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
* * * * - 4 votes

The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
4789 replies to this topic

#801 dkw

dkw
  • Workington
  • 4,438 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:51 PM

So, 41 pages in, does anyone have the full plan as to what's going to happen yet?

Yep, stuff is happening. Stuff and things.

#802 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,687 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 10:07 PM

The competition doesn't need a big boost. It has been more successful than anyone could have hoped for this year and all the clubs appear to me to have bought into it. I think given that all teams have been relatively competitive this year there must be hopes that Coventry will be a successful entrant next year.

However if four teams (or five if Toulouse get the nod) come down next year, what will happen? Firstly in my view it will be a poisoned chalice going up this year as the chance of survival will be minimal. Second the competition will have a group of clubs in it who frankly don't want to be there. We can look forward to the division of death garbage again. Thirdly the league will be unbalanced again with expansion clubs potentially facing the grind of playing heartlands teams week after week with the ensuing damage that can do after consecutive batterings.

It annoys me that CC1 now appears to be an afterthought in the restructure. One of those at the heart of the RFL's plans has been quick to take credit for the success of CC1 this year and now appears not to give a monkeys about it.

As to regionalising it, I know that Hemel as an amateur club have always wanted to play in national leagues. How ironic now they have finally reached semi-pro level that they may be forced to play on a regional basis

 

Thanks for that post - very interesting to read. Looks like the RFL will be cocking that up too...


Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#803 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,481 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 05:02 AM

So they won't know what money they're getting until the season is over?


Or after the first stage of the season in the case of 3x8? In which case you won't get the benefit until the next season, which won't help when facing the SL clubs in the middle eight. I'm not sure this is being thought through.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#804 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,481 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 05:12 AM

There was some mention of a north south split.  I don't think 14 clubs is enough to do this.
 
However, I agree - One competition with 14 clubs will be a big boost to the division.

 

The Policy Review Q&A page on the RFL website has the following

 

What will happen to Championship One?

The Policy Review is recommending that a two-up, two-down system be adopted in Championship One, with the champions automatically promoted and a second promotion spot going to a play-off winners. This competition would feature a league campaign of between 12 and 22 games and could have a regional dimension, should the clubs involved demand it.

 

It talks of a regional dimension rather than regional divisions.


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

#805 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,862 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 07:46 AM

 I'm not sure this is being thought through.

 

By 'not sure' you mean, "Why does every pronouncement look like a hurried reaction to an issue that they've only just noticed rather than a planned strategy where all risks and benefits have been considered?"


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#806 Jeff Stein

Jeff Stein
  • Coach
  • 185 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:02 AM

The Policy Review Q&A page on the RFL website has the following
 
What will happen to Championship One?

The Policy Review is recommending that a two-up, two-down system be adopted in Championship One, with the champions automatically promoted and a second promotion spot going to a play-off winners. This competition would feature a league campaign of between 12 and 22 games and could have a regional dimension, should the clubs involved demand it.

 
It talks of a regional dimension rather than regional divisions.


So they are suggesting that the relegated clubs could go from a 26 game league season to a 12 game league season. Genius

#807 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,496 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:49 AM

Reading yesterday's League Weekly, it *appears* as though the RFL is offering more funding to lower ranked clubs in order to push through its favoured option in 2015.

https://twitter.com/...058173259108352

Am I just misreading this (quite possible at this time of the day), has League Weekly got its facts wrong or is the RFL really that desperate to push through its preferred option?
  • RSN likes this

#808 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,859 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:29 AM

Reading yesterday's League Weekly, it *appears* as though the RFL is offering more funding to lower ranked clubs in order to push through its favoured option in 2015.

https://twitter.com/...058173259108352

Am I just misreading this (quite possible at this time of the day), has League Weekly got its facts wrong or is the RFL really that desperate to push through its preferred option?

 

Some central funding of championship clubs was already in place so I don't think tthere is any extra money. The saving on SL funding is seemingly added to what championship clubs got to create the "pot".

 

From that pot four championship clubs get significant increases in funding for the option which sees the four added to the bottom four SL clubs to fight out which four go to Superleague the year after.

 

If this was now that would be Salford, London, Fev & Sheffield fighting it out with Cas, Widnes, Bradford and Wakefield.

 

On top of that funding would be any rich directors gifts, and out of that lot Featherstone and Salford are the clubs who claim to have that extra money. Some breaking of the old order and changing places is therefore possible, but it's as dependant on the chairmen as much as SKY money.

 

On the straighter option of just P & R between two 12's  two Championship clubs are to be more cashed up and at the moment that would be Sheffield and Featherstone.  The funding is clearly mainly designed to close the gap to make either option meaningful.

 

Will it work. Who knows, but it will be fascinating to watch it rather than watch the bottom of a closed SL rot away.

 

My question is (I may have missed this) will "standards" off the field apply any more apart from a decent ground?



#809 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,144 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:43 AM

Reading yesterday's League Weekly, it *appears* as though the RFL is offering more funding to lower ranked clubs in order to push through its favoured option in 2015.

https://twitter.com/...058173259108352

Am I just misreading this (quite possible at this time of the day), has League Weekly got its facts wrong or is the RFL really that desperate to push through its preferred option?

I can't see the link, but tbh, if it was in the League Weekly, I'd suggest that it is wrong.



#810 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,496 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:57 AM

If you read the breakdown that Mr Lockwood has produced and add up the figures, it suggests that if the clubs go for option two (Nigel's plan) then there's an extra £1million or so to be divided between the championship clubs.


I agree about the standards issue; I've said repeatedly that 'Super League 2' needs to be strictly licensed to ensure that each of the clubs has the facilities etc to compete in the elite tier if promoted.

However, I also agree with Mark Aston that at the moment there simply aren't 12 clubs worthy of a place in Super League 2.

Personally, I'd go for 12 teams in the elite division and ten in the second tier, dividing the money saved in Super League funding equally between the second tier clubs.

#811 jpmc

jpmc
  • Coach
  • 479 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 10:28 AM

I would probably go with a ten club league 2 'at first, and play each other three times if its possible, and i would have two French clubs in.
The criteria would be similar to now,youth systems in place,million pound turn over before the extra central funds and a ground thats deemed suitable

Edited by jpmc, 16 July 2013 - 10:29 AM.


#812 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,496 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 11:05 AM

I would probably go with a ten club league 2 'at first, and play each other three times if its possible, and i would have two French clubs in.
The criteria would be similar to now,youth systems in place,million pound turn over before the extra central funds and a ground thats deemed suitable


I could live with that.

However, rather than repeat fixtures in Super League, I'd also consider the following options as a means of making up the fixture shortfall:

1) incorporating Super League clubs into an expanded NRC type comp.

2) totally overhauling the Challenge Cup with the 22 Super League 1 & 2 clubs joined by two qualifiers in a 24-team comp. there'd be six four-team pools, with the top 16 teams qualifying for the knockout stages.

In either option (I'd favour the latter) all of these pool games would take place prior to the start of the Super League playing season, enabling bigger clubs the opportunity to try out young players etc and allowing Super League to kick off in decent conditions.

#813 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,564 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 11:15 AM

I could live with that.

However, rather than repeat fixtures in Super League, I'd also consider the following options as a means of making up the fixture shortfall:

1) incorporating Super League clubs into an expanded NRC type comp.

2) totally overhauling the Challenge Cup with the 22 Super League 1 & 2 clubs joined by two qualifiers in a 24-team comp. there'd be six four-team pools, with the top 16 teams qualifying for the knockout stages.

In either option (I'd favour the latter) all of these pool games would take place prior to the start of the Super League playing season, enabling bigger clubs the opportunity to try out young players etc and allowing Super League to kick off in decent conditions.

Alternatively, why not create a European Cup type thing with the SL2 clubs, French Elite 1 and any other country that wants to put in a team.  Make it a short pool system much like the union Heineken Cup or their 2nd tier British and Irish Cup.  Use some of the Sky money that would go in the weird bodge of a funding system to subsidise travelling costs for the clubs.


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


#814 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,496 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 11:48 AM

If we get French teams in Super League 2 then it essentially becomes a European comp anyway.

People say that funding the second tier will simply subsidise mediocrity but IMO if the comp is licensed and standards driven we could actually expand the talent pool considerably.

My view is that if clubs in Wales, London, France and Cumbria were able to provide full time coaching to some of the emerging talent in those regions then it'd be great for the game.

#815 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,862 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:07 PM

London sound a bit worried.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#816 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,496 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:12 PM

London sound a bit worried.


Mackey should be worried.

The sooner the RFL takes more hands-on control in the capital and consolidates its operation down there the better.

The Broncos in their current guise are doing more harm than good at the moment.

#817 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 01:44 PM

Mackey should be worried.

The sooner the RFL takes more hands-on control in the capital and consolidates its operation down there the better.

The Broncos in their current guise are doing more harm than good at the moment.

Really? The current Broncos management is awful but, after watching the RFL's decision making process in the last few weeks, I'd suggest they would hardly be any better.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#818 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,496 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 01:54 PM

Really? The current Broncos management is awful but, after watching the RFL's decision making process in the last few weeks, I'd suggest they would hardly be any better.


When you put it like that......

There are capable people at Red Hall though, regardless of whether the CEO is one of them, and I honestly think central control is needed in London, along with a central base for the sport.

#819 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,687 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:52 PM

There are capable people at Red Hall though, regardless of whether the CEO is one of them, and I honestly think central control is needed in London, along with a central base for the sport.

 

Having capable people is one thing but if they have the ability to influence the decision makers is the most important factor. Someone is making awful decisions at the RFL...

 

Agree on London by the way.


Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#820 the phoenix

the phoenix
  • Coach
  • 123 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 09:20 AM

As the RFL have now given green light to one of two options , could someone clarify a few points if they know the answers

 

Option 1 S/L and Championship both to be 12 clubs with P and R

 

1 How will the top 12 be decided , will it be the top 12 from S/L 2014 or will all teams have to apply for a licence giving possible hope to Toulouse,and the likes of Fev,fax,sheff and leigh and teams finishing 13th and 14th in S/L, of an automatic place

2 The following year im assuming that bottom of S/L will be relegated or will it be two spots 

3 Who will replace this team (S) - will it be the regular championship winners or G Final winners - or if two teams then both 

4 Will there be a minimum criteria to be met for promotion and what if its not ? would that result in no relegation that year or the next highest team getting the place and will that criteria be set out prior to the season commencing

5 Regarding Toulouse inclusion , do we assume that if they bring a substantial financial imput/media exposure ,into the game they will be given an elusive top 12 place and failure to do so will result in an offer of a championship place only

6 Repeat of question 1 in relation to the championship and plans for the lowest level (s)

7 Will there be any exemption of relegation for the likes of London,Catalans or any future "expansion" teams

 

Option 2 S/L and Championship both to be 12 clubs with a mid season split to 3X8

 

1 Again same question as Question 1 in option 1

2 After the mid season split , how will the S/L 12 be decided for the following year 

   A - top tier plus top 4 from tier 2 

   B - top tier plus 4 successful applicants from tier 2 with criteria again having to be met

3 Will this option end the play offs as we know them , surely what we have done is create an extended play off , and who is going to be crowned champions IE the main season winners or the split winners , or is there plans to maybe have a play off if there is two seperate winners to establish the current champions 

 

and a couple of questions for both options

1 Are there any more plans for discussion before the preferred option is announced

2 Do we know when that announcement is likely to be made 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users