Login
Register
Just received this, in reply to e-mail I sent questioning licencing and governance, these answers the Parliamentary Rugby League Group received from the RFL:
Going to much effort to save the "mighty" Bulls eh? And their plight and Crusaders doesnt discredit the licencing system - no, just the underhand way it is implemented.
What do we think?
Question 1:
The Licensing process was introduced in order to ensure that standards improved across the competition and that as a result the sport became more attractive to players, spectators, viewers and commercial partners alike. It is a balanced score-card system whereby clubs are assessed across five criteria (Commercial/Community/Marketing/Media, Facilities, Finance, Governance/Business Management and Playing Strength). This balanced scorecard means that all clubs are graded across each criteria, with each of the criteria carrying equal weight.
Within the Licensing period the competition has benefitted from several new stadia and an annual incremental increase in Home Grown talent entering the Super League. Over the licence period the Super League attendances have in general increased and television audiences have also significantly continued to grow. These two elements being recently re-emphasised by:
i. The like-for like average audience for Stobart Super League matches broadcast live on Sky Sports is 52 per cent higher than it was in 2011.
ii. The aggregate crowd of 88,425 for Round 10, which was the second biggest total for any round in Super League history
Despite the Licensing process being a framework in which the clubs can operate with the objective of continual improvement across their businesses, it is not , and never was , a”cure-all” and all the clubs ( as in other sports ) are obviously subject to other factors. The recent financial difficulties of the Bulls does not discredit the licence system. However as promised upon the introduction of the Licensing system, the RFL is currently reviewing its impact with a report to be provided to the RFL Council meeting in July.
Question 2:
The RFL would be really encourage the group to investigate the Licensing process further and Blake Solly and myself would be more than happy to come down to talk to the group on this issue and recount our experiences of the Licensing process to date. We could answer any questions on the history of its introduction, the aims and objectives of Licensing and also give our thoughts on where its direction of travel may lay in the future as the RFL review continues.
Question 3:
It is worth clarifying that all of the 14 independent businesses that exist within Super League do run autonomously and their Directors make their own business decisions. With this in mind, the current Board of Directors decided that their most appropriate course of action was to support the “Bulls Pledge”, which so far has generated over £0.5m and has ensured that the club does have some short term breathing space. This breathing space has in turn brought in a mix of potential investors in the club that have not only being encouraged by the prospect of some of the financial burden being alleviated, but also galvanised to some extent by the very public show of support from the community for the Bradford Bulls. As such, conversations are currently taking place with these potential investors, and it is hoped these may ensure that the club is taken forward as a going concern. Clearly, this is the most preferable route and one for which the current Board have endeavoured to strive. The period between now and the early part of May will determine how successful those discussions have been. Specifically, the pledge monies that have been collected have been used to meet HMRC liabilities, the April staff payroll and ensure that the RBS bank overdraft has been reduced to nil.
Question 4:
The RFL Executive certainly lead on Governing Body issues within the game, however issues of governance and administration of the sport are subject to rigorous debate and discussion at Super League, Championship and Community Board meetings (as these stakeholders are the Rugby Football League’s membership). The RFL administration therefore sets the agenda, and this agenda is the scrutinised and discussed by the RFL’s member clubs and playing leagues. The formation of policy is often a joint effort between the RFL Executive and Super League or Championship clubs and the Community Board. Again Blake Solly and I would be happy to meet with the group to clarify the current governance structure and relationship between the RFL and its member clubs/leagues.
With Richard Lewis’s recent departure, the current RFL Board has stated that it will conduct a governance and structural review. This process, led by Maurice Watkins, has already begun. The Non-Executive Directors have agreed to meet with each of the Super League club Chairmen, representatives of the Championships and Community Game, as well as the current RFL Executives, in an effort to independently ascertain the opinions of key stakeholders. The NEDs will then use the conclusions from this consultation in order to ensure that the RFL’s system of governance and structure is reviewed, and where appropriate, amended.
The Licensing process was introduced in order to ensure that standards improved across the competition and that as a result the sport became more attractive to players, spectators, viewers and commercial partners alike. It is a balanced score-card system whereby clubs are assessed across five criteria (Commercial/Community/Marketing/Media, Facilities, Finance, Governance/Business Management and Playing Strength). This balanced scorecard means that all clubs are graded across each criteria, with each of the criteria carrying equal weight.
Within the Licensing period the competition has benefitted from several new stadia and an annual incremental increase in Home Grown talent entering the Super League. Over the licence period the Super League attendances have in general increased and television audiences have also significantly continued to grow. These two elements being recently re-emphasised by:
i. The like-for like average audience for Stobart Super League matches broadcast live on Sky Sports is 52 per cent higher than it was in 2011.
ii. The aggregate crowd of 88,425 for Round 10, which was the second biggest total for any round in Super League history
Despite the Licensing process being a framework in which the clubs can operate with the objective of continual improvement across their businesses, it is not , and never was , a”cure-all” and all the clubs ( as in other sports ) are obviously subject to other factors. The recent financial difficulties of the Bulls does not discredit the licence system. However as promised upon the introduction of the Licensing system, the RFL is currently reviewing its impact with a report to be provided to the RFL Council meeting in July.
Question 2:
The RFL would be really encourage the group to investigate the Licensing process further and Blake Solly and myself would be more than happy to come down to talk to the group on this issue and recount our experiences of the Licensing process to date. We could answer any questions on the history of its introduction, the aims and objectives of Licensing and also give our thoughts on where its direction of travel may lay in the future as the RFL review continues.
Question 3:
It is worth clarifying that all of the 14 independent businesses that exist within Super League do run autonomously and their Directors make their own business decisions. With this in mind, the current Board of Directors decided that their most appropriate course of action was to support the “Bulls Pledge”, which so far has generated over £0.5m and has ensured that the club does have some short term breathing space. This breathing space has in turn brought in a mix of potential investors in the club that have not only being encouraged by the prospect of some of the financial burden being alleviated, but also galvanised to some extent by the very public show of support from the community for the Bradford Bulls. As such, conversations are currently taking place with these potential investors, and it is hoped these may ensure that the club is taken forward as a going concern. Clearly, this is the most preferable route and one for which the current Board have endeavoured to strive. The period between now and the early part of May will determine how successful those discussions have been. Specifically, the pledge monies that have been collected have been used to meet HMRC liabilities, the April staff payroll and ensure that the RBS bank overdraft has been reduced to nil.
Question 4:
The RFL Executive certainly lead on Governing Body issues within the game, however issues of governance and administration of the sport are subject to rigorous debate and discussion at Super League, Championship and Community Board meetings (as these stakeholders are the Rugby Football League’s membership). The RFL administration therefore sets the agenda, and this agenda is the scrutinised and discussed by the RFL’s member clubs and playing leagues. The formation of policy is often a joint effort between the RFL Executive and Super League or Championship clubs and the Community Board. Again Blake Solly and I would be happy to meet with the group to clarify the current governance structure and relationship between the RFL and its member clubs/leagues.
With Richard Lewis’s recent departure, the current RFL Board has stated that it will conduct a governance and structural review. This process, led by Maurice Watkins, has already begun. The Non-Executive Directors have agreed to meet with each of the Super League club Chairmen, representatives of the Championships and Community Game, as well as the current RFL Executives, in an effort to independently ascertain the opinions of key stakeholders. The NEDs will then use the conclusions from this consultation in order to ensure that the RFL’s system of governance and structure is reviewed, and where appropriate, amended.
Going to much effort to save the "mighty" Bulls eh? And their plight and Crusaders doesnt discredit the licencing system - no, just the underhand way it is implemented.
What do we think?
