Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world 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
* * * - - 3 votes

Super League League Reconstruction

which of these 3 options

  • Please log in to reply
441 replies to this topic

Poll: Super League Format (129 member(s) have cast votes)

Which opition/format for Super league do you want from 2015 onwards?

  1. Voted Option 1 - Super League reverts to a 12-team competition (from 14) and a 10 or 12-team Championship, with one club promoted and relegated each year. (48 votes [37.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.21%

  2. Voted Option 2 - A two division Super League with each division comprising of 10 teams. (19 votes [14.73%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.73%

  3. Voted Opition 3 - Two divisions of 12 in Super League with teams playing each other one to provide 11 fixtures before spliting into 3 groups of 8 in mi-season then playing each other home & away to provide 14 more Matches. (62 votes [48.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.06%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,634 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 11:44 AM

the attitude of many of the fev fans is they want their chance at returning to the top , agreed at the mo we are far away from the elite few in the S/L but so are the bottom teams in the S/L .

they have had years to try and get there whilst we have faced a closed shop, the new proposals give us an opportunity to compete against the bottom of the S/L and if successful then move to the next level , given an even playing field there is no reason why we cant do it but at the very least we ,along with 3 or 4 others in the championship deserve the chance or the hope of one day getting there

option 3 gives us that and surely when the second part kicks in the 2nd tier will be very competative and that can only be a good thing for the game . investors are starting to come forward into the less fashionable teams (us and salford) and they have to be given hope that their cash will result in a shot of getting up there with the big boys , again has to be good for the game that they are coming forward

 

Nah, they just present you with another closed shop.


The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#62 ov fev

ov fev
  • Coach
  • 110 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 11:51 AM

BradfordBristol *Calder (Wakefield, Castleford & Featherstone)CatalanCheshire (Warrington & Widnes)Cumbria (Barrow, Whitehaven & Workington, likely playing out of Carlisle)Edinburgh *Huddersfield/HalifaxKingston-upon-Hull (Hull KR & Hull FC)LeedsLondon BroncosLondon Skolars *SalfordSt HelensToulouse *Wigan* = Future expansion team to join only in, say, 2016


Just like the mergers between Huddersfield and sheffield, hull and gateshead.

Joke

#63 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,533 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:00 PM

12 team franchised SL (with mergers) and 4 targeted expansion clubs to make 16 and come in line with NRL from, say, 2016.

That this isn't even being discussed is somewhere between stupidity and cowardice IMHO.


Super League needs strong clubs. Period.

It doesn't matter whether they are foundation-less 'outpost' clubs or village teams from Lancashire/Yorkshire, we can't afford to accommodate teams in our flagship competition who can't punch their weight.

IMO the only viable expansion club out there right now is Toulouse.

As a sport we probably have the bandwidth to carry 12 elite clubs right now. As a supporter of some form of P&R, I'm keen to see us develop a way of bringing a significant number of the Championship clubs up to a level where this is practical and desirable.

It seems that somewhere between the pie in the sky dreams of the 'flatcappers' and the 'fervent expansionists' there might just be a middle ground that offers a sensible roadmap

#64 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,317 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:01 PM

Just like the mergers between Huddersfield and sheffield, hull and gateshead.

Joke

No, like the mergers between St George Dragons & Illawarra Steelers and Western Suburbs & Balmain Tigers.

The examples you speak of were not mergers but enforced takeovers.

#65 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,634 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:11 PM

No, like the mergers between St George Dragons & Illawarra Steelers and Western Suburbs & Balmain Tigers.

The examples you speak of were not mergers but enforced takeovers.

 

You were given many explanations around why the merger in the mythical calder region would not work, and still you persist.  


The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#66 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,194 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:31 PM

Yes, so Cas and HKR being promoted was a good thing then. If they get relegated they will be in a far better position from which to build.

Mr. Sadler was clear about what could happen if Cas are relegated. He suggested that all directors loans could be called in and the ground sold off cheap to finance this. Castleford could become another Oldham.

Larry said the other day Cas's problem is allegedly directors want their money back.

HKR in the championship built nothing, they dropped to the championship in 1994 where they ended the season on 1900 gates. Nine years of "building" saw them on 1500 gates.

It took Messrs Crossland and Hudgell to buy the club back into the big time.

I cannot find any record of any club outside the top flight building up their business to any real position of strength without generous directors gifts.

Edited by The Parksider, 17 May 2013 - 12:54 PM.


#67 the phoenix

the phoenix
  • Coach
  • 123 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:37 PM

Larry - if after the first season the new 12 teams is the top tier are tier 1 plus the top 4 from tier 2 , then its not a closed shop

and i cant believe that the nonsense of the mergers is being brought up again - the proposals by dead shot ken are laughable bordering on insanity



#68 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,194 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:44 PM

But I have thought it through, just look at the dwindling attendances throughout the pro game. Fans are becoming bored and that's why the people who are running the sport are taking these radical steps to change direction.

With the utmost respect assuming "fans are becoming bored" which you have no evidence for, and further assuming the greedy SL clubs you so often castigate are so in agreement with you, have seen the light and are prepared to break up Superleague for you to enter it ASAP, really isn't logical thinking in any shape of form, but don't take offence Mr. M. your a great optimist.

Looking at it via events, the BBC did a close up north piece telling us Superleague was unsustainable and running up heavy debts. The reply on here was "oh it doesn't matter as long as the rich chairmen keep gifting the clubs money".

But there goes another assumption that the rich men are all gifting clubs money.

Besides that further events have included chairmen at HKR, Cas, Widnes stepping down and the chairman at London is tipped to pack up. That's terrible news for these clubs and fatal news if those chairmen want as much money back as the clubs have assets to fund.

Now to Mr. Mark Campbell who welcomes the proposed changes with glee. He states "clubs in SL are selling their players because there's nothing to play for" really?

All of a sudden he no longer wants to be in a 14 club closed shop Superleague because there's "nothing to play for". There's something else that doesn't add up. If Rovers are so cash rich with Mr. Nahaboos pledge of full salary cap year on year (Griff wanted to know will this be gifted or loaned against the ground? do you know??) then they should be fighting to get the RFL to keep their promise and promote Rovers straight to Superleague for 2015 because unlike the half dozen busted flushes at the bottom end of the competition they can afford to compete.

Edited by The Parksider, 17 May 2013 - 12:47 PM.


#69 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,194 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:53 PM

Super League needs strong clubs. Period.

It doesn't matter whether they are foundation-less 'outpost' clubs or village teams from Lancashire/Yorkshire, we can't afford to accommodate teams in our flagship competition who can't punch their weight.

IMO the only viable expansion club out there right now is Toulouse.

As a sport we probably have the bandwidth to carry 12 elite clubs right now.

Totally agree with that there's more chairmen stepping down than standing up for a go at SL.

It's an expensive business.

#70 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,991 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 01:22 PM

With the utmost respect assuming "fans are becoming bored" which you have no evidence for, and further assuming the greedy SL clubs you so often castigate are so in agreement with you, have seen the light and are prepared to break up Superleague for you to enter it ASAP, really isn't logical thinking in any shape of form, but don't take offence Mr. M. your a great optimist.Looking at it via events, the BBC did a close up north piece telling us Superleague was unsustainable and running up heavy debts. The reply on here was "oh it doesn't matter as long as the rich chairmen keep gifting the clubs money".But there goes another assumption that the rich men are all gifting clubs money.Besides that further events have included chairmen at HKR, Cas, Widnes stepping down and the chairman at London is tipped to pack up. That's terrible news for these clubs and fatal news if those chairmen want as much money back as the clubs have assets to fund.Now to Mr. Mark Campbell who welcomes the proposed changes with glee. He states "clubs in SL are selling their players because there's nothing to play for" really?All of a sudden he no longer wants to be in a 14 club closed shop Superleague because there's "nothing to play for". There's something else that doesn't add up. If Rovers are so cash rich with Mr. Nahaboos pledge of full salary cap year on year (Griff wanted to know will this be gifted or loaned against the ground? do you know??) then they should be fighting to get the RFL to keep their promise and promote Rovers straight to Superleague for 2015 because unlike the half dozen busted flushes at the bottom end of the competition they can afford to compete.

Why are gates at Cas, Bradford, Huddersfield, Salford, London, HKR etc on the slide? The game has become stale. Even SKY has given its blessing to the proposed changes. I wish you could meet Mark Campbell. As you say and as I said in a reply above to Larry, it would be easy for Fev to vote for the status quo and be gifted a place in SL. Mark sees the bigger picture for the game ie an intense level of competition that involves all clubs all season long with a clear pathway. If that means Fev have then to play their way into the top echelon then so be it. That's how it should be.

By the way, where have I castigated SL clubs in this debate?

Edited by Terry Mullaney, 17 May 2013 - 01:25 PM.

Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

http://www.pictureho...ingfilms.co.uk/

#71 SE4Wire

SE4Wire
  • Coach
  • 657 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 01:52 PM

Bradford
Bristol *
Calder (Wakefield, Castleford & Featherstone)
Catalan
Cheshire (Warrington & Widnes)
Cumbria (Barrow, Whitehaven & Workington, likely playing out of Carlisle)
Edinburgh *
Huddersfield/Halifax
Kingston-upon-Hull (Hull KR & Hull FC)
Leeds
London Broncos
London Skolars *
Salford
St Helens
Toulouse *
Wigan

* = Future expansion team to join only in, say, 2016

 

While I see the point there (apart from it being unaffordable at present) I do think nowadays you wouldn't really want to put Warrington and Widnes into a merger when Warrinton has a good sized population and is now a bigger club (which got an A licence last time).  Especially when you keep Wigan and St Helens separate when they are as close to each other, as are St Helens and Widnes which based on current perfomrance and recent ground sharing I would suggest is a more acceptable merger.

 

I'll put my spoon away now but I think for mergers to work you almost need to have every club in a merger otherwise you do get people feeling their area is being looked down on.  The alternative is to make the bold decision and pick only one of the existing clubs (eg Wakefield, Warrington, Workington, Huddersfield and Hull FC in your mergers) and say they are the SL club.  Better to annoy all but one of the clubs than all of them...



#72 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,634 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:05 PM

Why are gates at Cas, Bradford, Huddersfield, Salford, London, HKR etc on the slide? The game has become stale. Even SKY has given its blessing to the proposed changes. I wish you could meet Mark Campbell. As you say and as I said in a reply above to Larry, it would be easy for Fev to vote for the status quo and be gifted a place in SL. Mark sees the bigger picture for the game ie an intense level of competition that involves all clubs all season long with a clear pathway. If that means Fev have then to play their way into the top echelon then so be it. That's how it should be.

By the way, where have I castigated SL clubs in this debate?

 

Terry, I'm not sure whether you're aware or not but there's one hell of an economic downturn on at the moment.  Food/fuel inflation is way above wage inflation, and disposable incomes are being squeezed considerably.  I'd say that this offers a good starting point as to why perhaps crowds at some clubs are down.  They're well up at Wakefield, and they're reported as being up at Featherstone too, and yet both play in "stale" competitions.


The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#73 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,081 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:30 PM

Interesting to see that after the initial surge into option 1 and 2,    Option 3 is now persuading people more and more.

 

Because it's a new style of system you can understand those quick to make up their minds casting it aside.  But it's not actually as complicated as it sounds and seams to fit a lot of peoples interests.


Super League the only place in the world where people still believe that less competitors and a closed market to new competition will improve the quality of the product.

Even the Chinese and the Cubans gave up on these marxist principles years ago.


SL with a reduced number of competitors and a closed market = North Korea.

#74 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,194 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:49 PM

Why are gates at Cas, Bradford, Huddersfield, Salford, London, HKR etc on the slide?

By the way, where have I castigated SL clubs in this debate?

Cas - because the club sells it's best players and loses lots of games.

Bradford - because they went downhill and then went bust

Salford - because they lost their investor and sold their better players on

London - because they can't get a decent side and lose all the time

HKR because they have started selling their better players and the investor has pulled any further investment.

These are the real reasons, not because SL has become "boring".

You have castigated SL clubs for resisting P & R many times haven't you?

#75 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,194 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:51 PM

It's not actually as complicated as it sounds and seams to fit a lot of peoples interests.

I think you have something there. The option may not be best for the game but as long as it's best for 13 out of 24 clubs the "ayes" have it......

#76 Rarefrith

Rarefrith
  • Coach
  • 548 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:23 PM

Yes keep the licence system its brilliant, clubs going bust still, clubs still signing average overseas players, clubs moving into new flashy mainly rented stadiums they can't afford, standard not getting anywhere close to NRL. Uncompetitive games, lower league clubs cast adrift until every 3 years when they promote pretty much who they like. The licence system despite all the reasons that were originally given was brought in by self interested clubs so that they could pretty much remain at the top for eternity.

 

RL is the laughing stock of UK sport, if you can call it a sport anymore with how little things are settled on the pitch. It there was 14 strong exceptional all conquering clubs up there I could understand the arrogant elitist attitude shown but the Richard Lewis ###### kissers on here but its not the case, its so far from the case. Things have to change, whatever that may be for the good of the game at all levels and a big part of that its to make things more competitive and a clear pathway on the pitch. That's what sport is about, dreams can be achieved on the pitch and not just in a boardroom.



#77 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,194 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:32 PM

Yes keep the licence system its brilliant, clubs going bust still, clubs still signing average overseas players, clubs moving into new flashy mainly rented stadiums they can't afford, standard not getting anywhere close to NRL.

Those things are not the fault of the licensing system.

Those problems you identify would still have occured under a continuation of P & R.

#78 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,304 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:35 PM

RL is the laughing stock of UK sport.

 

It isnt.


Posted Image

#79 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,956 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:44 PM

Yes keep the licence system its brilliant, clubs going bust still, clubs still signing average overseas players, clubs moving into new flashy mainly rented stadiums they can't afford, standard not getting anywhere close to NRL. Uncompetitive games, lower league clubs cast adrift until every 3 years when they promote pretty much who they like. The licence system despite all the reasons that were originally given was brought in by self interested clubs so that they could pretty much remain at the top for eternity.

 

RL is the laughing stock of UK sport, if you can call it a sport anymore with how little things are settled on the pitch. It there was 14 strong exceptional all conquering clubs up there I could understand the arrogant elitist attitude shown but the Richard Lewis ###### kissers on here but its not the case, its so far from the case. Things have to change, whatever that may be for the good of the game at all levels and a big part of that its to make things more competitive and a clear pathway on the pitch. That's what sport is about, dreams can be achieved on the pitch and not just in a boardroom.

Are we playing RL fan bingo? 'Cos I call 'house'.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#80 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,991 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:47 PM

Terry, I'm not sure whether you're aware or not but there's one hell of an economic downturn on at the moment.  Food/fuel inflation is way above wage inflation, and disposable incomes are being squeezed considerably.  I'd say that this offers a good starting point as to why perhaps crowds at some clubs are down.  They're well up at Wakefield, and they're reported as being up at Featherstone too, and yet both play in "stale" competitions.


But why is the economic downturn bypassing the people of Wakey, Fev, Wigan, Leeds, Hull? That's not the reason.
Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

http://www.pictureho...ingfilms.co.uk/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users