no, the RFL decide that, but the RFL have a limited pot of money and many different responsibilities

if they want to give more money to championship clubs to spend on players, then something else they fund would need to be cut, maybe a few community development officers, or refereeing development officers, maybe spend less on marketing, whatever....

the point being the RFL have a finite amount of money, and they can only give a certain amount of that to Championship/1 clubs without that affecting the myriad of worthwhile things they also need to fund

If like a few on here you are wanting the RFL to give more money to these lower league clubs at the expense of the SL clubs then yes, the agreement of the SL clubs is needed

What do you know about running a RL club ? It's not like you are a F/T CEO is it , now if you had a F/T CEO you would make a lot more money and be ready for entrance to the Championships in a matter of months

yes im pretty sure any of us, if we had more time to devote to a particularly activity would do a better job of it

LOL According to some, i know fook all about it. Especially those in the higher places.

If we had a full time anything we would make a lot more of everything. But we don't. so after an evening of constitutions, codes of conducts, and trying to come up with money making ideas i'm here trying to nullify my brain in to neutral so i can sleep

Points/Questions in response to Marto's Points-

point 2 - How are Rochdale doing, I know they competed in the league and that, but from a business perspective

Point 6 - Some clubs must know that they won't see Super League, most have the ambitions but for some that must be just to appease the fans, I think there is a fair few clubs who are glad that as each season ends they know they'll still be there next season and have pride in what they do.

Point 7 - is SPOT ON, given how things have gone on there in the past how he got that post is beyond me, its also thought he could take over Nigel Wood's post in the future.

Point 8 - We all hear things and get told things by people who work for clubs or are on the board ect, but they still withhold certain information. when talking about things, I've been in a car with a clubs employee and director and specifically told anything I hear in the car stays in the car ect, and others have been in the same sort of situation, but until its been a full time commitment and people know the full facts why start presuming?

Not players no , unless they state honestly and openly that they are going to fund an expansion club for a set number of years to a certain level

They could cut the money to Easyjet and Ryanair , not forgeting the hotel bills , maybe the forcing of clubs to employ people they do not require

There are lots of things they could spend their money on better , unfortunatley they are a one trick pony , " Go forth and find yourself a ' sugar daddy " seems to be the only idea they have

Clueless

So how do you want the RFL to ensure its money isnt wasted if it cant specify what it should be spent on?

They've survived to the end of this last season and appointed a new committee so i guess they are doing well. Mark2 is the man to ask.



That's why, IMO, the championship clubs need to forget about Super League and work at making the Championship a first rate competition, with out worrying about if they've ticked a box or three along the way to meet super leagues criteria.

If they want to work towards it, fine, but set the stall and agenda out to be in the best competition they can be in.



Now your just scaring me.



exactly.



power to the people.

If hte RFL is adamant that the way forward is for clubs to spend money on a CEO and Marketing executive then they (the RFL) should be helping the clubs appoint these people. IMO. Bringing in a set of guidlines or similar for clubs to use to benchmark ( i hate that phrase) applicant against. and having a fit and proper test in place for the clubs use to make sure they aren't employing a crook or similar.

[size=59please note that all views in this thread are my own and do not represent the views of Bramley Rugby League Community Club, it's committee, or it's fans.[/size

Honestly, When I was sat in and amongst the "VIPs" at last years England v Wales "Match" (I use that word loosely... a different argument eh?) We were discussing who we'd get first if we had one bullet, and it was mentioned he'd take over from Wood one day, the worrying thing is it wasn't the first time I'd heard it mentioned

Whatever exact % it is doesnt mater they are 'ball park figures' and if you read my post i'm not saying a that as a percentage of all revenue but as a percentage of the increase given with the next tv deal ie if we get an increase of 4.8 million pounds (which is what i believe it was with this tv deal) a percentage of that should be given to lower league clubs. Sky sell a product, rugby league, part of that product is championship games, so its only logical and just that the championship clubs get a share of the money. At the moment the rfl are in effect robbing the poor to pay the rich. If a championship game can get over 50% of the audience of a sl game then its clearly contrubuting to the product. If the rfl have failed to negotiate any sort of fee for this contribution to the product than there either incompetant as they cant sell a healthy chunk of there televised product or there being negligent in handling the tv rights of there member clubs. Either way once again the rfl is letting the sport down. If the rfl continue to let lower league clubs struggle and we start to see the number of clubs diminish then we can forget about expansion, how would want to join a sport where the governing body fails to look after its members? we will be contracting and the sport will die, all due to short sighted greed of certain men.

everything you have put here is wrong, you clearly have a very poor understanding of the real world here

Sky dont sell Rugby League as a product, they sell Sky Sports subscriptions as a product

to help sell that product (sky sports subscriptions) they buy the TV rights from the rights holders,

Sky are willing to pay £Xmillion a year for exclusive rights to the Super League, they pay the rights holders (super league (europe) ltd, a company owned by the constituent clubs) £Xmillion pounds a year and they get the rights

at no stage does this money belong to the RFL.

To also sell subsciptions Sky screen lower league rugby, they arent willing to pay the rights holder (the RFL in this case) anything but costs to screen this, no-one else was even willing to pay this

(in fact, had it not already had Super League, Sky wouldnt even be willing to do this)

this money would belong to the RFL and could be distributed to lower league clubs but there is no money


The RFL are robbing no-one, and it shows a complete lack of understanding to state they are,

there isnt a big pot of money the RFL hand out, there are rights, owned by people, sold to some other people at a market rate and that money goes to the people who own the rights,

it just so happens the market worth of SL is £Xmillion a year and the market rate of championship rugby is £0

and if you think getting £0 is a poor show, Eurosport wanted the RFL to pay them to put it on their channel

Funny i was thinking the same about all you posts so far.

How do you know what campionship rl is worth? have you seen how much advertising revenue sky make out of it? clearly there are people out there who watch sky for championship matches, a larger number watch it for sl matches a far larger number than both of these watch sky to see both sl and championship. They contribute to the product, personally (and i know many people with similar views) in enjoy championship games alot more than sl games, normally i will watch 1or 2 games of rl a week on tv and one of these will always be the championship game on thursday its more enjoyable, less predicatable and has a greater distribution of teams shown (how many weekends do we not see at least one of saints, leeds, or wigan play? its boring and repetative to watch the same teams week in week out).

To be honest i cant be bothered to argue with you smokey as you would spend the rest of eternity trying to convinve me black was white and up was down given half the chance.

Time to get out of the house methinks.

Ta ta smokey.

I know how much it is worth, because i know how much is paid for it. And thats how you find out how much things are worth, you look at how much people are willing to pay for it.

Or you can do what you are doing and assign a number in your head then complain people arent paying that much




thats lovely, but irrellevant,

In fact, every person on earth could watch it, if no one is willing to pay anything for the broadcast rights, the broadcast rights still arent worth anything

Your first two points indicate muddled thinking. The main reason wealthy backers put their money into clubs is because they are fans. They are fans who own the club. Maybe by fan owned you mean 'co operative' / commonly owned - a far narrower definition.

There are, of course, some, RL supporters who have a problem with wealthy people. That is why they resort to the pejorative phrase 'sugar daddy'. Poor things, how british sport must upset them. Good.

thats fine, and it is important the money is spent well

but on one hand people are arguing that its too prescriptive already, then this is a step further in the same direction

Nope there is no muddled thinking on my part. Only incomprehension on your part.

Maybe Huddersfield are a shining example of how a wealthy man can run a club for the benefit of the fans and the club and not for what he alone can get out of it. But i'm afraid he's in the minority.

Most wealthy backers, in my experience, are in it for their own benefit.

Richard Branson wasn't a fan of the broncos was he? soon scarpered when the going got tough.

Paul Caddick isn't a Fan of the rhinos, he is and always has been a rugby union man, but saw an opportunity when he bought into the leeds CF&A, and only serviced their debit rather than paying it off.

Maybe your wealthy backer isn't so up for it, specially after allegedly transferring the giants and towns shares in the SMC to a separate company that he may or may not own.

My own club, ended their professional life as nomads, when the wealthy backers got bored sold the ground to a shell company who then sold it on for houses. Some of these same people were involved when Hunslet sold parkside and became nomads.

Steven Vaughan who owned Widnes for a while is a shining example of been a fan of the club. Especially the way he's treating the Chester City Fans right now.

want me to keep going?

Fans owned clubs are the way forward, imo. That's clubs owned by the fans, run by the fans for the benefit of the fans. Following the Supporters Direct model, used in Rugby League by Ourselves and Hornets RL. With a board of directors, elected by the fans.



maybe they do have a problem with wealthy people. But my guess is that they are in the main fed up with their clubs been used as the play thing of the rich, to be discarded when they are fed up with it like a spoilt kid.

but look at football and the shenanigans there with the more than half the premiership clubs being owned by foreign nationals. Or check out [url=http://footballmanagement.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/supporters-trusts-v-benefactors/this post on Supporter Trusts Vs Benefactors[/url or check out [url=http://delicious.com/kevin.ryethis series of links[/url that show how well your wealthy benefactors are doing as fans of the clubs they own.

As i said in my post, come and have a go at running a club.

[size=42**The views represented in this posts, are my views and do not represent the views of Bramley Rugby League Community Club, Bramley Buffaloes, it's committee or it's fans.[/size

I think it has to be prescriptive, to some extent other wise the money will be wasted. Well by wasted i mean paid to players and the like, as happened when the first sky deal came along. Instead of investing in the games future, it was frittered away on salaries and the like, IMO.

There needs to be more help for the clubs from the RFL, however it's done, i don't know. but the fact is there needs to be help for them.

If thats the case, would it not be better to maybe not give them any money, but instead spend the money on a centralised marketing and administration system? or have RFL youth coaches visiting and working with the clubs rather than giving them money to spend on coaches?

Like the suggestion I made about having 4/5 regional marketing managers each overseeing 4/5 clubs , each club to provide 1 person , giving a manager with a team working at each club one week per month , or each club 2 days a fortnight

These regional managers overseen by 1 general manager supplied directly from the RFL

All clubs could then have a team working for them on specific projects part of the time instead of probably one person working full time

The managers then along with the general manager liase with each other on what has worked at different clubs and what hasn't worked

Each club given a budget that the manager overseas , but it is only spent on ' marketing '

yes definitely. Like Starbug says in the post above. or rather the previous page.

Thing is Marto , How many posters on here after having read my idea will be thinking that by ' Marketing ' I mean raising corporate and sponsorship interest , when what I really mean is fans through the turnstyles

Quite simply the 1 st step should be to double the attendances in the Championships , which shouldn't be too hard considering how bad they currently are

Yeah i know.

the corparate £££ is good but bums on seats or through turn styles is the way to go.

No wonder the RFL don't like you

Don't know what you mean