Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
League Express

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

4,790 posts in this topic

 

  • The RFL
  • Nothing
  • It isn't

From what I've heard, can't 100% vouch for it's accuracy

 

 

Sounds every bit as good business as the Stobart Contract then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're going to pick one year where a promoted side immediately failed and call that proof?

Come on, you're usually better than that.

What about Widnes in 2002? Nearly finished in the playoffs.

Hull KR in 2007 have gone from strength to strength.

Relegated SL sides like Hudds and Salford kicked on for a while (Salford hitting the play offs at one point before having a stinker and going down).

You can't write off P&R (or Leigh) because Leigh had a bad season once.

And for others, you can't blame P&R for Haliifax getting into bother. That's bad management that got them into bother.

Nobody has said there is. It's just a preference for many.

As opposed to the great wooden spoon battles that nobody noticed, or the many great attendances at clubs with nothing to play for from round 18?

Things may not always go down to the wire, but things certainly have people a reason to play for for longer than now.

Again... one club. Only Castleford yoyoed during SL. It's not an argument. They very nearly survived both times as well. And very nearly didn't get promoted.

See my solution.

I disagree. We can improve what we have to help clubs, but I don't think we can't support it.

And yet people want to give licenses to random expansion sides with rich backers as an alternative? This is hardly an argument against P&R.

Again, just because there's unfairness and injustice going on around you doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it yourself. If anything, to say we shouldn't is pathetic.

If this was a debate about child poverty, we wouldn't be saying "well let's feed the more likely to survive kids, it's unfair but there's injustice going on everywhere anyway." I'm not using this as a metaphor for spreading the money around the leagues by the way (rugby clubs aren't starving children!), but you can see how poor an argument it is to dismiss unfairness because there is other unfairness going around

No it was a timely reminder of the previous twenty odd years and how disastrously counter productive it was

 

All sorts if things are the preference of many it doesn't make them the right thing to do...narrow minded self interest is imho a bad thing

 

No: not as opposed to these things. There is an issue with what you describe and people,are aware of it. The point about the relegation battles is that people seem to think they were a highlight of the season when in fact they rarely happened and when they did the attendances were far from what people seem to remember. Time and time again documentary evidence has been provided debunking the myth of the packed out decider.

 

Who wants to give licenses to random expansion sides?

Who are these people and where are random expansion  sides?

 

My point was where is the unfairness and injustice?  People care not being given their own selfish desires because people are doing the best to secure the future of the game and it doesn't suit them? That's what's pathetic as well as blinkered and selfish.

These people need a reality check

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I'm suggesting is that we make a clear distinction about how many British teams we want in SL and how many French teams, and that be decided by a European RL commission. For the sake of argument, I'm going to say it is decided as 10 British clubs and 2 French clubs. The 10 British clubs are then decided by the RFL and 2 French clubs by the FFR13. If the FFR13 decide that they want to franchise their two spots (presumably to Toulouse and Catalans), that's their choice. It's their two spots. They may find later on that Toulouse are failing and Avignon are a better bet. That guarantee that they have two French spots may be enough to help drive TV negotiations.

On the flip side, the RFL may decide that they want P&R for their 10 clubs, so the worst performing British club is replaced by the best performing Championship club. It's open, straightforward, and their choice. What happens with the French is if no concern to the British clubs in the British RL system. They need to finish above the British clubs or get relegated into the next level of the British tier.

I think this is a great idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about the relegation battles is that people seem to think they were a highlight of the season when in fact they rarely happened and when they did the attendances were far from what people seem to remember. Time and time again documentary evidence has been provided debunking the myth of the packed out decider.

It would seem the RFL have paid KPMG £Thousands to ressurect that myth.

Has anyone seen the logic, reasoning or figures behind the idea 2x12=3x8 will grow attendances??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please be civil to each other on this forum...  If you dislike what someone's saying then you're still expected to treat it with respect unless it's obviously trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to be going round in circles with a few, so I'm going to put that to one side now.

The issues we face in restructuring the league are that we don't seem to know what direction we want to go in. We don't have an end goal. We keep going one way or another and upsetting everyone whilst at the same time creating a horrible feel with supporters of the game as things are not being made clear. The system is unfair. People are unhappy.

What most people I've encountered want is a clear and fair system. I don't think I've ever spoken to a casual sports fan who has thought dropping in random teams for no good reason has been a good idea (that doesn't mean it isn't, but it doesn't paint a good image of the game).

The need for expansion is important, but it needs to be done fairly. That to me doesn't mean thy have to come through the Championship. There's more than one way to skin a cat. The Championships are there for British clubs to progress, but start asking a club to fly a part-time squad during the week to another country and talk of "fairness" goes out the window.

So we are left with a European competition that needs to look at different ways of entry if it wants to keep P&R in to satisfy the numerous hungry British clubs (which I think is a good thing all these clubs want to work their way in to the top league and we should find an open way to let them, P&R being one way) whilst at the same time look to admit new clubs from new countries (ie. French clubs).

Catalans entry in 2006 was a successful model that has never been followed. There were still a few issues with it that needed clarity to satisfy those who thought they were done an injustice because of this, but all in all it's difficult to argue that Catalans inclusion into SL has been a bad thing.

So how do we balance the two?

Personally, and people might not agree with this, I think we need to (metaphorically) break SL up. Other European competitions in other sports often have a certain allocation of clubs attributed to each country/governing body and that country/governing body picks what clubs go into that competition (correct me if I'm wrong). In football, there are four PL clubs that are entered into the Champions League. The FA decides that certain positions qualify, and could decide to change that, if they wanted to, to top 3 and the FA Cup winners if they wished. In rugby union, the Heineken Cup has certain teams from RFU, from WRU, SRU, etc. Those countries decide how they pick who enters.

So what I'm suggesting is that we make a clear distinction about how many British teams we want in SL and how many French teams, and that be decided by a European RL commission. For the sake of argument, I'm going to say it is decided as 10 British clubs and 2 French clubs. The 10 British clubs are then decided by the RFL and 2 French clubs by the FFR13. If the FFR13 decide that they want to franchise their two spots (presumably to Toulouse and Catalans), that's their choice. It's their two spots. They may find later on that Toulouse are failing and Avignon are a better bet. That guarantee that they have two French spots may be enough to help drive TV negotiations.

On the flip side, the RFL may decide that they want P&R for their 10 clubs, so the worst performing British club is replaced by the best performing Championship club. It's open, straightforward, and their choice. What happens with the French is if no concern to the British clubs in the British RL system. They need to finish above the British clubs or get relegated into the next level of the British tier.

Later negotiations of the European RL commission may see an increase in the number of French clubs or British clubs. It may see a separation of the British clubs into English (RFL) and Welsh (WRL), although all Welsh clubs are playing in RFL competitions currently which is why I've left it as British.

The Long Term Plan would be to see enough clubs enter outside of the RFL to start their own league (whether that be just a French league or a combined nations league) where they are secure franchises, leaving an RFL elite competition that can clearly promote and relegate sides. If a rich man wants to parachute an expansion side in, they can negotiate with the ERLC and find a place in that European league.

Personally, I think that's the only way you'll be able to keep P&R and expand into other nations in a clear cut "everyone knows the score" manner. None of this "exempt from relegation for two years" when we know they're only saying that because they know licensing will kick in so effectively giving them a franchise during the P&R era. If they want to expand into the French market, give the French more of a say.

I gladly await someone to rip into some parts of that as I have most likely overlooked some important facts (and opinions), but it can always be tweaked.

 

 

This sounds wonderfull, and indeed would be if it could be made to work, But unfortunatly you again use Soccer to demonstrare  it desirability, When a sport is completely awash with Money you could probably make anything work.

League has a very accute shortage of Money , And what there is, is being generated by clubs ( like your own ) the so called Elite, The horrible truth is, That is what is causing the problem, The so called smaller clubs see what the big clubs have and think I want some of that, They are incabable of creating the kind of Money required ( unless they are lucky as my club have been ) so a system has to be found to give them their earned chance, Even if it sets them back for years.

 

The other side of the coin is the Elite clubs who themselves are short ( some far more than others ) are having to invest a lot of their own money to stay competitive and keep up, or try to increase standards, So quite understandable they are not going to be forming a que to support any system that will reduce their incomes. on a promise it will be the making of the game, Listening to clubs talking about what they can do on a shoe string, will cut no ice whatever with them, Nor would it with you or me , if we were the ones putting in the millions.

 

I see all the merit in your Idea, as i say it would be great if it could be made to work, but i don't see how it would increase money coming into the sport ( in the heart lands )

 

Fev are a club who are mentioned a lot on here , because they have done a great job, and have earned their chance, I'm sure they would do ok in some fancy league system on the field,  What i want to know is Whatever that system is, Even one as good as yours might well be, What is going to swell their coffers to over 3 million a year,  The point i'm trying to make is that whatever the system in operation, The cream will still rise to the top either through benefactors or big crowds , Or at the very top clubs both. But whatever it will be Money behind it, because it's behind everything .

 

Imo The CC needs to be lifted to a higher standard, ( not big news ) but also in my opinion that is going to take a lot of money and just tinkering about with formats , just like the past , or promoting clubs to be slaughtered won't deliver, and any format or system that effectively reduces money to the Elite clubs is like to have a very detremental effect, IMO The money coming into league at the moment needs to be doubled at least, Then there may indeed be a chance to go down your route.

 

The RFL don't really seem to me to have their finger on the pulse when it comes to bringing money into the game .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to be going round in circles with a few, so I'm going to put that to one side now.

The issues we face in restructuring the league are that we don't seem to know what direction we want to go in. We don't have an end goal. We keep going one way or another and upsetting everyone whilst at the same time creating a horrible feel with supporters of the game as things are not being made clear. The system is unfair. People are unhappy.

What most people I've encountered want is a clear and fair system. I don't think I've ever spoken to a casual sports fan who has thought dropping in random teams for no good reason has been a good idea (that doesn't mean it isn't, but it doesn't paint a good image of the game).

The need for expansion is important, but it needs to be done fairly. That to me doesn't mean thy have to come through the Championship. There's more than one way to skin a cat. The Championships are there for British clubs to progress, but start asking a club to fly a part-time squad during the week to another country and talk of "fairness" goes out the window.

So we are left with a European competition that needs to look at different ways of entry if it wants to keep P&R in to satisfy the numerous hungry British clubs (which I think is a good thing all these clubs want to work their way in to the top league and we should find an open way to let them, P&R being one way) whilst at the same time look to admit new clubs from new countries (ie. French clubs).

Catalans entry in 2006 was a successful model that has never been followed. There were still a few issues with it that needed clarity to satisfy those who thought they were done an injustice because of this, but all in all it's difficult to argue that Catalans inclusion into SL has been a bad thing.

So how do we balance the two?

Personally, and people might not agree with this, I think we need to (metaphorically) break SL up. Other European competitions in other sports often have a certain allocation of clubs attributed to each country/governing body and that country/governing body picks what clubs go into that competition (correct me if I'm wrong). In football, there are four PL clubs that are entered into the Champions League. The FA decides that certain positions qualify, and could decide to change that, if they wanted to, to top 3 and the FA Cup winners if they wished. In rugby union, the Heineken Cup has certain teams from RFU, from WRU, SRU, etc. Those countries decide how they pick who enters.

So what I'm suggesting is that we make a clear distinction about how many British teams we want in SL and how many French teams, and that be decided by a European RL commission. For the sake of argument, I'm going to say it is decided as 10 British clubs and 2 French clubs. The 10 British clubs are then decided by the RFL and 2 French clubs by the FFR13. If the FFR13 decide that they want to franchise their two spots (presumably to Toulouse and Catalans), that's their choice. It's their two spots. They may find later on that Toulouse are failing and Avignon are a better bet. That guarantee that they have two French spots may be enough to help drive TV negotiations.

On the flip side, the RFL may decide that they want P&R for their 10 clubs, so the worst performing British club is replaced by the best performing Championship club. It's open, straightforward, and their choice. What happens with the French is if no concern to the British clubs in the British RL system. They need to finish above the British clubs or get relegated into the next level of the British tier.

Later negotiations of the European RL commission may see an increase in the number of French clubs or British clubs. It may see a separation of the British clubs into English (RFL) and Welsh (WRL), although all Welsh clubs are playing in RFL competitions currently which is why I've left it as British.

The Long Term Plan would be to see enough clubs enter outside of the RFL to start their own league (whether that be just a French league or a combined nations league) where they are secure franchises, leaving an RFL elite competition that can clearly promote and relegate sides. If a rich man wants to parachute an expansion side in, they can negotiate with the ERLC and find a place in that European league.

Personally, I think that's the only way you'll be able to keep P&R and expand into other nations in a clear cut "everyone knows the score" manner. None of this "exempt from relegation for two years" when we know they're only saying that because they know licensing will kick in so effectively giving them a franchise during the P&R era. If they want to expand into the French market, give the French more of a say.

I gladly await someone to rip into some parts of that as I have most likely overlooked some important facts (and opinions), but it can always be tweaked.

 

 

Just this. I hope the RFL and clubs are reading this. I can't see there are very many people in RL who would want to see Catalans potentially relegated from SL - so why on earth is this still being talked about?

 

Under Wellsy's plan we could have a structure of 10 UK clubs and 2 French clubs for say 2016. The French licences are handed over over the FFR13 with franchise applications as before. The 10 UK/English places are settled by P&R. Either play-off (bottom of SL and top of Championship), 1 up and 1 down or how ever they want to settle it.

Edited by Scubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just this. I hope the RFL and clubs are reading this. I can't see there are very many people in RL who would want to see Catalans potentially relegated from SL - so why on earth is this still being talked about?

Under Wellsy's plan we could have a structure of 10 UK clubs and 2 French clubs for say 2016. The French licences are handed over over the FFR13 with franchise applications as before. The 10 UK/English places are settled by P&R. Either play-off (bottom of SL and top of Championship), 1 up and 1 down or how ever they want to settle it.

Why would it be fair to have licenses for French teams but not for English teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is and always was the EUROPEAN super league

 

French teams should be protected and developed

 

There is a core of 8 other SL clubs that are OK financially and should be around for a while yet

 

Others have potential to reach the same level, some never will no matter how hard they try

 

With 10 clubs in positions where relegation would be very unlikely (including the 2 French) there is space to yo yo 2 clubs every year, which is precisely what will happen unless the 3 X 8 kicks in

 

Then the 2 French clubs would have one in each of the top 2 divisions based on placing with a likely guarantee for the 2nd French team that they wont fall out of the top 12 for 3 years

 

You could even offer places to a third euro team at some stage which will only increase gates in Europe and create more competition for the spare places in the top 12

 

If I was Sheffield I would want the opportunity of playing the bottom 4 to prove a point, same as leigh, Fev and anyone else in the current championship, whether they are from London, France or anywhere else.

 

And point proven, have a go at the top 8

 

Straight forward 2 up 2 down is pointless, absolutely pointless, has never worked and will never work. History proves that in the modern era promotion is pointless unless you have the cash to consolidate. 3X8 allows consolidation in the top 12. then a real crack at the top 8, which lets face it in this country is what it is really all about from mid season onwards.

 

If we don't do this we are back to a system that works for no one and possibly semi-pro/amateur below SL in less than a decade. No players of the right standard, ever decreasing player pool.

 

We don't have the money to do traditional P&R and survive as a sport, it stagnates everything below and bankrupts teams, this isn't the 60's and 70's where there was a reasonable financial level playing field, its not the 80's where Leeds wasted money, Wigan spent three times what everyone else did and our nearest competitor was still an amateur mostly unregulated game.

 

Please please please realise why Scotland wanted this as a football league, it was to strengthen their game which outside Glasgow is suffering the same fate as the Union clubs up there, lower gates and disinterest. Scotland retained its structure through self interest of the top teams who never get relegated and get Euro football every year. The TV deal was re-cut to assist with this. More to the top teams. There is no money for such a compromise in RL, not and have a future as a modern multi-national multi-million pound sport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it be fair to have licenses for French teams but not for English teams.

 

Because it is only English clubs that want P&R (supposedly). I am sure Catalans were perfectly happy with franchising.

 

I would have kept licensing. The stupid thing is that licensing for 2015 would have done its job perfectly. Featherstone and Halifax would have had very strong licence applications for 2015 and Wakefield, London, Bradford and possibly Castleford would be in grave danger of dropping. You could have argued that Fev and Fax for Bradford and Wakey/London would not have caused that much surprise on Franchise announcement day. Then the two new clubs would have had 3 years to bring through players and develop.

 

But as always, we don't want to stick at anything.

Edited by Scubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it be fair to have licenses for French teams but not for English teams.

Because French clubs don't come from the British league system, so to expect them to be promoted or relegated to and from it is absurd. It is a European league. If the French decided they wanted P&R, why should they be relegated from a European league to a British league? Surely P&R for the French would be between the SL and their own league?

These are the issues we face when mixing different league systems together to form one giant competition. If the French ever decided they wanted P&R, it should have nothing to do the the RFL Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is only English clubs that want P&R (supposedly). I am sure Catalans were perfectly happy with franchising.

I would have kept licensing. The stupid thing is that licensing for 2015 would have done its job perfectly. Featherstone and Halifax would have had very strong licence applications for 2015 and Wakefield, London, Bradford and possibly Castleford would be in grave danger of dropping. You could have argued that Fev and Fax for Bradford and Wakey/London would not have caused that much surprise on Franchise announcement day. Then the two new clubs would have had 3 years to bring through players and develop.

But as always, we don't want to stick at anything.

All sounds good in an ideal world, but plug the RFL have had the bottle to do it?

Toulouse would probably have been a good shout as well. Fax for Bradford, Fev for Wakefield and Toulouse for London would make perfect sense. But it wouldn't happen. Someone will probably see it differently. And that's the problem. There's too many grey areas. Too much is open to criticism. In a sport known for being quick to criticise, opening up a huge avenue for it isn't exactly helpful!

There needs to be clear black and white instructions as to who comes in and who comes out. And why. Otherwise the unrest will continue.

When there are so many English clubs of a similar level, why is it fair to say some are protected and some aren't? Let them prove it.

If we want to expand to other nations, their place should be protected by their own federation as part of a whole European picture. The RFL can't control both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have kept licensing. The stupid thing is that licensing for 2015 would have done its job perfectly. Featherstone and Halifax would have had very strong licence applications for 2015 and Wakefield, London, Bradford and possibly Castleford would be in grave danger of dropping. You could have argued that Fev and Fax for Bradford and Wakey/London would not have caused that much surprise on Franchise announcement day. Then the two new clubs would have had 3 years to bring through players and develop.

 

But as always, we don't want to stick at anything.

 

It's an interesting thought, as you intimate at least four clubs are in financial danger so cutting SL to 12 then cutting two more for Halifax and Fev fits quite snugly on paper.

 

In reality IMHO the money problems go too deep for that. In the first instance the demands of licensing standards have helped cause those financial problems, and secondly  it's intolerable to give three year licences to clubs who then can't last the pace - like crisis clubs Bradford, Wakefield and London have failed to do. Another round of licensing could for instance see HKR in trouble and Halifax not lasting the pace.

 

The games up for licensing and P & R needs to come back to allow clubs to drop out if they collapse rather than try to last the full three years, because as we have seen when this happens CC SL wannabes won't step in at short notice.

Edited by The Parksider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All sounds good in an ideal world, but plug the RFL have had the bottle to do it?

Toulouse would probably have been a good shout as well. Fax for Bradford, Fev for Wakefield and Toulouse for London would make perfect sense. But it wouldn't happen. Someone will probably see it differently. And that's the problem. There's too many grey areas. Too much is open to criticism. In a sport known for being quick to criticise, opening up a huge avenue for it isn't exactly helpful!

There needs to be clear black and white instructions as to who comes in and who comes out. And why. Otherwise the unrest will continue.

When there are so many English clubs of a similar level, why is it fair to say some are protected and some aren't? Let them prove it.

If we want to expand to other nations, their place should be protected by their own federation as part of a whole European picture. The RFL can't control both.

 

 

All makes sense regarding the English and French league's, The only bit i can't see is what makes perfect sense, about replacing Wakey with Fev.

 

Wakey may have been in trouble but they are still there and in fact look like being better on field than last year, Not sure but weren't there crowds around 8,000 last year, in not the best season for them, How long for Fev to get their crowds up to that. Result  probably 5,000 lost at Wakey and a couple gained at Fev,

 

Same thing at Bradford, as long as they are there ,They will always draw twice the crowds of Fax, Thrice if they do well on field.  So what would be the point of changing them just to achieve a net loss of supporters. 

 

I'm not looking to find holes in your  Plan at all , Much of it makes a lot of sense, but the bit i have picked out seems to me that it would incur a loss of revenue, when what we need to do is increase it, Unless i have missed something which is not beyond the bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a core of 8 other SL clubs that are OK financially and should be around for a while yet

 

With 10 clubs in positions where relegation would be very unlikely (including the 2 French) there is space to yo yo 2 clubs every year.........

 

 

I enjoyed your whole post but especially had a smile about the above!

 

Looking at the league table and counting down the first seven SL clubs and adding cash rich Salford I may pretty much have got the "eight" .....switch to clubs likely to be running their own RFL approved academies next year and the same eight roughly appear in the list!!

 

I love the idea of setting up two spaces in a 12 club SL for a couple of patsies to just yo-yo up and down each year to protect the others!! Puts me in mind of the old P & R set up where if you won promotion you only had a matter of a few weeks to find a new team to keep you up, with most pro-players already signed.

 

I think that the problem trying that again is we would end up with clubs saying they do not want to accept promotion. This has happened.........

Edited by The Parksider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All makes sense regarding the English and French league's, The only bit i can't see is what makes perfect sense, about replacing Wakey with Fev.

Wakey may have been in trouble but they are still there and in fact look like being better on field than last year, Not sure but weren't there crowds around 8,000 last year, in not the best season for them, How long for Fev to get their crowds up to that. Result probably 5,000 lost at Wakey and a couple gained at Fev,

Same thing at Bradford, as long as they are there ,They will always draw twice the crowds of Fax, Thrice if they do well on field. So what would be the point of changing them just to achieve a net loss of supporters.

I'm not looking to find holes in your Plan at all , Much of it makes a lot of sense, but the bit i have picked out seems to me that it would incur a loss of revenue, when what we need to do is increase it, Unless i have missed something which is not beyond the bounds.

And I agree that they are all valid points, and if anything that backs up my arguments. Where some would see it making perfect sense (clubs failing financially constantly being dropped), others would see as them being changed with smaller clubs. Both are fair valid points. Who on Earth should be allowed to decide that one off-field thing is more important than another? Why not let them just battle it out on the field? Isn't the idea of pro sport to put together the best package to be successful at the sport itself?

When we have so many clubs that offer similar things, why should someone get to decide what's most important? Why set yourself up for ridicule and criticism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wakey may have been in trouble but they are still there and in fact look like being better on field than last year, Not sure but weren't there crowds around 8,000 last year, in not the best season for them, How long for Fev to get their crowds up to that. Result  probably 5,000 lost at Wakey and a couple gained at Fev,

 

Same thing at Bradford, as long as they are there ,They will always draw twice the crowds of Fax, Thrice if they do well on field.  So what would be the point of changing them just to achieve a net loss of supporters. 

 

 

In a business sense none at all. However to ensure once you stock the "Made for TV contract elite league" (as opposed to the "Fair play for all league") with the right clubs IMHO you then have to centrally control the operations and finances of those clubs so the beggars don't do daft things like overspend, go bust, or asset strip any club that overspends and goes bust.

 

We've roughly been this way before when the SLE/RFL didn't want to lose Wakefield for Halifax and bent over backwards to keep them going in SL, then when the league got the lease for Odsal and the SL clubs said they would buy the Bulls as a last resort. Then they (nearly) all agreed to not poach Bulls players.

 

What they do isn't something I can control and whatever they do will be fascinating, but if you believe the big clubs should all be in and stay in it's sound business in theory, in practice I am not sure those who run the game could agree and control anything "centrally".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it worked brilliantly for over twenty years didn't it

 

The last time we had it Castleford were replaced by a club weaker than them in every aspect of performance on and off the field and were immediately relegated...joke, farce, laughing stock: take your pick

 

 

Is that how it is supposed to work?

 

 

 

Rugby league has been dealt a lousy hand right from 1895

It has had issues with growth, finance, perception by the general public via negative stereotyping and a massive conflict between its tradition of progressiveness and a small minded self interested reactionary element within it

 

Having 'divisions' where clubs progress up and down them isn't something God handed down on a tablet of stone from on high. There is no law says that sports have to do this.

 

This was introduced originally to solve a problem for the bigger clubs who were losing money by having to play poorly supported small clubs on their own side of the pennines. It meant that big games would be more frequent. The issue was only partly addressed because of the effect of marginal clubs destroying themselves by going up one year and down the next on a frequent and regular basis, and limiting the opportunity to expand the game at elite level and the intention of attracting big attendances was not realised and that includes in fact that especially includes the the much onanised over relegation battles...which rarely happened and weren't that well attended. Hard information has been provided for people like you by people like me and others but you take no notice. Touching even take sufficient notice to construct a credible meaningful counter argument.

We bring back auto prom and the

We go back to that nightmare of the yo yo syndrome

Once say Catalans have a bad season and go down we retreat into our enclave once more with clubs just up the road from each other play each other and clubs like toulouse who really could expand the games horizons are excluded forever

I can imagine, sadly a lot of people liking that idea

 

Rugby league is not soccer it is not rich, powerful enough, or widespread enough to support auto prom and reg

 

It is not cricket where the sparsely attended elite county competition is subsidised by other competitions played using different versions of the game

 

It is not rugby union which has wealth, influence and geographical spread and incidentally has the wherewithal to attract a 70,000+ audience for a club game in a competition where as it happens there is no automatic promotion to or relegation from its elite competition

 

Do people  with an eye for the future of the game really think that statements like

"We can manage to spend full salary cap on attendances of 5,000" or whatever is a genuine, recipe for frostbite whatever club is being referring to or for the elite competition in general? Clutching at straws? The straw doesn't even exist

 

People invoke 'fairness' and 'justice' just how pathetic is that. They need Robison their eyes and look at the real unfairness and injustice that is going in around them, and at the same time open their minds to the issues that rugby league faces and that people are trying to address those issues

 

No don't bother

Concentrate on what you want, what your narrow self interest dictates

I have long ago agreed that p and r should not be automatic but should have conditions attached, the most important of which is stable finances. I have sated this many times and yet you always come back with automatic p and r, you never deviate from that line so that's that canard disposed of. The farce and laughing stock yo yo instance you are quoting is I assume the Leigh affair. There are however the examples of Hull KR, Huddersfield and Wakefield, all of whom were promoted and all of whom are still in SL despite some stumbles along the way. The licencing method has produced London, Crusaders, Paris and Gateshead. A plethora of successful entities there then. So, overall, licencing has produced more failures than p and r and that was auto p and r which I don't support.

I don't see losing Catalans to be replaced by a lower tier team as a permanent changing of the SL status quo. Catalans can be promoted and according to your yo yo theories they would immeditately be returned to SL.

You argue divisions were introduced to produce top level fixtures but then you argue divisions aren't necessary. Isn't SL a top division designed for top level fixtures. Which of your conflicting scenarios do you actually want. I want a top tier division. I just don't want it ring fenced and it's members set I stone by a self interested hierarchy. I want a chance for all and when they get their chance they will sink or swim. According to you, these promoted clubs will never stay the course so I don't know what you are afraid of. Eventually the anointed ones will regain their rightful place, maybe.

The geographical spread of the game now is in the lower tiers. I don't know where you got the idea that p and r was a rejection of geographical spread.

If you think justice and fairness are unimportant then, scrap the salary cap, remove any upward movement for clubs or equal spread of talent. Let Wigan and Leeds play each other in the grand Final 8 out of ten years with an occasional cameo appearance from Warrington or Saints. Have London and Castleford and Widnes or Wakefield, bereft of all talent perennially ship a 1000 points at the bottom of the heap. After all, the world isn't fair.

When these bottom dwellers then go to the wall, have fun with your elite 6 team league.

People are tying to address the issues that RL faces. One of then seems to be a return to p and r. It was the leaders of the game that have proposed it's return. Have a go at them. I just happen to agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I agree that they are all valid points, and if anything that backs up my arguments. Where some would see it making perfect sense (clubs failing financially constantly being dropped), others would see as them being changed with smaller clubs. Both are fair valid points. Who on Earth should be allowed to decide that one off-field thing is more important than another? Why not let them just battle it out on the field? Isn't the idea of pro sport to put together the best package to be successful at the sport itself?

When we have so many clubs that offer similar things, why should someone get to decide what's most important? Why set yourself up for ridicule and criticism?

 

Well there is due to be a meeting this month as i understand it, so maybe something will get decided one way or another.

 

I hope i haven't given anyone on here the Impression i have anything against their club, Be it Fev ,Fax or whoever, As i have said ,It makes no difference to me who the clubs in SL are ,It's whether they can compete that matters, because if they can , People will turn up and more importantly will switch on.

 

Should the Giants get relegated in the next few years ( hopefully not )  I would still go to watch them, as i always have at the lower level they would be playing, I had decades of that and i am still going. But i pay for Sky to hopefully watch the game at its very best, I think that is what is trying to keep the game going forwards,

 

I don't want to see the best players picked off by Union and Oz, I don't want to see SL diluted in any way.

 

That's just my opinion but i respect everyone else's as well, Lets hope that what is decided upon proves to be the right decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Licensing was seen as a waste of the RFL's resources, having to go through pages and pages of applications to come to a conclusion on who was a better candidate for not much (if any) real difference to the make up of the league.

It is extra work. And it's not achieving anywhere near what it's worth. It costs money to implement, not just for the RFL but the clubs themselves. In a time of hardship, what is the point in wasting resources when we'd get a similar product with P&R at a fraction of the cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is only English clubs that want P&R (supposedly). I am sure Catalans were perfectly happy with franchising.

I would have kept licensing. The stupid thing is that licensing for 2015 would have done its job perfectly. Featherstone and Halifax would have had very strong licence applications for 2015 and Wakefield, London, Bradford and possibly Castleford would be in grave danger of dropping. You could have argued that Fev and Fax for Bradford and Wakey/London would not have caused that much surprise on Franchise announcement day. Then the two new clubs would have had 3 years to bring through players and develop.

But as always, we don't want to stick at anything.

How would you have chosen fairly between Fev, Fax and the others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you have chosen fairly between Fev, Fax and the others?

 

They were the only clubs who showed any interest in applying for a licence last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have long ago agreed that p and r should not be automatic but should have conditions attached, the most important of which is stable finances. I have sated this many times and yet you always come back with automatic p and r, you never deviate from that line so that's that canard disposed of. The farce and laughing stock yo yo instance you are quoting is I assume the Leigh affair. There are however the examples of Hull KR, Huddersfield and Wakefield, all of whom were promoted and all of whom are still in SL despite some stumbles along the way. The licencing method has produced London, Crusaders, Paris and Gateshead. A plethora of successful entities there then. So, overall, licencing has produced more failures than p and r and that was auto p and r which I don't support.

I don't see losing Catalans to be replaced by a lower tier team as a permanent changing of the SL status quo. Catalans can be promoted and according to your yo yo theories they would immeditately be returned to SL.

You argue divisions were introduced to produce top level fixtures but then you argue divisions aren't necessary. Isn't SL a top division designed for top level fixtures. Which of your conflicting scenarios do you actually want. I want a top tier division. I just don't want it ring fenced and it's members set I stone by a self interested hierarchy. I want a chance for all and when they get their chance they will sink or swim. According to you, these promoted clubs will never stay the course so I don't know what you are afraid of. Eventually the anointed ones will regain their rightful place, maybe.

The geographical spread of the game now is in the lower tiers. I don't know where you got the idea that p and r was a rejection of geographical spread.

If you think justice and fairness are unimportant then, scrap the salary cap, remove any upward movement for clubs or equal spread of talent. Let Wigan and Leeds play each other in the grand Final 8 out of ten years with an occasional cameo appearance from Warrington or Saints. Have London and Castleford and Widnes or Wakefield, bereft of all talent perennially ship a 1000 points at the bottom of the heap. After all, the world isn't fair.

When these bottom dwellers then go to the wall, have fun with your elite 6 team league.

People are tying to address the issues that RL faces. One of then seems to be a return to p and r. It was the leaders of the game that have proposed it's return. Have a go at them. I just happen to agree with them.

Ok so you are all for prom and the with conditions. There's still a large self serving constituency who are in favour of auto p and r nd so my comment was relevant to the issue

Anyway. What would be the conditions you speak of? Stable finances? Are you serious...there is no such thing, but we'll go with it anyway. How would you define 'stable finances'? Anyway a club might not have a pot to loss in but still have 'stable finances'. Prescott Panthers never made a loss, maybe we could resurrect them. But surely there must be other conditions. What should they be?

How would your conditional p and r affect the introduction of European clubs into what is after all a European super league? The idea of yet another club from the Wakefield met area being admitted st the expense of say Toulouse bothers me.

Where have I said that justice and fairness are unimportant? Please don't put words into people's mouths especially if they are untrue.

Where have I said divisions aren't necessary? Super league isn't a 'division' it's a competition in its own right 

Super league isn't ring fenced nor should it be. I don't think I've said that it should. Far from it.

We're the cougars financially stable when they were denied entry into super league?

 

As for the having a go at the people running the sport. As far as I know they don't contribute to this forum. And if you think anyone by disagreeing with you and debating with you is having a go at you then you perhaps need to consider the maturity of your own approach

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. There are however the examples of Hull KR, Huddersfield and Wakefield, all of whom were promoted and all of whom are still in SL despite some stumbles along the way. The licencing method has produced London, Crusaders, Paris and Gateshead. A plethora of successful entities there then. So, overall, licencing has produced more failures than p and r and that was auto p and r which I don't support.

 

2. I have long ago agreed that p and r should not be automatic but should have conditions attached, the most important of which is stable finances. I want a chance for all and when they get their chance they will sink or swim.

3. You think justice and fairness are unimportant

 

1. Licensing or P & R as a selection method does the same job. It dictates the comings and goings of clubs in Superleague. The consequent success or failure is then down to the clubs. The odd idea you seem to float is that a club is more likely to do well if it is promoted by P & R rather than licensing.

 

Padge once said back in the Ed I Tackle mists of time "It's all about money". Clubs succeed or fail on money. I think he's repeated in 1,376 times. Don't you get the point?? I think you should study all the comings and goings in SL and you may find he's absolutely spot on.

 

2. I think you actually do get the point, given what you have said here. I find it a stunning about turn when you say if you were in charge you would give a "chance for all and when they get their chance they will sink or swim". Yet you would vet them for "stable finances" first??? You would refuse clubs a chance.

 

You never told me what you thought about how P & R would have benefited SL in 2012 when Widnes came bottom of SL and Sheffield won the CC Grand final?? Given what you have said above I suspect you would have rejected Sheffield and left Widnes in. After all financially Widnes are a far richer club, and gate income wise they have many times more spectators.

 

Can you see the ambiguity of how you would have sunk Sheffield with your money policy, which would have been at odds with your......

 

3. Justice and fairness policy. IMVHO you got into problems with your argument trying to adapt "justice and fairness" to highly competitive businesses, who will compete to make each other losers on the pitch, who will use money to steal each others players, who will stand on the head of the club in front to get past them. You are more than a little mixed up here?

 

Standards P & R is not justice, it is not fairness......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We're the cougars financially stable when they were denied entry into super league?

 

 

No they were horribly in debt.

 

However it was said there were big investors waiting for Keighley to get into SL whereupon those funds would have been unleashed. The same story was told recently by Craiq who told us if Leigh get in they will also have big investors move in.

 

To be fair Toulouse have also pulled that one, the Aerospace industry will apparently mega finance the club but didn't show a penny of it in the Championship. It's arguable that Featherstone Rovers are pulling the same con trick, if admitted to SL Mr. Nahaboo will apparently "fund full cap year on year". Please deposit £10,000,000 at RL headquarters then Mr. N.

 

He's popped a hundred grand in hasn't he? is that signal of intention enough or not???

 

In the debate of Licensing.v.P & R with "Fairness and Justice" added what people don't like is that some "commitee" say who is in and out, and that's not fair or just because who IS to say Nahaboo won't spend £millions or the French Aerospace Industry won't buy up all Wigans best players for Toulouse?

 

Whose to say Keighley didn't have those investors waiting and nor do Leigh??

 

If we want real justice and fairness IMHO we give clubs the chance no matter what. It's not for a "panel" or an "accountant" to pre-judge whether clubs can step up, find the finance, get the fans rolling in etc etc.

Is it really a tolerable position to say we will be fair to you if we think your club may make a fist of it in Superleague.

 

I'm happy for P & R or licensing, but the half way house is as all half way houses are - a compromise to suit nobody at all. I'm for and end to licensing in it's current form and so am delighted to welcome back automatic P & R. The only problem with it will remain the dreaded "gap" where one club vying for an SL spot is £1,000,000 in front of another (unfair) one club will have a bigger squad of better players than another (an injustice).

 

Now that gap - that's really "unfair".......

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