Re: Today's Meeting : Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:29 pm  

It is and it isn't about funding depending on the context.

For example, if the difference in funding from the SL clubs is too large then that will most likely be too big a gulf to cross so it would be about "lack" of funding.

If as Starby says the amount the Championship clubs get increases so as to close the gap to a fair level it then does depend on what the clubs spend it on.

If they do spend it only on players certainly in the case of existing team members it may just mean the same players playing for the same club on the same field but just getting more to do it and that won't take them forward.
Bringing in other players from outside will usually mean the wage bill going up.

It's not only about what your club decides to do either, they may well decide to spread the monies across a broader area with a bigger medium to longer term view in mind but it only takes a few of their rival clubs to spend it on players wages and the going rate goes up whether you want it to or not and to get the best you have to match or better the rates.

Also on spectators a problem with keeping the existing fan base and certainly to increase it does often come down to how well the team is performing on the field.

Look at Bradford a few years ago when they were at the very top and went on to win grand finals and the world club challenge.

They had increased crowds and introduced pre match entertainment, bouncy castles etc etc.
I can remember Eddie Hemmings proclaiming loud and proud at one of their live games as the cameras panned across a packed Odsal.

Quote. " Rugby League take note, look at what the Bulls have achieved."

Many of the crowd were new supporters, problem was as soon as the Bulls started losing a few games the novelty wore off and they drifted away and we all know what has happened since then.

Thinking about decline and the new system it may well be that an chance to go into the top flight of SL will come about because a club in there starts to struggle to a point where they can't sustain their place.

In that case there could well be a few clubs from the Championship in a much better place to step up and now at least the door is open and structure in the game to do so.

It may well not be just down to the normal channels of promotion and relegation.

Re: Today's Meeting : Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:35 pm  

FevGrinder wrote:

Not sure it is more difficult that what we have had the last 6 years, in that at worst the new system will give us 1 SL team versus 1 Championship team (4v5) for the final SL place the following year (and it is possible to be in the top 3 and qualify without the playoff game). I don't see that being harder than qualifying for SL via the licensing route (when it appears as an outsider teh SL clubs want to keep a closed shop). To get to the point of being the championship club that gets to that one game playoff will be hard and with the 2 ex-SL teams joining the championship it will be harder still for the current teams in our league, however Sheffield have made and won the equivalent GF game in the last 2 years so why not again in 2015? And come the start of the 2015 season well all start on zero points with everything to play for.

Do I like the 2x12 into 3x8, you know I don't. It is too hard to manage for a whole raft of reasons, and therefore I personally would have preferred 2x12 with a 1 up 1 down. However if this had been adopted I think it would have still been as hard to get into SL as the new 2x12 -> 3x8 for the current championship teams, given this would still mean getting past the relegated SL teams, and as we have seen in the past (pre licensing) this is hard to achieve.

At least the new system will allow a route via P&R that is decided on the pitch (assuming minimum criteria is meet), which the previous licensing system didn't.

Key to all of this is how the funding is managed, it the current discrepancy of virtually 10 to 1 (SL to Championship) is kept it is always going to be virtually impossible to break into SL. And it appears from the outside that this is the hardest question for the SL clubs to agree on.

Fair comment Dave. Just a couple of points to think about.

1. If we hadn't changed the system, Fev would have been putting together a licence bid at this moment and I'd have tipped them to replace London for 2015. Instead, Fev are hoping to win a place in the 2016 $uperleague - when, for all we know, London may have found another backer.

2. Sheffield don't have the crowds to be accepted in $uperleague. Fact.

Re: Today's Meeting : Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:00 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

Fair comment Dave. Just a couple of points to think about.

1. If we hadn't changed the system, Fev would have been putting together a licence bid at this moment and I'd have tipped them to replace London for 2015. Instead, Fev are hoping to win a place in the 2016 $uperleague - when, for all we know, London may have found another backer.

2. Sheffield don't have the crowds to be accepted in $uperleague. Fact.

Nobody does at present, that is the problem, however it isnt just a case of a winning team means more fans either, yes I'd expect the ' Interested parties,Leigh,Fax,Fev,Eagles ' to all win the majority of their home games giving them all ( possibly except Sheffield ) the opportunity to increase their fan bases, but can and will they try to achieve it?

Leigh by the way have a ' Business Plan ' that predicts they can be ' successful/competitive ' in SL on 4,000 averages, , yes, thats what I thought as well

Re: Today's Meeting : Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:41 pm  

Starbug wrote:

Leigh by the way have a ' Business Plan ' that predicts they can be ' successful/competitive ' in SL on 4,000 averages, , yes, thats what I thought as well

Eh dear.

What's competitive ? Losing all their games but not by many ?

Re: Today's Meeting : Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:16 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

Fair comment Dave. Just a couple of points to think about.

1. If we hadn't changed the system, Fev would have been putting together a licence bid at this moment and I'd have tipped them to replace London for 2015. Instead, Fev are hoping to win a place in the 2016 $uperleague - when, for all we know, London may have found another backer.

2. Sheffield don't have the crowds to be accepted in $uperleague. Fact.

I suspect your right about 1 (I was even starting to believe it as a possibility myself even though I believe SL as a whole don't want us at the top table) - but I personally would rather see Fev in the championship for the next 20 years and longer if it meant this P&R was introduced in a responsible way, since for me sport should be about what happens on the pitch not in the boardroom (I accept that in modern day they clubs have to be run as sensible businesses at the same time).

As for 2 I believe that Sheffield has the greatest potential out of all the Championship 1 sides (and Skolars even more so). However for whatever reason the Eagles have not been able to sell themselves to the Sheffield public. I know people say that Sheffield is a football city, but I don't fully buy into this, in that the Steelers can pull crowds of 3.5k for a sport that get even less coverage than RL. Biggest problem for the Eagles is to have a "true" home, but suspect that would take 20M from a benefactor or the city council, neither seems very likely at the moment.

I still have big concerns about the Championship 1 level, there is talk about 2 regional (north & south) divisions of 10, but to achieve this would require 7 extra teams which could include Toulouse (though again I am not convinced Toulouse is sustainable unless they were in SL). I just don’t see where these teams could come from to start in 2015, and where would the funds come from to support them?

I will take the 2x12 into 3x8 for the moment hopefully with a better distribution of money), but believe this will have to change again to give us something more sustainable. This just still feels very much a gimmick.

Re: Today's Meeting : Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:32 pm  

Starbug wrote:

Nobody does at present, that is the problem, however it isnt just a case of a winning team means more fans either, yes I'd expect the ' Interested parties,Leigh,Fax,Fev,Eagles ' to all win the majority of their home games giving them all ( possibly except Sheffield ) the opportunity to increase their fan bases, but can and will they try to achieve it?

Leigh by the way have a ' Business Plan ' that predicts they can be ' successful/competitive ' in SL on 4,000 averages, , yes, thats what I thought as well

P&R will help to a point, as will a winning side, but as you articulate better than most the clubs have to promote themselves in a greater fashion than they have in the past.

PS I believe it is possible to be moderately successful on crowds of 4,000 if you can maximise other revenue streams. Assuming you need income of around £3M per annum to have any chance of being stable in SL, this could come from:
- 1.2M sky money
- 900k Gate receipts (average of say £15 x 4000 x 14 home games)
- 1M in sponsorship, and other streams
Though to have a real chance at the GL you would need another £1M and this would require gates of 8000-10000

Re: Today's Meeting : Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:56 pm  

Gate income is only a fraction of SL income shock

Leigh averaged close to 5000 in 2005 with an uncompetitive team, poor coach and at HP

A dozen years on and we have 22 exec boxes, dining for 500 and a state of the arte stadium with 1500 car parking spaces on site - could we draw more than 5000?

Re: Today's Meeting : Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:28 am  

maurice wrote:

:idea:

Gate income is only a fraction of SL income shock

Leigh averaged close to 5000 in 2005 with an uncompetitive team, poor coach and at HP

A dozen years on and we have 22 exec boxes, dining for 500 and a state of the arte stadium with 1500 car parking spaces on site - could we draw more than 5000?

It must be really dis-heartening for Leigh fans to see most people who use it park up in one of those car parking spaces, get their bags for life out of their cars & head over to Morrisons at the other side of the car park....