Jump to content





Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Super League 2 leagues of 12


  • Please log in to reply
561 replies to this topic

#441 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,500 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 11:07 AM

The Lobby's of this world are clasping at this as a perceived expansion of Super League; it's not it's essentially a contraction of Super League to eight clubs.

Great point. It certainly is.

It's also an alteration of the Championship to a league of eight bigger independent clubs some of whom may be able to keep the 8 club Super League on it's toes.

#442 steveparker007

steveparker007
  • Twitter
  • 25 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 12:29 PM

I assume the top tier will have two include 2, possibly 3 French teams if the French TV money is to good to turn down.



#443 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 01:31 PM

Great point. It certainly is.

It's also an alteration of the Championship to a league of eight bigger independent clubs some of whom may be able to keep the 8 club Super League on it's toes.


I don't think either of us really believes that, do we?

The four annual Super League rejects (and it's a fair bet it'll be the same clubs) will quickly see their own standards drop, to the point where the big eight wonder whether they should really be playing them at all.

We currently have a 14-team closed shop Super League with a bloated playoff series, where many argue that a third of the clubs have little tangible to play for.

What we ought to be pushing for is a 12 team comp, where every club has something to play for, whether it's a place in the top five or Super League survival.

Instead, we seem to be favouring a bl

#444 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 01:32 PM

Great point. It certainly is.

It's also an alteration of the Championship to a league of eight bigger independent clubs some of whom may be able to keep the 8 club Super League on it's toes.


I don't think either of us really believes that, do we?

The four annual Super League rejects (and it's a fair bet it'll be the same clubs) will quickly see their own standards drop, to the point where the big eight wonder whether they should really be playing them at all.

We currently have a 14-team closed shop Super League with a bloated playoff series, where many argue that a third of the clubs have little tangible to play for.

What we ought to be pushing for is a 12 team comp, where every club has something to play for, whether it's a place in the top five or Super League survival.

Instead, we seem to be favouring a bloated 24 team 'Super' League, with a contrived format, where only a third

#445 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 01:34 PM

Great point. It certainly is.

It's also an alteration of the Championship to a league of eight bigger independent clubs some of whom may be able to keep the 8 club Super League on it's toes.


I don't think either of us really believes that, do we?

The four annual Super League rejects (and it's a fair bet it'll be the same clubs) will quickly see their own standards drop, to the point where the big eight wonder whether they should really be playing them at all.

We currently have a 14-team closed shop Super League with a bloated playoff series, where many argue that a third of the clubs have little tangible to play for.

What we ought to be pushing for is a 12 team comp, where every club has something to play for, whether it's a place in the top five or Super League survival.

Instead, we seem to be favouring a bloated 24 team 'Super' League, with a contrived format, where only a third of the clubs have something to play for and the rest are stuck in a strange limbo.

It doesn't make sense.

I doubt this really appeals to the top clubs as their aim should be to increase the number of viable elite clubs, not decrease it.

#446 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,500 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 01:57 PM

I don't think either of us really believes that, do we?

The four annual Super League rejects (and it's a fair bet it'll be the same clubs) will quickly see their own standards drop, to the point where the big eight wonder whether they should really be playing them at all.

We currently have a 14-team closed shop Super League with a bloated playoff series, where many argue that a third of the clubs have little tangible to play for.

What we ought to be pushing for is a 12 team comp, where every club has something to play for, whether it's a place in the top five or Super League survival.

Instead, we seem to be favouring a bloated 24 team 'Super' League, with a contrived format, where only a third of the clubs have something to play for and the rest are stuck in a strange limbo.

It doesn't make sense.

I doubt this really appeals to the top clubs as their aim should be to increase the number of viable elite clubs, not decrease it.

Well it took you three goes to complete the post but you got there.

I do believe SL2 will start as a glorified version of SL but the lack of real money for the likes of Fax, Leigh, Fev and Sheffield won't propel them to Superleague unless any one of them has a multi-millionaire who will actually invest heavily.

Equally I agree with you that SL sides cut adrift (there will be six of them) will result in their standards dropping and all we will end up with is a massive gap between the top eight and the rest.

So why all this utter nonsense? Like you I can only assume it's a means to an end, so why not just go straight to the end game rather than play all this out?

Well the procedural make up of the game in terms of decision making is something perhaps Padge or other RL sages can clarify, but if "the clubs" means the 28 clubs in SL, and Oldham and Rochdale then can enough clubs carry a vote to basically say we're having 14 clubs and that's it, the rest of you can go be "community clubs"

Maybe the fact is that the RFL along with the top clubs can't force a vote for what what they really want. After all in 1996 the RFL under Lyndsay aimed at a 14 club Superleague. He set out his vision for bigger clubs through merger and expansion to Paris and Wales.

Nobody voted for it at all then.

So as Padge says the clubs were left to "fight to the death" and 17 long years on that original policy aim is still years away, and maybe still blocked by the voting??

Do you know how the voting works Mr. P.??

#447 Bartholemew Smythe

Bartholemew Smythe
  • Coach
  • 681 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 02:28 PM

That's right the season they were promoted ie went up, their crowds went down

Their crowds in SL will have gone up since they will have been boosted by fans of nearby well supported clubs
I wonder what the effect was on these clubs when Leigh visited

Would n`t that also apply to any club whose bigger neighbours attended?

Wire v Leigh att 11400 was only bettered by Wire`s home games v Saints,Pies and Leeds.

 

Wigan v Leigh att 15089 was only bettered by Wigans home games v Saints and Leeds.


We`re on a road to Nowhere.......................

#448 Doghead

Doghead
  • Coach
  • 1,054 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 02:43 PM

Surely the 4 clubs that drop down cant be given the full £1.2 million, just rewards failure, similarly the 4 clubs who go up must be rewarded.



#449 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,034 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 02:51 PM

The four annual Super League rejects (and it's a fair bet it'll be the same clubs) will quickly see their own standards drop, to the point where the big eight wonder whether they should really be playing them at all.

Why is it a fair bet that they'll be the same clubs? When has the top 8 ever been the same eight in SL? Clubs peak and trough. Some stay consistent but not all.

I don't think it would be the same eight every year at all.
Posted Image

#450 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,232 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 03:44 PM

Would n`t that also apply to any club whose bigger neighbours attended?
Wire v Leigh att 11400 was only bettered by Wire`s home games v Saints,Pies and Leeds.

Wigan v Leigh att 15089 was only bettered by Wigans home games v Saints and Leeds.


Good point: how did this juicy passionate local derby that hadn't happened for so long rate amongst wigans home games throughout the season?
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#451 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 03:53 PM

Well it took you three goes to complete the post but you got there.

I do believe SL2 will start as a glorified version of SL but the lack of real money for the likes of Fax, Leigh, Fev and Sheffield won't propel them to Superleague unless any one of them has a multi-millionaire who will actually invest heavily.

Equally I agree with you that SL sides cut adrift (there will be six of them) will result in their standards dropping and all we will end up with is a massive gap between the top eight and the rest.

So why all this utter nonsense? Like you I can only assume it's a means to an end, so why not just go straight to the end game rather than play all this out?

Well the procedural make up of the game in terms of decision making is something perhaps Padge or other RL sages can clarify, but if "the clubs" means the 28 clubs in SL, and Oldham and Rochdale then can enough clubs carry a vote to basically say we're having 14 clubs and that's it, the rest of you can go be "community clubs"

Maybe the fact is that the RFL along with the top clubs can't force a vote for what what they really want. After all in 1996 the RFL under Lyndsay aimed at a 14 club Superleague. He set out his vision for bigger clubs through merger and expansion to Paris and Wales.

Nobody voted for it at all then.

So as Padge says the clubs were left to "fight to the death" and 17 long years on that original policy aim is still years away, and maybe still blocked by the voting??

Do you know how the voting works Mr. P.??


My first impression was that this was simply an opening gambit. Basic negotiating stance: put something silly on the table in order to eventually settle on what you really wanted in the first place.

Let's not forget, all the merger furore enabled the switch to summer rugby to slip under the radar unopposed.

I'm now beginning to worry that this might just be a serious suggestion.

#452 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 04:02 PM

Why is it a fair bet that they'll be the same clubs? When has the top 8 ever been the same eight in SL? Clubs peak and trough. Some stay consistent but not all.

I don't think it would be the same eight every year at all.


Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leeds, Catalans, Hull and Huddersfield basically have a mortgage on the eight. Salford's financial clout will earn them a seat at the top table sooner rather than later.

That leaves Cas, Widnes, Wakey, London, KR and Bradford basically cut adrift into Limbo Land, with their ability to compete financially and otherwise diminishing annually. Nevertheless, the disparity in funding will make it tough for any of the teams beneath to usurp them.

The clubs on the outer of that top eight cartel will find their chances of breaking in diminish over time and my bet is that you'll eventually see the big eight break away altogether.

We need to increase the number of viable top flight clubs; this new structure, paradoxically, will achieve the opposite effect.

#453 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 04:05 PM

Surely the 4 clubs that drop down cant be given the full £1.2 million, just rewards failure, similarly the 4 clubs who go up must be rewarded.


Do you really think they'll cut four clubs' funding by up to £1million on the basis of the first 11 games of the season?

How would clubs possibly budget for the year? They'd have to have their players and staff on month-by-month contracts!

#454 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,546 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 06:56 PM

My first impression was that this was simply an opening gambit. Basic negotiating stance: put something silly on the table in order to eventually settle on what you really wanted in the first place.

Let's not forget, all the merger furore enabled the switch to summer rugby to slip under the radar unopposed.

I'm now beginning to worry that this might just be a serious suggestion.

 

I'm of precisely the same opinion, the big surprise for me is how giddy those at the top of the second tier of professional RL are at the prospect of being at the bottom end of the second tier of professional RL.


The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#455 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:01 PM

I'm of precisely the same opinion, the big surprise for me is how giddy those at the top of the second tier of professional RL are at the prospect of being at the bottom end of the second tier of professional RL.


You've hit the nail on the head here.

#456 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,726 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:20 PM

I'm of precisely the same opinion, the big surprise for me is how giddy those at the top of the second tier of professional RL are at the prospect of being at the bottom end of the second tier of professional RL.

People always criticise the clubs for not looking at the bigger picture, maybe, just maybe they can see the real benefits of clubs playing in more competitive 'conferences'. 

 

After the 11 games, which should all be quite intense due to the risk of cutoff, having the top 8 playing each other should lead to more intense games. Same thing for the other conferences. I do have some concerns about the middle tier due to the difference in funding, but let's see what happens if this gets voted in.

 

One thing that was quite clear, it would appear that most in the game in important roles, are not happy to just carry on as we are. Despite all the talk of the 'Big 4' ruling the game, from BnA last week, it suggests that the likes of Cas and Wakey are absiolutely behind big change.



#457 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,726 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:31 PM

Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leeds, Catalans, Hull and Huddersfield basically have a mortgage on the eight. Salford's financial clout will earn them a seat at the top table sooner rather than later.

That leaves Cas, Widnes, Wakey, London, KR and Bradford basically cut adrift into Limbo Land, with their ability to compete financially and otherwise diminishing annually. Nevertheless, the disparity in funding will make it tough for any of the teams beneath to usurp them.

The clubs on the outer of that top eight cartel will find their chances of breaking in diminish over time and my bet is that you'll eventually see the big eight break away altogether.

We need to increase the number of viable top flight clubs; this new structure, paradoxically, will achieve the opposite effect.

Not necessarily, who knows what will happen, I know you are just stating your own opinion, but you are talking as though the above is factual.

 

If those 8 clubs are guaranteed anyway, then surely we already have that closed shop and we have 6 unnecessary clubs? Even if it was the same 4 clubs cut adrift for a period of 5 years, I don;t agree with your assertion that this will weaken them over time - as they will still get plenty of exposure to the 'Big 8' as well as playing in quite a ruthless conference which can only help them imho.

 

I know it's not exactly a fair comparison as it has never been about the first 11 games, but over the last 5 years, the following clubs have been in the 8 at the halfway stage:

 

Warrington

Wigan

Leeds

Saints

Castleford

Huddersfield

Catalan

London

Bradford

Hull FC

Wakefield

Hull KR

 

So that's 12 different clubs - only Crusaders, Salford and Widnes haven't been in the 8 at halfway point.



#458 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,290 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:36 PM

Would n`t that also apply to any club whose bigger neighbours attended?

Wire v Leigh att 11400 was only bettered by Wire`s home games v Saints,Pies and Leeds.

 

Wigan v Leigh att 15089 was only bettered by Wigans home games v Saints and Leeds.

Its not about how many you get when the away supporters top up your coffers, its about how many you can get in when the away club brings zilched.

 

Relying on away support is not an option.



Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#459 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,034 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:14 PM

Not necessarily, who knows what will happen, I know you are just stating your own opinion, but you are talking as though the above is factual.

If those 8 clubs are guaranteed anyway, then surely we already have that closed shop and we have 6 unnecessary clubs? Even if it was the same 4 clubs cut adrift for a period of 5 years, I don;t agree with your assertion that this will weaken them over time - as they will still get plenty of exposure to the 'Big 8' as well as playing in quite a ruthless conference which can only help them imho.

I know it's not exactly a fair comparison as it has never been about the first 11 games, but over the last 5 years, the following clubs have been in the 8 at the halfway stage:

Warrington
Wigan
Leeds
Saints
Castleford
Huddersfield
Catalan
London
Bradford
Hull FC
Wakefield
Hull KR

So that's 12 different clubs - only Crusaders, Salford and Widnes haven't been in the 8 at halfway point.

My point exactly. To say that Wigan, Wire, Saints, Leeds, Hudds, Hull and Catalans have a mortgage on the top eight is hardly justified. How many times have those eight featured in the top eight together? Twice. Then there's still that extra place.
Hull KR were in there four years on the bounce.
Wakey have featured twice. Crusaders have snuck in. Hull have had a major slip before. Warrington were struggling massively before Tony Smith came on board. Saints are scraping the eight at the moment. Catalans were bottom only a few years ago. Salford are going to be new players now. Bradford are finding their form again. Toulouse's entry may have an impact on Catalans French contingent.

ANYTHING can happen each year. Backers come and go. As do coaches. As do players. As does form. To say that the same teams will make the eight is an opinion I just can't agree with.
Posted Image

#460 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:16 PM

My point exactly. To say that Wigan, Wire, Saints, Leeds, Hudds, Hull and Catalans have a mortgage on the top eight is hardly justified. How many times have those eight featured in the top eight together? Twice. Then there's still that extra place.
Hull KR were in there four years on the bounce.
Wakey have featured twice. Crusaders have snuck in. Hull have had a major slip before. Warrington were struggling massively before Tony Smith came on board. Saints are scraping the eight at the moment. Catalans were bottom only a few years ago. Salford are going to be new players now. Bradford are finding their form again. Toulouse's entry may have an impact on Catalans French contingent.

ANYTHING can happen each year. Backers come and go. As do coaches. As do players. As does form. To say that the same teams will make the eight is an opinion I just can't agree with.


So what you're saying is that one or two other clubs are finally challenging the hegemony.

In that case, why completely change everything????




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users