The Parksider

It's a good argument. Leeds can manage to find 15,000 fans and 22 Leeds born professionals so they manage to sustain a competitive Super League club. Bradford can manage 15,000 fans and were late to the quality academy system but started to turn them out sadly due to financial difficulties they have had to sell these lads on, Burgess, Whitehead, Bateman , Kopczak etc. So the reality is West Yorkshire has managed to support two real Superleague clubs. Now they have one. Getting Bradford back on track and getting one club in the Calder area where reality shows there's enough good young players to stock a Superleague team and 20,000 fans, enough to sustain one club even if half jump ship hankering after the past. Five SL clubs is Fairyland. One is reality, three would take a strong will and good planning. 2/12/3/8 is not that it's a weak cop out and no plan at all.

Can anyone answer this excellent question?? Padge perhaps??

That's an excellent to the point reply, but doesn't it (again) depend on wether the money is against any assets i.e. the ground/land?? If that is the final return ithen that is to the long term detriment of the club. Less and less clubs seem to have assets of this kind. The next question is what return is there for the game with this philanthropy? If the Philanthropist pays for five thousand empty seats in the stadium and outbids clubs who develop pro players for their services then he is building a house of cards. That is then to the detriment of clubs aiming to invest in and develop the games professional player pool. If Ken Davey can't be bothered with an academy as is alleged and buys Bradfords best youngsters why should Bradford bother to develop them in the first place. Take all this to it's extreme. There are those on here who support the idea of mega rich men suddenly appearing to elevate Leigh above Wigan, Keighley above Bradford. Fev above Wakey/Cas, etc. What is the best situation for the game? The 12 biggest clubs using Superleague to grow the playing roster and the paying crowds?? Or the 12 smallest clubs propped up by a philanthropic £4Million a year until the owner gets bored, runs into business problems or dies. Can we really afford Messrs Davey and Koucash to prop up essentially small clubs, whilst bigger clubs like Wakefield and Bradford flounder for want of charity?? Remember if Koucash had not stepped in Salford would be no more for all the tens of £Millions Wilkinson put in. I think not. There is no great point to throwing £Millions in the wrong place just to make an individual happy. We should take every penny of philanthropy we can but SL places should not be open to being playthings, and SL clubs should grow the game, not puffed up ego's.

Well for the championship SL wannabees it will be fascinating seeing if any of them do put a lot of money where their mouth is, or wether all the moans and groans about we can do better were just hot air. For those threatened with the "league of death" it will be important to try to stay out of that. I keep forgetting that the new structure doesn't stop at fev, fax, leigh and Sheffield!!! I will be fascinated to see how the crowds go at the clubs who won't be able to compete in the middle eight and end their seasons in a third tier, also the crowds of five clubs who end up in the fourth tier. Any calculation as to "increased crowds" in this new structure has to take into the reckoning a lot of decreased crowds by the looks of it??

1. I aren't sure that it wasn't licensing that caused clubs to overspend?? Didn't the uprating of stadiums, the staffing of backrooms, the spending on academy facilities and the desire that clubs spend full cap too push many clubs into debt?? Aren't we saying that ridding the game of licensing and the financial hoops clubs have to jump through is a way of allowing SL clubs to reduce budgets and debts? I did try to suggest to Mr. Sadler last week that there is no evidence of clubs going for broke at all, quite the opposite as they look to shed costs and sell off players. Today he was at it again saying that clubs would overspend to "chase the dream". However I am at a loss here as firstly the salary cap reduces overspend and secondly the available pool of the top 200 players is pretty much tied up in the top eight clubs. Who are clubs going to overspend on and how??? Maybe Mr. Sadler will take pity and let us know? 2. Indeed, there's however a very large opinion that nothing will change much, one advocate suggested there would be "one or two shocks", have we really made such a radical change for "one or two shocks".

So how come they keep pipping your lot on a shoestring against Campbell's and Nahaboos hundreds of thousands? Are you not successfully run? I think this should be the last word BTW Terry.

I was hoping like Old Rover that that would be the very good last word.

I've looked into it as far as the headline it is. I have been unable to find any "depth" to the idea the proposals would create meaningful, exciting matches and boost crowds. Can you help perchance?

Either way it was said the proposals would create meaningful, exciting matches and boost crowds. Why they never said? Do you know why Dave??

Thanks for the reply. No I am not assuming London will survive the drop. As it stands they hardly have a team, and have some loan kids in the 1st. X111. On that I can safely say it will take a miracle for them to avoid relegation. On Nahaboos pledge to spend the same salary cap as the eight Superleague clubs I can surmise he will outspend all the other clubs in the middle 8. So I see those two clubs "changing places" as it stands.

Look it up, what's the problem? People went Bananas on here when they were protected. IIRC they ticked no boxes.

We all have our thoughts. As it stands today London cannot survive in SL and Featherstone have Nahaboo lined up to bankroll the clubs losses in full. Massive difference.So London relegated. Featherstone stay where they are 2014??....... Then Fev are in the top four 2015 whilst London may even have packed in by then.So there's a swap over with London the team going down down down and Fev going up up but no, I don't see them breaking the top eight. Now if Nahaboo buys out Cas and Wakey and closes them down I can see it, otherwise it's a mid table Calder "derbyfest" year on year...... I also note Hudgell lined up with Pearson despite the latter trying to pinch his best players all the time. Hudge was the first to openly call for 12 clubs. Methinks IMVHO he hoped the saved SKY money would be divvied up amongst the 12, so I assume he's not happy despite fans of Fev saying he's seen the light!! Will both clubs end up outside the "8" as they have done before. Hull's start at Bradford was poor HKR have lost Dobson. I don't like the idea of an 8 clubs Superleague with nobody from Hull or Calder in it but hey ho....

London never came bottom, suggest we look at the facts. If you look at the history Richard Lewis rescued London from being booted out of SL and had them re-instated alongside Les Catalans and he introduced a quasi-licence for Catalans protecting them from relegation. So Lewis was protectionist IMVHO. Then when full licensing came in he could then ensure that London, Wales and France were protected in Superleague, so his expansion policy was protected and they could "grow". Protectionism again? As it was Crusaders collapsed but still got a licence - protected or what?? Were London 2011 up to another 3 year licence?? Were crowds improving, results improving, the structures at London improving?? Not at all, they were protected because they were seen as "strategic" as the licensing panel said.

Ah yes but if they end a season with Fev finishing 3rd in the eight and London finishing 8 they will be swapping places won't they. Then will a freefalling London leave the Championship or the game altogether?

I don't. I just thought I'd join in contriving an argument to suit a desired outcome, however it didn't work. It got my club Hunslet no nearer Superleague. The views on the various schemes are so heavily tainted with self interest from "brilliant scheme it will last forever" from the Cas CEO, to "load of rubbish" from the Bradford head coach. I blame the RFL, SLE and KPMG for a proposal with a stated outcome - "bigger crowds" - which in turn has been broadcasted to us in a PR fashion all without a shred of published analytical evidence to back it up. They only tell you the bits they want you to hear. That's fair enough it's their business and I have no say nor right to be told anything. But I do think that if we debate PR guff and further slant our own interpretations of why the club representatives talk so differently about the same thing (Cas CEO "help were skint and need releasing gently from SL".....Bradford coach"Help we're useless and don't want relegating") then we drift. I personally like the idea from Craiq and Gaz that no matter what, opening up the leagues like this can find people out....... 1. Let's see if London can swim without licensing to protect them? 2. Lets see if certain SL clubs really deserve to be in there? 3. Let's see if certain CC clubs really can be better than SL clubs 4. Let those with the wallets either open them up and stop threatening to invest or shut them and go 5. Lets see if KPMG were right or wrong My predictions? London and Featherstone to quickly swap places, Bradford to regain past glories, Cas Fev and Wakey to all be outside the eight, and Sheffield to finally fade. Still to come - the central funding issue, and the reaction to that in terms of which chairmen will continue to invest in light of central funding because I think the less central funding the more standing down we will get.

OK so the 2x12=3x8 had six against, and the 12 and two down had seven against, but in both cases, those who voted "for" either system weren't against the other system as it was nearly as good? So either way everyone would have been happy with both systems. Yet the average vote against a system was 6.5 and the average vote for a system was also 6.5. It is clear that all 13 clubs who voted did not vote against staying at 14 with two up and two down? That therefore means none voted against the status quo so clearly they were all happy with it. Given that Les Catalans didn't vote in either vote then they must have wanted the status quo? Therefore everyone was for it so the Status Quo actually won unanimously?

Great post, great reply and anlysis from Dave, and we shall see what tactics the "poor" SL clubs adopt when the new system comes around. Fascinating..... Nice debate today, no abuse/goading or "lock this thread" moaning minnies.....

Yes sir, please see My post above to Gary. I am however a Sadleryte so I am biased......

That's fine but Mr. Sadler did not take the view, and is not pushing the view that five of the top eight clubs and Mr. Koukash do not want 2x12=2x8. He reported the fact they wanted a 12 club SL with a partly close door. He may push his idea of which way this is going you may wish to push with Terry your idea these six have seen the light.

Because they have agreed as Martyn Sadler outlined to drop their public differences for the time being for a show of public unity whilst the season tickets are on sale an TV are interested in upping the contract. Chairmen from top eight clubs Davey, Moran. Lennigan, Pearson and Hudgell actually did not want this. They wanted a 12 club Superleague with a half shut door of a P & R play off every two years. They still do not want the change but will accept it for control of Superleague. They can still scupper things. I note Terry likes your post but I would implore both of you to read Mr. Sadlers "behind the Public Relations" reality of the situation in his Monday editorial. Favorable announcements from chairmen smiling through gritted teeth, because they don't believe a word of what they are saying but have to say it don't mean anything against the reality of their actual stance.

Thanks for that view

Tremendous posts, I take the points entirely. Just have a problem that the gap between 1-8 and 9-12 may well leave us with an eight club SL. Craiq suggests cash "will come into the game the second tier becomes a flowing river and not the stagnant pond it is now" . I have a problem with that wishful thinking, but we can live in hope??

Yes of course part timers struggle, but it's a leap of faith for you to suggest 4/5 clubs will go "full time" under the proposals. It's the definition of full time. What is the difference between a full time SL club with a £1,650,000 salary cap spend backed by an RFL approved academy........and a part time club spending another £600K on wages in a players market that is very thin, attempting to become full time, who have no effective academy? The difference is the part time turned full time club will be spending 45% less than Superleague clubs.That's where one professional club can be spending nigh on twice as much as another. If Castleford decide to trim say a £1,200,000 salary spend down to £900K and dump their academy next year, then of course they can look forward to at least ending the season in better financial shape and they can look forward to competing against their middle eight colleagues. But how are they going to avoid hammerings from top SL clubs with another three quality players gone from their squad. I can't understand your logic that full time = even competition because Superleague's main problem is exactly that, that is not the case.......

I personally agree entirely with that analysis. So the new format although merely a way to reduce debt and downsize clubs, will also throw up a tremendously interesting financial battle in the middle eight?? Who will shy away from spending and reduce their debts, who will increase spending, how much will Nahaboo inject? Do they really have money at Halifax?? Will London ground to a halt?? Such an exciting time is to come with the new format which people will state is all to do with "what happens on the pitch", but the failure or success of any club will remain IMVHO in the accountants office, where they are currently awaiting the far more important meeting/decision than last weeks i.e. the funding decision. Once the clubs have re-jigged financially will the format then become as sterile as any.........

I'd agree with you, but I fear a £900K second eight squad will be so much weaker than a Elite SL £1.65M squad. The middle eight may work as a competition but breaking the big eight may be nigh on impossible. Here's Mark Aston the legend....... "At least they have made a decision, It remains to be see if it does mean promotion and relegation - I actually don't believe that" If the funding is not right it means a 8 club Suprleague and a two tier championship. Mark Continues:- "It depends on how the money is shared out if one team has double that of another then you would still surmise that the teams getting the most would win" The Swiss model was used by Martyn as a warning, what was not AFAIK reported about this model was whether there was a huge financial gap between the top Swiss football clubs and the rest. If there wasn't then the warning from their experience may be stronger. Anyway....Mark again.. "At the moment the part timers are going to struggle, the gap is too big" It's money that counts not format. "The set up from 2015 does not actually signal the chance for championship clubs to get promoted". As it stands the top 8 clubs can smile about the decision because they will get better fixture lists and may get bigger crowds and cement their top 8 places. The bottom SL clubs are released from financial misery and can stay afloat reducing their spending - but may have to take some hammerings in the first 23 SL rounds, the top Championship clubs currently get nothing out of the format as Mark says. The argument is not about format at all IMVHO it's about, as Padge always says "money".