So you are saying that giving free money to the championships is a better use of our money than youth development, amateur facilities, youth coaching, development officers.

Its funny when you pretend how much you care about the game

SKY, the RFL and the SL clubs are the decision makers in who gets the money, not you or I, they will make that decision, if they leave it as it is, then SL might improve, then again it might not, but SKY might consider the lack of improvement by the bulk of SL clubs after 5 years of ' fear free ' licencing isnt producing the product they want or hoped for, it certainly doesnt seem to be enticing the live fan at the moment

My suggestion is that a stronger 2 nd and 3 rd tier is a desire of the RFL, as has been suggested by the statement from Mr Wood, but as you have pointed out, just ' wishing ' something to happen doesnt make it do so

I agree with you on the consequences if this silly mid-season split structure is implemented but not on most of what you've put here.
If Starbug does treat his wife to some stout then that purchase is highly unlikely to improve the quality of stout the next time it's Mrs Starbug's birthday. However if Sky increased the amount they pay for broadcasting SL that is likely to improve SL.

Also I'd suggest the Championship does directly benefit SL, even more so now with the dual reg system. It's a proving ground for both clubs and players who aren't quite ready for SL yet. It's not as strong as I'd like it to be or as strong as it should be, which is why I don't think P&R will work. But the aim should be, in my view, to get to a stage where the Championship IS strong enough for SL to work.
It's not about SL "giving" the Championship "free money". SL is the tip of the spear, it still needs the rest of the spear or it would suffer greatly in my view.

No, the arent. SL money goes to SL (europe) it is then distributed by the RFL to the SL clubs (and 1/16th to the championships and 1/16th to the RFL) the RFL cannot just decide to give more elsewhere. Sky dont care where it goes. They pay for a product, they have criteria in their contracts. After that they couldnt give a f@ck.

it would be the SL clubs making that decision.

I simply can't be bothered to enter into multiple, multi point posts to answer you, suffice to say that I don't agree and most of what you put is speculation to fulfil you viewpoint.

What I found rather alarming is the statement "Whether SL has had chance to do this or not is irrelevant"

But that isnt Sky's view though is it. Improving SL for the sake of improving SL is actually counter-productive for them. Sky would only want to invest in SL if that was going to improve their bottom line. Which means that for whatever they increase our funding by, the need to make more money back from that. Slightly improving the championships isnt going to do that. Frankly slightly improving SL wouldnt do that. The only way that RL will get a majorly improved TV deal is one of three possibilities
1)market forces force the price up. If BT want us, and they agree with us that we are currently undervalued, then that will force the price up
2)we improve ourselves massively making ourselves a better product. This would mean 15k to every game, big sponsors, and a profile which made us massively more attractive to advertisers and loads more people were watching on TV
3)in return for a major change that benefits Sky, i.e changing to summer to fill a gap in the schedules for which Sky paid a premium.

These incremental changes arent going to make a big difference to it, and Sky certainly arent going to pay a penny more than they have to on the basis that it will put the game in a better position.
We arent a spear. We arent a pyramid right now. We dont have a thread running through the entire game all working toward a common goal. If we did i have no problem with that money filtering down more. But we dont and championship clubs dont want us to.

What they want, and what Starbug and yourself are suggesting, is a system where SL clubs who arent exactly awash with cash, take some of that cash and use it to invest in the tier below, specifically with the aim of getting them in to a position where they can replace the clubs who they have just given money to. That makes no sense.

And ill repeat what I said before, i can see no reason why the lower leagues are any more deserving of any 'free money' we can afford to distribute than youth and amateur RL. In fact I would say in the list of priorities there is daylight between Youth and Amateur RL, and then the championships.

As i say I have no problem with investing in the lower leagues, but that always should be on the basis that the lower leagues give something back.

I would have thought it quite obvious that us not doing it previously isnt a very good reason to not do it going forward, so whether we have done it previously or not is irrelevant to whether or not we should do it in the future.

It's a good job that the decision isn't left to small minded idiots like you then.

Yes, if you read my post, that is what I put, if part of SKY s ' critera ' ( which you or I dont actually have access to ) is a level of competitivness that isnt being reached, they could eventually withdraw their funding, so they are part of the decision making process, the RFL also do contribute to it if we are to believe the London Bronco s resignation threat of years past

And if you consider the geographical spread of the Championships compared to SL at the moment, then an improvement of those competitions and the clubs in them ( especially if it was money spent directly on marketing to local populace ) could make huge strides in the growth of RL and SL, only an idiot would suggest otherwise

Yeah, im the small minded one. Definitely not the ones wanting free money for their semi-pro club given to them so they can employ a few more semi-pro players. Its definitely the one who wants it to go to youth development and amateur RL.

Yes, you are.

I've just realised it!

You're Gary Hetherington

No, Sky arent. 'Level of competitiveness' is one of those things that doesnt actually exist in real-life, Just on these boards. Rights Contracts arent written on the basis of vague and unprovable nonsense like 'level of competitiveness'. Sky's contract with SL(europe) has criteria in it that will be along the lines of they will purchase x number of games, they want x number of teams in the league, they want the rights to show x, y, and z, they want the games to be played in slots a,b,c and the season to last between x and y.

These criteria are real definable things. IMG will not allow a clause in the contract where sky can break it on the basis that it isnt at the right 'level of competitiveness', and the SL(europe) wouldnt sign one.

People seem to have this idea that every couple of years Barney Francis and Nigel Wood sit down and have a chat about what Sky want from us. Then he scurrys away and does, and Sky are sat there overseeing the decisions we are making an checking everything. This isnt the case. They really arent in cahoots planning things together.

Sky have what they want, we have what we want, Sky have how much money they want to pay, we have how much money we want to get paid. We go to them with a tender, they come back with their offer. We cross the i's and dot the t's and it is done.

Only an idiot would suggest that spending money marketing championship clubs to their local populace would make huge strides in the growth of SL, only an even bigger idiot would suggest that spending money marketing championship clubs to their local populace would make bigger strides in the growth of SL than just spending that money marketing SL clubs to their local populace.

yeah, cos giving money to private businesses who can't afford to be at the level they want to be it is obviously the open minded thing to do. Sod the kids playing our game, a couple of hundred people want to watch their pit village play at a higher level, and that of course is the most important thing.

Nowhere have I suggested a ' breaking of contract ' but the potential of offering less in the future

So you suggest increasing marketing in South Wales, North Wales, Gatehead, London, Hemel, Oxford or Gloucester is not going to help the growth of RL?

Now you are just backtracking. We can just accept that Sky wont be part of that decision making process and wont have criteria which includes nonsense like 'level of competitiveness'.


Only in the same way you are suggesting that increasing marketing in Wakefield, Salford, London, Widnes, Perpignan is not going to help the growth of RL.

We dont have an infinite amount of money, whatever we spend there is an opportunity cost.

If we were giving money to the championships, it doesnt just have to show that it is a worthwhile use of money, it has to show that it is a better use of money than the alternatives.

Didnt you know ?

In that case there could be an argument to layer SKY payments depending on financial performance with the best getting least and the worst getting most , but that would be absurd , wouldnt it

21 pages in and Smokey still banging on about Championship clubs. This is all being led by weak SuperLeague clubs and will be voted in by SL chairmen.

What a prick.

As many have suggested ( based on I think US Basketball? ) a nice way to put extra funds into the amateur game is through a tax on salary cap overspend.

Why are people assuming any extra money the champ clubs will get is going to come from the sky deal?

Because, its the only money they get

I might have miss heard this at some point, but dont the rfl give sl clubs 100k each towards youth devolopement?if thats the case then those monies will stop now and that money could be being used to strengthen the rest of the pro game

It would seem pretty backward. Giving the most money to the clubs who need it least. Would seem a surefire recipe for the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Seems a bit of an afterthought. Bit hard to budget and shouldnt really have our amateur funding dependent on the excess of some in SL/