keighley

I believe Huddersfield did finally win a trophy this last season and Leeds didn't.

From the amount of support p and r is receiving on this thread and from the expressions of interest on a return to some form of p and r emanating from the league leaders and administrators, I would say that there is a lot of interest on p and r, despite it being one of your pet hates and worst fears. There is no money at Bradford and Wakefield and Castleford and who knows how long there will be any at London. Fev have it, Halifax have recently had more money from a sponsor. Leigh seem confident they can hack SL. What are you afraid of ?. Let the chips fall and relegate some of those in trouble and promote some of the stronger Championship teams with apparent investment. Ring fencing failures is definitely not a good game plan for the future.

10 years ago. What were the figures for this last season ? No where near 20,000, I'll bet.

My point exactly.

Well, it would seem that we are between a rock and a hard place if my belief is correct. On the one hand, you believe 14 clubs are unsustainable but if an 8 team league causes malaise and declining interest, then that might become unsustainable also. 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. This model would guarantee promotion if standards were also met whereas the 3 x8 system does not guarantee promotion and, indeed, would seem to be stacked against the Championship clubs in terms of resources available to, pursue success in the middle eight. I os correct

I am not going to argue because I don 't have the facts at my disposal but, from memory the division suffered from having some not so well supported teams in it and that, plus the repetitive nature of the fixtures resulted In some poor attendances. As I recall some of the teams were Swinton, Carlisle, Rochdale and London and the attendances were poor. I have searched the net and the books at my disposal but can't find the averages for the two seasons this system was in operation which was 1990/91 and 1992/93.

Crusaders went up as Champions of CC1. The next season will be their first in the Championship.

Despite the attractiveness of the top eight fixtures, I think the constant repetition, multiple times in a single season, with little variation and new or different opponents could well result in boredom or same old, same old fatigue and before long, the constant sameness of the fixtures will result in a decrease in attendances and a loss of interest. I think this is a very definite negative of a too small league. At one point there was an eight team 2nd division with a larger 1st and 2rd Division and the teams played each other 4 times and , as I recall, the attendances in that 2nd tier were very poor.

You are right. This 3 x 8 format is designed to perpetuate a top 8. It will hurt the clubs in the middle and the clubs at the bottom will be in serious trouble. It almost seems like a gigantic plot to create a small elite top level and get rid of all the stragglers in the lower divisions by pushing them down and keeping them there. 1 up and 1 down for me.

The 6497 average against the bottom tier includes the derby against Wakefield which is usually a big attendance to that might inflate that average a little from what ti would have been without the derby. However, be that as it may the difference between that and the 2nd div average is only 727. How many of that number were visiting fans from the SL opposition. the actual loss of true blue Castleford fans might have been only around 600. I think it's a given that the crowds go down on relegatioin, after all, the relegated club is coming off a bad and losing season, but in the case od Castleford it was not really that bad.

How many times do you want me to say that I am not against a total league pyramid with p and r but you just keep coming back saying I am against it. All I am saying is that there is no great clamour for a total pyramid progression ladder and that the present proposals do not encompass anyone outside the pro system. I am NOT, repeat NOT, repeat NOT against any p and r between cc1 and levels lower down the tree.

That's because Odsal has it's own climate.

I think it's when I said "why couldn,t it be done with a larger SL as the OP had referenced a smaller league. That's not me saying expand SL although, if the money could be found, it would be a good thing. 5/10 for comprehension.

The original hypothesis under discussion, and not proposed by myself, was IF Keighley had a multi million pound investor would they be a better fit for SL than the bunch of no marks running Bradford who are in and out of the club every second day. You need to get over your delusions of grandeur on the greatness of the Bulls , bro. IF, and it's only a hypothetical IF, Keighley had a multi million pound investor, as things stand at present with the Bulls, Keighley would be the best fit for SL. It could be Batley. or Rochdale or even Crusaders which could fit into that analogy but the OP happened to put Keighley.

I used to play for Keighley Albion ALRFC, the A being for amateur. I have said that if there is a demand for it then by all means have a whole game p and r structure. I never said I was abandoning the lower tiers. However teams like the Albion have 1. no desire to be professional and 2 could not mange it for the next twenty years or more. Right now the discussion re p and r's return is confined to the pro game. That's not my choice. That's what is being proposed by the SL clubs with input from the championship. Stop going off on this tangent.It's not on the agenda. Furthermore, what I want for Keighley is only of passing interest in this debate. If I was only interested in their fate, I would be championing ring fencing of the Championships from the CC1 to protect Keighley as the club is much more likely to be relegated to that division than be promoted to SL. My arguments are not about Keighley. They ARE about p and r within the professional game. If you want to start a thread about p and r within the whole game, be my guest ?

It takes one to know one. The point in issue was SL clubs co operating in encouraging their supporters to follow the team to away games to boost attendan ces. This has nothing to do with the size of the competition. This scheme could be implemented whether there were 6 or 60 teams in Sl. Please explain how you couldn't follow that ?

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. They will never increase the numbers in SL so long as it means less money for each of them, even the self sustaining top dogs. There will be some blood in the water when they have to downsize. And why do you think the fans of CC clubs are declining ? Could it be that there is no chance of competing in their competition for a chance at the big boys. Sky did televise the Championships for a couple of seasons and the viewing figures were decent but I think soccer was given their time slot and the coverage ceased. Premier have it now but don't pay. If Premier become more successful, maybe there might be some money to be had. Who knows?

If Bradford weren't in the state that they are, then they wouldn't be cropping up in discussions over suitability for SL membership based on finances. if the cap fits, then wear it.

I don't think that is too far beyond the realms of possibility but I think 10 teams is getting dangerously close to not providing enough fixtures as happened in CC1 last season. The devil might be in the details though. Which four clubs are to be sacrificed and who decides or will there be four teams, the bottom four teams, relegated, with, of course, a special exemption for the French because this is, after all, a European SL. Either system is going to result in major discord.

Why don't you go and play in the traffic.? For the purposes of this reformatting of the league structure discussion., the only teams in play are those in SL and the Championships.

I'll leave that to the supporters and management of the two clubs who will be getting dumped.

Yeah well come the revolution. Also see post 2658.

Spot on.

That's not my point. My point is that the system you are discussing regarding away support co operation is not limited by the size of the league. Self sufficiency is another debate.

Only if any of the four fall into a relegation spot will they be replaced by one of the four listed above, so 1 only one of the declining clubs will be replaced IF they end up relegated and 2. Only one of the Championship clubs will be promoted. I don't think there is any more danger of administrators moving in than there is a Bradford, Wakefield or London.