Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

The SL Licensing v Promotion & Relegation debate thread


  • Please log in to reply
292 replies to this topic

#121 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,732 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:01 PM

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

Why won't they?
It's 4 times the size of Featherstone. In a very similar area. Both were in the third tier only 6 seasons ago. One of them is now favourites for a franchise after a lot of hard work. Why couldn't that happen to Hunslet?
Posted Image

#122 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,987 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:04 AM

When discussing the wonderful plan to merge half the SL teams into one or two supposedly mega teams, a kind of Yugoslavia of RL and we all know how well that worked out.


Care to discuss P & R/Licensing?

#123 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,987 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:38 AM

According to the 2001 Census the populations of the towns/city breakdown as follows,

Featherstone 10,382
Castleford 37,525
Wakefield 76,886
Wigan 81,203
Leigh 43,006
St.Helens 102,629
Warrington 80,661
Widnes 55,686

2011 census gives regional populations as the following.

West Yorkshire 2,225,359
Gtr Manchester 2,681,735
Merseyside 1,380,612
Warrington District 202,137

I think those figures tell a lot.


I'd like to know exactly what you feel they say and others.

For me they say that in some places the concentration of RL fans is high, but that's against a low local population so crowds of 5,000, 6,000 and 7,000 are magnificent achievements. However these crowds have plunged the SL clubs into administration, near financial collapse, or they survive by rich chairmans handouts.

In other places top clubs have top crowds and do well with five figure fan bases, it's highly likely they pull fans from a wider region e.g. merseyside, cheshire, greater manchester for Saints, Wire and Wigan.

But salford can't pull 8,000 from a local catchment of two and a half million.

For west yorkshire my stamping ground I've enjoyed watching 12 pro clubs over the years, but that's a lot for a population of 2.2M to support.

What this means to P & R and licensing I'm not sure. Again should the financial level SL is pitched at be matched to the pulling power of the clubs in SL.

I don't believe SL is a good enough competition to draw the fans across the board, and as per pre 1996 fans follow the successfull clubs. Would an even competition pull more fans? Would evening up the competition financially damage the game.

#124 thundergaz

thundergaz
  • Coach
  • 2,664 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:50 AM

I'd like to know exactly what you feel they say and others.

For me they say that in some places the concentration of RL fans is high, but that's against a low local population so crowds of 5,000, 6,000 and 7,000 are magnificent achievements. However these crowds have plunged the SL clubs into administration, near financial collapse, or they survive by rich chairmans handouts.

In other places top clubs have top crowds and do well with five figure fan bases, it's highly likely they pull fans from a wider region e.g. merseyside, cheshire, greater manchester for Saints, Wire and Wigan.

But salford can't pull 8,000 from a local catchment of two and a half million.

For west yorkshire my stamping ground I've enjoyed watching 12 pro clubs over the years, but that's a lot for a population of 2.2M to support.

What this means to P & R and licensing I'm not sure. Again should the financial level SL is pitched at be matched to the pulling power of the clubs in SL.

I don't believe SL is a good enough competition to draw the fans across the board, and as per pre 1996 fans follow the successfull clubs. Would an even competition pull more fans? Would evening up the competition financially damage the game.


That's the problem parky at the minute. The RFL are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I mean we want to improve our game get more through the gates etc and we could do x, y and z but would it benefit the game? ( no one knows) But what I will say as licencing improved our game? To be honest I don't know I'm more swayed to no at the minute but we need a system if P&R comes back where teams are not yo yoing. Obviously to make the yo yo system non existent would be very hard unless the team that goes up cant go down till the season after which IMO wouldn't be a bad idea.

#125 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,987 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:00 AM

we need a system if P&R comes back where teams are not yo yoing. Obviously to make the yo yo system non existent would be very hard..........


I'd love to get honesty into the Licensing system, I'd love to get honesty from the clubs.

Again how many clubs (clubs not fans) seriously want to be in Superleague. When challenged some clubs will say "we're not ready yet". Seventeen years this leagues been going.

It's great you hanker back to the good old days when clubs went up and down and I can remember so many of our member clubs had stints at the top table, receiving the likes of Wigan and Leeds.

But today we know that several clubs have refused promotion, several more are not interested, a couple already in can't hack Superleague, and couple more may need a stint in SL to realise they can't hack it either.

Is it the case that if we bring back P & R. we may end up with many championship clubs being tested and saying "no thank you", in the end and some SL clubs going down and collapsing to the point where you may be hard pressed to get 14 applications or anyone who wants to be promoted?

#126 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:06 AM

That's the problem parky at the minute. The RFL are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I mean we want to improve our game get more through the gates etc and we could do x, y and z but would it benefit the game? ( no one knows) But what I will say as licencing improved our game? To be honest I don't know I'm more swayed to no at the minute but we need a system if P&R comes back where teams are not yo yoing. Obviously to make the yo yo system non existent would be very hard unless the team that goes up cant go down till the season after which IMO wouldn't be a bad idea.

Winning is a drug regardless of what standard you play sport at and Yo Yoing is what has kept some clubs alive in sport.

Edited by Marauder, 16 January 2013 - 03:19 PM.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#127 thundergaz

thundergaz
  • Coach
  • 2,664 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:31 AM

I'd like to know exactly what you feel they say and others.

For me they say that in some places the concentration of RL fans is high, but that's against a low local population so crowds of 5,000, 6,000 and 7,000 are magnificent achievements. However these crowds have plunged the SL clubs into administration, near financial collapse, or they survive by rich chairmans handouts.

In other places top clubs have top crowds and do well with five figure fan bases, it's highly likely they pull fans from a wider region e.g. merseyside, cheshire, greater manchester for Saints, Wire and Wigan.

But salford can't pull 8,000 from a local catchment of two and a half million.

For west yorkshire my stamping ground I've enjoyed watching 12 pro clubs over the years, but that's a lot for a population of 2.2M to support.

What this means to P & R and licensing I'm not sure. Again should the financial level SL is pitched at be matched to the pulling power of the clubs in SL.

I don't believe SL is a good enough competition to draw the fans across the board, and as per pre 1996 fans follow the successfull clubs. Would an even competition pull more fans? Would evening up the competition financially damage the game.


You have a very good point parky. Maybe that's where the minimum salary cap could come in. I mean obviously have a maximum cap of say 2m and a minimum of 1m. There is only an handful of clubs that could pay the 2m anyway and they are the teams that are dominating anyway so would it make a difference I doubt it. And the minimum would make the league more competitive IMO and the teams that can't pay it should be demoted then IMO we will have a better system and a more competitive league and maybe after 5 to 10 years of it being in action we may be able to compete against the Aussies ( Maybe being a big word) But I do think it would be a big help bridging the gap.

#128 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:46 AM

I'd love to get honesty into the Licensing system, I'd love to get honesty from the clubs.


Completely agree.

#129 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,987 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:54 AM

You have a very good point parky. Maybe that's where the minimum salary cap could come in. I mean obviously have a maximum cap of say 2m and a minimum of 1m. There is only an handful of clubs that could pay the 2m anyway and they are the teams that are dominating anyway so would it make a difference I doubt it.


The licensing system is looking for 14 clubs capable of staging professional RL and paying wages of up to ideally £1.65M. They aren't there and haven't been there for all 17 years of Superleague.

At the same time as they are asking clubs to pay wages they can't afford, they are asking them to build grounds they can't build, fund ancillary staff they can't afford and spend large sums of money on junior development that doesn't develop many juniors.

Take Wakefield. IMHO they are one of the games big clubs, and although they aren't that today they have the most potential to be a monster club. look at the crowds reaction last year to Glovers positive approach.

The idea of licensing was providing a sustained period in SL to chosen clubs in which a club could "build" and not fear relegation and the disaster that can bring.

Wakefield got their license over 10 years ago.

What did they build from 2000 to the end of 2011?

Nowt.

Having just this week passed Newmarket again, if only to see a sign with an artists impression on it (like the one that got ripped down at Glasshoughton) which wasn't there, how can we run a system that has expectations even some of our biggest and most famous clubs can't manage to meet.

Should the bar be lowered. Should the the "standards" be reviewed??

Edited by The Parksider, 16 January 2013 - 10:57 AM.


#130 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,987 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:31 AM

Completely agree.


I look closely at how clubs operate. I see Mr. Hudgell struggle on crowds of 8,000 and I see him lose millions and end up slashing his SL wages spend to £1.1M.

I see the despondency of Mr. O'Connor at the 6,000 crowds he got and his inability to find quality new players for his squad.

I see one of the modern games highest achieving small clubs struggling badly and IMHO Castleford are the biggest small club we have seen with sustained runs at the top table over the 40 plus years I have watched them.

Yet I hear bleatings from CC clubs that nobody could ever logically argue could ever become a HKR, a Widnes or a Cas say they are "building for SL", aiming for 2018 etc etc.

P & R is great in theory, in time and in truth will anyone really want promotion to a place they can't hack?

The truth is that for our game to be more that it fundamentally is we need rich men to back it.

Should the licensing system be primarily open to rich men to come in and bid for licenses?.

#131 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,531 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:39 AM

Some interesting points, for me the most important was the statement about about how few clubs are currently interested in SL from outside. The current system protects 4/5 clubs from relegation and excludes the same number from promotion, two tens is the obvious solution to our current challenges. The top operate on an open ended max 50% salary cap with a £1.5m min spend, same for second tier with a £1m min spend.
Hull, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Bradford, Leeds, London, Cats, Hudds, Wakey(at Newmarket) would be a great spectacle, as would Widnes, Cas, HKR, Salford, Fax, Fev, Leigh, Toulouse, Sheffield, Cardiff/Swansea/Wrexham.
Objective to expand every 3 years should criteria be met refn ground and £1m min spend, after winning the right to apply. Expansion need not happen and clubs need not move out of the FT structure. One up/down annually between the 2 comps.
The top needs to compete with RU for players by being truly SUPER, and not restricted by mediocrity.

#132 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,987 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:19 PM

Some interesting points, for me the most important was the statement about about how few clubs are currently interested in SL from outside. The current system protects 4/5 clubs from relegation and excludes the same number from promotion, two tens is the obvious solution to our current challenges. The top operate on an open ended max 50% salary cap with a £1.5m min spend, same for second tier with a £1m min spend.

Hull, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Bradford, Leeds, London, Cats, Hudds, Wakey(at Newmarket) would be a great spectacle, as would Widnes, Cas, HKR, Salford, Fax, Fev, Leigh, Toulouse, Sheffield, Cardiff/Swansea/Wrexham.

Objective to expand every 3 years should criteria be met refn ground and £1m min spend, after winning the right to apply.

Expansion need not happen and clubs need not move out of the FT structure. One up/down annually between the 2 comps.
The top needs to compete with RU for players by being truly SUPER, and not restricted by mediocrity.


Thanks for breaking our ranks shuffling round the problem and offering a possible solution.

#133 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,646 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:49 PM

It was ripped to shreds.


The bit that was disclosed might have been.

Doubtless lessons will have been learned from that and I therefore don't expect major disclosures in the future.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#134 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,646 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:57 PM

The 2011 census has the population of Wakefield District as 325,800 (rounded to nearest 100) roughly the same as Wigan Borough 317,800 (rounded to nearest 100)


According to the 2001 Census the populations of the towns/city breakdown as follows, this doesn't include any outying districts that have their own population figures. Thus Wigan/Leigh doesn't include places like Standish, Atherton and Wakefield etc. doesn't include Normanton and Pontefract etc.

Featherstone 10,382
Castleford 37,525
Wakefield 76,886

Wigan 81,203
Leigh 43,006
St.Helens 102,629

Warrington 80,661
Widnes 55,686

2011 census gives regional populations as the following.

West Yorkshire 2,225,359

Gtr Manchester 2,681,735
Merseyside 1,380,612

Warrington District 202,137
Wirral 319,585

I think those figures tell a lot.


Population of Sheffield and Rotherham is around 750,000. What does that tell us ? :mellow:

It's not about how many people there are, at the end of the day, it's how many come to games. Sure a big population gives you something to work with but it's footfall that matters.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#135 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,028 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:13 PM

I'd like to know exactly what you feel they say and others.


To be honest I'm sick of posting what the figures say, I've posted it time after time and really can't be bothered going through it all again.

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.


#136 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,987 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:33 PM

To be honest I'm sick of posting what the figures say, I've posted it time after time and really can't be bothered going through it all again.


Thank you very much for at least posting them then.

#137 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,987 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:48 PM

Population of Sheffield and Rotherham is around 750,000. What does that tell us ? :mellow:


Exactly the same as the numerical size of populations of all other big areas of Britain that have no RL culture.

The size of the RL "Culture" is the most important factor, but the size of the immediate catchment area can however be important too.

Castleford is steeped in an RL culture and can pull 7,000 fans based on a 37,000 immediate population fanbase.

Leeds can double that off a vastly bigger immediate catchment

Sheffield got 3,500 fans last time in SL and collapsed on that - it was from a very large immediate population base.

It probably says that if you want to maximise fans per se, put SL clubs in areas where there's a strong RL culture.

Out goes London, In comes Halifax, Fev and Leigh and you have a sixteen club SL and probably an impressive total aggregate attendance with maximum inclusivity.

In doing that alone you will probably add three more struggling clubs and create a very large rump of Superleague failures.

So it can't all be about fans through the gate? Or can it???

Edited by The Parksider, 16 January 2013 - 01:50 PM.


#138 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,925 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:27 PM

Done properly, i's all about Total Available Market (TAM) and Serviceable Available Market (SAM) and penetration.

#139 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,646 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:05 PM

Done properly, i's all about Total Available Market (TAM) and Serviceable Available Market (SAM) and penetration.


Ooooerrr, missus. :blink:
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#140 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:26 PM

The licensing system is looking for 14 clubs capable of staging professional RL and paying wages of up to ideally £1.65M. They aren't there and haven't been there for all 17 years of Superleague.

At the same time as they are asking clubs to pay wages they can't afford, they are asking them to build grounds they can't build, fund ancillary staff they can't afford and spend large sums of money on junior development that doesn't develop many juniors.

Take Wakefield. IMHO they are one of the games big clubs, and although they aren't that today they have the most potential to be a monster club. look at the crowds reaction last year to Glovers positive approach.

The idea of licensing was providing a sustained period in SL to chosen clubs in which a club could "build" and not fear relegation and the disaster that can bring.

Wakefield got their license over 10 years ago.

What did they build from 2000 to the end of 2011?

Nowt.

Having just this week passed Newmarket again, if only to see a sign with an artists impression on it (like the one that got ripped down at Glasshoughton) which wasn't there, how can we run a system that has expectations even some of our biggest and most famous clubs can't manage to meet.

Should the bar be lowered. Should the the "standards" be reviewed??

The bar has to be lower in these financial times, 5 years ago a very small business wouldn't have batted an eyelid giving £500 in sponsorship.
Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users