Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


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

#61 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,434 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 07:09 PM

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?

No that's why they got in debt, not just the stand.... But the stand was a major factor!

Didn't help buying Inga the winger for a LARGE fee.... Upwards of 500k some say 1million (inc contract, agent fees etc etc)

Edited by 1976PMJwires, 27 October 2012 - 07:09 PM.


#62 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,490 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 07:19 PM

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.


The problem with the 'middle tier' is that you would have clubs with differing levels of funding competing against each other. If we are to continue to fund the elite adequately, or even increase the money they get, then the gap in standards is going to affect the quality and fairness of the division.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#63 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,172 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 07:46 PM

The problem with the 'middle tier' is that you would have clubs with differing levels of funding competing against each other. If we are to continue to fund the elite adequately, or even increase the money they get, then the gap in standards is going to affect the quality and fairness of the division.

yes, the middle tier would have that issue, its why i would only inclyde 2 from sl2 at that stage, they need to be the best.
We saw Featherstone show that the gap isnt necessarily that huge with s big difference in cap, and i suspect there are gaps of 3-600k already in SL.

#64 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,953 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:28 PM

Hobsons choice.


Many on here would vote for the no club option, it wasn't Hobson's choice it was an informed decision.

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?


They didn't, see my muliple posts passim.

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.


No you won't, unless poor clubs become richer you will have no upsets, you can arrange division, scramble places re-invent the wheel and make the sceptical believe in fairies, what you won't do is make a rugby club viable without a lot of money in SL.

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.


#65 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,899 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 08:33 AM

1. Many on here would vote for the no club option, it wasn't Hobson's choice it was an informed decision.

2. Unless poor clubs become richer you will have no upsets, you can arrange division, scramble places re-invent the wheel and make the sceptical believe in fairies, what you won't do is make a rugby club viable without a lot of money in SL.


1. I'd have abstained and not voted. There would have been no chance of me doing that. It wasn't my club to vote on. I had no shares. Indeed when they wanted money from me I abstained. I'd have walked away and let it go if that's what other had wanted and helped keep the memories alive. and that may well be linked to 2. below.

2. On the basis of an earlier comment from you after people got the idea SKY just may want to fund a 20 club two tier league, along the lines of no chance I feel the only option for the game is to plough on as we stand probably on 12 clubs.

12 clubs can be geographically spread to cover the traditional RL areas where the games strength lies and revive french RL, plus link the "pan-european" :lol: image of the game through London which is a vehicle for the south of England's RL ambition.

8 or 10 clubs won't do this, we'll look like were shrinking away and it would probably be true.

But 20 clubs would dilute the strength of our professional game. As you say there's no more money to be expected from SKY so what is the actual proposal from Gatcliffe? To further starve serious SL achievers of adequate subsidy to give it to small clubs to waste??

We just can't afford to do that, for me it'll kill the game and I'm shocked at how someone like Gatcliffe (have I got that name right) has the cheek to come out and suggest it.

SL is the flagship competition that to me keeps the game alive. The CC clubs don't do that.

To starve the SL clubs of investment to revive the CC clubs is erm....Madness??

Edited by The Parksider, 28 October 2012 - 08:46 AM.


#66 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,899 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 08:41 AM

We saw Featherstone show that the gap isnt necessarily that huge with a big difference in cap,


I don't think we saw that. We saw Fev beat a club who aren't SL standard, and run a quality club close in the Cup before they capitulated by 60 points to Sheffield.

Do we really think that Featherstone team would have gone well in Superleague?

What we need is a Superleague that has clubs where there is no difference in what they can spend and the amount they can spend is maximised. That will not be achieved with 20 clubs. 12 is the answer and the thinning of the league has to be geographical.

Cas, Fev and Wakey have never provided any meaningful competition for SL's big guns, and they never will do as long as they remain three small underfunded clubs all vying for the same fans and players. An all inclusive SL is professionalising the old first and second division. More expense but no more income to cover it - result disaster.

Edited by The Parksider, 28 October 2012 - 08:44 AM.


#67 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,899 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 08:51 AM

1. Something as sensible and innovative as this approach would never leave the drawing board unfortunately.

2. 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,

3. Regardless of the damage done to the domestic game.


1, As an idea without any funding attached to it is not at all sensible?

2. Superleague clubs like Leeds, Wigan, Wire, Saints Les Cats run in the interest of Rugby League far more than self interest.

Where do you think the game would be if we hadn't have professionalised the top tier?

3. What damage? the same old domestic CC clubs plod along nicely as many have done for 100 years.

Drop in at keighley - what's changed over the century

Edited by The Parksider, 28 October 2012 - 08:54 AM.


#68 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:33 AM

Seems a sensible discussion for the clubs to be having, could a 10 team Super League top tier roll on to an expanded WCC I wonder.

Look forward to seeing what proposals they put forward and how it ties in to the new CC structure.

#69 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,932 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:54 AM

1, As an idea without any funding attached to it is not at all sensible?

2. Superleague clubs like Leeds, Wigan, Wire, Saints Les Cats run in the interest of Rugby League far more than self interest.

Where do you think the game would be if we hadn't have professionalised the top tier?

3. What damage? the same old domestic CC clubs plod along nicely as many have done for 100 years.

Drop in at keighley - what's changed over the century


2. It was all about self interest. The top tier SL clubs don't care a hoot about the wider game. It's all about " What's in it for me me?"

3. Plenty changed at Keighley and the self interest of SL clubs, as at #2, killed it off. A prime example of the self interest of SL clubs being greater than the good of the whole game. The same thing damn near happened to London as well. Those voting against their continuance in the league had no thought of the wider interest of the game.

4. Where was the wider love of the game when they were about to ditch Wakefield, now through the happenstance of the Crusaders withdrawal, a successful SL team ?

5. Where will be the wider love of the game when they ditch two or four clubs and pitch them ino the unfunded CC level just so the remainder can have abigger share of the Sky money.

#70 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,080 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:08 AM

Unless someone actually puts some figures behind this proposal then what's the point??

I'm a firm believer in a more conference like approach, but for any change in format this would at the first hurdle require the votes of 8 SL clubs. ie a majority

So will 4 clubs vote for relegation and less money???
Wakey, Cas, London, Salford, Hull KR, Widnes????? Any of them going to be urging to be relegated and get less money than presently?

Of the top clubs, who will be voting for a reduction in money to spread it more evenly to make a 2nd pro divison???
Saints? I think we have already said we want less teams . ie a big slice of the money from SKY.
Catalan? Could they end up joining a tolouse long term in the 2nd divison?
Bradford? Well they are testing having half the syk money this year, can't see them wanting it to last a further 4 years.

etc etc

In principle I'm in favour, in practice this proposal is going now where.
Super League the only place in the world where people still believe that less competitors and a closed market to new competition will improve the quality of the product.

Even the Chinese and the Cubans gave up on these marxist principles years ago.


SL with a reduced number of competitors and a closed market = North Korea.

#71 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,953 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:27 AM

2. It was all about self interest. The top tier SL clubs don't care a hoot about the wider game. It's all about " What's in it for me me?"

3. Plenty changed at Keighley and the self interest of SL clubs, as at #2, killed it off. A prime example of the self interest of SL clubs being greater than the good of the whole game. The same thing damn near happened to London as well. Those voting against their continuance in the league had no thought of the wider interest of the game.

4. Where was the wider love of the game when they were about to ditch Wakefield, now through the happenstance of the Crusaders withdrawal, a successful SL team ?

5. Where will be the wider love of the game when they ditch two or four clubs and pitch them ino the unfunded CC level just so the remainder can have abigger share of the Sky money.


2 All clubs, big, small, pro, semi-pro or amateur operate on self interest, not one club votes for an option that will cause the most damage to themselves to the benefit of others. In fact in the case of clubs that have shareholders it would actually be illegal to not operate to the benefit of the company first.

3 As I have shown you more than once the numbers at Keighley did not stack up, they were doomed with promotion and doomed without, cling on to your fairy tale beliefs, but the numbers are there to prove they were heading for bust and you have never ever once provided any facts at all that disprove it.

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.


#72 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,899 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:31 AM

It was all about self interest.


It was about supplying SKY with an elite professional RL competition which they asked for.

That's what it always was about.

It was about the game getting hundreds of millions of pounds over 17 years supplying SKY with what they wanted.

SKY didn't want semi-pro RL

Deal with it. these are the facts and the realities.

If you or anyone else want to argue this didn't greatly benefit the game then set out where the game would have been today without the £200,000,000. with more to come.....

Edited by The Parksider, 28 October 2012 - 10:33 AM.


#73 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,172 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:44 AM

I don't think we saw that. We saw Fev beat a club who aren't SL standard, and run a quality club close in the Cup before they capitulated by 60 points to Sheffield.

Do we really think that Featherstone team would have gone well in Superleague?

We saw them compete with a lower end SL team. That is what we are talking about. Not the gap between Cc and SL overall.

#74 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,172 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:00 AM

But 20 clubs would dilute the strength of our professional game. As you say there's no more money to be expected from SKY so what is the actual proposal from Gatcliffe? To further starve serious SL achievers of adequate subsidy to give it to small clubs to waste??

We just can't afford to do that, for me it'll kill the game and I'm shocked at how someone like Gatcliffe (have I got that name right) has the cheek to come out and suggest it.

SL is the flagship competition that to me keeps the game alive. The CC clubs don't do that.

To starve the SL clubs of investment to revive the CC clubs is erm....Madness??

Parky, what are you talking about?

Gatcliffe has given his preference, and tbh, I suspect he knows a hell of a lot more about the money and TV situation than you.

On the money point, here's a scenario:

Currently 14 clubs get £1.4m per year.
If this was stripped to 10 clubs with the money staying the same, then you have the opportunity to give either the next 10 clubs £560k funding each, or the next 8 £700k each. This should support them in a £1m salary cap.
Don't go along the lines of 'Sky want this blah blah blah' let's be honest, none of us know that, as long as we have a structure which gives Sky the number of games they want, and the viewing figures then they will support it. You could easily provide 3 games a week if that's an issue. Again, Gatcliffe knows more than either of us in this area.
Any increase in funding next time would see these figures vary.

#75 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,571 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:02 AM

As an estimate :

Current salary cap expediture by clubs

SL - 14 teams at say £1.6m ave plus 6 CC clubs at £0.4m ave = £24.8m p.a in total
Conference proposal - Conf 1 10 teams x £2.0m plus Conf 2 10 teams x £1.0m = £30m p.a

Therefore at least a £5m increase that has to be funded somehow. Drop in the ocean for Sky but who is going to persuade them?
Then there will be extra infrastructure, coaches, etc costs, plus a junior structure

#76 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,172 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:02 AM

In principle I'm in favour, in practice this proposal is going now where.

Why? New deals are up in a couple of years, things change all the time, why would this be going nowhere?

#77 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,172 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:07 AM

As an estimate :

Current salary cap expediture by clubs

SL - 14 teams at say £1.6m ave plus 6 CC clubs at £0.4m ave = £24.8m p.a in total
Conference proposal - Conf 1 10 teams x £2.0m plus Conf 2 10 teams x £1.0m = £30m p.a

Therefore at least a £5m increase that has to be funded somehow. Drop in the ocean for Sky but who is going to persuade them?
Then there will be extra infrastructure, coaches, etc costs, plus a junior structure

Just make your conference proposal at £1.6m and £1m and you have £4m of the £5m meaning you need only £1m additional funding.

Incidentally, Sky don't pay the full salary cap, so not sure why it should all be put in their court.

With a proposal like this, in effect all you are doing is giving 6 clubs more funding and including them in a SL structure. By reducing 4 clubs current level of funding, that gives a big chunk.

Your point about infrastructure etc. is probably the most relevant one IMHO, but central funding in relation to the salary cap is simple tbh, as you can set the cap at whatever level you want.

#78 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,610 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:14 AM

If they went to two leagues of 10, I'd hope they don't do any of this stupid naming of the leagues like "Super League" and "Super League 1". The Championship naming is ridiculous.
None of this "Premier" lark as well. Just nice and simple 1 and 2.

Conferences aren't an option either. It would completely defeat the point: making more intense and competitive leagues. Conferences would basically mean expansion of the top level, which would dilute the standards further. So for me, complete no go and not even what I think is being discussed.

The lack of fixtures isn't an argument as well. It's not difficult to create a longer season.

If it does happen, I'd like to see the season start later and an expansion of the Challenge Cup to group stages and an expansion of the World Club Challenge to fill the fixtures.
Posted Image

#79 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,899 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 12:09 PM

1. Gatcliffe has given his preference, and tbh, I suspect he knows a hell of a lot more about the money and TV situation than you.

2. On the money point, here's a scenario:

Currently 14 clubs get £1.4m per year.
If this was stripped to 10 clubs with the money staying the same, then you have the opportunity to give the next 10 clubs £560k each This should support them in a £1m salary cap.

3. Don't go along the lines of 'Sky want this blah blah blah' let's be honest, none of us know


1. Gatcliffe said nothing about money Dave. The clear challenge on this is for Gatcliffe to put the money for this where his mouth is.

I suspect this is hot air from Gatcliffe we can all do the suspecting thing. It's up to him to put up the proposal not a soundbite.

2. You have come up with a scanario where clubs on less than a million turnover are given another half a million to get them to a £1.5M turnover.

How are they supposed to then be promoted and compete with ten big clubs all on £4.5 to £5.5M turnover.

This is the real scanario. The gap remains massive

Financially Leeds, Hull, Catalans, Toulouse, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Huddersfield (through Davey) London (through Hughes) can murder any of the rest of them.

You relegate Bradford, Salford, Wakefield, HKR and cas into a second division and they will end up like all other second division relegated clubs with second rate attendances and lowered turnovers.

Diddling around with inadequate funding merely means you change where the massive gap is. I wonder if gatcliffe is so knowledgable on figures and can tell me differently.

3. We know the full record to date is SKY wanting one elite league and not wanting to put a penny into any second tier.

OK I don't know that the next SKY contract is not going to be £50,000,000 a year which just may make this work. I also don't know if SKY will do such a massive about face just to help clubs they never had any interest in.

So I'd best shurrup....

Edited by The Parksider, 28 October 2012 - 12:21 PM.


#80 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,899 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 12:20 PM

Conference proposal - Conf 1 10 teams x £2.0m plus Conf 2 10 teams x £1.0m = £30m p.a


Again all this does is give the richer clubs with the bigger attendances and the money men a £1M advantage from the SKY funding.

All this does is put SL1 on £6M turnovers and SL2 clubs on £2M turnovers.

the gap remains massive.

What you need herein complete fantasy theory is to give SL1 clubs £1.5M and SL2 clubs £3.5M and run that for a few years until clubs become even which won't happen anyway

£50,000,000 a year from SKY in theory may create an even meaningful two tier competition.

Sheffield and leigh are however light years away from being Leeds and wigan and will always remain so unless they themselves build their own businesses up..

Edited by The Parksider, 28 October 2012 - 12:26 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users