Archived

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

weloveyouwakefield2

Super League Restructure Discussion (Many Merged Threads)

738 posts in this topic

On the principle of clubs only grow in SL, and only with adequate investment and business acumen, that there are limited fan and player resources, but we need to stay away from being an M62 league and save London, and that two clubs in one place fight for the same resources, here's the plan.

12 SL clubs

1 in Hull, 4 in west Yorks, 4 in Lancs, 2 in France, and one in London on extra funding essentially from the money saved dropping two clubs.

We had 12 clubs for years and the above idea would as things stand (so grasp it now) enable 12 well funded clubs to be in place in a stable league. The Hull and Wakefield areas could grow a strong Super League club each.

And again as it stands all 12 could be well backed by private money and good business acumen. Which is something we do now have at most of our SL clubs. Final part of plan - the 12 clubs operate within one holding company - SLE who ensure financial stability across the board and step in and help when there is a threat to one because that is as we are finding out a threat to all.

Not far fetched, not overambitious, but something along the lines Neil Hudgell was telling us SL were thinking about. We have has 17 years of SL half working. In another 17 years this plan could get it working, and if it doesn't then at least we tried our best.

How would you select these sides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you said

Fair enough - I can't argue with that. And you're happy with the increase, then ? You're not concerned that four clubs would be getting about a million quid more funding than some of the others ?

The Halifax chairman has stated that the level of funding is still being discussed. But he gave the impression this would be increased.

Indeed - it is being discussed. Because the RFL don't know how big the pot is. Maybe it'll be nothing. We don't know. Maybe the Halifax Chairman's right. Maybe it will be increased. But maybe he ought to see whether it's increased before he votes, not rely on his impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1,Fair enough - I can't argue with that. And you're happy with the increase, then ? You're not concerned that four clubs would be getting about a million quid more funding than some of the others ?

2,Indeed - it is being discussed. Because the RFL don't know how big the pot is. Maybe it'll be nothing. We don't know. Maybe the Halifax Chairman's right. Maybe it will be increased. But maybe he ought to see whether it's increased before he votes, not rely on his impression.

1,I don't know what the funding will be or is being proposed. I think the split would be great for my club if the funding is right and would give them a great chance of competing at the top level again.

2, I am sure he and the rest of the BOD will do exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crusaders' CEO Jamie Thomas has said that Sky are believed to favour the 3x8 Option. If so, then that's what we'll get - even the big beasts can't afford to upset the people who sign the game's biggest cheque. It wouldn't suprise me if they had a get out clause buried deep somewhere in the contract.

 

Honestly, what the hell are the people thinking about with this option? 12 teams in the top league with strict promotion criteria for Championship clubs:

 

1. Full time playing squad with a cap up to £800,000.

2. Decent ground with capacity of 6,000 with most undercover.

3. Academy set up.

4. Full time backroom staff

5. Turnover £1.5 million.

 

Let clubs develop at their own pace over time. 3 x 8 is not a long term solution. It is a short-term quick fix like everything else in this game at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Red Hall muppets never seem to grasp is that 2 of the most important elements are the customers (the fans) and the product (essentially the players). The players have overwhelmingly rejected the RFL's preferred option and it appears that the majority of the fans dont want it either.

 

Before any major changes are made in the game Red Hall itself needs a major shake up. There's too many arrogant, clueless pen pushers in the seats of power, and until they're gone the game will continue to lurch from 1 disaster to another

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick reference to the locked thread regarding Super League Plan E.

 

You have again spoiled my lunch because I though Super League plan E (by gum) would have been a great move to retreat into the heartlands and place every club at the top table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1,I don't know what the funding will be or is being proposed. I think the split would be great for my club if the funding is right and would give them a great chance of competing at the top level again.

2, I am sure he and the rest of the BOD will do exactly that.

If if if if if if if if .....

All I'm suggesting is wait and see. Gather the information you need to make the decision before you make the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If if if if if if if if .....

All I'm suggesting is wait and see. Gather the information you need to make the decision before you make the decision.

Yes " if".

You seem to have made you mind up about the proposal without having any more information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Red Hall muppets never seem to grasp is that 2 of the most important elements are the customers (the fans) and the product (essentially the players). The players have overwhelmingly rejected the RFL's preferred option and it appears that the majority of the fans dont want it either.

 

Before any major changes are made in the game Red Hall itself needs a major shake up. There's too many arrogant, clueless pen pushers in the seats of power, and until they're gone the game will continue to lurch from 1 disaster to another

 Firstly, the vote on here saw this option as the favoured option, so that's a bad start to your post.

 

Secondly, the players are not the most important element at all. It may sound harsh, but they will come and go, ultimately they will play on the Rugby field for who they are paid by. Sure, give them a say, but just because you can catch a ball does not mean you have a good off-field business brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Red Hall muppets never seem to grasp is that 2 of the most important elements are the customers (the fans) and the product (essentially the players). The players have overwhelmingly rejected the RFL's preferred option and it appears that the majority of the fans dont want it either.

Before any major changes are made in the game Red Hall itself needs a major shake up. There's too many arrogant, clueless pen pushers in the seats of power, and until they're gone the game will continue to lurch from 1 disaster to another

My understanding was that fans did want it.

Personally I am on favour of the super 8's proposal. Weve tried a 12 team SL before with one up one down (and the unfair parachute payment) as well as the much worse 14 team SL with no promotion. Neither has worked with the latter a disaster.

Who cares what SL players want. It is a fan driven game.

Why not consider also a 14 team SL with 2 up and down with no parachute payments but rather termination of players contracts (there should be a clause saying that contracts are void if a club is relegated).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting post and i think conferences are a great way to go. They also provide an easy way to add new teams as and when they qualify.

 

You are wrong though in stating that 1st past the post is the traditional way for RL to crown its champions.  RL had a four team playoff system and a championship final for most of it's history and many teams have come from 4th to win and be crowned Champions.

 

There have also been 16 team championships, Dewsbury and Halifax won from low positions,

 

The Chapionship final as was and the Grand final, as is, have over the years proven to massive drwas both in the stadium and on TV. we would be crazy to throw that baby out with the bathwater.

 

If you went with two co equal conferences based on geography ( roughly) then the system would provide two winners who could play off for the championship and retain the massive cash cow that is the grand final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that the vote is in August

Apparently so. For Parksider and others I'll repeat my quote from Jamie Thomas's piece in the Crusaders - Oldham programme that I put on the 'Martyn Sadler' thread a while back even though it's probably a waste of time:

'I think the telling point is that the RFL have discussed things with their broadcast partner, who favour Option 3 [the 3x8 one] - and whilst they are adamant they are not a slave to Sky, it is difficult to see them going against the organisation who write the biggest cheque to the sport each year..........If the structure ends up as some version of Option 3, which it is my personal belief it will given all the noises coming from different areas...'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm generally a fan of innovation and off the wall ideas, and its clear that there in no consensus in the game on the right structure. Maybe the answer is the thinking isn't radical enough - given the playoffs are king and the league competition is fairly worthless, maybe it is time for regionalised conferences, with division winners advancing to playoffs? Inter-league play could be included NFL style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just merged two more league restructure threads into this one. :banghead:

 

We do not need any more starting.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i think they should go for plan b.............

cracking singer.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding was that fans did want it.

Personally I am on favour of the super 8's proposal. Weve tried a 12 team SL before with one up one down (and the unfair parachute payment) as well as the much worse 14 team SL with no promotion. Neither has worked with the latter a disaster.

Who cares what SL players want. It is a fan driven game.

Why not consider also a 14 team SL with 2 up and down with no parachute payments but rather termination of players contracts (there should be a clause saying that contracts are void if a club is relegated).

 

Send this to Nigel Wood now, we have concrete evidence that the plan is barmy... They'll be advocating the 5m rule, compulsory rectangular stadiums and points for numbers of away fans next.

 

Personally, I wouldn't mind the super 8 system as the fan of a club but I think it would be disastrous for the sport. It looks artificial, gimmicky, desperate and is idealistic.

 

When I first heard of the plan my first thought was that it sounded desperate. It sounds like a sport that it struggling so badly it feels the need to invent a radical system just to garner a bit of interest. A successful sport would never implement a plan like this and I think this will be evident to the wider public. It looks like the last throw of the dice from a sport that can't gain interest through normal sporting practise. Of course relegation and conferences in the NFL were quite radical in their time but they are solutions born out of too many successful clubs for one league. My issue is that we're not struggling that badly or that desperate to resort to such tactics. It says magnitudes that it was Scottish football that was looking to implement it; If there is one league of one professional sport in Britain that looks in dire straits it's professional Scottish football.

 

Then there are the practicalities of it. When I say it is idealistic, I mean that they are ignoring some huge potential pitfalls and likely scenarios that will lead to it quickly becoming a failed system. For instance they are presuming/hoping that the middle 8 will be competitive teams fighting it out to finish in the top 4. However, we would almost certainly see the 4 Super League clubs dominating the Championship clubs unless a SL team has imploded off the field. There just isn't the strength in depth for this to be a reality. I could envisage a situation where within a couple of years crowds at the SL clubs dwindle during this part of the year and many fans see it as the season having ended. If they make the top 4 they don't really care, if they look like they'll be in the bottom 4 they'll abandon ship like fans used to do when they'd already been relegated.  

 

I think they are ignoring the potential issues it would bring with regards to season tickets too. I suspect many would pick and choose their games and wait until they know which 8 they are going to go into. This would lead to a reduction in sales and revenue.

 

It was an interesting idea but it's not the shake up that the British game needs or wants. It's sad to say but too many of the clubs outside of the current 14 are probably too far gone to ever be in the running for a SL club again. This system is reliant on our having 24 strong clubs which we just don't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have we had a poll on this? from all the fans i talk to and thats quite a good few they all seem to think the split league thing is barmy and will be the final nail in the coffin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have we had a poll on this? from all the fans i talk to and thats quite a good few they all seem to think the split league thing is barmy and will be the final nail in the coffin.

 

There was a poll on here a few weeks ago, just under 50% of those that voted went for the 3x8 (the remainder were split between the other two options)

 

Never saw it mentioned in League Express' "balanced" reporting on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a poll on here a few weeks ago, just under 50% of those that voted went for the 3x8 (the remainder were split between the other two options)

Never saw it mentioned in League Express' "balanced" reporting on the issue.

I'd very much take these polls with a pinch of salt. They're not representative enough of the RL community and don't have a large enough uptake. RL fans on this forum are more likely to be pro-RFL than your average in my opinion. If you were looking at 95% there might be a point.

I agree that even a poll like that on their site should mean they at least conduct a larger poll. Sadler is clearly very against the idea but I'd be surprised if he's allowed that to cloud his impartiality on the matter. I should say at this point I haven't read the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd very much take these polls with a pinch of salt. They're not representative enough of the RL community and don't have a large enough uptake. RL fans on this forum are more likely to be pro-RFL than your average in my opinion. If you were looking at 95% there might be a point.

I agree that even a poll like that on their site should mean they at least conduct a larger poll. Sadler is clearly very against the idea but I'd be surprised if he's allowed that to cloud his impartiality on the matter. I should say at this point I haven't read the article.

 

My biggest beef with the LE report was a statement along the lines of "we have not received any letters in support of the proposal"  which I found hard to believe, they got one from me but it was never published.

 

I actually think the poll was significant.  My impression is that the majority of posters here are against the proposal, so to get nearly 50% was not something I expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest beef with the LE report was a statement along the lines of "we have not received any letters in support of the proposal"  which I found hard to believe, they got one from me but it was never published.

 

I actually think the poll was significant.  My impression is that the majority of posters here are against the proposal, so to get nearly 50% was not something I expected.

I obviously don't know your name, so I can't trace any letter that you sent.

 

But I'm surprised we didn't publish it, as we were desperate for letters in favour of the 2-12s, 3-8s to give some balance to our Mailbag page. Our readers were virtually all against the proposal, so I would have been delighted to see someone defending what the RFL was proposing.

 

Can you send it to my email address and, assuming it meets our validation requirements (name and address and a telephone number to be included) I'll ensure that it is goes to the top of the pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest beef with the LE report was a statement along the lines of "we have not received any letters in support of the proposal"  which I found hard to believe, they got one from me but it was never published.

 

I actually think the poll was significant.  My impression is that the majority of posters here are against the proposal, so to get nearly 50% was not something I expected.

 

I'm sorry but it doesn't pass any criteria for being significant. There were 129 votes cast and the vote was very much split across the 3.

 

There were in fact only 62 votes in favour of the Super 8 proposal. This is not nearly a big enough sample especially in a voluntary poll situation. It is not unlikely that people in favour of the radical proposal were more inclined to vote for it than people voting against it. For instance, a number of people might have wanted to stay away from any discussion on the matter because they thought it so ridiculous. Sometimes there are issues in the game that I just don't like to read about. I'm against the idea of dual registration but have read or discussed nothing on the matter. If I was in favour I might be more inclined to talk about it and big it up. None of this is necessarily the case but it could be.  

 

Such a small sample size is easily open to abuse by just a few enthusiastic voters. Online polls are notoriously dodgy and there have been much bigger ones that have been affected by one option having more enthusiastic voters rather than necessarily more numerous.

 

Like I said, it should have prompted at least a proper poll, maybe in the League Express paper which could have guaranteed a larger sample.

 

Edit: From what I've heard of it in person, on the forums and on Twitter, and even by Rugby League standards of negativity it appears to have been very badly received. I'd be incredibly surprised if it was even close to 50% in favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I wouldn't mind the super 8 system as the fan of a club but I think it would be disastrous for the sport. It looks artificial, gimmicky, desperate and is idealistic.

 

Fantastic post and iterates exactly how I feel about the idea. It is a short term fix to a long term problem. It is the brainchild of a current regime who think cutting development officers across the country is the best way to increase participation levels. This will plan if voted in will cause even more damage to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic post and iterates exactly how I feel about the idea. It is a short term fix to a long term problem. It is the brainchild of a current regime who think cutting development officers across the country is the best way to increase participation levels. This will plan if voted in will cause even more damage to the game.

 

Of all the plans this could be the most instantly damaging. There are problems with any plan but the worst that the other 3 will oversee is a relatively slow decline over time, year on year. This Super 8 would be such a fundamental change it could literally cause chaos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I obviously don't know your name, so I can't trace any letter that you sent.

 

But I'm surprised we didn't publish it, as we were desperate for letters in favour of the 2-12s, 3-8s to give some balance to our Mailbag page. Our readers were virtually all against the proposal, so I would have been delighted to see someone defending what the RFL was proposing.

 

Can you send it to my email address and, assuming it meets our validation requirements (name and address and a telephone number to be included) I'll ensure that it is goes to the top of the pile.

 

Thank you for your reply Martyn

 

Naturally I don't want to reveal my personal information on here.

 

I did send it by the traditional method, what is the best email address to send a copy to?  The letter though is somewhat out of date now, given the amended proposals that have been put forward.

 

 

Another thing that has bothered me is that there have been many supportive posts on this forum, yet none have appeared in print.  Is this because of the anonimity of the forum?  Surely a selection of these posts could have been printed as long as their anonymous nature was made clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017