Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

The SL Licensing v Promotion & Relegation debate thread


  • Please log in to reply
292 replies to this topic

#221 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,690 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:25 PM

I absolutely don't see how any of that very long post points to the fact that in a 10 team league there would be no blowouts.


The research showed clubs in SL without money suffered many blowouts.

16 clubs would be great, 14 good 12 disappointing 10 tedious.

But what will create blowouts is where clubs are let into SL with a serious lack of money, or a lack of quality players regardless of the league size.

It's most likely a smaller league will avoid ending up with a skint club in it

Edited by The Parksider, 20 January 2013 - 04:27 PM.


#222 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 6,039 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:55 PM

The research showed clubs in SL without money suffered many blowouts.

16 clubs would be great, 14 good 12 disappointing 10 tedious.

But what will create blowouts is where clubs are let into SL with a serious lack of money, or a lack of quality players regardless of the league size.

It's most likely a smaller league will avoid ending up with a skint club in it


The New England Patriots play in a four team division in the NFL , the AFC East. All teams in the NFL benefit from revenue sharing and player sharing via the draft and all arfe cashed up.

This season the Patriots beat the teams in their division in part as follows:

The New York jets 42 to 19

The Buffalo Bills 52 to 18

the Miamai Dolphins 28 to 0.

Blowouts all.


Surely in a four team conference with no teams having money worries and a player sharing draft this should not happen but it did.

In a ten team SL, without revenue sharing or a player draft to equalise things, it is the contention on here that there will be no blowouts. I do not think that the available evidence points in that direction

Next season there will be a 9 team CC1. A small league. Smaller than the proposed 10 team SL. If the theories are right there will be no blowouts. If I am right there will be.

We should all return to this thread and post accordingly when we know how it all turns out.

Alternatively the results from CC this last season can be checked out. A 10 team league. I think there were some pretty horrific blowouts when York, Hunlset and even Keighley who made the playoffs visited the likes of Featherstone, Halifax,Leigh and Batley.

#223 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,690 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 07:48 PM

The results from CC this last season can be checked out. A 10 team league. I think there were some pretty horrific blowouts when York, Hunlset who made the playoffs visited the likes of Featherstone, Halifax,


Oh you mean two clubs with no money against two clubs with money?

My point entirely?

#224 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,397 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:02 PM

Oh you mean two clubs with no money against two clubs with money?

My point entirely?

You just don't get it do you Parky? 12 pages on this thread, and numerous other threads of similar if not longer length going back years about the same subject. There are loads of people on here who don't want licensing. There are loads of correspondents to LE's letters page too who don't want licensing. By implication there must be thousands and thousands of fans who don't post on here and don't write to the RL press who don't want it either. What they want is a system whereby their club can be relegated, and then perhaps subsequently promoted. Not a system where to fall out of the the top flight is to be doomed perhaps forever to be excluded. A system where a huge gap in standards doesn't appear between the top and next level - you know - like all the other sports in the UK!

"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#225 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,347 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:05 PM

Oh you mean two clubs with no money against two clubs with money?

My point entirely?


Ah erm, my point, which you latched on to.

Its all about money, they can ##### about its unfair, it should be about 'on the field' or whatever, but money, in any pro sport, wins.

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.


#226 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,347 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:09 PM

You just don't get it do you Parky? 12 pages on this thread, and numerous other threads of similar if not longer length going back years about the same subject. There are loads of people on here who don't want licensing. There are loads of correspondents to LE's letters page too who don't want licensing. By implication there must be thousands and thousands of fans who don't post on here and don't write to the RL press who don't want it either. What they want is a system whereby their club can be relegated, and then perhaps subsequently promoted. Not a system where to fall out of the the top flight is to be doomed perhaps forever to be excluded. A system where a huge gap in standards doesn't appear between the top and next level - you know - like all the other sports in the UK!

People who are happy with things tend not to write letters to the press, I would say a handful of people or moaning, the silent VAST majority are happy, other wise there would be far more moaning and a wailing going on.

A few letters from Sid and Doris Bonkers is not a majority.

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.


#227 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,397 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:10 PM

Ah erm, my point, which you latched on to.

Its all about money, they can ##### about its unfair, it should be about 'on the field' or whatever, but money, in any pro sport, wins.

who are "they?" We come to the whole point of the argument - it's "us and them" no longer "we" that's what Super League and licensing has produced in the ( :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ) Rugby League "family."

"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#228 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,397 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:12 PM

People who are happy with things tend not to write letters to the press, I would say a handful of people or moaning, the silent VAST majority are happy, other wise there would be far more moaning and a wailing going on.

A few letters from Sid and Doris Bonkers is not a majority.

There are the posts on here to consider too and there are more than a few, there are letters every week. You may not like it Dave but there is a groundswell of opinion against licensing and what it's done to the game.

"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#229 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,347 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:20 PM

who are "they?" We come to the whole point of the argument - it's "us and them" no longer "we" that's what Super League and licensing has produced in the ( :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ) Rugby League "family."

It was all about money before SL but for some reason you just don't get it, all winners have done it by spending money, often money they didn't really have.

Since 1895, and probably before, especially in Yorkshire, its been about who will spend the most, who earns the most and who can afford the most.

There never was this great era where everyone was equal, it was all about the sport and all about what happened on the pitch. Trophies and league positions have always been won by wallets not players.

And your holier than thow Featherstone have never been any different.

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.


#230 shun

shun
  • Coach
  • 1,550 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:26 PM

You just don't get it do you Parky? 12 pages on this thread, and numerous other threads of similar if not longer length going back years about the same subject. There are loads of people on here who don't want licensing. There are loads of correspondents to LE's letters page too who don't want licensing. By implication there must be thousands and thousands of fans who don't post on here and don't write to the RL press who don't want it either. What they want is a system whereby their club can be relegated, and then perhaps subsequently promoted. Not a system where to fall out of the the top flight is to be doomed perhaps forever to be excluded. A system where a huge gap in standards doesn't appear between the top and next level - you know - like all the other sports in the UK!

i agree with you. a club should be promoted by performances on the pitch, not by hitting targets off the field.IMO

#231 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,397 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:34 PM

It was all about money before SL but for some reason you just don't get it, all winners have done it by spending money, often money they didn't really have.

Since 1895, and probably before, especially in Yorkshire, its been about who will spend the most, who earns the most and who can afford the most.

There never was this great era where everyone was equal, it was all about the sport and all about what happened on the pitch. Trophies and league positions have always been won by wallets not players.

And your holier than thow Featherstone have never been any different.

Of course money is important, but it's not the be all and end all which you seem to think it is. Fev beat Cas in the CC last season and took Wigan all the way, bank of England club against the rubbing rags from P O Road. A bit of success and you start attracting players to come and play for you. Look at Paul Cooke, played for FC, as soon as KR get into SL he wants to be off, because deep down he's a Robin, it's not all about money Dave.

"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#232 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,991 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:33 AM

It was all about money before SL but for some reason you just don't get it, all winners have done it by spending money, often money they didn't really have.

Since 1895, and probably before, especially in Yorkshire, its been about who will spend the most, who earns the most and who can afford the most.

There never was this great era where everyone was equal, it was all about the sport and all about what happened on the pitch. Trophies and league positions have always been won by wallets not players.

And your holier than thow Featherstone have never been any different.

So Featherstone was a money club when they reached Wembley five times, winning three of them and then winning the Championship in 1978? Really?

Are you saying Rovers spent more money on their team than Trinity, Cas and Leeds who they knocked out on their way to winning the challenge cup in 1967, for instance? Or more than Wigan, Saints, Salford, Leeds etc etc on their way to winning the Championship?

Edited by Terry Mullaney, 21 January 2013 - 12:42 AM.

Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

http://www.pictureho...ingfilms.co.uk/

#233 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,690 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 06:43 AM

So Featherstone was a money club when they reached Wembley five times, winning three of them and then winning the Championship in 1978? Really?

Are you saying Rovers spent more money on their team than Trinity, Cas and Leeds who they knocked out on their way to winning the challenge cup in 1967, for instance? Or more than Wigan, Saints, Salford, Leeds etc etc on their way to winning the Championship?


Good morning Terry,

You have an excellent point. Please however consider that in the "old days" player mobility was limited as were the wages and players often didn't travel miles every week to train and play just get a few more quid. They had jobs to hold down as well.

Money used to make a difference up to a point, the richer clubs could pay a few more quid, and steal a player from neighbours. Leeds used to do this to Hunslet and Bramley.

BUT times change. The M62 allowed Hull to drain cas.fev/wakey of their best early 80's (and still Fev and Cas won the cup!) schoey was on his bike, so was Jason Robinson and now all the best juniors not in SL areas are up and off before they even get to play for their local club.

I implore everyone on here to be realistic that pre-1996 money counted but it counts so much more today, and player mobility is a massive factor. This has changed the game and sadly polarised the clubs.

I do "get it" I really do.

Edited by The Parksider, 21 January 2013 - 07:01 AM.


#234 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,690 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 06:49 AM

A bit of success and you start attracting players to come and play for you. Look at Paul Cooke, played for FC, as soon as KR get into SL he wants to be off, because deep down he's a Robin, it's not all about money Dave.


But sadly it's become more and more and more about money. Look at Zac.

It HAS to be "mainly" about money when players are professional and the game is their main breadwinner.

Exceptions to the rule won't change the point and Paul Cooke went from a big club with money to a rival club who could also pay him the wages he needed, had he deep down been a York lad he would not have gone there.

The clubs with the money will take ALL and I mean ALL the top players.

You say "You just don't get it do you Parky? There are loads of people on here who don't want licensing. There are loads of correspondents to LE's letters page too who don't want licensing. What they want is a system whereby their club can be relegated, and then perhaps subsequently promoted. Not a system where to fall out of the the top flight is to be doomed perhaps forever to be excluded."....

It's clear you just don't read the posts anymore, and I implore you to do so. I'm happy for P & R to come back but would like to see changes to facilitate it, I've argued against the licensing system, I want a system where CC clubs can have a go at SL and not be ruined. I recognise that Ralph Rimmers impassioned plea for a closed shop contained reasons that have NOT come to pass.

Hello? Are you listening??

Edited by The Parksider, 21 January 2013 - 08:26 AM.


#235 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,690 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:00 AM

i agree with you. a club should be promoted by performances on the pitch, not by hitting targets off the field.IMO


I'm fine with that, bring it on.

I just want you to look at Leigh when they went up without money.

I want you to look at Halifax when they started their SL campaign with no money.

Widnes went up with shedloads of money and bought a few players and came bottom.

I'm all for a return to P & R seriously I am, but I do reserve the right to discuss what a disaster it may be for some clubs(and some may refuse promotion like Batley, Dewsbury and Hunslet).

Also P & R "with standards" may also exclude all CC clubs.

If anyone has read the thread you'll see I like the idea of significant financial restructuring to give clubs more chance of staying up and that means dropping some of the off field requirements of licensing/standards, and reducing the salary cap somewhat.

I haven't considered the downsides, because I'm trying to facilitate a debate that maximises ideas as to how to make P & R work because people want it.

In what numbers they want it I don't know, nor does anyone else, and whilst it MAY harm their clubs, I see no argument that it would harm Superleague any more as the original argument was to remove P & R so clubs could build. The reality is clubs have collapsed protected from relegation in SL.

Edited by The Parksider, 21 January 2013 - 08:29 AM.


#236 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,690 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:07 AM

Ah erm, my point, which you latched on to.


So let's reduce the money required by the license conditions in SL significantly, drop the cap a bit and narrow the gap to facilitate auto P & R?? Thoughts?

Edited by The Parksider, 21 January 2013 - 08:30 AM.


#237 koli

koli
  • Coach
  • 172 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:52 AM

Problem with that is that you're in competition for talent with the NRL and RU.

#238 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,690 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:15 AM

Problem with that is that you're in competition for talent with the NRL and RU.


Have we lost that battle though Koli.

It was reported Saracens are possibly paying over a £4,300,000 salary cap?

If they wanted any RL player they could get them.

Same with NRL, they have taken the best do they want the rest, after all they are dismissive of our players??

Is it only IN THEORY that we have to keep pushing up wages because if we don't players will leave??

Anyone???

#239 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,775 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:39 AM

I find it hard to accept that anybody thinks money won't have an impact - but we won't move forward by restricting the big clubs spending and we won't move forward by excluding clubs entry to a FT culture. Two tens is a must, min salary spends is a must and increasing the max is a must.

#240 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,690 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 09:38 AM

I find it hard to accept that anybody thinks money won't have an impact - but we won't move forward by restricting the big clubs spending and we won't move forward by excluding clubs entry to a FT culture.


Great point. I don't think people always think about the money because when the chairmen and boards of clubs like Leigh, Featherstone, Keighley, Halifax and Sheffield announce they are going for Superleague, the fans take that in good faith (to be scrupulously fair to them) and trust those who are in the position to provide that money.

With respect I don't trust them and I don't like them getting the fans going on this issue, if they are not actually capable of funding a place in SL.

This is why I think all involved in the game must be clear who wants to be in Superleague, which will cost a lot under ANY format and facilitate these clubs either by having them in SL or having a mechanism where they can get in SL. I therefore appreciate your suggestion and the detail you put behind it. Nobody has argued against that.

For Featherstone as an oft argued case, the answer to money being needed to make any impact on SL was that it was appreciated Fev would need money to survive in SL hence the hailing of Mr. Nahaboo.

However there was a secondary view, one shared by Lobby at Leigh, that even if there was no money, a season in the top division would make a change to banging ones head against a glass ceiling.

I appreciate that honesty, however if we went back to auto P & R under the current system/financing (which you argue against and create the alternative) I fear that after an awful year in SL some clubs keen for SL may start to joining the ranks of the refuseniks.

Should auto P & R come back to demonstrate how bad it could be?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users