Based on what?

based on the amount Sky pay for their TV rights

only they know how much of that money is what would be termed ' SKY ' money

For clubs to access this money they need to employ certain ' key ' staff in very defined positions

A full time CEO , but many clubs prefer to have F/T lower grade staff and a director or employee of the owners company overseeing things part time , this distinction while maybe not perfect in the eyes of the RFL and some posters on here quite often suits the clubs at Championship level

A full time marketing executive with finely defined objectives set by the RFL

They are specifically employed to bring in corporate and business sponsors over and above what the club already has , targets are set and if the person does not meet those targets the money to pay them can be withdrawn by the RFL

HTH

Yes from the localised advertising we could sell to be in it , as against the national advertising that the RFL were selling to be in their programme

So basically you advocate the Australian model of ' feeder ' clubs ?

So the London Bronco's didn't get any SKY money that year ?

yes, but they sold something and got money in return for that, they werent given anything

The argument was based on this post by you apprentice earlier




Geekay was suggesting that the Bronco's had recieved ' central funds ' from the RFL , not paid their due taxes , ran up debts and failed to pay up

Which is exactly what Marsdengiant was suggesting Oldham had done



A bit like ' pan calling kettle black ' I think is the term , or ' sauce for the goose ' perhaps

Nope, the RFL on behalf of SL(Europe) LTD sells the television rights to a broadcaster, this money (or an agreed proportion of it) goes to SL (Europe) LTD, the rest is kept in RFL central funding

each club in SL owns a share of SL(Europe) LTD and as such recieves revenue from SL (Europe) LTD for playing in their competition

this is the money that came from the RFL to the Broncos, The RFL were always contractually obliged to pay this money to the broncos as they were all SL clubs,

this was certainly not the case with Oldham, however much you wish deep down in your heart it was,

is this the time when you go a bit mental and start saying people are being mean about your Dad?

I don't know the Oldham situation ins and outs, but the Broncos didn't get "central funds", they just got their negotiated share of income from the sale of commercial rights. They did owe money to the Inland Revenue and to David Hughes, and it was IR who when presented with a choice of repayment plan or nothing uncompromisingly chose nothing.

Kelvin , Calm down , calm down



It is still money from the RFL isn't it , the cheque doesn't come direct from SKY

It matters not to me , but our friendly Giants fan doesn't think any club that gets into trouble paying their inland revenue bill and runs up debts it cannot pay should recieve any money from the RFL

If you are arguing it isn't central funds then you must also agree that Championship clubs do not recieve any SKY money as they get ' central funds '

Right gotcha , so the cheque says SL europe on it , I stand corrected

Or does it ?

I asked:

"Show me the post where i said I know the exact amount a c club gets from Sky. Take your time...read through things carefully.......don't go by the random thoughts inside your head......dont get sidetracked by claiming I am an impressionist.

Show me where I said I know the exact amount or posters can conclude you are dillusional."

So... you're dillussional.

And I asked, do you know the exact amount of Sky funds are included in the £100k of money that a CC or CC1 can get. Well do you? If you don't know, just say. No harm it not knowing. Nobody will think any less of you.

So the money [ the cheque goes from SL europe to the clubs ?

So do the SL clubs get Sky money or do they get RFL central funding ?

welcome to two pages ago [url=http://viewtopic.php?t=435185&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135where we already addressed this[/url

if you want to say it comes from the RFL rather than Sky, fine, but considering the majority if not all of the RFLs Central Fund comes from Sky its a moot point

the RFL still cant go around giving money to lower league clubs because it just doesnt have it, if it wants it then the only real option they have is to negotiate with the SL clubs to take a higher portion of the Sky Contract away from them to give to the Lower Leagues through its central funding

Oh and didnt the need to cut out large parts of a sentence give you a big clue that your argument against it was poor?

So when my employee's go to the pub to buy a pint tommorrow night it will be my money paying for it , not theirs ? or will it be my customers money ? , or is it their customers money ? , maybe it is their employers money

The RFL negociate a TV deal , they recive a % of that money as a ' commission ' that then becomes RFL money , they then decide what to do with it , if they give that money to Championship clubs it is RFL money , not SKY money

So let me get this straight.
3 games of RL a week,2 SL one lower league.
Lower league pulls 50% of SL therefore Lower leagues get 20% of total Sky investment?
Dead simple that one, whats 20% in GBP, £3-4 million pa? £1-200k per club no strings attached.

We dont get SKY money , we get RFL ' charity ' money and then Co op pocket money for the TV matches

having started the thread and then backing off. I've now read it all and want to add several things.

[list1. Sugar Daddies = [size=200BAD[/size
2. Fans Owned Clubs = [size=200GOOD[/size
3. The RFL don't do much to help clubs and should do more. [iWe were told in our last conversations with them that we should speak to Hunslet and London Skolars about best practice for Marketing, this would be the hunslet who bleat at me for getting more press than them. [/i
4. The RFL also believed that Sugar Daddies are the way forward in funding clubs and the fans owned concept isn't the right one. this may have changed as we now have a Rugby League Trusts development officer in place, part funded by the RFL and the Co-operative. And a Sterling job she does too. [size=17Hope my fivers in the post lass.[/size
5. The restrictions on Central funding for the Championship clubs is daft to say the least. These clubs need help, not dictating what staff they need.
6. Championship Clubs need to realise that the superleague dream is over. and work on developing the championship into a top class competition.
7. The RFL should be embarassed that it's president is the chairman of a club that hasn't paid it's taxes, again!
8. Whilst you might not agree with Starbugs views on championship clubs and how they should be run. I believe that he's had a go at it and put his money where his mouth is and has seen from the inside what goes on at clubs. Can you say that?[/list:u

If any of you want to have a go at running a club. Please please please get in touch with me, and i'll fix you up with a club near me. We don't want your money but your time will do.

When your employees go to the pub and buy a pint it will be their money, however it will be money that you paid them, not money that came from the Payroll guy

no, they dont receive a percentage of it as 'a commission' you have simply decided that

the RFL actually pay a company called IMG a commission to sell the rights for them---as they did with the lower leagues,

Super League and the Super League broadcast rights are owned by SL(europe) LTD which is in turn owned by the clubs

so in effect, they (the rights) are owned by the constituent clubs in SL.

The Lower League rights are owned by the RFL, not the clubs, the Championship and Championship 1 competitions and broadcast rights are owned by the RFL

Basically the RFL act as custodians of the game, including SL (this wasnt always the case as at the beginning SL left the RFL pyramid, a little how it is right now with the premiership and the football league still coming under an FA banner, however in our game the RFL act as both FA and Football League) and they appoint a company called IMG to sell the broadcast rights for different packages of RL on behalf of SL(europe) Ltd and on their own behalf.

So yes, if you want to make the point that no Lower League club recieves a payment directly from Sky, fine, that is the case

but then no SL club receives a payment directly from Sky either, because no club, whether SL or Lower League have a direct agreement with Sky, both come through a different entity, and through a collective bargaining agreement

But again, this is irrellevant because the RFL cant take more money from the contract than they are entitled to without the agreement of the SL clubs, because that money belongs to them and if they cant take more money from that contract, they cant give more out because they dont have enough money from elsewhere

So the SL clubs decide if and how much money the RFL pay to Championship clubs ?