I've been away for the week, so not had time to really get into the article and critique it, but going to give it a go now (sorry for the length of the post due to quotes!):"It's fair to say that I didn't find anyone who was in favour of the proposed changes, and many supporters couldn't understand why the changes were being proposed."
It's not exactly a brilliant argument to use this tiny and rather specific area of the RL community to portray an overall opinion to the reader.
It's safe to say there are a lot of people that favour the proposal, and trying to use an argument by numbers is not only a poor arguing technique in the first place, it's also dishonest when done with your particular target for survey."Having said that, there is no doubt that some clubs in the Championship support the proposals, because they can see the possibility of being able to move up the league ladder, even though it would be in a fairly convoluted manner.
Under the licensing system, those clubs see little prospect of moving up to join the Super League clubs, so they clearly favour any system that appears to make that process easier."
So literally a few sentences later you've recognised that maybe some people do support a change, and given a reason why they would. It kind of makes your first point (no one supports it or understands why there needs to be a change) redundant, no?"The problem is that the 'two twelves, three eights' proposal, which is clearly favoured by the RFL chief executive Nigel Wood, has so many drawbacks that the clubs should think very seriously before they jump on board with his proposals.
As does any proposal, especially the current one. ANY system adopted will have many drawbacks, many critics, and there is no way to guarantee it's the best way forward. But I think many people in the game would agree that the current system isn't working as intended."To start with, we would see clubs reverting to playing some other clubs three times during the regular season.
I don't think the RFL and the clubs realise just how resistant the fans will be to seeing too many matches between the same clubs."
ANY option to reduce the league will see repeat fixtures. We had 6 repeat fixtures in the league from 2000-2006 (5 for the two years after). The fans hardly boycotted.
If say the fans are more resistant to watching boring mismatches between lower clubs than watching repeat fixtures between the top clubs. It probably won't be too difficult to find crowd figures to back up that statement."Secondly, although all three groups of eight clubs will have their own play-offs and a Grand Final, the only one that will mean anything will be the Super League Grand Final for the top eight clubs. The other 'Grand Finals' will be a tremendous anti-climax and it would be better not to have them."
Got to agree with you in part here, Martin. The structure for the play-offs is one of my concerns but can easily be remedied with the right set up. I'm not 100% sure what they've settled for, and I've added my two-pennies worth on other threads as to how I think they should go to guarantee everyone has something to play for. I agree that play-offs for the top of the league (when really they aren't the top of the league they started the season in) is a bit arbitrary. I don't see why the play-offs can't be for the last promotion spot for example."The other thing to bear in mind is that the proposals could do untold damage to the Challenge Cup in 2014, which would be a shame when the tournament, at least as shown on TV, has started so well this year."
I think the reasons you cite here are incredibly exaggerated. Untold damage? The league has had relegation spots for years, yet the cup has been going along just the same. I think to suggest clubs will go easy in the cup to ensure they don't get relegated ignores the fact that if they're bottom of the league they won't be exactly that successful in the cup anyway due to their playing talent! It also ignores the fact that the Challenge Cup is one of only two major prizes on the line in British RL, and IIRC has the biggest pay day!
Not to mention, this is an argument to not do something because of the effects of one transitional season. Hardly a reason to stop attempting progression.
In all the years of P&R, I've never seen a club field a weakened side to save themselves from relegation."They will spend up to the salary cap limit, whether they can afford it or not..."
Will they? Based on what evidence? How many clubs at the bottom during the P&R era spent up to the salary cap limit?"We will also find that the number of young players being given opportunities in Super League next season will be well down on recent seasons, as the clubs try to recruit trusted journeymen to avoid the drop."
I think the salary cap in the NRL will make that route a lot less rewarding and clubs will continue to push youth personally. The 3x8 system will, IMO, actually help these young players develop at a better and more appropriate rate as well as they'll be facing more balanced opposition rather than the best elite teams."Unfortunately, making wholesale changes will send out the wrong message, and will make that job even harder."
Sticking with a system that many have lost faith in and is getting attacked by our own supporters also sends out the wrong message. We shouldn't focus solely on the negatives of these proposals."Only Hull KR have come up through being promoted and stayed up.
And Huddersfield. And Hull. And Wakefield. And Salford. And Widnes. Only Cas and Leigh haven't stayed up after one season.
I'm all for opinion pieces, but as long as they are honest and factual arguments in there. On this occasion Martyn, I've got to say, there's a lot of oversight and contradiction in your arguments, not many facts and it just screams of forming a personal opinion and sticking to it on first instinct.
Edited by Wellsy4HullFC, 19 May 2013 - 11:36 AM.