Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
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
- - - - -

The SL Licensing v Promotion & Relegation debate thread


  • Please log in to reply
292 replies to this topic

#181 thundergaz

thundergaz
  • Coach
  • 2,657 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:09 AM

We have points difference as the first tie-break.

The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom.


Sorry Richie but I disagree. The top 4 clubs will always be a step ahead of the so called smaller clubs it won't bridge the gap if the league is smaller. The top 4 are the top 4 because they pay more on wages and get better quality players making the league smaller wont sort the gap Richie. But to be honest I don't know what will but that's the RFLs job to find a solution that's if they want to of course.

#182 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:43 AM

So is the reduction of the salary cap "good for the code"?

Or is it just good for a handful of clubs who want to be in SL but can't compete?

There is a big difference

Anyone??


Our problems are built around strangling the potential of our current Super clubs via salary cap, take the ceiling away and limit to 50% income. If that means Leeds/Wigan/Wire/Saints/Hull can spend £3-4M then brilliant - we can look at Welsh RU players again which has a knock on for the Welsh National team.

We must never create equality by holding back the big clubs.

#183 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,618 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:58 AM

Sorry Richie but I disagree. The top 4 clubs will always be a step ahead of the so called smaller clubs it won't bridge the gap if the league is smaller. The top 4 are the top 4 because they pay more on wages and get better quality players making the league smaller wont sort the gap Richie. But to be honest I don't know what will but that's the RFLs job to find a solution that's if they want to of course.


Well, that's your opinion, perhaps, but I struggle to reconcile it with my perception.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#184 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,942 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:35 PM

Sorry Richie but I disagree. The top 4 clubs will always be a step ahead of the so called smaller clubs it won't bridge the gap if the league is smaller.


Griff says "The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom".

But neither of you back up your stance?

The reduction in the division gives the following SKY monies.....

14 clubs £1.3M
12 clubs £1.5M
10 clubs £1.8M

With 14 clubs some have not been able to pay full wages.
With 10 clubs SKY money pays ALL the wages.

The crowd averages are also likely to rise per club if you take out clubs on small attendances.

Taking out the weakest clubs takes out the weakest 50 or 100 players the best of whom the new "smaller clubs" may feel will improve their team.

Would you gentlemen like to have a re-think and agree something??

All things being even so far I suggest that clubs will sort out on an additional two bases.....

1. The clubs with the best juniors rising up through their careers will get best value for money and performance from these players. Clubs who don't produce top juniors will pay through the nose for ageing stars on their way down. This is what american sport avoids.

2. All things being even an established pot winning club will get the nod from prospective transfer targets over clubs with no record of winning pots.

Also consider if a larger SL (16 clubs 18 clubs 20 clubs) will create an untenable gap?

Edited by The Parksider, 18 January 2013 - 01:37 PM.


#185 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,942 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:49 PM

Our problems are built around strangling the potential of our current Super clubs via salary cap, take the ceiling away and limit to 50% income. If that means Leeds/Wigan/Wire/Saints/Hull can spend £3-4M then brilliant - we can look at Welsh RU players again which has a knock on for the Welsh National team.

We must never create equality by holding back the big clubs.


Craiq

I love the last line. It sounds great and I'm fed it a lot.

But the reality is that we can't get top Rugby Union players.

I would say that we have a player shortage because after 17 years SL clubs are producing far too few top juniors, the quality of imports is going down, the top british players are looking to NRL and we see players who are ending their careers or fading at top SL clubs being snapped up by bottom SL clubs.We see clubs claiming to be paying full cap losing games regularly against clubs they should not lose to.

I'd put it to people that if the £13,000,000 we spend on SL players every year was increased to £18,000, it may not increase the quality of the playing squads?

I'd throw it in there that if Leeds were allowed to spend another £100K then such as Cas may have to say bye to their quality young hooker Mr. Clark? Mr. Moran would have young Bateman?

Is it the case that unleashing the spending power of the top clubs would severely restrict the bottom clubs?

#186 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:05 PM

14 x £1.3m = £18.2m pa

FT SL 1. 10 clubs at £1.3m = £13m, 27 fixtures and play offs top 5, 1 down. Increase revenues due to 'bigger' more competitive games - becomes a true SUPER league. Cap at 50% income, min spend at £1.65m

FT SL 2. 10 clubs at £580k = £5.8m pa, difference from above plus 6 clubs currently getting 100k from rfl in Championship. 27 Fixtures with top 5 play off winner promoted if willing to meet £1.65m player spend. Explore opportunities to expand sky deal for a weekly fixture. max spend 50% income min £1m.

3 year franchise, objective to move to 10/12 then 12/12 as enough clubs able/willing to meet criteria. Clubs entering admin would be removed should a non SL club have met criteria and wished to move up.

Ideally imo:
SL 1 to consist of Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Wire, Saints, Hull, London, Catalans, Huddersfield and Wakey/HKR. 3 non EU in squad
SL 2 to consist of Cas, Salford, HKR/Wakey, Widnes, Fev, Fax, Leigh, Welsh club, Toulouse and Sheff/Cumbrian team. 2 non EU in squad

Benefits:
1. Intensity
2. Target RU players in Wales especially
3. Consistent TV Spectacle
4. Platform to grow into
5. Unifies sport

#187 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,942 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:21 PM

14 x £1.3m = £18.2m pa

FT SL 1. 10 clubs at £1.3m = £13m, 27 fixtures and play offs top 5, 1 down. Increase revenues due to 'bigger' more competitive games - becomes a true SUPER league. Cap at 50% income, min spend at £1.65m

FT SL 2. 10 clubs at £580k = £5.8m pa, difference from above plus 6 clubs currently getting 100k from rfl in Championship. 27 Fixtures with top 5 play off winner promoted if willing to meet £1.65m player spend. Explore opportunities to expand sky deal for a weekly fixture. max spend 50% income min £1m.

3 year franchise, objective to move to 10/12 then 12/12 as enough clubs able/willing to meet criteria. Clubs entering admin would be removed should a non SL club have met criteria and wished to move up.

Ideally imo:
SL 1 to consist of Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Wire, Saints, Hull, London, Catalans, Huddersfield and Wakey/HKR. 3 non EU in squad
SL 2 to consist of Cas, Salford, HKR/Wakey, Widnes, Fev, Fax, Leigh, Welsh club, Toulouse and Sheff/Cumbrian team. 2 non EU in squad

Benefits:
1. Intensity
2. Target RU players in Wales especially
3. Consistent TV Spectacle
4. Platform to grow into
5. Unifies sport


Very interesting proposition.

You missed Hunslet BTW

#188 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:32 PM

Very interesting proposition.

You missed Hunslet BTW


I assumed the twinning put them out of contention, otherwise they were a shoe in, but in 3 years after pulling out of the partnership who knows.

#189 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,200 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:02 PM

So is the reduction of the salary cap "good for the code"?

Or is it just good for a handful of clubs who want to be in SL but can't compete?

There is a big difference



Anyone??



It's good for three reasons.

1. It allows more SL teams to be able to function and so prevents a regression to a small boring rump of a 6 or 7 team league.

2. It allows some of the top CC clubs to be more able to develop to the point where they too can compete in SL. It enlrages the gene pool. Interbreeding in small family units is bad.

3. It stabilises the whole top tier and prevents the mass bankruptcies we have seen in the last few years and so allows the game to present a more positive image of a large, vibrant, stable competition to the outsdie world to encourage sponsors , investors and TV companies to be part of it.

4. It does not have to be permanent. If the whole of the member clubs start to be financially stable and able to afford to pay players more, it can be increased as necessary.

#190 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,200 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:07 PM

But aren't on course to produce professional players.

They're all down Cas and Fev way.

Sadly 10,000 fans don't make a competetive team.

You have already said losing teams lose fans.

We are looking for a format for the pro game in which there's a balance that creates stability, which in turn gives the conditions for sustained growth.

We see this in Leeds, not in the Calder area. 17 years on, and only a rich man can save them.


Wasn't Caddick a rich man when he saved leeds Rhinos from extinction ?

Don't Leeds Rhinos sign most of their juniors from outside the leeds area ?

Wakefield are new to the party finance wise. give them time. they may well produce their own juniors whereever they sign them from a la Leeds

#191 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,200 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:10 PM

We have points difference as the first tie-break.

The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom.


That just dosn't follow. I played for years in a 4 team league and one of then was perennially bad and at the botoom year after year.

#192 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,200 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:12 PM

Our problems are built around strangling the potential of our current Super clubs via salary cap, take the ceiling away and limit to 50% income. If that means Leeds/Wigan/Wire/Saints/Hull can spend £3-4M then brilliant - we can look at Welsh RU players again which has a knock on for the Welsh National team.

We must never create equality by holding back the big clubs.


Basically then we must never create equality.

#193 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,200 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:27 PM

14 x £1.3m = £18.2m pa

FT SL 1. 10 clubs at £1.3m = £13m, 27 fixtures and play offs top 5, 1 down. Increase revenues due to 'bigger' more competitive games - becomes a true SUPER league. Cap at 50% income, min spend at £1.65m

FT SL 2. 10 clubs at £580k = £5.8m pa, difference from above plus 6 clubs currently getting 100k from rfl in Championship. 27 Fixtures with top 5 play off winner promoted if willing to meet £1.65m player spend. Explore opportunities to expand sky deal for a weekly fixture. max spend 50% income min £1m.

3 year franchise, objective to move to 10/12 then 12/12 as enough clubs able/willing to meet criteria. Clubs entering admin would be removed should a non SL club have met criteria and wished to move up.

Ideally imo:
SL 1 to consist of Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Wire, Saints, Hull, London, Catalans, Huddersfield and Wakey/HKR. 3 non EU in squad
SL 2 to consist of Cas, Salford, HKR/Wakey, Widnes, Fev, Fax, Leigh, Welsh club, Toulouse and Sheff/Cumbrian team. 2 non EU in squad

Benefits:
1. Intensity
2. Target RU players in Wales especially
3. Consistent TV Spectacle
4. Platform to grow into
5. Unifies sport


That sounds pretty good apart from 1. What about p and r from SL2 to the Championships and 2. How do you have London, with no fans, no ground and a lousy team in SL ahead of newly cashed up Widnes and Salford in new stadia or maybe even Toulouse in a new/improeved stadium and well heeld investors.

#194 jannerboyuk

jannerboyuk
  • Coach
  • 4,857 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:50 PM

I think exposing ourselves to the wage market of union would be a mistake
PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF http://www.rugbyleaguecares.org/ and http://www.walesrugb...-wales-for-2013
Predictions for the future -
Crusaders RL to get a franchise for 2012 onwards -WRONG
Widnes Vikings also to get a franchise - RIGHT
Crusaders RL to do the double over Widnes and finish five places ahead of them -WRONG
Widnes Vikings NOT to dominate rugby league in years to come! STILL TO COME

http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/cardiffdemonsrlfc/
http://www.walesrugbyleague.co.uk/

I promise to pay �10 to the charity of Bomb Jacks choice if Widnes Millionaires finish above the battling underdogs Crusaders RL. I OWE A TENNER!
http://www.jaxaxe.co...89/Default.aspx

#195 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,942 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 08:43 PM

Don't Leeds Rhinos sign most of their juniors from outside the leeds area ?


No, not at all.

#196 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:23 PM

That sounds pretty good apart from 1. What about p and r from SL2 to the Championships and 2. How do you have London, with no fans, no ground and a lousy team in SL ahead of newly cashed up Widnes and Salford in new stadia or maybe even Toulouse in a new/improeved stadium and well heeld investors.


1. Covered in post, 3 year franchise and objective to expand by the entry of ambitious clubs able to meet criteria
2. London will work, and must work. It is now producing players but plays in the wrong area

#197 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,942 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:21 AM

I think exposing ourselves to the wage market of union would be a mistake


There's a lot of getting carried away on this one. Rich owners = raise the cap, buy Union players.

Rich owner = run out and buy up a top class team and race up the table.

The player shortage is very very real, and rival leagues and codes are still financially streets ahead.

The player shortage may well dictate the make up of SL, Noble was all for a reduction to 12 IIRC on this basis.

#198 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,618 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 09:43 AM

That just dosn't follow. I played for years in a 4 team league and one of then was perennially bad and at the botoom year after year.


Why didn't they get relegated then ? Nowhere to go ? :mellow:

Hardly proves your point. They were just a team literally "out of their league".
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#199 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,618 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 09:46 AM

Griff says "The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom".

But neither of you back up your stance?


Are we saying that the bulk of the "blow-out" scores don't involve the bottom four clubs ? :mellow:

I'm too busy with work to give it the attention it deserves at the moment but if that doesn't prove to be true I'd gladly concede the point.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#200 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,942 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 12:20 PM

Are we saying that the bulk of the "blow-out" scores don't involve the bottom four clubs ? :mellow:

I'm too busy with work to give it the attention it deserves at the moment but if that doesn't prove to be true I'd gladly concede the point.


I don't know, plenty of time to analyse the point.

My gut feeling is based on the extreems where if the top four clubs played each other all the time we'd get a certain level of results including blow out scores. If the top four played the bottom four in a sixteen team league you'd also get mixed results including blow out scores. I'd guess at a lot more.

Inclusiveness may lead to more "foregone conclusions" foregone conclusions aren't too good at attracting fans.

I remember Leeds playing in the old one division in which you played all the clubs in your county. Some dreadful one sided games in those days and some dreadful crowds.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users