Jump to content


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

#661 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 02:57 PM

Again people have to go back to core principles here. Why do professional sportsmen get paid? It is because they want a rightful share of the money that their labour generates through paying spectators and sponsors. If there aren't enough spectators or sponsors the players shouldn't be getting paid very much at all. If they are then the clubs involved have got their priorities wrong. 

 

Is the Championship and Championship 1 ever going to be viable and self sustaining professional competition? I very much doubt it. It would be much better if the clubs in those two divisions stopped trying to emulate Super League badly and start spending their limited resources on more productive things such as developing young players and investing in their infrastructure.  

 

People shouldn't get misty eyed here. Rugby League wasn't professionalised to liberate the working class heroes of myth it was professionalised because the Yorkshire and Lancashire Cup competition starting attracting large numbers of paying spectators and owners of the clubs wanted to recruit the best players avaliable by paying them money. Hard cash and economic reality struck home. 99% of rugby league players were paid nothing before 1895 and 99% of players were paid nothing after the split. 

 

Up until the 1990s rugby league was semi-professional because the clubs couldn't afford to pay full time professionals because of the limited amounts of money the game generated. The same is now true of the Championship and Championship 1. Left to their own devices they wouldn't be able to sustain full time professionalism or any sort of expensive renumeration of players. You can't have the tail wagging the dog here. The Super League has the prospect of being an economically viable fully pro competition the other two divisions don't. 



#662 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:26 PM

Again people have to go back to core principles here. Why do professional sportsmen get paid? It is because they want a rightful share of the money that their labour generates through paying spectators and sponsors. If there aren't enough spectators or sponsors the players shouldn't be getting paid very much at all. If they are then the clubs involved have got their priorities wrong.

Is the Championship and Championship 1 ever going to be viable and self sustaining professional competition? I very much doubt it. It would be much better if the clubs in those two divisions stopped trying to emulate Super League badly and start spending their limited resources on more productive things such as developing young players and investing in their infrastructure.

People shouldn't get misty eyed here. Rugby League wasn't professionalised to liberate the working class heroes of myth it was professionalised because the Yorkshire and Lancashire Cup competition starting attracting large numbers of paying spectators and owners of the clubs wanted to recruit the best players avaliable by paying them money. Hard cash and economic reality struck home. 99% of rugby league players were paid nothing before 1895 and 99% of players were paid nothing after the split.

Up until the 1990s rugby league was semi-professional because the clubs couldn't afford to pay full time professionals because of the limited amounts of money the game generated. The same is now true of the Championship and Championship 1. Left to their own devices they wouldn't be able to sustain full time professionalism or any sort of expensive renumeration of players. You can't have the tail wagging the dog here. The Super League has the prospect of being an economically viable fully pro competition the other two divisions don't.

What about the SL Clubs that it's not economically viable for to have a full time team, Huddersfield, Cas, London, Wakefield, Salford etc. Should they give up?

#663 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,616 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:27 PM

I am no longer close to the Amateur game, is paying players all above board and aloud?

Dunno but it's easily circumvented always has been
The idea that the sport is divided in this way is nonsense anyway
If a club can and wants to pay players why shouldn't they?
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#664 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,616 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:29 PM

What about the SL Clubs that it's not economically viable for to have a full time team, Huddersfield, Cas, London, Wakefield, Salford etc. Should they give up?

Depends whether they are worth it from the point of view of the future of the game
I would suggest all the clubs you mention are
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#665 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,991 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:36 PM

It would go some way to doing it.


True! No game, no problems
Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

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

#666 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,531 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:47 PM

Funds what? The 10 or 12 team Super League? Itself.

In terms of the second and third tiers they should use the money they spend on paying players that not enough people want to pay to watch on something more productive. Like youth development and training facilities. How amateur clubs have always done it.


Thank you for your advice/opinion
What are your views on putting all the sky money into the lower leagues for three years to grow the game?

#667 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,616 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 04:10 PM

Thank you for your advice/opinion
What are your views on putting all the sky money into the lower leagues for three years to grow the game?

Surely not all if the clubs how would say giving a load of cash to Leigh for instance grow the game?

I would say
York
Doncaster
Sheffield
The new championship one clubs
Skolars

Would qualify
But your idea makes no sense since the money is paid by sky to screen super league games, cut super league's funding and there's no superleague
Personally I would be very annoyed about this since super league gives me a great deal of pleasure
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#668 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 04:18 PM

What about the SL Clubs that it's not economically viable for to have a full time team, Huddersfield, Cas, London, Wakefield, Salford etc. Should they give up?


If they can't find private backers like Salford and Huddersfield have then no they shouldn't be fully professional. If the league is to expand then it needs to do it properly with sides that are competitive and challenging for honours. The only way expansion into Wales or London would work is if they had money chucked at them so they could recruit a team that is capable of winning the Super League. In an alien enviroment the only way you are going to attract attention is through success.

Full time professionalism isn't some sort of birthright because a club has a famous name and history. If a club can't put a proper business plan together then they shouldn't be part of Super League.

The Sky money should be for the clubs that provide Sky with the product on the field. The top 10 or 12 clubs need the money to pay their players the going rate and develop their own commercial infrastructure. The RFL needs to find other revenue streams with which to sustain the amateur and community game. Regular international and representative matches would be a start.

#669 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,083 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 04:23 PM

Good post

#670 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,616 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 04:43 PM

Good post

Seconded
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#671 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,531 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:24 PM

So if say Fax had a backer and Hudds didn't you would throw Hudds out?
What happens if a club fails, who comes forward to replace them?

Edited by sweaty craiq, 09 July 2013 - 05:25 PM.


#672 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:46 PM

So if say Fax had a backer and Hudds didn't you would throw Hudds out?
What happens if a club fails, who comes forward to replace them?


The club with the best business plan. The team on the pitch should be the final piece of the jigsaw. Before that you need a stadium, sponsors, a youth development programme and large potential supporter base etc.

The gap between the Super League and the Championships is too great to facilitate annual promotion and relegation.

#673 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,616 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:48 PM

The gap between the Super League and the Championships is too great to facilitate annual promotion and relegation.

It was before sl as well

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 09 July 2013 - 05:49 PM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#674 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:31 PM

The club with the best business plan. The team on the pitch should be the final piece of the jigsaw. Before that you need a stadium, sponsors, a youth development programme and large potential supporter base etc.

The gap between the Super League and the Championships is too great to facilitate annual promotion and relegation.

You said clubs in the Championship should stop trying to "emulate" clubs in SL. So What would you advise an investor to do if he wants to back a Championship club? Would you tell him not to bother?

Edited by a.n Other, 09 July 2013 - 07:31 PM.


#675 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,531 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:04 PM

The club with the best business plan. The team on the pitch should be the final piece of the jigsaw. Before that you need a stadium, sponsors, a youth development programme and large potential supporter base etc.

The gap between the Super League and the Championships is too great to facilitate annual promotion and relegation.


How would you deal with London, Cas, Wakey, Bradford, HKR and Salford as they do not meet that criteria and are in SL

#676 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:54 PM

You said clubs in the Championship should stop trying to "emulate" clubs in SL. So What would you advise an investor to do if he wants to back a Championship club? Would you tell him not to bother?


If they wanted to get into Super League they should told to out a proper bid together and apply for a licence. If they can prove that they could do a better job than an existing Super League club then they should replace them. It is the same system that Super League is already using. The problem currently is that there are probably 2 if not 4 too many teams in the competition and there isn't genuine competition for licences. That is what has allowed Wakefield and Bradford to stay in the competition despite breaking the rules.

Whether Wakefield, Castleford and Hull KR have the ability to sustain a Super League side is doubtful. London in its current form is a bit of a turkey too.

#677 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,229 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:32 AM

Again people have to go back to core principles here. Why do professional sportsmen get paid? It is because they want a rightful share of the money that their labour generates through paying spectators and sponsors. If there aren't enough spectators or sponsors the players shouldn't be getting paid very much at all. If they are then the clubs involved have got their priorities wrong. 

 

Is the Championship and Championship 1 ever going to be viable and self sustaining professional competition? I very much doubt it. It would be much better if the clubs in those two divisions stopped trying to emulate Super League badly and start spending their limited resources on more productive things such as developing young players and investing in their infrastructure.  

 

People shouldn't get misty eyed here. Rugby League wasn't professionalised to liberate the working class heroes of myth it was professionalised because the Yorkshire and Lancashire Cup competition starting attracting large numbers of paying spectators and owners of the clubs wanted to recruit the best players avaliable by paying them money. Hard cash and economic reality struck home. 99% of rugby league players were paid nothing before 1895 and 99% of players were paid nothing after the split. 

 

Up until the 1990s rugby league was semi-professional because the clubs couldn't afford to pay full time professionals because of the limited amounts of money the game generated. The same is now true of the Championship and Championship 1. Left to their own devices they wouldn't be able to sustain full time professionalism or any sort of expensive renumeration of players. You can't have the tail wagging the dog here. The Super League has the prospect of being an economically viable fully pro competition the other two divisions don't. 

 

Sez who. Half the SL is in financial disarray.



#678 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,229 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:38 AM

It was before sl as well

 

Only because of the crazy 25% turnover created by 4 up. 4 down.



#679 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,229 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:48 AM

If they wanted to get into Super League they should told to out a proper bid together and apply for a licence. If they can prove that they could do a better job than an existing Super League club then they should replace them. It is the same system that Super League is already using. The problem currently is that there are probably 2 if not 4 too many teams in the competition and there isn't genuine competition for licences. That is what has allowed Wakefield and Bradford to stay in the competition despite breaking the rules.

Whether Wakefield, Castleford and Hull KR have the ability to sustain a Super League side is doubtful. London in its current form is a bit of a turkey too.

 

Hull KR are playing in an upgraded international standard stadium, are currently comfortably in the top eight and have an investor funding them. Just what does a club have to do to satisfy the licencing Czars. Toulouse are being touted as a shoe in on the same principles but with no evidence of a crowd base anywhere near that of Hull KR or Wakefield or Bradford for that matter.

 

The last lot of proper bids we had produced Bradford, Crusaders,Salford and London. The system is flawed and broken. 



#680 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,788 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 05:57 AM

Only because of the crazy 25% turnover created by 4 up. 4 down.


It wasnt crazy!

It was exciting




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users