Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
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

#81 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,318 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:26 PM

And, from memory, the Scottish lot were keen to vote for it in defiance of poll after poll from Scottish football supporters against it.

I think polls are difficult to value. It may not be people's preference, but behaviour is far more important than opinion.

 

If they all say no in advance but then still attend then it could be the right thing to do as there could be other benefits. If they say they don;t like it and then stop going that is when there is an issue.

 

Opinion polls are useful, a bit like the player's opinion is useful, but ultimately, unless the consequences of choosing Model A is that players will actively leave the game, then I would suggest that the player's views are actually less important than Financial backers and supporters.



#82 amh

amh
  • Moderator
  • 11,083 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:31 PM

Edit:  Is this just the full time players?  Has anyone asked the part-timers?

 

Just asking the very same question on twitter, to players and the media types

 

So far it seems 'they' feel the super league players are the ones who would be affected (negatively) by any proposed changes, whereas the CH players would benefit.......lets hope 'they' are more open to ALL opinions on the matter

 

When all's said and done, we know that the strong CEO's will get their way.....and like John D has said, the main problem is lack of money. Personally. I've got none so only go to a few games rather than buy the ST I used to - multiply that by however many and you get the situation we're in right now with regard to gates.


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


#83 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,937 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:45 PM

Resources are not being spread across 24 clubs, the top 12 each year will get the bulk of the Sky money.  The only extra resource the other 12 get is a divvy up of the Sky money from the two teams removed after SL 2015.  This is a drop in the ocean for the big clubs.

 

 

Exactly.

 

So we will have in effect a 12 club Superleague with most of the resources concentrated in the 12 clubs.

 

The danger being that gap between the top 12 and second 12 could get wider than ever......



#84 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:48 PM

Exactly.

 

So we will have in effect a 12 club Superleague with most of the resources concentrated in the 12 clubs.

 

The danger being that gap between the top 12 and second 12 could get wider than ever......

 

It's a risk I agree, but I think we'll find that with the little bit extra central funding, (hopefully) increased crowds and outside investments (or gifts!), we'll see the gap narrowing.

 

The ultimate goal must be to strengthen the second tier, giving us much needed strength in depth.



#85 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,318 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:53 PM

Exactly.

 

So we will have in effect a 12 club Superleague with most of the resources concentrated in the 12 clubs.

 

The danger being that gap between the top 12 and second 12 could get wider than ever......

 By going for the option of a pure 12 team league with no funding for the next 12 your last line would be absolutely guaranteed.



#86 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:09 PM

And if we have 12 - 12 then we're going to see four sides relegated to CC1 - five if Toulouse are admitted.

 

That could really mess things up.



#87 Mumby Magic

Mumby Magic
  • Coach
  • 3,154 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:15 PM

You know I was going to put some constructive piece in this space but I'm not even sure it's worth it. If RL think is the answer we are after we are doomed. Whatever happened to having a leader dragging the game forward than all the clubs (if approved) dragging us down?

Lilly, Jacob and Isaac, what my life is about. Although our route through life is not how it should be, I am a blessed man.


#88 Doghead

Doghead
  • Coach
  • 1,044 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:16 PM

Who's flying this plane.



#89 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 06:53 PM

.

 

 

Edit:  Is this just the full time players?  Has anyone asked the part-timers?

Only the full-timers as League 13 is only for Superleague players at the moment. 



#90 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,495 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 07:13 PM

You know I was going to put some constructive piece in this space but I'm not even sure it's worth it. If RL think is the answer we are after we are doomed. Whatever happened to having a leader dragging the game forward than all the clubs (if approved) dragging us down?

 

Yes, rugby league in Britain doesn't seem to be in a good place at the moment in terms of its leadership.


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#91 Chronicler of Chiswick

Chronicler of Chiswick
  • Coach
  • 2,422 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:04 AM

Crusaders' CEO Jamie Thomas has said that Sky are believed to favour the 3x8 Option. If so, then that's what we'll get - even the big beasts can't afford to upset the people who sign the game's biggest cheque. It wouldn't suprise me if they had a get out clause buried deep somewhere in the contract.



#92 Wirral Warrior

Wirral Warrior
  • Players
  • 15 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:07 AM

Exactly 2 years ago I wrote a post outlining my views on how we could improve the intensity of Super league games which would then hopefully positively impact on the national team.

With all the recent talk of re-structure, I thought I would review and update that proposal.

 

Key factors in the game that have changed in the last 2 years :

  • Much improved NRL TV deal which is now a factor in quickening the top talent drain to the NRL to significant although not epidemic levels
  • Some financially challenged clubs are now showing some postive recovery signs ( Widnes,Wakefiled,Bradford) although , as ever , some have gone backwards ( Castleford , Hull KR? and especially London)
  • Some French TV money available
  • Improved Sky TV viewing figures and Monday Night Football
  • The good Doctor has arrived ! - highlighting some new entrepreneurial money coming into the game.

 

The game has not changed in the sense that the following are the same stakeholders of the British game in similar descending priority order :

 

1.Sky TV who undeniably are the prime funders of the British game

2.The key infuential SL Chairmen/Chief Executives ( Hetherington,Moran,Leneghan,McManus etc)

3.The RFL who facilitate the game rather than command and control.

4.The Others - fans, championship clubs , referees, BBC, Challenge Cup, International game etc

 

In view of the above changes and similarities , I would agree that with the RFL that some form of League structure is required. Indeed with all the talk of 2x12, 3x8 , 2x12 , 3x10 and even 4x10 proves this debate is very topical.

In defence of the RFL they are floating ideas to provoke the debate but in reality they have to balance off the interests of the 2 key stakeholders and no-one solution fits all their requirements.

 

My view is that any re-structure proposal has to recognise some fundamental principles of British sporting heritage heritage and expectations.It is now self-evident that some aspects of Australian and American sporting models do not translate into British sport for various reasons - history , competing sports , the weather etc.

 

In context of Rugby League I believe that they are :

 

1.Some form of promotion/relegation on a more immediate/rapid basis rather than the full 3 year licensing process

2.The UK sporting ( and political) physce is dominated by a 'first past the post' system. There is no denying that play-off's are seen as being contrived and fans vote with their feet (and wallets) accordingly.

3.Even fixture lists are expected : even number of home and away games against all teams playing each other twicw only - we should stop the days of diluting the derby day's  - less is more will apply here : 2 league matches plus max 1 possible cup match

4.Drawn matches are vaild results

 

Therefore considering all of the above my proposal would be for a 'Super League Conference'

 

  • 16 team conference split Super League 1  (Top 8 from previous season) and Super League 2 ( Bottom 6 + 2 from Championship and/or Toulouse providing main qualifying criteria achieved)
  • All play Home and Away : 30 matches
  • 1st place :1st pass the post : League winners are Champions - (Danny Brough recently admitted that League placings dont really matter given a play off system)
  • 8th place relegated to SL2 in following season
  • 9th place promoted to SL1
  • 16th place relegated to Championship and replaced by Championship winners provided they meet relevant qulifying criteria
  • No play-off's or Grand Final - the Challenge Cup Final should be restored as end of season finale - see below
  • Magic Weekend to continue but should just feature the 4 Challenge Cup Quarter Finals on 1 day ( could be increased to 2 days with a 7's tournament?)
  • Final placings 1-16 to determine seeding for following years Challenge Cup
  • Top 3 places qualify for expanded World Club Challenge to incentivise league placings.
  • Flexible competition points awarded depending on game grading in order to incentivise ALL games
    •  SL1 v SL1 matches : 4 points for a win (  2 for draw)  
    •  SL1 v SL2 matches  : 2 points for the SL1 team but 4 for the SL2 team  ( 1 point and 2 points for draw respectively)
    •  SL2 v SL2 matches   : 2 points for a win ( 1 for draw)                                                                                                                                                           I believe the revised competition points system would provide big incentives for coaches to skillfully manage and fully utilise their squads on a match by match basis.e.g. Recently Wigan played more young players against Widnes resulting in a marvellously close game. Shuan Wane was obviously correctly managing his squad with the Exiles weekend , the forthcoming Warrington/Cas games as well as the usual injury situation. Correspondingly , even-though Dennis Betts had injuries , he did not 'write' that game off and his team competed for the full 80 minutes.That level of commitment came with a 2 point incentive but I believe given their League placings last season a Widnes victory should have earned them 4 competition points.
  • I would also argue that the fixtures should be pre-arranged and staggered to ensure that many of the big games ( for both groups within the Conference )  should be played in high summer to enable strong event led marketing campaigns to promote high intensity games on firm pitches.

The Conference would provide the amount of games that club owners require to maintain cash-flow and stadium utilisation , an even number of games against a wide range of opposition for fans with realistic risks and opportunities of promotion and relegation.

 

As regards end of season , it is no good pretending that our game can continue to support two late season Cup Finals. Neither sell out regularly.The season should peak with one meaningful game. The NRL just have their Grand Final with no Cup equivalent. We should build on our proud Challenge Cup heritage and Wembley history and play the final on the first weekend in October which is now a Premier League free weekend due to International football -the Saturday is now free as they now play soccer internationals on Friday evening.The Semi Finals could be played on the 1st weekend in September again capitalisating on a soccer free weekend. 

The Super League seaon would finish late Sptember with a first past the post champion followed by the Challenge Cup Final.

 

The relatively small RL fan base are expected to support the Cup , Play-Offs, Grand Final , Magic , France , Bronco's trips , Internationals - it is too much to consistently expect them to support all these events.The days when fans of all clubs would univerally turn up at Wembly are reducing given costs and stronger single club loyalties with the opportunity to follow your team in the South of France.

 

The main issue would be the number one stakeholder -Sky TV who place alot of faith in the play-off /Grand Final concept. However RL fans are canny and can read read through Eddie Hemmings increasingly desperate hype for the 'crtitical 8th place finish'.Therefore an arrangement would obviously have to be made with the BBC about shared coverage as per this years Quarter Finals.They must realise that play off matches in front of minute crowds is not sustainable. 

Over the course of the season the amount of league games played would be comparable to the current (28 v 27) but overall could be evened if SL clubs enter Challenge Cup competition 1 round later.

 

In conclusion , the overall aim of the Conference and revised Challenge Cup would be to maximise chances for more meaningful top flight rugby league matches particularly as the season climaxes in mid/late summer which better support the international programme and help grow the greatest game.


Edited by Wirral Warrior, 20 June 2013 - 09:27 AM.


#93 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,618 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:28 AM

Well all the 10 teams outside of the current SL have the opportunity to earn promotion.

Is that opportunity real or illusory ?
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#94 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,723 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:41 AM

Right or wrong it's old news innit?

Exactly right and that's why I've hidden 5 posts.  I read those posts and felt my heart sink about another thread dragged into petty willy waggling about which club was the poorest and didn't deserve SL honours, I'm fairly confident that others will have felt the same.


  • amh likes this

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#95 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:45 AM

Crusaders' CEO Jamie Thomas has said that Sky are believed to favour the 3x8 Option. If so, then that's what we'll get - even the big beasts can't afford to upset the people who sign the game's biggest cheque. It wouldn't suprise me if they had a get out clause buried deep somewhere in the contract.

 

I hope that's true.

 

Sky aren't stupid, they know which will be the most entertaining.



#96 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,318 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:48 AM

Is that opportunity real or illusory ?

 Real.



#97 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,318 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:49 AM

Crusaders' CEO Jamie Thomas has said that Sky are believed to favour the 3x8 Option. If so, then that's what we'll get - even the big beasts can't afford to upset the people who sign the game's biggest cheque. It wouldn't suprise me if they had a get out clause buried deep somewhere in the contract.

 What do you mean by your last line? What kind of get out clause?

 

Sky have certain requirements, none of those are 3x8 - if they were we would only be discussing one option, or it would already be in place.



#98 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,023 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:52 AM

Exactly right and that's why I've hidden 5 posts.  I read those posts and felt my heart sink about another thread dragged into petty willy waggling about which club was the poorest and didn't deserve SL honours, I'm fairly confident that others will have felt the same.

Well now my post just doesn't make sense!

 

(Not for the first time)


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#99 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,023 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:54 AM

Anyroad, I can't remember when the first lot of suggestions popped up but was there a decision date.. er, decided? While it's designed for 2015 I'da thunk the time to pick one would be drawing to a close soon?


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#100 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,937 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:55 AM

Crusaders' CEO Jamie Thomas has said that Sky are believed to favour the 3x8 Option. If so, then that's what we'll get - even the big beasts can't afford to upset the people who sign the game's biggest cheque.

 

Well we will see.

 

Firstly SKY will still be able to screen many juicy top eight clashes and two intense GF semi-finals and Final so maybe they don't care about what happens beyond the top eight.

 

But would they pay more to professionalise 24 clubs? Would SL be paid a penny less? I think we had the answer the other week when the SKY concession was the £2.4M paid to the bottom two SL clubs could be split amongst the lower clubs in the new set up.

 

Clearly if SKY favour the idea they have already indicated they don't favour it with any bigger a cheque or much redistribution of the current wealth.

 

I await Jamie Thomas' reply to the facts.


Edited by The Parksider, 20 June 2013 - 09:56 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users