No Sky money for new SL clubs

No Sky money for new SL clubs

Post by Tyrone Slothro » Wed, 24 Jun 1998 04:00:00


According to Maurice Lindsay, there may be no Sky money for the new SL
clubs.

Is this

1/ Yet another reason why the sport needs to be rid of him as soon as
possible.
2/ A sign that the current clubs are in dire financial straits.
3/ A clever move to make sure at least some clubs are sound without Sky
money.

Or none of these?

As I've said on this NG before, I think the Sky deal should show enough
imagination to provide extra funding for current clubs as a reward for each
new franchise in a new area. There would be a penalty payable if the new
club folded or moved to an old area during the terms of the deal.

John

 
 
 

No Sky money for new SL clubs

Post by Hilary Spurlin » Wed, 24 Jun 1998 04:00:00



Quote:
> According to Maurice Lindsay, there may be no Sky money for the new SL
> clubs.

I'm not too sure whether its just the clubs being determined to keep as
much of the SKY money as possible ........ Rumour has it that we didn't get
a club in south wales
in SL1 because the clubs wouldn't take a cut in the money from SKY.

Huddersfield had to come into SL3 with no where near as much SKY cash as
everyone else ...... so of course look what happens....... they struggle.

Maurice seems to be making the argument that if  you want to come into SL
then you have to pay much of your own way for the first year ........ he
characterises this as a club showing commitment by investing money .......
a fairly reasonable argument ..... and as 'Development Clubs'  the new boys
should get lots of breaks

But we have to balance those advantages against rewarding the enterprise
shown by these consortiums in setting the clubs up in the first place.

Maybe Maurice still has nightmares about Paris .... the shame is that RL
seems to need to suffer a Dunkirk in order to learn anything ......

Vince Morgan

 
 
 

No Sky money for new SL clubs

Post by Phil Arundel » Wed, 24 Jun 1998 04:00:00

I've been heard to say on more than one occasion that I don't think
franchises should be part of SL, but, accepting that it is inevitably going
to happen, I find my self wondering just what SL are playing at. They tell
us that franchises are the way forward, and then pull a stunt like this. My
argument against franchises was that they would have difficulty establishing
themselves in new areas - this task could be next to impossible without the
Sky money that the other clubs receive. Before anyone comments ;-), I
am -not- pleased by this move - as I said above, I have accepted that
franchises are inevitable, and I think that if they are going to happen,
then SLE should make damned sure they are successful - otherwise the
credibility of RL in general just takes a nosedive.
Of course, it could just be Lindsay opening his mouth before his brain is in
gear...... (Why can't he go and introduce RL to Siberia?)

Quote:

>According to Maurice Lindsay, there may be no Sky money for the new SL
>clubs.

>Is this

>1/ Yet another reason why the sport needs to be rid of him as soon as
>possible.
>2/ A sign that the current clubs are in dire financial straits.
>3/ A clever move to make sure at least some clubs are sound without Sky
>money.

>Or none of these?

>As I've said on this NG before, I think the Sky deal should show enough
>imagination to provide extra funding for current clubs as a reward for each
>new franchise in a new area. There would be a penalty payable if the new
>club folded or moved to an old area during the terms of the deal.

>John


 
 
 

No Sky money for new SL clubs

Post by Tyrone Slothro » Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:00:00

I'm mystified about PSG. I wonder if anyone knows the real story, because we
only have Mo's version - after all, he was in charge when it went under.

John

Quote:

>Maybe Maurice still has nightmares about Paris .... the shame is that RL
>seems to need to suffer a Dunkirk in order to learn anything ......

>Vince Morgan

 
 
 

No Sky money for new SL clubs

Post by WiganRLf » Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:00:00

On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:35:42 +0100, "Tyrone Slothrop"

Quote:

>According to Maurice Lindsay, there may be no Sky money for the new SL
>clubs.

>Is this

>1/ Yet another reason why the sport needs to be rid of him as soon as
>possible.
>2/ A sign that the current clubs are in dire financial straits.
>3/ A clever move to make sure at least some clubs are sound without Sky
>money.

>Or none of these?

Officially, none of these.

New clubs may be going into SL but they are actually joining the RFL and for
some reason new clubs in the RFL only have "associate" status for three years.

The rules say associate clubs do not qualify for funds from the RFL.  

Currently the Sky money is "distributed" by the RFL so that explains why they
won't get any cash. Its not down to SLE and so Lindsay is not to blame.

However when (not if) the SLE clubs get to control their Sky income (reported
to be 44 million with a 10.8 million payoff for FASDA) then it will be up to
the SLE clubs to decide if they want to assist the new clubs by taking less of
a cut.

If they do not assist them, then it really is time to have a go at SLE and
Lindsay or maybe more accurately the existing clubs directors who will be the
ones able to vote.

IMO, Sky should give the existing 12 clubs 44 million and each time a new club
is admitted add another 3.6 million to the pot - after all they would expect to
sell more dishes in the new areas - so they should pay up.

Dave
--
Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

(remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

 
 
 

No Sky money for new SL clubs

Post by Ian McNei » Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:00:00

As a life long development area resident I feel that the RL need to stop putting
down seeds and start growing something. The strategy is simple. The bed rock is
the amateur game. The RL should identify 10 key areas & establish the following
structure:
- National Conference side
- Academy side
- U16s English schools side (supported by a local schools network)
- U13s English schools side
- U11s English schools side
Each club would have a development officer attached.  This would provide a very
strong network of amateur clubs playing at a level just below the second
division. It would raise the national profile of RL which would be supplemented
by playing games on the road in  the target areas to further strengthen the
case. Areas I would suggest:

- London *2
- Leicester
- Birmingham
- Coventry
- Nottingham
- Lincoln
- Norwich
- Ipswich
- Glasgow
- Cardiff
- Edinburgh
- Swansea
- Newcastle
- Middlesborough
- Sunderland
- Bristol / Bath

The above would build a national profile similar to the growth of SRL (TV,
internationals etc.). It would also test the ground for future franchises which
could actually build on something tangible. The cost could be minimal 25,000
from central funding & the rest from local sources.  The above is what we are
trying to create at the London Skolars.

Let me know what you think
Hector

.

Quote:

> I've been heard to say on more than one occasion that I don't think
> franchises should be part of SL, but, accepting that it is inevitably going
> to happen, I find my self wondering just what SL are playing at. They tell
> us that franchises are the way forward, and then pull a stunt like this. My
> argument against franchises was that they would have difficulty establishing
> themselves in new areas - this task could be next to impossible without the
> Sky money that the other clubs receive. Before anyone comments ;-), I
> am -not- pleased by this move - as I said above, I have accepted that
> franchises are inevitable, and I think that if they are going to happen,
> then SLE should make damned sure they are successful - otherwise the
> credibility of RL in general just takes a nosedive.
> Of course, it could just be Lindsay opening his mouth before his brain is in
> gear...... (Why can't he go and introduce RL to Siberia?)


> >According to Maurice Lindsay, there may be no Sky money for the new SL
> >clubs.

> >Is this

> >1/ Yet another reason why the sport needs to be rid of him as soon as
> >possible.
> >2/ A sign that the current clubs are in dire financial straits.
> >3/ A clever move to make sure at least some clubs are sound without Sky
> >money.

> >Or none of these?

> >As I've said on this NG before, I think the Sky deal should show enough
> >imagination to provide extra funding for current clubs as a reward for each
> >new franchise in a new area. There would be a penalty payable if the new
> >club folded or moved to an old area during the terms of the deal.

> >John

 
 
 

No Sky money for new SL clubs

Post by Tyrone Slothro » Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Officially, none of these.

>New clubs may be going into SL but they are actually joining the RFL and
for
>some reason new clubs in the RFL only have "associate" status for three
years.
>The rules say associate clubs do not qualify for funds from the RFL.

This looks like a recipe for discord, and a situation that now new SL club
could surely countenance.

Quote:
>Currently the Sky money is "distributed" by the RFL so that explains why
they
>won't get any cash. Its not down to SLE and so Lindsay is not to blame.

I didn't realise that, but the deal was done by Mo at the RFL so of course
it's the case. I wonder how loudly  SLE has been arguing for help for the
new clubs?

Quote:
>However when (not if) the SLE clubs get to control their Sky income
(reported
>to be 44 million with a 10.8 million payoff for FASDA) then it will be up
to
>the SLE clubs to decide if they want to assist the new clubs by taking less
of
>a cut.

No-one's going to vote for a cut.

Quote:
>If they do not assist them, then it really is time to have a go at SLE and
>Lindsay or maybe more accurately the existing clubs directors who will be
the
>ones able to vote.

Correct. Because as you rightly argue . . .

Quote:
>IMO, Sky should give the existing 12 clubs 44 million and each time a new
club
>is admitted add another 3.6 million to the pot - after all they would
expect to
>sell more dishes in the new areas - so they should pay up.

Yes. This is exactly what's needed.

John

 
 
 

No Sky money for new SL clubs

Post by stev » Fri, 10 Jul 1998 04:00:00


writes

Quote:
>As a life long development area resident I feel that the RL need to stop putting
>down seeds and start growing something. The strategy is simple. The bed rock is
>the amateur game. The RL should identify 10 key areas & establish the following
>structure:
>- National Conference side
>- Academy side
>- U16s English schools side (supported by a local schools network)
>- U13s English schools side
>- U11s English schools side
>Each club would have a development officer attached.  This would provide a very
>strong network of amateur clubs playing at a level just below the second
>division. It would raise the national profile of RL which would be supplemented
>by playing games on the road in  the target areas to further strengthen the
>case. Areas I would suggest:

>- London *2
>- Leicester
>- Birmingham
>- Coventry
>- Nottingham
>- Lincoln
>- Norwich
>- Ipswich
>- Glasgow
>- Cardiff
>- Edinburgh
>- Swansea
>- Newcastle
>- Middlesborough
>- Sunderland
>- Bristol / Bath

We could go on all day but I think that Dublin and
Portsmouth/Southampton are fertile areas for RL development.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>The above would build a national profile similar to the growth of SRL (TV,
>internationals etc.). It would also test the ground for future franchises which
>could actually build on something tangible. The cost could be minimal 25,000
>from central funding & the rest from local sources.  The above is what we are
>trying to create at the London Skolars.

>Let me know what you think
>Hector

>.


>> I've been heard to say on more than one occasion that I don't think
>> franchises should be part of SL, but, accepting that it is inevitably going
>> to happen, I find my self wondering just what SL are playing at. They tell
>> us that franchises are the way forward, and then pull a stunt like this. My
>> argument against franchises was that they would have difficulty establishing
>> themselves in new areas - this task could be next to impossible without the
>> Sky money that the other clubs receive. Before anyone comments ;-), I
>> am -not- pleased by this move - as I said above, I have accepted that
>> franchises are inevitable, and I think that if they are going to happen,
>> then SLE should make damned sure they are successful - otherwise the
>> credibility of RL in general just takes a nosedive.
>> Of course, it could just be Lindsay opening his mouth before his brain is in
>> gear...... (Why can't he go and introduce RL to Siberia?)


>> >According to Maurice Lindsay, there may be no Sky money for the new SL
>> >clubs.

>> >Is this

>> >1/ Yet another reason why the sport needs to be rid of him as soon as
>> >possible.
>> >2/ A sign that the current clubs are in dire financial straits.
>> >3/ A clever move to make sure at least some clubs are sound without Sky
>> >money.

>> >Or none of these?

>> >As I've said on this NG before, I think the Sky deal should show enough
>> >imagination to provide extra funding for current clubs as a reward for each
>> >new franchise in a new area. There would be a penalty payable if the new
>> >club folded or moved to an old area during the terms of the deal.

>> >John

--
steve