Jump to content

Proposal put forward to cut SL to 10


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Not really. Taking 10m from the SL tv deal and giving it to clubs basically on their doorstep doesn't seem like it's going to be anything but a negative for SL clubs. 

Is that the proposal?

I disagree in any case. There is an argument that that 10m should just go to the SL clubs, but I don't think having stronger clubs in the lower tier and more competition should be seen as a negative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

For the game as a whole thats a possibility, There is an argument that can be made that having stronger clubs in the lower tier is better for the game as a whole. In so simplistic terms is probably agree. When the complexities of reality is taken in to account it isn't that simple 

But there is also a pretty strong argument that having more teams in the same areas, spending the same money, on the same players and chasing the same sponsors is a pretty big negative for elite competition. 

I agree with your second paragraph and I think unfortunately we are where we are. If you were 'designing' a game now you naturally wouldn't want such a concentrated geographical spread.

The extreme here is to say the current 12 get every penny and act aggressively towards the lower divisions and go 100% ruthless. It's an interesting point, and if you take away the emotion from that point, would it make the game stronger, or could the weakening or death of these lower division clubs weaken the game and in turn the top level?

Would SL become materially stronger to the point that it would be worth culling clubs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It's  question I've asked before, and its a question posed in the article shared above, what are the lower leagues for? 

Not the clubs in it. The competitions themselves. What are they supposed to acheive? We don't seem to have an answer. 

It's not an incubator for expanding the game because we don't make the investment to create that.

It's not a feeder league for SL and any move towards that meets vehement resistance

It's not a competition for clubs who aren't at the level of SL clubs because apparently they all want to get out of it.

It' not even a meaningful competition you play to win. 

It seems for a large part of the game the only reason for the lower leagues to exist is as competition to SL, which makes it strange that there is this expectation SL should subsidise them. It's a strange ideology whereby SL clubs are expected to give money they earn and would otherwise be entitled to, to lower leagues in the hope those lower league clubs will someday replace the SL clubs who have been subsidising them.

That doesn't really seem healthy from the elite point of view. It also seems to me that the championship leave opportunities for themselves on the table because some of the league are just trying to stay in, others are desperate to get out and the rest expect money from SL. There's value in the championship that just isn't bothered with. 

I think the real question is if you were 100% ruthless and went the way of 12 teams and shafted all competitors in your area, would this make SL much stronger?

I genuinely don't know. I could probably formulate an argument both ways, but I couldn't say whether as a game we would be stronger or weaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think the real question is if you were 100% ruthless and went the way of 12 teams and shafted all competitors in your area, would this make SL much stronger?

I genuinely don't know. I could probably formulate an argument both ways, but I couldn't say whether as a game we would be stronger or weaker.

Well the players would get richer but it wouldn’t improve the game. More than half the teams would have nothing to play for with no threat of relegation. Most people on here have been banging on about expanding the game now we’re talking about culling. Where would these players keep fit if their getting no game time with dual reg clubs ? 

sometimes you have to take a step backwards to move forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another problem here. SL2 would require more central funding as that's were most expansionist,trans Atlantic clubs would reside.

Given a full on licensing criteria will have to be met for SL1. Could we actually get 10 SL clubs that meet that criteria?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SL17 said:

Another problem here. SL2 would require more central funding as that's were most expansionist,trans Atlantic clubs would reside.

Given a full on licensing criteria will have to be met for SL1. Could we actually get 10 SL clubs that meet that criteria?

Do we know that?

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure that any of this tinkering addresses the real issue. The game has become stale. A lot of the safety rules have sanatised the game. I'm not saying they should not have happened, but the consequences are not good. We banned the biff as we were told it was putting kids off the game. Numbers still drop. We banned the shoulder charge, but I'm not sure it has seen any decrease in injuries. We banned any sort of contact on high kicks so that most at of six now end with either a penalty or an uncontested turnover. Add all of this to the constant penalties for incorrect play the balls and the penalisation of good kicks with the foot over the line rule, the game has become less and less appealing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

Do we know that?

Considering there is only club one in existance Bob I would say your retort is acceptable, but what would be the management of these leagues be going forward. A closed shop of two divisions would not pacify the "expansion at all costs" band of merry men, so if those below the professional level are to gain access to the elusive club could/would it be by invitation and increase the member numbers, and maybe reducing the funding, or would a team be just dropped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I will pray along with you JP, but for entirely different reasons as to the future of our game to those you hope for.

Just preparing myself for when i become a armchair viewer.

I like a underdog so i'll probably nail my colours to the Hamilton mast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Dave T said:

Why will it get worse if the proposal is to reduce the amount of teams that get funding?

I was under the impression that the funding would be split between 20 teams instead of the current 12 SL (and a few higher placed Championship) teams. I must have misunderstood where the new money for 'SL2' clubs is coming from.

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

I was under the impression that the funding would be split between 20 teams instead of the current 12 SL (and a few higher placed Championship) teams. I must have misunderstood where the new money for 'SL2' clubs is coming from.

My impression is the money will be split between the 12 SL clubs and a few Championship clubs. The other French and NA outfits would fund themselves.

rldfsignature.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

I was under the impression that the funding would be split between 20 teams instead of the current 12 SL (and a few higher placed Championship) teams. I must have misunderstood where the new money for 'SL2' clubs is coming from.

The money is currently split across 38 clubs. The proposal appears to be to cut off the lower teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposal is a direct result of chairman's syndrome which includes symptoms such as always looking for the quick easy answer or solution, terminal searching for the path of least resistance, obsessive devil take the hindmost attitudes, selling your Grandmother to the gypsies for a basket of pegs,eternal changing of rules, being absent when difficult questions are asked, a huge tendency to enjoy confusion in others and spots!

A more recent diagnosed symptom as yet to be verified by medical research is leaving buildings with loads of cash which is also referred to as Bandit Contract Disease.

Sometimes referred to as Bill Fallowfield Syndrome after the first person diagnosed with the complaint.Though it must be said that there are many previous possible sufferers of this complaint. Names are available on the BFBS Charity website where contributions can be made to help those inflicted by this terrible disease.

 

 

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/02/2018 at 11:44 AM, scotchy1 said:

It's  question I've asked before, and its a question posed in the article shared above, (1) what are the lower leagues for? 

It seems for a large part of the game the only reason for the lower leagues to exist is as competition to SL, which makes it strange that there is this expectation SL should subsidise them. It's a strange ideology whereby (2) SL clubs are expected to give money they earn and would otherwise be entitled to, to lower leagues in the hope those lower league clubs will someday replace the SL clubs who have been subsidising them.

(1) Clearly the lower leagues are for clubs who are are proud of their club and they want to carry on playing semi-pro Rugby League, SL need them for fairly obvious reasons set out below.

(2) There is no expectation of this at all, Championship clubs sold out on their subsidy a long time ago and went without it for a long time. It's SL decisions that dragged them back to getting SKY money. Your way off beam here.

On 23/02/2018 at 11:51 AM, Dave T said:

I think the real question is if you were 100% ruthless and went the way of 12 teams and (1) shafted all competitors in your area, would this make SL much stronger?

I genuinely don't know. (2) I could probably formulate an argument both ways, but I couldn't say whether as a game we would be stronger or weaker.

(1) “Shafting all competitors in your area” is exactly what the SL clubs did by awarding themselves massive wedges of the SKY contract their Championship neighbours could not compete with, you talk like this is yet to happen,. 

(2) Go on then - formulate an argument the other way, but all you’ll come up with is the old pre-1996 game because that WAS the "other way"?

Clearly that SL leave the door open to so called “competition” and fund this at times, is partly due to the fact big clubs have serious problems. Dumps of grounds hamper Bulls, Cas and Wakey, a lack of a rich benefactor does for Widnes, and may do for Salford and even Fartown in time. They need “subs” available which is why they primed Leigh with a parachute payment. They also need to keep the door open with Toulouse if a French TV contract came in). They need to keep TWP and New York sweet and in place in case SKY pull out and we have to chase an American deal 2021.

Your both completely way off. Having an SL2 is pure SL self-interest, not self-destruction.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Parksider said:

Your both completely way off. Having an SL2 is pure SL self-interest, not self-destruction.............

"Your both completely way off." Well that sorted the counter argument out didn't it?

"Having an SL2 is pure SL self-interest ..." Well you could've knocked me down with a yawn tackle something we totally agree on and I understood what your point was Parky. :swoon:

"not self-destruction............." But here's the debatable point they may be richer, more able to compete but a smaller geographical, fan, heartland and in all likelihood participation footprint and it all begins to look very much like a death wish, suicide note or at the very least the short term gain equivalent of self-harming.

Now these are all the things you've been lecturing about on this very forum for quite a while so I'm not altogether sure why you seem to be on the opposite side of the fence here?

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.