The Parksider

I never ever said that my old Claret and Gold Fartowner friend. The required money is £6,000,000 per club which is roughly what the big six clubs Hull, Saints, Wire, Cats, Leeds and Wigan turn over. Diluting that isn't an option unless you want more top players walking away. Nobody can show me a Championship club capable of that proper SL level of spend. What their fans do is predict that Championship clubs will find very rich owners (excited by P & R) and they will become one overnight. Your own club is exactly that. In 2007 you finally made the play offs in Superleague attracting 7,068 fans. Ken's pumped the £Millions in to keep the investment going since and the return over the last seven years has been no trophies and a drop in crowds to 6,368. As I understand it Featherstone Rovers are now adopting that business plan due to their mentor having "Money coming out of his ears". Salford are on the very same business plan which doesn't require an audience. Far from the fans being "Important" being people who "should have a say" who should "cast votes" they are actually totally irrelevant in terms of the Marwan Koukash, Ken Davey and Faisal Nahaboo business plan. If you want an SL with the strongest "real world" business plan it looks like 10 clubs @ £6,000,0000 spread out across the M62 and southern france. That's the customer choice if anyone want's Elite RL. Every penny goes into that. Fans can take it or leave it and go watch their supporters run club, or their local amateur club. Sure they play each other 3 times at least, but that's been going on for years and years. It's a problem yes.

Firstly I don't advocate an 8 team league, it's you who keeps suggesting I do. I know for a fact the Superleague bosses who have the accounts say SL is unsustainable at 14. The best evidence is the sight of scratch teams at Salford and London shipping in 1,900 points before average gates of 2,600 I do "believe" it doesn't threfore follow that Superleague is sustainable at 12. Above those clubs you have two relatively big sides in Bradford and Wakefield both capable of big crowds, in administration and both coming out of administration and straight back into debt. Next up are two clubs one heavily in debt to their directors with the asset of their ground at risk, because they couldn't sell it for enough to secure a modern venue that doesn't eat money. Then another club who have spent money on their ground to hopefully entertain more fans whilst at the same time leaking their best players to predatory clubs. Two more major accidents "waiting to happen". You say...... "P and r on a conventional model might be a better bet because it would sustain interest by changing the makeup of the league producing new, unusual fixtures, maybe even new derbys and also the money to be found by the CC clubs might be more sustainable than some constant cellar dwelling team who had exhausted it's financial resources. There's no interest in P & R for the umpteenth time, all the interest is in top class elite RL. There's no money at the CC clubs again for the umpteenth time. The last money I heard was a Wonga loan from Nahaboo to Featherstone, which they spent.

Stretch the league to 20 and get loads of mind numbingly dull blowouts, compress it to 8 and get up to 4,5,6 meetings a season. The balance was 14 clubs play each other twice, but cup, millenium magic and play offs still end with clubs playing 4 times e.g. Leeds.v.Wigan 4 times last year lowest crowd 14,600. If we have to repeat anything at least repeat things that are quality and competitive and attractive.

I know what it needs. So how would you invigorate it? As soon as any division starts to get too big the 60,70,80 point matches start

Kind of a choice between watching Leeds play Bradford again or watching Leeds put 80 on London. Leeds/Bradford 2003 & 2004......10 meetings.......lowest crowd 19,786

Fev.v.Halifax x4 and sheffield,v,Leigh x4 2012

Your alternative is what? 14 clubs unsustainable....

Interesting point and the "Zombie" club chairmen have made it clear they don't like the glass ceiling, but it depends which way the vote goes. You seem to be ambiguous here in stating that Zombie SL clubs and Zombie CC clubs can get together for a competition at Zombie level. Yet somehow that will be a"Vibrant" competition??? How so?? I think your choice of words needs thinking about Ponte??

We await the fine detail which may only come once/if they decide to do it. If ths 3x8 is a "play off" be warned how poor playoff crowds are wether SL or CC1. If all fixtures are league fixtures on a season ticket then they will be less likely to share the money.

Leigh's "ageing fanbase" (their own words) is down to 1,556 now.

Last go now. Warrington averaged 10,465 last year but if they had not played Salford and London and it had been a 12 clubs league they would have averaged 10,888. Under 2x12 = 3x8 they would play the 11 and then play some top clubs again. That could have the effect of pushing the crowds to an average of 11,000. 13 games x 10,465 = 136,045 fans through the gate this year. Under the proposed 2x12=3x8 Warrington woould likely get 159,500 fans through the gate with more and better fixtures. Yes it will benefit Warrington at the expense of lower SL clubs. I do think the figures say that what this is about is Superleague cutting to eight and letting the moaning minnies who find it too rich for them down gently. All dressed up as "All for the good of the game" an attitude which after 120 years will be a massive sea change?

Let's look at Leigh. 2005 bottom four of Superleague with Salford, Wakefield and Widnes. Average SL crowd 4,750. Average league crowd against those three clubs they were trying to overtake to stay up was 4,289. They went down, but stayed competitive and scrapped to return to superleague with HKR, Widnes, Whitehaven and Rochdale. They held second spot for most of the season. Just add the league crowds they had over the period they were fighting to stay in SL and then fighting to get back, against those seven clubs who would have been their "Middle 8" and the average is 3,328. KPMG appear to say that this middle 8 will bring the crowds in, the figures say otherwise. What the figures say to me is the top 8 Superleague clubs is where the crowds will go right up. It's only my opinion and I respect others opinions but the choice is whether we believe that the top eight clubs are voting for this because it will be great for the game as a whole, OR whether it will be great for the top 8 clubs crowds??? Finally pushing clubs down a division historically does them a lot of damage. Anyone care to have a thought for the Championship clubs already struggling badly who will be downgraded to third and fourth grade?? I'd guess not, not after 2761 posts of them being ignored.

There's not enough stats to work on but in 2006 Castleford averaged a crowd of 7,499 against the top eight in a 12 club Superleague inc. London and Salford. They averaged only 6,497 against their fellow bottom club strugglers Catalans, Wakefield and Huddersfield. If they had played those games again and added games against top CC sides at the time - Halifax, Sheffield, Leigh and Widnes - which they DID DO the following season because they went down and scrapped with those clubs for promotion back into Superleague then the average comes out at 5,770. There's an example of a club going down but successfully regaining their Superleague place. If anyone doesn't like the stats do your own, but the principle was then that if you get demoted and lose league fixtures against the top sides, but instead get league fixtures against Championship sides.............. Your crowds will go down. It doesn't even needs the stats to know that. KPMG are a figures based outfit and I suggest they haven't done them. Castleford actually won all but one league game getting back to SL at first go so even on the field success could not replace all the lost fans. If winners lose crowds "dropping down" then lord help the rest. RL fans don't like their clubs dropping down, RL fans don't like second tier stuff. Even the winners of the "Middle 8" face a drop in attendances on figures, logic and reason.

Good luck to Fev, Leigh, Sheffield and Halifax finding that?

1. Indeed and I am not against it at all and it will be fascinating to see which way it goes if it comes in. Unless we try it and see, it will IMVHO remain in many people's minds the golden solution the game snatched away from the Championship clubs. 2. Well my worries are based on what you are saying in quotes above, given the "play off" crowds are proven to be below clubs average league crowds painfully poor, and "dropping" down a level decimates your crowds. The golden solution "drops" clubs down and puts them in an "elongated play off" in a double whammy - just the kind of thing that has proven to create poor crowds..

What exact interest does the likes of Leeds, Saints, Warrington, Huddersfield, Wigan Catalans and and Hull have in the return of relegation?? They are all too rich for it to affect them?? They all have the actual figures for the "jeopardy" element of the game when we had P & R, these figures were published in RL World and P& R did not attract more fans, they all have the figures for the decline in attendances for second tier RL. None of them are saying that 2x12=3x8 is going to revitalise the game. They have allowed Wood to pay KPMG to produce a report to say that and they are all quoting that report. IMVHO and I respect yours, A 14 clubs Superleague has to go because it hasn't the money to sustain it and it may nothave the money for 12.. Of the 14 SL clubs 1. Bradford - halved crowds and administration 2. Wakefield - lost rich owners and administration and further debt 3. London - total collapse to nothing 4. Castleford heavily in debt - straight relegation may = closure 5. Salford - lost rich owner nearly dissapeared 6. Hull.K.R. Rich owner tried to sell out, then stood down complaining he could not go on Dave I don't think for one minute the changes are about making the games more exciting or being fair and inclusive to Championship clubs, it's about the collapse of Superleague. If they go for 2x12=3x8 for me it will signal that they don't feel they can sustain 12. Once they drop licensing and open up the competition below the top eight for me it's to solve the SL crisis and stop rich men leaving SL due to the glass ceiling and to help SL clubs cut costs, and cut clubs going into administration. This really isn't the start of a massive revival for the game - again IMVHO.

The consequences to losing?? Bradford Bulls 15,700 average crowd, slashed by half and administration?? London Broncos opened as Harlequins with an 8,200 crowd, collapsed last year to a 1,136 worst crowd?? These are the facts and the factual consequences to losing. Castleford have been relegated twice, are habitual losers, lose their best players to other SL clubs every year, are reportedly heavily in debt and danger of closure if they are relegated (ref Martyn Sadler). No wonder they aren't bothered at Cas anymore, they are suffering all the consequences of losing??

It may suggest that Dave. Events may suggest that 2x12=3x8 has the effect - for the top eight SL clubs - Of dumping several late season fixtures against smaller SL sides who are doing badly, replacing them with more fixtures against top sides. In 2003 Leeds got Bradford at home 21,225 attendance and Bradford away 23,375 attendance. Because it was a 12 club Superleague Leeds got a third fixture against Bradford and another 21,200 home crowd. Had it have been a 14 club Superleague they would have had Leigh instead. Last time they played Leigh in SL their crowd was 3,000 down on average. This is what fresh faces do to attendances. Mr. Hetherington is a smart salesman and he can do his figures and find the right time to sell things. It may be that after a few more seasons of P & R badly affecting clubs who cant hack promotion and more seasons of clubs being ruined by it, plus a few seasons of so called SL clubs losing more of their best players to the top eight, dumping their academies and cutting their operations to reduce debts, the gulf will then be between the top eight and the rest. Who knows? In three seasons time P & R may have revitalised the second and third and fourth!! tiers of the game so much so the top eight will be shaking in their boots?? Who knows Wood may have gone by then carrying all the blame for the games demise leaving Gary to pick up the pieces and put in a 10 club Superleague like his chief Executive mate at the RU premiership advised??

Hi Ponte, We knew weeks ago that the cut in Superleague and P & R were all but happening. For me there's no strong leadership here and the RFL bosses are trying to be everything to every man and the SLE bosses have no stomach for any really radical changes, as they are also club bosses and are probably a bit easier just looking after themselves (i.e. big SL clubs vote for an 8 club SL, struggling SL clubs vote for an end to the cost of licensing). For me the time will come for a closed Superleague when the problems the game has deteriorate further - IF indeed that is what will happen if we bring back P & R or 2x12=3x8. For those who want to see P & R revitalise clubs and annually refresh the competition (despite this not happening in the past, many seasons where nobody came up, and those that did like Cas, HKR, Salford had serious money problems, only Huddersfield a success with their low crowds propped up by a mans £Millions) then let's hope there's a massive turn around in reality and the fans flock to the games. For me any club outside SL MUST vote for P & R. How can they sell their clubs a dream if it's killed stone dead. How can they run "destination Superleague" campaigns to coincide with their season ticket advertising without P & R?? The irony is most clubs outside SL will not want promotion so why are they voting on it?? My problem is IMHO the likely overwhelming vote is overwhelmingly self interest and not for the "all for the good of the game" myth. The reality I am personally sure is that promotion is about four clubs, three of whom have no money and deteriorating crowds and have failed badly in SL. However I've said for a couple of years now we have seriously unfinished business with Featherstone Rovers. If we really believe in fairness they need their chance and the vote for P & R will give them that. The die is cast, the business model is there for Rovers. Mr. Nahaboo has the Ken Davey book of how to succeed in Superleague and wouldn't it be great if we saw a grand final between Fartown and Rovers in 10 years time. Rovers journey for the top will be a fascinating and interesting one, and like anyone who climbs Everest, on the way up you'll pass a few tired old bodies going down. I hope my post makes it before the thread is locked, I hope you make it before P & R is finally locked....

I am too. I think it's time to just see what happens then we can dispel probable myths like P & R's return will increase attendances and create excitement, myths like just because a CC club is winning all it's games against bust DR minnows it's "well managed" and must replace far bigger clubs. Only time will confirm these as myths, but then again we may find it's a myth that applying strong business principles to Superleague rather than allowing drift or the tail to wag the dog could be a little more than a myth?? I think we have people on both sides of the broad argument (this is a mixture of threads hence the topic is wider than you indicate) who have said the same things for 135 pages, but do leave it to the moderators to decide if the thread has run it's course because they take a balanced view on these things and your view is as one sided as mine.

Says you. Of course any discussion on possible restructures of the game can include what's happening and what people think about it and what alternatives they may want to offer. It's on topic And of course any discussion where there's a collective opinion that P & R was never much good before and will not be any good "when" it happens can project beyond the current plans. Because if the forthcoming structure ends up being a mess and does not serve it's purpose as many predict with fair arguments that are not negativity, then it will be all change again, something several people have said. Please allow a bit of free speech here!

Blimey I had all on to find 9 clubs who could be self sufficient and grow in a well planned Superleague. I sneaked Widnes in there and everyone moaned. Give me your 12 then?

Come on Steve, next time I want to try to revamp my business for the better am I really going do it on a vote by my customers?? If I'm interested in finding new markets and new customers, what do the old brigade have to offer?? maybe they are the problem. I want to merge but they keep sitting down in the middle of the pitch?

Is one point. the other point is that their own businesses or careers are often worth far more than a Superleague contract and certainly more than a one year SL contract many on here want to condemn these lads to. Oh hang on - the promoted club will just buy a ready made professional team after all they are such "good managers"? IIRC Castleford stayed largely professional on relegation in 2005 and part timers Whitehaven pipped them to the league title. They met in the grand final when apparently the Haven Chairman who didn't have the money to go fully professional and risk it all falling apart anyway, had plans to get the same team to go pro on the cheap and try to make some money out of the season from the SKY money. So the tale goes, the lads didn't fancy going pro for a year or winning promotion just to lose their careers and businesses and hand their places over to pro players. The Final was all over in 20 minutes. This debate ignores one heck of a lot of factors when it comes to P & R in all it's alleged "fairness".

Then why not replace the four with Leigh, Featherstone, Sheffield and Halifax and watch the massive nett loss in paying RL fans that will produce. Administrators all round.