Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
clement

It's about time this great game got re united

90 posts in this topic

You don't honestly believe that franchising was introduced to save poor clubs like Workington, do you? It was introduced to prevent clubs like Workington entering the Super League, despite on-field achievements. If you've got a nice council-built legoland ground that looks good on the SKY cameras, or play in Wales or France, then you're in. If not, then no chance.

Do you really imagine that if my club, Batley, were suddenly taken over by a multi-millionaire, finished off our stand (giving us a 12'000 capacity), stuck some money in the bank, set up a thriving Academy and made a franchise bid (we already tick the crucial box of having won a trophy), we'd stand even a slim chance of consideration?

Take a couple of deep breaths and give me a really honest answer please.

The honest answer is YES of course SL will take Batley if they have the ground, the youth set up and can afford the full salary cap, all provided by a millionaire chairman.

Its an absolute YES. They are taking Widnes on that exact basis, and Widnes are as stuck in a triangle of established SL clubs as batley are.

Franchising isn't about shutting out M62 clubs - It would be if the RFL had a choice of clubs all providing the full criteria but they don't.

And Franchising isn't to stop Workington either. It's far more to stop Catalans, Crusaders or London being relegated. The original franchises started with Catalans.

They just can't justify relegating anyone from 11th place anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, and for the record I think getting rid of relegation and the whole licensing thing was a great move by the powers that be. We cant judge it on one run through, we need to wait until its a few iterations old to see the results. The main thing I was hoping for was clubs near the bottom would stop signing over the hill Australians to try and stay up and allow their young players time to bed in without the fear of relegation.

Teams are being given the opportunity to move away from this, some are and some seem to be dragging their feet. There are problems where players are already contracted and we have to abide by the law of the land.

I think the RFL have played it cute with SL clubs, they can't openly ban someone who is legally entitled to work in this country. However by making youth development a criterea for those in SL clubs that over rely on overseas imports to bolster their sidewill be at a disadvantage when the points are topped up. If you like its discrimanation through the back dorr, I'm sure the RFL's legal team have poured over this to try and ensure they don't fall foul of EU law.

I think clubs that continue to fail in this department will be weeded out, once the stadia become less of an issue I think this is where the focus will be, it is now but isn't the headline maker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, and for the record I think getting rid of relegation and the whole licensing thing was a great move by the powers that be. We cant judge it on one run through, we need to wait until its a few iterations old to see the results. The main thing I was hoping for was clubs near the bottom would stop signing over the hill Australians to try and stay up and allow their young players time to bed in without the fear of relegation.

The whole purpose of Licensing was to make clubs set up proper youth systems, and as you indicate earlier in your post you have to wait some time for licensing to have it's effect.

You also have to wait some time for all the lower clubs to actually have a proper youth system turning out quality players. All SL clubs may have academies but the standards have been low.

If you took out all the over the hill aussies in the bottom seven clubs and replaced them with academy players the result would be appalling one sided contests and fans simply not bothering to go in great numbers.

I think the gradual reduction in the overseas players quota will do the trick here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They could be, time will tell.

But it annoys me when people seem to think that it is only clubs below SL who have financial problems. There are many SL clubs who are carrying huge debts forward and sooner or later some of these are going to bite. I've said it before, some clubs are only a heart attack away from bankruptcy.

do you think tha prom and reg during and before super league helped your club?

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The state of many clubs in SL is well known, the whole point is that a lot of financial problems stem from overspending either to gain promotion or in trying to stave off relegation.

That's an easy thing to blame though and is a bit too convenient sometimes. What's the excuse for Saints ? or Bradford ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole purpose of Licensing was to make clubs set up proper youth systems, and as you indicate earlier in your post you have to wait some time for licensing to have it's effect.

You also have to wait some time for all the lower clubs to actually have a proper youth system turning out quality players. All SL clubs may have academies but the standards have been low.

If you took out all the over the hill aussies in the bottom seven clubs and replaced them with academy players the result would be appalling one sided contests and fans simply not bothering to go in great numbers.

I think the gradual reduction in the overseas players quota will do the trick here.

I think we are beginning to see the benefits of the work at youth level as we see more and more good young players being given opportunities. The numbers may not be massive but compared to a few years ago the increase is massive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish people would stop using Workington as an example in these arguments as their relegation was as the first sacrificial lamb on the alter of expansionism by the RFL. Had the RFL not assisted PSG so much to help them finish above Town then Town would have not been relegated and who knows what might have happened?

As it was they did get relegated with players on SL contracts which had to be met and in a lower league. Several players left and the performances in the lower league were poor and they dropped again into the third division and then went in to administration. The period in administration meant that they did not receive any money from the RFL from the Sky monies which only added to their predicament.

That scenario would not happen now for as Derwent states the problem has been legislated for regarding SL contracts.

The example is a bit old and clumsy, but the point is that it costs a lot of money to compete in SL and the whole idea of SL was working towards an even competition top to bottom like the NRL.

Trouble is only a small few clubs can afford SL, then a few more can only afford it propped up by a sugar daddy.

Then there's those who would struggle with it financially due to having no sugar daddy.

At this point in time that struggle can be seen at Wakefield who are in SL, equally that struggle is likely if Fev or Leigh came into SL. Fact is there are NL clubs who can't hack SL and SL clubs who can't hack SL.

I see no point to any NL club coming into SL and setting an affordale playing budget of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you think tha prok and reg during and bfore super league helped your club?

I've already said on this thread that I'm not an advocate of returning to automatic P&R. I just think there are better ways than a 3 year licensing sham that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've already said on this thread that I'm not an advocate of returning to automatic P&R. I just think there are better ways than a 3 year licensing sham that's all.

I think that's a valid call

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an easy thing to blame though and is a bit too convenient sometimes. What's the excuse for Saints ? or Bradford ?

It's very similar, at the top there is nowhere to go (no promotion), but clubs overspend to keep up the success. Simply they overspend to win a different prize, but the whole thing is exactly the same.

The problem with success is it becomes addictive to clubs and clubs will overspend to have more of it when they have had a taste of it.

Success puts up costs as to keep your players to maintain success you have to pay them more, they want a cut a bigger slice of the success pie, Saints have fallen foul of the salary cap over bonus payments for success.

Clubs over spending to maintain success (CC or GF) are as idiotic as clubs overspending to gain promotion. Its the same problem just a different prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've already said on this thread that I'm not an advocate of returning to automatic P&R. I just think there are better ways than a 3 year licensing sham that's all.

I'm not keen on some of the issues that the way licensing is done throws up.

Its weighted to give the RFL the last word on the decision, I think that isn't good for the game, but, and this is a big but, the clubs agreed to the rules and you would hope they understand how they work and what the outcome will more than likely be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are peoples hopes and expectations surrounding the licenses and lack of promotion/relegation? Is the ultimate aim to have 14 teams capable of winning the league within a 3 year timescale? Will we eventually end up with a situation like in Australia where its pretty much a closed shop where teams may get in but only if they prove to be a viable and exceptional club but no clubs will ever be replaced unless they go bust? To be honest im split on this. On one hand it might not be too bad a situation for clubs outside the top league to know they have no reason to overspend trying to get promotion, a know your place sort of situation. But to remove and chance of progression could be massively negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what are peoples hopes and expectations surrounding the licenses and lack of promotion/relegation? Is the ultimate aim to have 14 teams capable of winning the league within a 3 year timescale? Will we eventually end up with a situation like in Australia where its pretty much a closed shop where teams may get in but only if they prove to be a viable and exceptional club but no clubs will ever be replaced unless they go bust? To be honest im split on this. On one hand it might not be too bad a situation for clubs outside the top league to know they have no reason to overspend trying to get promotion, a know your place sort of situation. But to remove and chance of progression could be massively negative.

It is easy to sympathise with the thoughts, moans and groans of rugby League fans as regards licensing/franchising. There is always a decent point in the opinions that are made.

But too many facts are ignored. The first fact we have to face is that since the free gangway came about in 1996 RL has to try to expand - it does not have the option to stay still because no business or sport can stand still.

The second fact is that the difference between the games biggest club and a club seven or eight places down SL is very big indeed.The difference between a club another seven or eight places down the pecking order i.e. into NL1 is also very big indeed.

The third fact is we are competing with RU and soccer and have to set standards largely above what most of our clubs can manage.

There are very hard decisions to be made about the game and they conflict badly with keeping a sense of fairness towards many of those clubs who have being THE GAME for over 100 years.

Licensing is first and foremost in place to stop expansion clubs being relegated - that was exactly it's purpose when London was effectively franchised, followed by Catalans.

In short Rugby League can't afford the strength of the small town M62 clubs destroying the fledgling big clubs of the future.

Hence the unfairness and nastiness that results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what are peoples hopes and expectations surrounding the licenses and lack of promotion/relegation? Is the ultimate aim to have 14 teams capable of winning the league within a 3 year timescale? Will we eventually end up with a situation like in Australia where its pretty much a closed shop where teams may get in but only if they prove to be a viable and exceptional club but no clubs will ever be replaced unless they go bust? To be honest im split on this. On one hand it might not be too bad a situation for clubs outside the top league to know they have no reason to overspend trying to get promotion, a know your place sort of situation. But to remove and chance of progression could be massively negative.

A closed shop of 14 teams will mean that the crowds at other clubs will be sub-1000 gates.

The best examples of this are clubs which sadly have accepted their fates like Dewsbury, Batley and Hunslet. Those are significantly worse supported clubs than Leigh, Widnes, Fax and Barrow. Though I would predict that they'll all get worse.

You might argue that crowds for the precious "14" will improve - however these are less hardcore fans of RL (hence why they are not at games yet). The last thing RL needs to lose much of its bedrock support at its member clubs outside SL. Remember that these are the folk who pay for sky sports purely for RL and also watch internationals. Best to keep them happy by having a free gangway to SL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The example is a bit old and clumsy, but the point is that it costs a lot of money to compete in SL and the whole idea of SL was working towards an even competition top to bottom like the NRL.

Trouble is only a small few clubs can afford SL, then a few more can only afford it propped up by a sugar daddy.

Then there's those who would struggle with it financially due to having no sugar daddy.

At this point in time that struggle can be seen at Wakefield who are in SL, equally that struggle is likely if Fev or Leigh came into SL. Fact is there are NL clubs who can't hack SL and SL clubs who can't hack SL.

I see no point to any NL club coming into SL and setting an affordale playing budget of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017