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
* * * * - 1 votes

Super League Restructure Discussion (Many Merged Threads)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
730 replies to this topic

#581 sheddings69

sheddings69
  • Coach
  • 786 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:19 AM

Meat pies ?

I thought they were hand warmers.


The juice used to burn your chin!! Very happy days - I miss rugby league

#582 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,779 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:21 AM

Not will they waste their money if there is p and r. Licencing provides exactly the opportunity and stability any true 'money men' would look for. The lack of investment as it is.so quaintly put, is because the clubs they might invest in are never going to make the big time.


The main problems with the current form of licensing is the uncertainty in the process of selecting the team to go up, and the fact that only one team goes up every three years.

Both these points make investing in a lower tier club unattractive

#583 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,779 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:30 AM

In Fev's case, because he wads persuaded of the benefits and opportunity that licencing had created and that had already been endorsed by fans and club.


Do you think he will hang around if Fev dont get picked for 2015

#584 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,779 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:39 AM

Consider this also. The current licensing system is so staid that the minimum time we will see just one UK expansion team in SL is 5years (i.e. 2018) - and there is no guarantee of that.

Effectively it will take hundreds of years to get a national SL

#585 RugbyLeagueGeek

RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Coach
  • 626 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:55 AM

Consider this also. The current licensing system is so staid that the minimum time we will see just one UK expansion team in SL is 5years (i.e. 2018) - and there is no guarantee of that.

Effectively it will take hundreds of years to get a national SL

But prior to licensing we still didn't have a national SL after 100 years



#586 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,988 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:57 AM

Do they, though? Are you sure about that? Is it backed up by declarations from the clubs?


I'm pretty sure there's a process taking place right now unless I've been dreaming. Who do you think has instigated it if not the SL clubs? SL in its present form is just not sustainable. Why can't people realise this?
Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

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

#587 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,779 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:02 AM

But prior to licensing we still didn't have a national SL after 100 years


If we had retained 4up 4down until now we would have.

The 1980s saw as many as 4 non heartland teams make the top division, i.e. Carlisle, Fulham, Sheffield and Blackpool. Many new fans were drawn to the game in their thousands (not hundreds). If we had that same 4up 4down system now, its highly likely that a fair few of the new teams would make SL within 5 years through natural selection.

#588 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,282 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:25 AM

I'm pretty sure there's a process taking place right now unless I've been dreaming. Who do you think has instigated it if not the SL clubs? SL in its present form is just not sustainable. Why can't people realise this?

 

Posted Yesterday, 04:07 PM

Terry Mullaney, on 05 Jul 2013 - 3:59 PM, said:snapback.png

With respect Chris, it was you who harked back 30 years as if it had some relevance to today's game.

So why do you think an apparent majority of SL clubs want change? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as no one else seems to be offering a reason why some of the clubs they support are seeking changes to the game's structure.

"it does have a relevance. So why do you think it was that with all that going for it your club had such a poor attendance that year-possibly a worse average than this year's outside the elite. It's relevant because then there was auto prom and reg, we had the relegation battles(well we didn't as it happens) that you and others believe enhanced the sport and which you spoke about."

 

you were asked this and and have yet to answer.

 

If SL is 'unsustainable' then much of british business and industry by the same token is unsustainable. If a club under this 'unsustainable' structure had the same success as yours in 1983 and indeed 1977 when you were champions with an average crowd of 3,000 followed by a players strike over money the next season, then perhaps that's when we could talk about sustainability. You referred to Leeds' crfowds of 1983, if they had those crowds in 2013 then maybe then we could start to talk about unsustainability. Again with Bradford, you seem to have a very short memory. I remember when you and I visited Peter Deakin to discuss ways that youe club could make progress. He predicted this, althougbof course he couldn't predict the elephant in the room of the Harris case. He said that there would be sa trough in the club's on field success and popularity, but that it would still fall to levels far in excess of what was the case when they had previous success-that's success not failure...the classic example being the season when Bradford, Wigan and warrington could have won the championship on the last day of the season. I think Bradford's average attendance that year was about 6,000-a lot less than in their recent lean seasons under this 'unsustainable structure.

 

I'm very interested to know how you know that  most of the SL clubs  are in favour of change(regression to a discredited past). I don't take much notice of the rugby league press any more, so maybe I missed this. Which clubs? Which system do they favour? What if they don't favour the one that you are so keen on?

 

 


Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 06 July 2013 - 12:07 PM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#589 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,282 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:28 AM

 Who do you think has instigated it if not the SL clubs?

so now it's all of trhem, it was most of them not long ago 


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#590 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,282 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:29 AM

If we had retained 4up 4down until now we would have.

The 1980s saw as many as 4 non heartland teams make the top division, i.e. Carlisle, Fulham, Sheffield and Blackpool. Many new fans were drawn to the game in their thousands (not hundreds). If we had that same 4up 4down system now, its highly likely that a fair few of the new teams would make SL within 5 years through natural selection.

why did the prom and reg system chsnge so much?


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#591 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,779 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:38 AM

why did the prom and reg system chsnge so much?


It didnt - it stayed as 4up/down from 1973 until the late 80s. It was only then that they starting tinkering reducing to 3up and down following a silly reduction in the top tier from 16 to 14.

#592 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,282 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:42 AM

It didnt - it stayed as 4up/down from 1973 until the late 80s. It was only then that they starting tinkering reducing to 3up and down following a silly reduction in the top tier from 16 to 14.

and then three divisions

 

so why did only then sis they start tinkering? Why the reduction in the top tier?

 

sems like it changed a lost te me. Why?


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#593 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,779 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:12 AM

and then three divisions

so why did only then sis they start tinkering? Why the reduction in the top tier?

sems like it changed a lost te me. Why?


My guess is that Wigan had a lot to do with reducing the number of teams as a result of the number of games. Remember back then we had two extra cup comps, so a succesful team would have had lots of games.

#594 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,282 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:14 AM

My guess is that Wigan had a lot to do with reducing the number of teams as a result of the number of games. Remember back then we had two extra cup comps, so a succesful team would have had lots of games.

sso it's all Wigan's fault: some guess

 

but why all the other changes if it was working so well?


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#595 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:55 AM

Who do you think has instigated it if not the SL clubs?


Just to be clear, it was Richard Lewis and Maurice Watkins.

When Lewis proposed licensing in 2005 it was intended that it would be reviewed at this stage in the process, after a second round of licences. The Watkins Review last year charged the RFL executive with a review of all competition structures, including the issues of licensing, and promotion and relegation for Super League.

#596 sheddings69

sheddings69
  • Coach
  • 786 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:57 AM

The game needs to decide where it sits, if no auto P&R (and I don't think it is necessarily the answer) then it should be up front and separate the game as per an Aussie / US franchising model. Licensing is a nonsense and our game is a laughing stock. How many teams have been 'relegated' from SL?

Edited by sheddings69, 06 July 2013 - 11:59 AM.


#597 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,282 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 12:05 PM

The game needs to decide where it sits, if no auto P&R (and I don't think it is necessarily the answer) then it should be up front and separate the game as per an Aussie / US franchising model. Licensing is a nonsense and our game is a laughing stock. How many teams have been 'relegated' from SL?

you make a good point but the sport isn't a laughing stock: it's highly respected by other sports, and official bodies.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#598 sheddings69

sheddings69
  • Coach
  • 786 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 12:18 PM

you make a good point but the sport isn't a laughing stock: it's highly respected by other sports, and official bodies.


All the people I speak to love the product on the pitch (why wouldn't you) but think the set up of the league system is a joke. The words boring and repetitive are often used. Hence the franchising reference - be open and honest about who you want in and out and just get on with it. Lip service licensing does the game no favours whatsoever.

#599 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,932 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 12:26 PM

But prior to licensing we still didn't have a national SL after 100 years


There was the minor problem of the RU ban on players and grounds and the culture they created about pro rugby being worse than selling secrets to the enemy.

Now that it's gone we are seeing a gradual spread of RL all over the UK.

#600 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,045 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 01:24 PM

Wait, hasnt that spread happened in a time when we havent had automatic P&R?

4 up and 4 down might have seen new clubs come into the game, but it also saw them vanish without trace as well didnt it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users