Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Super League teams to discuss 2 tier SL with P+R


  • Please log in to reply
153 replies to this topic

#41 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,230 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:32 AM

Apparently Hunslet were forced into the move because the alternative was no club.

There was going to be no club until Hetherington sent Ball to stop the clubs closure.

Then he gave the club "an offer they could not refuse" ;)

So they weren't forced. They had a choice.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#42 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,358 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 09:12 AM

So they weren't forced. They had a choice.


Hobsons choice.

#43 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,179 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 09:53 AM

There is a thread about link ups, can't we keep that to one.

On the point of the 2 SL's of 10, I get frustrated when some posters dismiss things like this and talk as though they are dealing in facts.

There may not be money at the moment for 20 teams in SL, but there is no proposal, or suggestion of discussion around this being for now, so that point is not relevant. The discussions need to take place to understand what is the structure that the game would want in a perfect world. There then needs to be a plan on how we get there. If no plan can be worked up then a reasonable structure and plan needs to be drawn up.

I'm not one for kneejerk changes, but I could see some benefits in a 20 team structure, and I could also see it as a structure that could be delivered in a relatively short time period.

High level things I'd be supportive of:

> Salary Cap - eg. £1.6m SL1, then £1m SL2
> Round Robin home and away, then I'd split the 2 divisions into 3 after this.
> Top 6 in SL1 play home and away with 1st straight to GF and 2nd v 3rd in Semi.
> Bottom 4 in SL1 and Top 2 in SL2 replicate the above. Top 2 from this conference in SL Shield GF. Bottom 2 in SL2 next year (relegated)
> Bottom 8 in SL2 play off for SL2 title.

This kind of structure IMHO would make it easier for new clubs to be introduced into the SL structure, Toulouse, Crusaders etc. could be brought into an environment where they could in effect only need a player budget of £800k to be competitive in their division.

I'd see a starting point of:

Wigan
Warrington
St Helens
Catalan
Leeds
Hull FC
Huddersfield
Wakefield
Bradford
Hull KR

-------
Salford
London
Castleford
Widnes
Featherstone
Sheffield
Leigh
Halifax
Toulouse
AN Other

It is clear that certain clubs just aren't in a position to compete at the top end of SL, and I think this is a decent solution.

#44 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,926 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 09:53 AM

Clubs survived on no sky money until 1995.

Are you kidding me? Are you trying to use this as some kind of progressive argument?!
Posted Image

#45 jackknife

jackknife
  • Coach
  • 2,090 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:01 AM

Think it should be east(ish) league n west league then top 4 of each league play off

East;
Hull fc
Hull kr
Cas
Leeds
Bradford
Wakey
Huddersfield
Add Fev


West;
Sts
Wigan
Wire
Salford
Widnes
London?
Catalans?
Add Halifax

Play everyone 3times (21games) n have 2 cross league matches were you play your equal from the other league 1st v 1st n so on then have top 8 play offs, top 4 from each league!
COME ON THE CORN
CLASSY CAS 4EVA
Go Go Go York City Knights!

#46 LeeF

LeeF
  • Coach
  • 820 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:10 AM

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

Has it increased crowds ? Doubt it.


No but it has improved the intensity and quality of matches and together with other things the number of good English players has increased

#47 HappyDave

HappyDave
  • Coach
  • 3,236 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:31 AM

Rugby Union manages it in New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITM_Cup

The season is overly short due to how few teams there are. However, with the Challenge Cup, more mid-season Internationals [Home Tri-Nations plus the Exiles (still called the 'International Origins Series'?)] and more cross-divisional games than they have, I think it could work. Say SL 'Division 1' was on 20 - 30% less than SL 'Premier' money then there would definitely be enough money.

Dave T's structure works if all teams met the criteria for a '2nd level' license.

However, would the Championships have to amalgamate if 5 - 6 teams stepped up [if Toulouse were able to play in the expanded Super League?]?

Edited by HappyDave, 27 October 2012 - 10:34 AM.

"I've never seen a woman with hairy ears... And I've been to St Helens" - John Bishop

#48 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,179 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:42 AM

Rugby Union manages it in New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITM_Cup

The season is overly short due to how few teams there are. However, with the Challenge Cup, more mid-season Internationals [Home Tri-Nations plus the Exiles (still called the 'International Origins Series'?)] and more cross-divisional games than they have, I think it could work. Say SL 'Division 1' was on 20 - 30% less than SL 'Premier' money then there would definitely be enough money.

Dave T's structure works if all teams met the criteria for a '2nd level' license.

However, would the Championships have to amalgamate if 5 - 6 teams stepped up [if Toulouse were able to play in the expanded Super League?]?

I would only have a 2nd tier of 10 if there were 10 teams strong enough. 8 Could work in my structure, as you break into 3x6 teams at halfway.

I think at that point, the Championships would absolutely become for teams who are happy at the level they are at, maybe as partner teams, or new teams, like Gloucester etc.

#49 joe elliot

joe elliot
  • Coach
  • 498 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 11:03 AM

I do like the idea of 2 super leagues of 10, would they be able to negotiate a seperate tv deal with another broadcaster for fixtures in the second division. I'd also like to see less games and more internationals, which a 2 division super league would enable.
If they can keep the salary cap as close as they can then it really could raise standards across the board.
waddell

#50 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,809 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 02:05 PM

Are you kidding me? Are you trying to use this as some kind of progressive argument?!


Wigan RLFC operated as a full time outfit with no sky money pre1995. So why cant todays SL clubs operate on a lower slice of skymoney?

#51 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,621 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 02:09 PM

Wigan RLFC operated as a full time outfit with no sky money pre1995. So why cant todays SL clubs operate on a lower slice of skymoney?


And sold Central Park to balance books.

#52 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 6,222 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:07 PM

And sold Central Park to balance books.


Except it was more complicated than that. They made money year after year and had no sugar daddy, until the man who built them a better and bigger stadium bought the company.
What Wigan showed was not that they had an unsustainable financial model, but rather that having a single team mopping up year after year is dreadful for the game generally. Hence the levelling effect of the s c is a good thing.

#53 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,621 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:36 PM

Except it was more complicated than that. They made money year after year and had no sugar daddy, until the man who built them a better and bigger stadium bought the company.
What Wigan showed was not that they had an unsustainable financial model, but rather that having a single team mopping up year after year is dreadful for the game generally. Hence the levelling effect of the s c is a good thing.


Over spending isn't complicated or am I totally wrong??

12 mil from tescos say Wigan were in the poo

#54 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,538 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:51 PM

One positive by product caused by an increase to 20 full time pro clubs might be an improvement in the challenge cup (ie, more upsets, more intense early rounds etc.

#55 HappyDave

HappyDave
  • Coach
  • 3,236 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 05:50 PM

I would only have a 2nd tier of 10 if there were 10 teams strong enough. 8 Could work in my structure, as you break into 3x6 teams at halfway.

I think at that point, the Championships would absolutely become for teams who are happy at the level they are at, maybe as partner teams, or new teams, like Gloucester etc.


I disagree, I'd still have licensing between SL2 or SL 'Division 1' (if the top League was called 'Premier'?) and the Championship. With 3 year licensing, so if teams under-perform they lose their license and if a team meets criteria can gain a license.

Edited by HappyDave, 27 October 2012 - 05:51 PM.

"I've never seen a woman with hairy ears... And I've been to St Helens" - John Bishop

#56 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 06:11 PM

Apart from the obvious problem - there not being enough money in the game to sustain 12 M62 full-time professional clubs, never mind 17/18 - aren't we in danger of transforming solid semi-pro clubs into something they can't sustain long-term?

Also, let's assume that there is no further broadcasting money forthcoming - Sky want top-level rugby league, not second tier - why would the Super League clubs give up any of the TV money. By all accounts they are struggling with the current funding set-up, surely they top clubs would want increased funding from any reduction in the size of Super League.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#57 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,179 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 06:20 PM

Apart from the obvious problem - there not being enough money in the game to sustain 12 M62 full-time professional clubs, never mind 17/18 - aren't we in danger of transforming solid semi-pro clubs into something they can't sustain long-term?

Also, let's assume that there is no further broadcasting money forthcoming - Sky want top-level rugby league, not second tier - why would the Super League clubs give up any of the TV money. By all accounts they are struggling with the current funding set-up, surely they top clubs would want increased funding from any reduction in the size of Super League.

its one of the reasons id have a mid-season restructure as this shows it is an integrated sl.

In terms of clubs wanting more, im sure some would, im sure others would be happy playing the top teams more and reducing the number of games against so called weaker teams.

#58 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 06:28 PM

There is a thread about link ups, can't we keep that to one.

On the point of the 2 SL's of 10, I get frustrated when some posters dismiss things like this and talk as though they are dealing in facts.

There may not be money at the moment for 20 teams in SL, but there is no proposal, or suggestion of discussion around this being for now, so that point is not relevant. The discussions need to take place to understand what is the structure that the game would want in a perfect world. There then needs to be a plan on how we get there. If no plan can be worked up then a reasonable structure and plan needs to be drawn up.

I'm not one for kneejerk changes, but I could see some benefits in a 20 team structure, and I could also see it as a structure that could be delivered in a relatively short time period.

High level things I'd be supportive of:

> Salary Cap - eg. £1.6m SL1, then £1m SL2
> Round Robin home and away, then I'd split the 2 divisions into 3 after this.
> Top 6 in SL1 play home and away with 1st straight to GF and 2nd v 3rd in Semi.
> Bottom 4 in SL1 and Top 2 in SL2 replicate the above. Top 2 from this conference in SL Shield GF. Bottom 2 in SL2 next year (relegated)
> Bottom 8 in SL2 play off for SL2 title.

This kind of structure IMHO would make it easier for new clubs to be introduced into the SL structure, Toulouse, Crusaders etc. could be brought into an environment where they could in effect only need a player budget of £800k to be competitive in their division.

I'd see a starting point of:

Wigan
Warrington
St Helens
Catalan
Leeds
Hull FC
Huddersfield
Wakefield
Bradford
Hull KR

-------
Salford
London
Castleford
Widnes
Featherstone
Sheffield
Leigh
Halifax
Toulouse
AN Other

It is clear that certain clubs just aren't in a position to compete at the top end of SL, and I think this is a decent solution.

Something as sensible and innovative as this approach would never leave the drawing board unfortunately. There is a significant proportion of clubs that are wrapped up in self interest and will cling on to the status quo at all costs, regardless of the damage done to the domestic game.

#59 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 06:35 PM

Over spending isn't complicated or am I totally wrong??

12 mil from tescos say Wigan were in the poo

It's complicated in terms of how the overspending happened. It wasn't the cost of the squad and wages that was the issue, it was mainly the ambition of building the Whitbread Stand in tough economic conditions. The myths around Wigan losing Central Park have been manufactured over the years as a club over-stretching themselves for on-field success, which is a retrospective re-write of history to suit the SC agenda not the truth.

#60 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 07:02 PM

It's complicated in terms of how the overspending happened. It wasn't the cost of the squad and wages that was the issue, it was mainly the ambition of building the Whitbread Stand in tough economic conditions. The myths around Wigan losing Central Park have been manufactured over the years as a club over-stretching themselves for on-field success, which is a retrospective re-write of history to suit the SC agenda not the truth.


It wasn't a model that could be sustained and copied. Would Wigan have sustained full-time football without their annual trips to Wembley, winning the league every year and the prize money from other tournaments?
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."