20,000 people cancel sky subscription due to SL clubs. Wait 40000 cancel

The championship clubs total attendance every week would not get close to it on an average of weekly attendances.
I do not know of anyone who is paying that much for SKY sports due to SL coverage alone and if they do they actually support a Super League club.

Remember that BT now has a sport channel and if Super League clubs run Super League Sky could lose over 150k viewers a week for a Rugby League game and that is a lot of lost advertisment revenue of the year. Given that Super League is one of the most watched live events on Sky Sports. Only Football, Golf and f1 come higher. For all its faults Super League has a decent TV viewing following.

Quote I see championship clubs as i see Jersey RFU, they have naturally a very small fan base and started out in the lowest devision and a fully amateur club over the last ten years with a small ground and facilities have built the income naturally not putting them selves in financial danger trying to push into the premiership (currently 1 division below).


Well thanks for that I was worried it might be the Outer Hebridean tiddly winks team.
Reserves of course.

Again it says it all.

Thanks, all the best and still come on Wigan against those Aussies.

Jersey RFU are a great club and is no insult to any championship club to be compared to them. I believe a lot of championship clubs would benefit from speaking to RFU clubs in a similar position.

But at the end of the day majority of superleague clubs have lost all faith in RFL and if the RFL have led you to believe that the rule changes was passed and coming in to place then its just another sign of their incompetence.

Why would you have any faith or trust in the skills of these people given their abject failure at running the game in the recent past? They have presided over (as others have said), things like failure to secure a main sponsor, a total failure to manage the licensing for SL, and have led to a situation where we award less prize money now than in 1991. You think they can be trusted to have worked all this out so its the best way forward for the game? Why!!!?

When these proposals first surfaced and long before IL objected you will finds posts from me on here and on another Wigan forum making pretty much the same observations about the 12x12,8x8x8 system as I have posted on this thread.

Asking the obvious question of how can teams on vastly different incomes be expected to compete in the same competition was the first question I posed back then and you seem to object to it and others even being asked.

Now we know a bit more about the money distribution that question is as valid as ever. As is asking how does a clubs funding change if they slide down the standings and what that means for players contracts.

These questions seem the obvious ones to ask and I can't see how the system is workable. You seem to have blind faith that it is.



Whatever system anyone comes up with will only work if there is enough money to finance it. In my opinion given there clearly isn't enough money to finance 24 clubs equally without drastically reducing the income of the SL sides and turning the entire sport into a semi-professional one, the proposal on the table is not viable.



There is only one proposal on the table now (12x12, 8x8xicon_cool.gif and the objecting SL clubs clearly believe while the proposal will strengthen the championship sides it is at their expense. So they are entitled to object to that IMO.

Had the RFL come up with something that strengthened both championship and SL there would not be any problem but all the RFL proposals do is move money around the game at best. Had Wood done his job properly we would not be facing that issue and I think as others have said the competence of Wood is also being directly challenged here.

I have also seem comments suggesting another objection is the SL clubs do not agree with the financial figures contained in the proposal are realistic anyway. I guess we will find out more specifics after the WC.

The fat controller has basically gone for the simple option of re-distributing the sky funds across all the clubs and hope that the SL clubs will agree.

Again this is the performance of a person who is a bean counter(And not a very good one at that ) and not someone who has any experience in generating revenue for the game.

No wonder the championship clubs are rubbing there hands they get something for nowt.

Good on Ian Leneghan i say, He has invested in Wigan, turned it around to almost be self sustaining, Invested in the youth and more to the point invested in South Wales and Cumbria were the idiotic RFL have previously failed to take advantage of.

If it was me i think i would be saying enough is enough of the idiots at Red Hall.

IFL criticised the RFL when he first took over at Wigan so has nothing to do with our recent success.

I agree with some his arguments namely the fact that the promotion of the game is worse than p*ss poor. I was also pretty shocked to hear that we have been awarded LESS money for winning the double than Oxford Utd were for winning the PLAYOFFS in the conference a few seasons ago. I don't care what club you support you have to agree that that can't be right at the supposed top level of a sport.

I also agree in some part with regards to the sharing of money. Yes teams in the lower leagues should be given as much help as possible but why should the clubs that actually get off their ar*e and do some work be the ones that pay for it? Would you like to go to work and work your balls off day in and day out why the guy next to you does b*llock all and then takes home some of your bonus because "it wasn't his fault"?

VERY interesting too to note who his main objectors are and what other business interests they have.

Oh and for all the Wire fans on here slating Lenagan. Simon Moran is one of his allies in this argument.

Dave0.
Why I trust them is because there is no one else, the SL clubs are as they have said owned by them and recent events have proved they are concerned only about themselves.

The RFL have a duty to look after the game at all levels not just SL and these new proposals looked beyond SL to try and provide as stated many times a whole game solution.

Failing to secure a main sponser for one year whilst dissapointing is hardly total failure, many potential sponsers were approached but did not come onboard or were not asked to come on board for a variety of reasons.
Some took one look at the product and chose another sport, RL is in competition with other sports not just for players but sponsership as well.
Some offered such low amounts that it was thought it was undersell that would have set a precedent lasting years, ie: once you accept a few quid then you will be expected to stay at that price.
One sponser had major gambling links which they decided was not the right choice.

Talking about miss management no one can be more accountable for this than some SL clubs going back before licencing, during licencing and even now as we speak.
On this point the RFL have just stated that they have had to spend so much time micro managing these clubs to ensure their survival that it has cost them valuable resources and time that could not be spent on other areas of the game such as sponsership etc.
These clubs who have failed to manage themselves are partly responsible for the problems facing all SL including those that have acted more responsibly and proffesionally, they will be the same ones involved if SL clubs are to run SL, are you happy with that?

As to the question regarding how can clubs of vastly different incomes compete.
Under the present situation they don't have to because there is no pathway to progress.
This led to stagnation below SL and lack of purpose, meaningless games in SL that had people not going live and turning there tv sets off at home.

Revisiting that the RFL are responsible for the entire game they as everyone else did knew that this could not continue and for any pathway to and from the divisions the funding gap had to be narrowed.

With the amount of funding available the gap could not be closed completely however the new proposals did take a huge step in the right direction.

This funding would largely come from the SL comp which the SL clubs voted for going to 12 clubs and the money from the 2 stepping down being distributed to the second tier.

This distribution would not reduce the income to any of the SL clubs that remained in SL 1 so it would not be at their expense as you state.

(The fact that these funds would not go to the remaining 12 is one of the reasons Mr Lenahan stepped in as he said in the letter he wants none of the millions to go outside SL even though Wigan would be no worse off.
At the same time he suggests keeping the SL comp at 14 clubs which would mean exactly the same thing finacially Wigan would be no better or worse off.
The proposal of one up one down included at the same time makes everything else irrelevant because everyone knows yo yo boom and bust definately does not work.)

Back to the thread.
There is still a gap to fill but as previously stated it is much narrower and more achievable.
Who have to fill the gap? Any of the top clubs IN SL2.
These clubs would be there because of their results on the field and it normally follows that behind the results on the field the club is in pretty good order financially, organisationally, with current sponsers etc.

On the other hand who would these clubs be competing with in the 8x8 part of the season.
This would be the bottom 4 of SL 1 and they would be bottom of SL 1 because of their results on the field and most likely their weaknesses off of it in direct contrast to the SL 2 clubs mentioned.
Some form of criteria, state of stadium, the clubs state of health audit could be required as well.

(The top clubs of SL1 would not be affected in any way by the 12x12 x8x8 set up, as stated they get the same money and will be competeing against the same rivals as before. So nothing for IL or anyone else from the better sides to worry about.)

Back to the thread.
There is still the problem of the gap allbeit smaller than before to solve, where could the extra money come from?
The funding so far disscussed is only from Central Funding and does not include anything from other benefactors that could go up as the salary cap allows, not all current SL clubs will be able to spend up to the cap limit but some of the pretenders may be able to.
Preperation would have to happen but again only those able to could do it, only a few of the second tier clubs would have the financial clout to go full time for example.

If any of the top 4 from SL 2 are better backed than any of the bottom 4 from SL 1 they could balance the scales or even tip them in their favour and if this was the case then they would be better clubs to have in the main comp as they would be less of a liability.

If they could not close the gap away from central funding then they would not get to SL 1 as in the 8x8 part of the comp they would be beaten on the field and they would not deserve to be there because they were not strong enough off the field.
But a pathway is there for each to find their own level and as said before things go in cycles, some are on the up some are on the downward path.

No more meaningless games, something for each club to play for.
The 12 x12 runs it's course with both SL 1 and SL 2 wanting to win every game.
The 8x8 takes over and SL 1 has the best teams left in wanting to win every game.
SL 2 teams has some new faces to play against again wanting to win every game.

I still think it would be better to involve only 20 teams to start with but the number of games in a season would have to be maintained to keep the gate receits revenue high enough.

Across the sport there is competion for everything and the finnishing places are decided as they should be in sport by the strength on the field and influenced by the strength off the field.

I think that any current and new investors would be far more inclined to come on board at every level if this was on offer as opposed to what they see now.

Anyway you asked for answers, that's my best effort with my experience of the game and the current options, info available and if you fall asleep and bang your chin on the desk after reading it don't blame me.

Your statements are contradictory. You offer as much help as possible, but then only to those "who get off their s". How would you know who is deserving?

We have a progressive taxation system that contributes to the welfare state. So that vulnerable members of society are given support when they need it.

It's not a simple case of those who work hardest earn the most and those who work the least just sponge off the state. You've swallowed the ConDem rhetoric.

The game has a responsibility to help all of its members. By and large it does through sharing gate receipts, tv money and sponsorship. This is how it should be.

That is not the same as saying that they should get complete protection. Of course if a club is run badly they have to take the consequences.

Also when the pot is dwindling, the bigger clubs are perfectly justified in claiming the biggest share, as IL and others are saying.

I wonder if the Championship clubs would be willing to pool the Kingstone Press sponsorship cash along with any cash generated from the premier sports TV deal ?

The TV money should be split evenly and I don't think anyone would argue that. The argument appears to be (and this is what I was referring too) is that prize money and monies brought in by clubs is being shared as well. Wigan, as Champions, have earned the right to be paid more money than Salford. That isn't the case apparently.

It is unknown if the Kingston Press would have any part to play in the new proposed structure but if they did their financial input would have to be put in the pot.

The Championship clubs receive no cash support from Premier sports, (don't ask who sorted that deal out)

They actually lose gate receit money when the games a screened on Thursday nights as some watch them on TV or can't get to the away games that involve a lot of travel because it's a work day.

I suppose it's the same question.
"Is it definately now Super League on it's own or is it Rugby League as a whole"

It seemed untill last week it was the latter, that's what we were led to beleive from the RFL and SL right up untill the eleventh hour, it's like being given a lifeline then the guys pulling you in suddenly letting go say sorry, changed our minds we want our rope back.

I don't think anyone can genuinly say anymore who stands where and who's a part of what, it's the not knowing.

If and when that gets answered we can all move on and play the cards we have in our hands.

It's not one year though is it. We still don't have one and I can't see how you can possibly say accepting low amounts would have set a bad precedent when we actually accepted £0 from Stobarts!

As to gambling links being an excuse that is far fetched. The Tote sponsor Wigan and I think the fact William Hill (who were rejected I think for Stobarts) were turned away is something that needs a serious looking at. It has been suggested this would have caused a problem one or more clubs who had deal with other bookmakers and if so I think we need to know.

The fact you think SL is badly run is no reason to assume the RFL is competent or to be trusted and neither is saying you trust them because there is no one else. Look at the evidence and you can see they are pretty damn useless at running the game.



And you don't think that statement is just one huge pathetic excuse from the RFL as to why they have failed to obtain sponsorship and market the game properly? Did we have the marketing guys looking over Bradford's books instead of marketing?

Enforcing the Operation Rules is the RFL's job and it should have no impact on its commercial activities. They are totally separate jobs and quite obviously the RFL failed to enforce the rules and failed to market the game.

The fact some clubs failed is what the enforcement of the licensing rules was supposed to spot. No its not good the likes of Bradford had all those problems but if the RFL had applied the rules properly they would have never had a new license in the first place.

As to micro managing the clubs what on earth does that mean? It's not the RFL's job to micro manage the clubs. It's their job to apply the rules and if club mismanage themselves then apply the rules and give someone else a go.

It's also a complete contradiction anyway because if they were micro managing these clubs how come they didn't spot the problems and how come they still gave them licenses?



Given we are in a recession I think the crowds at SL have held up very well and I have not seen any headlines bemoaning declining viewing figures. The game certainly has its problems at all levels but this idea which is basically distribute the money available differently isn't going to fix it. I'd love to know how Batley are going to attract more than 499 when Workington turn up or if Whitehaven have any ambitions to be in SL1 (they refused promotion a few years back).

We can't take the game back to being semi-pro and these clubs could then aspire to be the top of a semi-pro league as it would be cheap to do so. Is that your preference?




I don't believe the SL clubs voted on this at all which is part of the problem. And while there is nothing wrong in narrowing the gap per se its how you do it that matters and because of the RFL's failure to market the game properly their one idea is to distribute existing funds differently.



Then the figures don't add up. Sky money is £18m

12x 1.3m = £15.6m

That leaves £2.4m for remaining 12 clubs and the RFL to share (if the RFL got nothing that is £200K per club average). Funding four clubs to the tune of £650K would cost £2.6m alone so we are already £200K over budget.



It's interesting to me that the yo-yo problem is now considered a real problem as it's one I have mentioned for years but mostly because of the requirement to rip up players contracts if they are in a relegated side. How this new system will affect players livelihoods seems to have been completely ignored.

If IL doesn't want the money to go outside SL perhaps this is because he can see club in it at the lower end are under-funded as it is? Improving their situation would help the competition.



It doesn't follow at all. You have to work at it. Sheffield won the CC v Wigan and then looked what happened. Plenty of teams have tasted success over the years and gone on to fail. Look at Bradford. Why is it assumed the championship sides are not going to have the same happen to them? It's rather arrogant of them to assume they are so well run (if they do) they are somehow immune to bad management.



So it's automatically going to be the case the top SL2 clubs are well run just because they finished top of a league where they can afford better players than over half the teams in it? They will just be able to buy their way to the top.



So why would they be in such a league? No chance of going full time so what purpose will it serve them being forever stuck at the bottom?



The only way this could ever happen is if another Koukash turned up who was prepared to bank-roll a club long enough to achieve such success. Why such a person would chose to fund a club who gets less "free money" than one of the SL1 sides I am not sure.




You keep saying this and I can assure you the CC and the SL playoffs were not meaningless but I can guarantee you a shed load of meaningless games in the proposed format and it will all be down to the fact some clubs are full time and some are semi-pro. The competition risks looking like a sham with the four well funded SL2 sides favourites every year to remain so.



You have a very rose tinted view as to how this will all pan out IMO. Unless all clubs are equally funded andare capable of aspiring to be a top side with a large following they should simply not be in the same competition.

The ultimate solution is what the Aussies do. A closed shop of 16 teams that owners can invest in without fear that a bad season on the pitch will see them forced to sell the entire team. Fans like P&R, investors and owners like security.

It's about time people woke up to the fact their just isn't enough money for this 24 team utopia and got on with selecting the best placed clubs be they currently in SL or the Championship. Possibly fund Toulouse to be an entrant as well, kick out the dead wood and just get on with it. Such a competition set up as a European version of the NRL has far more chance of attracting major cash IMO than one involving semi-pro sides.

Fill your boots, quoters: media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf Here's one to get another 30 pages out of it: Quote 5.3.11 In Tier 1, the current Elite Squad Representative Dispensation Allowance is removed, to be replaced by regulation that limits the Salary Cap Value of a Club Trained Player at a nominal value of £100k (i.e. for any Club Trained Player with a Salary Cap Value of over £100k, his Salary CapValue will be assessed at £100k only with any additional wage not included in his salary cap value). This would reward clubs for producing elite talent and give them an opportunity to retain this talent in the face of competition from other sports and competitions'"

Fill your boots, quoters: media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf Here's one to get another 30 pages out of it: Quote 5.3.11 In Tier 1, the current Elite Squad Representative Dispensation Allowance is removed, to be replaced by regulation that limits the Salary Cap Value of a Club Trained Player at a nominal value of £100k (i.e. for any Club Trained Player with a Salary Cap Value of over £100k, his Salary CapValue will be assessed at £100k only with any additional wage not included in his salary cap value). This would reward clubs for producing elite talent and give them an opportunity to retain this talent in the face of competition from other sports and competitions'"

Dave0.
I will stick behind the whole game review report and recomendations found there as I don't think the
"Lets do what they have done in Australia" or your other suggestions fit in well with it or have any positives for the game outside SL.

We will agree to disagree.

Quote ="JTB"Fill your boots, quoters: media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf Here's one to get another 30 pages out of it: '" Not a bad idea, that. It's about time clubs were properly incentivised to produce their own players

Quote ="JTB"Fill your boots, quoters: media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf Here's one to get another 30 pages out of it: '" Not a bad idea, that. It's about time clubs were properly incentivised to produce their own players

Quote from DaveO ''Then the figures don't add up. Sky money is £18m

12x 1.3m = £15.6m

That leaves £2.4m for remaining 12 clubs and the RFL to share (if the RFL got nothing that is £200K per club average). Funding four clubs to the tune of £650K would cost £2.6m alone so we are already £200K over budget. ''

£18m divided by 15 = £1.2m
12 x £1.2m = £14.4m
£3.6m left, £2.3m to 2 ex SL and 2014 Champ GF'ists these 4 will form the middle 8 with the bottom 4 SL, then 4@200k and 4@100k in third eight assuming no increase in tv or sponsorship
SL get same, and you get a comp in the middle eight for the top3 and play off 4 v 5 to be in SL1 2016
On the question of financial rewards for winning the GF I don't think anyone would disagree. If Toulouse in SL2 they wouldn't get financial support, they and Cats should be targeting French tv funding imho

We are a couple of million a year away from making this an affordable reality, a sponsor and a tv deal would bring in multiples of that

The sport of RL and SL in particular has been undervalued and undersold by the RFL for years. Should Super League create its own identity with a CEO and Marketing strategy separate from the RFL I'd go along with that.

The power base of SL clubs must have shifted. IL & McManus etc have been unhappy about SL state of affairs for years but now they must have a majority for the changes necessary to acheive the improvements we need.
It will then be up to the new Super League to negotiate with the broadcasters.
No doubt they'll get an improved deal as our sport has produced what SKY wants.
How the SL then distribute that money is the contentious one.
I've never believed in an even distribution of the SL funds.
London has to have more than other club simply due to the cost of running a business operation in the capital.
To rent a 3 bed house around the NW here costs approx £750-850pcm. Around London £1750-1850 is more likely the cost. A 7 stop rail commuter run where I live on the Wirral into Liverpool costs £49.95 pcm, 7 stops in London £136. It isn't possible to run a competitive club in London with the same funding as in the north of England.
To be competitive they have to have considerably more.
There should also be an agreed formula for Catalans so the club is not adversely affected by fluctuations in the rate of the £/Euro.
Where Championship clubs come into this I don't know. SKY pay for Super League, how much do Premier Sport pay for the Championship?

We on these boards have complained for years about the RFL underselling Rugby League and Super League, their lack of corporate governance is the problem.
Mega Business men like IL, McManus, Moran, Pearson etc have had enough of their messing up.
They want improvements and I think we should support them.
We need improvements and the SL chairmen are far better able to put business plans together than those who have been atttempting it over the past years.
I support IL and his colleagues and wish them well.

I notice the play off reccomendation put forward is 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 with the winners through to the final, so still not much incentive to finish higher than 4th. I'd have gone:

Week 1 - Qualifiers
A - 1 v 2
B - 3 v 4

Week 2 - Final Eliminator
C - Loser A v Winner B

Week 3 - Final
D - Winner A v Winner C

Still prefer top three.
League leader to the GF.
Teams 2 & 3 play off for the other GF place.

It's all back for discussion now as IL and his mates say they want to remain with 14 SL clubs and have P & R from and including 2014.
If P & R is re-introduced from 2014 will the play offs change too?

I was told previously in this thread the 12 SL clubs would get £1.3m and this was the proposal on the table. So unless you know different my point on this stands.



You don't see any irony in saying this given the abject failure to secure any sponsor at all?

Even if we did the reality you think of with clubs getting different amounts of cash is, for all the reasons we have been discussing not a realistic one in my opinion.

Fair enough.

I have been preaching the same thing for years though regardless of what formats we have had. As soon as the game went pro it was obvious to me what that meant which was basically if you want pro players you have to pay them the going rate.

The going rate is going up not down, recession or not.

That is the crux of the matter and anyone who thinks it isn't or can be ignored (which is seemingly the RFL and the championship sides posission) is living in cloud cuckoo land.

As said Dave, we are not just talking about SL, again I will say it's the whole game that is being considered and people will have to decide if it is Super League or Rugby League.

The Watkins report, Brian Barwick and many others associated with the game have said the best option would be a solution for the whole of the game.

If you think these people are in cloud cuckoo land well that's your right to opinion, I don't think they are in the context of what was being disscussed and the options available.

The Championship clubs have gone along with all the proposals in the past to their detriment and are going along with this because there are no other options for them, they did not carry out the review or come up with the proposals.

It's only some of those currently in SL that now oppose it because of just looking at what they see as good for themselves in the short term and in that sense they are completely biased.

There are only limited options.

Stay the same.
14 clubs with one up one down as per Mr IL.
SL breaks away and stands alone.
Try the new proposals.

Whenever there is any mention of the new option lately the only thing that happens is to blame the RFL for everything and say it won't work because of this that or the other.

Anyone can wait for someone else to say something and pick holes in it real or speculative but they never come up with anything new to replace it or to a whole game solution apart from what is good for them at this point in time.

The going rate is going up because of the threat posed by the NRL and Union when they as the bigger fish take some of the SL clubs players and to use your terminology if you think there will ever enough money to stop that happening welcome to cuckoo land, it's okay when the SL clubs picks of the better players from the lower clubs from within their own game, they never give it a seconds thought and think they have a right to do so.

The Championship clubs have to deal with it being lower on the food chain, maybe SL clubs will have to do the same and realize that in this country and compared with the NRL they are sporting minnows.

I might have rose coloured glasses but they are not just red and white or whatever the colours of your club and chairmen are looking through right or wrong.

Or it might be that when i look at a rose I try and see the flower and not the thorns sticking on the side.

the attitude of the RFL seems to be we can fix the championship clubs by offering them more money but history has shown it doesn't fix the under lying problems. majority of the clubs that would replace the lower super league clubs wouldn't benefit super league at all, and i think thats the attitude of the majority super league clubs.

Yesterday the the RFL released their Policy Review Document which has been the cause of so much controversy and led to the postponement of the EGM, rightfully in my opinion so that any debate would not overshadow the impending World Cup Tournament.

In my opinion I think it's a lack of confidence in the governing body (Nigel Wood et al) no Superlague sponsor for two years along with lack of leadership and direction.
Even with a live salary cap clubs like Bradford and Crusaders have been allowed to get into financial difficulties.

It's not been made clear what Ian Lenegan's alternative proposals are but from what I believe the revolting clubs are proposing the following changes to Superleague:-

Superleague to continue with 14 clubs as at present (27 games per season).
Promotion and relegation of one club from the championship from next season.
Return to the top 5 playoff.
Superleague league winners to go straight into Grand Final as fitting reward for the achievement.
A change to Superleague voting rights and redistribution of SKY TV monies.
To give Superleague a better marketing strategy and enhanced profile.
To enhance central revenues e.g. High profile sponsorship deals for Superleague.
Reduced RFL central costs and wastage.
To determine a clear focus on Superleague priorities.

If anyone has any further information to add and share it would help clarify this major issue that has split rugby league down the middle.