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

#121 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,778 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:00 AM

Yes GRIFF was absolutely spot on a two tier Superleague with a cut off based on current club fortunes leaves all the skint losers in a lower league of 2,000 crowds, with all the rich mens big clubs on 11,000 crowds in the higher league.


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

#122 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 3,982 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:02 AM

If we can't fund it then it's a nonstarter


We cant fund clubs in SL now.
Look how many have gone into admin.

#123 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,814 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:20 PM

It makes for more "Fantasy Rugby League" so people are right to ask for details about how it may work, even the sketchiest of details may keep this thread off the fantasy stuff.

Surely Three divisions of 12 would be far more "interesting" to discuss.

I like my fantasy Rugby League to be all inclusive Dave.

Why should all those great trad sides and new teams be locked out of dreamland - it's usually a place free for all to inhabit?

I'm not sure why you keep going on about it but I will acknowledge the Fantasy RL thing. This is a fans forum. When we talk about what people would like, then of course it is fantasy stuff. We aren't the ones who need to put a plan in place, or understand the merits, but that doesn't make people's ideas any worse than yours - perhaps you can hold off with the patronising stuff.

In terms of Gatcliffe, then he is absolutely right to raise whatever he thinks will be the best structure. I'm glad some people on here don't work with me, as some people are so closed minded it's unreal.

The starting point for any discussion on the long term future of the game should be based on what is the best option, with all barriers removed. If you start with a constraint like budget then we will stay as we are, or make cuts.

The fact is that pretty much everything should be put on the table, and then the detail worked through in terms of what is realistically achievable. A 2 division SL is not unachievable. The simple fact is that we could run a game with a Salary Cap of £1m, or add whatever rules in we want, so again, people's thought's shouldn't be driven by the hurdles this would cause.

For every negative point, it can be countered with a positive point, and the other way round.

If it is decided that the best thing for the game is to have two divisions of 10, which would assist in clubs playing at a more relevant level for them and personally I feel it would help expansion, then that needs to be the plan, and the detail to be worked on how it will be delivered after that. The plan may take 10 years to deliver, but it shouldn't be dismissed based on the fact that some people think we don;t have the funding in place.

Take finance out of it, come up with the ideas, then add the finance back in and create a plan which will allow it to be delivered.

By instantly dismissing ideas due to funding we are probably overlooking a lot of positive decisions.

Edited by Dave T, 01 November 2012 - 02:21 PM.


#124 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,797 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 06:22 PM

Well you can work it out.....

London would be sacrosanct so after that add Leeds, Fartown, Bradford, Wakey, Hull, Saints, Wigan and Wire plus Les Cats.

That little lot or SL1 would be on a near 11,000 average gate per game. They would have all the money men - Hughes, Caddick, McManus, Moran, Lenegan, Pearson & Davey etc.

So no danger of them not turning over around £5M each and signing up every quality senior or junior professional.

Now switch to SL2

Salford (skint) Cas (Skint) HKR (skint) Widnes (jury out), all of whom will have their fan bases devastated by relegation, then Fev (skint) Leigh (Skint) Sheffield (Skint) Fax (skint) Keighley (skint) and Batley (don't care about SL). Average crowds about 2,000.

Yes GRIFF was absolutely spot on a two tier Superleague with a cut off based on current club fortunes leaves all the skint losers in a lower league of 2,000 crowds, with all the rich mens big clubs on 11,000 crowds in the higher league.

That leaves a gap of at least a couple of million pounds between the two leagues.

So we now need to sort that out by playing Fantasy RL. What happens in my fantasy is SKY increase the annual funding to £20,000,000 a season and RFL/SLE give the 10 SL2 clubs £2,000,000 each to balance the competition. The SLI clubs get nothing.

The promoted club also get nothing and so go straight back down every year.

All for the good of the game.....


SL2 with 2 up 2 down to SL1 would get far more than 2k crowds. Chances are youd have a couple of the big Cumbrian teams in there. Not sure why you say everyone would be skint. New investors would find SL2 more attractive than a promotionless NL1

#125 Ackydave

Ackydave
  • Coach
  • 127 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:34 PM

I'm not sure why you keep going on about it but I will acknowledge the Fantasy RL thing. This is a fans forum. When we talk about what people would like, then of course it is fantasy stuff. We aren't the ones who need to put a plan in place, or understand the merits, but that doesn't make people's ideas any worse than yours - perhaps you can hold off with the patronising stuff.

In terms of Gatcliffe, then he is absolutely right to raise whatever he thinks will be the best structure. I'm glad some people on here don't work with me, as some people are so closed minded it's unreal.

The starting point for any discussion on the long term future of the game should be based on what is the best option, with all barriers removed. If you start with a constraint like budget then we will stay as we are, or make cuts.

The fact is that pretty much everything should be put on the table, and then the detail worked through in terms of what is realistically achievable. A 2 division SL is not unachievable. The simple fact is that we could run a game with a Salary Cap of £1m, or add whatever rules in we want, so again, people's thought's shouldn't be driven by the hurdles this would cause.

For every negative point, it can be countered with a positive point, and the other way round.

If it is decided that the best thing for the game is to have two divisions of 10, which would assist in clubs playing at a more relevant level for them and personally I feel it would help expansion, then that needs to be the plan, and the detail to be worked on how it will be delivered after that. The plan may take 10 years to deliver, but it shouldn't be dismissed based on the fact that some people think we don;t have the funding in place.

Take finance out of it, come up with the ideas, then add the finance back in and create a plan which will allow it to be delivered.

By instantly dismissing ideas due to funding we are probably overlooking a lot of positive decisions.


At last, a bit of sanity in the discussion.
People are far too quick to dismiss hopes and ambitions using finance as the sole reason.
I'm not daft enough not to realise just how hard it will be to get more equity in the system and trying to get some clubs to even consider a freeze or reduction in their income will be a 'mare but we must look at all possibilities with open minds.

#126 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,193 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:48 AM

At last, a bit of sanity in the discussion.

People are far too quick to dismiss hopes and ambitions using finance as the sole reason.


It's insane to dismiss the sole driver in professional sport........

#127 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,193 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:51 AM

1. SL2 with 2 up 2 down to SL1 would get far more than 2k crowds.

2. Chances are youd have a couple of the big Cumbrian teams in there.

3. Not sure why you say everyone would be skint.

4. New investors would find SL2 more attractive than a promotionless NL1


1. second tier RL has never got any better than 2,000 averages.

2. What are you on about? There are no big cumbrian teams??

3. Because they ARE all skint.

4. What "new investors"?? There aren't any for the small championship clubs??

I'm not willing to enter your world of fantasy RL.

#128 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,193 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:11 AM

1. I'm not sure why you keep going on about it but I will acknowledge the Fantasy RL thing. This is a fans forum. When we talk about what people would like, then of course it is fantasy stuff. We aren't the ones who need to put a plan in place, or understand the merits, but that doesn't make people's ideas any worse than yours - perhaps you can hold off with the patronising stuff. I'm glad some people on here don't work with me, as some people are so closed minded it's unreal.

2. The fact is that pretty much everything should be put on the table, and then the detail worked through in terms of what is realistically achievable. A 2 division SL is not unachievable. The simple fact is that we could run a game with a Salary Cap of £1m, or add whatever rules in we want, so again, people's thought's shouldn't be driven by the hurdles this would cause. The plan may take 10 years to deliver, but it shouldn't be dismissed based on the fact that some people think we don't have the funding in place.


1. Are you asking me to sit back and accept all this stuff Dave? Why is it "patronising" or "closed minded" to argue that two SL divisions won't work for the very practical reasons I and others set out?? Why is it patronising to point out the money is clearly limited as it stands and the gap is massive? It was most patronising when Padge who works hard on gathering facts and evidence was accused of being a self styled "expert". I'll take the cold hard realities every time.

2. All I want is Gatcliffe to back it up. You say he's likely to know more than me so why should he not just back it up and blow us naysayers away? I have exercised my mind by looking at the realities of "Things put on the table"..... "and then the detail worked through" as you say and I can find a way this can work by giving most of the SKY money to the second division - a radical (but IMHO damaging) plan - so my mind certainly is not closed. There are ten very big clubs and ten small clubs and a gap a mile wide. I simply invite people to open their minds and engage in debate with that. It's what the forum is for - news views discussion and debate.

Edited by The Parksider, 02 November 2012 - 06:01 AM.


#129 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,814 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:59 AM

It's insane to dismiss the sole driver in professional sport........

It's insane to dismiss ideas based on finances now. These discussions are about the future.

#130 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,778 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:15 PM

2. What are you on about? There are no big cumbrian teams??
.


:lol:

Exactly what I thought when I read it.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#131 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,193 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:52 PM

It's insane to dismiss ideas based on finances now. These discussions are about the future.


Yes that's fine Dave, if the future can find the finance to turn the championship into a professional league.

But the past shows it is highly unlikely.

What other highly unlikely events can we discuss???

#132 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,814 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 03:45 PM

Yes that's fine Dave, if the future can find the finance to turn the championship into a professional league.

But the past shows it is highly unlikely.

What other highly unlikely events can we discuss???

That's not actually right.

If you were to cut 4 teams from the top league and possibly bring in a new team (Toulouse or similar) then you are only actually looking to turn half of the Championship teams into full time teams. This is a very different thing. I'm still not saying it's possible or even the best thing to do, but you aren't simply trying to turn the CC teams into full time pros.

So when we are discussing this, we are basically looking to turn the strongest CC teams into full-time teams.

BTW, 10/10 is discussed, if we could only get 8 teams (top 3 from the Championship plus Toulouse for example) then this could be a sensible starting point.

A SL2 of:

London
Toulouse
Castleford
Widnes
Salford
Halifax
Featherstone
Sheffield/Leigh

So - funding (as I know you won;t let this go! ;) )
Current top 10 maintain current levels. (£1.4m x 10 = £14m)
Next 8 share the 4 ex-SL club's money (£700k x 8 = £5.6m)

The above is based on current finances. It may be decided that this kind of thing is impossible under these conditions and this could only be set up if a further £5m p.a could be raised - but then that is your plan to work towards.

#133 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,193 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 08:06 PM

That's not actually right.

If you were to cut 4 teams from the top league and possibly bring in a new team (Toulouse or similar) then you are only actually looking to turn half of the Championship teams into full time teams. This is a very different thing. I'm still not saying it's possible or even the best thing to do, but you aren't simply trying to turn the CC teams into full time pros.

So when we are discussing this, we are basically looking to turn the strongest CC teams into full-time teams.

BTW, 10/10 is discussed, if we could only get 8 teams (top 3 from the Championship plus Toulouse for example) then this could be a sensible starting point.

A SL2 of:

London
Toulouse
Castleford
Widnes
Salford
Halifax
Featherstone
Sheffield/Leigh

So - funding (as I know you won;t let this go! ;) )
Current top 10 maintain current levels. (£1.4m x 10 = £14m)
Next 8 share the 4 ex-SL club's money (£700k x 8 = £5.6m)

The above is based on current finances. It may be decided that this kind of thing is impossible under these conditions and this could only be set up if a further £5m p.a could be raised - but then that is your plan to work towards.


These are very interesting thoughts and would make for an exciting competition, something different after all these years and I will let the funding issue go so as not to be tedious.

As an obsessive compulsive pragmatist with conspiracy theory tendencies I think there are many reasons beyond finance why this won't happen. What got my goat was this Gatcliffe guy just throwing stuff like this in the ring with no hint of detail at all. At least Mike Smith was trying to rescue his reputation and Andy Burnham was blatant vote fishing.

Here's my latest fantasy. some RL journalist goes to see Gatcliffe and asks him how this will all work. It's time the RL press stopped just cutting and pasting press releases.

#134 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,393 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:20 PM

That's not actually right.

If you were to cut 4 teams from the top league and possibly bring in a new team (Toulouse or similar) then you are only actually looking to turn half of the Championship teams into full time teams. This is a very different thing. I'm still not saying it's possible or even the best thing to do, but you aren't simply trying to turn the CC teams into full time pros.

So when we are discussing this, we are basically looking to turn the strongest CC teams into full-time teams.

BTW, 10/10 is discussed, if we could only get 8 teams (top 3 from the Championship plus Toulouse for example) then this could be a sensible starting point.

A SL2 of:

London
Toulouse
Castleford
Widnes
Salford
Halifax
Featherstone
Sheffield/Leigh

So - funding (as I know you won;t let this go! ;) )
Current top 10 maintain current levels. (£1.4m x 10 = £14m)
Next 8 share the 4 ex-SL club's money (£700k x 8 = £5.6m)

The above is based on current finances. It may be decided that this kind of thing is impossible under these conditions and this could only be set up if a further £5m p.a could be raised - but then that is your plan to work towards.


A conference system set up on geographical divisions as fare as possible would be better tha a SL1, SL2 arrangement in my opinion.

You could have:-

An Eastern division of

Bradford
Castleford
Featherstone
Leeds
Halifax
Huddersfield
Hull
Hull KR


and

A Western division of

Catalans
Leigh
London
Salford
St Helens
Warrington
Widnes
Wigan

As you can see the travelling expenses will be reduced. The Derby matches would be numerous and increase crowds and interest dramatically e.g new Derbies we don't currently have Fev V Cas and Trinity, Hal v Hudd and Bradford, Wigan V Leigh, Salford v Leigh.

Also, with cross conference games thrown in you would still have the clashes of the giants, Sts V Leeds, Hull etc. Bradford v Warrington.

The increase in gate receipts and the reduction in travel expenses might enable the financing of this or, as you say, additional funding might be needed.

This was done in the days of the Yorkshire and Lancashire leagues ( for those who remember them) and the NFL do it due to the huge size of the US and it works brilliantly.

#135 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,814 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 03:31 PM

The problem with that Keighley is that you need 20 teams that are strong enough to play in one comp, and tbh we probably dont even have 14.

Its why i'd go with 2 divisions to allow for different level caps and funding.

If we had 18-20 teams capable of being competitive in one comp then id support geographical conferences.

#136 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,393 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 04:44 PM

The problem with that Keighley is that you need 20 teams that are strong enough to play in one comp, and tbh we probably dont even have 14.

Its why i'd go with 2 divisions to allow for different level caps and funding.

If we had 18-20 teams capable of being competitive in one comp then id support geographical conferences.


I take your point and it's true there would be some weaker teams initially but Fev and Halifax against some lower level SL teams in the Challenge Cup in recent years suggest that they could compete against the bottom half of the structure. Hopefully, in time, the weaker teams would strengthen. The very top is likely to be just that whatever system is used.

#137 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 06:23 PM

I take your point and it's true there would be some weaker teams initially but Fev and Halifax against some lower level SL teams in the Challenge Cup in recent years suggest that they could compete against the bottom half of the structure. Hopefully, in time, the weaker teams would strengthen. The very top is likely to be just that whatever system is used.


The trouble with this is that it would lower the intensity of the games - the opposite of what is needed in terms of producing international-class players for England.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#138 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,193 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:30 AM

The trouble with this is that it would lower the intensity of the games - the opposite of what is needed in terms of producing international-class players for England.


I'd hate to see Leeds versus Fax or Fev as things stand now. These "derbies" would draw fans once but not after the initial slaughter.

To be more inclusive which is what people want which is fine, you have to water down the increased numbers of teams to an even standard.

This means giving far far more SKY money to Leigh, Cas, Halifax and Featherstone than what is given to SL clubs now.

Then these clubs can compete for players with the bigger clubs.

If there's no more money from SKY maybe give these four clubs two £milion a year and cut the rests SKY money by a third.

To stop the rich men just putting more in creating wage inflation (would they want to put more in if other clubs were getting massive handouts?) limit the cap to say £1.2M.

That adds up as near as I can get it.

Edited by The Parksider, 04 November 2012 - 07:32 AM.


#139 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,888 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:21 AM

if the inventors of motor vehicles based their ideas purely on past experiences we would all be travelling around on rails.

So lets not assume we can't improve things because the past says otherwise.

#140 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,393 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 01:14 PM

I'd hate to see Leeds versus Fax or Fev as things stand now. These "derbies" would draw fans once but not after the initial slaughter.

To be more inclusive which is what people want which is fine, you have to water down the increased numbers of teams to an even standard.

This means giving far far more SKY money to Leigh, Cas, Halifax and Featherstone than what is given to SL clubs now.

Then these clubs can compete for players with the bigger clubs.

If there's no more money from SKY maybe give these four clubs two £milion a year and cut the rests SKY money by a third.

To stop the rich men just putting more in creating wage inflation (would they want to put more in if other clubs were getting massive handouts?) limit the cap to say £1.2M.

That adds up as near as I can get it.


That sounds like an example of revenue sharing. This has been very successful in gthe NFL but I don';t think the top teams over here can see the wood for the trees of self interest. It would be great if it did bhappen.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users