Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Tony Smith


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#61 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,858 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:28 PM

We can fill as many slots as we like.
 
Licensing as I see it was about having the best XX teams in one league. 
 
They don't all have to be A graded to be classed as a SL team.
 
If you are taking that stance then you could take that stance on pretty much any league in the world and find that the English Premier League is a 5 team league, the NRL is a 6 team league and so on.
 
The reason for having criteria is to encourage clubs to improve on key areas, if a team is struggling in one area, it doesn;t mean they are not a SL team.
 
We have 14 SL teams now - it is nonsense to say we are struggling to fill it etc. It may not be made up of teams of the standard we all want in a Perfect World, but then no league anywhere is, even hand-picked 10 team leagues.

Of course we can fill as many slots as we like.

We can fill them with the current cash strapped Cas & HKR, failing London, we can put crusaders in, we can put Halifax in money or not, in can go Hunslet and on the most basic of definitions they will be "Superleague" clubs simply because they are in erm Superleague.

That's hardly the way to create a competitive elite division to deliver the SKY contract though.

Your analogy with the EPL is as all these analogies are with other sports, spurious with respect.

Pick out the 24 clubs for Superleague 1 & 2 and at the top you have clubs on 15,000 crowds, £6-7,000,000 turnover, and professional players being paid an average of over £60,000 a year.

At the bottom of the 24 the other week was Hunslet on 400 crowds, £150K turnover if that, and semi pro players on low match payments. The EPL is no comparison when it has clubs like Nottingham Forest and Sheffield Wednesday all the way down their supporting structure.

Licensing as explained by Ralph Rimmer at the outset was to allow clubs time to grow their businesses so we could get to 12 (then 14) competetive clubs, all well marketed, all playing in front of decent sized crowds in good stadia, and all producing their own players, to best deliver the SKY contract and make the professional game strong.

Rimmer never said that the purpose of licensing was to just have the best teams in the top league Dave - P & R was always delivering that..............

Edited by The Parksider, 15 May 2013 - 12:49 PM.


#62 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,858 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:48 PM

Makes me wonder just what exactly is going on at the RFL if this is evident to people on the ground but not to them...

IMHO what's going on is under licensing the salary cap is too high for enough clubs to compete and leaves several that do only having enough money to pay out full cap but nowt left for marketing, ground developments, and junior production which was Hudgell's beef.

I'm sure the RFL certainly DO recognise this (I don't subscribe to the simplistic "they are clueless") and it makes me wonder whether given the recent reactions of chairmen at HKR, London, Widnes and Castleford wether any of them will bother to seriously apply for a license next time.

Last time there were only 15 applications and even then the Halifax application was deemed to be insufficient, inadequate, speculative and "below the standards of a Superleague club".

They only had 14 applications they could take seriously, or at least pretend to be serious about, so the lot of them went in even though as we have found out Bradford were going bust, Salford were going bust, Wakefield HAD gone bust, Cas were not getting a new ground, HKR's chairman was going to pull investment and London were going backwards not forwards. In fact IMHO only seven of the applications were anywhere near "the standards of a Superleague club"

The RFL are IMHO clearly frightened that Licensing an Elite division on standards may lead to the crushing embarrassment of not enough clubs applying on a serious basis. People on here have regularly asked such as "how can London have got a license" and "Why did they give Bradford a licence" and "Why did salford get a licence"
I now think they have a point and that these clubs should not have got a licence.....

The RFL need to get the number of Superleague clubs down which they are trying to do, they also need to deal with the problem Martyn Sadler pointed out that if you just dump a club out of Superleague for not being good enough it can go into freefall.

The proposed changes are confusing but they serve two purposes IMHO.

1. To maintain a Superleague of 8 clubs.

2. To give the clubs who have failed in SL and the CC clubs who are not good enough for SL somewhere to have a competition that will keep the fans interest and maybe (fingers crossed) provide an environment that will see a couple of these club able to build their businesses....

Many see this as a short term panic measure, and I believe it is for the reasons stated...

Edited by The Parksider, 15 May 2013 - 12:56 PM.


#63 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,033 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:55 PM

What will actually happen in Leeds and Wigan will dominate the league for years to come

Saints,Wire and maybe the Bulls will manfully try to compete but ultimately be plucky losers

Everyone else will shuffle from boom to bust and investment in those teams will evaporate overnight & the next thing we know is we are watching 1980s standard RL again

Or Rugby Union

#64 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:56 PM

IMHO what's going on is under licensing the salary cap is too high for enough clubs to compete and leaves several that do only having enough money to pay out full cap but nowt left for marketing, ground developments, and junior production which was Hudgell's beef.

I'm sure the RFL certainly DO recognise this (I don't subscribe to the simplistic "they are clueless") and it makes me wonder whether given the recent reactions of chairmen at HKR, London, Widnes and Castleford wether any of them will bother to seriously apply for a license next time.

Last time there were only 15 applications and even then the Halifax application was deemed to be insufficient, inadequate, speculative and "below the standards of a Superleague club".

They only had 14 applications they could take seriously, or at least pretend to be serious about, so the lot of them went in even though as we have found out Bradford were going bust, Salford were going bust, Wakefield HAD gone bust, Cas were not getting a new ground, HKR's chairman was going to pull investment and London were going backwards not forwards. In fact IMHO only seven of the applications were anywhere near "the standards of a Superleague club"

The RFL are IMHO clearly frightened that Licensing an Elite division on standards may lead to the crushing embarrassment of not enough clubs applying on a serious basis. People on here have regularly asked such as "how can London have got a license" and "Why did they give Bradford a licence" and "Why did salford get a licence"
I now think they have a point and that these clubs should not have got a licence.....

The RFL need to get the number of Superleague clubs down which they are trying to do, they also need to deal with the problem Martyn Sadler pointed out that if you just dump a club out of Superleague for not being good enough it can go into freefall.

The proposed changes are confusing but they serve two purposes IMHO.

1. To maintain a Superleague of 8 clubs.

2. To give the clubs who have failed in SL and the CC clubs who are not good enough for SL somewhere to have a competition that will keep the fans interest.....

 

I think you're just about bang on the money there.

 

If I could add that I think licensing also became anti-expansion.  The fiancés required were clearly too much for fledgling clubs, who had yet to build sufficient crowd numbers to allow them to compete.  At least with a less challenging financial environment the expansion clubs can get themselves decent crowd numbers before they find themselves in with the big boys.



#65 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:58 PM

What will actually happen in Leeds and Wigan will dominate the league for years to come

Saints,Wire and maybe the Bulls will manfully try to compete but ultimately be plucky losers

Everyone else will shuffle from boom to bust and investment in those teams will evaporate overnight & the next thing we know is we are watching 1980s standard RL again

Or Rugby Union

 

Who's to say that that wouldn't happen with licensing?



#66 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,033 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:02 PM

Except that's not what's happened is it?

Look at the issue between Cas & Widnes when Cas won promotion. Free gangway, two clubs vying for the promotion

Whichever failed went bankrupt

THAT is the only thing P&R has ever delivered and will ever deliver. Uncertainty, financial instability and the drive to be not bottom.

#67 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,033 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:04 PM

Who's to say that that wouldn't happen with licensing?


Other than Leed's freakish ability to win three games in a row it hasn't happened yet has it?

Yes the biggest & richest clubs will always be at the top, but no one team has been utterly dominant under licensing have they?

#68 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:25 PM

Except that's not what's happened is it?

Look at the issue between Cas & Widnes when Cas won promotion. Free gangway, two clubs vying for the promotion

Whichever failed went bankrupt

THAT is the only thing P&R has ever delivered and will ever deliver. Uncertainty, financial instability and the drive to be not bottom.

 

Except that it has, in the licensing era there have been two winners of Super League, Wigan and Leeds.

 

Failure to win promotion does not mean bankruptcy, failure to adequately plan for both eventualities probably does though.



#69 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,632 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:37 PM

This is a finely crafted argument Lobby?


It's up there with his best. I've seen colanders hold more water.

#70 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,033 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:49 PM

Except that it has, in the licensing era there have been two winners of Super League, Wigan and Leeds.

Failure to win promotion does not mean bankruptcy, failure to adequately plan for both eventualities probably does though.


That's an argument against the grand final format

How many minor premiers have there been?

#71 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,135 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 04:17 PM

Of course we can fill as many slots as we like.

We can fill them with the current cash strapped Cas & HKR, failing London, we can put crusaders in, we can put Halifax in money or not, in can go Hunslet and on the most basic of definitions they will be "Superleague" clubs simply because they are in erm Superleague.

That's hardly the way to create a competitive elite division to deliver the SKY contract though.

Your analogy with the EPL is as all these analogies are with other sports, spurious with respect.

Pick out the 24 clubs for Superleague 1 & 2 and at the top you have clubs on 15,000 crowds, £6-7,000,000 turnover, and professional players being paid an average of over £60,000 a year.

At the bottom of the 24 the other week was Hunslet on 400 crowds, £150K turnover if that, and semi pro players on low match payments. The EPL is no comparison when it has clubs like Nottingham Forest and Sheffield Wednesday all the way down their supporting structure.

Licensing as explained by Ralph Rimmer at the outset was to allow clubs time to grow their businesses so we could get to 12 (then 14) competetive clubs, all well marketed, all playing in front of decent sized crowds in good stadia, and all producing their own players, to best deliver the SKY contract and make the professional game strong.

Rimmer never said that the purpose of licensing was to just have the best teams in the top league Dave - P & R was always delivering that..............

My point on EPL was very relevant.

 

In that division there are giants like Man U getting 75k per week, Arsenal getting 62k per week and Man City getting 48k per week. At the other end of the scale you have QPR with 17k, Wigan with 19k and Swansea with 20k. Whilst these clubs are all bigger than Rl clubs, there are still giants and minnows in their own field. There are some that make profit and there are some that lose millions. There are those that can realistically win, the others are making up the numbers. It's pretty much the same as SL tbh.



#72 getdownmonkeyman

getdownmonkeyman
  • Coach
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 04:48 PM

Just to be clear, we had the sort of strong leadership that Tony Smith is calling for last year. It got us the Stobart sponsorship deal, which the RFL pushed the clubs to support.

 

A situation infinitely more preferable than no title sponsor, at all.



#73 Ackydave

Ackydave
  • Coach
  • 127 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:22 PM

Except that's not what's happened is it?

Look at the issue between Cas & Widnes when Cas won promotion. Free gangway, two clubs vying for the promotion

Whichever failed went bankrupt

THAT is the only thing P&R has ever delivered and will ever deliver. Uncertainty, financial instability and the drive to be not bottom.

And of course, licensing has done away with financial instability hasn't it?

As for the drive not to be bottom, it's pretty much the same as the drive to be top.

That's my idea of sport...it's called competition.

#74 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,858 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 06:14 AM

My point on EPL was very relevant.
 
In that division there are giants like Man U getting 75k per week, Arsenal getting 62k per week and Man City getting 48k per week. At the other end of the scale you have QPR with 17k, Wigan with 19k and Swansea with 20k. Whilst these clubs are all bigger than Rl clubs, there are still giants and minnows in their own field. There are some that make profit and there are some that lose millions. There are those that can realistically win, the others are making up the numbers. It's pretty much the same as SL tbh.

We'd best agree to disagree here, bottom SL club Castleford are skint, bottom EPL club QPR went out and spent tens of millions on players to try to avoid relegation. Soccer has millionaires backing championship clubs and many clubs outside the EPL have the ability to attract 30,000 crowds plus.

If Cas were relegated this year Sadler suggests it would destroy them. In contrast QPR will be spending millions to get back into the EPL.

Edited by The Parksider, 16 May 2013 - 06:51 AM.


#75 goldcoaster

goldcoaster
  • Coach
  • 2,747 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 06:44 AM

We'd best agree to disagree here, bottom SL club Castleford are skint, bottom EPL club QPR went out and spent tens of millions on players to try to avoid relegation. Soccer has millionaires backing championship clubs and many clubs outside the EPL have the ability to attract 30,000 crowds plus.


Exactly. The EPL ain't that great a competition. Sure, it has lots of hype and money, but everyone knows Man Utd are gonna win just about every year. It's pretty rare that another club does. This year was one of the dullest yet, with Man Utd virtually assured of the title after the first month.

I like SL right now because it's not like that. Right now, up to 7 clubs are a genuine chance of winning this year's title. Thats half the league! If we went back to P&R, I fear it would go the way of the EPL with 1-2 clubs all-conquering. The rest would be more concerned with not being relegated.

Those pro-P&R people that claim that licensing has not stopped clubs going bust (therefore is a failure) need to remember the country was, and may still be in the worst financial climate since the 1930's. that is 90% of the reason behind SL's woes, not licensing.

Although some people on here will probably blame licensing for the GFC too!
Posted Image

Posted Image

#76 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,135 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:12 AM

We'd best agree to disagree here, bottom SL club Castleford are skint, bottom EPL club QPR went out and spent tens of millions on players to try to avoid relegation. Soccer has millionaires backing championship clubs and many clubs outside the EPL have the ability to attract 30,000 crowds plus.

If Cas were relegated this year Sadler suggests it would destroy them. In contrast QPR will be spending millions to get back into the EPL.

its all relative though. They have millionaires who cant afford to put enough money in to make them succesful, just like our lower clubs have people who are wealthy but not enough to make them a top team.

#77 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,858 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 12:47 PM

its all relative though. They have millionaires who cant afford to put enough money in to make them succesful, just like our lower clubs have people who are wealthy but not enough to make them a top team.

Very true in one sense, but to go back the the original point taking that taking up a licence was to enable clubs to develop into bigger and better businesses, and be "super" not just in name only, that over half the league have collapsed, stagnated or gone backwards renders them not super at all. We are yet to see in soccer the equivalent of Halifax 2003.

#78 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,135 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 01:31 PM

Very true in one sense, but to go back the the original point taking that taking up a licence was to enable clubs to develop into bigger and better businesses, and be "super" not just in name only, that over half the league have collapsed, stagnated or gone backwards renders them not super at all. We are yet to see in soccer the equivalent of Halifax 2003.

A lot of it depends on what that starting point was tbh.


Comparing back to 18 years ago prior to SL, then I do think we have a lot more 'super' clubs - most play in far better facilities with bigger crowds than they used to.

 

Unfortunately licensing hasn't been given a fair chance - Smith's point about judging the system during the toughest financial crisis of our time is a very good one. Had we not had licensing, who knows what would have happened (genuinely, we don;t know!) but it could have been much worse. If we had had licensing in the good times then we may have seen much more positive tangible results.

 

In terms of football (and in fact other sports), we have seen some real issues with clubs, Portsmouth, Rangers to name just a couple without looking online have bombed spectacularly despite playing in worlds which are far richer than SL. I'd argue that Portsmouth was far worse than Halifax.


Edited by Dave T, 16 May 2013 - 01:32 PM.


#79 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,135 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 01:39 PM


 We are yet to see in soccer the equivalent of Halifax 2003.

Now I've had chance to have a look online, I know it's not the same thing, but the number of football clubs who have gone into administration in British football in the last few years in an open, P&R environment is staggering. I can't remember whether Halifax went into admin, from memory didn;t they just cut their costs, but the point is comparable, as basically they couldn;t afford to survive.

 

In football we have seen:

 

2013

Aldershot Town 

Coventry City

 

2012

Port Vale

Portsmouth

Darlington

 

2011

Rushden and Diamonds

Plymouth

 

2010

Portsmouth

Crystal Palace

 

There are some pretty decent sized clubs there, many with turnovers which dwarf those of RL clubs.



#80 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,858 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 02:08 PM

Now I've had chance to have a look online, I know it's not the same thing, but the number of football clubs who have gone into administration in British football in the last few years in an open, P&R environment is staggering. I can't remember whether Halifax went into admin, from memory didn;t they just cut their costs, but the point is comparable, as basically they couldn;t afford to survive.
 
In football we have seen:
 
2013
Aldershot Town 
Coventry City
 
2012
Port Vale
Portsmouth
Darlington
 
2011
Rushden and Diamonds
Plymouth
 
2010
Portsmouth
Crystal Palace
 
There are some pretty decent sized clubs there, many with turnovers which dwarf those of RL clubs.

Interesting thank you....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users