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
- - - - -

Two tier SL on the way


  • Please log in to reply
723 replies to this topic

#41 YCKonstantine

YCKonstantine
  • Coach
  • 1,422 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 08:14 AM

How about this http://www.loverugby...-structure.html
Except change the playoffs a bit in the leagues below SL to the second lowest side in the higher league and 2-5 in the lower league.

Match A - 2 v 3
Match B - 4 v 5

Match C - Team in higher league v Winner Match A (winner to playoff final)
Match D - Loser match A v Winner Match B

Match E - Loser match C v Winner Match D

Final - Winner match C v Winner match E

So this way it is 1 up 1 down with the playoff sides having to overcome a team in the higher division like it used to be between NL1 and NL2.

It's time to park the camels.

 

2014 SQL League Leader

2014 SQL Grand Stupid Champion

 


#42 Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton
  • Coach
  • 219 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 09:47 AM

Again, another case of the "haves" dictating the ways and means of the game. I wonder if Gatcliffe would have been so supportive of a two-tier system 10 years ago when the Wire weren't near the top of the tree*. Everyone will be up for it, providing they are in the top Super League.


(*assuming Gatcliffe was at Warrington back then, I don't know but I do know TRLers would be quick to point it out if he wasn't)


Yet in over 135 years Warrington have never been relegated

#43 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,134 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 10:00 AM

Yet in over 135 years Warrington have never been relegated

I'm not picking on them (they'd be no point, they're called Wolves for a reason) but as an example in 2001, 2002 and 2003 Warrington finished behind London, who today would be considered an SL2 team. My point is it's only now they're title contenders does the consideration seem appropriate, the same goes for the other top-6 contenders. They'll push because they know they'll be the winners in this.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#44 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,241 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 10:47 AM

Again, another case of the "haves" dictating the ways and means of the game. I wonder if Gatcliffe would have been so supportive of a two-tier system 10 years ago when the Wire weren't near the top of the tree*. Everyone will be up for it, providing they are in the top Super League.


(*assuming Gatcliffe was at Warrington back then, I don't know but I do know TRLers would be quick to point it out if he wasn't)

I'm not really sure of your point here Hindle.

What Gatcliffe is supporting is actually bringing more clubs to the SL Table (without seeing his actual proposal we must assume that there would be TV funding to support the £1.2m SC for the 2nd conference).

This is actually a suggestion based on what is happening in the game right now.

There are 14 teams in SL. There are another 4 or 5 who have SL ambition and want to play at the top table. The rest seem to accept that they will not be fit for SL in the foreseeable future, so this appears to be a sensible structure that meets most of the clubs' needs.

I agree with Shrek that there are issues around how you structure the season to avoid too many repeat fixtures, but I'm sure it can be done, but it feels a relatively sensible starting point rather than 'somebody at the top' dictating how the game moves forward.

If it is a terrible idea, it will not go anywhere.

#45 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,607 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 10:50 AM

Yet in over 135 years Warrington have never been relegated


Have we had P&R for 135 years seeing as the game of RL , or what came to be RL, only came into being in 1895?

rldfsignature.jpg


#46 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,241 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 10:50 AM

I

Our biggest problem we have no ff-ing sponsors, our game is a joke at present with some fantastic clubs and wonderful players for once.

Is it really?

Firstly, we do have sponsors. We have no SL title sponsor. That's it. In an ideal world we would have one, but I'm not sure why you deem this as the 'biggest problem'.

Why is the game a joke? I'm enjoying it, we seem to be attracting more investment than ever in a horrendous financial climate.

Crowds appear to be down, but I'd suggest people read the report on the BBC website about the Football League where crowds are almost universally down and times are tough for our biggest sport.

#47 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,134 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:04 AM

I'm not really sure of your point here Hindle.

What Gatcliffe is supporting is actually bringing more clubs to the SL Table (without seeing his actual proposal we must assume that there would be TV funding to support the £1.2m SC for the 2nd conference).

This is actually a suggestion based on what is happening in the game right now.

There are 14 teams in SL. There are another 4 or 5 who have SL ambition and want to play at the top table. The rest seem to accept that they will not be fit for SL in the foreseeable future, so this appears to be a sensible structure that meets most of the clubs' needs.

I agree with Shrek that there are issues around how you structure the season to avoid too many repeat fixtures, but I'm sure it can be done, but it feels a relatively sensible starting point rather than 'somebody at the top' dictating how the game moves forward.

If it is a terrible idea, it will not go anywhere.

My point was we only hear from those at the top on this idea, and now Salford because they think they should be at the top because they have money now, but those who would lose out, we don't here from them. If I remember rightly from last time it's Saints, Leeds, Wigan, Warrington who think this is the way forward, because it'll benefit them most and disrupt them least. My further point was historically, I don't think Warrington would have been so supportive if it was them who might have been at risk of finishing lower down the league a decade or so ago.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#48 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,139 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:05 AM

Is it really?

Firstly, we do have sponsors. We have no SL title sponsor. That's it. In an ideal world we would have one, but I'm not sure why you deem this as the 'biggest problem'.

Why is the game a joke? I'm enjoying it, we seem to be attracting more investment than ever in a horrendous financial climate.

Crowds appear to be down, but I'd suggest people read the report on the BBC website about the Football League where crowds are almost universally down and times are tough for our biggest sport.

I agree. Its bad news not having a title sponsor but the game still carries on and is far from a joke. In fact this season seems to be the best in a long while. I reckon sponsors must have more money than sense given the cash they waste on other sports. I saw a clip of the Basketball team from Sheffield last night (Sharks?), they won a trophy the other day. There was footage from Sky sports but their didn't seem to be a main sponsor. I haven't heard anyone calling Basketball a joke and that has a far 'cooler' image than RL.

#49 Tonka

Tonka
  • Coach
  • 700 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:36 AM

I love the idea and propose the following simple pay off system:

Teams finishing 2nd, 4th and 6th in SL1 play off against the teams in 1st, 3rd and 5th in SL2. All the winners go through.
The remaining teams form mini groups of three and all play each other with the winner of each group going through.
All the team left in play each other twice, home and away, with the number of points scored by each team divided by the number of tries scored to give a T-R-Y Strike Rate.
The four teams with the highest T-R-Y Strike Rate are in the semi-finals, although the team that finished first in SL1 gets to declare a re-match if it loses. If it loses a second time, the winning side is eliminated anyway and the team finishing first can choose to play either of the other semi-finalists to see if it can do any better against them. If it still can’t win Leeds are declared the winners, unless the team is Leeds in which case they are declared the winners anyway.

#50 John Rhino

John Rhino
  • Coach
  • 2,510 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:47 AM

I suggest adding a team and dividing SL into three leagues of five teams. Promotion and relegation would take place every six months.

That would add variety.

Good idea. Three up, three down.



And the top five in each league making the playoffs. Eight is just stupid.

Edited by John Rhino, 12 March 2013 - 11:50 AM.

Derby City - proud to be flying the flag for Rugby League in the Midlands for over 24 years.
 

Visit:  http://www.derbycityrlfc.co.uk and see the progress being made.

 

Follow us on Twitter: @derbycityrlfc


#51 Bleep1673

Bleep1673
  • Coach
  • 3,430 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:55 AM

Yet in over 135 years Warrington have never been relegated

And for a very long part of the last 118 years of NU/RL there was only one division until 1973
Swinton RLFC est 1866 - Supplying England with players when most of your clubs were in nappies

#52 PREPOSTEROUS

PREPOSTEROUS
  • Coach
  • 669 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:59 AM

Subject to funding, it has to be two equal conferences of 10 teams, anything other does nothing to change what we already have or had, SL2 would be another name for the Championship, NFP or Division 2.

Conferences A and B play each other home and away. After that the top five of each form a new conference (SL1) and the bottom five from another (SL2), they play each other once. I believe this also allows for Magic weekend. Top four/five of each conference go on to compete for the SL title (SL1) and for a secondary comp (SL2).

Initial conferences can be drawn up either randomly or geographically.

Alternatively if Warrington (or any other team) want a larger cap, let them have it, but they should forego a percentage of central funding which can be spilt and given to the other SL/Championship clubs to aid them to catch up with the more successful teams. i.e. they want any extra half a million cap spend above the £1.6m, they forego half a million sky funding. Seems a fair way to go.

#53 chuffer

chuffer
  • Coach
  • 3,678 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:04 PM

Alternatively if Warrington (or any other team) want a larger cap, let them have it, but they should forego a percentage of central funding which can be spilt and given to the other SL/Championship clubs to aid them to catch up with the more successful teams. i.e. they want any extra half a million cap spend above the £1.6m, they forego half a million sky funding. Seems a fair way to go.


sounds good to me!!

#54 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,633 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:16 PM

Is it really?

Firstly, we do have sponsors. We have no SL title sponsor. That's it. In an ideal world we would have one, but I'm not sure why you deem this as the 'biggest problem'.

Why is the game a joke? I'm enjoying it, we seem to be attracting more investment than ever in a horrendous financial climate.

Crowds appear to be down, but I'd suggest people read the report on the BBC website about the Football League where crowds are almost universally down and times are tough for our biggest sport.



In my opinion, yeah sure is a joke we've no main sponsor, we've sold ourselves short.

Crowds are down and having no main sponsor puts extra pressure on clubs finances, so yeah it's a joke.

We have at last some wonderful players, both in SL and NRL, I'd just like a MAJOR sponsor rather than nothing.

#55 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,378 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:17 PM

Was wondering about the clubs myself Parky.

I came up with this wild and potentially way off the mark speculation on the back of a fag packet;
- 14 Existing Super League clubs
- Championship clubs not in a formal duel reg agreement last count I made this 5 but I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong – no offence intended. (Barrow, Leigh, Sheffield, Halifax and Featherstone)
- An extra French side.

Not against it in principle, but have reservations about how you fund it unless Sky/TV Partner stump up serious cash and would still have reservations that even then its subject to change every TV negotiation. Also have reservations about 10 teams league, but to suggest any more would be fanciful given the clubs currently at our disposal, but I fail to come up with a format that I'd find interesting given the scope for repeat fixtures in the regular season, cup and play-offs.


Thanks for your reply. I think your about spot on. If you work on it being about rich men, which everyone so far seems to agree it's primarily about then you get:-

SL1.......Salford (mega rich) Wire (minted) Huddersfield (rich) Saints (Rich) Wigan (Rich) Catalans (??) Toulouse (allege they'll be richly backed) Hull (pearson backed) after that I'm hard pressed to think of rich owners/sponsors, but Leeds and Bradford would not be left out, the latter sponsored by SL and RFL when in difficulty.

A wealthy anglo-french competition. Towards the end of last year Wigan, Wire, Saints and Leeds were courting Toulouse. Toulouses biggest problems were wether they would bring money to SL via a TV deal and how could they find a competetive team.

After that you have the strugglers led by featherstone (allegedly rich but Nabbers has only stumped up £100K so far) Widnes (O'Connor not keen on lavishing the cash) Wakefield (Golver bit rich) castleford (skint) HKR (Hudge has had enough dishing the dough) Halifax, leigh, Sheffield and Barrow..........London??

Can't see Hughes carrying on in a lower division, CAN see central funding being part of radical changes.

I always subscribe to conspiracy theories in the game and gross manipulation by the few of the many basically not because I also believe Bush blew up the twin towers, but because this is what we have seen since 1995.

This move to "Give the game what it wants", which was advocated by a fanciful ex-Couragmania dreamer and a vote hungry populist MP will not happen because of their views P & R is "good for the game" and because TRL Forum has a dozen people who post about how great P & R is merely from a self interest point of view.

It will happen IMHO and in the opinion of several others on here because it will suit the top clubs.

And I wonder if it won't end up being a way of making London and Toulouse competetive?

It will IMHO be hard to sell an "Elite" league to SKY full of small town names?

#56 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,633 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:18 PM

I agree. Its bad news not having a title sponsor but the game still carries on and is far from a joke. In fact this season seems to be the best in a long while. I reckon sponsors must have more money than sense given the cash they waste on other sports. I saw a clip of the Basketball team from Sheffield last night (Sharks?), they won a trophy the other day. There was footage from Sky sports but their didn't seem to be a main sponsor. I haven't heard anyone calling Basketball a joke and that has a far 'cooler' image than RL.


Comparing basketball to rugby league, love it....... Even netball on sky has a sponsor!!

#57 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,134 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:27 PM

Comparing basketball to rugby league, love it....... Even netball on sky has a sponsor!!

... and a Super League!

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#58 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:30 PM

It's also a golden opportunity to bring in more French Clubs, subject of course to an appropriate French TV deal.

I'd go for 2 X 12 with P&R between the two and a mechanism for a semi pro team to make the leap every couple of years (if one has the desire and finances).

14 existing SL clubs, 5 Championship clubs, 5 new French clubs.

#59 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,072 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:35 PM

Comparing basketball to rugby league, love it....... Even netball on sky has a sponsor!!


I like your thinking so netball has a sponsor so is less of a joke than SL. How much is this sponsorship worth.

#60 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,378 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:41 PM

My point was we only hear from those at the top on this idea, and now Salford because they think they should be at the top because they have money now, but those who would lose out, we don't here from them. If I remember rightly from last time it's Saints, Leeds, Wigan, Warrington who think this is the way forward, because it'll benefit them most and disrupt them least. My further point was historically, I don't think Warrington would have been so supportive if it was them who might have been at risk of finishing lower down the league a decade or so ago.


It's not going to be driven IMHO by anyone other than the top clubs who have driven Superleague for the whole of it's 18 years.

The outstanding question though is SKY funding.

There is no indication whatsoever as regards this, only Gatcliffe saying he likes 2 x 10 but the "funding will need to be such that P & R is viable".

How about 20 clubs getting £840K a year each then? Not going to happen that the big four are shorn of £400K each and it's given to such as Leigh and Barrow.

How about funding on a 2:1 ratio - SL1 clubs £1.18 (no change) and SL2 clubs £560K.

If this is what's been thought about then what the effect of that will be is to drag down the likes of HKR, Castleford and Wakefield in terms of income which will also be dragged down by lower crowds, and supply even skinter clubs like barrow, leigh, sheffield and halifax money to increase their turnovers by half a million whilst the SL1 teams they are supposed to be chasing after will all be on £5-6M turnovers leaving them millions behind anyway.

Has Gatcliffe thought it through? Has he been asked the awkward questions?? Is this a stunt to say "don't blame us blame SKY when they just "have to" cut to 12?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users