89 replies to this topic

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Hull, HKR, Huddersfield, Castleford, Wakefield.........

They all seem to have coped with the effects of P&R fairly well.

aye, cas and wakefield are well set up

[l'angelo mysterioso]

What did for Workington (and Oldham to an extent) was dropping down and still having SL contract obligations without any SL income.

and that in a nutshell is a major argument against P & R
and was also the case pre SL and what did for the 'yo yo' clubs. Would you say workington fell into that category pre SL?

[goldcard]

I seem to recall a team going into admin as soon as they lost a GF and therefore failing to be promoted.

Let's look where P&R does still apply.
I'll mention Gateshead, Keighley, Doncaster and Blackpool for starters.

[Padge]

Sorry but I don't agree with that nowadays.

It may have been true in the past but these days clubs are given automatic indemnity from their biggest financial liability in that when/if they go out of SL the players contracts become null and void.

What did for Workington (and Oldham to an extent) was dropping down and still having SL contract obligations without any SL income. Town's biggest creditors were the pool of players who's contracts they couldn't pay. Some of them had 2-3 years left on their contracts on SL-sized wages, the club simply didn't have the income to pay them after losing it's SL status. That risk has been removed from clubs these days.

It isn't the drop the causes the financial problem its the debt incurred to gain promotion and then to try and avoid relegation, usually that debt is beyond the means of the club. Demotion then makes the debt completely unservicable for a club with poor support to start with and then is reduced further when they drop.

Relegation doesn't damage clubs buying promotion followed by trying to buy survival does when clubs cannot afford it.

On Radio Manchester on thursday Chris Hamilton chairman of Oldham was talking about teams being promoted and was asked about a Yorkshire club who it was suggested would be promoted from Championship 1 to the Championship but it was pointed out had very poor crowds compared to other clubs. His reply showed how stupid some people within the game think. His reply was that, they think they'll be alright because they will get a lot more away supporters. That is no way to run a professional rugby club.

[Derwent]

It isn't the drop the causes the financial problem its the debt incurred to gain promotion and then to try and avoid relegation, usually that debt is beyond the means of the club. Demotion then makes the debt completely unservicable for a club with poor support to start with and then is reduced further when they drop.

Relegation doesn't damage clubs buying promotion followed by trying to buy survival does when clubs cannot afford it.

On Radio Manchester on thursday Chris Hamilton chairman of Oldham was talking about teams being promoted and was asked about a Yorkshire club who it was suggested would be promoted from Championship 1 to the Championship but it was pointed out had very poor crowds compared to other clubs. His reply showed how stupid some people within the game think. His reply was that, they think they'll be alright because they will get a lot more away supporters. That is no way to run a professional rugby club.

Maybe so, I'm not sure I wholly agree, but do you not think some Championship clubs are not building up the same debts in the pursuit of box ticking instead ?

Do you not think some current SL clubs are building up piles of debt just to stand still and remain in SL ?

There are some current SL clubs for whom, from a business perspective, dropping down would do them good in order to get a grip on their finances. It works both ways.

BTW, I'm not an advocate of automatic P&R but I do think there has to be a better model than a 3 year moratorium.

[Derwent]

and that in a nutshell is a major argument against P & R
and was also the case pre SL and what did for the 'yo yo' clubs. Would you say workington fell into that category pre SL?

How is it a major argument against P&R when it doesn't exist anymore ?

[Padge]

Maybe so, I'm not sure I wholly agree, but do you not think some Championship clubs are not building up the same debts in the pursuit of box ticking instead ?

Do you not think some current SL clubs are building up piles of debt just to stand still and remain in SL ?

There are some current SL clubs for whom, from a business perspective, dropping down would do them good in order to get a grip on their finances. It works both ways.

BTW, I'm not an advocate of automatic P&R but I do think there has to be a better model than a 3 year moratorium.

In the past the money spent went straight into the pockets of players and straight out of the game, the RFL are trying to keep money within the game as much as possible, the money spent on box ticking for a new stadium isn't money lost to the game but an investment in it. Money spent on developing young players is an investment in the games future. The P&R policy meant clubs spent everything they could on players wages, resulting an almost total lack of young talent coming through, this lack of talent meant clubs would look overseas for ready made players.

The current policies will not turn the game around within one round of licenses it will take years to repair the damage done to the game through lack of inward investment. Things are getting their club facilities are improving, we are getting more good quality young players coming through, players are being developed in areas of the country it was never dreamt that could supply young RL players.

The alternative to the 3 year moratorium, is to put the licenses up to the highest 14 bidders and then shut the door.

[Northern Exposure]

The current fiasco with Widnes being touted as a SL club despite appauling results on the field makes a mockery of licensing.

That aside, i'd certainly love to see P&R return. The drama of Wigan being close to facing the drop a few years back, and the fairy story promotions are something that IMHO are sorely missed.

We'd have had Barrow and now Fev up if we'd have kept P&R.


The charm of Rugby League is somewhat lost with licensing - its all about the money, which it shouldn't be and never was.

[Maximus Decimus]

The current fiasco with Widnes being touted as a SL club despite appauling results on the field makes a mockery of licensing.

That aside, i'd certainly love to see P&R return. The drama of Wigan being close to facing the drop a few years back, and the fairy story promotions are something that IMHO are sorely missed.

We'd have had Barrow and now Fev up if we'd have kept P&R.


The charm of Rugby League is somewhat lost with licensing - its all about the money, which it shouldn't be and never was.

Wow, you've only come to this realisation now after what 3 seasons without P & R?

Fev would probably not be promoted as they still had minimum criteria.

I'll repeat what I said on the other thread, if you had a tiny bit of intelligence you'd see that Widnes' priorities would have been very different if we'd still have had promotion and relegation. You'd also see that doing well on with a salary cap of 300k indicates nothing as to how well you will do with a salary cap of £1.4m.

Also Widnes' atrocious on the field results include a biggest defeat this year of 20 points. Something Leeds have managed twice this year.

[Northern Exposure]

Also Widnes' atrocious on the field results include a biggest defeat this year of 20 points. Something Leeds have managed twice this year.

lol.

In what league is that sorry?

[Derwent]

(1) In the past the money spent went straight into the pockets of players and straight out of the game, the RFL are trying to keep money within the game as much as possible, the money spent on box ticking for a new stadium isn't money lost to the game but an investment in it.
(2) Money spent on developing young players is an investment in the games future.
(3)The P&R policy meant clubs spent everything they could on players wages, resulting an almost total lack of young talent coming through, this lack of talent meant clubs would look overseas for ready made players.

1. Spending on facilities is obviously a positive improvement, but ultimately clubs are still taking a gamble. The only difference being that hopefully they'll have something tangible to show for it if their pursuit of SL fails.

2. It is, yet is completely at odds with the RFL's latest position. Watch out in the next few weeks for a dictat coming from the RFL that is going to forbid Championship and Championship 1 clubs from running scholarship schemes !

3. Some clubs still do. Barrow spring to mind. It's not restricted to Championship clubs either.

[Padge]

1. Spending on facilities is obviously a positive improvement, but ultimately clubs are still taking a gamble. The only difference being that hopefully they'll have something tangible to show for it if their pursuit of SL fails.

2. It is, yet is completely at odds with the RFL's latest position. Watch out in the next few weeks for a dictat coming from the RFL that is going to forbid Championship and Championship 1 clubs from running scholarship schemes !

3. Some clubs still do. Barrow spring to mind. It's not restricted to Championship clubs either.

On point 2 I will confess to not understanding the RFL's logic behind this move.

On point 3 as I said things will not change overnight or within one round of licenses, the trend is away from overseas players and that is what is important. As long as the trend is in the right direction arguments about speed of change are neither here nor there.

[The Parksider]

It isn't the drop the causes the financial problem its the debt incurred to gain promotion and then to try and avoid relegation, usually that debt is beyond the means of the club. Demotion then makes the debt completely unservicable for a club with poor support to start with and then is reduced further when they drop.

Relegation doesn't damage clubs buying promotion followed by trying to buy survival does when clubs cannot afford it.

On Radio Manchester on thursday Chris Hamilton chairman of Oldham was talking about teams being promoted and was asked about a Yorkshire club who it was suggested would be promoted from Championship 1 to the Championship but it was pointed out had very poor crowds compared to other clubs. His reply showed how stupid some people within the game think. His reply was that, they think they'll be alright because they will get a lot more away supporters. That is no way to run a professional rugby club.

Spot on as always.

I think Hamilton can be excused "stupid" because I am sure that many NL club chairman feel it's a neccesity to never tell truths that may upset the fans like "If we won the NL we would not apply for SL as we can't afford Superleague". All NL chairman would be right on the basis of good marketing white lies to continue to talk about how their and other small clubs like them can one day make it.

I think facts are also conveniently forgotten in ideas like HKR making it in Superleague, or Salford or Huddersfield - after all did they actually make it in terms of good business operations or are they where they are because of Messrs Davey, Hudgell and Wilkinson.

It's fine by me if someone wants to put the millions in - I wish every RL clubs was backed by a multi-millionaire who's careless with his money, but the success of a heavily backed club can't be replicated by clubs who don't have that backing and again can anyone who dreams of their clubs promotion tell me that Barrow, Leigh, Halifax or Featherstone have that backing??

It has been said that Wakefield and Cas have made it in SL without the backing, but as we know they exist by spending well under the cap, and besides they are now both seriously under threat, and as for rich persons backing we know what that can end up in when the money runs out, and it could be running out at a few clubs over the next year. Hence Widnes are a shoe in due to having their rich backer - and this time they will be very welcome as on the second round of licensing there's a real risk that well over half the applications will come from clubs who cannot really hack the financial requirements of truly competing in SL.

So the logical question is is the financial and structural requirement of Superleague pitched too high??

[skep155]

On a side note, its funny how nearly every time I hear someone say "great game" in connection with Rugby League, in the following sentence they talk about kicking expansion sides to the curb because nobody outside the heartlands is interested.

[HaroldShand]

Huddersfield Swinton up 74/75 down 75/76
Barrow Rochdale Leigh all up 75/76 down 76/77
Dewsbury Bramley Hunslet all up 76/77 all down 77/78
Barrow Rochdale Huddersfield all up 77/78 all down 78/79
Hunslet York Blackpool all up 79/80 all down 80/81
York Fulham Whitehaven all up 80/81 all down 81/82
Carlisle Workington Halifax all up 81/82 all down 82/83
Fulham Wakefield Salford Whitehaven all up 82/83 all down 83/84

Need I go on, this pattern has been repeated over and over again

Take a look carefully at those clubs and think about which teams have had financial troubles over the years.

Its pretty hilarious that you use seasons from the 1970's and early 1980's to highlight your point. Please get your Rothmans back out and examine the promotions and relegations from the season you chose to end your statistical spunkfest. You'll find that some clubs that were promoted went on to find relative success in the top flight, and even if relegated managed to make it back up within a season or two.
Personally, as a fan of a club that has NEVER played in the top flight of our sport, I'd much rather be a yo-yo club than be limited to the second echelon of the game for all eternity. Even if my club did fit most of the franchise criteria (i.e. number of seats, car parking, money in the bank, Academy set-up) the authorities would reject us on one of the more irrelevant boxes to be ticked, such as proximity to other Super League clubs, or even breast size of our cheerleaders.
As for looking at the clubs you have named and linking them with financial troubles, don't make me laugh. Practically every club in the game has encountered some kind of financial difficulty over the last 30 years. Even the mighty Leeds were nearly bankrupt in 1996, and flirted dangerously with relegtion thanks to a distinct lack of finance.
The real crux of the matter is that all those clubs you listed - the fans, the players, the directors etc - DESERVED their shot at the highest level, if only for a season - just as the fans, players and directors of Hunslet and Dewsbury deserved their chance in the big time in 1999 and 2001. Incidentally, Hunslet and Dewsbury were denied promotion BEFORE franchising was introduced, thanks to some ridiculous stipulation about plastic seats and car-parking spaces. Both Hunslet and Dewsbury put money into achieving promotion, and when denied the promotion they had earned went on to encounter financial problems. What a surprise. When you plough money into something to achieve a goal (reward) only to be denied it by some flimsy red tape, there's bound to be some sort of financial backlash when the carrot of success is removed.
Their ambition should have been rewarded with a place in Super League when promotion was achieved. How dare the RFL deny those clubs the chance to maybe realise their potential and have a season of glory in the top flight. Can you imagine the Premier League denying the likes of Blackpool, or Burnley, their rightful place in the top flight because they didn't fit a 'criteria'? There'd be absolute outrage, legal action and possible assassinations.
Rewarding achievement is one of the cornerstones of sport, and Rugby League has removed any reward for achievement by introducing franchising.
As a previous poster mentioned, parachute payments have pretty much ended the possibility of a relegated club encountering severe financial problems. When Leigh were promoted for the 2005 season, all the players they signed were on 1 year contracts, which allowed the club to get them off the books for the 2006 National League season and function as normal. So whats your problem?

[l'angelo mysterioso]

How is it a major argument against P&R when it doesn't exist anymore ?

becvaused it knacked workington and oldham big time when it did
andplenty of other clubs including workington pre sl, and the reason you gave was a major factor.

[Derwent]

becvaused it knacked workington and oldham big time when it did
andplenty of other clubs including workington pre sl, and the reason you gave was a major factor.

Yes, but it's been legislated against and mitigated now so I don't really see your point ?

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Yes, but it's been legislated against and mitigated now so I don't really see your point ?

the point is that the experiences and performances of clubs like Workington in SL and other clubs including workington Post SL is one of the reasons why Rugby League no longer has it in its premier competition.

[HaroldShand]

the point is that the experiences and performances of clubs like Workington in SL and other clubs including workington Post SL is one of the reasons why Rugby League no longer has it in its premier competition.

You don't honestly believe that franchising was introduced to save poor clubs like Workington, do you? It was introduced to prevent clubs like Workington entering the Super League, despite on-field achievements. If you've got a nice council-built legoland ground that looks good on the SKY cameras, or play in Wales or France, then you're in. If not, then no chance.
Do you really imagine that if my club, Batley, were suddenly taken over by a multi-millionaire, finished off our stand (giving us a 12'000 capacity), stuck some money in the bank, set up a thriving Academy and made a franchise bid (we already tick the crucial box of having won a trophy), we'd stand even a slim chance of consideration?
Take a couple of deep breaths and give me a really honest answer please.
The rigid concept of meeting the 'strict' franchise criteria before a Super League place is granted was exposed for the sham it is when Celtic Crusaders (who met very, very few of the criteria) were granted a franchise in 2008 ahead of Widnes Vikings, who's franchise application even back then blew the Welsh club out of the water.
The sneaky little clause which will allow Toulouse to apply (and, I've no doubt, win) for a 2012 franchise also confirms that the franchise system is a big crock of poop. It basically states that a club which doesn't meet even ONE of the criteria set out by the guidelines can apply for a Super League franchise providing it is based overseas and is invited by SL to apply for a place! So why do the 'criteria' apply to Championship clubs based in Britain, and not overseas clubs? Hmmm?

[thirteenthman]

So you see, the anger of Co-Op fans will impact the RFL and SL clubs

Co-op fans. I can never get near the bread aisle when they're in. Shouting 'You don't know what you're doing' at the old man from down the road, just 'cause he dropped a packet of custard creams on the floor. Shocking.