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

[Dave T]

Rugby league can deliver games like the Warrington - Wigan one the other week and still have some of its fans claiming it serves ip 'sterile rubbish'.

Not, ' some games good others not so good' but rubbish. I am not sure what the game can do to be perfectly honest as despite claims to the contrary, what happens on the pitch seems to be ignored.

Ultimately this is one of the issues. Due to some of the political decisions of recent years, plenty of fans (and journalists) have felt excluded from the game, and quite frankly become a real thorn in the side for the sport.

 

Somebody else mentioned they now feel part of the RL family again, and if I'm honest this is why my stance has changed. I'd rather see us all pulling together rather than the fragmented game that we have seen. I suspect 'Sooper Dooper League etc' will be retired.

 

The bit that worries me now is the way a group of pro-licensing fans seem to have taken it on themselves to replicate the behaviours of the pro-P&R fans so we could end up in the same position.

 

I supported licensing, I actually think it is other decisions that have been wrong, but I'm not sure anybody can sit there and say licensing has been a resounding success. Argue that it has shown some positives, or that it is too early to judge, but imho it caused more negatives than positives.

 

The attitude of a vocal few on here that lower clubs and their fans should know their place is not one I share and that worries me for the sake of unity within the game.

[ckn]

This forum very very rarely engages in proper debate.

Yes it does.  You're clearly just a fervent (capper/expansionista)* who can't understand that (licensing/P&R)* is fundamentally flawed with no redeeming qualities.  Surely the SL of the future should have lots of (money men with a business plan on the back of a beer mat/clubs who still have clubmen who can remember that day in the George in 1895)* because they're the future of the game.  Because you're one of them you have no opinion worth listening to.

 

* delete as appropriate.

[Dave T]

You can continue to make things up if you like, or you can read what's been said by BlaKe Solly. Both the RFL and clubs admit licencing is better than the previous system. You can ignore that all you like but it's a fact, straight from the horses mouth.

 

Now, what was that about living in cloud cuckoo land?

I have read a poster write that. Now that was a credible poster to be fair, but I'd like to read a verbatim quote or even hear that myself. 

 

Were any key words missing from the quote, like 'some' etc. Also, if it was a forum, people don't always make accurate statements.

[Dave T]

I disagree

everybody thinks that their opinion is right, which isn't quite the same thing. people of whtever persuasion are bound to do this. If they didn't think their opinion was right then they wouldn't have it.

 

The debate is often one sided in terms of validity when people either cant or wont back up their views with credible information

I too disagree.

 

Why does everybody think they are right, that would suggest we are the biggest bunch of arrogant fans around?

 

These things are so subjective, with very little proof or evidence - it is often stubbornness and arrogance that leads people to make no concessions whatsoever on any point.

 

My opinion on the future of the game has been heavily influenced by people here, my family and friends, people at the match etc. I have no issues admitting that my opinions have changed a fair bit.

 

I must be the most stupid person here as everybody else seems to get it right first time and sticks to it!

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I too disagree.

 

Why does everybody think they are right, that would suggest we are the biggest bunch of arrogant fans around?

 

These things are so subjective, with very little proof or evidence - it is often stubbornness and arrogance that leads people to make no concessions whatsoever on any point.

 

My opinion on the future of the game has been heavily influenced by people here, my family and friends, people at the match etc. I have no issues admitting that my opinions have changed a fair bit.

 

I must be the most stupid person here as everybody else seems to get it right first time and sticks to it!

if you have an opinion on something then you think it's right, otherise you wouldn't have that opinion. It has nothing to do with arrogance, rather the definition of what an opinion is. Of course they are subjective, that is what they are supposed to be.

I can only think of one person on thios entire forum who is stupid(amongst a few other things).

The problem that you seem to be alluding to is the entrenchment of opinions despite having been presented with information to the contrary.

 

I've elearnt a hell of a lot over the years I've been contribution to this forum

my views have changed on a fair vew things such as

aspects of rugby union

politics...rugby league and general

the history of the sport(a particular interest of mine)

the arts

and plenty of others.

licensing. I wasn't sure, although I wasn't keen on auto prom and reg because of what I'd seen happen.

 

they haven't been changed on other things, in fact in the light of information I've read they have been strengthened-but not I hope entrenched.

[Duff Duff]

1. In 1996 Ralph Rimmer explained licensing as the RFL saw it. It was a system to set standards for clubs to grow their businesses up to, and the removal of promotion and relegation was to allow those clubs chosen as best to grow their businesses time to achive this growth without pressure.

The real problem is many clubs could not grow their businesses despite being provided with standards to meet and time to meet them. The system didn't work because the clubs could not get the growth and that was because SKY money was not enough investment in itself, private investors came, went and stopped investiong and crowds did not rise by enough.

Rimmer's plan failed because not enough rich men and fans were turned on enough by professional Rugby league.

2. Be fair, would Huddersfield survive SL without a rich benefactor? If Featherstone have one in Mr. Nahaboo SL needs his money. Also be fair on the Fev fans, when we discussed the crowds they may get in SL none of them disputed about 5,000 would be about the sensible estimate. Also what they did say was that they would find it hard, but if they could avoid relegation then it would be a great journey.

3. It's been established that there are around six, seven, eight real Superleague clubs operating to decent standards with adequate investment. Going forward these are the clubs who will be the "Super" part of our 12 club Superleague. In addition we have clubs who are still striving to join that group for instance Toulouse claim to have a lot of investment, Wakefirld have just set out how Newmarket can take them forward - just as good news has also been announced by the club on the ground.

For the life of me Duff Duff I can't see P & R mattering much to the top 10 clubs.

Before they removed P & R it was something the big clubs never worried about. Through the application of "standards" several clubs were refused promotion anyway, and those who got it but had no money sank after one season. Those who stayed up generally had a rich man at the helm and Superleague would be fools to refuse that money.

 

It matter because rugby league needs to concentrate its limited  playing talent and its limited finances into the highest standard competition possible. If the Super League was reduced to ten clubs the salary cap could be raised and a marquee player exemption could be introduced. 

 

It also it will give the smaller clubs in the Super League like Huddersfield and Salford the financial security to develop and grow their businesses and player development structures. The competition won't be closed off in perpetuity it is just that the rules of entry to the Super League would be on a rational economic basis rather than a do or die promotion and relegation on the pitch. 

 

Catalans have only achieved what they have done because they were given a guaranteed position in Super League and had the security to invest in their infrastructure and player development. 

[Dave T]

Dave, I will not be boycotting the game or any other such childish nonsense. I strongly disagree with the direction the game is heading in but won't be banging on about it. If it continues to head in a way I feel is wrong, I will just stop bothering.

That's not some sort of stroppy threat either mate , lifes just too short.

This is the big issue mate. 

 

Ultimately we can all have opinions, but the bigger issue is when customer's behaviour changes.

 

If a decision is made that makes people moan, but they still go, then you could argue it is fine. If crowds start to dip then it becomes an issue.

 

I do worry that people are stopping spending their hard earned cash on attending some games due to the lack of competition. I often hear the top 8 has made it too easy to get into the playoffs, and teams at the bottom have little to play for - these aren't necessarily views I agree with, and if I lived closer to a team I'd be attending every week, but these are views I hear from people who don't attend any more.

 

Even if they are technically wrong, if it is stopping them supporting the game (and they aren;t being replaced) then it is an issue.

 

Measuring the success of Licensing is almost impossible, people state the likes of Koukash coming in is a reason, yet we have seen plenty of rich backers involved before (not enough!).

People talk about youth development, but then tough quotas can sort this, my club Warrington made the decision to invest heavily in this year at the turn of the last decade well before licensing.

 

I haven't seen any evidence that it worked that can't be put down to anything else.

 

I have seen it cause a major split in the game though, that is my personal issue.

[Dave T]

if you have an opinion on something then you think it's right, otherise you wouldn't have that opinion. It has nothing to do with arrogance, rather the definition of what an opinion is. Of course they are subjective, that is what they are supposed to be.

I can only think of one person on thios entire forum who is stupid(amongst a few other things).

The problem that you seem to be alluding to is the entrenchment of opinions despite having been presented with information to the contrary.

 

I think anybody who has never changed an opinion/view is either stupid or arrogant.

 

We learn new things every day.

 

My opinions are different now from 10 years ago on a whole range of things. I very rarely see people change their opinions on here, that isn't normal, but it is understandable as people often allow emotions to form their opinions and then they stubbornly stick to it irrespective of any evidence as you say.

 

This isn't a personal attack on anyone here, I like pretty much all the posters, I'm just stunned at times that people will never give an inch.

[Padge]

Facts will change my opinion, having a different opinion based fanciful nonsense will not.

[Dave T]

Facts will change my opinion, having a different opinion based fanciful nonsense will not.

Yep - i'm a bit like you in that I like facts/stats etc. but there are a lot of things that are subjective too which will form opinions.

[Duff Duff]

This is the big issue mate. 

 

Ultimately we can all have opinions, but the bigger issue is when customer's behaviour changes.

 

If a decision is made that makes people moan, but they still go, then you could argue it is fine. If crowds start to dip then it becomes an issue.

 

I do worry that people are stopping spending their hard earned cash on attending some games due to the lack of competition. I often hear the top 8 has made it too easy to get into the playoffs, and teams at the bottom have little to play for - these aren't necessarily views I agree with, and if I lived closer to a team I'd be attending every week, but these are views I hear from people who don't attend any more.

 

Even if they are technically wrong, if it is stopping them supporting the game (and they aren;t being replaced) then it is an issue.

 

Measuring the success of Licensing is almost impossible, people state the likes of Koukash coming in is a reason, yet we have seen plenty of rich backers involved before (not enough!).

People talk about youth development, but then tough quotas can sort this, my club Warrington made the decision to invest heavily in this year at the turn of the last decade well before licensing.

 

I haven't seen any evidence that it worked that can't be put down to anything else.

 

I have seen it cause a major split in the game though, that is my personal issue.

 

In many ways the real problem with Super League is the 14 clubs is too many and the 8 team playoffs make the regular season at bit of a joke. There just aren't enough must win matches anymore that will entice people to come through the turnstiles. 

 

12 clubs with a 5 team playoff was good. Teams couldn't idly cruise through the season and then turn it on for the last few games of the season. 

 

The real problem with promotion and relegation is it will impact on the depth of the competition and will it will weaken the bottom 3 or 4 side have to scrap by on a season by season basis.  

[Cake Tiger]

Spot on - this is the issue - too many people state their opinion as fact and refuse to budge, accept any points from anybody else and repeat time and time again.

 

This forum very very rarely engages in proper debate.

Agreed

[Dave T]

In many ways the real problem with Super League is the 14 clubs is too many and the 8 team playoffs make the regular season at bit of a joke. There just aren't enough must win matches anymore that will entice people to come through the turnstiles. 

 

12 clubs with a 5 team playoff was good. Teams couldn't idly cruise through the season and then turn it on for the last few games of the season. 

 

The real problem with promotion and relegation is it will impact on the depth of the competition and will it will weaken the bottom 3 or 4 side have to scrap by on a season by season basis.  

I agree with your first part - I think moving to 14 without it being part of a strong, long term expansion strategy was foolish, and that is the reason we have to face this now.

 

I think I may have stated on this thread earlier that the devil is in the detail. With a normal 1 up 1 down format, the rules need to be right to reduce the negative impacts on clubs in relegation battles, and real thought needs to go around the club that does get relegated.

My biggest issue with a club being relegated is tbh the off-field staff rather than any players.

Commercial managers, marketing teams etc need to be implementing 3-5 year strategies, and if they face redundancies as soon as a club is relegated it becomes an issue. I'd rather see a parachute payment that can only be used on the condition these backroom structures are maintained.

[Ponterover]

I agree with your first part - I think moving to 14 without it being part of a strong, long term expansion strategy was foolish, and that is the reason we have to face this now.

 

I think I may have stated on this thread earlier that the devil is in the detail. With a normal 1 up 1 down format, the rules need to be right to reduce the negative impacts on clubs in relegation battles, and real thought needs to go around the club that does get relegated.

My biggest issue with a club being relegated is tbh the off-field staff rather than any players.

Commercial managers, marketing teams etc need to be implementing 3-5 year strategies, and if they face redundancies as soon as a club is relegated it becomes an issue. I'd rather see a parachute payment that can only be used on the condition these backroom structures are maintained.

 

That's a really good idea

[gingerjon]

 I'd rather see a parachute payment that can only be used on the condition these backroom structures are maintained.

 

We're getting rid of licences because it's too onerous.  Do you really think these conditions would be monitored and enforced?

[Padge]

Yep - i'm a bit like you in that I like facts/stats etc. but there are a lot of things that are subjective too which will form opinions.

 

I have no problem with subjectivity, provided it is logically thought out and the conclusion that some one comes to is offered as opinion and not, as often happens on here, as fact.

 

You also have the other problem of people quoting top of the head stats as facts and then when they are shown to be completely wrong with factual based evidence refuse to accept it and declare that the figures have been falsified in the past and so are not valid.

[Duff Duff]

I agree with your first part - I think moving to 14 without it being part of a strong, long term expansion strategy was foolish, and that is the reason we have to face this now.

 

I think I may have stated on this thread earlier that the devil is in the detail. With a normal 1 up 1 down format, the rules need to be right to reduce the negative impacts on clubs in relegation battles, and real thought needs to go around the club that does get relegated.

My biggest issue with a club being relegated is tbh the off-field staff rather than any players.

Commercial managers, marketing teams etc need to be implementing 3-5 year strategies, and if they face redundancies as soon as a club is relegated it becomes an issue. I'd rather see a parachute payment that can only be used on the condition these backroom structures are maintained.

 

The only way I can see promotion and relegation working is if you have a sort of "licensing plus" system. For club to be promoted it would still have to meet the minimum standards of the Super League as well as be able to win the Championship. Meanwhile the relegated club would have to be given generous parachute payments so they don't go to the wall when relegated. 

 

In the Rugby Union Premiership you have 12 shareholder clubs and minimum entry standards. To get promoted your stadium and infrastructure have to be up to spec. Meanwhile it is only the shareholder clubs that get their full share of the TV money and the central funding from the RFU. Becoming a full shareholder requires the promoted club to replace the relegated shareholder club for two straight seasons. It took Exeter 3 seasons in the Premiership for them to be able to buy the shares off relegated Bristol. During this period Exeter got less central funding whilst the Bristol were able to access generous parachute payments. 

 

Maybe this sort of restricted promotion and relegation is something the Super League should look. What I am definitely against is spreading the TV money thinly over 24 clubs rather than concentrating resources on the 12 in the top division. 

[Lobbygobbler]

Bbc just mentioned 2up 2 down as an option. Awesome - that would take the sting out of relegation compared to 1up 1down.

I really do think/hope crowds in the championship could improve massively. Also that tv contact for the lower tiers should be worth much more

[Duff Duff]

Bbc just mentioned 2up 2 down as an option. Awesome - that would take the sting out of relegation compared to 1up 1down.

I really do think/hope crowds in the championship could improve massively. Also that tv contact for the lower tiers should be worth much more

 

They won't improve massively. If they went for two up two down it would be utter madness and result in a massive levelling down of standards. 

[Dave T]

We're getting rid of licences because it's too onerous.  Do you really think these conditions would be monitored and enforced?

We probably shouldn't jump on a comment that we have heard third hand - apologies if club's have told you this directly!

[Padge]

Bbc just mentioned 2up 2 down as an option. Awesome - that would take the sting out of relegation compared to 1up 1down.

I really do think/hope crowds in the championship could improve massively. Also that tv contact for the lower tiers should be worth much more

The introduction of a second and third tier in 2003, providing promotion and relegation in the championship divisions devastated crowds why wasn't there a massive surge in interest in the championship with this extra dimension of P&R being introduced.

[Dave T]

The only way I can see promotion and relegation working is if you have a sort of "licensing plus" system. For club to be promoted it would still have to meet the minimum standards of the Super League as well as be able to win the Championship. Meanwhile the relegated club would have to be given generous parachute payments so they don't go to the wall when relegated. 

 

In the Rugby Union Premiership you have 12 shareholder clubs and minimum entry standards. To get promoted your stadium and infrastructure have to be up to spec. Meanwhile it is only the shareholder clubs that get their full share of the TV money and the central funding from the RFU. Becoming a full shareholder requires the promoted club to replace the relegated shareholder club for two straight seasons. It took Exeter 3 seasons in the Premiership for them to be able to buy the shares off relegated Bristol. During this period Exeter got less central funding whilst the Bristol were able to access generous parachute payments. 

 

Maybe this sort of restricted promotion and relegation is something the Super League should look. What I am definitely against is spreading the TV money thinly over 24 clubs rather than concentrating resources on the 12 in the top division. 

I don't think we should give club's reduced funding in SL - the Bulls one is a different case as their is an argument that it is punishment, but to reward a team with reduced funding feels wrong.

 

Agree with your thoughts on minimum standards/licensing etc. It should absolutely be clear that a team won't just get into SL by finishing top.

[Lobbygobbler]

They won't improve massively. If they went for two up two down it would be utter madness and result in a massive levelling down of standards.

We'll see. Bigger crowds in the championship will mean more money for on and off the pitch investment. 2 spots up for grabs means that there is good hope. This will bring fans in.

The other good thing is that there is a great opportunity for the likes of Cru to make a charge for SL - I can see some cracking crowds at Wrexham for promotion battles with the likes flof Leigh, Widnes, Wakey etc.

It can work!

[gingerjon]

We probably shouldn't jump on a comment that we have heard third hand - apologies if club's have told you this directly!

 

No, they haven't.  I'm going off the same quote from earlier.  But, fair point.

[Duff Duff]

We'll see. Bigger crowds in the championship will mean more money for on and off the pitch investment. 2 spots up for grabs means that there is good hope. This will bring fans in.

The other good thing is that there is a great opportunity for the likes of Cru to make a charge for SL - I can see some cracking crowds at Wrexham for promotion battles with the likes flof Leigh, Widnes, Wakey etc.

It can work!

I doubt that will happen. The top Championship clubs might get an extra 1,500 through the gates but that is hardly a game changer. Also those 1,500 people would already be rugby league diehards. That is not growing the game.