154 replies to this topic

[Saint Toppy]

This is the change we need. John Kear was talking about this a few years ago, and it's good to see it gathering momentum. The difference here is that you have two divisions of full-time professionals and then a semi-pro tier.

Our best players would be under much more pressure week in, week out, and clubs like Wakey would be able to be more competitive in SL2. Too many of our top players, know that they can be some way below their best and still end up on the winning side if they're playing the likes of Wakey, Cas, Salford & Widnes.

With a salary cap of say £2m for SL1 and £1.5m for SL2, the gap between the two wouldn't be massive and clubs could step up, or move down without having to completely start again. That's the big problem with the old system. For those going down, all contracts became null & void, and those going up had to recruit a new team within a few months.

Key to ensure there is a tight control on "non-federation" players, to ensure clubs in SL2 don't just pack their squads with run around Aussies and Kiwis, rather than home grown players.

A franchise system for clubs wanting to join SL2 should be in place to ensure the downside of the old P&R system weren't just replicated but shoved down a tier.

Be good if they could get this in place for the 2015 season.

If the RFL can get the necessary funding from Sky then I think this is pretty much spot on as the way forward.

[Lounge Room Lizard]

There are many problems in the game that need sorting before changing SL or increasing its numbers. Right now SL is a short sighted competition that has low standards and intensity. A quality player will just stagnate in SL whilst in the NRL they cant afford to do it as theres somebody ready to take their spot in most cases. SL should be more than just about the first team. ALL teams in SL should run U23, U21, U18s. If you cant afford to run academy teams then you dont deserve to be in SL. Whats the point of SL if the finances are not there to properly develop things? I would rather SL have less clubs, who can afford to do things properly at various levels on and off the pitch than increase SL and have even more teams that really cant afford to be full time and run a number of academy sides. The Championship should be for teams that simply cant run a fulltime setup. Even then the development of players should still be strong with the top Championship League seeing sides again featuring U23s, U21s and U18s. Having a system where young players can gradually progress and be educated is vital for me. Strength in depth is simply not there at most SL teams and that often is down to poor standards at academy level and not having the money to do things properly. I see that often the English/British school kids often beat the Aussies when playing against each other. But then many just simply dont push on and the Aussie kids have a system that allows them to improve and most eventually play in the NRL. The thinking at SL level has for me to change from just concentrating on the first team to thinking about the future regarding youngsters. There is no point having SL increase if the quality and the right infrastructure not just at first team level but at academy level is missing. I would love Halifax my club to be in SL. But realistically it doesnt belong their right now under the system in place. I wouldnt want them in SL 2 if they cant afford it and do things properly. I am very happy to see Fax as well as Fev & Sheffield run academy sides as for me thats a vital structure of a club. The short term thinking of SL clubs and the RFL is a disgrace and England will simply slip even further behind the Aussies in the future.

[Ackroman]

If there's enough TV money to go round then great!

I wrote about it in February... http://www.loverugby...-structure.html

Plagerism!

It was discussed on this thread many years ago!

[CANETMAN]

http://www.warringto..._of_10/?ref=rss

If this is TRUE then it will be the best news for Rl in the UK in a long time.CM

[Just to be clear]

Not long since the cricketers split their league into 2 small divisions of 9 each.

Has it increased crowds ? Doubt it.

Just to be clear, the County Championship was split into divisions in 2000 to increase the intensity to better produce test cricketers, and nothing to do with attendances. In 2003 the Twenty20 format was invented to increase crowds, replacing one of the one-day competitions. Arguably both changes were successful in their aims.

In both short forms of the game, which are the money makers for the counties, teams are divided into three equal groups (regional for Twenty20, and by an annual random drawn for one-day) that only meet in the playoffs.

[Marauder]

So what's the difference between a 2 tier Super League and Super League + Championship? Other than P+R?

A two tier Super League will allow the RFL to ask teams that are close together to amalgamate.

[South Wakefield Sharks]

A two tier Super League will allow the RFL to ask teams that are close together to amalgamate.

What a daft post!!

How does that work? You'd need 20 professional clubs. At the moment there are 14 in SL and then 3, 4 or 5 in the division below. How does merging clubs get to 20 pro clubs and then opposition for the likes of Hemel, South Wales and the Skolars to play?

I think that chip on your shoulder is affecting your brain.

[Blind side johnny]

So what's the difference between a 2 tier Super League and Super League + Championship? Other than P+R?

About 8 clubs I reckon.

[The Parksider]

With a salary cap of say £2m for SL1 and £1.5m for SL2, the gap between the two wouldn't be massive

That would come to £35M in wages.

Currently wages probably don't even total £25M amongst the top 20 clubs.

So where would the extra £10M come from??

No financial explanation at all has been offered to back this second hand idea.

Even the right honourable Andy Burnham MP woffled on about P & R but could not provide any sense as per the finances.

[South Wakefield Sharks]

That would come to £35M in wages.

Currently wages probably don't even total £25M amongst the top 20 clubs.

So where would the extra £10M come from??

No financial explanation at all has been offered to back this second hand idea.

Even the right honourable Andy Burnham MP woffled on about P & R but could not provide any sense as per the finances.

As you'll see from my post that you quote, I'm giving an example, not stating what the salary cap should be. I was suggesting that the cap for the top teams could be raised slightly from the current level, and the level for SL2 could be lowered form the current SL cap.

I thought that the SL cap was £1.8m, but I see it is £1.65m for 2012 and £0.3m for championship clubs.

The principle still applies and it's still a good idea, whatever the final figures work out to be.

[Padge]

If there's enough TV money to go round then great!

There isn't, forget it.

[manofthematch]

There are many problems in the game that need sorting before changing SL or increasing its numbers. Right now SL is a short sighted competition that has low standards and intensity. A quality player will just stagnate in SL whilst in the NRL they cant afford to do it as theres somebody ready to take their spot in most cases. SL should be more than just about the first team. ALL teams in SL should run U23, U21, U18s. If you cant afford to run academy teams then you dont deserve to be in SL. Whats the point of SL if the finances are not there to properly develop things? I would rather SL have less clubs, who can afford to do things properly at various levels on and off the pitch than increase SL and have even more teams that really cant afford to be full time and run a number of academy sides. The Championship should be for teams that simply cant run a fulltime setup. Even then the development of players should still be strong with the top Championship League seeing sides again featuring U23s, U21s and U18s. Having a system where young players can gradually progress and be educated is vital for me. Strength in depth is simply not there at most SL teams and that often is down to poor standards at academy level and not having the money to do things properly. I see that often the English/British school kids often beat the Aussies when playing against each other. But then many just simply dont push on and the Aussie kids have a system that allows them to improve and most eventually play in the NRL. The thinking at SL level has for me to change from just concentrating on the first team to thinking about the future regarding youngsters. There is no point having SL increase if the quality and the right infrastructure not just at first team level but at academy level is missing. I would love Halifax my club to be in SL. But realistically it doesnt belong their right now under the system in place. I wouldnt want them in SL 2 if they cant afford it and do things properly. I am very happy to see Fax as well as Fev & Sheffield run academy sides as for me thats a vital structure of a club. The short term thinking of SL clubs and the RFL is a disgrace and England will simply slip even further behind the Aussies in the future.

hear bloody hear!

[tonyXIII]

There isn't, forget it.

As usual, your succinct comment hits the nail squarely on the head.

Talking of which, we should knock all this reorganisation of SL stuff on the head. The problem isn't the structure, it's the infrastructure. As some posters (LRL for one) have alluded to, there are too many clubs who simply don't have the youth and development stuff right. Until we get that right, we can cut SL up however we like, we just don't have the quality in depth.

My club is one of the worst offenders. Perhaps we don't belong in SL and should reassess our position.

[manofthematch]

hear bloody hear!

I'm worried more young players who dream of being pro rugby players but discarded in their own code are looking towards union as a career option rather than going back to their community clubs.

If the SL clubs can't afford to run FULL ON acadamies then maybe they should leave well alone. I will say that I'm in favour of the acadamy, it's where our best talent should be and see the obvious effects from well run operations but this new system (U16' & U19's) the age gap is too wide and the younger players will hardly see any game time thus losing out on playing development. The amatuer ranks have been hammered since the advent of acadamy rugby, could it be time to hand it back to the comminity game but with real link ups for resources, coaches etc from the pro clubs, keeping the youth at their amatuer clubs and sign them if good enough just like pre acadamy days. That age group from U16 upwards gets seriously affected by the current system. SL clubs could run reserve grade to test these new signings and also to bring back players from injury, etc. I also like the idea of ALL championship clubs to run strictly under 23's for their own pathway using dual reg etc ... maybe, just sayin'

Edited by manofthematch, 26 October 2012 - 09:49 PM.

[Padge]

Lets get one thing right, nobody is forcing clubs to get into arrangements, they are doing because they see it as the way forward for their club.

[Marauder]

What a daft post!!

How does that work? You'd need 20 professional clubs. At the moment there are 14 in SL and then 3, 4 or 5 in the division below. How does merging clubs get to 20 pro clubs and then opposition for the likes of Hemel, South Wales and the Skolars to play?

I think that chip on your shoulder is affecting your brain.

Lets see

[Marauder]

Lets get one thing right, nobody is forcing clubs to get into arrangements, they are doing because they see it as the way forward for their club.

I disagree, it's not the way forward, it's the option being offered or be left behind.

My fear is the RFL normally change their minds every time the sunshines so will the clubs who sign up for the dual registration be left in a position where they either can not recovery from or are forced into an amalgamtion.

[Lobbygobbler]

I am not personally in favour of reducing the number of but am in favour of some SL cash going to NL1, with a return to some form of automatic P&R (perhaps with a stay of grace of a year to give promoted clubs stability). The core sky cash to SL or NL clubs should be for academies/linkups with amateurs, marketing and putting general backroom structures in place. Additional cash plus gate/sponsorship/other money would be for players

Clubs survived on no sky money until 1995.

[The Parksider]

As you'll see from my post that you quote, I'm giving an example, The principle still applies and it's still a good idea, whatever the final figures work out to be.

Yes the principle and idea are of course sound. I was just using your post to illustrate the cost of making it work. Had Gatcliffe said the idea was being discussed with SKY along with the new contract I might have been excited by it. As it stands it is more fantasy rugby league, with no sound financial detail.

He says "While some have suggested a return to 12 teams, a drop to an eight team Super League, or a full promotion and relegation, Gatcliffe believes a two tier Super League of 10 sides in each could be an answer".

So there's three things they are considering one highly exclusive, one highly unaffordably inclusive, and one pretty much the status quo before the extra 2 clubs experiment which failed.

Anyway here's the book.......

12 Clubs 1/100 on
8 clubs 1,000/1
20 clubs 1,000/1

Here's the press release "We agonised long and hard over this issue and......waffle waffle waffle.......at the end of the day there was only one way we could go as much as we wanted to.....waffle waffle waffle........"

[The Parksider]

Clubs survived on no sky money until 1995.

Only just and as semi pro's.

Elite professional RL is in place to compete with Union and soccer that should not be forgotten. It's a reality that should over ride fantasy RL.