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
- - - - -

The SL Licensing v Promotion & Relegation debate thread


  • Please log in to reply
292 replies to this topic

#81 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,594 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:49 PM

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??


All other things aside, four up and four down is too much. It creates yo yo ism and/ or threatens mid level teams who don't deserve relegation.

It should be no more than two up two down at the most and I would even be happy with 1 up, 1 down

#82 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:54 PM

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?.

I think to an extent that will always happen. In-season you will always have a strong core of clubs. Unfortunately I don;t believe we have the player depth to have 14 strong teams.
The fact that there is a level of player movement within the division which allows for an element of movement over a longer time period is good.

Until we get enough good quality players to populate 14 clubs, then you will always have this situation.

#83 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,594 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 04:00 PM

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


I thought your clun won five of the last six grand finals and that your former club won the cahmpionship of CC1 only two seasons ago, therby being, heaven forbid, PROMOTED.

#84 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,594 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 04:42 PM

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.


Maybe more like merging Ford and Vauxhall for the Calder teams. On other words, not as big as the BMW/VW merger but not as small as the Morgan? Caterham ( I presume they are a small car company)

So, what I am saying is that the merger proposed scenarios are closer in magnitude to the Wigan/Saints merger theory than the car example you have posted. They are quite comparable in their import to the game. One cannot be dismissed as ludicrous because the teams are so huge in the history of the game whilst the other three are considered necessary because some of the teams involved are not quite so big. They are closer than that. Your analogy is closer to a Batley/ Dewsbury or a Workington/Whitehaven merger than the ones you link it to.

#85 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,302 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 04:45 PM

As I said, just the mere thought of a merger has electrified those clubs. or was it a desire to do the necessary to stay in or enter superleague?

Edited by JohnM, 14 January 2013 - 04:46 PM.


#86 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,803 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 04:57 PM

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


Depends what you mean by openly.

Open to the RFL ? Of course. Every scrap of information requested needs to be given because, at the end of the day, licensing is a subjective judgment and you need to persuade the RFL that you're one of the best (currently) 14. Holding information back is not in your interest.

Open to the public ? Can't see that happening. It'd be jolly interesting, obviously, but there's the issue of confidentiality to the club as a business and, as someone said on the last page, it's the clubs who don't make the disclosure - not the RFL.

To be fair to the RFL, they did release a potted versions of the reasons for rejection. Halifax did attempt some rebuttal, as I recall.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#87 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:51 PM

Just a small point of pendantry and parochialism:

I get quite annoyed when Featherstone are referred to as a "Calder" club.

The Calder flows through Wakefield and goes vaguely near Castleford before it joins the Aire, but nowhere near Featherstone. The infant Went is the only river near Fev

Actually, "Rhubarb Triangle" is worse, Wakefield is the only place anywhere near it.

The nomenclature of the merger was one of the worst aspects when uncle Mo had his big idea.

WMDC or "Five Towns" would be a better way to describe us.






That's 10 seconds of your life that you will never get back

Edited by Ponterover, 14 January 2013 - 10:51 PM.


#88 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,229 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:47 PM

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.


Its nothing to do with its finances, a business plan doesn't tell you how much money a club has in the bank.

A business plan will tell you a clubs marketing strategy amongst other things, that strategy may be of advantage to other clubs if it becomes public knowledge, it may even nullify the strategy completely.

A business, any business, cannot run by having everything it wants to do known to its current and potential customers, its rivals and all and sundry.

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.


#89 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:07 AM

Depends what you mean by openly.



To be fair to the RFL, they did release a potted versions of the reasons for rejection. Halifax did attempt some rebuttal, as I recall.

The Halifax chairman embarrassed himself by complaining about the decision to give Wakey a licence after they had gone into administration and the whole ground issue. This was before the summaries of the clubs bid. He then went very quiet after that and nothing more was said. I would have has more respect for him if he had backed this up and challenged the summary the RFL published, which really put the boot in to the club. Whether this was due to the club kicking up a fuss initially I don't know. But as Salford and Bradford have shown, the summaries Can't be relied on as being accurate.

#90 Robin Evans

Robin Evans

    Robin Evans

  • Coach
  • 10,038 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:29 AM

The Halifax chairman embarrassed himself by complaining about the decision to give Wakey a licence after they had gone into administration and the whole ground issue. This was before the summaries of the clubs bid. He then went very quiet after that and nothing more was said. I would have has more respect for him if he had backed this up and challenged the summary the RFL published, which really put the boot in to the club. Whether this was due to the club kicking up a fuss initially I don't know. But as Salford and Bradford have shown, the summaries Can't be relied on as being accurate.

indeed
"I love our club, absolutely love it". (Overton, M 2007)

#91 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,205 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:13 AM

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?

If we are to have perfectly logical areas then yes it would make sense to merge Saints and Wigan, of course either the Saints fans or the Wigan fans would boycott the new team, but so what logic says that in the brave new world it doesn't make sense to have two teams so close to one another, like Wire and Widnes. Perhaps we could merge the Bulls with Fax, and the Giants(or we could get rid of Dewsbury and Batley by merging them with the Giants into a Kirklees team.) It all makes just as much sense as wanting to merge Wakey (who are doing very nicely thank-you) with Fev and Cas. If the fans want it then fair enough. If the fans can be persuaded fair enough. But if they can't leave things alone. One way or another they'll be sorted out. But not while we have the artificial constraint of the licensing system. If anything is "silly" licensing is it. Sport doesn't make sense. Three struggling soccer teams in a city the size of Birmingham doesn't make sense, or two in Sheffield. But no one is suggesting Villa, West Brom and Birmingham should merge.
It's ok saying long term merging the Wakefield Met clubs would be a good thing, a good thing for whom? Whoever came out on top, and someone would be sure to, the other two would be alienated and abaondon the game. It could take years, decades, centuries even. In the seventies I used to know one or two ex Belle Vue Rangers fans, they wouldn't go to Salford or Swinton, they watched the occasional game, but were no longer regulars. Same applies in soccer to Park Avenue fans. Forced mergers (by whoever) are a recipe for disaster. If we are really serious about wanting the game to expand and international success then let's build up our strength in the heartlands, with good local support and then perhaps we'll be able to take on Union again like we did in the past.
"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#92 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,803 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:15 AM

The Halifax chairman embarrassed himself by complaining about the decision to give Wakey a licence after they had gone into administration and the whole ground issue. This was before the summaries of the clubs bid. He then went very quiet after that and nothing more was said. I would have has more respect for him if he had backed this up and challenged the summary the RFL published, which really put the boot in to the club. Whether this was due to the club kicking up a fuss initially I don't know. But as Salford and Bradford have shown, the summaries Can't be relied on as being accurate.


I agree there's nothing to be gained by stamping your foot - especially over a subjective decision.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#93 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,205 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:16 AM

Just a small point of pendantry and parochialism:

I get quite annoyed when Featherstone are referred to as a "Calder" club.

The Calder flows through Wakefield and goes vaguely near Castleford before it joins the Aire, but nowhere near Featherstone. The infant Went is the only river near Fev

Actually, "Rhubarb Triangle" is worse, Wakefield is the only place anywhere near it.

The nomenclature of the merger was one of the worst aspects when uncle Mo had his big idea.

WMDC or "Five Towns" would be a better way to describe us.






That's 10 seconds of your life that you will never get back

As someone who lives in the "Rhubarb Triangle" it is acutally the area between Leeds and Bradford in the North and Wakefield in the South. Most of the "Rhubabr Triangle" can be seen from the top of St Michaels church tower in East Ardsley - there's another ten you won't get back. There is a pub on the outskirts of Wakey actually called "The Rhubarb Triangle"
"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#94 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:49 AM

But as Salford and Bradford have shown, the summaries Can't be relied on as being accurate.

I don't agree with this comment at all.

The simple fact is that a Business Plan is simply a plan linked to a forecast. Very little of it will be guaranteed in the forecasts - probably only central funding and long-term sponsorship income, of which I suspect there is very little.

Sponsorship income can fluctuate massively, external investment can dry up very quickly, crowd income is extremely variable, which then has a big impact on ancillary sales.

Bad weather, or a couple of injuries meaning worse than expected performance, can easily be the difference in making a profit of £100k or making a loss of £250k, which can often be enough to cripple a RL club.

There are very few clubs who could be self-sufficient, so if we are only letting those clubs in SL, then we would end up with a 5 or 6 team league. We have to select the best options at the time, Salford and Bradford were better options, but their plans have ended up being very different to their actual performance - I suspect this is similar to Jessops, HMV etc.

#95 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:32 PM

I don't agree with this comment at all.

The simple fact is that a Business Plan is simply a plan linked to a forecast. Very little of it will be guaranteed in the forecasts - probably only central funding and long-term sponsorship income, of which I suspect there is very little.

Sponsorship income can fluctuate massively, external investment can dry up very quickly, crowd income is extremely variable, which then has a big impact on ancillary sales.

Bad weather, or a couple of injuries meaning worse than expected performance, can easily be the difference in making a profit of £100k or making a loss of £250k, which can often be enough to cripple a RL club.

There are very few clubs who could be self-sufficient, so if we are only letting those clubs in SL, then we would end up with a 5 or 6 team league. We have to select the best options at the time, Salford and Bradford were better options, but their plans have ended up being very different to their actual performance - I suspect this is similar to Jessops, HMV etc.

I agree with a much of what you have said.Its the wording used by the RFL in the summaries that doesn't sit right. For Halifax they used the term speculative and for others it was ambitious.

I think licences or true franchising may work and might be a good thing. However, I don't think the RFL have the authority or the capability to do it.

#96 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,594 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:47 PM

I don't agree with this comment at all.

The simple fact is that a Business Plan is simply a plan linked to a forecast. Very little of it will be guaranteed in the forecasts - probably only central funding and long-term sponsorship income, of which I suspect there is very little.

Sponsorship income can fluctuate massively, external investment can dry up very quickly, crowd income is extremely variable, which then has a big impact on ancillary sales.

Bad weather, or a couple of injuries meaning worse than expected performance, can easily be the difference in making a profit of £100k or making a loss of £250k, which can often be enough to cripple a RL club.

There are very few clubs who could be self-sufficient, so if we are only letting those clubs in SL, then we would end up with a 5 or 6 team league. We have to select the best options at the time, Salford and Bradford were better options, but their plans have ended up being very different to their actual performance - I suspect this is similar to Jessops, HMV etc.


I don't deny the accuracy of your post but if it is such an inexact science why are the RFL wasting money hiring KPMG to verify things which are unverifiable. KPMG don't come cheap.

#97 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,766 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:59 PM

WMDC or "Five Towns" would be a better way to describe us.

Could cause confusion with the 'Five Towns' of Arnold Bennett''s novels. Even more confusingly, there are six of the latter - Burslem, Hanley, Stoke, Longton, Tunstall and Fenton - and they're also known as 'The Potteries'.


That's another 10 seconds of your life, etc. etc.

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#98 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,302 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 02:41 PM

That's another 10 seconds of your life, etc. etc.


Why not learn arfur tow crate in Staffy cher - see here It may be more than ten seconds of your life that you'll never get back but it sure will seem so much shorter than ten years of circular and sterile contradiction and the expression of irreconcilable views.

#99 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:08 PM

I don't deny the accuracy of your post but if it is such an inexact science why are the RFL wasting money hiring KPMG to verify things which are unverifiable. KPMG don't come cheap.

Couple of reasons - firstly, it is useful, but it should be accepted that it is no guarantee as there is no crystal ball. These things can't be verified, but the credibility of the business plan can be assessed.

Just because a plan isn't then achieved doesn't mean that plan wasn't credible. I was in a P&L meeting this morning at work, and we will achieve our plan this year, yet the make-up of that is tens of millions of pounds out in some areas.

#100 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,594 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:17 PM

Couple of reasons - firstly, it is useful, but it should be accepted that it is no guarantee as there is no crystal ball. These things can't be verified, but the credibility of the business plan can be assessed.

Just because a plan isn't then achieved doesn't mean that plan wasn't credible. I was in a P&L meeting this morning at work, and we will achieve our plan this year, yet the make-up of that is tens of millions of pounds out in some areas.


Well, the assessment conducted must have been seriously flawed given the multi team failures that have occurred in licences that KPMG gave a qualified approval