Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
League Express

The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)

4,790 posts in this topic

That team wasn't Widnes, which the other poster is saying.

The club above them were in a relegation spot. They had to finish above the rest of the English teams and they failed. They knew this.

yes, but this was fundamentally wrong. Catalans were given three years notice that they would be given a SL spot and still finished bottom. That arrangement failed all standards of natural justice. It rewarded failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, but this was fundamentally wrong. Catalans were given three years notice that they would be given a SL spot and still finished bottom. That arrangement failed all standards of natural justice. It rewarded failure.

It would only be an injustice if clubs didn't know it was happening and have agreed to it.

The logistics of bringing in a French club are completely different to that if a British club. British clubs (had) it all in their favour. For a French club to come in under the same circumstances would be unrealistic and would be almost impossible to achieve in year 1.

We can't talk about fairness and then give the French a ridiculously hard path to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see why there should be any special exemptions. it smacks of elitism and unfairness. It's like giving some untried new employee a job because daddy is loaded and dismissing a long serving worker or not hiring a better worker because he's not as well heeled.

 

 

Of course it's elitism. The SKY contract required an Elite league. Of course it's unfair to give 14 clubs £90,000,000 of SKY money and the other 23 absolutely zero.

 

Lets cancel the SKY contract then all will be fine and we will be nicely back in 1990.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course if we had a exciting,constructive and competitive league beneath super league then the 23 clubs ( or 30 clubs in my 4 leagues of 10 idea) outside of super league could benefit from their own "cash" tv deal....

Edited by roughyedspud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you on this, but I wonder if Hull City have had a larger effect.

 

Maybe but the one major correlating factor has always been success or the smell of it, as against failure and demise or the smell of it. Maybe that's something all can agree on. I'd do the statistics where Leeds and Wigan were on 14,000+ crowds and Gateshead and Gloucester on 190 last year to prove that, however if they don't suit they will dismissed as "statistics, statistics and damn lies" or "you can make statistics say anything".

 

The restructure to 2x12=3x8 if it happens will be fascinating in terms of attendance watching, a major sport in itself on here. For me will the two relegated SL clubs and the four that drop from SL to play off for their SL place be seen by the fans as failures in demise?? Or will they be smelling success??

 

For the two Championship clubs with the chance to get that SL place will the fans smell success and attend in numbers? And how will those play off attendances look after the first couple of rounds when the winners and losers may (or may not) become apparent all too soon. Twill be good fun.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what some people want but it's not sport, is it. I don't see why these new clubs can't work their way up the leagues or, if it absolutely necessary to admit them to SL, then just increase the size of SL and not remove an existing club just to accommodate them.

If any new club from a new area has so much money to offer the game hey will soon rise to the top. Fulham, a previous incarnation of London started life with a 10,000 attendance in their first ever match and had an average crowd above 5,000 in div 2. hey won their promotion but couldn't hold onto their first div spot. if the money had not run out they may well have stayed in the top tier.

Carlisle were similar and won promotion a the first attempt but couldn't sustain their 1st division place. Crusaders went the other route but went from div 3 to SL, then the money ran out.

Toulouse were in the championship but couldn't produce a winning team but it's a precedent for either new French teams or relegated ones that they can play in the lower level. I just don't see why there should be any special exemptions. it smacks of elitism and unfairness. It's like giving some untried new employee a job because daddy is loaded and dismissing a long serving worker or not hiring a better worker because he's not as well heeled.

If a new club has the resources it will get to SL and stay there. Huddersfield and Hull KR fell so low they had to be virtually reformed from scratch but worked their way to SL.

 

It has ###### all to do with fair, or people wanting it, it has to do with things the way they are rather than how we wish them to be.  There is no problem with sport, there is plenty of amateur rugby league, which is promoted by the presence of Super League.  However, there is the question about how to run Super League.

 

Would you honestly say to a new club, e.g. Toulouse or a new club in Ireland "Keep your new market to Super League, increased advertising revenue and TV revenue.  We do not wish to have it".  Will the NFL be making London work their way up? 

 

PSG were a disaster.  They were half baked and poorly run.  Had they been well done well and been feasible, it would have been very different. 

 

Your Corinthian idealism sounds great, but it is self interest. The game benefits from a strong Super League that has to attract as many people and as much money into the game as possible.  No-one is saying Toulouse or Keighley cannot play, they can, but no club has an inherent right to Super League.  You would have these criteria replaced with ones that suit your club more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your Corinthian idealism sounds great, but it is self interest. The game benefits from a strong Super League that has to attract as many people and as much money into the game as possible.  No-one is saying Toulouse or Keighley cannot play, they can, but no club has an inherent right to Super League.  You would have these criteria replaced with ones that suit your club more. 

 

People's view of Super League at times puts me in mind of the Monty Python "What did the Romans ever do for us sketch". Down with the evil unfair Superleague. What did it ever do for us.

 

Secured multi-£Million TV contracts, attracted Millionaires to gift clubs £Millions, stimulates the interest of kids to play with the majority of junior clubs in SL areas, doubled crowds in the top tier and increased them overall, underpinned a professional game enabling the best world cup ever and gives the game respect with the media.

 

But the interests of the individuals who support our game can range from whatever is best for their own interest full stop or whatever is "all for the good of the game". Most are probably in the middle with some fighting the dilemma of supporting a Superleague in principle, but in practice a Superleague they feel doesn't accept their club.

 

I'd love to see the back of licensing and get back to Auto P & R now and have a few years sitting back waiting for all the Championship clubs to "grow" from the grass roots up and work their way up to Super League and be accepted with open arms by the family of RL, whilst the SL failures get their just desserts. No sarcasm here, it just may move our seven year long debate on a bit.

 

BTW for Mr. Keighley I asked you to set out how you feel the two Hull clubs benefit each other in their symbiotic relationship. You said you had to go out, but I notice you came back but didn't say??

Edited by The Parksider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very big thank you for your reply and interesting viewpoints.

 

We are poles apart, literally. My observations/conclusions are that "grass roots growth" is largely stimulated by Superleague clubs in an area, hence Toulouse should be in to become an SL club like Catalans. Outside that the growth of RL has more to do with the free gangway enabling people to play RL instead of RU. From what I can see grass roots growth is very difficult even in northern Championship areas.

 

For me the solution remains making the best we can out of Superleague. I believe it secures the money and underpins the game. To wait for grass roots growth in an era of declining participation is to wait forever IMHO.

 

So top down v ground up. I therefore concur we have nothing in common.....

 

....Even the FA have grabbed grass roots football by the throat to remove the neolithic approach to training kids some coaches have. They are dead set against confrontational football, in order to improve participation by kids deemed "not big enough". I've done my badges and I can see the benefits. The England team is the goal but the personal benefits are fitness, fun and enjoyment through football. I think if RL sorted out it's image and created a game for all as they are doing in Australia, you would probably be foaming at the mouth to see something similar here rather than a second rate player seeing a 10% rise in his wages so he doesn't move to a promoted club.

 

...the irony is the complete lack of quality at half back in this country, traditionally a small mans position, but our future half backs are watching loose forwards weighing 15 stone playing in that role for England. My guess is that these kids are probably running around playing tag and, dare I admit it, a version of touch rugby at an FA affiliated football club. You see the threat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....

Toulouse were in the championship but couldn't produce a winning team but it's a precedent for either new French teams or relegated ones that they can play in the lower level. I just don't see why there should be any special exemptions. it smacks of elitism and unfairness. It's like giving some untried new employee a job because daddy is loaded and dismissing a long serving worker or not hiring a better worker because he's not as well heeled.....

Regarding this bit, the analogy is very poor.

 

Keighley are certainly better qualified for the job of Championship club.  Clearly, there is no debate there.  However, the job they are recruiting for is not that of a part time club, ideally without excessive travel distances. 

 

The job interview is for who will be best for Super League and you are saying Toulouse should not get the job as they are foreign.  You are also claiming it is unfair as they are only getting the job as they are likely to be better at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has ###### all to do with fair, or people wanting it, it has to do with things the way they are rather than how we wish them to be.  There is no problem with sport, there is plenty of amateur rugby league, which is promoted by the presence of Super League.  However, there is the question about how to run Super League.

 

Would you honestly say to a new club, e.g. Toulouse or a new club in Ireland "Keep your new market to Super League, increased advertising revenue and TV revenue.  We do not wish to have it".  Will the NFL be making London work their way up? 

 

PSG were a disaster.  They were half baked and poorly run.  Had they been well done well and been feasible, it would have been very different. 

 

Your Corinthian idealism sounds great, but it is self interest. The game benefits from a strong Super League that has to attract as many people and as much money into the game as possible.  No-one is saying Toulouse or Keighley cannot play, they can, but no club has an inherent right to Super League.  You would have these criteria replaced with ones that suit your club more. 

 

I have nothing in common with you, as you clearly can't see the threat to RL at grass roots. SL will end up being a franchise of the NRL, populated with more foreigners playing at fewer SL clubs. I'm sure that will keep you happy. Th championships will likely have more in common with the amateur game.

 

I suppose the unexpected benefit is that England will win the soccer world cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing in common with you, as you clearly can't see the threat to RL at grass roots. SL will end up being a franchise of the NRL, populated with more foreigners playing at fewer SL clubs. I'm sure that will keep you happy. Th championships will likely have more in common with the amateur game.

 

I suppose the unexpected benefit is that England will win the soccer world cup.

I think we both know a thing or two about grass roots and we have that in common. 

 

I am not saying it is a good thing, I am saying things are changing and the game is adapting.  If you think that Super League clubs would rather have in Keighley rather than a Toulouse who can being in lots of money, then we disagree.  If you think they will want extra money and extra markets, then we agree.  Whether we are happy about it is by the by.  I am not arguing the world is as I want it to be, but as I see it.

Edited by Bob8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe but the one major correlating factor has always been success or the smell of it, as against failure and demise or the smell of it. Maybe that's something all can agree on.

2003 - 11,598 (7th)

2004 - 11,458 (3rd)

2005 - 10,604 (5th & CC winners)

2006 - 10,866 (2nd)

2007 - 14,605 (4th, year HKR entered)

2008 - 13,432 (11th)

2009 - 13,244 (12th)

2010 - 13,731 (6th)

2011 - 12,483 (6th)

2012 - 11,885 (6th)

2013 - 11,728 (6th)

2004-2006 were our three most successful years. They are our three lowest crowd averages. To say that our crowds went up because of success would ignore this fact.

Coincidentally, I significant event occurred in 2007 that saw a significant change in attendances that have never been lower on average than before 2007, and you're the only one too stubborn to admit it.

I'd do the statistics where Leeds and Wigan were on 14,000+ crowds and Gateshead and Gloucester on 190 last year to prove that, however if they don't suit they will dismissed as "statistics, statistics and damn lies" or "you can make statistics say anything".

Because they have no significant link to each other. You're picking random things with a weak connection to try to prove your point and it's completely flawed. It's just not how statistics works, and until you see that you'll be making the same ridiculous methodological mistakes and coming to utterly absurd conclusions.

The restructure to 2x12=3x8 if it happens will be fascinating in terms of attendance watching, a major sport in itself on here. For me will the two relegated SL clubs and the four that drop from SL to play off for their SL place be seen by the fans as failures in demise?? Or will they be smelling success??

For the two Championship clubs with the chance to get that SL place will the fans smell success and attend in numbers? And how will those play off attendances look after the first couple of rounds when the winners and losers may (or may not) become apparent all too soon. Twill be good fun.....

And I'll enjoy the battle on the field more than the battle in the boardroom of the RFL sifting through thousands of pages of documents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's elitism. The SKY contract required an Elite league. Of course it's unfair to give 14 clubs £90,000,000 of SKY money and the other 23 absolutely zero.

 

Lets cancel the SKY contract then all will be fine and we will be nicely back in 1990.

But Parky, p and r does not eliminate an elite top tier league. In fact it strengthens it by removing not so elite failing teams and replacing them with successful ambitious newcomers. One of these finished top last season. What ring fencing does is support mediocrity, a far cry from elitism. It's a prop for failure.

I can't think of one poster on here who is advocating cancelling the Sky contract. Most people would like it to be bigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has ###### all to do with fair, or people wanting it, it has to do with things the way they are rather than how we wish them to be.  There is no problem with sport, there is plenty of amateur rugby league, which is promoted by the presence of Super League.  However, there is the question about how to run Super League.

 

Would you honestly say to a new club, e.g. Toulouse or a new club in Ireland "Keep your new market to Super League, increased advertising revenue and TV revenue.  We do not wish to have it".  Will the NFL be making London work their way up? 

 

PSG were a disaster.  They were half baked and poorly run.  Had they been well done well and been feasible, it would have been very different. 

 

Your Corinthian idealism sounds great, but it is self interest. The game benefits from a strong Super League that has to attract as many people and as much money into the game as possible.  No-one is saying Toulouse or Keighley cannot play, they can, but no club has an inherent right to Super League.  You would have these criteria replaced with ones that suit your club more.

You are quite right. No club has an inherent right to SL. End the ring fencing, stop the closed shop, let p and r return and we will get a SL based on merit and which relegates failure and rewards success. Furthermore it should be true p and r, maybe with financial probity attached as a condition, but no fancy contrived schemes with a built in bias towards SL clubs as in this 3 x 8 ######.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding this bit, the analogy is very poor.

 

Keighley are certainly better qualified for the job of Championship club.  Clearly, there is no debate there.  However, the job they are recruiting for is not that of a part time club, ideally without excessive travel distances. 

 

The job interview is for who will be best for Super League and you are saying Toulouse should not get the job as they are foreign.  You are also claiming it is unfair as they are only getting the job as they are likely to be better at it.

O forget the analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has ###### all to do with fair, or people wanting it, it has to do with things the way they are rather than how we wish them to be. There is no problem with sport, there is plenty of amateur rugby league, which is promoted by the presence of Super League. However, there is the question about how to run Super League.

And how are things? Because that's an argument in itself. You don't make decisions without some aim of where you want to be. I'm in hope that some kind of fair system is an aim of ours. Licensing wasn't a fair system. It was literally a "pick and choose whose face fits, and kick out whose doesn't... in our opinion."

Would you honestly say to a new club, e.g. Toulouse or a new club in Ireland "Keep your new market to Super League, increased advertising revenue and TV revenue. We do not wish to have it". Will the NFL be making London work their way up?

When has this or will this ever happen? Because from past experience, all I've witnessed is Paris, Gateshead and Crusaders drop in too early and fail. No amount of money we can attract will create a successful team in a new area for long enough from day one. It's a complete pipedream. Why people feel we should sacrifice the fairness of the system for a quick buck and a failed expansion effort that has been shown not to work time and time again I have no idea.

It's what annoys me about Toulouse. They're going to get dropped in at short notice at some point, which will no doubt kill them off as it's a logistical nightmare for a club that far away to compete straight away on such short notice.

We had a method with Catalans that has shown to be successful. And you know what... we never once looked at replicating it! That's what annoys me.

PSG were a disaster. They were half baked and poorly run. Had they been well done well and been feasible, it would have been very different.

And Gateshead. And Crusaders (x2).

Sensing a pattern? There aren't the investors available to stick around for long enough with enough money. They come in expecting an easy ride, realise how much it will cost and then because the club doesn't have much history they pull out pretty quickly.

Unless you can find a way to stop this happening, I don't think it's really something we should be aspiring towards!

Your Corinthian idealism sounds great, but it is self interest. The game benefits from a strong Super League that has to attract as many people and as much money into the game as possible. No-one is saying Toulouse or Keighley cannot play, they can, but no club has an inherent right to Super League. You would have these criteria replaced with ones that suit your club more.

1. I don't see how it's self interest on my part. You can't just use that as an argument against lower league fans to dismiss their points when there are SL fans calling for the same (including fans of clubs who have "A licenses"). It makes no differences to the fortunes of my club whether it's P&R or licensing.

2. I disagree with your point that no-one is saying they cannot play. I'd say there's a boardroom of people who pick licenses based in whose face fits. There are clubs whose faces will never fit. They know it. I know it. You know it. And with that glass ceiling placed they'll probably never make it.

Clubs should have the opportunity to earn the right to get to SL. They shouldn't have to convince someone in a boardroom that everything they've achieved is better than someone else based on criteria that changes with the wind to suit who the boardroom want to see in. It should be clear cut. Black and white. Otherwise people don't know what they're playing for, and that turns fans away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keighley, we agree that the situation is unjust and uncorinthian. A club that can come in and bring a new market to Super League, increase advertising revenue and TV revenue will be welcomed ahead of a team that finishes top of the Championship, but would be seen as taking revenue from an existing participant. Is that so?

Bob - I can see what you are saying however there is the likelihood that we will lose parts of our existing markets by not having replacing existing participants because fans/subscribers of clubs in the towns being denied any access to SL, will eventuall give up. I got rid of sky sports largely due to the reason but will renew my subs when p and r returns. I would like the RFL to expand (by bringing in French clubs asap) and consolidate. With luck some of the non heartland clubs will get promoted to SL in the near future thus bringing new markets but keeping the heartlands happy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So top down v ground up. I therefore concur we have nothing in common.....

 

....Even the FA have grabbed grass roots football by the throat to remove the neolithic approach to training kids some coaches have.

 

Not for me they haven’t. I had six years volunteering at a big Leeds junior soccer club up the road from Headingley. The FA charter mark and all inclusive policy was a sham. The abhorrent dumping of kids during the change from seven to eleven a side, the dismissal of “B” sides as not worth the bother, and a procession of Neolithic Alex Ferguson wannabees managing sides, without whom we’d have had hardly any  managers at all was first hand experience enough of the realities.

 

The reality for Junior RL in the heart of the highly successful Rhinos country is even here it remains a minority sport sharing the few kids who want to play Rugby with erm “Rugby”. The interest in RL one poster recently termed “an extreme sport” is in watching it as a professional game not playing it. Mass participation is a dream IMHO and participation to levels that spawn adequate professionals to form a professional side is mainly (from the top numbers down) in places like Wigan, Calder, Leeds, Bradhuddersfax, Hull St.Helens and widnes/warrington After that it’s poor even in the so called heartlands.

 

The reality of paying fans is also that these areas can attract the vast bulk of that resource too. For me Superleague has to live in the real world as it is today and play to Rugby leagues strengths every time and not leave the whole thing to chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the likelihood that we will lose parts of our existing markets by not having replacing existing participants because fans/subscribers of clubs in the towns being denied any access to SL, will eventually give up.

 

But they are giving up and have been for years, whilst conversely new fans have been appearing at Superleague grounds to give a much bigger market overall.

 

Reversing that trend of overall market growth by looking for clubs with small fan bases to replace clubs with big fan bases may suit individuals on here, but it won't be financially any good for the game.

 

The trick has to be a stable Superleague of big clubs distributed such that as many fans as possible can go watch professional elite RL. Those who want something a step down, something local, have always had that choice.

 

Whilst I understand your frustrations and those of others, surely RL has to restructure to maximise itself as a business first and foremost, just what does the game owe us old time fans, and why??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Parky, p and r does not eliminate an elite top tier league. In fact it strengthens it by removing not so elite failing teams and replacing them with successful ambitious newcomers. One of these finished top last season. What ring fencing does is support mediocrity, a far cry from elitism. It's a prop for failure.

 

 

But since when has Superleague been ring fenced?? Sure expansion clubs have been protected from relegation for very understandable reasons. The prize of an effective club in the North East, South Wales or London is something only the most ardent of traditionalists baulk against, The RFL had to try it and apart from Catalans it failed. Hence time to do the same for Toulouse.

 

As for P & R it's always been there in some form or other, it was there a couple of years back when promoted Widnes finished bottom on 12 points attracting 6000 crowds. This last season they were 10th. with 22 points and maintained their crowd level. Maybe they will kick on?. VW says so.

 

Where would they be now if annual P & R had been in place, and more to the point how well would Sheffield have gone in Superleague this last season if they had replaced Widnes? Remember Sheffield have few fans, a poor ground and one amateur club.

 

That's you first question the second is how are Hull and HKR so good for each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how are things? Because that's an argument in itself. You don't make decisions without some aim of where you want to be. I'm in hope that some kind of fair system is an aim of ours. Licensing wasn't a fair system. It was literally a "pick and choose whose face fits, and kick out whose doesn't... in our opinion."

When has this or will this ever happen? Because from past experience, all I've witnessed is Paris, Gateshead and Crusaders drop in too early and fail. No amount of money we can attract will create a successful team in a new area for long enough from day one. It's a complete pipedream. Why people feel we should sacrifice the fairness of the system for a quick buck and a failed expansion effort that has been shown not to work time and time again I have no idea.

It's what annoys me about Toulouse. They're going to get dropped in at short notice at some point, which will no doubt kill them off as it's a logistical nightmare for a club that far away to compete straight away on such short notice.

We had a method with Catalans that has shown to be successful. And you know what... we never once looked at replicating it! That's what annoys me.

And Gateshead. And Crusaders (x2).

Sensing a pattern? There aren't the investors available to stick around for long enough with enough money. They come in expecting an easy ride, realise how much it will cost and then because the club doesn't have much history they pull out pretty quickly.

Unless you can find a way to stop this happening, I don't think it's really something we should be aspiring towards!

1. I don't see how it's self interest on my part. You can't just use that as an argument against lower league fans to dismiss their points when there are SL fans calling for the same (including fans of clubs who have "A licenses"). It makes no differences to the fortunes of my club whether it's P&R or licensing.

2. I disagree with your point that no-one is saying they cannot play. I'd say there's a boardroom of people who pick licenses based in whose face fits. There are clubs whose faces will never fit. They know it. I know it. You know it. And with that glass ceiling placed they'll probably never make it.

Clubs should have the opportunity to earn the right to get to SL. They shouldn't have to convince someone in a boardroom that everything they've achieved is better than someone else based on criteria that changes with the wind to suit who the boardroom want to see in. It should be clear cut. Black and white. Otherwise people don't know what they're playing for, and that turns fans away.

 

 

You make your points very well , I don't agree with many of  them, But they are your's and i respect them.

 

You seem to regard me as some sort of profit of doom, When all i am doing is telling it how it is, As far as i know i have never said i was against P&R but i didn't know that it wasn't available now.

 

 I have said i would love to see Fev in SL ( true ) I have also said it will cost them £3 million a year to stay there, which as far as i know is also true. What i don't want to see is them, or any other club promoted , If the end result  sets the club so far back it takes them years to stabalise , And that has happened often enough.  

 

How has it been good for League for Fax to be where they have been for the Past few years, and how would it be any different for any other club that doesn't have the resources, If it decimates a club , how does it help to say, Well it was done in fairness, It happens to SL clubs , but thats no reason to not try to stop it.

 

I thought the franchise system came in to stop clubs busting themselves to try and get into SL,  It may not have worked as well as was hoped ,but it certainly wasn't working before, , In an ideal world things would be fair, but we don't live in an ideal world, Don't  take that as me being perfectly happy with things,  I just accept things that I cant change. I know most clubs who got Tonked like Huddersfield did for year after year would have gone bust,

You and me both know why the Giants didn't, and that is the reallity of the situatioin, They are still there because they were Bankrolled, Fair, unfair, makes no difference that is what happened.

 

With regards Sky I understood they were prepared to pay for an Elite league, and i suspect that is what they will want, I have not heard anything about them pulling the plug, but then neither have i heard them say they wont, I notice in other sports they don't show a lot of second and  third tier stuff, ( Except for soccer which is different league ) Maybe they know if they do People just wont pay, I certainly wouldn't.

 

I am all in favor of teams getting their chance, but i see no realistic reason for Diluting S L just so we can say everything was done fair,  You seem quite confident Sky are there for the long haul, safe and sound for the forseeable future, Myself i'm not so confident, and as for the BBC, IMO they would offer Peanuts , Which i think is what they deal in.

 

So we shall just have to differ about our views of where the game is going. You think it is fine and given chance will blossom and bloom, we are used as the yard stick by other sports, or at least they pinch our ideas.

, Funnilly enough i don't see them going bust with the same monotoness regularity .

 

For me the Masive improvement in Rugby league (Like every other sport ) has been brought about by money and people with money, I well remember the state it had got to when Sky came along, it was all very fair , So fair Wigan won every cup for best part of ten years, They won them all last year as well but at least they had some competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1. I thought the franchise system came in to stop clubs busting themselves to try and get into SL,  It may not have worked as well as was hoped.

 

2. With regards Sky I understood they were prepared to pay for an Elite league, and i suspect that is what they will want, I have not heard anything about them pulling the plug.

 

3. For me the Masive improvement in Rugby league (Like every other sport ) has been brought about by money and people with money, I well remember the state it had got to when Sky came along, it was all very fair , So fair Wigan won every cup for best part of ten years, They won them all last year as well but at least they had some competition.

 

1. The licensing system was brought in to ensure the clubs who were best placed to succeed in SL were promoted and given three years to build. It failed because we don't have 14 clubs able to build themselves up into Superleague clubs. Several clubs denied a place weren't up to it and several club given a place weren't up to it either. There's only about 8 clubs who are up to real Superleague standard. Oh hang on?

 

2. We had a recent thread on SKY's payments and the record seemed to be we never really delivered the Elite League promised and in turn SKY didn't improve the value of the contract. I suspect 2x12=3x8 won't deliver either, unless the eight put on a fantastic show?

 

3. That gave me a laugh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we both know a thing or two about grass roots and we have that in common. 

 

I am not saying it is a good thing, I am saying things are changing and the game is adapting.  If you think that Super League clubs would rather have in Keighley rather than a Toulouse who can being in lots of money, then we disagree.  If you think they will want extra money and extra markets, then we agree.  Whether we are happy about it is by the by.  I am not arguing the world is as I want it to be, but as I see it.

 

Fair enough. The thing with me is that I don't discriminate, RL clubs are RL clubs and it makes life a lot easier for me to consider where the problems lie by doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for me they haven’t. I had six years volunteering at a big Leeds junior soccer club up the road from Headingley. The FA charter mark and all inclusive policy was a sham. The abhorrent dumping of kids during the change from seven to eleven a side, the dismissal of “B” sides as not worth the bother, and a procession of Neolithic Alex Ferguson wannabees managing sides, without whom we’d have had hardly any  managers at all was first hand experience enough of the realities.

 

You were clearly at a poor club at a time prior to 9v9 for U12's and U14's.  Also the use of "A" and "B" teams is widely avoided. It may also explain why a lot of local talent isn't from Leeds itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. But they are giving up and have been for years, whilst conversely new fans have been appearing at Superleague grounds to give a much bigger market overall.

 

2. Reversing that trend of overall market growth by looking for clubs with small fan bases to replace clubs with big fan bases may suit individuals on here, but it won't be financially any good for the game.

 

3. The trick has to be a stable Superleague of big clubs distributed such that as many fans as possible can go watch professional elite RL. Those who want something a step down, something local, have always had that choice.

 

Whilst I understand your frustrations and those of others, surely RL has to restructure to maximise itself as a business first and foremost, just what does the game owe us old time fans, and why??

 

1. Without proof you can't say that, other than we know approx. 5% of the population dies each year so they have to be replaced somehow. Attributing that in a weak nod  to SL is disingenuous.

 

2. You would be better looking at the overall attractiveness of the game rather than 1 club over another. It reminds me of picking from 14 lads to play in the team. The same 14 can't play consistently all game so you have to rely on the weaker players. In my mind the game is only as strong as all of it's parts regardless of where they sit at any given time and in RL we do not have 14 fit players so what you need are mechanisms for recovery and improvement, use and sharing of best practice. At this given point in time, there are too many weakened teams being relied on to keep getting up off the canvas. Under those circumstances you are in danger of killing them off altogether as more and more subscribers get fed being taken advantage of.

 

3.No it's not, the trick is to have a stable Super League of professional RL clubs capable of competing with one another without going bust. The only demographic is that you can maximise subscribers not through theoretical geography. 

 

4.Correct because the strategy based on licencing has failed beyond anyone's level of expectations. And I am not an old-time fan, I'm simply a fan of RL and I want it to look and behave like an inclusive sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017