Martyn Sadler - Talking Rugby League

[The Parksider]

Well it's fair to say the article certainly shows which camp Martyn sits in, and that is fine, everyone is allowed an opinion.

 

There is a good point about the playoffs lacking meaning for the middle 8, however it does not cover the fact that it should provide a boost to the middle 8 clubs for the other 14 games as they jostle for position.

Yes it's an opinion not an agenda. If the RL press seek similar opinions from the clubs all will be revealed.

But I do like your line that there's something in the option for many clubs which you allude to on another thread.

In this one you suggest the middle 8 competition could be a boost for the lower SL clubs and the championship clubs.

Equally the top eight having their own competition could up their gates significantly

The bottom eight would no longer be seen as dead men standing and would have something to compete for albeit before gates in the hundreds.

What I think has happened in the past is that the RFL & the Superleague clubs voted in a closed shop that suited them.

Now that closed shop isn't working all of a sudden all 24 clubs are being allowed to vote and I'd suggest out of that 24 the number who can't compete in Superleague is the majority number hence they win the day, but the top eight still get all the goodies.

Two things, firstly why are small championship clubs getting a vote on Superleague all of a sudden?

Is it because as clubs start to fade into "A" teams and lower SL clubs give up the ghost the powers that be fear a meltdown?

[the phoenix]

i cannot see the challenge cup being affected that much no 

[amm]

How can anything be a good or bad idea until the whole picture is known. At the moment all we have is brainstorming, and a lot of people jumping up and down. We must not adopt any of the changes until we know the answers to the questions they raise, and  rigorous checking of every minute detail has been carried out. In fact, I'm surprised that any options are on the table before this has happened. It seems as if we have rushed into this all at once, for reasons I cannot see.

[Dave T]

Only 77 votes so far, and there isn't a status quo option.

If the new structure delivered what it's proponents claim, then I would vote for it too.

The problem is that it won't, and my article explains some of the reasons why.

thats a pretty arrogant stance. You know best eh?

[bewareshadows]

If I had to guess their choices.

 

Yes

 

Wigan, Warrington, , Saints, Huddersfield, Bradford, London, Salford

 

No

 

Wakefield, Widnes, Leeds, Catalan, Castleford, 

 

Not sure

 

Hull KR, Hull

 

I think Wigan, Warrington and Saints would all like more games against each other as these provide pretty much sell outs, therefore more cash in the coffers.

I think Bradford, Salford and Huddersfield are all aspiring to be top 8 clubs wanting to be winners so securing that top 8 will be good for them.  London I think would vote yes as it would take some pressure off them in terms of competiting against clubs with 10 times the amount of fans, but would not lead to them dropping out of the top flight.

 

I think Wakey and Cas who have put a lot into staying in SL, would not welcome the possibility of Yo-yo ing. Same for Widnes.  I think Leeds probably don't care one way or the other. Catalans might fear a bad run axing them from SL all together.  

 

Hull FC and Hull KR, I could not even speculate as to what they may think, it could end up taking their derby away or at least the possiblity of the return fixture.  So it could be a tight vote.

 

But it's all speculation until a chairman comes out for or against the idea.

[The Parksider]

It seems as if we have rushed into this all at once, for reasons I cannot see.

Sorry, they have been discussing this behind closed doors for a long time.

As Beware shades said 24 chairmen have the reasons why the majority of them are voting for this.

They need asking.

[bewareshadows]

Yes it's an opinion not an agenda. If the RL press seek similar opinions from the clubs all will be revealed.

But I do like your line that there's something in the option for many clubs which you allude to on another thread.

In this one you suggest the middle 8 competition could be a boost for the lower SL clubs and the championship clubs.

Equally the top eight having their own competition could up their gates significantly

The bottom eight would no longer be seen as dead men standing and would have something to compete for albeit before gates in the hundreds.

What I think has happened in the past is that the RFL & the Superleague clubs voted in a closed shop that suited them.

Now that closed shop isn't working all of a sudden all 24 clubs are being allowed to vote and I'd suggest out of that 24 the number who can't compete in Superleague is the majority number hence they win the day, but the top eight still get all the goodies.

Two things, firstly why are small championship clubs getting a vote on Superleague all of a sudden?

Is it because as clubs start to fade into "A" teams and lower SL clubs give up the ghost the powers that be fear a meltdown?

 

 

Thanks for clearing that up parksider,  I thought it would only be SL chairmen who got a vote.  If it's down to all  clubs to get a vote, then I think option 3 will certainly carry the day.

[Dave T]

Both Cas and Wakey CEO's seemed supportive on p&r and changes on BnA.

[Martyn Sadler]

I have no idea how Option 3 would impact upon the Challenge Cup as that area has not yet been discussed.  Since the RFL has stated quite clearly that the review is 'whole game' then I would assume - and it is only an assumption - that the Challenge Cup (and the Northern Rail Cup, which may also be affected) will also come under scrutiny.  However, it is quite possible that the Challenge Cup won't be affected at all since which league a team plays in does not impact on a team's eligibility for the Challenge Cup.  Given that we are now up to the quarter final stage in the competition and under Option 3 we would just be moving into the split tier phase of the season then why would the Challenge Cup need to be changed at all?

 

The point I'm making about the Challenge Cup is that, specifically in the year 2014, the 14 Super League clubs, or at least those that would consider themselves in danger of finishing in the bottom 2, will devote all their energy and finances to avoid being relegated, and they won't give a damn about the Challenge Cup.

 

They will all spend up to the maximum of the salary cap to try to avoid being relegated. It will make for a very exciting season in Super League, but it will be a financial disaster for the two clubs that are relegated.

[Martyn Sadler]

Oh come on, he doesn't like the idea because he sees it detrimental to the game, that's a personal opinion not an "agenda".

 

Quite true! The people with an agenda are those who stand to benefit or lose from the proposals, and who therefore have a stake in the outcome, while ignoring the longer term effects of what they are doing.

[Dave T]

The point I'm making about the Challenge Cup is that, specifically in the year 2014, the 14 Super League clubs, or at least those that would consider themselves in danger of finishing in the bottom 2, will devote all their energy and finances to avoid being relegated, and they won't give a damn about the Challenge Cup.

They will all spend up to the maximum of the salary cap to try to avoid being relegated. It will make for a very exciting season in Super League, but it will be a financial disaster for the two clubs that are relegated.

a bit like football I suppose. You'd never get a small club in a relegation battle bothering with the cup.

[amm]

Sorry, they have been discussing this behind closed doors for a long time.

As Beware shades said 24 chairmen have the reasons why the majority of them are voting for this.

They need asking.

 

I know they have been discussing it - I just don't understand how it has got to the public before obvious questions have not been answered

[Martyn Sadler]

thats a pretty arrogant stance. You know best eh?

Don't be silly! I'm inviting you to read the article and decide for yourself whether you agree with me.

[The Parksider]

If I had to guess their choices.

 

I think Wigan, Warrington and Saints would all like more games against each other as these provide pretty much sell outs, therefore more cash in the coffers.

I think Bradford, Salford and Huddersfield are all aspiring to be top 8 clubs wanting to be winners so securing that top 8 will be good for them.  

London I think would vote yes as it would take some pressure off them in terms of competiting against clubs with 10 times the amount of fans, but would not lead to them dropping out of the top flight.

 

I think Wakey and Cas who have put a lot into staying in SL, would not welcome the possibility of Yo-yo ing. Same for Widnes.  

I think Leeds probably don't care one way or the other. Catalans might fear a bad run axing them from SL all together.  

 

Hull FC and Hull KR, I could not even speculate as to what they may think, it could end up taking their derby away or at least the possiblity of the return fixture.  So it could be a tight vote.

 

But it's all speculation until a chairman comes out for or against the idea.

Your indicating the 14 SL clubs are the ones who vote this in. Is that right???

In that case the top eight have better fixtures and higher crowds as you say and the bottom six have

an easier fixture list to be able to win games, compete and win something, without having to spend full cap which they can't afford.

That's 14 yes votes to nil no votes if those are the reasons?.

[Martyn Sadler]

a bit like football I suppose. You'd never get a small club in a relegation battle bothering with the cup.

Clubs that are relegated from the Premier League get a massive parachute payment. The future of the club isn't at risk.

And in football there is the reverse factor, because it is far more remunerative to finish in the top four and qualify for Europe.

[Dave T]

Don't be silly! I'm inviting you to read the article and decide for yourself whether you agree with me.

I get that, it was the positioning of your post - saying that the benefits that other people suggest, wont happen.

You are giving your opinion, no more no less, taking a factual stance is arrogant imho.

Especially when your cup v relegation point doesnt happen in the real world of sport.

[Dave T]

Clubs that are relegated from the Premier League get a massive parachute payment. The future of the club isn't at risk.

And in football there is the reverse factor, because it is far more remunerative to finish in the top four and qualify for Europe.

the shift in revenues is still massive and the repercussions of relegation huge.

Im not sure of the point you are making with regards to Europe.

[The Parksider]

I know they have been discussing it - I just don't understand how it has got to the public before obvious questions have not been answered

The obvious question about this is why are they doing it?

The answer for me lies not because it's a revolutionary, exciting new idea from a go forward and innovative game which will see the game go foreward from success to success.

Thats the press release answer, laced with oodles of positivety and all in the garden is well.

I only have an opinion, but it seems to me they are abandoning Superleague because they don't have enough clubs who can compete at that level, sevral of whom are pulling investment out of their clubs, and clubs locked out of superleague are progressively going downhill.

Now are the RFL going to discuss the latter questions???

I suggest never in a million years.

[The Parksider]

Both Cas and Wakey CEO's seemed supportive on p&r and changes on BnA.

Thanks for this Dave, a middle 8 comp maybe gives cas somewhere to go whilst I guess Wakefield would not mind being a top eight club or a club at the top of the middle eight.

[The Parksider]

Clubs that are relegated from the Premier League get a massive parachute payment. The future of the club isn't at risk.

Indeed, I suspect a relegation of such as Cas and HKR to a championship where there was no way back would see these clubs drop like a stone crowd wise, lose all their best players and if the directors wanted their loans back then that's that, flog the grounds..

Oldham Mk2 and Mk 3...

[Terry Mullaney]

Only 77 votes so far, and there isn't a status quo option.

 

If the new structure delivered what it's proponents claim, then I would vote for it too.

 

The problem is that it won't, and my article explains some of the reasons why.

But you said or intimated that no one was in favour of it because your mail bag hadn't received any letters in favour. Even though there have only been 77 votes cast on here, it shows quite clearly that option three is, in fact, finding considerable favour.

[Martyn Sadler]

the shift in revenues is still massive and the repercussions of relegation huge.

Im not sure of the point you are making with regards to Europe.

 

In football, the leading clubs are often prepared to play weakened teams in the FA Cup in order not to prejudice their chances of earning a place in Europe by finishing in the top four in the league table.

[amm]

The obvious question about this is why are they doing it?

The answer for me lies not because it's a revolutionary, exciting new idea from a go forward and innovative game which will see the game go foreward from success to success.

Thats the press release answer, laced with oodles of positivety and all in the garden is well.

I only have an opinion, but it seems to me they are abandoning Superleague because they don't have enough clubs who can compete at that level, sevral of whom are pulling investment out of their clubs, and clubs locked out of superleague are progressively going downhill.

Now are the RFL going to discuss the latter questions???

I suggest never in a million years.

when the going gets tough, they don't appear to be tough - much easier to think of a new brainwave, and spin it

[Martyn Sadler]

But you said or intimated that no one was in favour of it because your mail bag hadn't received any letters in favour. Even though there have only been 77 votes cast on here, it shows quite clearly that option three is, in fact, finding considerable favour.

 

That's right. And I'm not too surprised. I can see why some people might like it. But when you think about its long term effects you begin to get worried.

 

I think Featherstone are particularly vulnerable in this structure. I'll say why in League Express on Monday.

[Gav Wilson]

In football, the leading clubs are often prepared to play weakened teams in the FA Cup in order not to prejudice their chances of earning a place in Europe by finishing in the top four in the league table.

 

 

In the Capital One Cup maybe, they certainly don't in the FA Cup.