Archived

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

Wellsy4HullFC

The SL Licensing v Promotion & Relegation debate thread

293 posts in this topic

the police?, they broke up years ago. do keep up :)

Has that news actually reached Fev then, must be in the last week or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole topic is great. Once upon a time, teams seeking promotion would have put everything into getting into the team to get them top of their league..one almighty push for one season of painful glory to be followed by further seasons of painful relegated complaining about how unfair the system was and how they were shafted by the RFL,

Now, clubs such as Fev, Fax, Leigh know exactly what they have to do to to achieve entry to the elite competition and stay there. And you know what? They are all working hard to do it. So once again , well done Fev, Fax, Leigh etc .

But wait...there is more! Clubs such as Salford, Cas etc know exactly what they have to do to remain in the elite and you know what? They are working hard to do that too. But NOT at the expense of of the aspirant new entrants because the nasty hateful RFL has promised on of them a place at the next licencing round!

See? The system works.

But what you say isn't true. Halifax promoted in the eighties, won the Challenge Cup and the Championship, Hull promoted in 1979 won everything there was to win. Fev promoted in 1980 won the Challenge Cup. promoted again in 1988, they got to the semi of the Premiership Playoff (twice) and the Yorkshire Cup final. Promoted again in 1993, they reached the semi of the Challenge Cup. Ok they were relegated in '87 & 92 but so what? There was a swift way back and now there isn't.

Teams should have grounds to to suit SL, and be financially sound, but the main qualification should be on the field of play it is after all a sport, and what happens on the field of play is waht sport is for!

After all what happened (is happening) at Wakey, Bradford, Cas, Salford, Crusaders, London are hardly good examples of the financial rigour that Super League requires are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what you say isn't true. Halifax promoted in the eighties, won the Challenge Cup and the Championship, Hull promoted in 1979 won everything there was to win. Fev promoted in 1980 won the Challenge Cup. promoted again in 1988, they got to the semi of the Premiership Playoff (twice) and the Yorkshire Cup final. Promoted again in 1993, they reached the semi of the Challenge Cup. Ok they were relegated in '87 & 92 but so what? There was a swift way back and now there isn't.

Teams should have grounds to to suit SL, and be financially sound, but the main qualification should be on the field of play it is after all a sport, and what happens on the field of play is waht sport is for!

After all what happened (is happening) at Wakey, Bradford, Cas, Salford, Crusaders, London are hardly good examples of the financial rigour that Super League requires are they?

There wasn't such a financial gap before 1995 between full time and part time.

Any team getting promoted now would have to change its entire playing staff to have that level of success. The Championship salary cap would cover about half a dozen $uperleague players' salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There wasn't such a financial gap before 1995 between full time and part time.

Any team getting promoted now would have to change its entire playing staff to have that level of success. The Championship salary cap would cover about half a dozen $uperleague players' salaries.

And there shouldn't be one now but there is. And that's what's very wrong with our sport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there shouldn't be one now but there is. And that's what's very wrong with our sport

One what ? :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm....my post congratulating Featherstone Rovers and pointing out that the majority of posts were positive and congratulatory seems to have been thrown out with the bathwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm....my post congratulating Featherstone Rovers and pointing out that the majority of posts were positive and congratulatory seems to have been thrown out with the bathwater.

You already congratulated them in post #26 which is still there.

Once the off-topic comments now in this thread were moved, your later comment about the majority of the posts in the other thread being positive and congratulatory looked a bit odd left hanging at the end, so I removed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there shouldn't be one now but there is. And that's what's very wrong with our sport

So if a club works it's aris off and gets 15,000 on average through its gates it should give a large chunk of its hard earned money to some lazy gets who only get half that average. Because that's what used to happen under the old levy system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a club works it's aris off and gets 15,000 on average through its gates it should give a large chunk of its hard earned money to some lazy gets who only get half that average. Because that's what used to happen under the old levy system.

Sadly, that's pretty much right - although most of the levy went towards paying referees etc. There wasn't much of a share-out from the levy but the effect was the bigger clubs footed the refereeing bills.

Ambitious clubs need to get some work done instead of begging for handouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a club works it's aris off and gets 15,000 on average through its gates it should give a large chunk of its hard earned money to some lazy gets who only get half that average. Because that's what used to happen under the old levy system.

If you want this nirvana of a strong league from top to bottom then yes they should, because it isn't going to happen otherwise. I'm not advocating it by the way, just pointing out that there are some on here that live in a fantasy world where all clubs can compete equally but it's not true and never will be unless you had a wealth distribution system. Wigan and Leeds will always be wealthy (comparatively) top clubs, Wakefield and Castleford will always be poor relations fighting for scraps and having the odd good season of scraping into the play offs. That's just a hard fact of life and no matter whether there is licensing or P&R nothing much will change in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want this nirvana of a strong league from top to bottom then yes they should, because it isn't going to happen otherwise. I'm not advocating it by the way, just pointing out that there are some on here that live in a fantasy world where all clubs can compete equally but it's not true and never will be unless you had a wealth distribution system. Wigan and Leeds will always be wealthy (comparatively) top clubs, Wakefield and Castleford will always be poor relations fighting for scraps and having the odd good season of scraping into the play offs. That's just a hard fact of life and no matter whether there is licensing or P&R nothing much will change in that regard.

That's a fair point and, of course, the Capitalists voting for Communism happened in the NFL. The downside, of course, is that if a club doesn't pull its weight, it can get voted out of the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want this nirvana of a strong league from top to bottom then yes they should, because it isn't going to happen otherwise. I'm not advocating it by the way, just pointing out that there are some on here that live in a fantasy world where all clubs can compete equally but it's not true and never will be unless you had a wealth distribution system. Wigan and Leeds will always be wealthy (comparatively) top clubs, Wakefield and Castleford will always be poor relations fighting for scraps and having the odd good season of scraping into the play offs. That's just a hard fact of life and no matter whether there is licensing or P&R nothing much will change in that regard.

So maybe Wakefield and Cas should combine forces to compete with Leeds and Wigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe Wakefield and Cas should combine forces to compete with Leeds and Wigan.

The problem is that people seem to assume that combining 2 clubs gives you a club twice as strong. It doesn't work like that unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a fair point and, of course, the Capitalists voting for Communism happened in the NFL. The downside, of course, is that if a club doesn't pull its weight, it can get voted out of the league.

The NHL has just voted to do the same I believe and the NBA already does. The mechanisms are slightly different for each set up but the basic rule that the big market and wealthy teams should ensure the competitiveness of small market and less wealthy teams runs throughout all the systems.

We, of course, have nothing to learn from these pitifully small, backwards organisations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh this is where you've all been hiding!!

Right p&r.....

Those who believe in licencing won't ever yeild.

I and other who want a return to p&r are never going to change.

Is there actually anyone in the middle?

Is there any points to these threads now we've kind of established who has what opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that people seem to assume that combining 2 clubs gives you a club twice as strong. It doesn't work like that unfortunately.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise Cas and Wakey had tried it before.

Short term it probably looks like a bad move, long term I feel its results would be a stronger club and a more competitive league.

Thousands more would watch a competitive Cas or Wakey (so I'm told), so what they have got they don't want. A few vociferous fans are holding the game back in Cas and Wakey whilst thousands (so I'm told) fans sit at home waiting for a competitive club to watch.

I'm not particularly saying these two clubs should be forced to merge, merely that as long as you have three clubs sitting in each others garden they'll all be sitting in the shade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see post above :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry, I didn't realise Cas and Wakey had tried it before.

Short term it probably looks like a bad move, long term I feel its results would be a stronger club and a more competitive league.

Unfortunately we're all dead long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys still seem to think that SL is just the old first division.....

I certainly think it is.

Wigan and Leeds dominant clubs amongst a traditional base of M62 clubs most of which are hand to mouth, most of which can't produce their own players, and therefore augmented by Aussies.

Same clubs winning the same trophies, struggling clubs at the bottom just as useless as clubs at the top of division 2 who are yet to realise this, top of the division attracting too many of the fans, bottom too few, no leadership just individual drift as another year is added to a proud history of struggle against oppression and a lack of major investment.

Oh sorry not quite right.

It's the old first division with £20,000,000 a year or so invested into it.

Pee poor return on the investment that......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry, I didn't realise Cas and Wakey had tried it before.

I'm not particularly saying these two clubs should be forced to merge, merely that as long as you have three clubs sitting in each others garden they'll all be sitting in the shade.

I just luuuurve the parasol analogy. Spot on.

No club should be forced to do anything, also spot on.

But if close geographical positioning creates a situation where the same clubs are after the same players, same sponsors and same new fans and is a negative business proposition then logically SL should offer one SL franchise for Leeds, One for Hull, one for Bradhuddersfax, and one for Calder.

Who gives a flying "V" who get's it as long as it's good for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just luuuurve the parasol analogy. Spot on.

No club should be forced to do anything, also spot on.

But if close geographical positioning creates a situation where the same clubs are after the same players, same sponsors and same new fans and is a negative business proposition then logically SL should offer one SL franchise for Leeds, One for Hull, one for Bradhuddersfax, and one for Calder.

Who gives a flying "V" who get's it as long as it's good for the game.

Tell me again how you come to the conclusion that eliminating three SL teams is good for the game because they are close geographically but keeping St Helens AND Wigan who are in each other back yards or Warrington AND Widnes who are likewise kissing cousins is good for the game.?

Tell me how finishing off Hull with Pearsons money and KC stadium OR Hull KR with Hudgell and the new guys money and with a really good ground on the way to being completed and who get huge Derby attendances is good for the game?

Tell me how dumping Wakefield with Glover and Newmarket or dismissing Fev with all their recent positive ground improvements and investor support or Castleford, still with hopes of a new stadium and still a good upstanding member of SL is good for the game?

Tell me how dumping Huddersfield with a super stadium, a loyal involved investor who has doubled their crowds OR Bradford, who the RFL have just moved heaven and earth to save from extinction and who now have new investment, in a big city with big crowds is good for the game.

Tell me how this new truncated SL with one team in France one team in London with no fans and looking for yet another ground to play at and with all these big draw derbies attendancewise and TV ratings wise games removed from the fixture list is an attractive proposition for Sky as compared to the situation as it currently is?

I don tthink the RFL/SL powerbrokers will be so stupid as to go that route, but dream on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me again how you come to the conclusion that eliminating three SL teams is good for the game

Again?? Pointless doing that to someone bent on all inclusiveness.

Use the City of Leeds, where two clubs out of three were eliminated and the modern day Leeds created.

RL is more vibrant than ever there.

The st. Helens/Wigan suggestion as a counter point is silly and proof you don't want to listen and as desperate a counter argument as I've heard apart from have two Pro clubs only who play themselves 26 times a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again?? Pointless doing that to someone bent on all inclusiveness.

Use the City of Leeds, where two clubs out of three were eliminated and the modern day Leeds created.

RL is more vibrant than ever there.

The st. Helens/Wigan suggestion as a counter point is silly and proof you don't want to listen and as desperate a counter argument as I've heard apart from have two Pro clubs only who play themselves 26 times a year.

To paraphrase Parky "anyone who doesn't agree with me is silly"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To paraphrase Parky "anyone who doesn't agree with me is silly"

It's not about people disagreeing with me it's about a failure to drop personal prejudices and wish lists and engage in the debate.

Do you think it would be clever or silly to merge Saints/Wigan?

Do you also want to engage in the debate or have a personal go at me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh this is where you've all been hiding!!

Right p&r.....

Those who believe in licencing won't ever yeild.

I and other who want a return to p&r are never going to change.

Is there actually anyone in the middle?

Is there any points to these threads now we've kind of established who has what opinion?

I'm genuinely in the middle. I can see the sense in ensuring clubs have, or at least aspire to, good standards on and off the pitch. I doubt if anyone would be complaining if we had a comp as strong as the NRL.

But I can also understand the frustration of fans who think it should be on the pitch that decides who is in which division. I don't think its true anymore that promotion ruins clubs. I'm sure it has some in the past but clearly not having it is no guarantee of success either.

I think it should be p&r with clear, set in stone (realistic!!) criteria beforehand. Not meeting them means no promotion, but the chance is there - not 3 years either. Every other perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017