Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
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

#41 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,931 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 06:38 PM

The problem is that people seem to assume that combining 2 clubs gives you a club twice as strong. It doesn't work like that unfortunately.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise Cas and Wakey had tried it before.

Short term it probably looks like a bad move, long term I feel its results would be a stronger club and a more competitive league.

Thousands more would watch a competitive Cas or Wakey (so I'm told), so what they have got they don't want. A few vociferous fans are holding the game back in Cas and Wakey whilst thousands (so I'm told) fans sit at home waiting for a competitive club to watch.

I'm not particularly saying these two clubs should be forced to merge, merely that as long as you have three clubs sitting in each others garden they'll all be sitting in the shade.

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.


#42 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,931 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 06:39 PM

see post above :rolleyes:

Edited by Padge, 13 January 2013 - 06:40 PM.


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.


#43 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 14,925 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:26 PM

Oh sorry, I didn't realise Cas and Wakey had tried it before.

Short term it probably looks like a bad move, long term I feel its results would be a stronger club and a more competitive league.

Unfortunately we're all dead long term.

Edited by Trojan, 13 January 2013 - 11:26 PM.

"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#44 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,863 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:19 AM

You guys still seem to think that SL is just the old first division.....


I certainly think it is.

Wigan and Leeds dominant clubs amongst a traditional base of M62 clubs most of which are hand to mouth, most of which can't produce their own players, and therefore augmented by Aussies.

Same clubs winning the same trophies, struggling clubs at the bottom just as useless as clubs at the top of division 2 who are yet to realise this, top of the division attracting too many of the fans, bottom too few, no leadership just individual drift as another year is added to a proud history of struggle against oppression and a lack of major investment.

Oh sorry not quite right.

It's the old first division with £20,000,000 a year or so invested into it.

Pee poor return on the investment that......

#45 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,863 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:30 AM

Oh sorry, I didn't realise Cas and Wakey had tried it before.

I'm not particularly saying these two clubs should be forced to merge, merely that as long as you have three clubs sitting in each others garden they'll all be sitting in the shade.


I just luuuurve the parasol analogy. Spot on.

No club should be forced to do anything, also spot on.

But if close geographical positioning creates a situation where the same clubs are after the same players, same sponsors and same new fans and is a negative business proposition then logically SL should offer one SL franchise for Leeds, One for Hull, one for Bradhuddersfax, and one for Calder.

Who gives a flying "V" who get's it as long as it's good for the game.

#46 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,841 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:45 AM

I just luuuurve the parasol analogy. Spot on.

No club should be forced to do anything, also spot on.

But if close geographical positioning creates a situation where the same clubs are after the same players, same sponsors and same new fans and is a negative business proposition then logically SL should offer one SL franchise for Leeds, One for Hull, one for Bradhuddersfax, and one for Calder.

Who gives a flying "V" who get's it as long as it's good for the game.


Tell me again how you come to the conclusion that eliminating three SL teams is good for the game because they are close geographically but keeping St Helens AND Wigan who are in each other back yards or Warrington AND Widnes who are likewise kissing cousins is good for the game.?

Tell me how finishing off Hull with Pearsons money and KC stadium OR Hull KR with Hudgell and the new guys money and with a really good ground on the way to being completed and who get huge Derby attendances is good for the game?

Tell me how dumping Wakefield with Glover and Newmarket or dismissing Fev with all their recent positive ground improvements and investor support or Castleford, still with hopes of a new stadium and still a good upstanding member of SL is good for the game?

Tell me how dumping Huddersfield with a super stadium, a loyal involved investor who has doubled their crowds OR Bradford, who the RFL have just moved heaven and earth to save from extinction and who now have new investment, in a big city with big crowds is good for the game.

Tell me how this new truncated SL with one team in France one team in London with no fans and looking for yet another ground to play at and with all these big draw derbies attendancewise and TV ratings wise games removed from the fixture list is an attractive proposition for Sky as compared to the situation as it currently is?

I don tthink the RFL/SL powerbrokers will be so stupid as to go that route, but dream on.

#47 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,863 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:48 AM

Tell me again how you come to the conclusion that eliminating three SL teams is good for the game


Again?? Pointless doing that to someone bent on all inclusiveness.

Use the City of Leeds, where two clubs out of three were eliminated and the modern day Leeds created.

RL is more vibrant than ever there.

The st. Helens/Wigan suggestion as a counter point is silly and proof you don't want to listen and as desperate a counter argument as I've heard apart from have two Pro clubs only who play themselves 26 times a year.

Edited by The Parksider, 14 January 2013 - 06:59 AM.


#48 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 14,925 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:15 AM

Again?? Pointless doing that to someone bent on all inclusiveness.

Use the City of Leeds, where two clubs out of three were eliminated and the modern day Leeds created.

RL is more vibrant than ever there.

The st. Helens/Wigan suggestion as a counter point is silly and proof you don't want to listen and as desperate a counter argument as I've heard apart from have two Pro clubs only who play themselves 26 times a year.

To paraphrase Parky "anyone who doesn't agree with me is silly"
"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#49 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,863 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:20 AM

To paraphrase Parky "anyone who doesn't agree with me is silly"


It's not about people disagreeing with me it's about a failure to drop personal prejudices and wish lists and engage in the debate.

Do you think it would be clever or silly to merge Saints/Wigan?

Do you also want to engage in the debate or have a personal go at me?

Edited by The Parksider, 14 January 2013 - 09:21 AM.


#50 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:44 AM

Ahhhh this is where you've all been hiding!!
Right p&r.....
Those who believe in licencing won't ever yeild.
I and other who want a return to p&r are never going to change.
Is there actually anyone in the middle?
Is there any points to these threads now we've kind of established who has what opinion?

I'm genuinely in the middle. I can see the sense in ensuring clubs have, or at least aspire to, good standards on and off the pitch. I doubt if anyone would be complaining if we had a comp as strong as the NRL.
But I can also understand the frustration of fans who think it should be on the pitch that decides who is in which division. I don't think its true anymore that promotion ruins clubs. I'm sure it has some in the past but clearly not having it is no guarantee of success either.

I think it should be p&r with clear, set in stone (realistic!!) criteria beforehand. Not meeting them means no promotion, but the chance is there - not 3 years either. Every other perhaps.

Edited by Johnoco, 14 January 2013 - 08:46 AM.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#51 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,464 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:44 AM

Promotion has never ruined any SL club, failure to get promotion has eg Keighley, Hunslet, Widnes, Dewsbury, Leigh

Promotion with min standards had the game united, and was more a statement of inclusiveness as reality was only a few teams were capable but the rest could dream. No different to today as only 4/5 SL clubs are in fear of relegation with a similar number of championship clubs having a hope of promotion.

One of my standards would be a min salary spend in SL.

#52 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,863 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:50 AM

Those who believe in licencing won't ever yeild.

I and other who want a return to p&r are never going to change.

Is there actually anyone in the middle?

Is there any points to these threads now we've kind of established who has what opinion?


It's not as black and white as that Robin.

I don't know that anyone is against P & R full stop at all?

There are various models of competition you can go for. the make up of SL can be 10, 12, 14, 16, clubs.

You therefore have a range from attempting to concentrate all the resources at 10 clubs and getting a truly competetive competition from top to bottom. Jamie peacock likes this one.

Or you can go for 10 clubs with another 10 clubs below geared to P & R. that may achieve the above, but keeps an open door for other clubs.

At this point the question of finance crops up and you can't as things stand apply SKY money to a second tier of SL unless SKY have a sea change in attitude to the elite.

12 clubs rather than 14 was favourite because the move to 14 has seen the collapse of several superleague clubs. The 14 may however stay put as there is now a mini rush of interested investors (Khan, Koukash, Nahaboo, Larvin, Glover, Abbot)

In fact it could be considered 16 clubs is the way to go, but then again you have to look at finance. Some SL clubs turn over millions whilst some clubs who want a go at SL manage only a million turnover.

So where to place the salary cap?? Bring it down to even up the competition?? if we go for 16 or even stay at 14? Are we overpaying SL players? OR take it up in a 10 club league to ensure we reward our best and keep them in the game??

And what of P & R in any of the scenarios? Bring the cap down so it can work better? Clubs may stay up? Put in "standards" to stop clubs yo-yoing, but nobody may be able to reach the standard and so we get P & R but clubs don't go anywhere? Go for auto P & R and enjoy the yo-yoing whilst the rich clubs get on with winning everything?

Then how about expansion? Do we engineer in clubs outside of the north? Do we then allow them to drop out through relegation and spoil any such development plan to facilitate auto P & R. How do we best attract sponsors with the competition?

There's so many combinations Robin that it's not simple, it's a fascinating balance of resources, finances, playing strengths, protecting the game, developing the game. pleasing old fans attracting new fans. It's a debate that can run and run because it's very complicated.

Sadly however too many people on here have an axe to grind. They want their club in SL and don't really care about the debate but will argue anything as long as it puts their club in pole position. There's those who hate SKY and just want it to go away anyway and for RL to get back to the cosy semi pro game of the north.

So that's why I started a thread on are we stuck with SKY? and the answer is yes. Are we stuck with only being able to fund the top division and the answer is yes.

So the question is what is the best format in terms of club numbers, locations, salary caps, playing strengths, transfers of clubs in and out of the format, etc that is BEST FOR THE GAME OF RUGBY LEAGUE.

We keep trying to have this debate Robin but it does keep collapsing because too many people can't keep an open mind, and a civil tongue.

#53 thundergaz

thundergaz
  • Coach
  • 2,638 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:57 AM

Parky how about having a minimum salary cap for SL instead of a maximum cap? Just a thought I know the best will get better but no one is really challenging the top 4 clubs anyway so would it really make a difference? Also if clubs can't pay the minimum don't make them so they go bust etc just relegate them. Just an idea for you parky that's all.

#54 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,863 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:02 AM


Promotion has never ruined any SL club, failure to get promotion has eg Keighley, Hunslet, Widnes, Dewsbury, Leigh

Promotion with min standards had the game united, and was more a statement of inclusiveness as reality was only a few teams were capable but the rest could dream. No different to today as only /5 SL clubs are in fear of relegation with a similar number of championship clubs having a hope of promotion. One of my standards would be a min salary spend in SL.


That's close to a model of running with say sixteen clubs in SL and having auto P & R. This would then largely protect the main SL competition, but keep the bottom four on their toes and give the top four in the Championship a chance to go up. On a CC grand final winner being relegated straight away, another club would get a chance to go up whilst the relegated club recovers. If the promoted grand final club stays up down goes an SL club.

Short term to ensure no yo-yoing I'd agree that model need a Minimum Salary spend in SL, however where to pitch that?? Too low and it won't work, too high and clubs may not be able to afford it??

The over riding question is this this an idea that will be good for the game itself???

Forget self interest??

#55 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,863 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:14 AM

Parky how about having a minimum salary cap for SL instead of a maximum cap? Just a thought I know the best will get better but no one is really challenging the top 4 clubs anyway so would it really make a difference? Also if clubs can't pay the minimum don't make them so they go bust etc just relegate them. Just an idea for you parky that's all.


It's an idea.

It grates badly with the one of the original concepts for there to be a competetive Elite top to bottom.

After 17 years we have had only four clubs capable of winning the trophies, and when a fifth slid in (Warrington) one of the four slid out (Bradford). Hetherington says it's bad for the game if the same clubs are always winning the trophies. I don't know if that is true.

There is an opinion forming that beyond the top clubs (Hull and Catalans are challenging) you may as well run a secondary competition of P & R where all the clubs who don't have the resources to compete with the top clubs can have their own purpose in life.

Down your way Fev can get promotion and maybe Cas or Wakey will drop out for a season or two only to get back in etc etc. It won't build any of the three into challengers for honours IMHO, you won't ever get into a cup final like the old days, but it may be more fun than being shut out of SL like Fev, or having crisis meetings like cas or Wakey going bust.

Whenever you get a rising star at one of the clubs he'll be off to Leeds or hull, but hey that's the way it is.

Will this idea take the game forward?? I doubt it. Will it stabilise the game as it is?? I guess it would?? Would the game drop away - I'd guess hetherington would say it would, why I am not sure?

#56 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,464 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:28 AM

It's not as black and white as that Robin.

I don't know that anyone is against P & R full stop at all? - what P&R system do you propose?

You therefore have a range from attempting to concentrate all the resources at 10 clubs and getting a truly competetive competition from top to bottom. Jamie peacock likes this one.

Or you can go for 10 clubs with another 10 clubs below geared to P & R. that may achieve the above, but keeps an open door for other clubs - Is that 2 full time tens ?.

At this point the question of finance crops up and you can't as things stand apply SKY money to a second tier of SL unless SKY have a sea change in attitude to the elite - and how do you know this?

12 clubs rather than 14 was favourite because the move to 14 has seen the collapse of several superleague clubs. The 14 may however stay put as there is now a mini rush of interested investors (Khan, Koukash, Nahaboo, Larvin, Glover, Abbot) - Is the interest land or RL ?

In fact it could be considered 16 clubs is the way to go, but then again you have to look at finance. Some SL clubs turn over millions whilst some clubs who want a go at SL manage only a million turnover. - You will always have limited revenue streams outside SL, especially when you have been there that long

So where to place the salary cap?? Bring it down to even up the competition?? if we go for 16 or even stay at 14? Are we overpaying SL players? OR take it up in a 10 club league to ensure we reward our best and keep them in the game?? - We keep talking cap, we need a min cap not a max.

And what of P & R in any of the scenarios? Bring the cap down so it can work better? Clubs may stay up? Put in "standards" to stop clubs yo-yoing, but nobody may be able to reach the standard and so we get P & R but clubs don't go anywhere? Go for auto P & R and enjoy the yo-yoing whilst the rich clubs get on with winning everything? - Yo Yoing is all part of sport but RL will produce very uneaven scorelines by comparison, hence my min cap, and going from PT to FT in a few weeks is virtually impossible. Solution 1) Move the GF to July for Championship clubs, at least they get a chance to recruit 2) Two FT tens.

Then how about expansion? Do we engineer in clubs outside of the north? Do we then allow them to drop out through relegation and spoil any such development plan to facilitate auto P & R. How do we best attract sponsors with the competition? - What we have now fails, two tens allows a platform to expand in a FT manner but key to this is a desire to move to two bigger FT leagues as and when clubs are able, hence a min salary spend is vital.

There's so many combinations Robin that it's not simple, it's a fascinating balance of resources, finances, playing strengths, protecting the game, developing the game. pleasing old fans attracting new fans. It's a debate that can run and run because it's very complicated. - we must findy unity via inclusiveness otherwise I do not see a bright future

Sadly however too many people on here have an axe to grind. They want their club in SL and don't really care about the debate but will argue anything as long as it puts their club in pole position. There's those who hate SKY and just want it to go away anyway and for RL to get back to the cosy semi pro game of the north. - Imagine the fun if Leeds Wigan and Saints were moved out of SL for the good of the game. I am sure all there fans would see the big picture and happily accept it!! Club loyalty is where Joe Public moves from liking a sport to becoming a fan, currently many fans are disenfranchised, and there is an old saying that to truly hate you must first have loved. Divided we have nothing of value to interest potential sponsors

So that's why I started a thread on are we stuck with SKY? and the answer is yes. Are we stuck with only being able to fund the top division and the answer is yes. - why?

So the question is what is the best format in terms of club numbers, locations, salary caps, playing strengths, transfers of clubs in and out of the format, etc that is BEST FOR THE GAME OF RUGBY LEAGUE. - the question is how can we create a platform for RL to be the best it can be, the critical areas are finance, player pool and geography. We must create an inclusive vibrant sport that people want to watch and Sponsors invest in, the future must not be built on sand and must have a respected and vibrant leader at the wheel.

We keep trying to have this debate Robin but it does keep collapsing because too many people can't keep an open mind, and a civil tongue. - its the abuse of a fans passion and an exclusive society that has failed RL against its primary competitors.



#57 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,774 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:31 AM

Having had licencing for a number of years I'm struggling to see what problems it was supposed to fix, or what elements it was supposed to improve. Nothing happening today is better or worse than under P&R. However licencing has created a situation that to lose SL status is the Domesday scenario and to gain it valhallah. At least P&R doesn't feel so black and white and doesn't create as much division in the game as we have now.

#58 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:57 AM

Ahhhh this is where you've all been hiding!!
Right p&r.....
Those who believe in licencing won't ever yeild.
I and other who want a return to p&r are never going to change.
Is there actually anyone in the middle?
Is there any points to these threads now we've kind of established who has what opinion?


I get the need for licensing, the fact is that there is a huge gap between where we are and where we want to go. If we were promoted after we won the 2011 GF, we would have had a couple of months to completely change the playing staff and install a full time set up.

I don't however like the total lack of transparency that licensing brings. We never got to see the business plans, we wil never know if Halifax really were worse than Wakey, Cas, London, Widnes et al. All we have is the RFL's say so, which is very different from seeing the evidence. Elevation based on playing performance is on the other hand, totally transparent. The league tables are printed in black and white for all to see.

I am still a believer in P&R, but I do recognise that at the moment, it is not possible to achieve this. What the game needs, for many reasons is a strong and vibrant 2nd tier, that is close enough to worry the elite. How we get there is a different question, but once we do, the reintroduction of P&R is vital to the health of the game.

#59 Robin Evans

Robin Evans

    Robin Evans

  • Coach
  • 9,859 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:19 PM

We keep trying to have this debate Robin but it does keep collapsing because too many people can't keep an open mind, and a civil tongue.

as it was ever thus.
Good response. It's natural for one to want to watch their club at the highest possible level. I've been a real advocate for a return to P&R when my club was as far away from pole position as possible... tho the last 3 years have heightened my angst!!
There are a number of good points in this thread. Pontrover, just above this post points to a lack of transparency regards the process which brings in a great deal of mistrust. The fact that a club outside of SL has to jump thru fuel filled flaming hoops to justify an application which is scrutinised beyond belief yet at the same time we see a procession of established SL go ar se upperds yet still retain their licence. What would a SL club have to do to get their licenced revoked??? Equity, parity and fairness does not appear to enter into the equation.

The RFL appears to lack any direction as to what to do with the game below SL and above amateur at the mo.

Yes I have a strong feeling about this and you are about as likely to get me advocating a return to P&R as the next Conservative Candidate for the Dearne Valley has of getting my vote at the next election. And I may feel like frying my mind out at some responses to this argument.
But, I think I can get thru the day without calling you names! :lol: :lol: :lol:
"I love our club, absolutely love it". (Overton, M 2007)

#60 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,863 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:34 PM

what P&R system do you propose?


I don't propose anything, my club will never see SL again never mind win the grand final.

So all I can suggest is that whatever is the BEST system needs to be one that benefits the game as a whole the most.

Not any one individual on here.

Thank you for your interesting comments

Edited by The Parksider, 14 January 2013 - 12:35 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users