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
- - - - -

Minimum Standards


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 RoytonRoughyed

RoytonRoughyed
  • Players
  • 91 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:23 PM

I'm a Rugby League fan who is for promotion and relegation, however I understood why the RFL brought in the licenses. I would like to see I situation were we have both. Provided you have a licenses that says your club meets minimum standards then you can be promoted to the top league should you win the one below. So I was wondering what fans thought should be minimum standards if any, or whether it should be just Licenses or just the best 10/12/14 teams reguardless of fan base, ground, etc

#2 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,988 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:18 PM

There is a lot to be said for a careful return to p&r. Some form of minimum standards is essential, but it is also vital that clubs know where they stand before the season gets under way. Therefore, I would like to see a situation where clubs are informed of whether or not they meet the minimum standards by January 1st. If told "no" on that date, any subsequent improvements during that year will not change the "no" to a "yes". Also, bearing in mind the way Widnes have adapted to SL, any promoted club should be exempt from relegation for their first two seasons. If they finish bottom in their third (or any subsequent) season, they would be relegated.

 

As for the actual minimum standards, I'm a bit unsure. The licensing criteria would be a good starting point, but would we apply the same criteria to "heartlands" clubs like Leigh, Salford, Batley or York as we would to "expansion" clubs such as Skolars, Toulouse or, say, Whitehaven? (I know Whitehaven have been around a long time, but there has been no Cumbrian presence in SL for years now.) I ask this in the light of Broncos' recent excursion to Esher, and it is a genuine question, not just an attempt to wind up my fellow posters.


Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#3 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,808 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:22 AM

Minimum standards should be rigorous for those in SL but not those aiming to get in where a time limit could apply (rigorously).

Whitehaven (Cumbrian outpost) were told they couldnt go up a couple of years ago just before they went ######, yet Wakefields joke of a ground was okay

#4 nec

nec
  • Coach
  • 2,353 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:04 AM

One minimum standard must be financial stability. Not throwing the kitchen sink at promotion without thought to the consequences.
Rugby League is a sport that desperately needs to expand its geographical supporter base and its player base. This imperative means that all other requirements are secondary until this is done.

All power in the game should be with governing bodies, especially international governing bodies.

Without these actions we will remain a minor sport internationally and nationally.

#5 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:13 AM

One minimum standard must be financial stability. Not throwing the kitchen sink at promotion without thought to the consequences.


I agree, like wise for teams currently in the top league.

#6 nec

nec
  • Coach
  • 2,353 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:14 PM


I agree, like wise for teams currently in the top league.

why would they be trying to get promoted? The top tier reg should be based around proportion of income spent on youth development in my opinion
Rugby League is a sport that desperately needs to expand its geographical supporter base and its player base. This imperative means that all other requirements are secondary until this is done.

All power in the game should be with governing bodies, especially international governing bodies.

Without these actions we will remain a minor sport internationally and nationally.

#7 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:23 PM

why would they be trying to get promoted? The top tier reg should be based around proportion of income spent on youth development in my opinion


So they can throw the kitchen sink at staying in the division and that would be ok?

#8 nec

nec
  • Coach
  • 2,353 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:36 PM

That's the problem with direct relegation - it guarantees over-spending to survive as the loss of income the following year is so vast. Better to make sure they are doing something positive with the money they spend
Rugby League is a sport that desperately needs to expand its geographical supporter base and its player base. This imperative means that all other requirements are secondary until this is done.

All power in the game should be with governing bodies, especially international governing bodies.

Without these actions we will remain a minor sport internationally and nationally.

#9 Harrigan

Harrigan
  • Coach
  • 1,005 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:11 AM

How can you have a licencing system and Promotion and Relegation? Does that not then just become the old system? Personally, im dead set against P&R.

Look at it this way. Last year, Widnes came up, they finished bottom, they'd have gone straight back down. Instead, they had a year to build on getting a licence. This year, just 10 games in, they are only 3 points behind their entire total they got last year and have been competitive in probably 80% of their matches. That has happened in the space of 12 months. They have gone from a team that people were saying, wouldnt win a game last year, to a team who actually have a shot at making the top 8 this time out. If P&R was still in place, they wouldnt have had chance to do this and would have probably filled their team with loophole "English" Aussies to try and stay up, as would Cas and London.

Im not saying Licencing is perfect, but it's still relatively young and I think the Crusaders debacle set us back a bit. This current licence set seems to be going well though and I do believe that when they announce the next set of teams, whether it be 14, 12 or 10, we will have finally got rid of those who dont deserve to be there. Like anything though, it doesnt just happen like that.

rhinosbulldogs_zps04cf7e0a.jpg


#10 Forever Trinity

Forever Trinity
  • Coach
  • 634 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:56 AM

Minumum standards is a very poor term it promotes just doing enough

#11 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,594 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:27 PM

How can you have a licencing system and Promotion and Relegation? Does that not then just become the old system? Personally, im dead set against P&R.

Look at it this way. Last year, Widnes came up, they finished bottom, they'd have gone straight back down. Instead, they had a year to build on getting a licence. This year, just 10 games in, they are only 3 points behind their entire total they got last year and have been competitive in probably 80% of their matches. That has happened in the space of 12 months. They have gone from a team that people were saying, wouldnt win a game last year, to a team who actually have a shot at making the top 8 this time out. If P&R was still in place, they wouldnt have had chance to do this and would have probably filled their team with loophole "English" Aussies to try and stay up, as would Cas and London.

Im not saying Licencing is perfect, but it's still relatively young and I think the Crusaders debacle set us back a bit. This current licence set seems to be going well though and I do believe that when they announce the next set of teams, whether it be 14, 12 or 10, we will have finally got rid of those who dont deserve to be there. Like anything though, it doesnt just happen like that.

 

Widnes only finished bottom on points difference and they knew they were safe. If there had been relegation in place, I am sure they would have made an extra effort and avoided the wooden spoon.



#12 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 08:01 AM

How can you have a licencing system and Promotion and Relegation? Does that not then just become the old system? Personally, im dead set against P&R.

Look at it this way. Last year, Widnes came up, they finished bottom, they'd have gone straight back down. Instead, they had a year to build on getting a licence. This year, just 10 games in, they are only 3 points behind their entire total they got last year and have been competitive in probably 80% of their matches. That has happened in the space of 12 months. They have gone from a team that people were saying, wouldnt win a game last year, to a team who actually have a shot at making the top 8 this time out. If P&R was still in place, they wouldnt have had chance to do this and would have probably filled their team with loophole "English" Aussies to try and stay up, as would Cas and London.

Im not saying Licencing is perfect, but it's still relatively young and I think the Crusaders debacle set us back a bit. This current licence set seems to be going well though and I do believe that when they announce the next set of teams, whether it be 14, 12 or 10, we will have finally got rid of those who dont deserve to be there. Like anything though, it doesnt just happen like that.

I enjoyed your post. I understood the main principle of licensing (to enable clubs to build solid foundations) which Ralph Rimmer explained in a rare article (it's rare the RFL/SLE explain much in detail)around 2005??

I also understood the principle of licensing when Lewis said Les Catalans would come in but would not be relegated for three years. This was to allow expansion clubs to build.

But IMHO a policy can only survive if it is a successful policy. Money and success and youth development built up our true Superleague clubs and hanging around SL for the last seven years of licensing has dome nothing to enable such as London, Salford, Cas, Wakey, Bradford etc to "build solid foundations".

Licensing/minimum standards is an abject failure, and I see no point in it other than the requirement to develop the game in your area and produce players. Even then only a few clubs seem to be seriously doing this.

There's no real licensing on minimum standards when you have to relax the standards down to find 14 clubs.

Time for it to go.

#13 Just Browny

Just Browny
  • Coach
  • 11,783 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 09:45 AM

Is it just me, or has The Parksider finally delivered a coherent argument after 10000+ lengthy posts? I'm staggered. Fully expect to go onto another thread and see him saying something different, but it's a start.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.


#14 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,808 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 10:43 AM

I simply believe rugby league is played on the pitch and this is where P&R should be decided and not in some office at Red Hall.


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



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

#15 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,286 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 10:43 AM

Is it just me, or has The Parksider finally delivered a coherent argument after 10000+ lengthy posts? I'm staggered. Fully expect to go onto another thread and see him saying something different, but it's a start.

No, it's like somebody sensible has hacked his account. Mind you he was always pragmatic when it came to Hunslet. 



#16 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 10:54 AM

Is it just me, or has The Parksider finally delivered a coherent argument after 10000+ lengthy posts? I'm staggered. Fully expect to go onto another thread and see him saying something different, but it's a start.

Is it just me or has Just Browny finally delivered another vacuous stupid post to help take him past 10,000 other such posts.

Fully expect this to go onto another thread and see him saying something just as vacuous and stupid, but maybe it'll end.

Maybe we'll both go on like this and the thread will be locked. Who knows....

#17 Rugby League Wiki

Rugby League Wiki
  • Players
  • 18 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 11:22 AM

I supported the hopes behind licensing but the necessary three year cycle does have serious negatives. We know we've lost something without relegation.

 

I hope it's possible to take the best from licensing and apply it to a new P&R process. TonyXIII's right, clubs in lower divisions need to be told before the season if they're eligible to go up.

 

I would support giving newly promoted teams two years' exemption from relegation but we could end up with quite a few teams exempt (the two most recently promoted teams and one (or two) French teams) which will inevitably bring complaints when a team x places from bottom is relegated.


Edited by Rugby League Wiki, 14 April 2013 - 11:22 AM.


#18 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 05:35 AM

1. I supported the hopes behind licensing but the necessary three year cycle does have serious negatives. We know we've lost something without relegation.
 
2. I hope it's possible to take the best from licensing and apply it to a new P&R process. TonyXIII's right, clubs in lower divisions need to be told before the season if they're eligible to go up.

1. I agree but

2. The best of licensing was to make the clubs encourage junior RL & develop players, as for P & R the lower divisions have run out of eligble clubs and the higher division still won't want certain clubs relegating.If Toulouse come in they'll be exempted??

#19 statties

statties
  • Coach
  • 278 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 09:30 PM

PnR has not been given anywhere near the time required for it to be proven a success or failure.

 

I think that Licencing should be scrapped altogether and nor should there be any PnR. 

 

It should be a target of the RFL and SLE to have a final 10, 12 or 14 teams that make up SL. Perhaps set a four year cut off date when this will happen.

 

Unsuccessful clubs will have to ply their trade in the Championship until the day comes that the RFL and SL have enough money and evidence of demand to help financially sustain a new entry much in the same way as the NRL, NFL and AFL.

 

PnR has had its day in sport's current capitalist culture. Barring a new benefactor, clubs at the top will stay successful and rich while the rest of the competition battles for survival or occasionally the ever elusive consistent place at the top. Football all across Europe is evidence to that.



#20 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,808 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 11:09 PM

PnR has not been given anywhere near the time required for it to be proven a success or failure.

I think that Licencing should be scrapped altogether and nor should there be any PnR.

It should be a target of the RFL and SLE to have a final 10, 12 or 14 teams that make up SL. Perhaps set a four year cut off date when this will happen.

Unsuccessful clubs will have to ply their trade in the Championship until the day comes that the RFL and SL have enough money and evidence of demand to help financially sustain a new entry much in the same way as the NRL, NFL and AFL.

PnR has had its day in sport's current capitalist culture. Barring a new benefactor, clubs at the top will stay successful and rich while the rest of the competition battles for survival or occasionally the ever elusive consistent place at the top. Football all across Europe is evidence to that.


That would kill the game.