Archived

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

Terry Mullaney

Two tier SL on the way

724 posts in this topic

Oh I agree wholeheartedly.

So why is Mr. Gatcliffe openly discussing proposals that have no funding?

Parky, how do we know that. as you have repeatedly said, discussions between the RFL and Sky are not in the public domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate, sorry.

We have a brand and it has no value at present..... Not even a penny.

Yes we have associated sponsors,

but we don't have a main sponsor for a game that is live on sky twice a week, covered on sky sports news ( around the grounds) the radio (talksport have regular slots) and some newspapers.

This is a failing of the RFL and this will cause some clubs financial concerns, especially with the downturn in crowds.

I guess what I should point out is I'm very passionate about our game, but alarmed at what isn't happening with the brand.

If clubs are losing gate size due to the economic climate and also losing sponsor money how are they going to pug the gap??

I can see problems ahead, clubs making people redundant, clubs gambling on getting crowds in.... I hope I'm wrong but 6 games in with no sponsor is a fifth of the season gone.

Over and out

What is the bit in bold based on.

You are actually wrong. People are associated with SL, so it clearly has a value. Nobody has come forward prepared to pay what the RFL deem to be the value of SL. Nothing more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh stop being ridiculous.

Firstly, you aways drag Keighley inrto these arguments. they are not in serious or non serious discussions regarding SL. Neither are Dewsbury. Keighley and Dewsbury and Hunslet, having surrendered to the DR dependency would all remain to the lower tier as A teams for the SL outfits. they have made their choice.

Barrow would not lose 120 nil to Wigan or anyone else if they were operating on a SL funded budget. Their team would be a SL standard team. They would do no worse than the hammerings currently being handed out to London, Salford and Widnes.

Over time, it would be up to the lower level teams to raise their game such as is gradually happening at Widnes and Wakefield and seemingly even Castleford. Salford are bottom feeders but they now have money and ambition, watch them improve. It would be up to new SL clubs to raise their game. You picked on Barrow as they are currently the weakest link.

Even now, today, Fev, Fax, Sheffield and maybe Leigh would not get slaughtered bu SL teams and they are currently operating on Championship level budgets. Add SL money to their present status and they will be very competitive.

120-0, 50-0, 30-0 - is that what people would pay to see ? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure anybody in the game is free to table any suggestion. It is quite a big assumption that people only suggest it because they will benefit most from it. No doubt there will always be self-interest (as there should be) but if that suggestion is deemed good for the game then surely it will get voted in, if possible.

With all due respect, it will always be the leading clubs that are seen to be driving the game forward on issues like this. You could argue that this will make most difference to the likes of Featherstone and Halifax rather than Warrington.

We don't hear the views of say Wakefield and Widnes on this though, two clubs who are probably well within their rights to think they should be in SL1, but whom others may think should be in SL2. I said earlier I reckon every team will be on board to cut down SL, just as long as it's not those getting cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I agree wholeheartedly.

So why is Mr. Gatcliffe openly discussing proposals that have no funding?

Central funding is £1.4m per SL club.

£1.4m x 14 = £19.6m

If SL1 funding stayed the same, then the 10 SL2 clubs could get 560k per year funding.

Funding can work however we want, you shouldn't state that funding isn't there as though it is fact. You have no idea (like the rest of us here).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno how having SL Odds and SL Evens would change things though? They'd still be those at the top who are gods and those at the bottom who are dregs. I thought the initial proposal was to simply relegate the bottom 4 to SL2. And it seems 8 from the current Championship.

Yes - when people talk about conferences, they are talking about increasing the top division to 20, from 14. That would be a massive increase, and tbh goes against absolutely every snippet we have heard from anyone.

We struggle to have 14 strong top division clubs, why do people feel that 20 is suddenly a good idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't hear the views of say Wakefield and Widnes on this though, two clubs who are probably well within their rights to think they should be in SL1, but whom others may think should be in SL2. I said earlier I reckon every team will be on board to cut down SL, just as long as it's not those getting cut.

I'm sure they can ring the press with their own quotes, that was my point.

It is up to the likes of Wakefield and Widnes (for example) to play the politics of it and get enough support to throw this out if they deem it the wrong move. Of course if they make this decision based on themselves as a club rather than the whole game, then they are acting in exactly the same way as the likes of Warrington, Wigan and Leeds.

I'd suggest that if we had 14 really strong teams in SL then we wouldn't even be going down this route of discussion, it would be about how many more clubs to let in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure they can ring the press with their own quotes, that was my point.

It is up to the likes of Wakefield and Widnes (for example) to play the politics of it and get enough support to throw this out if they deem it the wrong move. Of course if they make this decision based on themselves as a club rather than the whole game, then they are acting in exactly the same way as the likes of Warrington, Wigan and Leeds.

I'd suggest that if we had 14 really strong teams in SL then we wouldn't even be going down this route of discussion, it would be about how many more clubs to let in.

Spot on. It's not about increasing $uperleague, it's about cutting back the dead wood from $uperleague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest that if we had 14 really strong teams in SL then we wouldn't even be going down this route of discussion, it would be about how many more clubs to let in.

financially strong or performance wise?......if it's the former perhaps we should reduce SL1 to six teams?......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

financially strong or performance wise?......if it's the former perhaps we should reduce SL1 to six teams?......

You can't run with a 6 team league, you can with a 10 team league.

Strongest 10 on and off the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing basketball to rugby league, love it....... Even netball on sky has a sponsor!!

Basketball is many times bigger than RL. It should be easier for them to get one simply by association. I want a title sponsor too asap. But I don't enjoy matches less because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - when people talk about conferences, they are talking about increasing the top division to 20, from 14. That would be a massive increase, and tbh goes against absolutely every snippet we have heard from anyone.

We struggle to have 14 strong top division clubs, why do people feel that 20 is suddenly a good idea?

When you talk about SL 1 and SL 2 you are doing the same thing or an alternative view could be that you are demoting four SL teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I agree wholeheartedly.

So why is Mr. Gatcliffe openly discussing proposals that have no funding?

Hopefully, he's privvy to more sensitive information than we are (one assumes that he's also a board member at SLE). Sky or someone else might already be interested for all we know.

Either that or he's planting a seed with our major financial backer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on. It's not about increasing $uperleague, it's about cutting back the dead wood from $uperleague.

Regression is self defeating. SL might think a 10 team league is a panacea for all the games ills but it is not. In a ten team league the bottom 2 would just replicate the problems of the bottom two in a 14 team league and the repetitive fixtures and lack of variety of teams to appear on TV would result in stagnation and the erosion of viewing figures due to those concerns and the shrnking of the geographical footprint of the game leading to a loss of susbcrbibers for Sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regression is self defeating. SL might think a 10 team league is a panacea for all the games ills but it is not. In a ten team league the bottom 2 would just replicate the problems of the bottom two in a 14 team league and the repetitive fixtures and lack of variety of teams to appear on TV would result in stagnation and the erosion of viewing figures due to those concerns and the shrnking of the geographical footprint of the game leading to a loss of susbcrbibers for Sky

I wouldn't disagree with that. However, we seem to have a number of clubs in $uperleague who can't afford to be in $uperleague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regression is self defeating. SL might think a 10 team league is a panacea for all the games ills but it is not. In a ten team league the bottom 2 would just replicate the problems of the bottom two in a 14 team league and the repetitive fixtures and lack of variety of teams to appear on TV would result in stagnation and the erosion of viewing figures due to those concerns and the shrnking of the geographical footprint of the game leading to a loss of susbcrbibers for Sky

Would it though?

The intensity of the top league would be at another level to what we have most weeks at present.

Who says Sky don't want a fully professional 2nd tier? There's plenty of variety of fixtures if you've got 20 teams to pick from, rather than 14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which 4 get the chop?

I propose a radical but fair approach first off, list the current SL clubs alphabetically and demote the bottom 4... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

120-0, 50-0, 30-0 - is that what people would pay to see ? :wacko:

Well London put 50 on Warrington and Huddersfield put 45 on St Helens and Hull got stuffed at Leeds already. This is nothing new. The SL money should help equalise the compeition coupled with the salary cap. Things go in cycles. Huddersfield used to be rubbing rags and now are top tier, as are Catalans. Bradford went in the other direction. Salford might well rise rapdily up the power elite standings.

I also don't think those scores you quoted will be the norm. The top 5 o so Championship teams could give at least half the current SL a run for their money now, never mind when they have more funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it though?

The intensity of the top league would be at another level to what we have most weeks at present.

Who says Sky don't want a fully professional 2nd tier? There's plenty of variety of fixtures if you've got 20 teams to pick from, rather than 14.

You are peaching to the choir. I was never against a 20 team top tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well London put 50 on Warrington and Huddersfield put 45 on St Helens and Hull got stuffed at Leeds already.

And Hull have just put 52 on Cas with no reply and Bradford put 43 on Huddersfield at Huddersfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on. It's not about increasing $uperleague, it's about cutting back the dead wood from $uperleague.

Then I hope they have a big enough axe because there's plenty of dead wood currently in the SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't disagree with that. However, we seem to have a number of clubs in $uperleague who can't afford to be in $uperleague.

Then maybe the finances to compete in the SL currently are too much for all but a handful of clubs. Is it that there are too many who can't afford to be in SL or too few that can afford to be in SL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't run with a 6 team league, you can with a 10 team league.

Strongest 10 on and off the field.

Why is ten the magic number? A ten team league would need three games per year , minimum, against the other teams in the league. Throw in the games against another SL team in the Challenge Cup and then the playoffs and you are looking at overkill. There's the possibility that some teams could meet six times in a single season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrington CEO, Andy Gatecliffe, believes there is a way of pleasing clubs both at the top and bottom of SL. A move to a two tier SL - one with an increased cap of £2m and another with a £1.2m spending limit, with promotion and relegation between the two. He believes such a system is definitely on the agenda from 2015 onwards.

"I would like that and think it could work as long as you make it so promotion is achievable so its not such a massive step up"

That would certainly breathe some life into the sport and add a great deal of excitement.

Above comments from Gatecliffe taken from today's League Weekly.

1. Gatcliffe

2. Two tier SL on the way or Two tier SL on the way?

3. See image.

cards_image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh stop being ridiculous.

Barrow would not lose 120 nil to Wigan or anyone else if they were operating on a SL funded budget.

Their team would be a SL standard team. They would do no worse than the hammerings currently being handed out to London, Salford and Widnes.

Even now, today, Fev, Fax, Sheffield and maybe Leigh would not get slaughtered bu SL teams and they are currently operating on Championship level budgets. Add SL money to their present status and they will be very competitive.

Sadly the devil IS in the detail IMHO.

If we had 20 teams in Superleague conferences all able to spend up to full salary cap only the big clubs would spend it in full.

Leeds and Wigan etc would have ALL the best players, the middle teams would feed off the scraps and the leigh's and barrows would have no professional players to buy - there is a player shortage that you conveniently forget.

Leigh currently spend £235,000 on players, Barrow less.

When Bradford had all the best stars and salford didn't they put 94 on Salford.

There's now few Aussies to even things up. We have 350 professionals in a 14 club Superleague.

In a 20 club Superleague we will need 500.

In this fantasy world of conferences there may be some money but there won't be the players......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 21st Aug 2017

Rugby League World - Sept 2017