Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 1:24 pm  

MorePlaymakersNeeded wrote:

That would be fine if we had a number of individuals with the cash (owners or otherwise) to spend on player recruitment.

I don't think that there are any, the other option is by funding through debt. That's just not sustainable, and led to the salary cap in the first place.

Your correct with the "vicious circle" but there's no easy answer to breaking it.

Other sports do it, do you think Formula 1 is sustainable? Or football? Or Cricket?

There’s two ways we could get out of this vicious circle and that’s either removing the cap and allowing teams to spend as they wish and raise funds however they can whether it be going into a load of debt, having a wealthy board of directors/investors, having a wealthy owner or pulling their fingers out, making a proper marketing and sales team who can go out and secure sponsors and come up with ideas to make money, or

increase the cap with extra funding coming from Sky’s TV money to allow us to compete with Rugby Union and NRL. It would need increasing to at least match the NRL if we are to attract a better standard of player.

Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 4:25 pm  

Sky can get their fix....it's about time every game was on TV now anyway to do that
14 teams.
1 Thursday
1 Friday
2 Saturday
3 Sunday.

Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 4:28 pm  

I agree that we need to compete with the NRL in the amount of salary cap ceiling, and that funding must either come from TV, sponsorship or benefactors. I just don't see loans being the answer.
The other problem we have are chairmen who won't let other backers in without receiving either some, or all, of the funds they've put in. The bottom line is getting cash into the game, when currently, we have some chairman who won't commit any further cash to their clubs.

You've mentioned Football, F1 and Cricket, which all have their dedicated Sky channels. We don't appear in the promo's like we used to do, and were down the pecking order at Sky. Our next TV is critical, and I think were going to be disappointed.

It's going to be extremely difficult, but agree that something needs to be done, without mortgaging the future.

Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 4:34 pm  

MorePlaymakersNeeded wrote:

I agree that we need to compete with the NRL in the amount of salary cap ceiling, and that funding must either come from TV, sponsorship or benefactors. I just don't see loans being the answer.
The other problem we have are chairmen who won't let other backers in without receiving either some, or all, of the funds they've put in. The bottom line is getting cash into the game, when currently, we have some chairman who won't commit any further cash to their clubs.

You've mentioned Football, F1 and Cricket, which all have their dedicated Sky channels. We don't appear in the promo's like we used to do, and were down the pecking order at Sky. Our next TV is critical, and I think were going to be disappointed.

It's going to be extremely difficult, but agree that something needs to be done, without mortgaging the future.

Between RL Sl/NRL and RU domestic and internationals and reruns....there's enough to have a dedicated rugby channel between us.

Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 4:35 pm  

post wrote:

Other sports do it, do you think Formula 1 is sustainable? Or football? Or Cricket?

There’s two ways we could get out of this vicious circle and that’s either removing the cap and allowing teams to spend as they wish and raise funds however they can whether it be going into a load of debt, having a wealthy board of directors/investors, having a wealthy owner or pulling their fingers out, making a proper marketing and sales team who can go out and secure sponsors and come up with ideas to make money, or

increase the cap with extra funding coming from Sky’s TV money to allow us to compete with Rugby Union and NRL. It would need increasing to at least match the NRL if we are to attract a better standard of player.

How could we possibly increase the cap to match that of the NRL when the TV deal, attendances and income are way below that of the NRL.
If we increased the cap to the same as the NRL it would be more than half the SL clubs annual income and leave the likes of Wigan, Saints & Warrington with only a couple of million to pay for everything else. It’s entirely impractical.

There are many reasons why RL’s national profile has de lines since the 90’s. The salary cap is NOT one of them. The bankrupting exercise RL’s clubs merrily engaged in in the 80’s and 90’s very much is. That’s why we have out of date clubs playing in out of date, embarrassing facilities in front of sometimes embarrassing crowds.
There are other reasons such as the concentration of media in the south and the focus away from regional to national stories/interests. Along with a media refocus away from working class to middle/upper class audiences. No-one is bothered about watching 2 small northern towns play each other anymore. They want clubs and places they can relate to. We don’t provide that. The majority of people in the country wouldn’t be able to find on a map where half the SL clubs are.

But let’s not kid ourselves that if only we could spend more money on overseas players that would solve the issue. Not at all. If we have money spare to spend on overseas players that we’re not currently using then it’s a disgrace that that isn’t being spent on domestic player development.

The reason why only 5 SL clubs own their own stadium (and only 3 of those are of a good standard) is because of the ridiculous overspending in the 80’s and 90’s. We desperately need to spend money on infrastructure, marketing and development. Not on players.

Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 4:53 pm  

Him wrote:

How could we possibly increase the cap to match that of the NRL when the TV deal, attendances and income are way below that of the NRL.
If we increased the cap to the same as the NRL it would be more than half the SL clubs annual income and leave the likes of Wigan, Saints & Warrington with only a couple of million to pay for everything else. It’s entirely impractical.

There are many reasons why RL’s national profile has de lines since the 90’s. The salary cap is NOT one of them. The bankrupting exercise RL’s clubs merrily engaged in in the 80’s and 90’s very much is. That’s why we have out of date clubs playing in out of date, embarrassing facilities in front of sometimes embarrassing crowds.
There are other reasons such as the concentration of media in the south and the focus away from regional to national stories/interests. Along with a media refocus away from working class to middle/upper class audiences. No-one is bothered about watching 2 small northern towns play each other anymore. They want clubs and places they can relate to. We don’t provide that. The majority of people in the country wouldn’t be able to find on a map where half the SL clubs are.

But let’s not kid ourselves that if only we could spend more money on overseas players that would solve the issue. Not at all. If we have money spare to spend on overseas players that we’re not currently using then it’s a disgrace that that isn’t being spent on domestic player development.

The reason why only 5 SL clubs own their own stadium (and only 3 of those are of a good standard) is because of the ridiculous overspending in the 80’s and 90’s. We desperately need to spend money on infrastructure, marketing and development. Not on players.

How old are most rugby league clubs? 100 years old most of them aren’t they? How long is a ground supposed to last once built? Can’t those clubs do what each and every one of us does and get a loan to pay for the building of the stadium? Pay it off over 40 years?

It’s an investment for the club, they can have all sorts on at the ground like concerts and so on.

So your attitude is to carry on the way we are going which is on a downward spiral into a part time feeder sport.

A previous poster had a good idea of not letting 3rd party sponsorship count on the cap, if it’s coming from a third party what harm is it going to do? Raising the cap is not the b all and end all to the problems we face but nothing can get better until it’s either raised or abolished.

Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 5:13 pm  

For me it's the sports demographic that has hampered Rugby League more than anything else. I can see why people want to blame the salary cap, but getting rid of it with the sole intention of hoping clubs spend big money to get top name players is a recipe for disaster since clubs can barely break even as it is.

Over the last few decades more than any other time, sports have become global. The Premier League ended up with a huge bidding war because it was massively marketable in this country, then took off on a global scale because it featured marketable city based teams such as Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham etc that could gain support around the world. Rugby League doesn't have that. We also suffered during the financial crisis. Working class towns were hit the hardest, and that's where most rugby league support comes from. The value of the pound went down, the value of the Aussie dollar went up and suddenly there were less reasons to come over to Super League, while Super League players found it much more affordable to move to the NRL. Had we scrapped the cap at that time and had clubs start chucking money around it would have been a disaster.

Scrap the cap and you might get some bigger names playing over here, but to be honest most rugby league players from the NRL aren't big names to the general public. Then you still have the problem of the difference in lifestyle between Super League and its major competitor. There's no real competition between living in the North West of England and living in Australia.

There are plenty of towns in the UK which are in decline, so is it any surprise that sports teams in those towns might be in decline? Or that a sport still largely based in those towns has suffered a decline? All the focus is on cities. There's greater incentive for sponsors to get involved and it's sponsorship that dictates the sporting landscape these days.

I just don't see how clubs with a working class fan base are going to generate the interest among sponsors to grow. As a result any improvement in the quality of the competition will largely go unnoticed. Even when we had a better standard of players in Super League I wouldn't say the game was thriving financially. The NRL can thrive because it's one of the main sports in Australia. It's played in the big cities but mostly centered around Sydney. There's plenty of incentive to get involved.

This is why Toronto is such a big opportunity. It's why New York and Ottawa provide opportunities too. The only problem with those sides is that while it might bring more marketing potential to Super League, it might not do enough to help the issues faced by the heartland teams. Expansion is important for rugby league if it's going to start making a name for itself against stiff global competition. It hasn't helped that previous attempts have targeted areas with the exact same demographic and the same issues - such a Crusaders in Wrexham. The sport won't gain much by expanding into working class towns.

Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 5:55 pm  

What a load of crap, I’ve worked around Anfield and they were giving away houses it’s such a dump, most Liverpool fans aren’t from Liverpool, Everton fans are.

Same with Man City, where their stadium is is a dump too, with fans coming from all over the place and coming out of the woodwork now they’ve had a bit of success.

My point is fans come from all over when the team is successful.

All that ‘oh we’re a poor working class sport and should know our place among the pigeon fanciers and shove hapenny fans’ are pathetic. I’ve met people from all over the country who like rugby league, from all over the place who like Wigan and many due to our success in the 90s.

If Barry Hearn had your attitude with regards Darts they’d be playing MVG v Phil Taylor in the Dog and Duck on a Tuesday night before the Pub Quiz.

Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 6:33 pm  

post wrote:

What a load of crap, I’ve worked around Anfield and they were giving away houses it’s such a dump, most Liverpool fans aren’t from Liverpool, Everton fans are.

Same with Man City, where their stadium is is a dump too, with fans coming from all over the place and coming out of the woodwork now they’ve had a bit of success.

My point is fans come from all over when the team is successful.

All that ‘oh we’re a poor working class sport and should know our place among the pigeon fanciers and shove hapenny fans’ are pathetic. I’ve met people from all over the country who like rugby league, from all over the place who like Wigan and many due to our success in the 90s.

If Barry Hearn had your attitude with regards Darts they’d be playing MVG v Phil Taylor in the Dog and Duck on a Tuesday night before the Pub Quiz.

You've just sort of proved the point I was making. Lots of Liverpool fans don't come from Liverpool, lots of Man Utd fans don't come from Manchester. Yet these are the big clubs of football. Why didn't Blackburn become a big club when they won the Premier League? Because towns aren't as marketable as cities. Manchester is easier to market than Blackburn. Even teams without the city in their name, named after areas of a city like Tottenham, Chelsea, Everton are more marketable than teams like Bolton, Wigan, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale etc. Why did Roman Abramovich invest in Chelsea rather than Blackburn? Why did Sheikh Mansour invest in Man City when Bolton, Reading, Portsmouth and Blackburn all finished higher the season before? Surely he could have turned those teams into globally recognised sporting giants? Except he didn't, because he went for a more marketable team.

I agree that fans will come from all over when a team is successful, but we'll struggle to build rugby league up around one team, or two teams. We'd end up like Scottish football and have a couple of giants in an awful league.

I'm certainly not saying we should know our place and that we're only a working class sport and that's all we should be considered as, but if most of the teams in Super League are based in working class areas we're only likely to attract sponsors interested in advertising to working class people, and we'll never really get away from that perception That's why Cas play at the Mend-a-Hose Jungle and not the Emirates Jungle.

Even football teams in working class areas are struggling financially when trying to compete, even in lower divisions where the costs aren't as high.

Yes, Barry Hearn has done wonders with darts, turned it into something of a global phenomenon, but that's an individual sport. The likes of darts, snooker, golf etc don't have the same operating costs as team sports. They aren't really comparable. They may fight for airtime on sports channels but essentially they don't compete in the same way against the likes of football and rugby union.

I'm sure we could do better with what we have, but I'm not sure what we currently have could ever really thrive in comparison to rival team sports without altering perceptions of it.

Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 8:21 pm  

Cherry.Pie wrote:

You've just sort of proved the point I was making. Lots of Liverpool fans don't come from Liverpool, lots of Man Utd fans don't come from Manchester. Yet these are the big clubs of football. Why didn't Blackburn become a big club when they won the Premier League? Because towns aren't as marketable as cities. Manchester is easier to market than Blackburn. Even teams without the city in their name, named after areas of a city like Tottenham, Chelsea, Everton are more marketable than teams like Bolton, Wigan, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale etc. Why did Roman Abramovich invest in Chelsea rather than Blackburn? Why did Sheikh Mansour invest in Man City when Bolton, Reading, Portsmouth and Blackburn all finished higher the season before? Surely he could have turned those teams into globally recognised sporting giants? Except he didn't, because he went for a more marketable team.

I agree that fans will come from all over when a team is successful, but we'll struggle to build rugby league up around one team, or two teams. We'd end up like Scottish football and have a couple of giants in an awful league.

I'm certainly not saying we should know our place and that we're only a working class sport and that's all we should be considered as, but if most of the teams in Super League are based in working class areas we're only likely to attract sponsors interested in advertising to working class people, and we'll never really get away from that perception That's why Cas play at the Mend-a-Hose Jungle and not the Emirates Jungle.

Even football teams in working class areas are struggling financially when trying to compete, even in lower divisions where the costs aren't as high.

Yes, Barry Hearn has done wonders with darts, turned it into something of a global phenomenon, but that's an individual sport. The likes of darts, snooker, golf etc don't have the same operating costs as team sports. They aren't really comparable. They may fight for airtime on sports channels but essentially they don't compete in the same way against the likes of football and rugby union.

I'm sure we could do better with what we have, but I'm not sure what we currently have could ever really thrive in comparison to rival team sports without altering perceptions of it.

Would those premier league teams like Man Cty, Chelsea and Liverpool be where they are if they had a salary cap below the Spanish and Italian leagues?

No, because Shiekh Mansour, Abramovic and John Henry/Fenway would have gone elsewhere.

Now we will never reach those heights, but at the very least we can be better. We should as a sport be aiming to be better than club level Union, county cricket and Championship football but in the last 10 years we have fallen behind all three which are achievable.

The salary cap is a nice little comfort blanket to hide behind for the clubs with no vision or ideas or ambition.