Jump to content

League One's Future


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, RayCee said:

You say because teams in a division don't have the same aspirations, it can't last but don't explain why it can't. I also don't think anyone is pretending that they are the same. In the EPL, some teams are aiming at winning the premiership, others have no such hope. They just strive to stay there and avoid relegation. Does that make the EPL a hotch potch that cannot last?

I get what you mean, but in the end all those clubs, and indeed into the next divisions too, are full time professional football clubs whose sole purpose is to climb as high as they can, just on different scales and fan bases. 

N American clubs are dead if they don't make SL, L1 is just the entrypoint that the game seems to have agreed is acceptable. Most of the non heartland clubs will be trapped at the bottom forever without external financial support. It's just not like for like. 

As I said above, I'm not digging against the L1, they do a fantastic job and are totally worthy of the financial support they get. Probably more than some clubs higher up. But they are forced to set themselves up as "pro" clubs because there's no other game in town for them to do the work they do. 

In an ideal world there should be. But I accept there isn't right now. And to withdraw all funds from L1 without putting anything in its place would do long term harm to the sport everywhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply
10 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

leaves League 1 with 3 wildly different purposes trying to coexist: as an entrypoint for heavily funded fully pro N American teams, a holding division for heartland clubs who probably could sustain a semi pro existence if their luck turns, and as an excuse to pay regional community clubs development money.Such a hotch potch can't last. The sport just needs to come up with a model that allows all 3 of those things to happen, without pretending all the clubs are the same. 

Please can we for once discuss reality, League One was created 15 years ago to accommodate failing Heartland clubs and Skolars and Gateshead. Nothing to do with rich North American clubs, the only one that actually exists being a club that refuses to develop players and is currently blocked from promotion to SL. So let's stick to reality. Stick to clubs that actually exist, and are not blocked.

8 hours ago, dixiedean said:

But is that not the essence of promotion/relegation? Well -funded teams move through swiftly. Heartland clubs whose "luck turns" will rise. 

Development clubs need 20 years minimum. that is what it took London before they started producing SL quality players. Newcastle now, after years of fearful beatings, are starting to look decent. Patience is needed. Throwing it away would be a false economy.

By well funded teams/luck turns you mean a rich owner. If Superleague goes to 2 x 10 any club outside that who drops on a rich owner can of course apply to join SL2. In the model I set out on a previous page I included Workington and Whitehaven as Cumbria if Koukash carried out his recent suggestion of a Cumbria club. they would go in if this was true.

In the same model I included London because they do develop players. I included Newcastle because they have a rich owner and develop players. Both run academies. League one is not conducive to developing clubs, Superleague do not need it. Superleague 2 will be where clubs are developed. And I mean clubs with serious backing and a will to develop players of their own.

 

19 hours ago, bbfaz said:

So you're saying that rather than open things up, they should be closed down?

No not at all see above. The 2x10 SL structure has to include an annual review system. If a club is failing in the structure it needs booting out. If a club outside that structure offers more in terms of finance and player development it should come in. Hard to think of a good example but if Wasps wanted to go dual code and take Coventry under their wing with a 10 year funded plan to develop the game and work towards an SL1 place they could go in SL2 if they offered more than an existing SL2 club who were financially collapsing.

The SL1 & SL2 structure planned right can accommodate all that is positive about professional Rugby league. With respect this system would not need the hangers on, whose main policy aim is purely survival, which wastes precious TV money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

Please can we for once discuss reality

Which one?  Whose?

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

By well funded teams/luck turns you mean a rich owner.

And there's so many of them at the door that we made the Doc feel totally unwecome.

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

If Superleague goes to 2 x 10

And if it doesn't?

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

In the same model I included London because they do develop players

Look everyone Parky's finally admitted London develop players!

See there is a God and he's a TGG fan!

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

Please can we for once discuss reality, League One was created 15 years ago to accommodate failing Heartland clubs and Skolars and Gateshead. Nothing to do with rich North American clubs, the only one that actually exists being a club that refuses to develop players and is currently blocked from promotion to SL. So let's stick to reality. Stick to clubs that actually exist, and are not blocked.

Please link where the Wolfpack have stated they refuse to develop players. Please link where it’s been stated the Wolfpack are blocked from SL. Are these real live actual facts or Parky facts?

rldfsignature.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

Please link where the Wolfpack have stated they refuse to develop players. Please link where it’s been stated the Wolfpack are blocked from SL. Are these real live actual facts or Parky facts?

Funny how despite this alleged refusal to develop players they have loaned two such players out to the Skolars, isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If league one is cut off our sport doesn't deserve any credit or media coverage. Bulls took half of the crowd ton a "SL" team. in a cup game. York get 3000+ against a team with limited away following today. Some SL teams need to get their bottoms in gear and do the great work that Fax, Newcastle, York, Fev, are doing below them.

 

 

Like poor jokes? Thejoketeller@mullymessiah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

Please link where the Wolfpack have stated they refuse to develop players. Please link where it’s been stated the Wolfpack are blocked from SL. 

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12218/11222247/toronto-wolfpack-call-for-transparency-over-super-league-place  Now stop lazily  asking me for links and go and look these things up yourself, especially Perez's laughable interview with Woods. Don't come back to me until you do.

14 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Funny how despite this alleged refusal to develop players they have loaned two such players out to the Skolars, isn't it.

Ryan Burroughs  is a mature 26 year old USA international player, not a young player being loaned out to develop his game. It's pathetic TWP have done this. Again do your research, you will find Perez promising to convert grid iron players in a quick turnaround in 2016 in the interview with Dave Woods, later he said he was looking at Chinese athletes. Perez began "reviving" Canadian RL in 2010 eight years later he's given up and the only player of note who is anywhere near professional is Ngwati. How on earth are you going to manage a Canada team in the forthcoming world cups. Time YOU answered something.....come on let's hear it?

13 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

If league one is cut off our sport doesn't deserve any credit or media coverage. Bulls took half of the crowd ton a "SL" team. in a cup game. York get 3000+ against a team with limited away following today. Some SL teams need to get their bottoms in gear and do the great work that Fax, Newcastle, York, Fev, are doing below them.

Back to reality, and the reality is Bulls cannot wait to get out of League One, and if it had not existed Bulls could have built back up in the Championship. Fax and Fev are not League One teams. When Kurdi decided to start a Newcastle club he could have started in the Championship as he has the money to have put together a business plan to be accepted into the second tier straight away. When Gateshead found some money they competed in the Championship.

Nobody is "cutting off" league one,. The plan is to cut TV funding from 18 clubs if the new SKY or BT contract comes in at a much lower value, and support the best 20 clubs in an SL set up that can easily hoist up Newcastle, Bulls and York if they offer more than Rochdale, Swinton and Sheffield which they do. You cannot ignore the massive blow to the game a big TV contract cut will create by moaning about poor old League one, we cannot justify giving £tens of thousands to clubs who are treading water. Nothing is stopping 18 clubs carrying on in League one except their own ineptitude.

SL could just cut to 10, that they plan to expand to 20 has to be a good thing surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Parksider said:

 

Back to reality, and the reality is Bulls cannot wait to get out of League One, and if it had not existed Bulls could have built back up in the Championship. Fax and Fev are not League One teams. When Kurdi decided to start a Newcastle club he could have started in the Championship as he has the money to have put together a business plan to be accepted into the second tier straight away. When Gateshead found some money they competed in the Championship.

Nobody is "cutting off" league one,. The plan is to cut TV funding from 18 clubs if the new SKY or BT contract comes in at a much lower value, and support the best 20 clubs in an SL set up that can easily hoist up Newcastle, Bulls and York if they offer more than Rochdale, Swinton and Sheffield which they do. You cannot ignore the massive blow to the game a big TV contract cut will create by moaning about poor old League one, we cannot justify giving £tens of thousands to clubs who are treading water. Nothing is stopping 18 clubs carrying on in League one except their own ineptitude.

SL could just cut to 10, that they plan to expand to 20 has to be a good thing surely?

How does this answer what I typed?

Reality IS the Bulls are in League 1. Not SL or the Championship. So are York.

Teams shouldn't be "hoisted" up. Currently teams are allowed to grow, plan and get promoted from bottom division to top.

Like poor jokes? Thejoketeller@mullymessiah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The future of L1 is really a debate about the future of RL. 

If L1 does not survive then RL,  for the foreseeable future, is a minority sport played essentially in a handful of towns and a few cities in Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancs. To say this will undersell the sports’ potential is putting it mildly. L1 is surely about -growing the sport outside the heartland, even if that does mean fast tracking clubs like Toulouse abd Toronto but also about growing clubs in that league whether Skolars or Coventry or Whitehaven and rebooting clubs like Bradford. 

There are two main issues that need addressing:

1) Lack of marketing and PR. Clubs like York and dare I say Skolars do a good job but more help is needed. TV rights in the future are part of this. It seems mad I can watch East Leeds or Kells on TV but not Hunslet or Keighley. 

2) A more level playing field. For a range of reasons non heartland clubs are going to be at a disadvantage particularly those like West Wales, Coventry and us who try to grow their own players. This basically creates two leagues - heartlands and non heartland (look at the 8s last year). There is no doubt the overall quality of L1 keeps going up but the prospect of endless heavy defeats is not a great one for non heartland fans. It’s also not great if you’re bringing a neutral along. Answer - (much debated before) a L1 N and S, with the top clubs (perhaps 4 from N, 2 from S) coming together for playoffs, with one N having automatic promotion. 

L1 must survive because RL has to grow. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EssexRL said:

The future of L1 is really a debate about the future of RL. 

If L1 does not survive then RL,  for the foreseeable future, is a minority sport played essentially in a handful of towns and a few cities in Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancs. To say this will undersell the sports’ potential is putting it mildly. L1 is surely about -growing the sport outside the heartland, even if that does mean fast tracking clubs like Toulouse abd Toronto but also about growing clubs in that league whether Skolars or Coventry or Whitehaven and rebooting clubs like Bradford. 

There are two main issues that need addressing:

1) Lack of marketing and PR. Clubs like York and dare I say Skolars do a good job but more help is needed. TV rights in the future are part of this. It seems mad I can watch East Leeds or Kells on TV but not Hunslet or Keighley. 

2) A more level playing field. For a range of reasons non heartland clubs are going to be at a disadvantage particularly those like West Wales, Coventry and us who try to grow their own players. This basically creates two leagues - heartlands and non heartland (look at the 8s last year). There is no doubt the overall quality of L1 keeps going up but the prospect of endless heavy defeats is not a great one for non heartland fans. It’s also not great if you’re bringing a neutral along. Answer - (much debated before) a L1 N and S, with the top clubs (perhaps 4 from N, 2 from S) coming together for playoffs, with one N having automatic promotion. 

L1 must survive because RL has to grow. 

 

The best way it can grow is not to have a ceiling playing wise.

Your point about split in division with Heartlands and non-heartlands may change eventually with the addition of non heartland clubs (possibly Bristol next).

Like poor jokes? Thejoketeller@mullymessiah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemel in the amateur days used to have 3/4 aussies playing for them, but that  help the like Acton, Dixon to flourish, they should allow a quoto of players who don't need to be NRL standard to play this standard in league 1. And it made them compitive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There is a lot of emotive terms bandied about in relation to League 1 (And often the championship too) and clearly the fans of clubs in it are nervous about the future.

The problem with this is that we can't let that emotion blind us to the issues league 1 faces, that the game faces and some areas that it is struggling.

There are better solutions to be explored, there are other ways of working. Right now league 1 is in large parts a league subsidised simply to exist. Its not developing sustainable growing clubs, its not developing large numbers of players, its not growing in to a viable competition in its own right.

I dont think anyone wants to see the clubs in League 1 die or has anything but the utmost respect of those who spend their time and money keeping those clubs afloat. But a pragmatic look at league 1 doesnt show we aren't investing league 1, theres no prospective of a return, its a subsidy and it isnt really working. There is no value for money in it. It is right to look at what the competition does, what it is intended to do, what it can contribute to the wider game, and what the game is getting back from what it pays in.

I don't think its emotion, beyond a love of the game and a desire to see it survive and grow beyond its current regional (static/declining) audience. L1 is an investment in the future and has produced plenty of players (as well as providing an opportunity for players who might not be able to play at a higher level any more to continue their career).

I think on your criteria you could say the same about the Championship. The attendances for a number of clubs in that division are worse than L1 and I cannot imagine that many of their finances are great.

For sponsorship, for national media attention, and audience I just cannot see how RL has much of a future if it limits its ambition and pulls the draw bridges up.

As I said above, L1 is far from perfect but getting rid of it, for a paltry short term saving, will set us back. Personally it will mean that me and my son will go from being ST holders to occasional watchers of the game (<- emotional :-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

 

Ill pick an example out of your post about what i mean. This sentence is based more on emotion than pragmatism limits its ambition and pulls the draw bridges up. Lets say we were to remove P+R from all leagues. Thats not necessarily pulling the drawbridge up, it can be just be going  different way about it. And it may no be a limit to ambition. We arent being particularly ambitious with league 1 at the moment. It can be if we did change league 1 it could be hugely more ambitious.

I certainly think we can be more ambitious about L1..the “draw bridge” refers to the issue with RL in that it’s so heavily regionally based. A point well made on a recent Whippets and Flat Caps podcast (and irony aside that title shows the risk). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So..what are the better solutions to be explored, Sotchy1?  What is better for League 1 than being a semi-professional  3rd tier league spread widely across England and Wales that brings together new areas and traditional areas?  Perhaps, we should turn it into a giant collage?

It's  a bit rich saying League 1 is subsidised.  14 clubs getting £75k each adds up to around £1 million a year or roughly 2.5% of the £40 million a year TV contract.

It's simply not true to say that League 1 has no value, especially when you see some of the games this season and the interest they are getting.  League 1 over the last couple of years have seen average crowds surge when crowds in Super League have plateaued.

Finally, your pragmatic look at League 1 seems to be a rehash of meaningless phrases...

"...It isn't really working."..but I can see...teams are turning up each week to play games, the winners get the right amount of points, some clubs are doing well, some aren't, the league tables look to be published regularly and are quite interesting, in what way is that not working.

"its not growing in to a viable competition in its own right" - just about the most tired cliche in Rugby League at the moment.  There seems to be scores of players turning up every week and trying to win followed by thousands of supporters..that seems like a competition to me.  Last years winners got promoted which seems to be viable competition in my eyes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There is a lot of emotive terms bandied about in relation to League 1 (And often the championship too) and clearly the fans of clubs in it are nervous about the future.

The problem with this is that we can't let that emotion blind us to the issues league 1 faces, that the game faces and some areas that it is struggling.

There are better solutions to be explored, there are other ways of working. Right now league 1 is in large parts a league subsidised simply to exist. Its not developing sustainable growing clubs, its not developing large numbers of players, its not growing in to a viable competition in its own right.

I dont think anyone wants to see the clubs in League 1 die or has anything but the utmost respect of those who spend their time and money keeping those clubs afloat. But a pragmatic look at league 1 doesnt show we aren't investing league 1, theres no prospective of a return, its a subsidy and it isnt really working. There is no value for money in it. It is right to look at what the competition does, what it is intended to do, what it can contribute to the wider game, and what the game is getting back from what it pays in.

  I'm struggling to see exactly what Super League does in the 'value for money' stakes.

   On the playing of the sport side - since it's inception we still trail some way behind Australia - be it 'elite' international games,or club games.

   On the playing numbers side of things - some clubs don't run reserve sides;some clubs don't run academies.

    Attendances appear to have a glass ceiling.

     When players reach a certain age they are discarded.

    Seems to me things are getting worse as times progress when it comes to the top league.Even the international sides require players who ply their trade overseas.

     If Super League clubs do have young players being paid less than the minimum wage it would seem the whole game requires root and branch review.....but we know that.

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m really struggling with your opinion Scotchy. L1 is an important part of UK RL. It isn’t perfect but what is in RL? Teams from North America & Europe are seeing it as an important opportunity to improve themselves. UK sides appreciate the opportunity it affords them as well. The fact that SL get so much money and most can’t even be bothered developing talent could be described as a waste, a waste of opportunity. I'd rather see a million put into L1 than given to SL clubs, who will simply spend it on imports from Australia.

 

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone isn't here to serve super league!..

Everything you've just wrote is exactly why the championship & league one clubs need to be released from the stranglehold that is super league! We are not allowed to generate our own media income!

OLDHAM RLFC

the 8TH most successful team in british RL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, roughyedspud said:

Everyone isn't here to serve super league!..

Everything you've just wrote is exactly why the championship & league one clubs need to be released from the stranglehold that is super league! We are not allowed to generate our own media income!

Exactly. SL is increasingly the problem. It started out well but as time passes is looking more vulnerable. It’s ability to generate revenue is less convincing as each year passes. The solution? Pull up the draw bridge and retreat into it’s castle. 

 SL clubs think they are the most important and indispensable part of UK SL. In reality SL needs the rest of UK RL more than it needs SL. If SL fell over, it would knock the game, but the clubs would pick themselves up and still deliver for their communities. If the rest of UK RL disappeared, how long would SL survive? 

SL gets more out of RL in the UK than SL returns to it. Virtually all the development of new players comes from the systems in place below SL. A small amount of money flows the other way and SL seem to think it’s wasted. How short sighted. 

I actually enjoy following the Championship and League 1 just as much as SL and if I lived in the UK, would probably go to watch Championship rather than SL. If the media could be convinced that what's on offer below SL is good to watch, then there’s potential to be exploited.

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RayCee said:

Exactly. SL is increasingly the problem. It started out well but as time passes is looking more vulnerable. It’s ability to generate revenue is less convincing as each year passes. The solution? Pull up the draw bridge and retreat into it’s castle. . 

I actually enjoy following the Championship and League 1 just as much as SL and if I lived in the UK, would probably go to watch Championship rather than SL. If the media could be convinced that what's on offer below SL is good to watch, then there’s potential to be exploited.

Trouble with SL is that there are only about 4 or 5 super clubs. The rest are hangers on who rely on the salary cap to be competitive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ojx said:

Trouble with SL is that there are only about 4 or 5 super clubs. The rest are hangers on who rely on the salary cap to be competitive. 

It isn't a Super League and never has been.  It is (and always has been) a tarted-up version of the old RL Championship and that won't change without Toronto and more new teams like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ojx said:

Trouble with SL is that there are only about 4 or 5 super clubs. The rest are hangers on who rely on the salary cap to be competitive. 

True. That's why the likes of Toronto are needed, to add to the super clubs which I believe they will become. 

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

That's the whole point of the post in the first place, to celebrate what's going on in League 1. To say the money put into L1 doesn't get a return is so far off the mark.  

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

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.