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

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?

And sold Central Park to balance books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And sold Central Park to balance books.

Except it was more complicated than that. They made money year after year and had no sugar daddy, until the man who built them a better and bigger stadium bought the company.

What Wigan showed was not that they had an unsustainable financial model, but rather that having a single team mopping up year after year is dreadful for the game generally. Hence the levelling effect of the s c is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it was more complicated than that. They made money year after year and had no sugar daddy, until the man who built them a better and bigger stadium bought the company.

What Wigan showed was not that they had an unsustainable financial model, but rather that having a single team mopping up year after year is dreadful for the game generally. Hence the levelling effect of the s c is a good thing.

Over spending isn't complicated or am I totally wrong??

12 mil from tescos say Wigan were in the poo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One positive by product caused by an increase to 20 full time pro clubs might be an improvement in the challenge cup (ie, more upsets, more intense early rounds etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I disagree, I'd still have licensing between SL2 or SL 'Division 1' (if the top League was called 'Premier'?) and the Championship. With 3 year licensing, so if teams under-perform they lose their license and if a team meets criteria can gain a license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the obvious problem - there not being enough money in the game to sustain 12 M62 full-time professional clubs, never mind 17/18 - aren't we in danger of transforming solid semi-pro clubs into something they can't sustain long-term?

Also, let's assume that there is no further broadcasting money forthcoming - Sky want top-level rugby league, not second tier - why would the Super League clubs give up any of the TV money. By all accounts they are struggling with the current funding set-up, surely they top clubs would want increased funding from any reduction in the size of Super League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the obvious problem - there not being enough money in the game to sustain 12 M62 full-time professional clubs, never mind 17/18 - aren't we in danger of transforming solid semi-pro clubs into something they can't sustain long-term?

Also, let's assume that there is no further broadcasting money forthcoming - Sky want top-level rugby league, not second tier - why would the Super League clubs give up any of the TV money. By all accounts they are struggling with the current funding set-up, surely they top clubs would want increased funding from any reduction in the size of Super League.

its one of the reasons id have a mid-season restructure as this shows it is an integrated sl.

In terms of clubs wanting more, im sure some would, im sure others would be happy playing the top teams more and reducing the number of games against so called weaker teams.

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.

Something as sensible and innovative as this approach would never leave the drawing board unfortunately. There is a significant proportion of clubs that are wrapped up in self interest and will cling on to the status quo at all costs, regardless of the damage done to the domestic game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over spending isn't complicated or am I totally wrong??

12 mil from tescos say Wigan were in the poo

It's complicated in terms of how the overspending happened. It wasn't the cost of the squad and wages that was the issue, it was mainly the ambition of building the Whitbread Stand in tough economic conditions. The myths around Wigan losing Central Park have been manufactured over the years as a club over-stretching themselves for on-field success, which is a retrospective re-write of history to suit the SC agenda not the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's complicated in terms of how the overspending happened. It wasn't the cost of the squad and wages that was the issue, it was mainly the ambition of building the Whitbread Stand in tough economic conditions. The myths around Wigan losing Central Park have been manufactured over the years as a club over-stretching themselves for on-field success, which is a retrospective re-write of history to suit the SC agenda not the truth.

It wasn't a model that could be sustained and copied. Would Wigan have sustained full-time football without their annual trips to Wembley, winning the league every year and the prize money from other tournaments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't a model that could be sustained and copied. Would Wigan have sustained full-time football without their annual trips to Wembley, winning the league every year and the prize money from other tournaments?

No that's why they got in debt, not just the stand.... But the stand was a major factor!

Didn't help buying Inga the winger for a LARGE fee.... Upwards of 500k some say 1million (inc contract, agent fees etc etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its one of the reasons id have a mid-season restructure as this shows it is an integrated sl.

In terms of clubs wanting more, im sure some would, im sure others would be happy playing the top teams more and reducing the number of games against so called weaker teams.

The problem with the 'middle tier' is that you would have clubs with differing levels of funding competing against each other. If we are to continue to fund the elite adequately, or even increase the money they get, then the gap in standards is going to affect the quality and fairness of the division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the 'middle tier' is that you would have clubs with differing levels of funding competing against each other. If we are to continue to fund the elite adequately, or even increase the money they get, then the gap in standards is going to affect the quality and fairness of the division.

yes, the middle tier would have that issue, its why i would only inclyde 2 from sl2 at that stage, they need to be the best.

We saw Featherstone show that the gap isnt necessarily that huge with s big difference in cap, and i suspect there are gaps of 3-600k already in SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hobsons choice.

Many on here would vote for the no club option, it wasn't Hobson's choice it was an informed decision.

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?

They didn't, see my muliple posts passim.

One positive by product caused by an increase to 20 full time pro clubs might be an improvement in the challenge cup (ie, more upsets, more intense early rounds etc.

No you won't, unless poor clubs become richer you will have no upsets, you can arrange division, scramble places re-invent the wheel and make the sceptical believe in fairies, what you won't do is make a rugby club viable without a lot of money in SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Many on here would vote for the no club option, it wasn't Hobson's choice it was an informed decision.

2. Unless poor clubs become richer you will have no upsets, you can arrange division, scramble places re-invent the wheel and make the sceptical believe in fairies, what you won't do is make a rugby club viable without a lot of money in SL.

1. I'd have abstained and not voted. There would have been no chance of me doing that. It wasn't my club to vote on. I had no shares. Indeed when they wanted money from me I abstained. I'd have walked away and let it go if that's what other had wanted and helped keep the memories alive. and that may well be linked to 2. below.

2. On the basis of an earlier comment from you after people got the idea SKY just may want to fund a 20 club two tier league, along the lines of no chance I feel the only option for the game is to plough on as we stand probably on 12 clubs.

12 clubs can be geographically spread to cover the traditional RL areas where the games strength lies and revive french RL, plus link the "pan-european" :lol: image of the game through London which is a vehicle for the south of England's RL ambition.

8 or 10 clubs won't do this, we'll look like were shrinking away and it would probably be true.

But 20 clubs would dilute the strength of our professional game. As you say there's no more money to be expected from SKY so what is the actual proposal from Gatcliffe? To further starve serious SL achievers of adequate subsidy to give it to small clubs to waste??

We just can't afford to do that, for me it'll kill the game and I'm shocked at how someone like Gatcliffe (have I got that name right) has the cheek to come out and suggest it.

SL is the flagship competition that to me keeps the game alive. The CC clubs don't do that.

To starve the SL clubs of investment to revive the CC clubs is erm....Madness??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We saw Featherstone show that the gap isnt necessarily that huge with a big difference in cap,

I don't think we saw that. We saw Fev beat a club who aren't SL standard, and run a quality club close in the Cup before they capitulated by 60 points to Sheffield.

Do we really think that Featherstone team would have gone well in Superleague?

What we need is a Superleague that has clubs where there is no difference in what they can spend and the amount they can spend is maximised. That will not be achieved with 20 clubs. 12 is the answer and the thinning of the league has to be geographical.

Cas, Fev and Wakey have never provided any meaningful competition for SL's big guns, and they never will do as long as they remain three small underfunded clubs all vying for the same fans and players. An all inclusive SL is professionalising the old first and second division. More expense but no more income to cover it - result disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Something as sensible and innovative as this approach would never leave the drawing board unfortunately.

2. There is a significant proportion of clubs that are wrapped up in self interest and will cling on to the status quo at all costs,

3. Regardless of the damage done to the domestic game.

1, As an idea without any funding attached to it is not at all sensible?

2. Superleague clubs like Leeds, Wigan, Wire, Saints Les Cats run in the interest of Rugby League far more than self interest.

Where do you think the game would be if we hadn't have professionalised the top tier?

3. What damage? the same old domestic CC clubs plod along nicely as many have done for 100 years.

Drop in at keighley - what's changed over the century

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a sensible discussion for the clubs to be having, could a 10 team Super League top tier roll on to an expanded WCC I wonder.

Look forward to seeing what proposals they put forward and how it ties in to the new CC structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1, As an idea without any funding attached to it is not at all sensible?

2. Superleague clubs like Leeds, Wigan, Wire, Saints Les Cats run in the interest of Rugby League far more than self interest.

Where do you think the game would be if we hadn't have professionalised the top tier?

3. What damage? the same old domestic CC clubs plod along nicely as many have done for 100 years.

Drop in at keighley - what's changed over the century

2. It was all about self interest. The top tier SL clubs don't care a hoot about the wider game. It's all about " What's in it for me me?"

3. Plenty changed at Keighley and the self interest of SL clubs, as at #2, killed it off. A prime example of the self interest of SL clubs being greater than the good of the whole game. The same thing damn near happened to London as well. Those voting against their continuance in the league had no thought of the wider interest of the game.

4. Where was the wider love of the game when they were about to ditch Wakefield, now through the happenstance of the Crusaders withdrawal, a successful SL team ?

5. Where will be the wider love of the game when they ditch two or four clubs and pitch them ino the unfunded CC level just so the remainder can have abigger share of the Sky money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless someone actually puts some figures behind this proposal then what's the point??

I'm a firm believer in a more conference like approach, but for any change in format this would at the first hurdle require the votes of 8 SL clubs. ie a majority

So will 4 clubs vote for relegation and less money???

Wakey, Cas, London, Salford, Hull KR, Widnes????? Any of them going to be urging to be relegated and get less money than presently?

Of the top clubs, who will be voting for a reduction in money to spread it more evenly to make a 2nd pro divison???

Saints? I think we have already said we want less teams . ie a big slice of the money from SKY.

Catalan? Could they end up joining a tolouse long term in the 2nd divison?

Bradford? Well they are testing having half the syk money this year, can't see them wanting it to last a further 4 years.

etc etc

In principle I'm in favour, in practice this proposal is going now where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. It was all about self interest. The top tier SL clubs don't care a hoot about the wider game. It's all about " What's in it for me me?"

3. Plenty changed at Keighley and the self interest of SL clubs, as at #2, killed it off. A prime example of the self interest of SL clubs being greater than the good of the whole game. The same thing damn near happened to London as well. Those voting against their continuance in the league had no thought of the wider interest of the game.

4. Where was the wider love of the game when they were about to ditch Wakefield, now through the happenstance of the Crusaders withdrawal, a successful SL team ?

5. Where will be the wider love of the game when they ditch two or four clubs and pitch them ino the unfunded CC level just so the remainder can have abigger share of the Sky money.

2 All clubs, big, small, pro, semi-pro or amateur operate on self interest, not one club votes for an option that will cause the most damage to themselves to the benefit of others. In fact in the case of clubs that have shareholders it would actually be illegal to not operate to the benefit of the company first.

3 As I have shown you more than once the numbers at Keighley did not stack up, they were doomed with promotion and doomed without, cling on to your fairy tale beliefs, but the numbers are there to prove they were heading for bust and you have never ever once provided any facts at all that disprove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was all about self interest.

It was about supplying SKY with an elite professional RL competition which they asked for.

That's what it always was about.

It was about the game getting hundreds of millions of pounds over 17 years supplying SKY with what they wanted.

SKY didn't want semi-pro RL

Deal with it. these are the facts and the realities.

If you or anyone else want to argue this didn't greatly benefit the game then set out where the game would have been today without the £200,000,000. with more to come.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we saw that. We saw Fev beat a club who aren't SL standard, and run a quality club close in the Cup before they capitulated by 60 points to Sheffield.

Do we really think that Featherstone team would have gone well in Superleague?

We saw them compete with a lower end SL team. That is what we are talking about. Not the gap between Cc and SL overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But 20 clubs would dilute the strength of our professional game. As you say there's no more money to be expected from SKY so what is the actual proposal from Gatcliffe? To further starve serious SL achievers of adequate subsidy to give it to small clubs to waste??

We just can't afford to do that, for me it'll kill the game and I'm shocked at how someone like Gatcliffe (have I got that name right) has the cheek to come out and suggest it.

SL is the flagship competition that to me keeps the game alive. The CC clubs don't do that.

To starve the SL clubs of investment to revive the CC clubs is erm....Madness??

Parky, what are you talking about?

Gatcliffe has given his preference, and tbh, I suspect he knows a hell of a lot more about the money and TV situation than you.

On the money point, here's a scenario:

Currently 14 clubs get £1.4m per year.

If this was stripped to 10 clubs with the money staying the same, then you have the opportunity to give either the next 10 clubs £560k funding each, or the next 8 £700k each. This should support them in a £1m salary cap.

Don't go along the lines of 'Sky want this blah blah blah' let's be honest, none of us know that, as long as we have a structure which gives Sky the number of games they want, and the viewing figures then they will support it. You could easily provide 3 games a week if that's an issue. Again, Gatcliffe knows more than either of us in this area.

Any increase in funding next time would see these figures vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an estimate :

Current salary cap expediture by clubs

SL - 14 teams at say £1.6m ave plus 6 CC clubs at £0.4m ave = £24.8m p.a in total

Conference proposal - Conf 1 10 teams x £2.0m plus Conf 2 10 teams x £1.0m = £30m p.a

Therefore at least a £5m increase that has to be funded somehow. Drop in the ocean for Sky but who is going to persuade them?

Then there will be extra infrastructure, coaches, etc costs, plus a junior structure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017