Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world 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

#81 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 12:35 PM

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.


Fev got one good result in the cup?

We're talking about a Superleague of two divisions, and the biggest problem is the gap between the two divisions.

The finest argument as regards SL1 and SL2 is that SL2 will be seen as the Championship no matter what label you put on it.

Second tier RL is second tier RL and unlike soccer there is a massive gap. It also does not attract many fans.

The top club in the RFL can attract 17,000 fans, ten places down they attract less than half that, another 10 places down again they attract less than a tenth of that.

For there not to be a gap that tremendous imbalance in income has to be rectified. That will cost a fortune in money SKY won't see any return on.

Creating schemes where the top clubs STILL get more money than the lower clubs will waste millions that could be used to make Superleague a vibrant game from top to bottom.

Why waste millions, why not invest it in the right clubs, the ones who attract massive gates and develop professional players, why not subsidise a Welsh SL team??

#82 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,723 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 12:50 PM

TBH Parky, I'm not going to get into one of these long discussions which go round in circles and take over threads.

You say it's up to Gatcliffe to put up the facts - maybe he will, he has said he will discuss it at the relevant forum, that forum is not speaking to the Warrington Guardian - so he doesn't have to provide the details to them, I'm not sure why you think he should.

You say we should invest in the right clubs, but who is to say we have the right clubs at the moment?

You have strong views on this, I have heard them 100's of times on here and I respect them (and share many of them) but with due respect I don't need to go through it all again.

A 20 team SL could work. We all have a different definition of what 'work' is. It may not work by your definition, but it could by mine.

#83 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,375 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 12:52 PM

Fev got one good result in the cup?

We're talking about a Superleague of two divisions, and the biggest problem is the gap between the two divisions.

The finest argument as regards SL1 and SL2 is that SL2 will be seen as the Championship no matter what label you put on it.

Second tier RL is second tier RL and unlike soccer there is a massive gap. It also does not attract many fans.

The top club in the RFL can attract 17,000 fans, ten places down they attract less than half that, another 10 places down again they attract less than a tenth of that.

For there not to be a gap that tremendous imbalance in income has to be rectified. That will cost a fortune in money SKY won't see any return on.

Creating schemes where the top clubs STILL get more money than the lower clubs will waste millions that could be used to make Superleague a vibrant game from top to bottom.

Why waste millions, why not invest it in the right clubs, the ones who attract massive gates and develop professional players, why not subsidise a Welsh SL team??


You can't have subsidising the teams with massive gates and subsidising a Welsh SL team in the same sentence if you want to make sense.

#84 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,723 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 12:55 PM

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..

To have two succesful divisions you need the overlap to be at the bottom of the 1st and top of the 2nd.

You don't need Halifax in the 2nd division having the same level of financial performance as Leeds at the top of the 1st. You do need a structure which allows them to grow into a competitive team.
At the moment there is an argument that the gap between CC and SL is massive and growing. This is being forced by salary caps and no funding. If Featherstone had backers to support spending £1m a year, they are not allowed.

#85 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 01:14 PM


1. To have two succesful divisions you need the overlap to be at the bottom of the 1st and top of the 2nd.

2. You don't need Halifax in the 2nd division having the same level of financial performance as Leeds at the top of the 1st. You do need a structure which allows them to grow into a competitive team.

3. At the moment there is an argument that the gap between CC and SL is massive and growing. This is being forced by salary caps and no funding. If Featherstone had backers to support spending £1m a year, they are not allowed.


Thanks for replying and i appreciate your points......

1. I think we could get an overlap but it would depend on giving money to the second tier and I see no return on that other than the best CC team could replace the worst SL team.

But that only leaves us with the old Yo Yo thing - up and down go the same few clubs.

2. Promotion for one year doesn't allow clubs to bridge that gap and become competetive. Leigh could not do it, Widnes would have been straight down this year. HKR Salford and huddersfield went up and stayed up with private money. They didn't grow into SL clubs.

It comes back to the fact that second tier RL isn't a place where you get growth, just survival.

3. I fear that if Featherstone have backers they will become another Salford or HKR - once the backer says that's it the house of cards collapses.

I agree Dave we need clubs to grow. But it won't happen just handing out subsidies. We need clubs to grow fans and quality professional players and we do have clubs slowly growing but only in superleague.

If there is any extra money it has to really go into Superleague and not as an even split which also prevents growth. If there really is a LOT more extra money we need to set up South Wales again and Gateshead etc.

We can't give it to CC clubs sat on the doorsteps of SL clubs just to play wage inflation.

Gatcliffe may be a clever man but Mo Lyndsay was cleverer.

#86 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,758 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 02:19 PM

Is this not more about marginalising four clubs rather than admitting six to the elite ?

Discuss....
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#87 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,723 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 02:37 PM

Thanks for replying and i appreciate your points......

1. I think we could get an overlap but it would depend on giving money to the second tier and I see no return on that other than the best CC team could replace the worst SL team.

But that only leaves us with the old Yo Yo thing - up and down go the same few clubs.

2. Promotion for one year doesn't allow clubs to bridge that gap and become competetive. Leigh could not do it, Widnes would have been straight down this year. HKR Salford and huddersfield went up and stayed up with private money. They didn't grow into SL clubs.

It comes back to the fact that second tier RL isn't a place where you get growth, just survival.

3. I fear that if Featherstone have backers they will become another Salford or HKR - once the backer says that's it the house of cards collapses.

I agree Dave we need clubs to grow. But it won't happen just handing out subsidies. We need clubs to grow fans and quality professional players and we do have clubs slowly growing but only in superleague.

If there is any extra money it has to really go into Superleague and not as an even split which also prevents growth. If there really is a LOT more extra money we need to set up South Wales again and Gateshead etc.

We can't give it to CC clubs sat on the doorsteps of SL clubs just to play wage inflation.

Gatcliffe may be a clever man but Mo Lyndsay was cleverer.

im not sure if you read my suggestion, it may seem complex, but i dont agree that its right to just set up two divisions with different funding and one up one down. That would just be going back to the previous format.
My format or similar would not really drive yo-yo clubs as they have had to prove they are stronger than other clubs and are integrated into the top division in a smoother manner... imho of course!

#88 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 05:30 PM

Im not sure if you read my suggestion, My format or similar would not really drive yo-yo clubs as they have had to prove they are stronger than other clubs and are integrated into the top division in a smoother manner... imho of course!


Sorry if I missed a point there. I'd be interested to hear what you mean.

#89 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 05:35 PM

Is this not more about marginalising four clubs rather than admitting six to the elite ?

Discuss....


Sadly Gatcliffe gave us a big fat zero to discuss.

The "idea" tabled was nothing more than has been tabled on here for years.

As it stands it looks very much like PR claptrap designed to make fans think that they are considering all options.

Unless they are complete and utter numpties they will have known which way they are going all along.

#90 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,425 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:05 PM

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.


And for me thats why in the UK we have so many problems in the game. Clubs only think of themselves and not whats best for the game as a whole. For me I would rather the RFL took all decisions away from the clubs and made decisions based on whats best for the game. The clubs or each division can have a seat on the board and be involved in matters but the ultimate decision should not be from just the clubs alone in my opinion.

#91 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,079 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:28 PM

And for me thats why in the UK we have so many problems in the game. Clubs only think of themselves and not whats best for the game as a whole. For me I would rather the RFL took all decisions away from the clubs and made decisions based on whats best for the game. The clubs or each division can have a seat on the board and be involved in matters but the ultimate decision should not be from just the clubs alone in my opinion.


Most clubs directors though are legally obliged to put their shareholders interests first. Following on from your thinking should all clubs be subsidiaries of the RFL Ltd Co. That of course raises more problems.

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.


#92 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,109 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:31 PM

all clubs be subsidiaries of the RFL Ltd Co.


Tremendous idea, worthy of support.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#93 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,079 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:57 PM

Tremendous idea, worthy of support.

I like the idea, whether the richer clubs would buy into it or not is a different matter, and would the RFL actually want to own subsidiaries run by basket cases is yet another question.

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.


#94 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:06 PM

I like the idea, whether the richer clubs would buy into it or not is a different matter, and would the RFL actually want to own subsidiaries run by basket cases is yet another question.


Leeds won the damn thing again and Hetherington himself said it should really not go on like this.

If the clubs continue to work against each other then there'll be winners and losers, the only problem being it'll be the same winners and losers. It will all go stale IMHO, if it's not stale now.

Not many of the SL chiefs seem as keen to be putting money into their clubs as they once were and seem to be pointing to a Superleague that stands on it's own two feet.

Yet clubs keep kicking the feet from under each other as Hull raid HKR's playing roster, Salford are picked off and Cas are just a nursery for any SL club with money.

There isn't 14 "Super" clubs anymore so it's down to 12 next. Work against each other and it may hit 10.

There's a business plan that can create a vibrant Superleague, trouble is it's a plan for one business with one aim, not 12 businesses and 12 aims.

As clubs move away from reliance on rich benefactors so the rich benefactors who work against the common good are no longer needed.

Bradford and Wakey can't get rich backers and have been let back in with "local" businessmen at the helm, so there's a struggle for some years whilst the engravers continue to put the same names on the trophies.

Time to sit down and level the playing field, a complete contrivance but this isn't about sport it's about the made for TV entertainment business and the masses will swallow it if it's enjoyable....

#95 HappyDave

HappyDave
  • Coach
  • 3,236 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 12:47 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


Why call them Conferences? That's confusing. :huh: That's what we call amateur comps in the UK. We're not talking about the NFL. Haha.

I still prefer the idea of a 2 level Super League of 10 teams each division with 60% of Sky money to the top level SL1 (?) and 40% going to SL2 (?) [would 20 - 30% difference in money between the top level and the 2nd level be too much for P&R to work?] and keep Tier 2 as a 1 league semi-pro 'Championship'.

Edited by HappyDave, 29 October 2012 - 01:04 AM.

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

#96 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:49 AM

I still prefer the idea of a 2 level Super League of 10 teams each division with 60% of Sky money to the top level SL1 (?) and 40% going to SL2 (?) [would 20 - 30% difference in money between the top level and the 2nd level be too much for P&R to work?] and keep Tier 2 as a 1 league semi-pro 'Championship'.


Yes your already rich clubs are all getting more SKY money than the little clubs who you have as semi pro so it would not work. Your rich SL1 clubs would also have all the best players and the promoted club would have no chance.

Maybe Mr. Gatcliffe can make it work.

#97 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,648 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:05 AM

So basically the plan is to get rid of 4 teams from SL, but to make those 4 teams feel better about it they'll rebrand the 2nd division so it's called SL2 or something. Whatever you call it, it won't be the top division. The best players will still want to be in the top flight, and that's where all the money will go. I would question whether Sky would even be interested in showing any sort of 2nd tier competition, so all this talk of getting Sky to pay for it is nothing but wishful thinking. I'd also agree with the above comments about how the RFL should be discussing this and making the decisions - not the clubs involved.

#98 HappyDave

HappyDave
  • Coach
  • 3,236 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:08 AM

Yes your already rich clubs are all getting more SKY money than the little clubs who you have as semi pro so it would not work. Your rich SL1 clubs would also have all the best players and the promoted club would have no chance.

Maybe Mr. Gatcliffe can make it work.


Not if the SL1 salary cap was attainable for all clubs in SL1. With the winning money for SL2 being a 'level up' payment being the difference between SL1 money per club and SL2 money per club?
"I've never seen a woman with hairy ears... And I've been to St Helens" - John Bishop

#99 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,758 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:17 AM

The problem with the Conference idea of two "horizontal" divisions is that you inevitably get more blow-out scores. Before you switch to that system, you need to have some sort of rudimentary system for equalising ability - such as the NFL's draft system. Not likely to happen in the immediate future - so I reckon we'll be sticking with the "vertical" format.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#100 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,758 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:18 AM

So basically the plan is to get rid of 4 teams from SL, but to make those 4 teams feel better about it they'll rebrand the 2nd division so it's called SL2 or something.


Aye - I reckon that's about right.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users