Martyn Sadler - Talking Rugby League

[The Parksider]

The simple facts are that the game doesn't have enough money. The RFL policy review is an attempt to try and change that. Will it work? Don't know. However I'd suggest that sticking with what we've got, probably won't give us a comp that is as unpredictable or vibrant as the NRL is anytime soon.

As a Wakey fan, many of our games are dull. We're never going to win SL. We're so far off clubs like Wigan, Leeds & Wire.

The new structure gives clubs like Wakey a chance to win something. We try and stay in the top 8 with the big boys. If that doesn't work, we go into a comp where we'll be one of the big boys. We might get to that Grand Final, if not, we still might get promoted and have a chance to go again next year.

And in the top 8, most matches would be like the Wire v Hull match last night.....

Oh dear,

Your saying the middle 8 competition will allow poor Wakey to drop a level and maybe be one of the big boys and win something, whilst the other SL clubs can go off and play top class intense matches against each other.

Should EPL clubs drop out of the Premiership so they can compete for that knowing they can't get past the Manchester clubs? Second tier is second tier and the best players, the best junior stars and the fans will much more want to be in the first tier. I don't see how Wakefield will ever be a big club if they have ambitions to drop a division.

My club won the second tier competition in 1999 before 5,700. I loved that game, best ever, but second tier is no good for clubs like Wakefield. You seem in awe of Warrington who were a disappointing mid table side in a battered old ground with 5,000 fans at that time. Hull were joint bottom that year attracting 4,000 fans to the awful Boulevard.

Both clubs were rejuvinated by new grounds, and went from strength to strength. Wakefield have a new ground lined up and their crowds and performances are as good if not better than Dull and Dire's were. The only problem with Wakefield is they have spent 17 years scrubbing about semi skint.

I do hope you get behind Mr. Glover, Wakefield need to maintain their ambitions because they are eminently realisable, but NOT as a second tier club.

[South Wakefield Sharks]

The only problem with Wakefield is they have spent 17 years scrubbing about semi skint.

That's exactly it. Wakey can't afford to be in the same league as Leeds, Wigan, Warrington etc at the moment. I don't really enjoy watching us tread water year after year, whilst we wait for the right management to come and run our club.

If some serious money comes our way then we could be as good as the best clubs in a salary cap sport, if the club is managed well.

We might find that comes from the move to the new ground, or we might make a mess of it like Salford did.

Wakey clearly have the potential to be one of the big boys, but the reality is that we're miles off what a real Super League club should be at the moment.

[The Parksider]

Intensity is what plan 3 will deliver.  Spectators, TV, The Press and sponsors will love it.  Dare I say that even Mr Sadler will, once it starts.

If you put clubs in a league of unequal finances then it polarises.

e.g. the old one league where Leeds used to come top as "league leaders" and Hunslet came bottom like in 1972 where our clubs had a 54 point gap on the league table.

e.g.the old first/second division which saw Bradford only lose 2 games and huyton only win 2 when it started.

e.g the third division first played out in 1992 there there was a 46 point gap between top and botom.

e.g. Superleague 2003 where Halifax started on lower funding and ended up the erong end of a 44 point gap and no points.

e.g. The Championship 2011 where Featherstone and Leigh beat everybody else out of sight.

What we know so far about the middle 8 league at the moment is at one end it will have the ninth best professional outfit on high wages coming off a tough opening competition against the best, being pitched against a semi pro outfit that has managed fourth place in the second tier.

The beauty of Superleague in theory is it's "equal funding", and it showed in the Warrington.v.Hull game friday. The problem with Superleague is the 14 clubs don't have the equal funding and so we see a yawning gap between top and bottom merely at the half way stage.

I admire your blind optimism and upbeat attitude to the proposals and like the observers to the slaughter on the Culloden battlefield I'll merely enjoy watching it and seeing how it all pans out. The middle 8 may however end up quite distastefull with lots of dead bodies.

Edited May 19, 2013 by The Parksider

[WakefieldCityLoyal]

If option 3 was in would Warrington & Hull played each other I though Hull started the season badly so they'd have been in the second division wouldn't they

[The Parksider]

That's exactly it. Wakey can't afford to be in the same league as Leeds, Wigan, Warrington etc at the moment. I don't really enjoy watching us tread water year after year, whilst we wait for the right management to come and run our club.

If some serious money comes our way then we could be as good as the best clubs in a salary cap sport, if the club is managed well.

We might find that comes from the move to the new ground, or we might make a mess of it like Salford did.

Wakey clearly have the potential to be one of the big boys, but the reality is that we're miles off what a real Super League club should be at the moment.

So what do you do? Keep going forwards or drop a division. It's a no brainer.

Don't go round thinking second tier will do anything other than help erode your ambitions.

The last two club to drop down a division because they could not compete, Leigh and Cas, are in dire economic straits and Leigh got that new ground.

It's a complete myth IMHO dropping down a division allows you to strengthen.

[The Parksider]

We are heading for the tail wagging the dog once again.

Shame we're not hearing more from you (the history man)on this.

On another thread they are upbeat about "3 divisions" it's just occurred to me that like everything we try it has already been done in the 91/2 and 92/3 seasons.

Can you remember if it was a roaring success then??

[Martyn Sadler]

If option 3 was in would Warrington & Hull played each other I though Hull started the season badly so they'd have been in the second division wouldn't they

After 11 rounds of this season's Super League competition Hull were in ninth place, so they wouldn't have played Warrington on Friday night. We would have had the very strange sight of players like Ellis, Holdsworth and Horne playing in the second tier, and no doubt running up cricket scores against some of their opposition.

[Ponterover]

After 11 rounds of this season's Super League competition Hull were in ninth place, so they wouldn't have played Warrington on Friday night. We would have had the very strange sight of players like Ellis, Holdsworth and Horne playing in the second tier, and no doubt running up cricket scores against some of their opposition.

 

 

Do you not think that the prospect of this would have kicked Hull up the backside a bit and upped their first 11 performances?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

After 11 rounds of this season's Super League competition Hull were in ninth place, so they wouldn't have played Warrington on Friday night. We would have had the very strange sight of players like Ellis, Holdsworth and Horne playing in the second tier, and no doubt running up cricket scores against some of their opposition.

Well we should have done better then. You play the system, the system doesn't play you.

We would at least be looking at winning a competition for a change as well.

[oldrover]

Shame we're not hearing more from you (the history man)on this.

On another thread they are upbeat about "3 divisions" it's just occurred to me that like everything we try it has already been done in the 91/2 and 92/3 seasons.

Can you remember if it was a roaring success then??

i see you now for what you are, an agitator. but you're not on your own

[Ponterover]

If you put clubs in a league of unequal finances then it polarises.

e.g. the old one league where Leeds used to come top as "league leaders" and Hunslet came bottom like in 1972 where our clubs had a 54 point gap on the league table.

e.g.the old first/second division which saw Bradford only lose 2 games and huyton only win 2 when it started.

e.g the third division first played out in 1992 there there was a 46 point gap between top and botom.

e.g. Superleague 2003 where Halifax started on lower funding and ended up the erong end of a 44 point gap and no points.

e.g. The Championship 2011 where Featherstone and Leigh beat everybody else out of sight.

What we know so far about the middle 8 league at the moment is at one end it will have the ninth best professional outfit on high wages coming off a tough opening competition against the best, being pitched against a semi pro outfit that has managed fourth place in the second tier.

The beauty of Superleague in theory is it's "equal funding", and it showed in the Warrington.v.Hull game friday. The problem with Superleague is the 14 clubs don't have the equal funding and so we see a yawning gap between top and bottom merely at the half way stage.

I admire your blind optimism and upbeat attitude to the proposals and like the observers to the slaughter on the Culloden battlefield I'll merely enjoy watching it and seeing how it all pans out. The middle 8 may however end up quite distastefull with lots of dead bodies.

 

I think the mistake you are making is to assume that the top semi pro clubs won't go pro (or near pro).  Fev and Halifax certainly will.  The two ejected from SL2015 will stay pro also with the parachute payment.

 

The money is there, Fev could go near pro tomorrow if we weren't stuck with the cap that we have. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

If you think I've got it wrong, I'd be perfectly happy to see you take my arguments apart. In fact I'd be delighted if you could demonstrate that this proposed structure will deliver the vibrant, exciting game we all want to see, with increased support all round.

How long will I have to wait?

If anybody in the world could demonstrate that then we'd have a guarantees system for success.

It's a bit disingenuous to ask someone to do an impossible task in order to prove their opinion's worth.

[Jwdub]

I agree it would but for the first 11 rounds teams will have their strongest sides, therefore you will get results like Cas beating Leeds at the beginning of the season. As the season progresses their squad becomes thinner and results go against them. If they managed to get into the top 8 I'm not sure playing Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, saints, hull, etc every week would do them any good. Maybe there could be a compromise of possibly 10/11 teams out of the 12 qualifying. This would reduce the panic once safe, and avoid the challenge cup problems anticipated. The bottom 1 or 2 would join a 2nd tier with a genuine chance of winning something whilst they regroup and bid for promotion.

[Saintslass]

After 11 rounds of this season's Super League competition Hull were in ninth place, so they wouldn't have played Warrington on Friday night. We would have had the very strange sight of players like Ellis, Holdsworth and Horne playing in the second tier, and no doubt running up cricket scores against some of their opposition.

Not necessarily.  Hull would know that by round 11 if they hadn't secured at least 8th spot then they would be out of the running for the play offs.  That kind of clarity can encourage a team to perform better, regardless of injuries.

[Padge]

Shame we're not hearing more from you (the history man)on this.

On another thread they are upbeat about "3 divisions" it's just occurred to me that like everything we try it has already been done in the 91/2 and 92/3 seasons.

Can you remember if it was a roaring success then??

In 1991 Heatherington proposed 3 divisions of 14 8 14 following the admission of Scarborough into the RFL, this gave the league 36 clubs.

 

There was a presumption from the RFL that this would be passed easily as the vast majority of the clubs were making all the right noises, when it cam to the vote it failed to get enough votes to the dismay of Oxley.

 

Never trust the public noises of club chairman and never presume that what they say will have any bearing on the way they will vote.

 

Incidentally Hull KR around this time managed to turn a £900,000 surplus into a crippling loss by buying promotion.

[The Parksider]

I think the mistake you are making is to assume that the top semi pro clubs won't go pro (or near pro).  Fev and Halifax certainly will.  The two ejected from SL2015 will stay pro also with the parachute payment. The money is there, Fev could go near pro tomorrow if we weren't stuck with the cap that we have.

Are you sure because twice you've used the phrases "near pro".

What is that??

What's the "Parachute payment BTW??

If Rovers can spend full cap tommorrow their best bet is to vote for a 12 club superleague and 3 years licences and if that ain't an option vote for the nearest, because you will be far more cashed up than either Wakefield or Castleford, can put in a far better licence application and could dominate the area in three years time.

I'd want your board to explain why they don't appear to want this?

[The Parksider]

i see you now for what you are, an agitator. but you're not on your own

Why am I an "agitator".

We should look back to what happened under three divisions when all the eight clubs set off on an even footing.

Or don't you want to look? Afraid of what you may find??.

Your very quickly moving to name calling based on blind perceptions, unless we've met? I suggest you stop doing that, it's silly and it discounts the possibility that what insults you send out may just return to you in spades, then the thread gets locked.

Or should we lock all threads in which you don't like other peoples opinions?

Edited May 19, 2013 by The Parksider

[Jwdub]

Strange to come on a forum and not even make a point for discussion.

[Jwdub]

If anybody in the world could demonstrate that then we'd have a guarantees system for success.

It's a bit disingenuous to ask someone to do an impossible task in order to prove their opinion's worth.

strange to come on a forum and not even make point for discussion

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I've been away for the week, so not had time to really get into the article and critique it, but going to give it a go now (sorry for the length of the post due to quotes!):

"It's fair to say that I didn't find anyone who was in favour of the proposed changes, and many supporters couldn't understand why the changes were being proposed."

It's not exactly a brilliant argument to use this tiny and rather specific area of the RL community to portray an overall opinion to the reader.

It's safe to say there are a lot of people that favour the proposal, and trying to use an argument by numbers is not only a poor arguing technique in the first place, it's also dishonest when done with your particular target for survey.

"Having said that, there is no doubt that some clubs in the Championship support the proposals, because they can see the possibility of being able to move up the league ladder, even though it would be in a fairly convoluted manner.

Under the licensing system, those clubs see little prospect of moving up to join the Super League clubs, so they clearly favour any system that appears to make that process easier."

So literally a few sentences later you've recognised that maybe some people do support a change, and given a reason why they would. It kind of makes your first point (no one supports it or understands why there needs to be a change) redundant, no?

"The problem is that the 'two twelves, three eights' proposal, which is clearly favoured by the RFL chief executive Nigel Wood, has so many drawbacks that the clubs should think very seriously before they jump on board with his proposals.

As does any proposal, especially the current one. ANY system adopted will have many drawbacks, many critics, and there is no way to guarantee it's the best way forward. But I think many people in the game would agree that the current system isn't working as intended.

"To start with, we would see clubs reverting to playing some other clubs three times during the regular season.

I don't think the RFL and the clubs realise just how resistant the fans will be to seeing too many matches between the same clubs."

ANY option to reduce the league will see repeat fixtures. We had 6 repeat fixtures in the league from 2000-2006 (5 for the two years after). The fans hardly boycotted.

If say the fans are more resistant to watching boring mismatches between lower clubs than watching repeat fixtures between the top clubs. It probably won't be too difficult to find crowd figures to back up that statement.

"Secondly, although all three groups of eight clubs will have their own play-offs and a Grand Final, the only one that will mean anything will be the Super League Grand Final for the top eight clubs. The other 'Grand Finals' will be a tremendous anti-climax and it would be better not to have them."

Got to agree with you in part here, Martin. The structure for the play-offs is one of my concerns but can easily be remedied with the right set up. I'm not 100% sure what they've settled for, and I've added my two-pennies worth on other threads as to how I think they should go to guarantee everyone has something to play for. I agree that play-offs for the top of the league (when really they aren't the top of the league they started the season in) is a bit arbitrary. I don't see why the play-offs can't be for the last promotion spot for example.

"The other thing to bear in mind is that the proposals could do untold damage to the Challenge Cup in 2014, which would be a shame when the tournament, at least as shown on TV, has started so well this year."

I think the reasons you cite here are incredibly exaggerated. Untold damage? The league has had relegation spots for years, yet the cup has been going along just the same. I think to suggest clubs will go easy in the cup to ensure they don't get relegated ignores the fact that if they're bottom of the league they won't be exactly that successful in the cup anyway due to their playing talent! It also ignores the fact that the Challenge Cup is one of only two major prizes on the line in British RL, and IIRC has the biggest pay day!

Not to mention, this is an argument to not do something because of the effects of one transitional season. Hardly a reason to stop attempting progression.

In all the years of P&R, I've never seen a club field a weakened side to save themselves from relegation.

"They will spend up to the salary cap limit, whether they can afford it or not..."

Will they? Based on what evidence? How many clubs at the bottom during the P&R era spent up to the salary cap limit?

"We will also find that the number of young players being given opportunities in Super League next season will be well down on recent seasons, as the clubs try to recruit trusted journeymen to avoid the drop."

I think the salary cap in the NRL will make that route a lot less rewarding and clubs will continue to push youth personally. The 3x8 system will, IMO, actually help these young players develop at a better and more appropriate rate as well as they'll be facing more balanced opposition rather than the best elite teams.

"Unfortunately, making wholesale changes will send out the wrong message, and will make that job even harder."

Sticking with a system that many have lost faith in and is getting attacked by our own supporters also sends out the wrong message. We shouldn't focus solely on the negatives of these proposals.

"Only Hull KR have come up through being promoted and stayed up.

And Huddersfield. And Hull. And Wakefield. And Salford. And Widnes. Only Cas and Leigh haven't stayed up after one season.

I'm all for opinion pieces, but as long as they are honest and factual arguments in there. On this occasion Martyn, I've got to say, there's a lot of oversight and contradiction in your arguments, not many facts and it just screams of forming a personal opinion and sticking to it on first instinct.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Wellsy4HullFC

[Wellsy4HullFC]

strange to come on a forum and not even make point for discussion

If you see my next post you'll see why it took so long!

[The Parksider]

I'd be delighted if you could demonstrate that this proposed structure will deliver the vibrant, exciting game we all want to see, with increased support all round.

Well I hope you will do that for us as you may have the better inside knowledge of which chairmen are really up for this and will literally "buy" into it and which chairmen may be long gone before the middle division play off final kicks off. The whole thing looks like a vehicle to quickly promote clubs who are up for Superleague, whilst gently letting down clubs who are facing the exit..... Edited May 19, 2013 by The Parksider

[Dave T]

Great post from Wellsy. so many questionable points in Martyn's article.

[JohnM]

the current poll on the forum has at the moment 52% of people favouring the 2x12 then 8x3 format  how can you say that supporters arent in favour ?

because 54 votes in total is not a realistic sample.

[The Parksider]

because 54 votes in total is not a realistic sample.

It's 54 out of well over 100,000 fans surely it's enough?

After all the final decision will be carried by far less that 54 votes and that IS scary....