Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

flyingking

Super League teams to discuss 2 tier SL with P+R

154 posts in this topic

A two tier Super League will allow the RFL to ask teams that are close together to amalgamate.

What a daft post!!

How does that work? You'd need 20 professional clubs. At the moment there are 14 in SL and then 3, 4 or 5 in the division below. How does merging clubs get to 20 pro clubs and then opposition for the likes of Hemel, South Wales and the Skolars to play?

I think that chip on your shoulder is affecting your brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the difference between a 2 tier Super League and Super League + Championship? Other than P+R?

About 8 clubs I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a salary cap of say £2m for SL1 and £1.5m for SL2, the gap between the two wouldn't be massive

That would come to £35M in wages.

Currently wages probably don't even total £25M amongst the top 20 clubs.

So where would the extra £10M come from??

No financial explanation at all has been offered to back this second hand idea.

Even the right honourable Andy Burnham MP woffled on about P & R but could not provide any sense as per the finances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would come to £35M in wages.

Currently wages probably don't even total £25M amongst the top 20 clubs.

So where would the extra £10M come from??

No financial explanation at all has been offered to back this second hand idea.

Even the right honourable Andy Burnham MP woffled on about P & R but could not provide any sense as per the finances.

As you'll see from my post that you quote, I'm giving an example, not stating what the salary cap should be. I was suggesting that the cap for the top teams could be raised slightly from the current level, and the level for SL2 could be lowered form the current SL cap.

I thought that the SL cap was £1.8m, but I see it is £1.65m for 2012 and £0.3m for championship clubs.

The principle still applies and it's still a good idea, whatever the final figures work out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's enough TV money to go round then great!

There isn't, forget it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many problems in the game that need sorting before changing SL or increasing its numbers. Right now SL is a short sighted competition that has low standards and intensity. A quality player will just stagnate in SL whilst in the NRL they cant afford to do it as theres somebody ready to take their spot in most cases. SL should be more than just about the first team. ALL teams in SL should run U23, U21, U18s. If you cant afford to run academy teams then you dont deserve to be in SL. Whats the point of SL if the finances are not there to properly develop things? I would rather SL have less clubs, who can afford to do things properly at various levels on and off the pitch than increase SL and have even more teams that really cant afford to be full time and run a number of academy sides. The Championship should be for teams that simply cant run a fulltime setup. Even then the development of players should still be strong with the top Championship League seeing sides again featuring U23s, U21s and U18s. Having a system where young players can gradually progress and be educated is vital for me. Strength in depth is simply not there at most SL teams and that often is down to poor standards at academy level and not having the money to do things properly. I see that often the English/British school kids often beat the Aussies when playing against each other. But then many just simply dont push on and the Aussie kids have a system that allows them to improve and most eventually play in the NRL. The thinking at SL level has for me to change from just concentrating on the first team to thinking about the future regarding youngsters. There is no point having SL increase if the quality and the right infrastructure not just at first team level but at academy level is missing. I would love Halifax my club to be in SL. But realistically it doesnt belong their right now under the system in place. I wouldnt want them in SL 2 if they cant afford it and do things properly. I am very happy to see Fax as well as Fev & Sheffield run academy sides as for me thats a vital structure of a club. The short term thinking of SL clubs and the RFL is a disgrace and England will simply slip even further behind the Aussies in the future.

hear bloody hear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't, forget it.

As usual, your succinct comment hits the nail squarely on the head.

Talking of which, we should knock all this reorganisation of SL stuff on the head. The problem isn't the structure, it's the infrastructure. As some posters (LRL for one) have alluded to, there are too many clubs who simply don't have the youth and development stuff right. Until we get that right, we can cut SL up however we like, we just don't have the quality in depth.

My club is one of the worst offenders. Perhaps we don't belong in SL and should reassess our position. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hear bloody hear!

I'm worried more young players who dream of being pro rugby players but discarded in their own code are looking towards union as a career option rather than going back to their community clubs.

If the SL clubs can't afford to run FULL ON acadamies then maybe they should leave well alone. I will say that I'm in favour of the acadamy, it's where our best talent should be and see the obvious effects from well run operations but this new system (U16' & U19's) the age gap is too wide and the younger players will hardly see any game time thus losing out on playing development. The amatuer ranks have been hammered since the advent of acadamy rugby, could it be time to hand it back to the comminity game but with real link ups for resources, coaches etc from the pro clubs, keeping the youth at their amatuer clubs and sign them if good enough just like pre acadamy days. That age group from U16 upwards gets seriously affected by the current system. SL clubs could run reserve grade to test these new signings and also to bring back players from injury, etc. I also like the idea of ALL championship clubs to run strictly under 23's for their own pathway using dual reg etc ... maybe, just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get one thing right, nobody is forcing clubs to get into arrangements, they are doing because they see it as the way forward for their club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a daft post!!

How does that work? You'd need 20 professional clubs. At the moment there are 14 in SL and then 3, 4 or 5 in the division below. How does merging clubs get to 20 pro clubs and then opposition for the likes of Hemel, South Wales and the Skolars to play?

I think that chip on your shoulder is affecting your brain.

Lets see :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get one thing right, nobody is forcing clubs to get into arrangements, they are doing because they see it as the way forward for their club.

I disagree, it's not the way forward, it's the option being offered or be left behind.

My fear is the RFL normally change their minds every time the sunshines so will the clubs who sign up for the dual registration be left in a position where they either can not recovery from or are forced into an amalgamtion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not personally in favour of reducing the number of but am in favour of some SL cash going to NL1, with a return to some form of automatic P&R (perhaps with a stay of grace of a year to give promoted clubs stability). The core sky cash to SL or NL clubs should be for academies/linkups with amateurs, marketing and putting general backroom structures in place. Additional cash plus gate/sponsorship/other money would be for players

Clubs survived on no sky money until 1995.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you'll see from my post that you quote, I'm giving an example, The principle still applies and it's still a good idea, whatever the final figures work out to be.

Yes the principle and idea are of course sound. I was just using your post to illustrate the cost of making it work. Had Gatcliffe said the idea was being discussed with SKY along with the new contract I might have been excited by it. As it stands it is more fantasy rugby league, with no sound financial detail.

He says "While some have suggested a return to 12 teams, a drop to an eight team Super League, or a full promotion and relegation, Gatcliffe believes a two tier Super League of 10 sides in each could be an answer".

So there's three things they are considering one highly exclusive, one highly unaffordably inclusive, and one pretty much the status quo before the extra 2 clubs experiment which failed.

Anyway here's the book.......

12 Clubs 1/100 on

8 clubs 1,000/1

20 clubs 1,000/1

Here's the press release "We agonised long and hard over this issue and......waffle waffle waffle.......at the end of the day there was only one way we could go as much as we wanted to.....waffle waffle waffle........"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clubs survived on no sky money until 1995.

Only just and as semi pro's.

Elite professional RL is in place to compete with Union and soccer that should not be forgotten. It's a reality that should over ride fantasy RL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get one thing right, nobody is forcing clubs to get into arrangements, they are doing because they see it as the way forward for their club.

Apparently Hunslet were forced into the move because the alternative was no club.

There was going to be no club until Hetherington sent Ball to stop the clubs closure.

Then he gave the club "an offer they could not refuse" ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Hunslet were forced into the move because the alternative was no club.

There was going to be no club until Hetherington sent Ball to stop the clubs closure.

Then he gave the club "an offer they could not refuse" ;)

So they weren't forced. They had a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a thread about link ups, can't we keep that to one.

On the point of the 2 SL's of 10, I get frustrated when some posters dismiss things like this and talk as though they are dealing in facts.

There may not be money at the moment for 20 teams in SL, but there is no proposal, or suggestion of discussion around this being for now, so that point is not relevant. The discussions need to take place to understand what is the structure that the game would want in a perfect world. There then needs to be a plan on how we get there. If no plan can be worked up then a reasonable structure and plan needs to be drawn up.

I'm not one for kneejerk changes, but I could see some benefits in a 20 team structure, and I could also see it as a structure that could be delivered in a relatively short time period.

High level things I'd be supportive of:

> Salary Cap - eg. £1.6m SL1, then £1m SL2

> Round Robin home and away, then I'd split the 2 divisions into 3 after this.

> Top 6 in SL1 play home and away with 1st straight to GF and 2nd v 3rd in Semi.

> Bottom 4 in SL1 and Top 2 in SL2 replicate the above. Top 2 from this conference in SL Shield GF. Bottom 2 in SL2 next year (relegated)

> Bottom 8 in SL2 play off for SL2 title.

This kind of structure IMHO would make it easier for new clubs to be introduced into the SL structure, Toulouse, Crusaders etc. could be brought into an environment where they could in effect only need a player budget of £800k to be competitive in their division.

I'd see a starting point of:

Wigan

Warrington

St Helens

Catalan

Leeds

Hull FC

Huddersfield

Wakefield

Bradford

Hull KR

-------

Salford

London

Castleford

Widnes

Featherstone

Sheffield

Leigh

Halifax

Toulouse

AN Other

It is clear that certain clubs just aren't in a position to compete at the top end of SL, and I think this is a decent solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clubs survived on no sky money until 1995.

Are you kidding me? Are you trying to use this as some kind of progressive argument?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think it should be east(ish) league n west league then top 4 of each league play off

East;

Hull fc

Hull kr

Cas

Leeds

Bradford

Wakey

Huddersfield

Add Fev

West;

Sts

Wigan

Wire

Salford

Widnes

London?

Catalans?

Add Halifax

Play everyone 3times (21games) n have 2 cross league matches were you play your equal from the other league 1st v 1st n so on then have top 8 play offs, top 4 from each league!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not long since the cricketers split their league into 2 small divisions of 9 each.

Has it increased crowds ? Doubt it.

No but it has improved the intensity and quality of matches and together with other things the number of good English players has increased

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rugby Union manages it in New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITM_Cup

The season is overly short due to how few teams there are. However, with the Challenge Cup, more mid-season Internationals [Home Tri-Nations plus the Exiles (still called the 'International Origins Series'?)] and more cross-divisional games than they have, I think it could work. Say SL 'Division 1' was on 20 - 30% less than SL 'Premier' money then there would definitely be enough money.

Dave T's structure works if all teams met the criteria for a '2nd level' license.

However, would the Championships have to amalgamate if 5 - 6 teams stepped up [if Toulouse were able to play in the expanded Super League?]?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rugby Union manages it in New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITM_Cup

The season is overly short due to how few teams there are. However, with the Challenge Cup, more mid-season Internationals [Home Tri-Nations plus the Exiles (still called the 'International Origins Series'?)] and more cross-divisional games than they have, I think it could work. Say SL 'Division 1' was on 20 - 30% less than SL 'Premier' money then there would definitely be enough money.

Dave T's structure works if all teams met the criteria for a '2nd level' license.

However, would the Championships have to amalgamate if 5 - 6 teams stepped up [if Toulouse were able to play in the expanded Super League?]?

I would only have a 2nd tier of 10 if there were 10 teams strong enough. 8 Could work in my structure, as you break into 3x6 teams at halfway.

I think at that point, the Championships would absolutely become for teams who are happy at the level they are at, maybe as partner teams, or new teams, like Gloucester etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the idea of 2 super leagues of 10, would they be able to negotiate a seperate tv deal with another broadcaster for fixtures in the second division. I'd also like to see less games and more internationals, which a 2 division super league would enable.

If they can keep the salary cap as close as they can then it really could raise standards across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? Are you trying to use this as some kind of progressive argument?!

Wigan RLFC operated as a full time outfit with no sky money pre1995. So why cant todays SL clubs operate on a lower slice of skymoney?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017