Re: Superleague re-structure : Mon May 10, 2021 8:24 am  

Another derailed thread.

What is count up to now? Has to be at least a dozen.

Re: Superleague re-structure : Mon May 10, 2021 10:57 pm  

The Silent H wrote:

Another derailed thread.

What is count up to now? Has to be at least a dozen.

Any discussion about restructure at the top tier is always going to involve comments regarding past failings.
Toronto Failed. Covid gives a smokescreen, but they were heading straight back down and the "rumours" of unpaid debts seem to carry water when the Billionaire owner walked even though his billions remain in tact.
Furthermore. Toronto were already in the UK, playing their games in the UK, so any excuse about "additional expense is a sham, as their squad would mostly been living at home anyway.

Enough about Toronto.

The game in the UK/France is now looking at a reduced income from TV and an unsure future when it comes to how many fans will return after 18 months. Sponsorship will be reined back too, as companies struggle through the next few years recovery, so the question has to be, how do the teams...all 20 or so in the top tiers see the game surviving over the next 5, 10 & 20 years?

I've recommended a 2 tier 20 with income from the central pool dictated on your finishing spot at season end and then performance during finals footie.

This will mean that the usual suspects (Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire and maybe a couple of others will see a slight reduction, whilst mid to bottom SL clubs will be brought more into line with top table Championship clubs.
If Wakefield or Huddersfield want to challenge the top clubs, then their owners or business models will have to fund it. Sugar daddies are great, but working as a business to attract revenue through fans sponsors etc is more sustainable. Toulouse and London (whilst Hughes is there) may well buy better squads and clubs like Salford and Wakefield may slip a bit, but even tiered distribution of central funds will create a level playing field.
SL has about a 8.5k gate average. This is driven by Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Hull , Catalan and Wire ll achieving more than this and the rest being dragged being. To those who say success = crowds, you're dreaming. Salford with 2 finals of late will struggle to get 4k (half the average) and 4k, isn't enough to challenge the top teams, so they either attract more fans or find a sugar daddy.

2 divisions with finals footie in both and 1 up one down between them. No duel reg. Play each other 3 times a year delivering 13 home games each. top 4 play offs.

You can meddle with the format all you like, but the reality is that Wakefield/Huddersfield/Salford/Leigh/HKR will be looking over their shoulders into the abyss until we offer a viable pathway bac from relegation.

Re: Superleague re-structure : Tue May 11, 2021 6:58 am  

orangeman wrote:

Toronto Failed. Enough about Toronto.

The game in the UK/France is now looking at a reduced income from TV and an unsure future when it comes to how many fans will return after 18 months. Sponsorship will be reined back too, as companies struggle through the next few years recovery, so the question has to be, how do the teams...all 20 or so in the top tiers see the game surviving over the next 5, 10 & 20 years?

I've recommended a 2 tier 20 with income from the central pool dictated on your finishing spot at season end and then performance during finals footie.

2 divisions with finals footie in both and 1 up one down between them. No duel reg. Play each other 3 times a year delivering 13 home games each. top 4 play offs.

How's the SKY money shared in this model and who are the 20 clubs?

Re: Superleague re-structure : Wed May 12, 2021 6:01 am  

Donnyman wrote:

How's the SKY money shared in this model and who are the 20 clubs?

It wouldn't be a 2 x 10, it'd just be a 10 team SL and a 10 team championship that SKY wont be interested in. That would lead to either less games and less income or playing everyone 3 times and just realistically becoming Scottish football whose league system is pretty much unfathomable.
Reducing the league will become a self fulfilling prophecy that will require even more input from sugar daddies as fans interest in 'the big games' wanes ever more as they are played 4 / 5 (even 6 if cup is included) times a year.

Re: Superleague re-structure : Wed May 12, 2021 7:01 am  

barham red wrote:

It wouldn't be a 2 x 10, it'd just be a 10 team SL and a 10 team championship that SKY wont be interested in. That would lead to either less games and less income or playing everyone 3 times and just realistically becoming Scottish football whose league system is pretty much unfathomable.
Reducing the league will become a self fulfilling prophecy that will require even more input from sugar daddies as fans interest in 'the big games' wanes ever more as they are played 4 / 5 (even 6 if cup is included) times a year.

Many thanks for your welcome and well considered post.

I certainly understand that the lower SKY deal, allied to the failure under the current deal that's close to finishing, that wrongly centred on the P & R battle and not the Grand final, means that there is no money for the Championship 2022. There was tremendous resentment from most SL bosses that they were personally putting big money in whilst a large chunk of the TV deal was being thoroughly wasted in the Championship by the RFL.

And so the politics dictated that the "sugar daddies" Lenegan, Moran, Davey, Pearson, and Hudgell were determined that this time they (with McManus) would negotiate the deal with SKY and arrange for all the money to go to Superleague. Anyone who has watched the politics during this current long SKY deal can see how the rich owners have completely wrested control of the professional game.

I appreciate your analysis that "interest in the big games" played 4/5 times will wane.............. But I would suggest that the alternative would be to run with 14 clubs that would mean low interest in the "small games"

I think the SL bosses hoisting Leigh in means they are there to stay, and the activity that has been going on at Bradford means the SL bosses want their crowds and maybe Mr. Sawyer. The richest of the owners may be in Newcastle, no rich owner exists in Salford so to me the 10 clubs for Superleague 2022 pick themselves.

I am not sure about your "self fulfilling prophecy" though, the losers in this Coup would be Catalans and Salford who have hardly provided much in the way of "paying fans" over the years. I think the SL has done the maths and they may prefer Bradford and Newcastle to be in Superleague. Sure Newcastle may not have the travelling fans but they would help with a very rich owner and the ability to claim "real expansion"

The day they recently chose Leigh over Toulouse may be highly significant.......

Re: Superleague re-structure : Wed May 12, 2021 8:50 am  

Donnyman wrote:

I certainly understand that the lower SKY deal, allied to the failure under the current deal that's close to finishing, that wrongly centred on the P & R battle and not the Grand final, means that there is no money for the Championship 2022. There was tremendous resentment from most SL bosses that they were personally putting big money in whilst a large chunk of the TV deal was being thoroughly wasted in the Championship by the RFL.

And so the politics dictated that the "sugar daddies" Lenegan, Moran, Davey, Pearson, and Hudgell were determined that this time they (with McManus) would negotiate the deal with SKY and arrange for all the money to go to Superleague. Anyone who has watched the politics during this current long SKY deal can see how the rich owners have completely wrested control of the professional game.

This is absolute rubbish.It was the RFL who negotiated the deal which expires this year.
Documentation has recently been shown which describes distribution then,and now with the lower deal,over the next 2 years.
Davey's is the one who is in discussions about future distribution.
'' ...rich owners have completely wrested control of the professional game""
Yea,right.That's why Elstone resigned,the broadcast deal has reduced,the government didn't recognise them,they have to pay Elstone and the private equity bringer - togethers.Your world is safe in their hands...

Re: Superleague re-structure : Wed May 12, 2021 3:10 pm  

orangeman wrote:

Any discussion about restructure at the top tier is always going to involve comments regarding past failings.
Toronto Failed. Covid gives a smokescreen, but they were heading straight back down and the "rumours" of unpaid debts seem to carry water when the Billionaire owner walked even though his billions remain in tact.
Furthermore. Toronto were already in the UK, playing their games in the UK, so any excuse about "additional expense is a sham, as their squad would mostly been living at home anyway.

Enough about Toronto.

The game in the UK/France is now looking at a reduced income from TV and an unsure future when it comes to how many fans will return after 18 months. Sponsorship will be reined back too, as companies struggle through the next few years recovery, so the question has to be, how do the teams...all 20 or so in the top tiers see the game surviving over the next 5, 10 & 20 years?

I've recommended a 2 tier 20 with income from the central pool dictated on your finishing spot at season end and then performance during finals footie.

This will mean that the usual suspects (Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire and maybe a couple of others will see a slight reduction, whilst mid to bottom SL clubs will be brought more into line with top table Championship clubs.
If Wakefield or Huddersfield want to challenge the top clubs, then their owners or business models will have to fund it. Sugar daddies are great, but working as a business to attract revenue through fans sponsors etc is more sustainable. Toulouse and London (whilst Hughes is there) may well buy better squads and clubs like Salford and Wakefield may slip a bit, but even tiered distribution of central funds will create a level playing field.
SL has about a 8.5k gate average. This is driven by Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Hull , Catalan and Wire ll achieving more than this and the rest being dragged being. To those who say success = crowds, you're dreaming. Salford with 2 finals of late will struggle to get 4k (half the average) and 4k, isn't enough to challenge the top teams, so they either attract more fans or find a sugar daddy.

2 divisions with finals footie in both and 1 up one down between them. No duel reg. Play each other 3 times a year delivering 13 home games each. top 4 play offs.

You can meddle with the format all you like, but the reality is that Wakefield/Huddersfield/Salford/Leigh/HKR will be looking over their shoulders into the abyss until we offer a viable pathway bac from relegation.

Could you explain just how 20 clubs will share the pot and whilst it makes great sense to have "prize money" based on finishing position, the idea of ALL clubs being shown on Sky and yet receiving substantially different amounts of "central funding" is just wrong, utterly wrong.
This will mean the richer clubs getting richer and the poor will be left with sod all.

On the basis that the "ideal" competition would be having 10/12/14 clubs all capable of competing with each other, your idea will simply make the gap between the top 5/6 and the rest ever greater.

It would be really interesting to know just what the game needs to do to make itself more attractive to Sky and any other broadcasters.
Do they want more or less clubs in the top flight, more or less overseas clubs, shiny new stadia, to show more/less games etc, etc.
Post covid, RL faces so many challenges and the lack of cash from Sky, especially for the lower leagues, will make life for all clubs far more difficult and RL wasn't exactly in rude health before.
Personally, I feel that cutting the number of clubs from 12 could be a huge mistake and this should be avoided at all costs.

Those at the top of the sport need to give some serious thought about where the game is heading and where we want to be in 5 /10 years time and not look for another restructure for the sake of it, something that, time, after time, after time just hasn't worked in the past.

Re: Superleague re-structure : Wed May 12, 2021 3:29 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

It would be really interesting to know just what the game needs to do to make itself more attractive to Sky and any other broadcasters.

(1) Do they want more or less clubs in the top flight, (2) more or less overseas clubs..............

Personally, I feel that cutting the number of clubs from 12 could be a huge mistake and this should be avoided at all costs.

Those at the top of the sport need to give some serious thought about where the game is heading

Well you appear to have completely missed the fact "The game" has just been in intensive and successful "serious" negotiations to obtain a new SKY contract.

Once they shook hands with SKY the SL top bosses came out and talked about a 10 club Superleague. That's a really good clue to your question (1) above.

As for question (2) if they pop into the 10 club superleague the only two overseas clubs there are (who else are you talking about other than Cats & TO??) then that means 2022 onwards will see only 8 English clubs in Superleague - so you have a big clue there as well. They aren't going to provide only 8 clubs to English SKY subscribers are they??

Here's another clue if your still unsure of overseas clubs. Toulouse applied to join Superleague a few months ago and they were told No thanks, and Leigh got the gig??

Re: Superleague re-structure : Sat May 15, 2021 11:19 am  

Donnyman wrote:

Here's another clue if your still unsure of overseas clubs. Toulouse applied to join Superleague a few months ago and they were told No thanks, and Leigh got the gig??

Are you sure about this ?
IIRC there were 6 clubs applying for 1 SL spot.
Unless there is public record as to why Leigh got the gig, in favour of Fev Toulouse, Bradford etc, and more importantly the reasoning behind this, I would suggest that you are guessing.
What happened to Newcastle, York and London, who were to be included in an "all new".
You seemed really certain of this for all of the last 12 months ?

Re: Superleague re-structure : Sat May 15, 2021 2:20 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Are you sure about this ?
IIRC there were 6 clubs applying for 1 SL spot.
Unless there is public record as to why Leigh got the gig, in favour of Fev Toulouse, Bradford etc, and more importantly the reasoning behind this, I would suggest that you are guessing.
What happened to Newcastle, York and London, who were to be included in an "all new".
You seemed really certain of this for all of the last 12 months ?

It was publicly made known that Leigh where financially better off. Basically they had more money in the pot to cover the 850k shortfall.