Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Two tier SL on the way


  • Please log in to reply
723 replies to this topic

#61 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,837 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:42 PM

Two equal conferences of ten with cross conference playoffs to decide the ultimate champion.Conference make ups could change each season depending on chosen criteria.


That's the way to go. It removes the stigma of the SL 2 being an inferior competition AND it results in many derby games and less travelling.

#62 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,837 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:45 PM

I'm for anything radical and exciting like this. just a few questions............

1. Anyone care to suggest the 20 chosen clubs??

2. Once we have a 20 what about the clubs outside this? Is it the end for several clubs? Is it the end of pro RL in West Cumbria for instance?

3. What about the clubs in the second tier of SL facing a need to turn over five or six million (two million of which is wages) if promoted to survive in SL1?

What about them needing to find money and crowds when (let's take Bradford or Wakefield for example if they were in SL2) they lose fixtures against Leeds, Wigan, Saints and instead are playing Barrow, Dewsbury and Batley?

4. Would this be the end of London for sure?

Could Toulouse do anything playing SL2

How would Catalans cope with SL2

5. Why would SKY bother to subsidise SL2, do they want the "Big games" only??

Given P & R has proved to be a turnoff how will crowds go for say the bottom SL club getting beat every week?


Your points are all valid but are mostly solved by going to equal conferences instead of a superior and an inferior league arrangement as in SL 1 and SL2.

#63 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,640 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:48 PM

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


Playing devils advocate, sorry.

We have a brand and it has no value at present..... Not even a penny.

Yes we have associated sponsors,

but we don't have a main sponsor for a game that is live on sky twice a week, covered on sky sports news ( around the grounds) the radio (talksport have regular slots) and some newspapers.

This is a failing of the RFL and this will cause some clubs financial concerns, especially with the downturn in crowds.

I guess what I should point out is I'm very passionate about our game, but alarmed at what isn't happening with the brand.

If clubs are losing gate size due to the economic climate and also losing sponsor money how are they going to pug the gap??

I can see problems ahead, clubs making people redundant, clubs gambling on getting crowds in.... I hope I'm wrong but 6 games in with no sponsor is a fifth of the season gone.

Over and out



#64 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,161 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:51 PM

That's the way to go. It removes the stigma of the SL 2 being an inferior competition AND it results in many derby games and less travelling.


It might be in a few years but all you will end up with now is two average divisions. Maybe have SL 1 and 2 for the duration of the next TV contract with a view to going to a split division in time for the next TV negotiations.

#65 slowdive

slowdive
  • Coach
  • 264 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:53 PM

Won't a reduction to a league of ten teams seriously damage the amount of gate money clubs get?
"At times to be silent is to lie. You will win because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. For to convince you need to persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack: Reason and Right."

#66 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,837 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:53 PM

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?


Like Sheffield and Toulouse ?

#67 Southstander13

Southstander13
  • Coach
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:53 PM

Two equal conferences of ten with cross conference playoffs to decide the ultimate champion.Conference make ups could change each season depending on chosen criteria.


Id go with that, if there needs to be additional fixtures then there could be some cross conference matches too which could be decided by finishing positions of previous years etc

#68 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,161 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:57 PM

Won't a reduction to a league of ten teams seriously damage the amount of gate money clubs get?

I assume teams would play each other three times

#69 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,837 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:57 PM

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?


If such proposals are serious, then they must consult Sky re funding. If they, or some other TV outlet, don't get on board then it's a non starter.

If more funding is agreed then, it's very much doable.

#70 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,507 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:00 PM

I'd go for 2 X 12 with P&R between the two


I'd love it.

On a £1.2M cap for SL2 and a £2.0M cap for SLI that's a potential £38,400,000 the clubs could then annually spend on players!.

But this year the top 24 clubs only spent about £21,000,000.

A massive swathe of cap will not be spent IMHO because it cannot be afforded by the smaller clubs, but for the richer clubs some will spend £2,000,000 on players.

And what you can be sure of IMHO is every top player and top prospect in the country will be at the top ten clubs.

This year I think HKR spent £1.1M on players and Leigh £235,000.

And thus it will come to pass IMHO that we will have a repeat of the early 2000's when P & R was rigged because when the SL clubs went down like Salford, Fartown and Cas they ALREADY had the players to gain them promotion back to SL at first go (even the hapless Fartown went straight back up undefeated I think).

The promoted clubs did not have the players and did not have anything more than a matter of weeks to find a competitive team.

For your club IMHO you need Mr. Nahaboo to deliver sustained riches, and Wakey and Cas to end up in SL2. If he does and they do you could become the "Calder" club Lyndsay craved............

Edited by The Parksider, 12 March 2013 - 01:08 PM.


#71 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,162 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:02 PM

I dunno how having SL Odds and SL Evens would change things though? They'd still be those at the top who are gods and those at the bottom who are dregs. I thought the initial proposal was to simply relegate the bottom 4 to SL2. And it seems 8 from the current Championship.

If you use "should of", "would of" or "could of", you are a moron.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.

 


#72 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,507 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:02 PM

That's the way to go. It removes the stigma of the SL 2 being an inferior competition AND it results in many derby games and less travelling.


If we do this on a county basis how about the following:

Wigan 120.v.Barrow 0
Leeds 96.v.Dewsbury 0

And anyway your lads wouldn't be in it?

#73 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,507 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:06 PM


If such proposals are serious, then they must consult Sky re funding. If they, or some other TV outlet, don't get on board then it's a non starter.If more funding is agreed then, it's very much doable.


Oh I agree wholeheartedly.

So why is Mr. Gatcliffe openly discussing proposals that have no funding?

#74 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,728 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:13 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.

I'm sure anybody in the game is free to table any suggestion. It is quite a big assumption that people only suggest it because they will benefit most from it. No doubt there will always be self-interest (as there should be) but if that suggestion is deemed good for the game then surely it will get voted in, if possible.

With all due respect, it will always be the leading clubs that are seen to be driving the game forward on issues like this. You could argue that this will make most difference to the likes of Featherstone and Halifax rather than Warrington.

#75 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,837 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:16 PM

If we do this on a county basis how about the following:

Wigan 120.v.Barrow 0
Leeds 96.v.Dewsbury 0

And anyway your lads wouldn't be in it?


Oh stop being ridiculous.

Firstly, you aways drag Keighley inrto these arguments. they are not in serious or non serious discussions regarding SL. Neither are Dewsbury. Keighley and Dewsbury and Hunslet, having surrendered to the DR dependency would all remain to the lower tier as A teams for the SL outfits. they have made their choice.

Barrow would not lose 120 nil to Wigan or anyone else if they were operating on a SL funded budget. Their team would be a SL standard team. They would do no worse than the hammerings currently being handed out to London, Salford and Widnes.

Over time, it would be up to the lower level teams to raise their game such as is gradually happening at Widnes and Wakefield and seemingly even Castleford. Salford are bottom feeders but they now have money and ambition, watch them improve. It would be up to new SL clubs to raise their game. You picked on Barrow as they are currently the weakest link.

Even now, today, Fev, Fax, Sheffield and maybe Leigh would not get slaughtered bu SL teams and they are currently operating on Championship level budgets. Add SL money to their present status and they will be very competitive.

#76 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,837 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:17 PM

Oh I agree wholeheartedly.

So why is Mr. Gatcliffe openly discussing proposals that have no funding?



Parky, how do we know that. as you have repeatedly said, discussions between the RFL and Sky are not in the public domain.

#77 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,728 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:18 PM

Playing devils advocate, sorry.

We have a brand and it has no value at present..... Not even a penny.

Yes we have associated sponsors,

but we don't have a main sponsor for a game that is live on sky twice a week, covered on sky sports news ( around the grounds) the radio (talksport have regular slots) and some newspapers.

This is a failing of the RFL and this will cause some clubs financial concerns, especially with the downturn in crowds.

I guess what I should point out is I'm very passionate about our game, but alarmed at what isn't happening with the brand.

If clubs are losing gate size due to the economic climate and also losing sponsor money how are they going to pug the gap??

I can see problems ahead, clubs making people redundant, clubs gambling on getting crowds in.... I hope I'm wrong but 6 games in with no sponsor is a fifth of the season gone.

Over and out

What is the bit in bold based on.

You are actually wrong. People are associated with SL, so it clearly has a value. Nobody has come forward prepared to pay what the RFL deem to be the value of SL. Nothing more than that.

#78 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,891 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:20 PM

Oh stop being ridiculous.

Firstly, you aways drag Keighley inrto these arguments. they are not in serious or non serious discussions regarding SL. Neither are Dewsbury. Keighley and Dewsbury and Hunslet, having surrendered to the DR dependency would all remain to the lower tier as A teams for the SL outfits. they have made their choice.

Barrow would not lose 120 nil to Wigan or anyone else if they were operating on a SL funded budget. Their team would be a SL standard team. They would do no worse than the hammerings currently being handed out to London, Salford and Widnes.

Over time, it would be up to the lower level teams to raise their game such as is gradually happening at Widnes and Wakefield and seemingly even Castleford. Salford are bottom feeders but they now have money and ambition, watch them improve. It would be up to new SL clubs to raise their game. You picked on Barrow as they are currently the weakest link.

Even now, today, Fev, Fax, Sheffield and maybe Leigh would not get slaughtered bu SL teams and they are currently operating on Championship level budgets. Add SL money to their present status and they will be very competitive.


120-0, 50-0, 30-0 - is that what people would pay to see ? :wacko:
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#79 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,162 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:20 PM

I'm sure anybody in the game is free to table any suggestion. It is quite a big assumption that people only suggest it because they will benefit most from it. No doubt there will always be self-interest (as there should be) but if that suggestion is deemed good for the game then surely it will get voted in, if possible.

With all due respect, it will always be the leading clubs that are seen to be driving the game forward on issues like this. You could argue that this will make most difference to the likes of Featherstone and Halifax rather than Warrington.

We don't hear the views of say Wakefield and Widnes on this though, two clubs who are probably well within their rights to think they should be in SL1, but whom others may think should be in SL2. I said earlier I reckon every team will be on board to cut down SL, just as long as it's not those getting cut.

If you use "should of", "would of" or "could of", you are a moron.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.

 


#80 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,728 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:20 PM

Oh I agree wholeheartedly.

So why is Mr. Gatcliffe openly discussing proposals that have no funding?

Central funding is £1.4m per SL club.

£1.4m x 14 = £19.6m

If SL1 funding stayed the same, then the 10 SL2 clubs could get 560k per year funding.

Funding can work however we want, you shouldn't state that funding isn't there as though it is fact. You have no idea (like the rest of us here).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users