Martyn Sadler

New league structure revealed

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure why we need to beat ourselves up by constantly comparing to the NRL. More people in the UK watch SL as opposed to NRL and it isn't a choice to nip to their games. 

I love watching UK RL, we don't need to bash it.

There’s quality contests , but there’s way to much bang average stuff for a so called elite competition and the depth just isn’t there . Skill levels , how teams play now , and the general atmosphere and spectacle  , including the officiating and flow of the game aren’t anywhere where you’d want them . We are immersed in but is it grabbing people and progressing ?

Edited by DavidM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, gittinsfan said:

Out of interest,will it be made public how each club votes on Friday?

We might find out how some voted but I doubt they’ll publicise how everyone voted.

Share this post


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

Hopefully this debate can be put to bed tomorrow and Elstone can start to outline what we are going to do to make SL bigger and better.

Super League now needs to stick with Top 5 ‘for the foreseeable future and turn ‘Super September’ into a fixture on the British sporting calendar like ‘finals football’ is Down Under.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually a fight for tv rights sounds good to me

RFL

Leeds

Bradford

London Broncos

London Scholars backed by Argyle

Toronto

Toulouse

Newcastle if the owner wants it

Coventry backed by wasps

Manchester Rangers

Leigh,Fev,Fax ,till more important clubs come forward.

Best chance Rugbyleague has had of growing for 100 yrs

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

They have...since the attendance issues and shrinking viewerships are a thing. And becoming a problem

But isn't that because of lack of certainty of fixtures rather than the NRL being better?

And how are some clubs doing ok despite the NRL being better?

We have a very enjoyable sport, we need to cheer up. Always strive for better, but that isn't because it is pants at the moment.

Share this post


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

But isn't that because of lack of certainty of fixtures rather than the NRL being better?

And how are some clubs doing ok despite the NRL being better?

We have a very enjoyable sport, we need to cheer up. Always strive for better, but that isn't because it is pants at the moment.

I was more pointing out that despite the enjoyableness on the field the fans are leaving. Not good when most sports are growing.  

I doubt it has anything to do with the NRL (except that they pay better and therefore steal the best players)

and you're fine with clubs doing "ok", I'd much rather clubs were doing far better then that

As I have said many times on here, the players and fans are awesome (I guess I'll add for the first time that we need more of them).  Some of the ownership and leadership are not.  They are complacent 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching RL on Sky ever since they started broadcasting it on analogue. I'm sorry to say that I find the majority of games these days dull. They lack intensity, the skill levels are mediocre, the tactics are predictable and the presentation by the broadcaster is atrocious. But I have persisted with my subscription in the hope that it'll come good. Sadly I'm  at the point of wondering why I am supporting a load of sports I care not a fig about to watch such poor quality in the one I want to. I was thinking that next year I'll just save my money and go and watch a few choice games live. If the vote comes out in favour of the SL proposal I may just hang on another year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I enjoy the games when I attend live, and just like any ruddy sport some games are terrific, some bang average and some poor. I don't watch NRL and maybe going by comments on here that's the only ruddy sport that every game is fantastic.

AS to TV I watched the BBC CC games and must say I enjoyed the coverage and watching the games.  When I watch sky the commentators annoy me and I don't like their coverage, that also sometimes puts me off the game.

What do we expect the level of games to be at when we tie the arm of the financially stronger clubs to the same level as the weakest financially. We shouldn't be surprised that the squads are weak as to fit in salary cap almost half the squad is academy players or just out of academy. So imho anybody who supports ridiculous salary cap because in some misguided judgement they want a more competitive set of teams should accept the consequence of weaker teams, especially when injuries occur.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

I was more pointing out that despite the enjoyableness on the field the fans are leaving. Not good when most sports are growing.  

I doubt it has anything to do with the NRL (except that they pay better and therefore steal the best players)

and you're fine with clubs doing "ok", I'd much rather clubs were doing far better then that

As I have said many times on here, the players and fans are awesome (I guess I'll add for the first time that we need more of them).  Some of the ownership and leadership are not.  They are complacent 

So it sounds like we agree. The point was in reference to a complaint we are not as good as the NRL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Well I enjoy the games when I attend live, and just like any ruddy sport some games are terrific, some bang average and some poor. I don't watch NRL and maybe going by comments on here that's the only ruddy sport that every game is fantastic.

AS to TV I watched the BBC CC games and must say I enjoyed the coverage and watching the games.  When I watch sky the commentators annoy me and I don't like their coverage, that also sometimes puts me off the game.

What do we expect the level of games to be at when we tie the arm of the financially stronger clubs to the same level as the weakest financially. We shouldn't be surprised that the squads are weak as to fit in salary cap almost half the squad is academy players or just out of academy. So imho anybody who supports ridiculous salary cap because in some misguided judgement they want a more competitive set of teams should accept the consequence of weaker teams, especially when injuries occur.

I’d agree that the salary cap debate is fair as it’s not doing what it theoretically is meant to anyway . The same teams dominate so for whatever reason the basic premise isn’t working 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more that I read about this new system, the more concerned I am.

The proposals retain some of the worst features of this system such as the potential to play a side 7 times in one year (home, away, Magic, loop, cup and twice in the play offs).

Meanwhile, the proposals get rid of the best features of this system (i.e. the Qualifiers) and only 4 teams in the play off. 4/12 (33% of the league) is plenty in the play offs.

I don't think rushing through a new system, that is actually an old system that we got rid of because it allegedly didn't work, is the answer. All of this against the backdrop of bitter, public disputes amongst clubs.

The sport has many problems, but a rushed through cosmetic fudge isn't the answer that many seem to think it will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So it sounds like we agree. The point was in reference to a complaint we are not as good as the NRL.

We ar'nt as good as the NRL, do you watch it to make the comparrison Dave? Why do some of our top players say it was or is their ambition to test themselves with the best,  If you say for the monetary value, I will agree half way but that it not the sole purpose of those who want to prove themselves at the pinnicle of our sport, even the players and coaches we get from the NRL lauded as good performers over here are surplus to requirement over there.

Share this post


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

We ar'nt as good as the NRL, do you watch it to make the comparrison Dave? Why do some of our top players say it was or is their ambition to test themselves with the best,  If you say for the monetary value, I will agree half way but that it not the sole purpose of those who want to prove themselves at the pinnicle of our sport, even the players and coaches we get from the NRL lauded as good performers over here are surplus to requirement over there.

You completely miss my point. 

As a fan in the UK, the NRL isn't an option to replace my RL fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TboneFromTO said:

As I have said many times on here, the players and fans are awesome (I guess I'll add for the first time that we need more of them).  Some of the ownership and leadership are not.  They are complacent 

The "ownership and leadership" of Superleague includes Gentlemen who have put their own personal riches into their clubs, without expecting much if anything back. Neil Hudgell (and Tony Crossland) were said to subsidise HKR  to the tune of half a £million a year. Ken Davey clearly subsidies Huddersfield heavily and has done for many years. They don’t shout about it but I believe Mr. Lenegan invests heavily in SL via Wigan and Mr. McManus via Saints as well. The Fulton family has probably put a few £Million or more Castleford’s way, and a realiable Wakey fan said Mr. Carter puts good money into Wakey.

There is also Mr. Pearson at Hull and I believe Mr. Moran puts in big time to Warrington. Gausch is the big Catalans investor, and Salford may survive on the money Koukash still provides even though he’s quit as chairman. Complacent people are people who feel everything’s Ok and they do not have to do anything. That all these chairmen put £Millions into their clubs is far from complacent and your comments are ignorant and insulting.

I don’t recall any of these Gents bragging about what they put in, or expecting to have their own way because they do this, or to get it all back if they quit. But I do believe there should be some recognition for the small band of big investors into Rugby league who underpin Superleague. It appears despite how much they put in they do not now begrudge the Championships portion of free money they get from a SKY contract that is fundamentally for SL however much people want to spin otherwise.

He who pays the piper call the tune they say, and on Friday this should happen and this should be conceded by vote holders especially Championship chairmen who may provide very little to the game, and who have no actual ambition to be promoted, and have to then dig into their own pockets - and therefore should keep their noses out of the debate over the best system of P&R.

Let the clubs who want to engage in P & R decide how it’s done. Not “The armed forces” or Batley whose very fine, but unambitious chairman is happy and pragmatic enough to be a part time club. Not the amateur game nor Hemel Hepstead who may never get off the bottom reaches of League One let alone be promoted form it….

For Kayakman when TWP start properly investing in player development and finding a big  paying TV deal clubs can share then and only then may they be considered for some kind of say in the game here.

Edited by The Parksider

Share this post


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

The "ownership and leadership" of Superleague includes Gentlemen who have put their own personal riches into their clubs, without expecting much if anything back. Neil Hudgell (and Tony Crossland) were said to subsidise HKR  to the tune of half a £million a year. Ken Davey clearly subsidies Huddersfield heavily and has done for many years. They don’t shout about it but I believe Mr. Lenegan invests heavily in SL via Wigan and Mr. McManus via Saints as well. The Fulton family has probably put a few £Million or more Castleford’s way, and a realiable Wakey fan said Mr. Carter puts good money into Wakey.

There is also Mr. Pearson at Hull and I believe Mr. Moran puts in big time to Warrington. Gausch is the big Catalans investor, and Salford may survive on the money Koukash still provides even though he’s quit as chairman. Complacent people are people who feel everything’s Ok and they do not have to do anything. That all these chairmen put £Millions into their clubs is far from complacent and your comments are ignorant and insulting.

I don’t recall any of these Gents bragging about what they put in, or expecting to have their own way because they do this, or to get it all back if they quit. But I do believe there should be some recognition for the small band of big investors into Rugby league who underpin Superleague. It appears despite how much they put in they do not now begrudge the Championships portion of free money they get from a SKY contract that is fundamentally for SL however people want to spin otherwise.

He who pays the piper call the tune they say, and on Friday this should happen and this should be conceded by vote holders especially Championship chairmen who may provide very little to the game, and who have no actual ambition to be promoted, and have to then dig into their own pockets - and therefore should keep their noses out of the debate over the best system of P&R.

Let the clubs who want to engage in P & R decide how it’s done. Not “The armed forces” or Batley whose very fine, but unambitious chairman is happy and pragmatic enough to be a part time club. Not the amateur game nor Hemel Hepstead who may never get off the bottom reaches of League One let alone be promoted form it…..

And should every team be invited to the meeting and have a vote or even be allowed to have their say or is it still all an Old English Millionaire Boys Club?   How come Toronto and Toulouse are excluded?  I'm sure you will have a good reason to justify this further discrimination, since you have already attempted to justify discrimination in your post against the League 1 and Championship sides based on wealth....taking it to the next level should not be a stretch.

Come On Parky....you have one chance, take this post back right now!

parksider.jpg

Edited by Kayakman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched pro RL in the two comps for many years. Things ebb and flow. However, a few points from my perspective of the current climate.

RL live. I think the crowds are more vocal and involved in SL. NRL crowds are fairly muted unless some action is involved. Most are happy to sit there and watch.

The product. The NRL has more skill and intensity. It's also pulling ahead in the entertainment area too. I think predictability (for players and fans) has a part in the second point.

Expectations. Aussies have a fairly laid back attitude and more likely to accept poor admin, lack of expansion and seeing dead rubbers toward the end of the season. SL fans seem to expect every game to have something riding on it or what's the point? 

The numbers. SL is obsessed with keeping or reducing the number of elite teams to get more money for the few(er) clubs. This is short sighted and is a major factor in boredom with the fans. At least UK RL has been supportive of French and now NA teams. 

The NRL should have expanded their comp, especially in reach to new areas. They do have more teams than SL, too many situated in one city but no one cares about that.

Summary: UK fans are much harder to please. The UK needs more teams in SL to add variety. The UK needs to get media competing for TV rights like they have in Australia (not an easy one but I wonder about the effort put in to sell SL). UK RL is too passive in planning and promoting. Then it resorts to knee jerk decisions at the last minute. Next season's set up is a classic example of that. 

Sport today is a business but it's hard to see good business practice in RL. Lack of leadership mostly to do with that. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Live or televisual?

Obviously Live as it can replace tv viewing. But, it isn't doing so. Figures are low for the NRL. In reality the NRL may be good to watch, but many people want an emotional bond with a sport.

More people will watch Widnes v Halifax than the Aussie Grand Final or State of Origin on Sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Obviously Live as it can replace tv viewing. But, it isn't doing so. Figures are low for the NRL. In reality the NRL may be good to watch, but many people want an emotional bond with a sport.

More people will watch Widnes v Halifax than the Aussie Grand Final or State of Origin on Sky.

That last sentence is up there with the most stupid things I’ve seen posted on here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

That last sentence is up there with the most stupid things I’ve seen posted on here. 

Oh bore off. Follow the conversation, it is a direct conversation about whether NRL can replace the UK fan's viewing fix.

But the sentence is factually correct, so not sure why you think it is stupid.

Edited by Dave T

Share this post


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

The "ownership and leadership" of Superleague includes Gentlemen who have put their own personal riches into their clubs, without expecting much if anything back. Neil Hudgell (and Tony Crossland) were said to subsidise HKR  to the tune of half a £million a year. Ken Davey clearly subsidies Huddersfield heavily and has done for many years. They don’t shout about it but I believe Mr. Lenegan invests heavily in SL via Wigan and Mr. McManus via Saints as well. The Fulton family has probably put a few £Million or more Castleford’s way, and a realiable Wakey fan said Mr. Carter puts good money into Wakey.

There is also Mr. Pearson at Hull and I believe Mr. Moran puts in big time to Warrington. Gausch is the big Catalans investor, and Salford may survive on the money Koukash still provides even though he’s quit as chairman. Complacent people are people who feel everything’s Ok and they do not have to do anything. That all these chairmen put £Millions into their clubs is far from complacent and your comments are ignorant and insulting.

I don’t recall any of these Gents bragging about what they put in, or expecting to have their own way because they do this, or to get it all back if they quit. But I do believe there should be some recognition for the small band of big investors into Rugby league who underpin Superleague. It appears despite how much they put in they do not now begrudge the Championships portion of free money they get from a SKY contract that is fundamentally for SL however much people want to spin otherwise.

He who pays the piper call the tune they say, and on Friday this should happen and this should be conceded by vote holders especially Championship chairmen who may provide very little to the game, and who have no actual ambition to be promoted, and have to then dig into their own pockets - and therefore should keep their noses out of the debate over the best system of P&R.

Let the clubs who want to engage in P & R decide how it’s done. Not “The armed forces” or Batley whose very fine, but unambitious chairman is happy and pragmatic enough to be a part time club. Not the amateur game nor Hemel Hepstead who may never get off the bottom reaches of League One let alone be promoted form it….

For Kayakman when TWP start properly investing in player development and finding a big  paying TV deal clubs can share then and only then may they be considered for some kind of say in the game here.

Oh boy....

There is much more to sport then supporting player development.  And from annecdotal evidence on here(and a few press releases) grass roots rugby is coming from Canada!  It funny how a vocal few seem to think this stuff happens so fast. I mean just because the Wolfpack have grown to be bigger then some SL teams that quickly doesn't mean every aspect of the sport will.

 

I'm fine with owners being happy in the championship, or league one! I'm not fine with owners not at least trying anything to get more fans out, and looking at the attendance figures and lack of awareness of the sport, it doesn't look like most of them are (with a few outliars). An owner's job by definition is to make their team profitable, and by that metric most are failing. (the nice thing about being the owner is no one can fire you!)

 

Share this post


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

The "ownership and leadership" of Superleague includes Gentlemen who have put their own personal riches into their clubs, without expecting much if anything back. Neil Hudgell (and Tony Crossland) were said to subsidise HKR  to the tune of half a £million a year. Ken Davey clearly subsidies Huddersfield heavily and has done for many years. They don’t shout about it but I believe Mr. Lenegan invests heavily in SL via Wigan and Mr. McManus via Saints as well. The Fulton family has probably put a few £Million or more Castleford’s way, and a realiable Wakey fan said Mr. Carter puts good money into Wakey.

There is also Mr. Pearson at Hull and I believe Mr. Moran puts in big time to Warrington. Gausch is the big Catalans investor, and Salford may survive on the money Koukash still provides even though he’s quit as chairman. Complacent people are people who feel everything’s Ok and they do not have to do anything. That all these chairmen put £Millions into their clubs is far from complacent and your comments are ignorant and insulting.

I don’t recall any of these Gents bragging about what they put in, or expecting to have their own way because they do this, or to get it all back if they quit. But I do believe there should be some recognition for the small band of big investors into Rugby league who underpin Superleague. It appears despite how much they put in they do not now begrudge the Championships portion of free money they get from a SKY contract that is fundamentally for SL however people want to spin otherwise.

He who pays the piper call the tune they say, and on Friday this should happen and this should be conceded by vote holders especially Championship chairmen who may provide very little to the game, and who have no actual ambition to be promoted, and have to then dig into their own pockets - and therefore should keep their noses out of the debate over the best system of P&R.

Let the clubs who want to engage in P & R decide how it’s done. Not “The armed forces” or Batley whose very fine, but unambitious chairman is happy and pragmatic enough to be a part time club. Not the amateur game nor Hemel Hepstead who may never get off the bottom reaches of League One let alone be promoted form it…..

All quite logical Mr Parksider until you tripped up and stumbled with the highlighted remark, the reason there is to be an EGM tomorrow as we know is because they want to change the games structure, they announced their desires without any consultation to the other parties who their actions would directly affect in expectation that no one would object.

If they do not get the desired number of votes to carry through their proposals an Friday, I doubt they will even have the cuertosy to announce their counter measures at the culmination of this TV contract - which I believe they are legally bound to honour - they will just breakaway, which I also think will be inevitable anyway even if this motion carries in their favour.

Their generosity is not to the game at large it is for their own individual clubs, it is a one eyed approach Leneghan confirmed this when he stated all the funding should go to the SL clubs alone, they need it more!

I know for a fact at a Chairmans meeting around the time Elstone was unvieled, Leneghan addressed the floor and did a presentation breakdown of the funding distribution, one astute Non-SL chaiman did some quick calculations and pointed out to Leneghan that there was a £1M shortfall for the funding awarded below SL, he was then challenged that the missing £1M was to pay for Elstone and the funtionallity of his office to which Leneghan could or chose not to deny, so the Non-SL clubs were expected to finance the guy who may eventually take money away from them!

I think going forward SL's intentions are very clear, I would not trust them at all, 3 years is a long time in sport - it most definitely is in the British RL - I hope the vote goes against the SL demands and adopts the counter proposals mainly on the finance /funding aspects and it gets signed off and binding for 10 years at least.

Edited by Harry Stottle
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh bore off. Follow the conversation, it is a direct conversation about whether NRL can replace the UK fan's viewing fix.

But the sentence is factually correct, so not sure why you think it is stupid.

I’ll entertain a fool, provide these “facts” you speak of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at how the voting will go now as we’re at the business end of what’s been a long, drawn out process. 

Currently we have twelve Super League sides, twelve Championship sides and fourteen League One sides. You’d expect at least eleven of the Super League sides will vote the new system and I wonder if Toulouse, Toronto and London from the Championship will be swayed because of their current positions onfield. 

I’m not sure if the Super League can gain enough votes here but if they don’t, I wonder if they’ll just breakaway the RFL. 

Share this post


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

Obviously Live as it can replace tv viewing. But, it isn't doing so. Figures are low for the NRL. In reality the NRL may be good to watch, but many people want an emotional bond with a sport.

More people will watch Widnes v Halifax than the Aussie Grand Final or State of Origin on Sky.

The reason I asked that question Dave "Live or Televisual" was to your statement about your RL fix, the way the discussion was going was some are extolling the quality of the NRL over the SL offer, I can and do get my RL fix from attending community and championship games irrespective of what I view on the TV, but given the choice of one or the other SL v NRL I would probably lean towards the NRL, purely on the entertainment scale.

Only a couple of weeks ago I started a thread which stated that I want to be entertained when watching RL on TV, you agreed with me, I said that the way SL is going these days with the quality on offer coupled with the on-field cheating, gamesmanship, time wasting etc I find myself tuning in more out of habit than expectation of being richly entertained which sad to say is occurring more and more frequently these days, on the other hand very rarely does the NRL fail to deliver, for me anyway.

The whole point of this is SL making me ask the question of myself is it of worth to me to keep paying the Sky subscription, with the politics that are going on and especially if as I expect there will be a reversal to a closed shop structure in the not to distant future, I would most definatley cancel my subscription, the much bigger question is how many more are like minded?

PS, I do not have an emotional bond with SL clubs, there are some that I would prefer to win their games, but I cannot transfer my emotions from my club or the international team in the same respect.

Edited by Harry Stottle
  • Like 1

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 - Sept 2018

Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here