292 replies to this topic

[The Parksider]

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.

And so it has come to pass SLE/RFL are loking at something new. You are spot on.

The danger is that whatever the SLE/RFL cook up will it be the best solution for the game overall?

[The Parksider]

I don't however like the total lack of transparency that licensing brings.

Perhaps this is a first point of agreement amongst all?? (possibly the last).

I certainly advocate clubs being honest if they want to be promoted to SL or not, and when it come to it clubs showing the money before they are allowed in - whatever that minimum amount may be?

Beyond the money all the other criteria required for a licence seem to be paling into insignificance.

[shrek]

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight I personally think the RFL went to early with licensing. Granted if Super League had found a foothold in Wales and the respective owners delivered on whatever promises they made the landscape would have been different and it would look to have worked.

Perhaps a more logical chain of events would have been to roll out the expansion in the Championships that is currently underway, then once established and you've got the measure of owners you could dangle the carrot of Super League and the security of a licence based system in exchange for the sort of investment it would require in these clubs to make them competitive in Super League.

As it is I don't see what has been delivered that couldn't have been achieved with minimum standard P&R.

Licencing would then still be an option and it perhaps would have come into its own if used in conjunction with a realistic expansion plan with owners you could trust not to leave you high and dry.

Another failing of licencing for me was it tried to be all things to all people and I don't think that helped its cause.

[The Parksider]

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.

A great point for me. If there was manageable P & R there may be a better likelihood that if any club goes bust and doesn't therefore deliver on the money they can be relegated for someone who can deliver.

The point of a licence is so a club has three years to gradually build up the business, not gradually destroy it.

[The Parksider]

Another failing of licencing for me was it tried to be all things to all people and I don't think that helped its cause.

Great point - especially when Crusaders and Broncos were waved in whilst everyone was judged in detail on the licence criteria.

Openess and honesty needed - this will be a point of unanimous agreement I reckon.

[Padge]

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.

There is nothing stopping any club from publishing its business plan, the RFL can't do it as it may contain sensitive information that the club doesn't want published. Its the clubs that don't publish business plans not the RFL.

[Ponterover]

There is nothing stopping any club from publishing its business plan, the RFL can't do it as it may contain sensitive information that the club doesn't want published. Its the clubs that don't publish business plans not the RFL.

That could be easily solved by making publication part of the process. If a club doesn't want it's finances laid bare, they've no need to apply.

[roughyedspud]

cut super league to 10 teams

expand the championship to 20

use championship 1 as a development league

have a bottom of SL v top of championship play off game

[sweaty craiq]

cut super league to 10 teams

expand the championship to 20

use championship 1 as a development league

have a bottom of SL v top of championship play off game

Great idea, make the SL club pick a team that complies with the Championship restrictions for the game and may the best team win, ie 1 import, 300k salaries etc

[thundergaz]

cut super league to 10 teams

expand the championship to 20

use championship 1 as a development league

have a bottom of SL v top of championship play off game

Like Craig as pointed out that will only work if the SL clubs and the champ clubs have the same salary cap to make it fair on the champ club.But I've always said the champ should be an open salary cap so if a club does want SL they can also show it by the salary cap they spend and it will close the gap on SL IMO.

Edited by thundergaz, 14 January 2013 - 01:41 PM.

[Griff]

There is nothing stopping any club from publishing its business plan, the RFL can't do it as it may contain sensitive information that the club doesn't want published. Its the clubs that don't publish business plans not the RFL.

Also, they're very big. A couple of archive boxes is typical.

[JohnM]

I think things should be left exactly as they are for at least two more licence periods. Over many years , our game has a great record in introducing new and innovative approaches...and then dumping them a year later because someone perceives they are not working.

I think there is ample evidence that licencing is working, so no need to change anything, thus allowing the authorities to concentrate on the game at intentional level.

[Dave T]

Same clubs winning the same trophies,

I think you've quoted this before, and it's not true to be fair.

Bradford emerged as a giant after SL was created - ok they became dominant, but it was unlike anything they had done previously, Warrington now are right up there, and our three Cup wins recently are unprecedented in our history.

Catalan are up there, Hull have appeared in a GF and won a Challenge Cup, Hudds have made two Cup Finals. It's taking time, but there is a decent spread of teams certainly competing if not quite getting their hands on the cups just yet.

[The Parksider]

Also, they're very big. A couple of archive boxes is typical.

How do you feel a club can simply and openly confirm it has adequate finances to give Superleague a go?

I appreciate the alleged evasiveness of Halifax to provide detail led to their rejection.

But could clubs commit to a minimum spend in their first season?

[The Parksider]

I think you've quoted this before, and it's not true to be fair.

Bradford emerged as a giant after SL was created - ok they became dominant, but it was unlike anything they had done previously, Warrington now are right up there, and our three Cup wins recently are unprecedented in our history.

Catalan are up there, Hull have appeared in a GF and won a Challenge Cup, Hudds have made two Cup Finals. It's taking time, but there is a decent spread of teams certainly competing if not quite getting their hands on the cups just yet.

Depends Dave,

If you choose winning a major trophy there's seven who have done that and if you choose getting to a major final there's ten that have done that, but Superleague is not competitive across ten clubs. Arguably at any one time it's been competitive across four clubs, maybe five when Hull were on the rise.

We aren't getting there if Sheffield who won the cup and Bradford who were the first superclub go belly up. We aren't getting there when the strong Hull club weakened heavily post 2006.

Of course clubs have their ups and downs and not all of them can be up so i do take your point up to a point.

There are however clubs who don't have the resources to ever get there and bumble along, being kept weak by top clubs taking the players they want from them.

Is this just how it will always be?? Does it matter to the overall health of the game that we won't get an even comp unless the salary cap was reduced, would that act be good or disasterous for the game? Would one club in Hull or one club In Calder provide a stronger competition, or would that be bad for the game?.

Edited by The Parksider, 14 January 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[keighley]

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?

No it would be stupid to merge St helens and Wigan. But the same situation, i.e. close geographical proximity, big derby games, decent attendances, good stadia applies to them as it does with the Hull teams, the Calder teams and the Bradford, Huddersfield duo but it's stupid to merge Wigan and St Helens but great and a positive for the league and the game according to you.

I don't see the difference between the Lancashire scenarios and those you propose for Yorkshire. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[The Parksider]

It would be stupid to merge St helens and Wigan.

THANK YOU.

Now if the geographical "derby" effect is good for the game should the make up of Superleague take this into account?

Cas/Fev Hull/HKR Leigh/Wigan Halifax/bradford

Or does anyone believe the close proximity of SL clubs to each other is actually counter productive for the good of the game?

Or is it too marginal overall to be of any concern in planning what's the best format for the game....

There are sacks of attendance figures you could look at to analyse the "derby" effect Mr.K.

Edited by The Parksider, 14 January 2013 - 02:53 PM.

[Ackroman]

You could throw a towel over professional RL and cover 90% of clubs, so what's the point of discussing mergers based on geography?

They neither detract or add weight to any argument over the validity of licencing or P&R

[keighley]

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.

Leeds is a totally different animal. Let's forget Bramley, they were a marginal team on the fringes for over a 100 years.

Hunslet is also a unique case and I'm surprised you put them into the argument as I know you are very well versed in their history. Hunslet, as a place, has been destroyed and the city has been left to the Rhinos by default but Hunslet was a hotbed of the game and always a strong team with some reasonable crowds before the destruction of their neighbourhood and so to claim that RL is more vibrant in Leeds following their decline and extinction than it was when there Hunslet were a strong club cementing South Leeds as a RL area is patent nonsense. It has happened and was inevitable but it has not left RL in Leeds stronger for it.

The St Helens, Wigan argument is exactly the same as the Hull, Calder or Bruddersfield situation. Why is it patent nonsense. The scenario is the same. If you ditch one of them and let the other dominate the area there will be a mega club created for the greater good of the game, your argument I believe.

To just rubbish things because it dosn't suit the point you are making even though it is an exactly similar scenario is a poor substitute for cogent argument.

I don t think for a moment that a Wigan Saints merger is a good idea but you feel it is in the other places you are suggesting mergers for. It is one or the other, good or bad. You can't just choose which in different places from identical situations for the sake of promoting a bogus point.

[JohnM]

I don t think for a moment that a Wigan Saints merger is a good idea but you feel it is in the other places you are suggesting mergers for. It is one or the other, good or bad. You can't just choose which in different places from identical situations for the sake of promoting a bogus point.

I don't see it that way. They are not identical situations. It a bit like suggesting that a merger betrween BMW and VW is the same situation as a merger between say Morgan and Caterham

Merging Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone just does not compare. Anyway, just the mere suggestion of a merger or takeover seems to have electrified all three clubs..and that is the result that is needed...until the next time.

Edited by JohnM, 14 January 2013 - 03:44 PM.