84 replies to this topic

[The Parksider]

Leading SLE light McManus says there is no doubt that SL cannot sustain 14 clubs.

Adding to Hudgell's views which concur SL has to go to 12 clubs.

Hudgell says "Most clubs put self first and the collective good nowhere"

The top eight in the league as it stands look good to remain in SL but only 4 places for the other 6 clubs, Toulouse and several ambitious Championship clubs?

A lot of dissapointment on the horizon.

What's the best 12 for the "collective good"?

[Northern Sol]

Hudgell did not mention 12 clubs. He said the sport was bankrupt and too much cash was wasted on expansion.

Whilst I think a 12-club SL might be on the cards you are overegging the pudding again.

[Matt J]

I think a 12 team SL wouldnt be so bad if they had plans to make a second tier SL with p+r between the 2 sl‘s.

Collective. good and all that.

[cookey]

Great idea,11 home games a season,those players remaining get a 8% pay rise,bottom line remains exactly as it is,probably less tv money and guess what,someone is still bottom of the table.

[GeordieSaint]

I am guessing two less teams means more TV money per SL club... self interest again?!

[Ant]

Two self aggrandising, self interested parties push their own agenda shocker

We had a 12 team Super League
It was worse than a 14 team Super League

[bowes]

So they've put effort into restructuring the Championships only to have people want to immediately change the plans (as a contracted SL would require). Genius

[tim2]

Great idea,11 home games a season,those players remaining get a 8% pay rise,bottom line remains exactly as it is,probably less tv money and guess what,someone is still bottom of the table.

Why only 11 home games? NRL has an uneven fixture list.

[shrek]

Off the top of my head concerns about a 12 team Super League would be;
- Less room for expansion, or an excuse not to expand as power becomes more concentrated among the self interested.
- 40 or so currently full time pro's hitting the jobs market, would this impact on the future opportunities of "rising" stars as clubs took the safe option and signed them up ahead of giving kids a chance.
- The presumption that Sky would pay the same for a reduced number of teams, for all we know the value they put on the competition maybe x pounds per team per season being requiried to get the product they want meaning less teams results in less money not a bigger pot to share.
- 11 regular season home games a year, can we really justify the sorts of stadia clubs either now own or aspire to for 11 home games a year?
- Taking the current average crowd figures for Super League 2012 from Rugby League Project, the across the board crowd average is 10010 people, even if this drops back to 9000 or so once all rounds are played, losing 2 home games is still on average 18,000 paying punters less through the gates per club per season. Thats got to be worth in the region of 150k to 200k a season by anyone's estimates at least, if Sky don't pick up the slack hows this revenue going to be replaced?

On the plus side, less dead rubbers, two more "viable" clubs chomping at the bit come the next round of licences, a chance to reduce the 8 team play-off to something more sensible and more space in the calender for internationals - if we can find anyone to play us!

[cookey]

Let me try to be constructive.McManus has obviously done a very good job at Saints,but for the life of me,I can't see any logic in reducing the number of teams to 12.Obviously in theory,two less teams means the rest get a little more,but in round terms I believe the 14 teams receive around £1mill/yr,so that gives £2 mill in total,spread over 12 teams.Call it an extra £160,000 per Club/yr - thats about 10% of the salary cap.

I suspect the value of the tv deal would be reduced because of less variety - frankly,I don't want to see Leeds play Saints every week - two less home games for revenue,the top 8 would have to be reduced to the top 6,no doubt the players/agents would want a 5/10% salary increase,so I just don't see the financial arguement.Assumimg Catalans remain,we have just 11 English teams.Do we want to get rid of London and confine ourselves to the M62?,do we want to lose the Hull derby? Someone will still struggle,as someone has to come bottom of the league table,so do we then get rid of that Club and reduce the number of teams to 11?Maybe if we are left with just one club,they will come top of the table,with no one to play against?!

If someone can explain to me the benefits of reducing the number of Clubs to 12,tell me who would be left and how more money is generated all well and good,but otherwise I'm amazed McManus can justify his arguement.

[Ant]

The only possible benefit is that there would be less ways to split the money...assuming the money stays the same (something not certain)

Also, I'd suggest that player wages might go down as the 40+ pros now on the market would dilute the player pool

I for the life in me cant see the benefit.

[The Parksider]

Hudgell did not mention 12 clubs.

He did, before christmas. What's the matter with you?

[cookey]

The remaining Clubs would also receive less than now from the play offs.As I understand it,all the money from the play offs is pooled.There would have to be less play off games,so less revenue,so less to split amongst the rest - all for gaining a little extra by splitting the tv money just 12 ways.Incidentally,salaries would go up,as theoretically,the Clubs have more money,so the players/agents will feel entitled to more and no one will want to finish bottom of the league,incase McManus then wants to boot them out!

If we retain Catalans and London,of the 11 English Clubs,would we want two in the same city?If not,do we get rid of Hull KR,rather than Bradford,who have effectively just gone 'bust'?If Wakefield get a new ground,do we get rid of Castleford,although they haven't been in Administration,but Wakefield have.Do we get rid of a Club with a poor ground,losing money and without Planning Permission for a new ground - I don't believe McManus would have supported that idea a few yrs ago.

[deluded pom?]

- 11 regular season home games a year, can we really justify the sorts of stadia clubs either now own or aspire to for 11 home games a year?
- Taking the current average crowd figures for Super League 2012 from Rugby League Project, the across the board crowd average is 10010 people, even if this drops back to 9000 or so once all rounds are played, losing 2 home games is still on average 18,000 paying punters less through the gates per club per season. Thats got to be worth in the region of 150k to 200k a season by anyone's estimates at least, if Sky don't pick up the slack hows this revenue going to be replaced?

As Tim pointed out it doesn't have to be a straight forward twenty two round season. there's nothing to stop teams playing the same twenty seven match league that they currently do by playing some teams three times.

[deluded pom?]

Incidentally,salaries would go up,as theoretically,the Clubs have more money,so the players/agents will feel entitled to more

Just because the clubs get more money doesn't necessarily mean the SC will rise so salaries would stay the same or possibly drop as there would theoretically be more SL standard players on the market vying for less squad places.

[Ant]

With the minor premiers being the team that plays the bottom ranked clubs most often.

[deluded pom?]

With the minor premiers being the team that plays the bottom ranked clubs most often.

Not necessarily.

[shrek]

As Tim pointed out it doesn't have to be a straight forward twenty two round season. there's nothing to stop teams playing the same twenty seven match league that they currently do by playing some teams three times.

Indeed, but it has that back to the future feel about it don't you agree?

[cookey]

For any more than 11 home games,how do you determine a 'fair' arrangement? To go back to our friend McManus,I'm sure he would complain if he got 'extra' games against say Catalans and London and equally complain if he got extra games against say Leeds and Wigan,lost them and didn't qualify for the play offs.You cannot possibly run a viable rugby club,based on only 11 guaranteed home games.

[deluded pom?]

For any more than 11 home games,how do you determine a 'fair' arrangement? To go back to our friend McManus,I'm sure he would complain if he got 'extra' games against say Catalans and London and equally complain if he got extra games against say Leeds and Wigan,lost them and didn't qualify for the play offs.You cannot possibly run a viable rugby club,based on only 11 guaranteed home games.

It would be as fair as the clubs themselves make it. No matter what system they use to artificially reach twenty seven games it won't please everyone. Does Mr McManus want the extra revenue twenty seven games will bring or not? If he does then he'll have to take what the fixture computer (is there such a thing?) throws at him and take it on the chin.