The Daddy

Proposal put forward to cut SL to 10

Recommended Posts

This is ultimately paper talk at present.  Anyone who trusts the Sun has little grasp on history.

It does seem that the decision to evist Woods was popular, but much like Brexit, there is little agreement about what should go in its place.

The 2 x SL has some benefits:
- Top flight clubs get a more competitive league
- The next ten get more money than they would in the Championship without having to panic about going down. 

If that is the case, it is the top clubs want a small league and are paying the smaller clubs to ###### off.

An obvious question is how P&R would apply to New York, TWP, Catalans and Toulouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Your logic is somewhat rather amiss, firstly you elevate teams to the top echelon who have not won anything in your time watching the game, then try to make a case that those who have actually won something can resurrect to be once again be powers in the game, pray tell me again why Tolouse and London should on present standings with their stadia and support should be invited to the top table, leaving speculation aside, we can apply that to any team.

My logic is not awry. 

I set out a number of criteria - the 4 non English clubs I mentioned satisfied the development criterion. I noted that there were at least 16 clubs who have won one of the big prizes in my time watching the game to illustrate the point that there are a lot of potentially great clubs. Everything would be subject to meeting the turnover criterion, so we not get close to 20 teams. I would start by aiming for the ideal and scaling back from there. Rather than contracting to grab a bigger slice of an ever smaller cake. Because that way lies a slow and lingering death... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a self-centered myopic idea .... so it'll be done and dusted for next season. And It might just be time to leave the sport altogether for me.

And I knew this would come up ....

"To be honest with the quality of players available 10 teams is unfortunately about the right amount "

Inevitable as sunrise!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

This is ultimately paper talk at present.  Anyone who trusts the Sun has little grasp on history.

It does seem that the decision to evist Woods was popular, but much like Brexit, there is little agreement about what should go in its place.

The 2 x SL has some benefits:
- Top flight clubs get a more competitive league
- The next ten get more money than they would in the Championship without having to panic about going down. 

If that is the case, it is the top clubs want a small league and are paying the smaller clubs to ###### off.

An obvious question is how P&R would apply to New York, TWP, Catalans and Toulouse.

paper talk, absolutely, yes,  though Sweaty Craig has been going on about it for quite some time. Could that be beacuse of his..er..er..Leigh links?

I'm attracted to the idea,  if, raised to the power of if..... and that's a lot of ifs as I have counted many ifs already.

Edited by JohnM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would become a 20 team closed shop and sod off to any thoughts of future expansion or development ?

Why the urge to have Bradford back before they have earned the right. They have failed repeatedly and the demographics of the area don't suggest anything like to change any time soon. If past glories are being used as a criteria could let Workington, Oldham, Swinton back in as well !

It comes down to the same old argument. Do clubs push for a bigger slice of the pie or work together and try and make the whole pie bigger ? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we run around in circles thinking up new ways to split our meagre resources amongst an ever-growing number of clubs, the NRL is focussing on producing the best league in the world. And then we wonder why our best players move. And why we can't get an England game played mid-season without the NRL club coaches giving it the go-ahead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rzesiej13 said:

Could keep magic weekend then if they wanted to since its an odd number of games.

Could do. 13 home and away. Or specify the 13th game as on the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super League is what makes money in rugby league and we need the flagship competition to be as strong and attractive as possible to sponsors and investors otherwise the money just isn't coming in. There's little point in having a stronger Championship when it doesn't get much time on TV. It's not much of a boast to say your flagship competition isn't great but at least the second tier is almost as strong.

It's clear something needs to be done to boost Super League, and one thing that often crops up in discussions is scrapping the salary cap, or raising it. That's not a solution to anything if clubs can't afford to spend more than what they're already paying. Clubs need to generate more money first, and when sports experience significant growth it generally comes from increased TV revenue. To get that revenue you have to offer something to broadcasters that is unrivalled and worth investing in. Right now Super League isn't that. Raise the standard and make it more attractive for top players to play in and it just might be.

Going to 10 teams in tiers 1 and 2 seems like a good idea to condense the best talent at the top of the game and ensure that clubs make enough from TV revenue to strengthen and develop stability. The obvious problem will be what happens to the clubs outside the 20 that get cut adrift. Some will have strong heritage and others may be newer clubs with ambition. Cutting them out of the equation could cause problems and possibly make it impossible to continue as semi-professional clubs. That then raises the question of whether they have an automatic right to be at the level they are now. Certainly some clubs lower down appear to be amateur set ups propped up by a little bit of money but constantly struggling.

It's going to be a nightmare trying to find a solution that the majority agree on and that is as fair as possible. It certainly seems like changes need to happen and that Super League needs more money coming in and a better standard of competition. What happens to the clubs lower down is going to be a big issue. Super League splitting from the rest of the game certainly remains a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem we have is a lack of exposure resulting in poor tv and sponsorship deals like the Stobart one

I appreciate that player welfare is essential and that the player pool is limited but over the years we have continually reduced the number of clubs, number of games, number of cups and competitions and what have we got? No media exposure, limited terrestrial coverage, no household names, players being lost to the game due to no game time/reserves and arguably a reduction in the quality of rugby and excitement.

We can tinker around with league structures all we like but at the end of the day simply drawing a line somewhere in the Championship and pulling up the draw bridge will only make matters worse and strengthen the misperception that the game is an insignificant M62 Northern game. It will also kill off clubs who dont make the cut.

A happy medium would appear to be some form of relaunch and possibly conferences. Like them or not the Wolf Pack and who knows after that generate more media interest than most established clubs and as a game we should milk it while it lasts and ride with it for a while

It is a massive decision the game faces and reminds me of the Lyndsay days at the start of Superleague. There are difficult decisions to be made and fans myself included may not like the answers. Should SL include 2 Hull clubs, London, Big cities v small towns clubs, Do we have a league based on local rivalries or widen the geography, expansion clubs v traditional ?

If something is brewing I wish the RL /SL would just get on with it. Speculation and post after post isnt doing anyone any good and simply breeds an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A franchised two leagues of ten is an interesting proposition but im unconvinced. 

There is the obvious problem of SL2 simply being a repackaged Championship. Is that going to make a hell of a lot of difference?

then the resources, we havent really had a bump in quality moving from 14 to 12 because we didnt really move from 14 to 12. We went with 12 SL clubs and plus the top of the championship all competing largely for the same players. 

I think there is also a problem in filling 20 spaces. Teams 3 and 4 in the championship have largely been smashed by the bottom clubs in the 8s. Its not really been competitive. Its a massive gap between the likes of Widnes down to Dewsbury/Sheffield. With parachute payments is that going to be a competitive league? If it is, does that cause us a problem with the issue above? are we taking a few hundred thousand from SL1 and giving it to SL2 and using that to pay the same players more and spreading the talent thinner. 

Id also question what niche SL2 is trying to fill? What is it adding to our package? Why is a broadcaster going to pay more than they would otherwise because of it? What are they buying? SL already has Thursdays and Fridays, Les Catalans/Toulouse can fill Saturdays and football owns Sunday for most of the year. Is a broadcaster really that interested in spending decent money on 2nd tier RL to go up against Super Sunday? Would the teams in SL2 accept moving games to Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday for TV.

One thing I would say is that if we are to draw a line, the line between SL and the rest seems a clearer demarcation than between say Dewsbury and Keighley, or Batley and Oldham.

Im not dead against it, the devil would be in the detail, but it would be a change that would have some obvious downsides and hurdles that need to be addressed

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

A franchised two leagues of ten is an interesting proposition but im unconvinced. 

There is the obvious problem of SL2 simply being a repackaged Championship. Is that going to make a hell of a lot of difference?

then the resources, we havent really had a bump in quality moving from 14 to 12 because we didnt really move from 14 to 12. We went with 12 SL clubs and plus the top of the championship all competing largely for the same players. 

I think there is also a problem in filling 20 spaces. Teams 3 and 4 in the championship have largely been smashed by the bottom clubs in the 8s. Its not really been competitive. Its a massive gap between the likes of Widnes down to Dewsbury/Sheffield. With parachute payments is that going to be a competitive league? If it is, does that cause us a problem with the issue above? are we taking a few hundred thousand from SL1 and giving it to SL2 and using that to pay the same players more and spreading the talent thinner. 

Id also question what niche SL2 is trying to fill? What is it adding to our package? Why is a broadcaster going to pay more than they would otherwise because of it? What are they buying? SL already has Thursdays and Fridays, Les Catalans/Toulouse can fill Saturdays and football owns Sunday for most of the year. Is a broadcaster really that interested in spending decent money on 2nd tier RL to go up against Super Sunday? Would the teams in SL2 accept moving games to Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday for TV.

One thing I would say is that if we are to draw a line, the line between SL and the rest seems a clearer demarcation than between say Dewsbury and Keighley, or Batley and Oldham.

Im not dead against it, the devil would be in the detail, but it would be a change that would have some obvious downsides and hurdles that need to be addressed

You're forgetting the problem that SL is just a tarted-up/repackaged version of the old RL Championship.  Without changing that, where's the extra money supposed to come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 teams make more sense, with 10/12 in championship. This will leave space for n n American teams & French also. But to be fair they must all start in league 1 & earn their place. P & R for all teams also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Spidey said:

Does Beaumont want that simply to boost the league below? Leigh have had two failed shots at SL, does he just want some sort competition for his club as they’ve not cut it at SL and doesn’t envisage a time when they would

Well they don't seem to be competing well at the moment without dumping 2 more SL squads in There!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kev p said:

14 teams make more sense, with 10/12 in championship. This will leave space for n n American teams & French also. But to be fair they must all start in league 1 & earn their place. P & R for all teams also

How do we sell tv broadcast rights to the US, Canada and France when they don't which if any teams will be playing in that competition year on year?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kev p said:

14 teams make more sense, with 10/12 in championship. This will leave space for n n American teams & French also. But to be fair they must all start in league 1 & earn their place. P & R for all teams also

There would be space by relegating the worst teams.

12 is a good number for SL and unless it's a French club that gets promoted then the gene pool of players would be overstretched trying to cater for 2 extra teams.

The championship is looking really competitive right now... why mess about again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Scubby said:

Sky know full well that teams like Leigh, Toronto, Toulouse and London are full time within that division and have shown 0 interest. The likes of Featherstone and Halifax get around 600k per year hand out. Do you think they are suddenly going to become much more than they are now with an extra 300k or so?

We have players at top 6 clubs with a SL squad number earning under 15k per year. The game currently has no cash for 12 teams never mind 20. 

The Sky money shouldn't be paying the wages. That should be a bonus not something relied on.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SL17 said:

The Sky money shouldn't be paying the wages. That should be a bonus not something relied on.

Interesting thought.

This forum has already ridiculed the thought that away should help to finance a club,we obviously want to do away with director loans dont we ?What shall we do away with next that a club uses to help finance its self?

Edited by jpmc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jpmc said:

Interesting thought.

This forum has already ridiculed the thought that away should help to finance a club,we obviously want to do away with director loans dont we ?What shall we do away with next that a club uses to help finance its self?

Its not a thought,its a fact. As an established business which all are. Should you be dependant on something that may not be there a year later? What happens if the funding is reduced? What happens if they get no funding?

Edited by SL17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SL17 said:

Its not a thought,its a fact. As an established business which all are. Should you be dependant on something that may not be there a year later?

Which business doesn't know this money is coming in till at least 2021

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SL17 said:

Its not a thought,its a fact. As an established business which all are. Should you be dependant on something that may not be there a year later? What happens if the funding is reduced? What happens if they get no funding?

That logic is simply nonsense. No income is guaranteed. Pretty much all income is volatile. 

What happens is fans stop watching? Dont buy the kit? Sponsors dont materialise? Hospitality sits empty?

Tv income is a key income line for an RL club just like it is for others sports. Why shouldnt they use that income to pay bills? What should they use it for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

So my question is what will happen to the clubs outside those 20?

They get a promissory note of jam tomorrow!

It's the Devil take the hindmost way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Aug 2018

Rugby League World - Aug 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here