Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Championship licensing


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,173 posts

Posted 17 July 2010 - 09:54 PM

QUOTE (james cunny @ Jul 17 2010, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why what have Hunslet done to deserve such treatment may i ask.

They're far too poorly supported to be financially viable at that level

#22 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 17 July 2010 - 09:55 PM

QUOTE (bowes @ Jul 17 2010, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
1-up-1-down with strict minimum criteria to keep the likes of Hunslet and Blackpool out of the Championship might work, but I'd rather they go for 14-16 team franchised with a national league structure below


There is no where near 14 teams ready let alone 16.

#23 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,173 posts

Posted 17 July 2010 - 09:59 PM

QUOTE (Bulletproof @ Jul 17 2010, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There is no where near 14 teams ready let alone 16.

There would be if they could have time to strengthen as a club, the likes of York and Dewsbury aren't given enough time. The current set up is designed to destroy clubs as much as possible and P & R only went to 2 teams so Crusaders could get promoted more easily anyway (some would also say for Sheffield but they didn't change it back afterwards).

A lot depends on how high you set the bar and what you do with the excluded clubs. Remember Widnes will be in SL by the time this is introduced and the other clubs won't be SL ready for a long time. Also you would probably see an Aude club (either together or an individual club from there) in as a 2nd French team, but maybe fewer teams and have it British only.

Edited by bowes, 17 July 2010 - 10:01 PM.


#24 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,369 posts

Posted 17 July 2010 - 10:36 PM

QUOTE (bowes @ Jul 17 2010, 10:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There would be if they could have time to strengthen as a club, the likes of York and Dewsbury aren't given enough time. The current set up is designed to destroy clubs as much as possible and P & R only went to 2 teams so Crusaders could get promoted more easily anyway (some would also say for Sheffield but they didn't change it back afterwards).


You're losing the plot Bowes. The play-off game between the 9th NL1 team and the NL2 runners up wasn't working and with different salary caps in the 2 divisions was blatantly unfair. It had to go, regardless of who may or may not have benefitted.
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2015 - the hard work starts now

#25 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,173 posts

Posted 17 July 2010 - 10:47 PM

QUOTE (tim2 @ Jul 17 2010, 11:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You're losing the plot Bowes. The play-off game between the 9th NL1 team and the NL2 runners up wasn't working and with different salary caps in the 2 divisions was blatantly unfair. It had to go, regardless of who may or may not have benefitted.

Yes but 2-up-2-down is an unmitigated disaster. Should have changed to 1-up-1-down if anything. The playoff was often relatively close (Halifax-York and Batley-Dewsbury come to mind). It didn't change til the exact year Crusaders joined anyway

Edited by bowes, 17 July 2010 - 10:48 PM.


#26 suzzy

suzzy
  • Coach
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 18 July 2010 - 07:54 AM

Being a relative outsider as far as Hunset are concerned i find Bowes comments in very poor taste, I wouldn't go as far as saying Sour Grapes but what little i have seen regarding the ambitions and running of the club the board have done everything in their power to get the club back to where it was a few years ago, the players are doing the business on the field and getting there wages paid promptly.The ground has very good facilities but for me lacks any atmosphere what so ever and would be the first thing i would change if it were possible.As far as the supporters go the ones that go are very very loyal and for me are being let down by the local media not giving the club enough support by promoting the club, and it seems they regard one club in the city as sufficient but I'm sure with a little effort from the likes of look North. Radio Leeds. and the Yorkshire and evening News the missing 500 or so that once frequented the club might be persuaded to return.
So Mr Bowes before trying to kill a club off which has a great past and like york is a Yorkshire side you should welcome their endeavours or would you prefer to see the French and Welsh take your place i for one would not but I've only been watching and playing rugby league in this great county for sixty years so what would i know.
chappy

#27 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,173 posts

Posted 18 July 2010 - 08:04 AM

QUOTE (suzzy @ Jul 18 2010, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Being a relative outsider as far as Hunset are concerned i find Bowes comments in very poor taste, I wouldn't go as far as saying Sour Grapes but what little i have seen regarding the ambitions and running of the club the board have done everything in their power to get the club back to where it was a few years ago, the players are doing the business on the field and getting there wages paid promptly.The ground has very good facilities but for me lacks any atmosphere what so ever and would be the first thing i would change if it were possible.As far as the supporters go the ones that go are very very loyal and for me are being let down by the local media not giving the club enough support by promoting the club, and it seems they regard one club in the city as sufficient but I'm sure with a little effort from the likes of look North. Radio Leeds. and the Yorkshire and evening News the missing 500 or so that once frequented the club might be persuaded to return.
So Mr Bowes before trying to kill a club off which has a great past and like york is a Yorkshire side you should welcome their endeavours or would you prefer to see the French and Welsh take your place i for one would not but I've only been watching and playing rugby league in this great county for sixty years so what would i know.

I'm not a York supporter, though thought the way they were shafted when they'd made lots of improvements by having the rules changed on them was very damaging.

The thing is every year we see clubs going into administration on promotion and it really isn't in Hunslet's best interests to be the next one, whicht eh 2-up-2-down will certainly cause. The Hunslet chairman as good as said if the crowds don't go up with the better team then that's it, whereas to me rather than one damaging season in the Championship it's better to work towards a more sustainable set up at the appropriate level for the support of clubs.

French sides in the Championship wasn't the best idea, but if they're additional to English sides it's not so bad, South Wales can probably support a Championship side at some point, just not SL. The game is due a restructuring soon and which division the likes of Hunslet and York go in depends on how big the Championship is intended to be, but would expect the likes of Skolars, Gateshead, Doncaster etc to be in a National 1 with the best of the NCL.

#28 suzzy

suzzy
  • Coach
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 18 July 2010 - 08:31 AM

QUOTE (bowes @ Jul 18 2010, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not a York supporter, though thought the way they were shafted when they'd made lots of improvements by having the rules changed on them was very damaging.

The thing is every year we see clubs going into administration on promotion and it really isn't in Hunslet's best interests to be the next one, whicht eh 2-up-2-down will certainly cause. The Hunslet chairman as good as said if the crowds don't go up with the better team then that's it, whereas to me rather than one damaging season in the Championship it's better to work towards a more sustainable set up at the appropriate level for the support of clubs.

French sides in the Championship wasn't the best idea, but if they're additional to English sides it's not so bad, South Wales can probably support a Championship side at some point, just not SL. The game is due a restructuring soon and which division the likes of Hunslet and York go in depends on how big the Championship is intended to be, but would expect the likes of Skolars, Gateshead, Doncaster etc to be in a National 1 with the best of the NCL.

you have to speculate to accumulate and that's what the Hunslet board are trying to do and i really wish them well.My old club Featherstone are a shining example of what can be done from a lot of endeavour and a little good fortune and long may these clubs who are steeped in rugby league history be allowed to continue with more help from the rfl and sky tv the championship could be a success in its own right.
chappy

#29 SPARTACUS

SPARTACUS
  • Coach
  • 925 posts

Posted 18 July 2010 - 07:01 PM

Whatever happened to promotion and relegation being settled by points won and lost on the pitch ? If promotion is to be denied to certain clubs as Bowes suggests, we may as well scrap the whole points system for good, and play the fixtures in an office at Red Hall !! Were almost at that point now anyway.
May the FORCE be with you.
Top Bombing - Ave it son.
ITS SPITTIN !!
Its not bloody TIDDLEYWINKS ya know !!

#30 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,173 posts

Posted 18 July 2010 - 09:49 PM

QUOTE (SPARTACUS @ Jul 18 2010, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Whatever happened to promotion and relegation being settled by points won and lost on the pitch ? If promotion is to be denied to certain clubs as Bowes suggests, we may as well scrap the whole points system for good, and play the fixtures in an office at Red Hall !! Were almost at that point now anyway.

Because of the salary cap difference relegation is already decided before a ball is kicked that it will be the promoted sides, unless as in this season a side hits financial troubles. If it weren't for Whitehaven's financial problems Dewsbury would be going back down after their 100% record in C1 last year, to be replaced with a worse side that will go back down in worse financial state. Who does that benefit?

#31 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,036 posts

Posted 18 July 2010 - 10:50 PM

QUOTE (SPARTACUS @ Jul 18 2010, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Whatever happened to promotion and relegation being settled by points won and lost on the pitch ? If promotion is to be denied to certain clubs as Bowes suggests, we may as well scrap the whole points system for good, and play the fixtures in an office at Red Hall !! Were almost at that point now anyway.

Why do people go over the top? Teams in a competition can be picked in many ways. They don't have to be picked on the basis that they finished in a certain position in another competition.
Posted Image

#32 suzzy

suzzy
  • Coach
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 06:29 AM

QUOTE (bowes @ Jul 18 2010, 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Because of the salary cap difference relegation is already decided before a ball is kicked that it will be the promoted sides, unless as in this season a side hits financial troubles. If it weren't for Whitehaven's financial problems Dewsbury would be going back down after their 100% record in C1 last year, to be replaced with a worse side that will go back down in worse financial state. Who does that benefit?

that is exactly why the RFL and sky should help the clubs who get promote perform on a level footing with the clubs already in that division as does the FA with the likes of Blackpool at least Blackpool are getting their stadium completed as well as team building and then they have a great season playing the likes of Man U Liverpool and Arsenal.Then if they do get relegated dont they get an umberella payment for it.
So why deny a club the honour of playing at a higher level and being helped to do so by the people elected to promote all rugby league at profesional level and not just the super duper league.
chappy

#33 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,369 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 07:34 AM

QUOTE (suzzy @ Jul 19 2010, 07:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
that is exactly why the RFL and sky should help the clubs who get promote perform on a level footing with the clubs already in that division as does the FA with the likes of Blackpool at least Blackpool are getting their stadium completed as well as team building and then they have a great season playing the likes of Man U Liverpool and Arsenal.Then if they do get relegated dont they get an umberella payment for it.
So why deny a club the honour of playing at a higher level and being helped to do so by the people elected to promote all rugby league at profesional level and not just the super duper league.


OK. The team going down into the Championship gets a massive "umbrella" payment, which means it doesn't start on an equal footing with the teams below. How is that fair?
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2015 - the hard work starts now

#34 Keith T

Keith T
  • Coach
  • 8,981 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 04:47 PM

QUOTE (bowes @ Jul 18 2010, 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Because of the salary cap difference relegation is already decided before a ball is kicked that it will be the promoted sides, unless as in this season a side hits financial troubles. If it weren't for Whitehaven's financial problems Dewsbury would be going back down after their 100% record in C1 last year, to be replaced with a worse side that will go back down in worse financial state. Who does that benefit?


But how did Haven's financial problems come about bowes? That wasn't through being promoted or relegated it was through a club trying to get to Grand Finals to get in to SL and failing twice. Bills were left unpaid in order that players wages got paid and the chickens have come home to roost.

The franchise or licence system does give the one club that might go up to SL a 3 year stability period but it also drives other clubs who are not successful in their applications in to financial problems. The system means that every 3 years clubs have to start again to earn ticks in boxes to be able to make another application so clubs like, say, Barrow, Halifax, Leigh, etc, if Widnes get promoted, need to pay top dollar for players if they are to attract the quality of players capable of achieving a grand final appearance or NR Cup win.

So, it isn't only clubs promoted and relegated that go in to, or get close to, administration it is nearly all those clubs who are chasing the dream through a system that has been created to protect 14 other clubs.

I remember when .............................

"It is impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Workington Town, the fall guys this season for the Super League's determination to retain it's European dimension, in the shape of Paris. While the French have had every assistance to survive, the importance of having a flagship in a heartland area like West Cumbria has been conveniently forgotten." - Dave Hadfield - Independent 25th August 1996.


#35 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,173 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 05:36 PM

QUOTE (Keith T @ Jul 19 2010, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But how did Haven's financial problems come about bowes? That wasn't through being promoted or relegated it was through a club trying to get to Grand Finals to get in to SL and failing twice. Bills were left unpaid in order that players wages got paid and the chickens have come home to roost.

The franchise or licence system does give the one club that might go up to SL a 3 year stability period but it also drives other clubs who are not successful in their applications in to financial problems. The system means that every 3 years clubs have to start again to earn ticks in boxes to be able to make another application so clubs like, say, Barrow, Halifax, Leigh, etc, if Widnes get promoted, need to pay top dollar for players if they are to attract the quality of players capable of achieving a grand final appearance or NR Cup win.

So, it isn't only clubs promoted and relegated that go in to, or get close to, administration it is nearly all those clubs who are chasing the dream through a system that has been created to protect 14 other clubs.

Whitehaven got problems chasing promotion when it was there I'll agree, not sure how it weakens my argument of the damages of P & R though.

I'd have flexible numbers of teams in the Championship so any club meeting a certain standard could enter (but obviously not the Blackpools, Gatesheads, Skolars etc. at least as those clubs are)

#36 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,575 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 05:47 PM

Im a confirmed P&R fan and I think licenses/franchising has failed to do it's job and should be scrapped.

However, I do feel minimum standards should be in place at all levels.

What would the minimum standards be for Championship sides.

For mine, you'd want:

5,000 capacity grounds with 2,000 seats

1,000 av. crowds

Corporate & Tv facilities.

Reserve and junior teams (or junior partnerships with local amateur teams)

Turnover figure (600K?)

A CEO, marketing manager, development officers.



I reckon there's a good dozen teams who could get that now, and with a bit of work, you could get a viable 16 team comp.

Do the same with reduced numbers for Championship 1 rebranded The Conference (including top NCL and RLC teams) and you're sorted.





#37 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,173 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 05:52 PM

QUOTE (marklaspalmas @ Jul 19 2010, 06:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Im a confirmed P&R fan and I think licenses/franchising has failed to do it's job and should be scrapped.

However, I do feel minimum standards should be in place at all levels.

What would the minimum standards be for Championship sides.

For mine, you'd want:

5,000 capacity grounds with 2,000 seats

1,000 av. crowds

Corporate & Tv facilities.

Reserve and junior teams (or junior partnerships with local amateur teams)

Turnover figure (600K?)

A CEO, marketing manager, development officers.



I reckon there's a good dozen teams who could get that now, and with a bit of work, you could get a viable 16 team comp.

You'd have to take into account C1 clubs having lower crowds, but yes something along those lines, though turnover may need reducing.

QUOTE (marklaspalmas @ Jul 19 2010, 06:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Do the same with reduced numbers for Championship 1 rebranded The Conference (including top NCL and RLC teams) and you're sorted.

I'd call it National 1, but same sort of lines. Believe the aim is 2 National divisions below the Championship then it splits West, East and South. But the South part of that needs working towards

#38 Keith T

Keith T
  • Coach
  • 8,981 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 09:13 PM

QUOTE (bowes @ Jul 19 2010, 06:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Whitehaven got problems chasing promotion when it was there I'll agree, not sure how it weakens my argument of the damages of P & R though.

I'd have flexible numbers of teams in the Championship so any club meeting a certain standard could enter (but obviously not the Blackpools, Gatesheads, Skolars etc. at least as those clubs are)


With licensing being by way of ticking boxes over a 3 year period it means that clubs are spending probably more than they should chasing getting to a grand final or winning the NR Cup in that next 3 year period. That is different to a club chasing promotion over the length of 1 season. At the end of the 3 year period any ticks that may have been achieved on the playing field are cancelled for the next licensing period and so the 3 year race starts again.

A few years ago Barrow's achievement last season alone would have got them in to SL but all it has achieved now is a tick in a box. If Barrow are not the chosen "one" after keeping the playing staff at the top end of the salary cap scale over this past 3 years then they have to then make a decision as to whether they can do it again for another 3 years but with no guarantee that the result will be any different. It is the same for all the other clubs at the top end of the Championship. If that system were to be introduced between the Championship and Championship 1 then it would definitely kill off the game at the lower level and maybe that is what many would like to see.

I remember when .............................

"It is impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Workington Town, the fall guys this season for the Super League's determination to retain it's European dimension, in the shape of Paris. While the French have had every assistance to survive, the importance of having a flagship in a heartland area like West Cumbria has been conveniently forgotten." - Dave Hadfield - Independent 25th August 1996.


#39 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,173 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 10:00 PM

QUOTE (Keith T @ Jul 19 2010, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
With licensing being by way of ticking boxes over a 3 year period it means that clubs are spending probably more than they should chasing getting to a grand final or winning the NR Cup in that next 3 year period. That is different to a club chasing promotion over the length of 1 season. At the end of the 3 year period any ticks that may have been achieved on the playing field are cancelled for the next licensing period and so the 3 year race starts again.

A few years ago Barrow's achievement last season alone would have got them in to SL but all it has achieved now is a tick in a box. If Barrow are not the chosen "one" after keeping the playing staff at the top end of the salary cap scale over this past 3 years then they have to then make a decision as to whether they can do it again for another 3 years but with no guarantee that the result will be any different. It is the same for all the other clubs at the top end of the Championship. If that system were to be introduced between the Championship and Championship 1 then it would definitely kill off the game at the lower level and maybe that is what many would like to see.

It needn't be the same setup, but I don't see how sides going into administration on promotion every year is doing anyone any favours. Should be one bigger division open to all sides meeting criteria, not the lets put 2 or 3 clubs into administration a year setup

Barrow would never have gone up, they'd fail ground criteria.

#40 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,829 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:19 AM

QUOTE (bowes @ Jul 19 2010, 11:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It needn't be the same setup, but I don't see how sides going into administration on promotion every year is doing anyone any favours. Should be one bigger division open to all sides meeting criteria, not the lets put 2 or 3 clubs into administration a year setup

Barrow would never have gone up, they'd fail ground criteria.


On what basis? Their ground looks better than Wakey's for a start, and has more cover




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users