The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)

[nadera78]

I never mentioned them playing in SL.

Leigh Centurions are as strong or weak as they want to be. My point is that their strength or weakness means little to the game overall, for all the reasons I outlined in that post.

 

You could argue though that our clubs are the strongest development tools we have.

 

Would it be better to have a strong Leigh, or them to be really weak and have a development officer in that area? I'm genuinely not sure, but I suspect having a strong club there is more important.

[a.n Other]

Everything the NRL has done has been needed and the results have vindicated their tough decision making.

And from being the main winter sport in Australia.

[Dave T]

Which club is going to support youth and junior development in Leicester? Northampton? Bristol?

I would have thought that the RFL should expect Leeds, Wigan, Bradford, Hull etc. to do the bulk of the work in their areas and focus on the areas where that support just isn't available.

By the way, 2013-2017 is a 4 year cycle as it does April 2013 - April 2017.

Yes - I would agree - I don't think the RFL should do any work in areas where there are clubs, it should be a requirement as part of central funding.

 

I'm not close to who has been chopped etc or what the RFL's development structure looks like, but ultimately we can;t spend money we don;t have.

[Dave T]

Leigh Centurions are as strong or weak as they want to be. My point is that their strength or weakness means little to the game overall, for all the reasons I outlined in that post.

I'd disagree. I don;t mean Leigh being strong within the game, I mean them being financial stable enough to support development within their area.

 

Having 30+ stronger clubs is better than 10 super strong clubs imho. It's not as if money is being taken from the top 10/12 - simply clubs that are not up to scratch being moved more into a level that suits them and that money being split downwards rather than up the line.

 

The likes of Warrington, Wigan, Leeds can continue their growth plans, and can hopefully do it in a more competitive league with a better playoff structure.

[Dave T]

Good post. The current NRL sides do have fluctuating attendances with 10K an absolute bottom end average for a very small few (Penrith and Cronulla in recent times) as opposed to a long-term average. Most generally sit nearer to 20K average projected over the last 8 years or so.

 

Prior to the late 90s shake-up you had teams like St George and Western Suburbs averaging 6K indefinitely.

 

Everything the NRL has done has been needed and the results have vindicated their tough decision making.

Do you think excluding South Sydney from the NRL was the right decision?

[boxhead]

Do you think excluding South Sydney from the NRL was the right decision?

It was at the time.

They were basket cases and fighting amongst themselves.

The South Sydney Juniors Leagues Club was the cash cow and they no longer wanted to support the main club financially.

If it was not for Crowe and Holmes a Court they would be gone.

When those two pull out, Crowe is looking to sell his share and has been for some time, it will be like a Balloon and a Needle meeting really close up.

Edited July 12, 2013 by AndyCapp

[Jim from Oz]

Do you think excluding South Sydney from the NRL was the right decision?

 

 

It most certainly wasn't - but it was made by an NRL with way too much influence by Rupert Murdoch and News Ltd.

 

It was an utterly diabolical decision, made at the NRL when it was NOT having its best period (from 1995 to 2002, Oz RL suffered greatly, from the Super League War obviously and, after the peace, idiotic decisions like the South Sydney exclusion)

[LineBall]

Do you think excluding South Sydney from the NRL was the right decision?

No it wasnt the right decision.

P&R will effectively do this to a team every year, and more than likely the same few teams every few years. What an utter mess, just so a few clubs can say they played with the big boys for a year.

[Jim from Oz]

It was at the time.

They were basket cases and fighting amongst themselves.

The South Sydney Juniors Leagues Club was the cash cow and they no longer wanted to support the main club financially.

If it was not for Crowe and Holmes a Court they would be gone.

When those two pull out, Crowe is looking to sell his share and has been for some time, it will be like a Balloon and a Needle meeting really close up.

 

Obviously I disagree with that ! 

[a.n Other]

You are saying things should be decided on the field. And yes perhaps long ago they were, but not any longer. You seem to be implying that RL should act as if it is the 1890's or something. The fact is, CEOs have a huge bearing on a sports clubs success yet you are sneering about them.

I am in no way sneering at them, a good one is worth their weight in gold.

[boxhead]

And from being the main winter sport in Australia.

 

That is not correct.

Its the main winter sport in two states in Australia.

AFL is the main winter sport in four States and competing in two others

Edited July 12, 2013 by AndyCapp

[a.n Other]

You said it should be decided by who has the best scrum half not the best CEO. Who do you think enables a club to attract the best players due to them being a good well run club?

I suggest you read the post again.

[a.n Other]

Top level sport today is not decided on the field. RL is no exception.

Yes it is. Teams don't get voted in to the PL. They have to earn the right on the pitch.

[gingerjon]

And how do they do that?

Does it involve spending millions and millions of pounds? Money that not every club has? Yes, that's all about earning it on the pitch.

 

There are standards-based P&R throughout the football pyramid.  Blackpool were nearly denied promotion because their ground wasn't good enough.  Plenty of teams in Leagues 1 & 2 aren't "two promotions" from the Premier League, they're "two promotions and a new ground" away.

[a.n Other]

And how do they do that?

Does it involve spending millions and millions of pounds? Money that not every club has? Yes, that's all about earning it on the pitch.

I honestly don't know what your point is any more. I agree having a good CEO is important. In my sport I want the players to be just as important than the CEO.

I will leave it at that. If you don't want players to be important then that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

[Duff Duff]

It was at the time.

They were basket cases and fighting amongst themselves.

The South Sydney Juniors Leagues Club was the cash cow and they no longer wanted to support the main club financially.

If it was not for Crowe and Holmes a Court they would be gone.

When those two pull out, Crowe is looking to sell his share and has been for some time, it will be like a Balloon and a Needle meeting really close up.

At the time it was the right decision. Souths were a basket case with a failing Leagues Club, tiny crowds, an appalling playing record and they were losing money hand over fist. They were in many ways the incapsulation of how the NSWRL in the semi professional era operated. When things started to evolve towards full time professionalism in the 1980s Souths stuck their heads in the sand and refused to modernise. The club's leadership got everything they deserved.

1998 they were offered lots of cash to merge and they refused and in the end preferred to be kicked out of the competition. Getting thrown out of the NRL was probably the best thing to happen to them. It galvanised their support base made the members realised they needed to change the way the club was run. Crowe got involved, the club started to be run properly and they are now the best supported team in Sydney. None of that would happened if they were allowed to muddle along as the competition's loveable losers.

The NSWRL realised that the concentration of clubs in Sydney was fundamentally uneconomic if the sport was going to go fully professional. They made the tough choices and no sentiment was shown to the competition's oldest and most historic clubs like Souths, Wests, Balmain and St George.

As it is some of the suburban clubs like Cronulla and Penrith aren't doing great and if they don't buck up their ideas they could be usurped by expansion teams.

Unfortunately British rugby league could get its members to see sense. If the smaller clubs didn't want to merger then they should have been kicked out of the competition. That happened but they were gradually allowed to creep back in. The Calder Tiger-Cats and Hull United could have been powerhouse clubs by now if those involved had seen sense. Instead you have three clubs struggling to justify their Super League positions. The Wakefield/Castleford situation is ridiculous and encapsulates the abject mismanagement of the sport by the RFL.

[shrek]

There are standards-based P&R throughout the football pyramid.  Blackpool were nearly denied promotion because their ground wasn't good enough.  Plenty of teams in Leagues 1 & 2 aren't "two promotions" from the Premier League, they're "two promotions and a new ground" away.

Even as far down as the North West Counties, this years Division One run away winners Formby were denied promotion after failing to meet the ground grade for the next league up, despite crowds rarely troubling 3 figures.  Ironically they now play at Burscough for reasons I'm unsure of, but Burscoughs ground comfortably meets the standard required.

 

There's plenty of odities to, Durham last season asked to be demoted a couple of divisions after not being able to financially compete in the league they were in.

 

There's plenty more to the football pryamid than straight P&R, seemingly never enters the debate on here though when comparisons are drawn.

[Duff Duff]

That is not correct.

Its the main winter sport in two states in Australia.

AFL is the main winter sport in four States and competing in two others

That is right. AFL dominates Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.

In the rugby football states of NSW and Queensland the League/Union split is about 75% to 25% in League's favour. If you look at the adult participation rates the two rugby codes are surprisingly even. Also in the non rugby football states Union is more popular and has much deeper roots than League in terms of participation and interest. Union has always had a niche market in the AFL states whilst League is viewed as a "foreign" and hostile threat.

Rugby League doesn't get a free ride in the Australian media, especially when you look past the unashamed promotion of the sport by Channel 9.

[LineBall]

So you refuse to acknowledge the reality of getting into something like the PL, then try to make a ludicrous point about me not wanting players to be important.Look at football. There are clubs like Notts Forest, Sheffield Utd and Wednesday, Leeds Utd. All once giants, now struggling and hoping for a takeover by a foreign billionaire perhaps. They still get great crowds with very dedicated fans, so why haven't they flown up the leagues into the top flight? Because they haven't been taken over by a multi millionaire yet.Now, you tell me how this means that 'they earn the right on the pitch'. Because they don't, they earn it once they get more money than the other clubs around them, which is not quite the same thing in reality.

Exactly.

[nadera78]

I'd disagree. I don;t mean Leigh being strong within the game, I mean them being financial stable enough to support development within their area.

 

Having 30+ stronger clubs is better than 10 super strong clubs imho. It's not as if money is being taken from the top 10/12 - simply clubs that are not up to scratch being moved more into a level that suits them and that money being split downwards rather than up the line.

 

The likes of Warrington, Wigan, Leeds can continue their growth plans, and can hopefully do it in a more competitive league with a better playoff structure.

That's true enough, but Leigh could do that within the Championship. There's absolutely no need, or justification, for the game's entire structure to be determined with these clubs in mind.

 

The focus should be on finding an elite top tier and a strong development pathway. The bit in the middle, the semi-pro game, should be designed to fit in with those two aims.

[nadera78]

On the CEO thing, I'd have given every penny London Broncos wasted on Craig Gower to a competent CEO. We wouldn't be in the mess we are now, that's for sure.

[Duff Duff]

That's true enough, but Leigh could do that within the Championship. There's absolutely no need, or justification, for the game's entire structure to be determined with these clubs in mind.

 

The focus should be on finding an elite top tier and a strong development pathway. The bit in the middle, the semi-pro game, should be designed to fit in with those two aims.

I am not sure why the Championhsip doesn't get turned into a competition like the NSW Cup and the Queensland Cup. This overriding obsession of the larger championship clubs to be fully professional is destructive. If there is no prospect of your club being a viable Super League team give it up. Concentrate on something sustainable, worthwhile and productive like being a community hub and being a centre of player development. Just because the first team isn't fully professional it doesn't mean the club is going to die it just means it should concentrate on something it can actually be good at rather than wasting it money on the wages of mediocre journey men.

[Dave T]

 

It most certainly wasn't - but it was made by an NRL with way too much influence by Rupert Murdoch and News Ltd.

 

It was an utterly diabolical decision, made at the NRL when it was NOT having its best period (from 1995 to 2002, Oz RL suffered greatly, from the Super League War obviously and, after the peace, idiotic decisions like the South Sydney exclusion)

 

But we are being told that the only reason the NRL is big is due to a constant stream of justified and successful decisions by its leaders compared to the RFL.

 

The fact is good and bad decisions are made every day of the week by the administrators depending on your individual view, the two markets (Oz and England) are massively different.

[Dave T]

That's true enough, but Leigh could do that within the Championship. There's absolutely no need, or justification, for the game's entire structure to be determined with these clubs in mind.

 

The focus should be on finding an elite top tier and a strong development pathway. The bit in the middle, the semi-pro game, should be designed to fit in with those two aims.

Well that is where this whole thing comes full circle. 

 

There is a belief within elements of the game (not just retards foaming at the mouth - it is arrogant for anybody to dismiss people with a certain view in this kind of way) that clubs are being weakened by the current structure. That is all that has been decided, whether people agree is up to them, but I personally believe that the game can absolutely strengthen with P&R featuring.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat as they say.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Yes it is. Teams don't get voted in to the PL. They have to earn the right on the pitch.

that's because the game is the most wealthy most popular sport on the planet

 

the premier league has standards for entry, but thjey are irrelevant since the clubs well down the food chain attain and exceed them. Also the game has a historic national spread , and worldwide popularity, wealth and power.

 

you might not have noticed this.

 

Rugby League in the UK is cash poor-but better of than it was before 1995, weak in most parts of the country-but certainly better in this sense than before 1995, is not even the main sport in its supposed heartlands, has a poor image and perception amongst the public-although this has improved since 1995, and a popor international profile. These are issues that the people running the game have to address

 

you might not have noticed this, indeed it looks certain that you haven't since you compare rugby league with soccer.