154 replies to this topic

[The Parksider]

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.

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"

[Padge]

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.

[The Parksider]

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

Hobsons choice.

[Dave T]

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.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Clubs survived on no sky money until 1995.

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

[jackknife]

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!

[LeeF]

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

[HappyDave]

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.

[Dave T]

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.

[joe elliot]

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.

[Lobbygobbler]

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?

[1976PMJwires]

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.

[Exiled Wiganer]

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.

[1976PMJwires]

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

[Pottsy]

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.

[HappyDave]

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.

[Methven Hornet]

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.

[Dave T]

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.

[giwildgo]

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.

[giwildgo]

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.