Martyn Sadler - Talking Rugby League

[Trojan]

Football has automatic promotion & relegation, but the England football team haven't won a major international tournament for decades.

 

The NRL doesn't have any kind of promotion & relegation, but Australia have been the dominant force in world Rugby League for decades.

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of promotion & relegation as an issue, it is a complete red herring in terms of achieving international success, IMO.

 

 

Cricket introduced two divisions with automatic promotion and relegation and the England team hasn't really looked back since.

[Dave T]

In 1964 the two semis averaged 28k, by 74 a downward trend had set in which bottomed out at at low of 8k a loss of 20k for the semis. There then followed a period of slow growth, it wasn't until 1983 that we returned to continuous averages above 15k, they peaked at 23k in 87 but then set on another major continual decline, we are now down at around the 12k mark.

Thanks Padge - what would be your commentary around this?

 

With a real high level overview provided, it looks to me to be much more than just the introduction of P&R that affected the Cup. The fact that one drop coincides with the  league changes suggests there is something in this in the mid-70's - but the recovery in the 80's suggests that the cup could thrive in a P&R environment.

 

I think the drop in the Super League era is a combination of things. In the early 90's the season ticket became prominent - especially by the mid-90's with the cheap kid tickets, attracting a breed of fans that don't pay more than a couple of quid for entry. I don't think the sport managed the Challenge Cup very well during this period despite sustained SL crowd increases.

 

Anyway, apologies for going off topic, it's worthy of a thread on its own, although it has sort of been done in the past a few times (but that doesn't mean anything on here!).

[Martyn Sadler]

Promotion and relegation is brilliant for football, but in Rugby League we could never replicate the excitement you describe because the gap between our two leading divisions is too great, whereas the leagues in soccer are graded much less steeply. To try and copy football makes us look a very poor second best.

We should accept that we have a main competition that is full-tme, and our second competition that is part-time. If clubs want to change from one tier to another, then there should be mechanisms that make that possible, but not conventional promotion and relegation. If your club became a yo-yo club it would suffer untold damage. If it comes into Super League it needs, like Widnes, to have a guarantee of at least theee years.

On the subject of England, the format of the league structure is irrelevant, as is the so-called intensity of the competition.

What is important is the lack of time our players have over the close season to prepare physically for the new season. Jamie Peacock had the chance this year, the first time for many years, and look at how he has played. Our other international players didn't, and they are suffering the consequences now.

A season that starts in early February and ends at the end of November kills our chances of international success.

I support P&R and will support regardless of its effects on my club. Since we lost our coach there is a genuine possibilty that we won't be in the reckoning this season. I support automatic P&R (with caveats over ground etc) because I believe it's good for the game. I was in a bar in Bridlington when Hull City got promoted - it was mayhem.  We've seen all the publicity Bradford City generated last weekend with their trip to Wembley.  At one point it was not clear whether Huddersfield Town, Wednesday or Barnsley would be relegated - as it turned out none of them were but there was interest right up to the last kick of the season.  That's what I want for our game. i want every game from day one to the last day of the season to count in all our comps.  None of this targetting games, beating the local rival and then getting beaten by 80 odd points in the next game because it doesn't matter.  That can't be right. The only way we'll every beat the Aussies consistently on a fairly regular basis is for our top players to experience pressure week in week out.  That's why I think this time we have a chance in the World Cup, because so many of our key players - James Graham, the Burgesses, and Gareth Ellis plus Widdop, have experience of the this sort of comp. and they'll pass it on to their British based team-mates, like Hanley, Schofield, Edwards, Offiah, Kevin Ward and Lee Crooks did.

[John Drake]

Cricket introduced two divisions with automatic promotion and relegation and the England team hasn't really looked back since.

 

And you believe that is the main reason the England cricket team have achieved success lately? What about all those previous Ashes victories achieved before promotion & relegation? How did they happen? The two things are not linked, they are incidental.

 

If promotion & relegation in itself were the secret to international success (it isn't) why did the Great Britain Rugby League team fail to win a major tournament against Australia in all the years the British game had automatic promotion & relegation from 1973 onwards?

 

I can understand why so many fans want automatic promotion & relegation, regardless of any potential pitfalls it may bring, but making false claims about what it will achieve will only raise hopes that will be crushed later on down the line when it doesn't happen, leading to even greater levels of cynicism than exist in our game already. A bit like when licensing was sold as the panacea to all the game's financial ills, which it was never likely to be in the real world.

[a.n Other]

We should accept that we have a main competition that is full-tme, and our second competition that is part-time..

Why should we accept it? The changes could give the chances for clubs to move full time when they feel ready. The key will be the salary cap allowed.

If we are just accepting things, we should just accept that we only have 4 clubs that are truly Super, and reduce the league to accommodate them.

[The Parksider]

In 1964 the two semis averaged 28k, by 74 a downward trend had set in which bottomed out at at low of 8k a loss of 20k for the semis. There then followed a period of slow growth, it wasn't until 1983 that we returned to continuous averages above 15k, they peaked at 23k in 87 but then set on another major continual decline, we are now down at around the 12k mark.

I'd like to offer the idea that from when I watched in 1965 attendances were going down across the board league more than cup. The advent of Barla and david Oxley? mid seventies saw the game rejuvinated somewhat and attendance decline was arrested across the board including the challenge cup. The Hull clubs returned fantastic attendances early eighties and their fans boosted semi final crowds.

So there are other factors to consider, this being the main one.

I also seem to remember stood in some embarrassing semi crowds when London and sheffield made the semis!!

[nadera78]

Let's just keep dancing around the edges of this again and again shall we? Whilst ignoring the only pertinent points.

 

We have players of sufficient standard for 12 elite teams.

We have the spectator base for 12 elite teams.

We have the investor interest for 12 elite teams.

We have the corporate support for 12 elite teams.

We have the broadcast interest and revenue for 12 elite teams.

 

Here's a radical suggestion - how about we create a structure that sustains 12 elite teams?

[Just to be clear]

And you believe that is the main reason the England cricket team have achieved success lately? What about all those previous Ashes victories achieved before promotion & relegation? How did they happen? The two things are not linked, they are incidental.

Just to be clear, you are wrong. The County Championship was split into two divisions solely to improve the production of test quality players. There was a problem with a lack of intensity in an 18-county division which lead to players not being developed to a high enough standard. The competition was split so that teams would be playing those of a similar quality to give players at all counties more intense competition that would make them more ready at test level. The split had nothing to do with the interests of fans or the counties.

It is a very tenuous claim to make that a change designed to meet a specific objective and with no other purpose coincides with meeting that objective exactly as planned. Can you provide proof that the ECB's plan itself failed and they were just very lucky indeed?

It is though a terrible example to use as a model for rugby league because it is a competition that has very low attendances, only two matches televised per year, and is essentially centrally funded by the international game that it ultimately serves.

The limited overs formats that are popular with spectators, television, and make money do not have promotion and relegation. The successive Twenty20 competitions have always used regional groups while it was short lived in the List A ones which replaced it with random groups that are redrawn every season.

[Larry the Leit]

And you believe that is the main reason the England cricket team have achieved success lately? What about all those previous Ashes victories achieved before promotion & relegation? How did they happen? The two things are not linked, they are incidental.

 

I think that this is a fair analysis.  The county championship has a bit more bite to it with P&R and that won't hurt the national side, but the truth is that England players don't play a lot of county cricket, and youngsters tend to be fast tracked to the England side having played VERY little first class cricket.  Joe Root being the best recent example, the first test was the first time he'd ever played at Lords for instance!

[audois]

Thanks Padge - what would be your commentary around this?

 

With a real high level overview provided, it looks to me to be much more than just the introduction of P&R that affected the Cup. The fact that one drop coincides with the  league changes suggests there is something in this in the mid-70's - but the recovery in the 80's suggests that the cup could thrive in a P&R environment.

 

I think the drop in the Super League era is a combination of things. In the early 90's the season ticket became prominent - especially by the mid-90's with the cheap kid tickets, attracting a breed of fans that don't pay more than a couple of quid for entry. I don't think the sport managed the Challenge Cup very well during this period despite sustained SL crowd increases.

 

Anyway, apologies for going off topic, it's worthy of a thread on its own, although it has sort of been done in the past a few times (but that doesn't mean anything on here!).

Dave the semi of 1964 quoted involved Oldham v Hull KR. The Robins won after two memorable games at Station Rd & Fartown. That year Oldham finished top of the 2nd Division. HKR 9th in Division 1. Three years later when we reverted back to one Division again 15th placed Barrow lost to 20th placed Featherstone. Thats the equivalent today of Championship Halifax v Dewsbury Rams reaching Wembley.

[The Parksider]

Let's just keep dancing around the edges of this again and again shall we? Whilst ignoring the only pertinent points.

 

We have players of sufficient standard for 12 elite teams.

We have the spectator base for 12 elite teams.

We have the investor interest for 12 elite teams.

We have the corporate support for 12 elite teams.

We have the broadcast interest and revenue for 12 elite teams.

 

Here's a radical suggestion - how about we create a structure that sustains 12 elite teams?

They did it in 2000 and ran it for eight years.

After they changed it Crusaders went bust, Wakefield went bust, Bradford went bust, HKR, Cas and Widnes ran into financial difficulties, salford were on the verge of folding, and London crashed to an all time low, all due to money problems so all in all 14 clubs didn't really work.

IIRC the SKY money was stretched to 14 ways, there may have been some respite if it had stayed at 12 with a 12 way share.

The dreaded 2x12=3x8 option of course goes back to 12 SL clubs but notice how nearly five million is to be given to the Championship?

Now they want to share the SKY pot 24 ways. On the facts above it makes no sense.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Wellsy4HullFC analysed my article earlier in the thread. Below, my original comments are in italics and quote marks, and his response is in normal text.

My response to his points are also in italics and bold.

Thanks to Wellsy4HullFC for his critique of my piece.

Thanks for the reply, Martyn. I'll cut out the original though to save space if you don't mind, I'm pretty sure we'll still be able to follow! Yours in bold/italics, mine in normal.

Of course there will be many different opinions about these proposals, including from people who are strongly in favour. But the key thing, regardless of their degree of support, is whether the logic of the proposals actually stacks up

Agree entirely, which is why I and others found it unfair to use a small sample that were in agreement with your opinion as some kind of gamewide straw poll to sway the reader's opinion. You should have let your arguments have done the talking here.

I wouldn't say so. The point I'm making is that some clubs are backing the idea because of what they see as their own vested interest, whereas I would argue that pursuing promotion puts them under too great a financial strain. The licensing system should be sufficiently flexible to persuade clubs to develop to the point at which they can become full-time clubs, but without having to bankrupt themselves to do so.

Aren't all clubs going to vote for the system that see most benefits their personal vested interest though? Or are some voting for the "good of the game"?

I think it's unfair to write off those in favour of the 3x8 for having vested interests when its not only likely that those on the otherside of the fence also have vested interests, it's also impossible to determine who doesn't.

You've also shown your personal preference here, which is fine, but I can't agree with the reasons why you favour it as what you say "should" happen and what did/is happening are both completely different. Instead of clubs bankrupting themselves to gain promotion, they were bankrupting themselves to keep a license (and this has happened to a far greater extent) and the kicker being their appears to have been little repercussion for it as 3/4 kept a spot whilst those that the system is persuading to become full time are still shunned.

Those in charge cannot (and clearly don't want to) be responsible for demoting clubs. Too many losers and not enough winners from making that kind of decision. A good system should be self-organising, not have to be dictated.

The licensing system was intended to allow clubs to stabilise both in playing terms and financially, as well as securing improvements in stadium faciliites. Since licensing was introduced I think we've seen an upsurge in young players, a reduction in our reliance on overseas players, an improvement in facilities, and a club like Widnes not having to break the bank to stay in the top league. But of course it hasn't been an entirely smooth operation, with some obvious problems and clubs that continue to disappoint. Only a fool would claim that everything in the garden is rosy.

Naturally, you've completely downplayed the negatives (as anyone would). I think it's hard to ignore that 4 clubs SL clubs have had very serious financial issues during the licensing era (one had two separate issues).

I think it's hard to claim that stadium improvements were down to the licensing system rather than stringent criteria needed to be in the top league. Salford and Saints have been planning stadium builds since before the licensing system was even announced.

And overseas numbers are reducing mainly due to the NRL cap increase IMO. The likes have Wigan and Saints this year have been forced to bring through youth as their overseas players (and even top homegrown players) are heading abroad. There are no quality replacements these days.

I think the theory behind licensing and the reality have been two completely different things personally. Clubs have had the chance to stabilise and build, but also had the chance to stagnate and collapse.

Watching repeat fixtures is like having your favourite meal in your favourite restaurant several times a week. You'll eventually get sick of it. But I agree that mismatches are equally undesirable. But how many genuine mismatches do we anticipate in Super League? At the moment it seems to be mainly games involving Wigan against some of the lower clubs. And that could hardly have been anticipated at the start of the season, when many people were predicting that Wigan would have a difficult season.

Personally, I'd rather hit KFC three times in a week if it avoids eating my housemate's cooking

Seriously though, I won't be the only one that would rather watch Hull vs Leeds 3x than Hull vs London for example.

I don't want to focus on the number of mismatches in SL, but looking at the scores over the years there's a fair few between top and bottom of SL, a fair few between top and bottom of the Championship, but not many between bottom of SL and top of the Championship.

The point is that in the middle tier, the key interest is finishing above or below fourth spot. Anything else will be a sideshow.

Which is a fair point. There needs to be a prize better than promotion/safety from relegation to make this a more favourable option (which is why I suggested the possibility of top getting the last SL play off spot).

The Challenge Cup used to be the biggest prize in the game. Supporters used to dream about its arrival in the second part of the season. It used to be the trophy that any club could win. But it has been in long term decline, and that goes all the way back to the start of two divisions in the 1973/4 season, when 30 teams were split into two groups and avoiding relegation suddenly became very important. But the effect will be exaggerated in 2014 because the financial stakes will be so high.

I think the issues with the Challenge Cup are completely separate from P&R to be honest. I think little had changed in the cup's perception in the last 5 seasons and from when there was P&R. I can't think of any examples of clubs fighting relegation fielding weakened teams in the cup but can find examples of clubs fielding weakened teams in the SL.

There are many examples of clubs overspending to gain promotion and/or to avoid relegation.

That is different to clubs spending up to the salary cap to avoid relegation.

I also don't think it's fair to use this as an argument when there's evidence that more clubs have overspent and gone bust trying to keep a license than have overspent and gone bust to avoid relegation. I think it's fair to say that some clubs will always struggle to save themselves from themselves no matter what the system.

We are already seeing signs that SL clubs are starting to recruit overseas stars for next season. Additionally, I've been told by one agent that some of the players he manages are already talking about not wanting to join teams that they think will not make the top eight under the new system.

Well I don't have insider info so it's hard for me to comment, but judging on recent signings, the clubs likely to be in the top eight will always be more likely to sign the better players.

Indeed you're right. But when you make major structural changes you have to make it clear that: 1. You have taken on board every conceivable issue that may arise; 2. Every objection, or the vast majority of them, can be overcome; and 3. You have a plan and a marketing budget to ensure that the changes will be fully explained to and supported by the Rugby League public.

Indeed, but it feels that there is an imbalance in the issues with the 3x8 option and the issues with the other two options as well as the licensing option. All have pros & cons, but the cons of the licensing system don't appear to have been brought to light as much by yourself.

Huddersfield would have been relegated in 98, 99 and 2000 if relegation had happened in those years. But when you look at their balance sheets you'll see that Huddersfield, Castleford, Salford and Hull KR have all taken a massive financial hit from promotion and relegation that they struggle to overcome, while Widnes had to form a new company, although the Giants are fortunate to have Ken Davy as their Chairman.

So keeping Huddersfield in achieved what then? They got relegated in the end, came back up and haven't looked back.

Widnes came up and managed to stay up for 4 seasons.

Castleford are struggling because of bad management, not P&R. They're probably struggling more now than they were during P&R. Same for Wakefield and Salford.

On the key issues I don't agree with you. I don't think you made a strong case out in favour of Option 3, and perhaps you didn't intend to. But I still have to be persuaded of the merits of these proposals, I'm afraid.

I haven't offered a strong case for any because my intention was to dispell some of the illogic on your argument.

I aren't strongly in favour of any one particular option of the three to be honest, but I favour them all over the current licensing system. I just think the apparent arguments for it haven't come to fruition. I've always said it should be given a chance before it's dismissed and I've given it a chance. I think it was a necessary evil to separate the wheat from the chaff in a very quick and public manner, but it's not a good way to build up morale throughout the sport and does more to distance rather than bring together the RL family (something we always used as a selling point). British sporting culture just demands P&R and I think well never change that.

I'm also a proponent of more cross-divisional contests to add variety and give everyone a chance. You argued earlier that having the same meal over and over again will make you sick of it. Well we get that with the current system. Same poor teams every year. It's familiar, we've had it before, we know what we're going to get and we didn't really like it too much. At least in this system you either get more of your favourite or get to try a few new restaurants rather than settling for that ###### takeaway at the end if the road because it's convenient. I think that's why I'm tipping more towards the unfamiliarity of the 3x8. Licensing isn't working IMO, causing too much unrest; and we moved away from traditional P&R because we wanted something better, why retreat back to it?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Football has automatic promotion & relegation, but the England football team haven't won a major international tournament for decades.

The NRL doesn't have any kind of promotion & relegation, but Australia have been the dominant force in world Rugby League for decades.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of promotion & relegation as an issue, it is a complete red herring in terms of achieving international success, IMO.

But Spain have, and they have P&R.

Agree though, it's a complete red herring. There's no proof about anything and anyone comparing NRL to SL and saying its because of franchising the Aussies are better may as well turn the TV on to the news channel, watch what's happening there, and proclaim that it happened because they turned the TV on!

I'm all for opinions, but not when they're dressed up as facts, and not when they completely ignore other obvious facts!

[Gav Wilson]

But Spain have, and they have P&R.

 

They also have 'A' teams in the lower leagues too...

 

[JohnM]

and they don't play rugby league.

[keighley]

I'd like to offer the idea that from when I watched in 1965 attendances were going down across the board league more than cup. The advent of Barla and david Oxley? mid seventies saw the game rejuvinated somewhat and attendance decline was arrested across the board including the challenge cup. The Hull clubs returned fantastic attendances early eighties and their fans boosted semi final crowds.

So there are other factors to consider, this being the main one.

I also seem to remember stood in some embarrassing semi crowds when London and sheffield made the semis!!

 

Just to jump in on ther lies, damn lies and statistics tangent. As you know i am an old geezer and i remember going to cup semi finals, both played at Odsal on consecutive weekends where one attendance was 43,000 and the other 37,000. the smaller attendance was involving one of the smallest clubs, to whit Featherstone Rovers. I think this was in the early 1960's but i have no reference books where I am presently located.

 

I also went to a Championship final where 80,000 went to Odsal to see Wakefield demolish Wigan and this was when there was just one big league of 30 clubs. No Sl, No p and r either. then the wheels fell off. The game used to be much bigger than it is now and there was no need of fully pro teams to make it big.

 

The Challenge cup used to be the Biggest RL competiton by far. third round ( Last ties were routinely attracting blockbuster attendances. I was even in a crowd of 10,000 at Keighley to see them play Wigan.

 

O don;t know why the Cup lost it's allure but it certainly has done so.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

Having a complete run of Rothmans yearbooks on a shelf behind me, the two semis at Bradford were Wakey 9 - Fev 0, att.43625 (£8496) and Hudd 6 - HKR 0, att. 31423 (£6685) in 1962. Since then only two games have broken the 30k level - Leeds - Wigan in 1968 (30058, Leeds won 25 - 4) and the 1972 replay between Saints and Wire at Wigan, 32380 (Saints 10  - 6). The decline began around the time of the second game.

[Martyn Sadler]

Just to jump in on ther lies, damn lies and statistics tangent. As you know i am an old geezer and i remember going to cup semi finals, both played at Odsal on consecutive weekends where one attendance was 43,000 and the other 37,000. the smaller attendance was involving one of the smallest clubs, to whit Featherstone Rovers. I think this was in the early 1960's but i have no reference books where I am presently located.

 

I also went to a Championship final where 80,000 went to Odsal to see Wakefield demolish Wigan and this was when there was just one big league of 30 clubs. No Sl, No p and r either. then the wheels fell off. The game used to be much bigger than it is now and there was no need of fully pro teams to make it big.

 

The Challenge cup used to be the Biggest RL competiton by far. third round ( Last ties were routinely attracting blockbuster attendances. I was even in a crowd of 10,000 at Keighley to see them play Wigan.

 

O don;t know why the Cup lost it's allure but it certainly has done so.

Actually there were over 80,000 at Odsal to see Wakefield and Wigan in 1960, but Wigan hammered Wakefield 27-3 that day, after Neil Fox was injured early in the game and limped on the wing for most of the match.

[Just to be clear]

After they changed it Crusaders went bust, Wakefield went bust, Bradford went bust, HKR, Cas and Widnes ran into financial difficulties, salford were on the verge of folding, and London crashed to an all time low, all due to money problems so all in all 14 clubs didn't really work.

Just to be clear, even lower for London than when during the 2005 season with £3m of debt they were on the verge of being wound up by the Inland Revenue who refused to accept their CVA? And that they survived was on the whim of a close vote of Super League clubs allowing them to transfer assets to a new company so they could default on their debts but remain in the competition? Something lower than that which none of the media has reported on?

The idea that nothing which happened during the last 5 years would not have had there been only 12 clubs in Super League, or had we had promotion and relegation, or had Ray French retired already is specious and really dumbing down the quality of debate in the game at the moment. Nobody knows what would have happened otherwise, and the more people try to claim that everything would have been fine but for anything which they is so desperate that it looks like they are trying to convince themselves.

And it is, of course, an entire coincidence that clubs faced economic problems during a major economic crisis. Oh no, that had no affect at all, clubs would have seen record sponsorship and attendances double despite that, if only Harry Gration had worn a suit instead of those jumpers.

[Padge]

Don't worry if it's any effort, but what kind of drop have we seen? Did we used to get 30k semis in the 60-70's and now we sit at 10-15k?

 

Genuinely interested in this btw, I was born in '78 and was brought up on RL during the 80's when the Semis and finals got big crowds. Many people quote that the advent of SL has ruined the cup - I'm interested in this alternative theory.

Okay then, here goes a potted history leading up to the advent of the 73 changes.

 

 

 

In the post war sporting boom of the 1950s RL, along with other sports, saw a massive increase in attendances at all games, not just cup games. With people relaxing after the war and a distinct lack of home entertainment other than radio, few people had television, live sport was the entertainment of the day.

 

In the period between 1952 - 62 CC semis managed 5 attendances over 5k, 6 over 40k, 9 over 30k none under 20k.

 

In June 1961 the RFL announced that a 3 season experiment would take place, starting in 62/63 the league would split into two divisions.

 

In 62 the semis attracted an average of just over 37.5k in 63 that halved to just over 18.5k, however the 63 semis came after the big freeze of Dec 62- March 63, the first signs of a thaw were in Feb 63 and things were getting back to normal come March, there was a backlog of games to sort out but the Semi-Finals went ahead on April 22nd 1963 long after the weather had improved.

 

The following two seasons (63/64 - 64/65) saw an improvement in attendance (Av. 28k and 24k) but in December 63 Bradford were set to fold and in January 64 they did. Also in January 64 there was a proposal put forward to change the two division P&R from 2-up, 2- down to 4-up, 4 down after just one season of the experiment. Could this return to favour for the semis have been anything to do with the announcement In Feb 64 that the experiment was to be abandoned at the end of the season (announced around the time of the second round of the cup). If it did it was short lived as the attendances for 66 and 67 only averaged around 17k.

 

Following the ups and downs of the early 60s the late 60s and the early 70s saw a rising trend in 72 the average attendances for the semis were 25k.

 

In January 72 there was concern about the falling attendances at games in general and Wakefield and Hunslet were in financial trouble.This was also around the time of the Cain report which proposed 3 divisions with the 3rd division including the best amateur teams. The three divisions was rejected at a later meeting but clubs decided to investigate, nothing new is there, splitting the league half-way through the season, this was being proposed as a possible interim before a move to two divisions.

 

Eventually they settled for one division with fixtures arranged on an East West split as was the case a few years earlier.

 

In January 73, two divisions were back in favour, with reports that most clubs were in favour of the change. On Feb 16th 1973 the clubs voted for two divisions split 16 - 14 with 4-up, 4-down P&R. Once again around the time of the second round of the challenge cup two divisions was voted in. The 1973 semis fell to a post war low of average 14,698 only to be topped by 1974 which delivered a mere 9,880.

 

Edited May 22, 2013 by Padge

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Just to be clear, you are wrong. The County Championship was split into two divisions solely to improve the production of test quality players. There was a problem with a lack of intensity in an 18-county division which lead to players not being developed to a high enough standard. The competition was split so that teams would be playing those of a similar quality to give players at all counties more intense competition that would make them more ready at test level. The split had nothing to do with the interests of fans or the counties.

It is a very tenuous claim to make that a change designed to meet a specific objective and with no other purpose coincides with meeting that objective exactly as planned. Can you provide proof that the ECB's plan itself failed and they were just very lucky indeed?

It is though a terrible example to use as a model for rugby league because it is a competition that has very low attendances, only two matches televised per year, and is essentially centrally funded by the international game that it ultimately serves.

The limited overs formats that are popular with spectators, television, and make money do not have promotion and relegation. The successive Twenty20 competitions have always used regional groups while it was short lived in the List A ones which replaced it with random groups that are redrawn every season.

 

Always difficult to compare two sports but there are some similarities between changes in Cricket and Rugby League.

 

The Idea of P&R in the County Championship was as JTBC states to close the gap between the County game and the International Arena in the sense that players would find it easier to move from one to the other and by and large this has worked. 

 

If you look at pre- P&R days in Cricket then there were a lot of players getting caps for England who were both not good enough but also discarded rapidly. It was felt that the Australian Sheffield Shield that has only the Six State sides produced a higher intensity of competition than the 18 first class counties where there were a number of dead games from late June onwards. It was felt that two divisions would mean every game matters and would also improve the quality of the playing staff as ordinary players would no longer be allowed to remain within the game in order simply to qualify for a benefit year and block the progression of younger England Qualified players in the same manner that journeymen Aussies, Kiwis and Polynesians are felt to block the progress of young players in league.

 

This was also similar to the calls for a reduction in the size of Super League from 14 to 12 /10 clubs, Back in a Bronquins Fan Forum back in 09/10 IIRC Brian McDermott had raised the issue that within the game there were doubts that there were enough players of sufficient quality to staff 14 Clubs.

 

Channel 5 (UK) and Channel 9 (Aus) compere Mark Nicholas has argued in The Wisden Cricketer his view that the number of first class counties needs to be reduced from 18 and that counties such as Derbyshire offer nothing to the game which is not disimilar to the resufacing calls for mergers amongst Championship clubs in order for them to be "competitive". 

 

There is also a clear split between the Test Match Grounds (rich) Counties and the non-Test Match Ground (poor) Counties, which mirrors the split between Super League and the Championship as the non-test grounds fear that inevitably money will talk and the better players will gravitate to the rich counties in the top division. The Test match grounds believe the non-test grounds a block on progress through their refusal to countenance T20 Franchises as the poorer clubs rely on selling out their small capacity grounds at T20 as theoir main revenue stream.

 

The key differences in the two sports are simply that in Cricket, Counties exist to produce international players and are kept afloat by centrral funding from the ECB which in iteslf is dependent upon the success of the national side and its attractiveness both to sponsors and TV. Unlike League where the International game is limited and the focus is on a geographically narrow elite league funded by TV money and private benefactors

 

Cricket like Union is a national game and the success of the sport is measured by the success of the national team which can temporarily knock Soccer off the back page. League is not a national sport and even success at international level (which has not been the case) would only cause a ripple outside the heartlands.

 

Rather makes the case for expansion does it not and how to assist expansion is the elephant in the room in this entire league restructuring debate.

[Trojan]

And you believe that is the main reason the England cricket team have achieved success lately? What about all those previous Ashes victories achieved before promotion & relegation? How did they happen? The two things are not linked, they are incidental.

 

If promotion & relegation in itself were the secret to international success (it isn't) why did the Great Britain Rugby League team fail to win a major tournament against Australia in all the years the British game had automatic promotion & relegation from 1973 onwards?

 

I can understand why so many fans want automatic promotion & relegation, regardless of any potential pitfalls it may bring, but making false claims about what it will achieve will only raise hopes that will be crushed later on down the line when it doesn't happen, leading to even greater levels of cynicism than exist in our game already. A bit like when licensing was sold as the panacea to all the game's financial ills, which it was never likely to be in the real world.

 

But we were runners up to Australia, Pakistan, India, West Indies over and over again until P& R was introduced. Ok we dominated in the past but in the current era we didn't until P&R.

The reason we don't win anything internationally at soccer is because the Premiership is dominated by foreigners - our clubs can win stuff but not our international team.

As far as RL goes, as I have said before, in the late eigthies and early nineties we were getting there, our top players were playing in Oz and bringing back the ethos of Aussie sport to our club and international sides.  We were one disputed referee's call at Old Trafford in 1990 from beating Australia in a series. 

But regardless of all that it cannot be right that clubs take it as read they are going to lose specific games and clearly don't try.  Every game should count, if we had P&R every game would count. At the moment, especially for the lower clubs at the end of the season most games don't count.  This is not only bad for the lower clubs, it's bad for the top clubs too.

[Padge]

 if we had P&R every game would count. 

Name a couple of seasons when every game counted, you must be able to rattle them off without thinking about. Go on just give us a couple to start with, you can give us the rest later.

[petesmithfan]

I think if clubs pooled resources on things like season tickets, and marketing the Challenge cup could thrive again.  A sustainable way of doing business would be to have direct debit payments for season tickets running over a 12 month period.  This would give the clubs a year round stable income.  It gives the customer a more convenient way to pay and spread cost.  And the Challenge cup games can be add over a 12 month period making spreading the load.  To save on the cost to each club in setting this up it would pay to have it all done centrally run as a separate organisation.  I would like to see a similar thing with Marketing perhaps in a "hub" together and to have monies going into this "hub" from a percentage of each clubs TV income. As well as a % of any income they generate.  Just to stress I am not advocating a pooling of the season ticket receipts each club would get what they generate., just a pooling of resources. To create a more attractive product.

 

I just feel to get a greater impact from the money clubs spend on Marketing or don't spend, they need to pool resources. After all they are all as one product when it comes to raising TV revenue.  Of course I realise it will never happen and its a whimsical thought but hey..........................................

 

And finally i do not get this obsession with The international game as a driver for other things "in our sport" The RU world cup is a massive read herring, they had a media fair waiting to massage every last drop out of that win and bloody drop goal (as good as it was).  We Just do not have the presence to gain any sort of tale wind from any international success.  I am not saying that we should not carry on encouraging expansion at all levels, I just do not see it as short term must.  We are suffering testing economic times, and most sensible business are retracting to their  core revenue drivers.  As others have mentioned spikes and dips in attendances.  It seems obvious that in times of less competition and a more stable housing and Job market that our game thrived and in times of Hardship it has struggled its the same with most things.  Its Just a matter of shoring things up and riding out the storm better prepared for the good times in future.  As in the past we have squandered our good fortune, when the game was struggling last time, there was no sky money and it has been in most wasted.  Much of the money should have been used at the start on marketing and I mean most of it we should have grown into professionalism in a more planned manner instead of the Agent pocket lining frenzy that happened.  Lessons need to be learned!

 

My view is we should have a very frank honest and open discussion on what is really needed for the game and then what ever is decided we all try and back it because the protracted sulking that goes on in RL myself included is what is really stunting its growth.

Edited May 22, 2013 by petesmithfan

[The Parksider]

The idea that nothing which happened during the last 5 years would not have had there been only 12 clubs in Super League, or had we had promotion and relegation, or had Ray French retired already is specious and really dumbing down the quality of debate in the game at the moment. Nobody knows what would have happened otherwise, and the more people try to claim that everything would have been fine but for anything which they is so desperate that it looks like they are trying to convince themselves.

I certainly didn't claim that if we had stuck at 12 clubs everything would have been fine, you have added that extension to the point yourself. it's your point not mine.

My extension to the point was in light of 14 clubs stretching the SKY money per club, one would have thought a return to 12 would see them share the SKY money such that they would get extra to protect them financially in the wake of those collapses.

Instead - and if you read the post you will see - the RFL come up with a scheme to give millions to the championship. Hope that is clear....

Edited May 22, 2013 by The Parksider