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

lets face it parksider we have all but sacrifice 14 teams at the mo and its still not working. The league is carrying to many passangers at the mo to me there is to many one sided and meaningless fixtures with 14 team comp

In the new world of a 10 team SL someone will have to finish bottom or do you think that they will all finish with an equal won lost record and let points average sort out the play off places.

There will still be thrashings and serial winners and losers. That's the way of sport. At some point one or more of your golden ten will self destruct ( see Bradford Bulls ) and your already small league will contract even further. There will be no built in redundancy in your model to replace member teams as contact with the rest of the game will have been severed in your breakaway.

The rival rugby code has expanded to 6 countries with multiple clubs in each country competing in big time trans national compeititions and is dragging along the TV companies to cover them but your plan is to withdraw to a small northern fortress of just 10 clubs playing amongst themselves ad infinitum

( forget the expanded WCC competition, this will not fly). Sky will not be impressed.

What is needed is for the SL to be become stronger financially across the board and to become more inclusive and expand. By all means put in another French team and or a Welsh team and expand the northern borders to include peripheral areas like Doncaster, Sheffield, Gateshead and Cumbria. This will make the game big enough to attract viewers from across the length ans breadth of the country and help to counteract the growth of RU.

The signs are there that the game is slowly stabilising and even the failures are proving caspable of resurrection ( Bradford, Wakefield, Hull KR, Widnes and Salford.) The game is balanced on a knife's edge and may tip towards more financially sustainable teams or tip the other way and contract to this successful, but ultimately too small, league with lessening nationwide prestige and influence.

Many of the lower division teams are doing good things to stabilse and improve ( Leigh. Halifax, Featherstone, Doncaster, Sheffield, Dewsbury, the three cumbrian teams ). Even at the lowest level teams are strengthening at the likes of Oldham ( serious ground improvements and team strenghtening ) or Gateshead ( team stengthening ) or London Skolars, North Wales and South Wales, small and continuous improvement and the new teams coming on board this season are good news ( hopefully they will all suceed ).

All this gradual improvment takes time and effort but like a long term graph, the progession is gradually upwards in spite of short term dips.

All this promising momentum should be nurtured and encouraged and panic should not set in and the game retreat behind the barriers of a rump competition of the mega successful.

If all this positive stuff is happening in the midst of an almost depression, then, post depression, the prospects for success should improve.

If there is a need to reduce the salary cap in order for the SL to consolidate into a profitable operation fro all clubs, then it should be done for the long term greater good of the code. the solution is not just to split the Sky money only amongst ten teams and dump the progress that the rest have been making to expand the footprint of the game.

All this will take time and slowly, slowly but it should be progress to regress which charts the games future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no West Yorkshire club with worse attendances than Salford and Widnes. I would take a guess that the two Manchester and two Liverpool premier league soccer clubs might have something to do with that.

I would also hazard a guess that if Leeds United were to become a successful premier league soccer club, it would negatively affect Leeds Rhinos attendances and maybe Wakefield and Castleford.

If Huddersfield Town were, by some miracle, attain premier league status, it would affect the Giants gates.

Wigan, to their credit, seem to be the exception that proves this theory in that they have increased their gates since the advent of premier league soccer in Wigan. but, even there, they play second fiddle in the attendance wars to Wigan Athletic.

Wakefield and Huddersfield have come a long way in their attendances. They had fallen so far that they had to rebuild their whole fan base. Huddersfield were on attendances in the hundreds pre Davy and Wakefield were under 2,000 when they got promoted to SL. I think they are doing pretty good considering and Wakefield are on course to get near the 10,000 average, especially if Newmarket is actually built. I think any premier league soccer club in the West roiding would have an effect on thses positive developments.

I didn't single out SL clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a need to reduce the salary cap in order for the SL to consolidate into a profitable operation for all clubs, then it should be done for the long term greater good of the code.

So is the reduction of the salary cap "good for the code"?

Or is it just good for a handful of clubs who want to be in SL but can't compete?

There is a big difference

Anyone??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wakefield are on course to get near the 10,000 average

But aren't on course to produce professional players.

They're all down Cas and Fev way.

Sadly 10,000 fans don't make a competetive team.

You have already said losing teams lose fans.

We are looking for a format for the pro game in which there's a balance that creates stability, which in turn gives the conditions for sustained growth.

We see this in Leeds, not in the Calder area. 17 years on, and only a rich man can save them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the new world of a 10 team SL someone will have to finish bottom or do you think that they will all finish with an equal won lost record and let points average sort out the play off places.

There will still be thrashings and serial winners and losers. That's the way of sport. At some point one or more of your golden ten will self destruct ( see Bradford Bulls ) and your already small league will contract even further. There will be no built in redundancy in your model to replace member teams as contact with the rest of the game will have been severed in your breakaway.

We have points difference as the first tie-break.

The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have points difference as the first tie-break.

The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom.

Sorry Richie but I disagree. The top 4 clubs will always be a step ahead of the so called smaller clubs it won't bridge the gap if the league is smaller. The top 4 are the top 4 because they pay more on wages and get better quality players making the league smaller wont sort the gap Richie. But to be honest I don't know what will but that's the RFLs job to find a solution that's if they want to of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the reduction of the salary cap "good for the code"?

Or is it just good for a handful of clubs who want to be in SL but can't compete?

There is a big difference

Anyone??

Our problems are built around strangling the potential of our current Super clubs via salary cap, take the ceiling away and limit to 50% income. If that means Leeds/Wigan/Wire/Saints/Hull can spend £3-4M then brilliant - we can look at Welsh RU players again which has a knock on for the Welsh National team.

We must never create equality by holding back the big clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Richie but I disagree. The top 4 clubs will always be a step ahead of the so called smaller clubs it won't bridge the gap if the league is smaller. The top 4 are the top 4 because they pay more on wages and get better quality players making the league smaller wont sort the gap Richie. But to be honest I don't know what will but that's the RFLs job to find a solution that's if they want to of course.

Well, that's your opinion, perhaps, but I struggle to reconcile it with my perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Richie but I disagree. The top 4 clubs will always be a step ahead of the so called smaller clubs it won't bridge the gap if the league is smaller.

Griff says "The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom".

But neither of you back up your stance?

The reduction in the division gives the following SKY monies.....

14 clubs £1.3M

12 clubs £1.5M

10 clubs £1.8M

With 14 clubs some have not been able to pay full wages.

With 10 clubs SKY money pays ALL the wages.

The crowd averages are also likely to rise per club if you take out clubs on small attendances.

Taking out the weakest clubs takes out the weakest 50 or 100 players the best of whom the new "smaller clubs" may feel will improve their team.

Would you gentlemen like to have a re-think and agree something??

All things being even so far I suggest that clubs will sort out on an additional two bases.....

1. The clubs with the best juniors rising up through their careers will get best value for money and performance from these players. Clubs who don't produce top juniors will pay through the nose for ageing stars on their way down. This is what american sport avoids.

2. All things being even an established pot winning club will get the nod from prospective transfer targets over clubs with no record of winning pots.

Also consider if a larger SL (16 clubs 18 clubs 20 clubs) will create an untenable gap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our problems are built around strangling the potential of our current Super clubs via salary cap, take the ceiling away and limit to 50% income. If that means Leeds/Wigan/Wire/Saints/Hull can spend £3-4M then brilliant - we can look at Welsh RU players again which has a knock on for the Welsh National team.

We must never create equality by holding back the big clubs.

Craiq

I love the last line. It sounds great and I'm fed it a lot.

But the reality is that we can't get top Rugby Union players.

I would say that we have a player shortage because after 17 years SL clubs are producing far too few top juniors, the quality of imports is going down, the top british players are looking to NRL and we see players who are ending their careers or fading at top SL clubs being snapped up by bottom SL clubs.We see clubs claiming to be paying full cap losing games regularly against clubs they should not lose to.

I'd put it to people that if the £13,000,000 we spend on SL players every year was increased to £18,000, it may not increase the quality of the playing squads?

I'd throw it in there that if Leeds were allowed to spend another £100K then such as Cas may have to say bye to their quality young hooker Mr. Clark? Mr. Moran would have young Bateman?

Is it the case that unleashing the spending power of the top clubs would severely restrict the bottom clubs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 x £1.3m = £18.2m pa

FT SL 1. 10 clubs at £1.3m = £13m, 27 fixtures and play offs top 5, 1 down. Increase revenues due to 'bigger' more competitive games - becomes a true SUPER league. Cap at 50% income, min spend at £1.65m

FT SL 2. 10 clubs at £580k = £5.8m pa, difference from above plus 6 clubs currently getting 100k from rfl in Championship. 27 Fixtures with top 5 play off winner promoted if willing to meet £1.65m player spend. Explore opportunities to expand sky deal for a weekly fixture. max spend 50% income min £1m.

3 year franchise, objective to move to 10/12 then 12/12 as enough clubs able/willing to meet criteria. Clubs entering admin would be removed should a non SL club have met criteria and wished to move up.

Ideally imo:

SL 1 to consist of Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Wire, Saints, Hull, London, Catalans, Huddersfield and Wakey/HKR. 3 non EU in squad

SL 2 to consist of Cas, Salford, HKR/Wakey, Widnes, Fev, Fax, Leigh, Welsh club, Toulouse and Sheff/Cumbrian team. 2 non EU in squad

Benefits:

1. Intensity

2. Target RU players in Wales especially

3. Consistent TV Spectacle

4. Platform to grow into

5. Unifies sport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 x £1.3m = £18.2m pa

FT SL 1. 10 clubs at £1.3m = £13m, 27 fixtures and play offs top 5, 1 down. Increase revenues due to 'bigger' more competitive games - becomes a true SUPER league. Cap at 50% income, min spend at £1.65m

FT SL 2. 10 clubs at £580k = £5.8m pa, difference from above plus 6 clubs currently getting 100k from rfl in Championship. 27 Fixtures with top 5 play off winner promoted if willing to meet £1.65m player spend. Explore opportunities to expand sky deal for a weekly fixture. max spend 50% income min £1m.

3 year franchise, objective to move to 10/12 then 12/12 as enough clubs able/willing to meet criteria. Clubs entering admin would be removed should a non SL club have met criteria and wished to move up.

Ideally imo:

SL 1 to consist of Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Wire, Saints, Hull, London, Catalans, Huddersfield and Wakey/HKR. 3 non EU in squad

SL 2 to consist of Cas, Salford, HKR/Wakey, Widnes, Fev, Fax, Leigh, Welsh club, Toulouse and Sheff/Cumbrian team. 2 non EU in squad

Benefits:

1. Intensity

2. Target RU players in Wales especially

3. Consistent TV Spectacle

4. Platform to grow into

5. Unifies sport

Very interesting proposition.

You missed Hunslet BTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting proposition.

You missed Hunslet BTW

I assumed the twinning put them out of contention, otherwise they were a shoe in, but in 3 years after pulling out of the partnership who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the reduction of the salary cap "good for the code"?

Or is it just good for a handful of clubs who want to be in SL but can't compete?

There is a big difference

Anyone??

It's good for three reasons.

1. It allows more SL teams to be able to function and so prevents a regression to a small boring rump of a 6 or 7 team league.

2. It allows some of the top CC clubs to be more able to develop to the point where they too can compete in SL. It enlrages the gene pool. Interbreeding in small family units is bad.

3. It stabilises the whole top tier and prevents the mass bankruptcies we have seen in the last few years and so allows the game to present a more positive image of a large, vibrant, stable competition to the outsdie world to encourage sponsors , investors and TV companies to be part of it.

4. It does not have to be permanent. If the whole of the member clubs start to be financially stable and able to afford to pay players more, it can be increased as necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But aren't on course to produce professional players.

They're all down Cas and Fev way.

Sadly 10,000 fans don't make a competetive team.

You have already said losing teams lose fans.

We are looking for a format for the pro game in which there's a balance that creates stability, which in turn gives the conditions for sustained growth.

We see this in Leeds, not in the Calder area. 17 years on, and only a rich man can save them.

Wasn't Caddick a rich man when he saved leeds Rhinos from extinction ?

Don't Leeds Rhinos sign most of their juniors from outside the leeds area ?

Wakefield are new to the party finance wise. give them time. they may well produce their own juniors whereever they sign them from a la Leeds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have points difference as the first tie-break.

The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom.

That just dosn't follow. I played for years in a 4 team league and one of then was perennially bad and at the botoom year after year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our problems are built around strangling the potential of our current Super clubs via salary cap, take the ceiling away and limit to 50% income. If that means Leeds/Wigan/Wire/Saints/Hull can spend £3-4M then brilliant - we can look at Welsh RU players again which has a knock on for the Welsh National team.

We must never create equality by holding back the big clubs.

Basically then we must never create equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 x £1.3m = £18.2m pa

FT SL 1. 10 clubs at £1.3m = £13m, 27 fixtures and play offs top 5, 1 down. Increase revenues due to 'bigger' more competitive games - becomes a true SUPER league. Cap at 50% income, min spend at £1.65m

FT SL 2. 10 clubs at £580k = £5.8m pa, difference from above plus 6 clubs currently getting 100k from rfl in Championship. 27 Fixtures with top 5 play off winner promoted if willing to meet £1.65m player spend. Explore opportunities to expand sky deal for a weekly fixture. max spend 50% income min £1m.

3 year franchise, objective to move to 10/12 then 12/12 as enough clubs able/willing to meet criteria. Clubs entering admin would be removed should a non SL club have met criteria and wished to move up.

Ideally imo:

SL 1 to consist of Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Wire, Saints, Hull, London, Catalans, Huddersfield and Wakey/HKR. 3 non EU in squad

SL 2 to consist of Cas, Salford, HKR/Wakey, Widnes, Fev, Fax, Leigh, Welsh club, Toulouse and Sheff/Cumbrian team. 2 non EU in squad

Benefits:

1. Intensity

2. Target RU players in Wales especially

3. Consistent TV Spectacle

4. Platform to grow into

5. Unifies sport

That sounds pretty good apart from 1. What about p and r from SL2 to the Championships and 2. How do you have London, with no fans, no ground and a lousy team in SL ahead of newly cashed up Widnes and Salford in new stadia or maybe even Toulouse in a new/improeved stadium and well heeld investors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds pretty good apart from 1. What about p and r from SL2 to the Championships and 2. How do you have London, with no fans, no ground and a lousy team in SL ahead of newly cashed up Widnes and Salford in new stadia or maybe even Toulouse in a new/improeved stadium and well heeld investors.

1. Covered in post, 3 year franchise and objective to expand by the entry of ambitious clubs able to meet criteria

2. London will work, and must work. It is now producing players but plays in the wrong area

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think exposing ourselves to the wage market of union would be a mistake

There's a lot of getting carried away on this one. Rich owners = raise the cap, buy Union players.

Rich owner = run out and buy up a top class team and race up the table.

The player shortage is very very real, and rival leagues and codes are still financially streets ahead.

The player shortage may well dictate the make up of SL, Noble was all for a reduction to 12 IIRC on this basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just dosn't follow. I played for years in a 4 team league and one of then was perennially bad and at the botoom year after year.

Why didn't they get relegated then ? Nowhere to go ? :mellow:

Hardly proves your point. They were just a team literally "out of their league".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Griff says "The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom".

But neither of you back up your stance?

Are we saying that the bulk of the "blow-out" scores don't involve the bottom four clubs ? :mellow:

I'm too busy with work to give it the attention it deserves at the moment but if that doesn't prove to be true I'd gladly concede the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we saying that the bulk of the "blow-out" scores don't involve the bottom four clubs ? :mellow:

I'm too busy with work to give it the attention it deserves at the moment but if that doesn't prove to be true I'd gladly concede the point.

I don't know, plenty of time to analyse the point.

My gut feeling is based on the extreems where if the top four clubs played each other all the time we'd get a certain level of results including blow out scores. If the top four played the bottom four in a sixteen team league you'd also get mixed results including blow out scores. I'd guess at a lot more.

Inclusiveness may lead to more "foregone conclusions" foregone conclusions aren't too good at attracting fans.

I remember Leeds playing in the old one division in which you played all the clubs in your county. Some dreadful one sided games in those days and some dreadful crowds.

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