Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Peacock shows support for two tens


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,157 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:38 PM

Apologies to Hindle X111 for not saying all that in two sentences.

Keep trying. Never give in.


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

On Odsal Top baht 'at.

 


#22 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,818 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:21 PM

Why do you think it's not a reasonable argument to suggest that a ten team league will decline to 8 or less. Who are your top ten. I can find 6 top teams to whit,Wigan, Leeds, Hull, Warrington, Catalans, St Helens. The other four are going to come from Bradford, Huddersfield, Salford, Wakefield. Widnes. All are investor financed problems or can't achieve the the magical 10,000 average. If they get hammered because they can't compete with the big 6 or when, not if, their investor gets disillusioned and quits, they will go belly up and you will be left with your even smaller rump league of the big six. Where are all thses teams for the top tier coming fron outside the usual suspets already in the cat bird seat. I think it is quite reasonable if not probable that your magic cure all super ten will quite likely contract .

#23 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,487 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:47 PM

Why do you think it's not a reasonable argument to suggest that a ten team league will decline to 8 or less.

Read peacock, read the post. The purpose of a second divsion is to have clubs in line to replace failures.

So how is an elite 10 club league going to drop to 8 if there's another 10 clubs under it?

#24 red dwarf

red dwarf
  • Players
  • 54 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:12 PM

5 years ago the 2 tens was a viable option , however 5 years of licencing has further opened up the gap to make it unworkable , much as it hurts to say it , SL 2 or whatever you call it , would quickly erode into the Championship as it currently is

 

Oh , and Peacock should stick to playing RL , not commenting about it , especially the business side of things , the last thing RL needs as its future administrators is ex RL players


Edited by red dwarf, 18 April 2013 - 04:14 PM.


#25 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,487 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:25 PM

5 years ago the 2 tens was a viable option , however 5 years of licencing has further opened up the gap to make it unworkable , much as it hurts to say it , SL 2 or whatever you call it , would quickly erode into the Championship as it currently is

The gap was massive five years ago. I agree the SL2 would erode into a championship apart from the top few clubs but that's all SL1 needs.

What this championship will be like I dunno. Will the top couple of clubs be headed by rich men prepared to spend a million on players so they can get promoted? If not will the gap become wider still.

It could all go 'orribly wrong. Something Jamie P. aknowledges.

Edited by The Parksider, 18 April 2013 - 06:29 PM.


#26 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,725 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:15 PM

You keep the tv money as it is for SL1 which would create 620k for SL2, thus £2m and £1m is very achievable from 27 games

#27 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,487 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:30 PM

You keep the tv money as it is for SL1 which would create 620k for SL2, thus £2m and £1m is very achievable from 27 games

SKY do not pay money for second rate fayre.

Your proposal is fine by me, but it's your proposal.

Peacocks proposal is all about a smaller Elite league paying much higher wages to keep the best players and intensify the competition in that league.

That means they get all the SKY cash.

Your proposal is about sharing the money so P & R can be viable.

Your poles apart from Peacock, he's not arguing inclusiveness.

#28 red dwarf

red dwarf
  • Players
  • 54 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:36 PM

The gap was massive five years ago. I agree the SL2 would erode into a championship apart from the top few clubs but that's all SL1 needs.

What this championship will be like I dunno. Will the top couple of clubs be headed by rich men prepared to spend a million on players so they can get promoted? If not will the gap become wider still.

It could all go 'orribly wrong. Something Jamie P. aknowledges.

But still not as big as now , 10 years ago the gap was bridgeable , every year that goes by it gets bigger , so what is the solution now ?

 

Just 14 clubs , with the rest slowly dissapearing ? , is that good for RL ?



#29 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,487 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 06:05 AM

But still not as big as now , 10 years ago the gap was bridgeable , every year that goes by it gets bigger , so what is the solution now ?
 
Just 14 clubs , with the rest slowly dissapearing ? , is that good for RL ?

Ten years ago we had largely the same clubs in the same leagues. Halifax went down and Huddersfield went up because one no longer had money and the other had Ken Davey. Later HKR went up when Hudgell put half a million a year in for a few years now he has stopped.

It took rich men to bridge the gap then, same now.

What's the solution? If only it was as simple as that and maybe we assume there IS a solution it's just that nobody has been smart enough to work it out. Is it 10 SL clubs or is it four leagues of ten all Pee and arring up and down.

I dunno, the next step seems to be some sort of a drop in the number of top tier clubs to increase competitiveness, get more fans into the big clubs for profitability, and protect the league from the player drain.

It's OK talking these untried things up, but to be fair to Jamie Peacock who advocates this he admits it may not work and the game will "die on it's feet" to quote him.

Players may continue to move to the big stages and "fans" may continue to say either my village club is in Superleague or I will walk away.

I intend to be at the last ever professional RL game in Britain. It should be a party not a wake.

#30 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,725 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 07:04 AM

SKY do not pay money for second rate fayre.

 

 

They also do not pay the clubs directly, it is distributed to them and the number of games Sky pay for will not change, they would just be better games. Also remember Sky have been showing RU Championship games which have no crowds and are very poor to watch - SL2 would be a far better spectacle than that with promotion at stake



#31 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,487 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 09:14 AM

They also do not pay the clubs directly, it is distributed to them and the number of games Sky pay for will not change, they would just be better games. Also remember Sky have been showing RU Championship games which have no crowds and are very poor to watch - SL2 would be a far better spectacle than that with promotion at stake

I wish the RFL and your good intentions all the very very best in going to SKY and saying that they would get a good spectacle from the second best 10 clubs vying for a Superleague place, please can you show the games and pay the clubs for this.

The record is the championship was paid off by SKY many years ago, SKY in recent years allowed the championship to be showed for nothing for a few years then decided to drop it. It would take a massive about face by SKY for them to pay a penny.

Yes the RFL are paid the SKY money and they give it to the 14 clubs, but the RFL are not the power broker here.
Could you imagine Wood telling McManus, Lenegan, Moran, hetherington, Koukash, Pearson, etc sorry boys we have decided to give SKY money to the second division so were cutting your money?. I may be wrong but I don't think Mr. Wood runs Superleague such that he can decide this.

The RFL are also given the cheque by SKY but only in return for delivering what SKY want and so it goes back to them not wanting a second tier. That's a championship they didn't want even when there was P & R.

#32 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,725 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 01:07 PM

Do you think major surgery like this would be done without sky/tv support

#33 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,487 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 01:17 PM

Do you think major surgery like this would be done without sky/tv support

Yes.

I think Peacock intimates that the SKY money will all go to the top ten clubs because the figures back that up.

If you shares the money only 10 ways the salary cap can go up to £2,000,000 without the club chairmen spending another penny which most do not want to do.

I cannot see a penny for SL2 at all, to me it's wishful thinking at work again with respect.

The £1M salary cap will be open to any rich man who wants to take a club to the top of SL2. If they do this they will get promoted.

It's not about giving such as York City Knights £500K as has been suggested.

It's about the top clubs being able to pay the top players more.

Not about helping small clubs to compete.

#34 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,818 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 02:31 PM

Yes.

I think Peacock intimates that the SKY money will all go to the top ten clubs because the figures back that up.

If you shares the money only 10 ways the salary cap can go up to £2,000,000 without the club chairmen spending another penny which most do not want to do.

I cannot see a penny for SL2 at all, to me it's wishful thinking at work again with respect.

The £1M salary cap will be open to any rich man who wants to take a club to the top of SL2. If they do this they will get promoted.

It's not about giving such as York City Knights £500K as has been suggested.

It's about the top clubs being able to pay the top players more.

Not about helping small clubs to compete.

 

 

And when you have destroyed all the smaller clubs and have ( maybe and it's a big maybe) 10 clubs averaging 10,000 plus and hoovering up all the TV money, the league will be too small and repetitive in the fixture areas and will turn off fans and viewers alike in my opinion.

 

When one or more of the ten fails, and they will, there will be no one to replace them.

 

The England team will regress since the number of SL players will decrease and the talent pool will shrink.

 

But hey, Leeds, Warrington, Saints, Hull and Wigan might still be alright Jack and play each other ad nauseam 5 or six times a season.

 

The London, Welsh, midlands, South Yorkshire, Cumbrian and North East dreams for SL to become a national competition will be dead but hey leeds, Warrington, Saints, Wigan and Hull will still be alright Jack.



#35 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,725 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 02:42 PM

It works with a redistribution of the current pot roughly 2/1. I would like to see 2 French teams in the 10 and would expect them to fund themselves in SL from a French deal



#36 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,487 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 10:31 PM

And when you have destroyed all the smaller clubs and have ( maybe and it's a big maybe) 10 clubs averaging 10,000 plus and hoovering up all the TV money, the league will be too small and repetitive in the fixture areas and will turn off fans and viewers alike in my opinion.
 
When one or more of the ten fails, and they will, there will be no one to replace them.
 
The England team will regress since the number of SL players will decrease and the talent pool will shrink.
 
But hey, Leeds, Warrington, Saints, Hull and Wigan might still be alright Jack and play each other ad nauseam 5 or six times a season.
 
The London, Welsh, midlands, South Yorkshire, Cumbrian and North East dreams for SL to become a national competition will be dead but hey leeds, Warrington, Saints, Wigan and Hull will still be alright Jack.

Tell us the alternative.

Yes this idea may kill the game.

You come up with a better one.

Make it a practical one and not wishful thinking stuff.

#37 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,818 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 01:15 PM

Tell us the alternative.

Yes this idea may kill the game.

You come up with a better one.

Make it a practical one and not wishful thinking stuff.

 

Well,it can be left as it is at 14 clubs and the salary cap can be reduced to allow teams to function on less than 10,000 averages.

 

Secondly it can be increased by introducing conferences or SL 2 or reinstituting p and r.

 

Thirdly extra funding could be obtained from TV both within the uK and from the French media. This will hard work and perseverance. If the World Cup is a great success with massive terrestrial ratings, all this will help.

 

I just do not see the panicy headlong dash to downsize our game for the benefit of a few greedy powerful clubs to be the panacea for the future of the game.

 

There is a review going on which will produce a blueprint for the future direction of the game. Let us see what results. Small and parochial and repetitive ad nauseam is not the direction the game needs to be going in.



#38 TheObserver

TheObserver
  • Coach
  • 120 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 02:31 PM

Always makes me laugh that as it stands an Oldham Rugby Union an amaetur team in the 10th tier provided they were good enough could get promoted to the Premiership but Oldham Rugby League no matter how good they may get one day couldnt get back in Super League.

 

 

If Oldham RU won the RFU Championship, they would need to meet RDU/Premier Rugby minimum standards to attain promotion to the Aviva Premiership.



#39 TheObserver

TheObserver
  • Coach
  • 120 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 03:16 PM

I don't think that Peacock is actually saying SKY will pay more at all.He is not saying SL1 clubs WILL spend £20,000,000 in wages.He is not saying SL2 clubs WILL spend £10,000,000 in wagesand nor is he saying that the current SKY annual payment of £16,800,000 will be split between 20 clubs.If that happened then top clubs would be being asked to spend £350K more yet they would be given £280,000 less. Peacock is talking about these top ten being armed to pay salaries to keep our best players.To create an Elite and to raise wages where the SKY contract may not produce the extra money you have to give the 10 clubs in SL1 £1,680,000 each. They get all the money

So you can pick out who in "SL2" would be chasing that promo spot - It'd be Toulouse with their alleged municipal funding, or Mr. O'Connor at Widnes or Mr. Nahaboo.


In your opinion,

1) Which SL clubs do not spend the full cap of 1.65 mill currently?
2) Are there any SL clubs that do not have a chance of winning SL at present?
3) Which clubs could spend an extra 400k on players?

I'd guess that only Cas, Wakefield, London, Hull KR may not spend the full cap, and they would be among those that would not want to increase payments to 2 million. However, perhaps up to 10 clubs could and may want to.

#40 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,487 posts

Posted 21 April 2013 - 08:39 AM

Well,it can be left as it is at 14 clubs and the salary cap can be reduced to allow teams to function on less than 10,000 averages.

Yes it certainly can.

We can drop the Salary cap to £1,000,000 and all 14 clubs can make a profit the firrst year this is done.

Did you watch Ian Millward this weekend who says the loss of players to the NRL will accelerate.

To drop the cap will hasten that process.

Discuss......




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users