Re: Dr Koukash seeks vote of no confidence in RFL : Thu May 19, 2016 6:15 am  

Smokey leave Him alone. It's like watching a succesful businessman arguing about the UK economy with a home baker at a village fete cake stall.

Re: Dr Koukash seeks vote of no confidence in RFL : Fri May 20, 2016 12:35 pm  

Stanley30 wrote:

I've changed my mind, I don't give a $hit any more. I think it was the discertations that put me off

But you don't have to read them, if your brain can't handle more than a sentence then stick to Twitter, or FB statuses.

Re: Dr Koukash seeks vote of no confidence in RFL : Fri May 20, 2016 1:02 pm  

Well it seems the League Express on Monday should make interesting reading as they are hinting that many of the SL clubs do not agree with marwank and that it will even be difficult for him to get the majority required for a vote. Also Catalans response to Marwan and Marwans usual attempt to have the last word is taking our sport to new depths with an out and out accusation of cheating aimed at Cats and yet again another barb/slur aimed at the RFL. Come on RFL hit him now with the 2015 charges and lets have done with it.

Re: Dr Koukash seeks vote of no confidence in RFL : Fri May 20, 2016 6:47 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

the equivalent of a business criticising the regulatory body? it isnt very uncommon. Sport is not unique. It is not any more different to a supermarket than a media conglomerate is to a leather factory.

So it's not a business then? It's a regulatory body?
Yes it is different. Of course it's different. When are the supermarket playoffs?

SmokeyTA wrote:

why dont RU have that problem? or Cricket? or Football? How do we manage to book the GF and CC final? If we cant sell an international to Liverpool why are we holding it there? You are looking at the end, finding excuses and then pretending it was inevitable.

Union own their stadiums and have regular schedules from World Rugby. We don't.
Thanks for proving my point with the GF and CC final. We know when they are, every year, so we can book them. We're also virtually guaranteed a big crowd.
Why do you think we're holding an International in Liverpool?
So what's the reason then? When we prove we can book major stadiums when we know when it's going to be, yet it takes longer when we don't know.
We could of course just cry "INCOMPETENCE!" as loud as possible. Or we could look at the situation and think about it. It's pretty bloody obvious. We've got Old Trafford booked out year on year. Even to the extent that they turned down England RU in the RUWC to keep our business. So we can do that, and Wembley. Yet somehow we're too incompetent to book Anfield.
Don't be daft Smokey.

SmokeyTA wrote:

They can only sell in the environment the RFL create

And yet when the RFL try to change that environment there are howls of protest. See franchising, London Broncos, Crusaders, Catalans etc etc.
Plus are we really saying that the clubs, all based in the heartlands bar Catalans, couldn't do more to sell themselves, build their infrastructure, get more or different people in and develop more and better players? Because that is all, entirely, their responsibility. And ALL SL clubs range from merely average to plain useless at those things.

SmokeyTA wrote:

But you can create an environment and an image which appeals to a new fanbase.

And who do the RFL have to get approval from before they can do that?
And with what funds do they do that? You're complaining at them taking £6m a year from the TV deal. Most of which is paid back to the clubs anyway.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Since 1996 the amount of TV money (adjusted for inflation) has gone down. Thats not because of what happened 35 years ago.

Really? It's because of what started around then and continued right up until SL (and still to a degree continues today). Many people complain that RL sold its soul to Sky in 1996. Well they didn't. It had already been sold to stave off bankruptcy. Clubs selling their only assets left right and centre or letting them fall apart. If clubs had kept up to their stadiums in the good times you wouldn't have had the stagnation we've seen over the SL period. Though that attitude continued in SL and still does. Clubs would (or could assuming they were run properly) have the revenues to increase the salary cap or to put more into youth development etc etc.
Now most clubs have no assets left, they can't do it again. Yet we still see very few clubs actually strengthening as a club. They'll strengthen the first team but nothing else. See Salford as THE example.

SmokeyTA wrote:

This is the RFL's system, its the RFL's tv deal, Its the RFL's organisation and has been for years. We arent here with this system and this tv deal and this environment because the clubs had too much power.

Lol. The clubs have agreed to every single one of these things. They get the money. They hold the power. They do nothing with it except look for short term gain. The RFL should be criticised for letting go of control over the last 20 years.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Its the RFL creating an environment where a club is criticised for investing in its product. We can continue to hope that 12 or more clubs independently stumble on to a formula that works but it is very unlikely to happen.

You mean Salford? Nobody has criticised Koukash for putting money into Salford. Sadly he ignored areas of his club that would bring LONG TERM success and instead focussed on short term gain. Actually he fits in RL perfectly. Did Salford even qualify for a proper academy this year? Either he went begging to the fans to fund it.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Different sports, and different industries and different companies within those industries show what you need to do to grow. We can continue to insist we are different and that we need to do something different but the results of us doing that wont change.

Successful companies look to long term growth and development. To RL clubs, long term means the end of next season.

Re: Dr Koukash seeks vote of no confidence in RFL : Sat May 21, 2016 9:36 am  

Him wrote:

So it's not a business then? It's a regulatory body?
Yes it is different. Of course it's different. When are the supermarket playoffs?

yes the RFL is a regulatory body. Where do google sell their lettuce?

Union own their stadiums and have regular schedules from World Rugby. We don't.

Why?
Thanks for proving my point with the GF and CC final. We know when they are, every year, so we can book them. We're also virtually guaranteed a big crowd. [/quote]And is there a reason we are incapable of planning ahead and booking games for internationals?

Why do you think we're holding an International in Liverpool?
So what's the reason then? When we prove we can book major stadiums when we know when it's going to be, yet it takes longer when we don't know.
We could of course just cry "INCOMPETENCE!" as loud as possible. Or we could look at the situation and think about it. It's pretty bloody obvious. We've got Old Trafford booked out year on year. Even to the extent that they turned down England RU in the RUWC to keep our business. So we can do that, and Wembley. Yet somehow we're too incompetent to book Anfield.
Don't be daft Smokey.

stay with me here, it seems you have gotten yourself a little confused. If we can book Old Trafford every year, if we can book Wembley every years. What are these unavoidable inherent problems which would stop us booking out other stadiums a year or so in advance? Other than poor negotiation skills and incompetence of course.

And yet when the RFL try to change that environment there are howls of protest. See franchising, London Broncos, Crusaders, Catalans etc etc.
Plus are we really saying that the clubs, all based in the heartlands bar Catalans, couldn't do more to sell themselves, build their infrastructure, get more or different people in and develop more and better players? Because that is all, entirely, their responsibility. And ALL SL clubs range from merely average to plain useless at those things.

Letting the tail wag the dog is bad incompetence not an excuse for it.

And who do the RFL have to get approval from before they can do that?
And with what funds do they do that? You're complaining at them taking £6m a year from the TV deal. Most of which is paid back to the clubs anyway.

None of that 6m goes back to the clubs (that 6m is what they take from SL by the way, not the cc rights or the international rights nor anything else just what they take from SL).

Poor leadership is not an excuse for incompetence simply a manifestation of it.

Really? It's because of what started around then and continued right up until SL (and still to a degree continues today). Many people complain that RL sold its soul to Sky in 1996. Well they didn't. It had already been sold to stave off bankruptcy. Clubs selling their only assets left right and centre or letting them fall apart. If clubs had kept up to their stadiums in the good times you wouldn't have had the stagnation we've seen over the SL period. Though that attitude continued in SL and still does. Clubs would (or could assuming they were run properly) have the revenues to increase the salary cap or to put more into youth development etc etc.
Now most clubs have no assets left, they can't do it again. Yet we still see very few clubs actually strengthening as a club. They'll strengthen the first team but nothing else. See Salford as THE example.

And yet that was worth more than this. Though none of this has anything to do with the RFL's appalling commercial performance

Lol. The clubs have agreed to every single one of these things. They get the money. They hold the power. They do nothing with it except look for short term gain. The RFL should be criticised for letting go of control over the last 20 years.

No they didnt, the clubs rejected the RFL's proposal for the new system, going as far as walking out of the meeting where they voted to reduce the numbers to 12. The RFL told them the super 8s system would be implemented even if the clubs stayed at 14 clubs. The vote was 7-6 with Les Catalans abstaining and the RFL buying support for £300k. The TV deal was 'negotiated' by the RFL and offered to the clubs with an hour to decide. These changes forced through by the RFL were massively unpopular and unwanted by clubs and by players. This, what is happening right now, is the RFL's chickens coming home to roost.

You mean Salford? Nobody has criticised Koukash for putting money into Salford. Sadly he ignored areas of his club that would bring LONG TERM success and instead focussed on short term gain. Actually he fits in RL perfectly. Did Salford even qualify for a proper academy this year? Either he went begging to the fans to fund it.

Successful companies look to long term growth and development. To RL clubs, long term means the end of next season.

So you arent criticising Koukash putting money in to Salford you are just criticising the money Koukash puts in to Salford.

Re: Dr Koukash seeks vote of no confidence in RFL : Sat May 21, 2016 9:45 am  

Successful companies look both short and long term - short term means within the financial reporting year i.e. the season in RL terms. Long term is perhaps 3-5 years max. most likely the intended lifespan of the CEO.

Leeds is a very good example - when Caddice took over what did Leeds do - short term they brought in a load of players, bought Iestyn and got a new coach - Hetherington knew they had to be competitive from the get go. Not a lot different to what Marwan did. Longer term they invested in youth development it took 7/8 for that to bear fruit. Leeds are in a different position regarding youth development the have a bigger pool of youngsters to choose from.

Perhaps if the RFL did a better job at generating income/exposure the clubs would be in a better financial state than they are - maybe not - I do think the majority of owners of SL clubs are pretty shrewd business people these days. The excesses of the past are very unlikely to happen these days.