Jump to content





Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Super League Restructure Discussion (Many Merged Threads)


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

#101 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:59 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?

 

I read somewhere that the vote is in August



#102 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,891 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 10:02 AM

Real.

I doubt it. Very much.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#103 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,688 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 10:09 AM

I doubt it. Very much.

 That's your prerogative, personally I suspect that played over a series of games, I would expect to see a strong Championship club like Fax, Fev, or Sheffield out-perform a very weak SL club like London.

 

Now that may be difficutl right now, but with an increase in funding for these teams, there is no reason why this can't happen.



#104 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,891 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 10:36 AM

Now that may be difficult right now, but with an increase in funding for these teams, there is no reason why this can't happen.

But there is no increase in funding. Championship clubs are longer odds to get promotion under the 12x2,3x8 system than under licensing.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#105 FlattenedbyWard

FlattenedbyWard
  • Coach
  • 343 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 10:42 AM

Our problem is the energy draining out of Super League and the sport. It does need a re-vamp, but only a tinkering with.

2 Divisions of 12 with Promotion and Relegation and appropriate parachute payments for relegated sides. Revert to Top 5 play offs and keep the Grand Final, which should have a curtain raiser of the 2nd Division Grand Final before it.

Not difficult is it?

Our problem is the perception of the game. The corporate world thinks we are a joke....the Eddie Stobart farce apparently now makes most sponsors ask why they should pay anything for attaching their name to the sport.......well done Nigel! And I've had that form potential Blue Chip sponsors themselves.

 

But the British press and sporting fan is a fickle beast- they love a winner and will swoop upon any success in an instant to soak up the feelgood vibe. Just look at Wiggins winning the Tour last year...now everyones a cycling fan!?

 

And so what we need is simple- to win the World Cup in Autumn against the Aussies. In a single blow our games credibility will soar, and the tide can begin to turn.

 

We have the players- whether we have a coach with enough intelligence to pick the right ones remains to be seen- and we have the opportunity.

 

I would also add that its time to bring in the ideas of Koukash etc. Why not? He's a winner in life- alright he's outspoken and has voiced some brash ideas but you need that kind of Richard Branson-esque character to spark ideas.

 

I would say though Mr Wood has come to the end of the road. We need another "Outsider" to kick our game up the backside as Lewis did and bring the same professionalism he did back to the administration of the game.



#106 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 10:42 AM


But there is no increase in funding.


Has that been decided yet?

#107 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,481 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 10:52 AM

 That's your prerogative, personally I suspect that played over a series of games, I would expect to see a strong Championship club like Fax, Fev, or Sheffield out-perform a very weak SL club like London.

 

Now that may be difficutl right now, but with an increase in funding for these teams, there is no reason why this can't happen.

 

Not only no increase in funding, but a realisation that the Championship has no strong teams, they are semi pros on low turnovers. If some failing SL clubs are dropped down their crowds will lower as will their playing strength further than it currently is. Should these matches become competitive due to SL clubs falling to the standards of small semi pro clubs, then that won't be a plus for this idea. The only plus I can see is if SKY give more funding.



#108 Mumby Magic

Mumby Magic
  • Coach
  • 3,188 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 10:53 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.

Well we need to have some big bow locks then.

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.


#109 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,688 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:06 AM

But there is no increase in funding. Championship clubs are longer odds to get promotion under the 12x2,3x8 system than under licensing.

 Apologies if I read the articles wrongly, but I was under the impression funding would be given to the lower teams under this proposal. If this isn't the case, I agree with you.



#110 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,688 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:08 AM

Not only no increase in funding, but a realisation that the Championship has no strong teams, they are semi pros on low turnovers. If some failing SL clubs are dropped down their crowds will lower as will their playing strength further than it currently is. Should these matches become competitive due to SL clubs falling to the standards of small semi pro clubs, then that won't be a plus for this idea. The only plus I can see is if SKY give more funding.

 So it is a fact that the Championship clubs will not get more funding than they currently do?

 

Like I said to Griff, apologies if I have read it wrong.



#111 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,688 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:11 AM

Our problem is the energy draining out of Super League and the sport. It does need a re-vamp, but only a tinkering with.

2 Divisions of 12 with Promotion and Relegation and appropriate parachute payments for relegated sides. Revert to Top 5 play offs and keep the Grand Final, which should have a curtain raiser of the 2nd Division Grand Final before it.

Not difficult is it?

Our problem is the perception of the game. The corporate world thinks we are a joke....the Eddie Stobart farce apparently now makes most sponsors ask why they should pay anything for attaching their name to the sport.......well done Nigel! And I've had that form potential Blue Chip sponsors themselves.

 

But the British press and sporting fan is a fickle beast- they love a winner and will swoop upon any success in an instant to soak up the feelgood vibe. Just look at Wiggins winning the Tour last year...now everyones a cycling fan!?

 

And so what we need is simple- to win the World Cup in Autumn against the Aussies. In a single blow our games credibility will soar, and the tide can begin to turn.

 

We have the players- whether we have a coach with enough intelligence to pick the right ones remains to be seen- and we have the opportunity.

 

I would also add that its time to bring in the ideas of Koukash etc. Why not? He's a winner in life- alright he's outspoken and has voiced some brash ideas but you need that kind of Richard Branson-esque character to spark ideas.

 

I would say though Mr Wood has come to the end of the road. We need another "Outsider" to kick our game up the backside as Lewis did and bring the same professionalism he did back to the administration of the game.

 If these companies were lining up to sponsor RL, why weren't they there when the engage deal ended? The Stobart deal was accepted because there was no better option.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that you have spoken to Blue Chip sponsors who were potentially interested in sponsoring RL but now won't because of the Stobart deal. I simply don't believe that.

 

This argument doesn't stack up.

 

Foxy, Brut, Heinz, Irn Bru, Tetleys etc are all paying more than Stobart did, but for less coverage - surely the same principle would apply to these sponsors too?



#112 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,891 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:13 AM

Has that been decided yet?

 
 

Apologies if I read the articles wrongly, but I was under the impression funding would be given to the lower teams under this proposal. If this isn't the case, I agree with you.

It's only possible to give "indicative values" at the moment because the RFL don't know what's available to be distributed so far ahead.

Those were something like ...

The four clubs who started off Phase One in the top twelve £1.25m

The two* clubs thrown out of $uperleague £800k

The two Championship clubs £120k to £180k according to different sources

Obviously, the final amounts may vary but its clear that the RFL's current intention is that there'll be a huge disparity in funding.

*Assuming those two qualify for the middle division.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#113 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,481 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:15 AM

On the principle of clubs only grow in SL, and only with adequate investment and business acumen, that there are limited fan and player resources, but we need to stay away from being an M62 league and save London, and that two clubs in one place fight for the same resources, here's the plan.

 

12 SL clubs

 

1 in Hull, 4 in west Yorks, 4 in Lancs, 2 in France, and one in London on extra funding essentially from the money saved dropping two clubs.

 

We had 12 clubs for years and the above idea would as things stand (so grasp it now) enable 12 well funded clubs to be in place in a stable league. The Hull and Wakefield areas could grow a strong Super League club each.

 

And again as it stands all 12 could be well backed by private money and good business acumen. Which is something we do now have at most of our SL clubs. Final part of plan - the 12 clubs operate within one holding company - SLE who ensure financial stability across the board and step in and help when there is a threat to one because that is as we are finding out a threat to all.

 

Not far fetched, not overambitious, but something along the lines Neil Hudgell was telling us SL were thinking about. We have has 17 years of SL half working. In another 17 years this plan could get it working, and if it doesn't then at least we tried our best.



#114 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,688 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:16 AM

 
 It's only possible to give "indicative values" at the moment because the RFL don't know what's available to be distributed so far ahead.

Those were something like ...

The four clubs who started off Phase One in the top twelve £1.25m

The two* clubs thrown out of $uperleague £800k

The two Championship clubs £120k to £180k according to different sources

Obviously, the final amounts may vary but its clear that the RFL's current intention is that there'll be a huge disparity in funding.

*Assuming those two qualify for the middle division.

 So there is an increase in funding proposed from current levels?



#115 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,891 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:18 AM

So there is an increase in funding proposed from current levels?

I never said there wasn't an increase. I said there was a disparity.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#116 foozler

foozler
  • Coach
  • 1,000 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:22 AM

It all about how the clubs can get more money from more fixtures though.

 

To a certain extent it is, if you are talking extra matches = extra opportunities for off field commercial revenue raising such as corporate boxes etc.

 

However a large driver behind the RFL's proposals is the recognition that given the same financial terms, there is actually very little difference between the bottom 4 clubs in SL and say the top 4 or 5 in the Championship, and increasing the competition between the two.

 

There is no golden ticket here, the some of the proposals are pandering to everyone and will end up creating an almighty mess. Any change needs to be straightforward to explain and administer. My view is that SL will should have two leagues of 12, SL 1 being the top flight, SL2 being the equivalent of the current Championship. All 24 clubs will need to meet certain standards, which would take into account the different economic/ financial realities of the two leagues and there would need to be a re-assessment every so many years. There will be bi-annual promotion between the two divisions subject to promoted sides meeting minimum standards criteria. Promotion/ relegation every second year gives the promoted side a period of grace if you like, to make the adjustment from part time to full time and for a squad to gell. Obviously there would need to me some kind of mechanism to allow movement between the bottom of SL 2 and the next division for aspiring clubs from lower down the league structure.



#117 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:25 AM

I never said there wasn't an increase. I said there was a disparity.


No you said

But there is no increase in funding. Championship clubs are longer odds to get promotion under the 12x2,3x8 system than under licensing.


The Halifax chairman has stated that the level of funding is still being discussed. But he gave the impression this would be increased.

#118 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,891 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:28 AM

To a certain extent it is, if you are talking extra matches = extra opportunities for off field commercial revenue raising such as corporate boxes etc.
 
However a large driver behind the RFL's proposals is the recognition that given the same financial terms, there is actually very little difference between the bottom 4 clubs in SL and say the top 4 or 5 in the Championship, and increasing the competition between the two.
 
There is no golden ticket here, the some of the proposals are pandering to everyone and will end up creating an almighty mess. Any change needs to be straightforward to explain and administer. My view is that SL will should have two leagues of 12, SL 1 being the top flight, SL2 being the equivalent of the current Championship. All 24 clubs will need to meet certain standards, which would take into account the different economic/ financial realities of the two leagues and there would need to be a re-assessment every so many years. There will be bi-annual promotion between the two divisions subject to promoted sides meeting minimum standards criteria. Promotion/ relegation every second year gives the promoted side a period of grace if you like, to make the adjustment from part time to full time and for a squad to gell. Obviously there would need to me some kind of mechanism to allow movement between the bottom of SL 2 and the next division for aspiring clubs from lower down the league structure.

To a certain extent, I agree. But the solution is getting the finances of the bottom few $uperleague teams and the top few Championship sides to roughly the same level, so that promotion and relegation can be sustainable.

I don't underestimate the difficulties of that but, without it, we'll just stumble from one crackpot league structure to another.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#119 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:30 AM

On the principle of clubs only grow in SL, and only with adequate investment and business acumen, that there are limited fan and player resources, but we need to stay away from being an M62 league and save London, and that two clubs in one place fight for the same resources, here's the plan.

12 SL clubs

1 in Hull, 4 in west Yorks, 4 in Lancs, 2 in France, and one in London on extra funding essentially from the money saved dropping two clubs.

We had 12 clubs for years and the above idea would as things stand (so grasp it now) enable 12 well funded clubs to be in place in a stable league. The Hull and Wakefield areas could grow a strong Super League club each.

And again as it stands all 12 could be well backed by private money and good business acumen. Which is something we do now have at most of our SL clubs. Final part of plan - the 12 clubs operate within one holding company - SLE who ensure financial stability across the board and step in and help when there is a threat to one because that is as we are finding out a threat to all.

Not far fetched, not overambitious, but something along the lines Neil Hudgell was telling us SL were thinking about. We have has 17 years of SL half working. In another 17 years this plan could get it working, and if it doesn't then at least we tried our best.

How would you select these sides?

#120 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,891 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:33 AM

No you said

Fair enough - I can't argue with that. And you're happy with the increase, then ? You're not concerned that four clubs would be getting about a million quid more funding than some of the others ?

The Halifax chairman has stated that the level of funding is still being discussed. But he gave the impression this would be increased.

Indeed - it is being discussed. Because the RFL don't know how big the pot is. Maybe it'll be nothing. We don't know. Maybe the Halifax Chairman's right. Maybe it will be increased. But maybe he ought to see whether it's increased before he votes, not rely on his impression.

Edited by Griff, 20 June 2013 - 11:34 AM.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users