugby league. It's their business acumen as much as hard cash that we need.         

These owners voted for IMG without,seemingly,a ton of research, as they don't seem to be overly convinced as small tweaks and adjustments are undertaken.

 

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

We did that, and the RFL head honcho, who needed a broad base of support for his house of cards, decided to pump huge amounts of that money into the Championship and League 1 to spaff on players at that level.

But it is Championship and League 1 clubs where the Elite clubs sign their players, and use Championship clubs for their squad players as the Reserve competition doesn't improve the players sufficiently. 

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

In that case you'd better stop doing it.

Steady on Mart'.

[Click]

1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:

These owners voted for IMG without,seemingly,a ton of research, as they don't seem to be overly convinced as small tweaks and adjustments are undertaken.

 

But it is Championship and League 1 clubs where the Elite clubs sign their players, and use Championship clubs for their squad players as the Reserve competition doesn't improve the players sufficiently. 

It works more the other way around.