Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Two tier SL on the way


  • Please log in to reply
723 replies to this topic

#81 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:22 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.

Yes - when people talk about conferences, they are talking about increasing the top division to 20, from 14. That would be a massive increase, and tbh goes against absolutely every snippet we have heard from anyone.

We struggle to have 14 strong top division clubs, why do people feel that 20 is suddenly a good idea?

#82 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:25 PM

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.

I'm sure they can ring the press with their own quotes, that was my point.

It is up to the likes of Wakefield and Widnes (for example) to play the politics of it and get enough support to throw this out if they deem it the wrong move. Of course if they make this decision based on themselves as a club rather than the whole game, then they are acting in exactly the same way as the likes of Warrington, Wigan and Leeds.

I'd suggest that if we had 14 really strong teams in SL then we wouldn't even be going down this route of discussion, it would be about how many more clubs to let in.

#83 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,911 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:26 PM

I'm sure they can ring the press with their own quotes, that was my point.

It is up to the likes of Wakefield and Widnes (for example) to play the politics of it and get enough support to throw this out if they deem it the wrong move. Of course if they make this decision based on themselves as a club rather than the whole game, then they are acting in exactly the same way as the likes of Warrington, Wigan and Leeds.

I'd suggest that if we had 14 really strong teams in SL then we wouldn't even be going down this route of discussion, it would be about how many more clubs to let in.


Spot on. It's not about increasing $uperleague, it's about cutting back the dead wood from $uperleague.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#84 chuffer

chuffer
  • Coach
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:28 PM

I'd suggest that if we had 14 really strong teams in SL then we wouldn't even be going down this route of discussion, it would be about how many more clubs to let in.


financially strong or performance wise?......if it's the former perhaps we should reduce SL1 to six teams?......

#85 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:30 PM

financially strong or performance wise?......if it's the former perhaps we should reduce SL1 to six teams?......

You can't run with a 6 team league, you can with a 10 team league.

Strongest 10 on and off the field.

#86 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,493 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:38 PM

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

Basketball is many times bigger than RL. It should be easier for them to get one simply by association. I want a title sponsor too asap. But I don't enjoy matches less because of it.

Edited by Johnoco, 12 March 2013 - 01:43 PM.


#87 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 6,039 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:40 PM

Yes - when people talk about conferences, they are talking about increasing the top division to 20, from 14. That would be a massive increase, and tbh goes against absolutely every snippet we have heard from anyone.

We struggle to have 14 strong top division clubs, why do people feel that 20 is suddenly a good idea?


When you talk about SL 1 and SL 2 you are doing the same thing or an alternative view could be that you are demoting four SL teams.

#88 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:46 PM

Oh I agree wholeheartedly.

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


Hopefully, he's privvy to more sensitive information than we are (one assumes that he's also a board member at SLE). Sky or someone else might already be interested for all we know.

Either that or he's planting a seed with our major financial backer

#89 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 6,039 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:47 PM

Spot on. It's not about increasing $uperleague, it's about cutting back the dead wood from $uperleague.


Regression is self defeating. SL might think a 10 team league is a panacea for all the games ills but it is not. In a ten team league the bottom 2 would just replicate the problems of the bottom two in a 14 team league and the repetitive fixtures and lack of variety of teams to appear on TV would result in stagnation and the erosion of viewing figures due to those concerns and the shrnking of the geographical footprint of the game leading to a loss of susbcrbibers for Sky

#90 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,911 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:52 PM

Regression is self defeating. SL might think a 10 team league is a panacea for all the games ills but it is not. In a ten team league the bottom 2 would just replicate the problems of the bottom two in a 14 team league and the repetitive fixtures and lack of variety of teams to appear on TV would result in stagnation and the erosion of viewing figures due to those concerns and the shrnking of the geographical footprint of the game leading to a loss of susbcrbibers for Sky


I wouldn't disagree with that. However, we seem to have a number of clubs in $uperleague who can't afford to be in $uperleague.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#91 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:52 PM

Regression is self defeating. SL might think a 10 team league is a panacea for all the games ills but it is not. In a ten team league the bottom 2 would just replicate the problems of the bottom two in a 14 team league and the repetitive fixtures and lack of variety of teams to appear on TV would result in stagnation and the erosion of viewing figures due to those concerns and the shrnking of the geographical footprint of the game leading to a loss of susbcrbibers for Sky


Would it though?

The intensity of the top league would be at another level to what we have most weeks at present.

Who says Sky don't want a fully professional 2nd tier? There's plenty of variety of fixtures if you've got 20 teams to pick from, rather than 14.

#92 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,168 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:59 PM

So which 4 get the chop?

I propose a radical but fair approach first off, list the current SL clubs alphabetically and demote the bottom 4... :D

Edited by hindle xiii, 12 March 2013 - 02:00 PM.

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

On Odsal Top baht 'at.

 


#93 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 6,039 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:00 PM

120-0, 50-0, 30-0 - is that what people would pay to see ? :wacko:


Well London put 50 on Warrington and Huddersfield put 45 on St Helens and Hull got stuffed at Leeds already. This is nothing new. The SL money should help equalise the compeition coupled with the salary cap. Things go in cycles. Huddersfield used to be rubbing rags and now are top tier, as are Catalans. Bradford went in the other direction. Salford might well rise rapdily up the power elite standings.

I also don't think those scores you quoted will be the norm. The top 5 o so Championship teams could give at least half the current SL a run for their money now, never mind when they have more funding.

#94 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 6,039 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:02 PM

Would it though?

The intensity of the top league would be at another level to what we have most weeks at present.

Who says Sky don't want a fully professional 2nd tier? There's plenty of variety of fixtures if you've got 20 teams to pick from, rather than 14.


You are peaching to the choir. I was never against a 20 team top tier.

#95 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,984 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:13 PM

Well London put 50 on Warrington and Huddersfield put 45 on St Helens and Hull got stuffed at Leeds already.


And Hull have just put 52 on Cas with no reply and Bradford put 43 on Huddersfield at Huddersfield.

Edited by deluded pom?, 12 March 2013 - 03:02 PM.

rldfsignature.jpg


#96 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,984 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:16 PM

Spot on. It's not about increasing $uperleague, it's about cutting back the dead wood from $uperleague.


Then I hope they have a big enough axe because there's plenty of dead wood currently in the SL.

rldfsignature.jpg


#97 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,984 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:18 PM

I wouldn't disagree with that. However, we seem to have a number of clubs in $uperleague who can't afford to be in $uperleague.


Then maybe the finances to compete in the SL currently are too much for all but a handful of clubs. Is it that there are too many who can't afford to be in SL or too few that can afford to be in SL?

rldfsignature.jpg


#98 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,984 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:22 PM

You can't run with a 6 team league, you can with a 10 team league.

Strongest 10 on and off the field.


Why is ten the magic number? A ten team league would need three games per year , minimum, against the other teams in the league. Throw in the games against another SL team in the Challenge Cup and then the playoffs and you are looking at overkill. There's the possibility that some teams could meet six times in a single season.

rldfsignature.jpg


#99 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,735 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:27 PM

Warrington CEO, Andy Gatecliffe, believes there is a way of pleasing clubs both at the top and bottom of SL. A move to a two tier SL - one with an increased cap of £2m and another with a £1.2m spending limit, with promotion and relegation between the two. He believes such a system is definitely on the agenda from 2015 onwards.
"I would like that and think it could work as long as you make it so promotion is achievable so its not such a massive step up"

That would certainly breathe some life into the sport and add a great deal of excitement.

Above comments from Gatecliffe taken from today's League Weekly.


1. Gatcliffe
2. Two tier SL on the way or Two tier SL on the way?
3. See image.

Posted Image

#100 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,690 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:32 PM


Oh stop being ridiculous.

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.

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.


Sadly the devil IS in the detail IMHO.

If we had 20 teams in Superleague conferences all able to spend up to full salary cap only the big clubs would spend it in full.

Leeds and Wigan etc would have ALL the best players, the middle teams would feed off the scraps and the leigh's and barrows would have no professional players to buy - there is a player shortage that you conveniently forget.

Leigh currently spend £235,000 on players, Barrow less.

When Bradford had all the best stars and salford didn't they put 94 on Salford.

There's now few Aussies to even things up. We have 350 professionals in a 14 club Superleague.

In a 20 club Superleague we will need 500.

In this fantasy world of conferences there may be some money but there won't be the players......




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users