Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Martyn Sadler - Talking Rugby League


  • Please log in to reply
449 replies to this topic

#21 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,790 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:46 PM

I liked the article, I resent the idea in a post above that you have a "personal agenda" and I appreciate what you say.



...

But Martyn has just admitted to having a 'personal agenda'.  He has just said he doesn't like the idea.  Ergo, his personal agenda.



#22 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:48 PM

Well it's fair to say the article certainly shows which camp Martyn sits in, and that is fine, everyone is allowed an opinion.

 

I would argue that some of the assumptions made in the article are flawed or not very well explained.  

 

For example the effect on the challenge cup, it maybe that Martyn knows more about the set up of the competition, but I can't see why it should be effected by the option 3 structure.

 

In fact I would say option 3 allows for a revamp of the CC into a more condensed competition.  Currently the CC is spread over a huge chunk of the season, meaning that our national TV coverage free to air has no consistency and does not allow for a period of concentrated coverage.  If you place the CC between the split period, you allow it week to week coverage so something for the Beeb to sink their teeth into, like they can with the 6 nations.  But also clubs knocked out, will get that recovery period, which will be helpful to the players, and clubs to recuperate.

 

There is a good point about the playoffs lacking meaning for the middle 8, however it does not cover the fact that it should provide a boost to the middle 8 clubs for the other 14 games as they jostle for position.


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.

#23 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,790 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:50 PM

I'm perfectly happy for you to tell us what the benefits will be.

 

Do you disagree with my assessment of how the new structure will impact on the Challenge Cup, when you bear in mind what will be at stake for the Super League clubs next year, and their desire not to finish in the bottom two. Do you really think the Challenge Cup will matter to them?

I have no idea how Option 3 would impact upon the Challenge Cup as that area has not yet been discussed.  Since the RFL has stated quite clearly that the review is 'whole game' then I would assume - and it is only an assumption - that the Challenge Cup (and the Northern Rail Cup, which may also be affected) will also come under scrutiny.  However, it is quite possible that the Challenge Cup won't be affected at all since which league a team plays in does not impact on a team's eligibility for the Challenge Cup.  Given that we are now up to the quarter final stage in the competition and under Option 3 we would just be moving into the split tier phase of the season then why would the Challenge Cup need to be changed at all?


Edited by Saintslass, 17 May 2013 - 03:51 PM.


#24 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,718 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:53 PM

But Martyn has just admitted to having a 'personal agenda'.  He has just said he doesn't like the idea.  Ergo, his personal agenda.

Oh come on, he doesn't like the idea because he sees it detrimental to the game, that's a personal opinion not an "agenda".

#25 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:00 PM

In the end would it not like all decisions come down to SL chairmen. So surely only their opinion matters.

 

That being the case which way would they vote???


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.

#26 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,718 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:04 PM

Well it's fair to say the article certainly shows which camp Martyn sits in, and that is fine, everyone is allowed an opinion.
 
There is a good point about the playoffs lacking meaning for the middle 8, however it does not cover the fact that it should provide a boost to the middle 8 clubs for the other 14 games as they jostle for position.

Yes it's an opinion not an agenda. If the RL press seek similar opinions from the clubs all will be revealed.

But I do like your line that there's something in the option for many clubs which you allude to on another thread.

In this one you suggest the middle 8 competition could be a boost for the lower SL clubs and the championship clubs.

Equally the top eight having their own competition could up their gates significantly

The bottom eight would no longer be seen as dead men standing and would have something to compete for albeit before gates in the hundreds.

What I think has happened in the past is that the RFL & the Superleague clubs voted in a closed shop that suited them.

Now that closed shop isn't working all of a sudden all 24 clubs are being allowed to vote and I'd suggest out of that 24 the number who can't compete in Superleague is the majority number hence they win the day, but the top eight still get all the goodies.

Two things, firstly why are small championship clubs getting a vote on Superleague all of a sudden?

Is it because as clubs start to fade into "A" teams and lower SL clubs give up the ghost the powers that be fear a meltdown?

#27 the phoenix

the phoenix
  • Coach
  • 123 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:07 PM

i cannot see the challenge cup being affected that much no 



#28 amh

amh
  • Moderator
  • 11,087 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:07 PM

How can anything be a good or bad idea until the whole picture is known. At the moment all we have is brainstorming, and a lot of people jumping up and down. We must not adopt any of the changes until we know the answers to the questions they raise, and  rigorous checking of every minute detail has been carried out. In fact, I'm surprised that any options are on the table before this has happened. It seems as if we have rushed into this all at once, for reasons I cannot see.


Whilst I do not suffer fools gladly, I will always gladly make fools suffer

A man is getting along on the road of wisdom when he realises that his opinion is just an opinion


#29 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,832 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:09 PM

Only 77 votes so far, and there isn't a status quo option.

If the new structure delivered what it's proponents claim, then I would vote for it too.

The problem is that it won't, and my article explains some of the reasons why.

thats a pretty arrogant stance. You know best eh?

#30 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:09 PM

If I had to guess their choices.

 

Yes

 

Wigan, Warrington, , Saints, Huddersfield, Bradford, London, Salford

 

No

 

Wakefield, Widnes, Leeds, Catalan, Castleford, 

 

Not sure

 

Hull KR, Hull

 

I think Wigan, Warrington and Saints would all like more games against each other as these provide pretty much sell outs, therefore more cash in the coffers.

I think Bradford, Salford and Huddersfield are all aspiring to be top 8 clubs wanting to be winners so securing that top 8 will be good for them.  London I think would vote yes as it would take some pressure off them in terms of competiting against clubs with 10 times the amount of fans, but would not lead to them dropping out of the top flight.

 

I think Wakey and Cas who have put a lot into staying in SL, would not welcome the possibility of Yo-yo ing. Same for Widnes.  I think Leeds probably don't care one way or the other. Catalans might fear a bad run axing them from SL all together.  

 

Hull FC and Hull KR, I could not even speculate as to what they may think, it could end up taking their derby away or at least the possiblity of the return fixture.  So it could be a tight vote.

 

But it's all speculation until a chairman comes out for or against the idea.


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.

#31 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,718 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:11 PM

It seems as if we have rushed into this all at once, for reasons I cannot see.

Sorry, they have been discussing this behind closed doors for a long time.

As Beware shades said 24 chairmen have the reasons why the majority of them are voting for this.

They need asking.

#32 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:11 PM

Yes it's an opinion not an agenda. If the RL press seek similar opinions from the clubs all will be revealed.

But I do like your line that there's something in the option for many clubs which you allude to on another thread.

In this one you suggest the middle 8 competition could be a boost for the lower SL clubs and the championship clubs.

Equally the top eight having their own competition could up their gates significantly

The bottom eight would no longer be seen as dead men standing and would have something to compete for albeit before gates in the hundreds.

What I think has happened in the past is that the RFL & the Superleague clubs voted in a closed shop that suited them.

Now that closed shop isn't working all of a sudden all 24 clubs are being allowed to vote and I'd suggest out of that 24 the number who can't compete in Superleague is the majority number hence they win the day, but the top eight still get all the goodies.

Two things, firstly why are small championship clubs getting a vote on Superleague all of a sudden?

Is it because as clubs start to fade into "A" teams and lower SL clubs give up the ghost the powers that be fear a meltdown?

 

 

Thanks for clearing that up parksider,  I thought it would only be SL chairmen who got a vote.  If it's down to all  clubs to get a vote, then I think option 3 will certainly carry the day.


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.

#33 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,832 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:11 PM

Both Cas and Wakey CEO's seemed supportive on p&r and changes on BnA.

#34 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,959 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:12 PM

I have no idea how Option 3 would impact upon the Challenge Cup as that area has not yet been discussed.  Since the RFL has stated quite clearly that the review is 'whole game' then I would assume - and it is only an assumption - that the Challenge Cup (and the Northern Rail Cup, which may also be affected) will also come under scrutiny.  However, it is quite possible that the Challenge Cup won't be affected at all since which league a team plays in does not impact on a team's eligibility for the Challenge Cup.  Given that we are now up to the quarter final stage in the competition and under Option 3 we would just be moving into the split tier phase of the season then why would the Challenge Cup need to be changed at all?

 

The point I'm making about the Challenge Cup is that, specifically in the year 2014, the 14 Super League clubs, or at least those that would consider themselves in danger of finishing in the bottom 2, will devote all their energy and finances to avoid being relegated, and they won't give a damn about the Challenge Cup.

 

They will all spend up to the maximum of the salary cap to try to avoid being relegated. It will make for a very exciting season in Super League, but it will be a financial disaster for the two clubs that are relegated.



#35 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,959 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:13 PM

Oh come on, he doesn't like the idea because he sees it detrimental to the game, that's a personal opinion not an "agenda".

 

Quite true! The people with an agenda are those who stand to benefit or lose from the proposals, and who therefore have a stake in the outcome, while ignoring the longer term effects of what they are doing.



#36 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,832 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:13 PM

The point I'm making about the Challenge Cup is that, specifically in the year 2014, the 14 Super League clubs, or at least those that would consider themselves in danger of finishing in the bottom 2, will devote all their energy and finances to avoid being relegated, and they won't give a damn about the Challenge Cup.

They will all spend up to the maximum of the salary cap to try to avoid being relegated. It will make for a very exciting season in Super League, but it will be a financial disaster for the two clubs that are relegated.

a bit like football I suppose. You'd never get a small club in a relegation battle bothering with the cup.

#37 amh

amh
  • Moderator
  • 11,087 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:15 PM

Sorry, they have been discussing this behind closed doors for a long time.

As Beware shades said 24 chairmen have the reasons why the majority of them are voting for this.

They need asking.

 

I know they have been discussing it - I just don't understand how it has got to the public before obvious questions have not been answered


Whilst I do not suffer fools gladly, I will always gladly make fools suffer

A man is getting along on the road of wisdom when he realises that his opinion is just an opinion


#38 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,959 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:15 PM

thats a pretty arrogant stance. You know best eh?

Don't be silly! I'm inviting you to read the article and decide for yourself whether you agree with me.



#39 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,718 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:16 PM

If I had to guess their choices.
 
I think Wigan, Warrington and Saints would all like more games against each other as these provide pretty much sell outs, therefore more cash in the coffers.

I think Bradford, Salford and Huddersfield are all aspiring to be top 8 clubs wanting to be winners so securing that top 8 will be good for them.  

London I think would vote yes as it would take some pressure off them in terms of competiting against clubs with 10 times the amount of fans, but would not lead to them dropping out of the top flight.
 
I think Wakey and Cas who have put a lot into staying in SL, would not welcome the possibility of Yo-yo ing. Same for Widnes.  

I think Leeds probably don't care one way or the other. Catalans might fear a bad run axing them from SL all together.  
 
Hull FC and Hull KR, I could not even speculate as to what they may think, it could end up taking their derby away or at least the possiblity of the return fixture.  So it could be a tight vote.
 
But it's all speculation until a chairman comes out for or against the idea.

Your indicating the 14 SL clubs are the ones who vote this in. Is that right???

In that case the top eight have better fixtures and higher crowds as you say and the bottom six have
an easier fixture list to be able to win games, compete and win something, without having to spend full cap which they can't afford.

That's 14 yes votes to nil no votes if those are the reasons?.

#40 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,959 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:17 PM

a bit like football I suppose. You'd never get a small club in a relegation battle bothering with the cup.

Clubs that are relegated from the Premier League get a massive parachute payment. The future of the club isn't at risk.
And in football there is the reverse factor, because it is far more remunerative to finish in the top four and qualify for Europe.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users