: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:19 am  

G1 wrote:

Is the "English Prem" really a good example? How many teams have actually won it over how many years?

They don't have a salary cap in the "English Prem" either? Should we scrap that?

Over the last ten years 3, so on a par with SL...

Is the english prem a good example? I'd say so due to the fact that the TV bosses and PL could suggest a GF or a 39th game. Would it happen, no!

My point is we already have a knock-out cup in the CC, if we have the GF, what's the point in the CC anymore?

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:22 am  

finglas wrote:

Problem for the emglish Prem is that they would have to cut the league down to about 15/16 teams in order to fit the play off games in and nobodies prepared to suggest that. There is also the problem that by having a knockout competition at the end there would be potential pitfalls for the big 4 which may mean that they are knocked out by a lesser team and could affecttheir qualification for the Champions League.

The big clubs see the Premier League as a means to qualify for the lucrative Champions League anyway, which to them is the play off system.

Does this make the CC more financially important to a club than the GF as it generates more cash for the winning team?

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:56 pm  

the wicker man wrote:

Does this make the CC more financially important to a club than the GF as it generates more cash for the winning team?

The most lucrative single competition in northern hemisphere rugby league is the World Club Championship. More of the proceeds are retained by the competing clubs than either the Challenge Cup or Grand Final.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:21 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

The most lucrative single competition in northern hemisphere rugby league is the World Club Championship. More of the proceeds are retained by the competing clubs than either the Challenge Cup or Grand Final.

Is that measured by income, profit, or split of income from the game, or some combination?

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:23 pm  

leicester_rhino wrote:

Is that measured by income, profit, or split of income from the game, or some combination?

Dunno how its' measured but I was told the same by someone at the club. The profits from the 2005 encounter covered the clubs' contribution to the Carnegie stand apparently.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:24 pm  

leicester_rhino wrote:

Is that measured by income, profit, or split of income from the game, or some combination?

Split of income from the game. IIRC Leeds take more financially out of the gate receipts for a 35,000 crowd at Elland Road than they would for a sell out Wembley for a Challenge Cup Final.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:24 pm  

G1 wrote:

Dunno how its' measured but I was told the same by someone at the club. The profits from the 2005 encounter covered the clubs' contribution to the Carnegie stand apparently.

In that case lets have another one built with the proceeds from this years.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:47 pm  

SDB wrote:

In that case lets have another one built with the proceeds from this years.

That would be a waste of money the other one isn't 2 years old yet.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:00 pm  

SDB wrote:

In that case lets have another one built with the proceeds from this years.

I said "Leeds contribution". There were grants and a sizeable contribution from Carnegie for the current one.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:08 pm  

Tony Soprano wrote:

That would be a waste of money the other one isn't 2 years old yet.

I meant another stand of the same quality. Not another stand in place of the Carnegie one.But I'm sure you knew that. I also appreciate there will have also been alot of external investment with the Carnegie stand.

I was merely having a suggestive moment, wishfully thinking..."wouldn't another stand of the same quality as the current Carnegie Stand be a treat."

Joking aside though its a bloody nice stand. If Leeds see fit to invest in another of the same quality I don't think it will be a bad thing. I trust Mr Hethrington however will do what he sees fit with our increased revenue.