Kear sees the light on franchising

[Keith T]

I speak for myself.

Sure, I've noticed.

[shrek]

Supposing only 3 clubs can actually meet the salary cap of

[Dave T]

And you also speak for everyone who share your "twisted" view I take it. SL is a closed shop and the majority of fans that are already in it want it to stay that way in order that some of their weak clubs, both financially and on the filed, can stay there and pick up the nice fat cheques from Sky. Many couldn't give a toss about what is happening outside their tight little circle. How much depth and vision is that?

Actually you are wrong, and here's why.

Firstly, SL is not a closed shop. At the first stage of licensing 2 new teams were admitted. How is that a closed shop? There is a very very good chance that we will see more than 1 change this time round.

Secondly, the majority of fans don't want it to be this ficticious closed shop. You will find that the vast majority actually feel that certain clubs should be replaced by the likes of Widnes and Barrow.

You can dislike licensing as much as you want, but don't just make arguments up.

[LOWFIELD]

that season the majority of clubs had nothing to play for. Hull FC dominated the sport. There were no play offs either.

Rovers with their cup run, and their relegation battles, which we are told boost attendances, had lower crowds than the clubs above them, significantly so. Their crowds didn't show an increase when the season came to a climax for the club on two fronts.

for crying out loud man, what has Rovers crowds all those years ago got to do with the point i raised

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Sure, I've noticed.

then why say I spoke for others in your previous post. make your mind up

all the people on this forum speak for themselves

[l'angelo mysterioso]

for crying out loud man, what has Rovers crowds all those years ago got to do with the point i raised

you said that rovers crowds in 83 were irrelevant. I explained their relevance. It is germane to a thread about franchises v prom and reg

viz:

in 83 many clubs had nothing to play for for a big start of the season because of the dominance of one club. But we also had the much vaunted relegation battles which are the life blood of prom and reg or so we are told. One club-you know the club was: not only in the thick of the relegation struggle, but also in the most romantic fashion imaginable managed to win the cup.

Somehow this failed to stimulate spectator interest in any marked degree-crowds did not go up towards the end of the season, neither did they exceed those of the clubs above them who had 'nothing to play for'.

[Pride & Heritage]

No I am not advocating teams stretching themselves to overspend, are you advocating that we keep lowering the salary cap until everyone can afford it?

Yes, salaries have to be sustainable for everyone in the division. We also need to close the SC gap between the top and bottom divisions so that promotion and relegation is not such a big gulf. Therefore not a big issue no matter which division you are in. That would bring back the magic of the challenge cup too.

Why stop at a million, why not 500k? I personally don't think we should be dumbing down, more raising standards. I firmly believe if anything we should be looking to increase the cap, were clubs have the means to spend more.

Whatever is sustainable by the lowest of the 14 clubs included in SL, for the time being, we need to keep the division competitive. I can see the arguments for increasing the cap but it is a road that only leads to elitism, with only 2 or 3 clubs with the most money for players ever in the hunt for ewinning trophy's. At least if all clubs have the same chance to sign big name players everyone should be in with a shout.

I think we have a massive problem as a sport with a very tight concentration of clubs with long proud histories but little room to grow from either a spectator or commercial point of view before they start overlapping with rivals. There is no strategy that I can see that is going to deal with this to everyones satisfaction, after all we as fans want only the very best for our clubs.

I think you are right, but people do travel to watch sport these days, take Man U or Liverpool for example? Most of there fans are not from the city's they support.

Its not my place to say the clubs are bigger than the game itself, however, I think the breakaway that formed Super League originally showed exactly were the power lies in the professional side of the clubs.

Do you think it is right to have the clubs running the game? In the current position the game is in, could you imagine say Leeds getting the treatment of Melbourne for the same offence? It would only happen where the game is run independently of the clubs, and the fairest way of doing things for the overall good of the game.

[Trojan]

in 83 many clubs had nothing to play for for a big start of the season because of the dominance of one club. But we also had the much vaunted relegation battles which are the life blood of prom and reg or so we are told. One club-you know the club was: not only in the thick of the relegation struggle, but also in the most romantic fashion imaginable managed to win the cup.

But in those days a club like Fev stood a chance of winning the CC. In fact they did. And in '86 Cas won it, and in '87 'Fax won it. What chance have they got today? None - that's why the CC crowds have declined. And the lack of P&R, of games that matter is why the Championship crowds are declining and why at the lower levels SL crowds are also declining. The spice of the upset has gone from the CC and the edge of P&R has gone from SL anad the Championship. Unless we sort it out one way or another - in ten years there'll be no game to sort out. Steve Fox in this week's LE humourously perhaps, points the way things might go if we go on the way we are going.

[shrek]

Yes, salaries have to be sustainable for everyone in the division. We also need to close the SC gap between the top and bottom divisions so that promotion and relegation is not such a big gulf. Therefore not a big issue no matter which division you are in. That would bring back the magic of the challenge cup too.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, if your going to dumb down to he lowest common denominator all the time we may as well scrap payments full stop. I see no merit in lowering standards further, if anything clubs should be taken to task if they can't spend or demonstrate a plan to spend close to the current cap under a licensed system with such decent levels of TV money coming in.

Whatever is sustainable by the lowest of the 14 clubs included in SL, for the time being, we need to keep the division competitive. I can see the arguments for increasing the cap but it is a road that only leads to elitism, with only 2 or 3 clubs with the most money for players ever in the hunt for ewinning trophy's. At least if all clubs have the same chance to sign big name players everyone should be in with a shout.

But its sport, there is bound to be elitism, there has to be winners and losers! Even with the salary cap some teams in Super League have demonstrated an amazing ability to maintain success and keep squads together. Unless you bring a draft on youth I think we are miles away from seeing the talent spread about, a salary cap won't do it, not when elite players can go outside the sport or play in the NRL to earn a living.

I think you are right, but people do travel to watch sport these days, take Man U or Liverpool for example? Most of there fans are not from the city's they support.

Not sure what your point is, fans (in much smaller numbers) travel to watch Saints, Wigan, Leeds and Warrington but will they to watch Batley, Swinton, Rochdale or Oldham? (clubs picked totally at random!)

Do you think it is right to have the clubs running the game? In the current position the game is in, could you imagine say Leeds getting the treatment of Melbourne for the same offence? It would only happen where the game is run independently of the clubs, and the fairest way of doing things for the overall good of the game.

No but that horse has bolted, clubs have broken away once and no doubt will do again if things are not going there way or you try and take TV money off them.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

But in those days a club like Fev stood a chance of winning the CC. In fact they did. And in '86 Cas won it, and in '87 'Fax won it. What chance have they got today? None - that's why the CC crowds have declined. And the lack of P&R, of games that matter is why the Championship crowds are declining and why at the lower levels SL crowds are also declining. The spice of the upset has gone from the CC and the edge of P&R has gone from SL anad the Championship. Unless we sort it out one way or another - in ten years there'll be no game to sort out. Steve Fox in this week's LE humourously perhaps, points the way things might go if we go on the way we are going.

good point.

and the challenge cup has problems, which may at least in part relate to SL, but there are other factors as well, not necessarily specific to Rugby League, although if you have a look at the history of the cup pre sl it was won by a handful of clubs. the history of the cup has been one of change-remember the first one was won by batley, then there was the move to wembley, only voted through narrowly.

The challenge cup needs radical thought and action just like in 1929 and no doubt there will be the 'traditionalists' who will oppose such action as they did back then.

[Dirk Diggler]

A lot of what gets written about P&R/licencing comes across as 'it is not fair'. Well what can I say? It isn't, it never was and it never will be.

We are travelling this road because the rich want to travel this road and anyone who thinks RL is going back to 'one man one vote' where many of the poor can dictate to a few of the rich are dillusional.

The Leeds & Wigan of this world do not see themselves visiting Mount Pleasant because there is nothing in it for them. If the current system changes it will be a retranchment to cut out the chaff so that fewer get to share the TV largess and the poor will be allowed to organise themselves as they see fit.

If the RFL ever voted for a backward step against the wishes of Caddick, Moran, Davy, Lenighan etc they may easily find themselves with no large clubs and no TV contract.

Kear is correct in that RL is the poorer for no big relegation deciders anymore but Leeds aren't poorer and Wigan aren't and that is what matters.

[Dave T]

But in those days a club like Fev stood a chance of winning the CC. In fact they did. And in '86 Cas won it, and in '87 'Fax won it. What chance have they got today? None - that's why the CC crowds have declined. And the lack of P&R, of games that matter is why the Championship crowds are declining and why at the lower levels SL crowds are also declining. The spice of the upset has gone from the CC and the edge of P&R has gone from SL anad the Championship. Unless we sort it out one way or another - in ten years there'll be no game to sort out. Steve Fox in this week's LE humourously perhaps, points the way things might go if we go on the way we are going.

But now we see Warrington win it who finished 10th. We have also seen Hull win it, Huddersfield make two finals, Catalans make a final and so on.

A bit of luck with the draw and all it can take is one very good performance to get to Wembley.

[Trojan]

good point.

and the challenge cup has problems, which may at least in part relate to SL, but there are other factors as well, not necessarily specific to Rugby League, although if you have a look at the history of the cup pre sl it was won by a handful of clubs. the history of the cup has been one of change-remember the first one was won by batley, then there was the move to wembley, only voted through narrowly.

The challenge cup needs radical thought and action just like in 1929 and no doubt there will be the 'traditionalists' who will oppose such action as they did back then.

In 1987 Fev and Oldham were relegated. Oldham knocked Wigan out of the cup the same season. There is no way that an upset like that would happen today - not Oldham knocking Wigan out, but a bottom SL side knocking out one of the big boys. The playing field has never been level, but at the moment the slope in favour of the big clubs is precipitous. For me all this talk of franchising being a way to expand the game is a red herring. If the expansion clubs threaten the hegomony of the big names, then somehow or other they'll be stamped upon. Unless franchising is abandoned and abandoned quickly we'll really be up sh!t creek. The big clubs don't seem to be able to see that they are digging a pit and sooner or later they, along with the rest of us are going to fall into that pit.

[The Parksider]

We know at Batley, as most of other Championship clubs do, that we will never get in to SL under the current regime. We earned the right, met the criteria as it was, as did Keighley in the same season only for the rules to be changed after the season had ended to stop us getting in. Hence, we know the dream of playing top flight rugby has gone along with upwards of half of our support, who then went to watch the Bulls, Rhino's and Huddersfield who were allowed to chase the dream to become the best, and none of whom have been seen again at the mount.

A very astute analysis my friend. Mo Lindsay wanted the fan, sponsor, sugar daddy and TV monetary resources to be concentrated in a small number of clubs (naturally at the expense of other clubs).

He wanted this so that what RL had, which was and is still not much, was not spread so thin that all the RL clubs were small and weak, that Rugby players per se did not swan off to union, fans did not go and watch soccer or stay at home, and SKY were not given what they wanted - an elite league of big clubs, with big crowds and quality sides.

You rightly suggest that more clubs could be involved in sharing the SKY pot and thus we could become all inclusive (to a point) and even manage two leagues with P & R between the two in such a fashion the promoted team (as promoted) would be a stronger one than the relegated team.

I like that, it's good thinking, but do please consider the problems it brings.

Firstly if we share resources across too many clubs our strongest, biggest clubs have to level down. The men who put millions into RL will be restricted in doing so, because the salary cap may be only

[The Parksider]

A lot of what gets written about P&R/licencing comes across as 'it is not fair'. Well what can I say? It isn't, it never was and it never will be.

We are travelling this road because the rich want to travel this road and anyone who thinks RL is going back to 'one man one vote' where many of the poor can dictate to a few of the rich are dillusional.

If the current system changes it will be a retranchment to cut out the chaff so that fewer get to share the TV largess and the poor will be allowed to organise themselves as they see fit.

If the RFL ever voted for a backward step against the wishes of Caddick, Moran, Davy, Lenighan etc they may easily find themselves with no large clubs and no TV contract.

Kear is correct in that RL is the poorer for no big relegation deciders anymore but Leeds aren't poorer and Wigan aren't and that is what matters.

As always spot on, but everyone must wake up and smell the coffee. What state would Rugby League be in if SKY did not provide it with tens of millions of pounds???

And why would anyone in the hierarchy of RL not give our biggest ever benefactor what they want, when not doing so would kill the game to a greater extent than several posters on here are arguing it's been killed already?

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

A very astute analysis my friend. Mo Lindsay wanted the fan, sponsor, sugar daddy and TV monetary resources to be concentrated in a small number of clubs (naturally at the expense of other clubs).

He wanted this so that what RL had, which was and is still not much, was not spread so thin that all the RL clubs were small and weak, that Rugby players per se did not swan off to union, fans did not go and watch soccer or stay at home, and SKY were not given what they wanted - an elite league of big clubs, with big crowds and quality sides.

You rightly suggest that more clubs could be involved in sharing the SKY pot and thus we could become all inclusive (to a point) and even manage two leagues with P & R between the two in such a fashion the promoted team (as promoted) would be a stronger one than the relegated team.

I like that, it's good thinking, but do please consider the problems it brings.

Firstly if we share resources across too many clubs our strongest, biggest clubs have to level down. The men who put millions into RL will be restricted in doing so, because the salary cap may be only

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I have no idea what SKY told Mo Lindsay.

But looking back, if the whole thing was cobbled together and scribbled down on the back of a fag packet during a 15 minute fag break I wouldn't be shocked.

and ALL the clubs voted in favour of it

Edited July 1, 2010 by l'angelo mysterioso

[Trojan]

and ALL the clubs voted in favour of it

Because Mo stampeded them. Presumably with threats and possibly bribes (for the clubs) of big money. We weren't there, we don't know. What we do know is that it was all decided in a couple of weeks, not really a way to plan long term for a fairly major sport. We're still suffering from Mo. Wigan were still suffering from him when they sold Central Park, fortunately that nice Mr Whelan bailed them out. Who's going to bail RL out?

[Trojan]

But now we see Warrington win it who finished 10th. We have also seen Hull win it, Huddersfield make two finals, Catalans make a final and so on.

A bit of luck with the draw and all it can take is one very good performance to get to Wembley.

But Warrington, Hull and Huddersfield are not really short of money, are they? Perhaps when the likes of Wakey, or Cas, or Salford knock out one of the big boys the romance will be back. I'm not holding my breath, turkeys don't usually vote for an early Christmas.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Because Mo stampeded them. Presumably with threats and possibly bribes (for the clubs) of big money. We weren't there, we don't know. What we do know is that it was all decided in a couple of weeks, not really a way to plan long term for a fairly major sport. We're still suffering from Mo. Wigan were still suffering from him when they sold Central Park, fortunately that nice Mr Whelan bailed them out. Who's going to bail RL out?

y

but surely all the clubs who thought it was iniquitous would have maade a stand on principle: ours for instance. Plenty of energy and time were spent whining aabout it afterwards. Presumaably they put the money they recieved from SKy into a trust fund.

[The Parksider]

1. I have no idea what SKY told Mo Lindsay.

2. But looking back, if the whole thing was cobbled together and scribbled down on the back of a fag packet during a 15 minute fag break I wouldn't be shocked.

1. You could try some research and add to it an educated guess?

2. I am sure you are correct that a deal worth hundreds of millions was "scribbled down on the back of a fag packet"

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

and ALL the clubs voted in favour of it

Don't recall anyone merging.

Don't recall Toulouse making the starting line.

What did they vote in favour of?

[The Parksider]

and ALL the clubs voted in favour of it

Hmmmmm

Maybe they all knew that no SKY contract meant the death of RL so they all voted for it.

Now some cubs moan a bit (but don't moan as loud as their fans)...................

Perhaps the clubs know the score and the fans need to realise the score.

Our skint game is propped up by non negotiable mega-money from SKY.

[The Parksider]

Don't recall anyone merging.

Don't recall Toulouse making the starting line.

What did they vote in favour of?

What's your handicap at the mo (Mo! geddit??)

Are you looking forward to widnes back in SL??

[The Parksider]

Because Mo stampeded them. Presumably with threats and possibly bribes (for the clubs) of big money.

When RL hit the free gangway and private media saw a value in sports, money was available to RL.

Clearly that would be on the terms of the monetary provider i.e. SKY.

Mo had no power to stampede anyone. I am quite certain that all club chairmen are not so bl**dy soft that a glorified bookie that was Mo could "stampede" them.

Ludicrous proposal Tro......