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

#141 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:56 PM

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.


The main ideas being put forward here - two-tier Super Leagues, geographical conferences - are based upon past experiences. The game has embraced these models in the past and moved away from them.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#142 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:02 PM

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.


The difference with the NFL is that it has found a very successful sporting and business model that works tremendously well for the market it operates in. With care it can replicate its success in new areas of the US, and quickly bring these new franchises up to the level of the rest.

British/European rugby league hasn't found a template that is anywhere near as successful, or even one that can guarantee survival for our top clubs. Revenue sharing, especially when attempting to bring in weaker, less well funded clubs, will lead to a levelling down in standards.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#143 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,909 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:10 PM

The main ideas being put forward here - two-tier Super Leagues, geographical conferences - are based upon past experiences. The game has embraced these models in the past and moved away from them.


I don't recall a 2 tier Super League of full-time teams at any point in the past.

Geographical conferences are not the OP.

We have a limited history of full time professional clubs but already we have as many as we need because that is all we could afford in the past and therefore we will never afford any more.

Cumbria have never had a decent team that could compete at the top so they never will.

Clubs are happy not to be in SL because the past says so etc etc etc

Apparently people are talking on mobile electronic machines now like on Star Trek. I just can't see how because most people couldn't afford a phone in the house in the 1960's.

#144 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,585 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:16 PM

The difference with the NFL is that it has found a very successful sporting and business model that works tremendously well for the market it operates in. With care it can replicate its success in new areas of the US, and quickly bring these new franchises up to the level of the rest.

British/European rugby league hasn't found a template that is anywhere near as successful, or even one that can guarantee survival for our top clubs. Revenue sharing, especially when attempting to bring in weaker, less well funded clubs, will lead to a levelling down in standards.


It should raise standards of the lower teams and lower standards for the higher teams resulting in a more competitve league, which should result in higher attendances overall. It's one step back to take two steps forward.

I think they used to have a ticket levy in the past i.e a portion of each ticket sold went to central funding. This resulted in the big teams with the big attendances paying more than the small teams. This was then divvied up amongst all the teams meaning some bonus cash for the lower teams from the bigger teams. It was abolished, of course, on the insistence of the top teams.

The dilemma is that if something is not done soon there are going to be so many failed clubs, the top half dozen will be left playing amongst themselves.

#145 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 05:36 PM

Apparently people are talking on mobile electronic machines now like on Star Trek. I just can't see how because most people couldn't afford a phone in the house in the 1960's.


Indeed times change.

For phone technology it's advanced 100 fold since the 1960's.

For RL it remains a minority sport with a low participation levels and paying audience figures better than the 1960's given they pay to watch on TV

I'd say we can afford a 12 club SL nowadays which is a great advancement from the 1960's.

Good point there.....

#146 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,229 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 06:56 PM

I don't recall a 2 tier Super League of full-time teams at any point in the past.

Geographical conferences are not the OP.

We have a limited history of full time professional clubs but already we have as many as we need because that is all we could afford in the past and therefore we will never afford any more.

Cumbria have never had a decent team that could compete at the top so they never will.

Clubs are happy not to be in SL because the past says so etc etc etc

Apparently people are talking on mobile electronic machines now like on Star Trek. I just can't see how because most people couldn't afford a phone in the house in the 1960's.

All well and good but there does seem to be a limit to how many people you can fit into a ground that holds 6,000, I think its 6,000.

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.


#147 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:28 PM

All well and good but there does seem to be a limit to how many people you can fit into a ground that holds 6,000, I think its 6,000.


Look if the ground only holds 6,000 then they can go play at Turf Moor Burnley.

Keighley told me.......

There's at least 5,000,000 people within 50 miles of Burnley.

#148 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,229 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:01 PM

Look if the ground only holds 6,000 then they can go play at Turf Moor Burnley.

Keighley told me.......

There's at least 5,000,000 people within 50 miles of Burnley.

And all with Cougars hats

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.


#149 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,585 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:56 AM

Look if the ground only holds 6,000 then they can go play at Turf Moor Burnley.

Keighley told me.......

There's at least 5,000,000 people within 50 miles of Burnley.


Don t get me involved. I m not in that argument. Don t lie about my posts either. I have NEVER supported the madcap scheme for Keighley to play in Burnley. Metcalf or somebody did propose that but it wasn t me and it s plainly ludicrous.

However, given that Keighley is now officially a part of Bradford and given that Bradford council fixed up Odsal and then gave the lease to the Bulls for a peppercorn rent for a very long time until they were so stupid they sold it, do you think Bradord Council should fund the building of a new stadium in Keighley for the Cougars. Shouldn t they treat all parts of their baliwick equally. If they helped the Bulls, they should help the Cougars What say you, Parksider ? Be brave, support something from a non SL perspective if you can..

#150 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,909 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 10:47 AM

All well and good but there does seem to be a limit to how many people you can fit into a ground that holds 6,000, I think its 6,000.


And clearly they'll never be improved so we may as well add that to the list of what will never happen.

FYI Tetley's stadium is being upgraded with terracing. It doesn't take a sugar daddy to improve your capacity but clearly this isn't happening because it's pointless and the past says so.

#151 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:10 PM


1. Don't lie about my posts.

2. I have NEVER supported the madcap scheme for Keighley to play in Burnley.

3. However, given that Keighley is now officially a part of Bradford and given that Bradford council fixed up Odsal and then gave the lease to the Bulls for a peppercorn rent for a very long time until they were so stupid they sold it, do you think Bradord Council should fund the building of a new stadium in Keighley for the Cougars.


1. Don't lie twice about the strength of Leeds Rhinos local junior set up.

2. So you supported keighley staying in a 7,500 capacity stadium with no room to expand?

How then would they have got the money to service their heavy debts and go round competing for the best juniors which you say they could have done, other than that rich man jumping out of a cake?

7,500 crowds in old stadiums like Belle Vue, Wheldon Road, and Craven Park hasn't seen bigger clubs than keighley thrive has it?

3. Isn't it the case that lawkholme lane is now a privately owned ground you lease? I'd support the council building Keighley a new stadium if the club will put back in the money they took for flogging the ground including the cricket pitch.

See, I don't like ground floggers and asset strippers. I'm an old "Parkside" lad and as for "Old" that links nicely to "Oldham" where another great benefactor of our game flogged off the ground and conemned the club to be small for eternity!

They did it at Swinton as well. Why should councils replace assets stripped by officers of limited companies??

Go on then??

Why??

#152 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,585 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:55 PM

1. Don't lie twice about the strength of Leeds Rhinos local junior set up.

2. So you supported keighley staying in a 7,500 capacity stadium with no room to expand?

How then would they have got the money to service their heavy debts and go round competing for the best juniors which you say they could have done, other than that rich man jumping out of a cake?

7,500 crowds in old stadiums like Belle Vue, Wheldon Road, and Craven Park hasn't seen bigger clubs than keighley thrive has it?

3. Isn't it the case that lawkholme lane is now a privately owned ground you lease? I'd support the council building Keighley a new stadium if the club will put back in the money they took for flogging the ground including the cricket pitch.

See, I don't like ground floggers and asset strippers. I'm an old "Parkside" lad and as for "Old" that links nicely to "Oldham" where another great benefactor of our game flogged off the ground and conemned the club to be small for eternity!

They did it at Swinton as well. Why should councils replace assets stripped by officers of limited companies??

Go on then??

Why??


In Keighley's case because they already did it for Bradford, another team in the council's area. Keighley people pay their taxes, don't they. Did the Bulls put any money into building the odsal terracing and demolishing the old main stand ? if they didn't then Keighley should also get some assistance. Isn't it a fact that Odsal is a publicly owned ground that the Bulls sub lease from the RFL. What's the difference?

Have Salford council assisted the reds with their new stadium, donating the land or something. If so they should also consider assisting Swinton, another team nominally based in Salford. Fair treatment for all etc etc.

I do agree with you, don't faint now, that selling grounds is a fatal excercise for clubs. especially if no one knows where the money went as at Hunslet or possibly Halifax. What was the deal with Maclaren Field. Where did the money go. That sale ultimately doomed Bramley.

Is this cake the same one that Glover and Hudgell jumped out of or the one in which the investors in Toulouse are hiding ? You just don't know which piece of confectionary any potential Keighley backer was hiding in and so you go with bluster and inuendo repeatedly. I don't know either if even if there was an investor but I don't categorically state that there was, since I do not know, whereas you deny categorically that he did not exist when you also don't know for sure.

I am not an architect but Keighleys capacity used to be 14,000. They have an old small main stand. I would think you could demolish it and build a length of the field stand in its place with seating and a small standing area in the front of it. The opposite side, the old scratin shed side has I think been studied and there is room for an expanded stand there. the lkley end could also sustain a bigger terrace or stand if the area behind which was or might still be a bowling green was obtained. The big kop at the Lawkholme lane end has been drastically reduced in size. I am not sure if there is scope to enlarge it again but its a possibility.

Isn't pulling in 7,500 or less in a decaying stadium but with a private company building you a stadium on public land the poster child for one of your big success stories of SL. A team that got PROMOTED to SL, no less.

Why can't some variation on that theme work for Keighley if they ever get to the point of being a candidate for SL, which they are not currently so don't get all huffy.

#153 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,909 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:29 PM

It pays to consider that instead diluting SL funding, some Championship clubs will help bridge the gap through their own efforts and business practices.

There are a number of clubs already with a stadium or developing one that could function quite happily in a second tier SL. They also have the potential fan base, playing rosta and kudos to step up rather than making a leap of faith. What comes next is the drive to market the competition to punters both at the gates and on TV and the clubs in this second tier may just have the impetus to sell a new era for the sport.

I think the second tier idea should also be considered from the point of view for SL clubs. I've always thought a 10 team SL is more a true reflection of the size of our first class competition, which I believe has a bit of a tarnished reputation in terms of justifying it's size when clubs are constantly failing. I believe they fail because they have nowhere to reset their sights other than "oblivion" in the Championships. it would be interesting to know which SL clubs would volunteer to be in SL2 for a few seasons, rather than be forced to set ambitious goals to compete with the biggest teams at the biggest teams level.

#154 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:07 PM

In Keighley's case because they already did it for Bradford, another team in the council's area. Keighley people pay their taxes, don't they. Did the Bulls put any money into building the odsal terracing and demolishing the old main stand ? if they didn't then Keighley should also get some assistance. Isn't it a fact that Odsal is a publicly owned ground that the Bulls sub lease from the RFL. What's the difference?

Have Salford council assisted the reds with their new stadium, donating the land or something. If so they should also consider assisting Swinton, another team nominally based in Salford. Fair treatment for all etc etc.

I do agree with you, don't faint now, that selling grounds is a fatal excercise for clubs. especially if no one knows where the money went as at Hunslet or possibly Halifax. What was the deal with Maclaren Field. Where did the money go. That sale ultimately doomed Bramley.

Is this cake the same one that Glover and Hudgell jumped out of or the one in which the investors in Toulouse are hiding ? You just don't know which piece of confectionary any potential Keighley backer was hiding in and so you go with bluster and inuendo repeatedly. I don't know either if even if there was an investor but I don't categorically state that there was, since I do not know, whereas you deny categorically that he did not exist when you also don't know for sure.

I am not an architect but Keighleys capacity used to be 14,000. They have an old small main stand. I would think you could demolish it and build a length of the field stand in its place with seating and a small standing area in the front of it. The opposite side, the old scratin shed side has I think been studied and there is room for an expanded stand there. the lkley end could also sustain a bigger terrace or stand if the area behind which was or might still be a bowling green was obtained. The big kop at the Lawkholme lane end has been drastically reduced in size. I am not sure if there is scope to enlarge it again but its a possibility.

Isn't pulling in 7,500 or less in a decaying stadium but with a private company building you a stadium on public land the poster child for one of your big success stories of SL. A team that got PROMOTED to SL, no less.

Why can't some variation on that theme work for Keighley if they ever get to the point of being a candidate for SL, which they are not currently so don't get all huffy.


I'm not "huffy" at all. Keighley don't need a new stadium. full stop