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

[Martyn Sadler]

As I said, you seemed happy to accept the report based on KPMGS findings for all clubs back then but now it doesn't suit you, you question their findings.

Did you question why the RFL went with 14 clubs in the lady round? Wakefield had just come out of admin, Bradford and Salford were obviously basket cases.

I seem to be having to spell this out for you.

 

The 2011 licensing process involved KPMG effectively auditing the clubs. That is effectively a static process carried out by their auditing department, and it's a factual analysis. I was very happy to see 14 clubs continuing in Super League to avoid doubling up fixtures. Other people could criticise that decision if they wanted, but I supported it.

 

Their recent report is a management consultancy report that, I assume, recommends the course of action the RFL wishes to take. In doing that, it makes judgements about the future that we may or may not accept. It is quite different from an auditing report.

 

The RFL believes that the additional fixtures will generate a 15% rise in income.

 

I believe the rationale on which that is based is faulty, but if the RFL goes ahead we'll have to wait and see that happens.

[ckn]

The clubs seem to think that putting on extra matches, regardless of the impact on players who are already overworked, will bring in more revenue. Actually, I think this is a false economy. The standard of play will decrease across a longer season, we'll find ourselves kicking off in January instead of the already criticised February, and the England team will also suffer.

 

Every club has those fans who attend every week, regardless of opponent. Of more interest from a financial perspective are those who pick and choose what games they will pay to watch. Milking the already committed won't get us anywhere, we need to turn the casuals into committed.

 

Under the new plans the occasional fan looks at his team's 15 home games and concludes that 6 of them are guaranteed to be of a high standard, 6 of them mediocre and the remaining 3 poor. He'll more likely than not decide to attend the first 6, make it to some of the middle group and miss out on the latter altogether.

 

On the other hand, if he sees 10 home games and knows that he is guaranteed a high standard in all of those matches, he is more likely to go to all the games. That is what the NFL banks on. A limited number of games, and of sufficiently high standard to generate interest.

 

We don't need more games, or more professional players. What we need is a higher standard of game, and a higher standard of player. That can only be achieved by creating a genuinely elite competition.

I agree with that entirely.  In the SL1 at least the players will be on a full salary cap, albeit one that's affordable but not exactly generous.  I'd think the RFL would have to increase it for extra games though as it'd be effectively a quite substantial pay cut for players to have to do more competitive games for the same overall salary.

 

In SL2, even if the RFL doubled the salary cap to £600k to try to encourage full-time clubs, that's still only £24k per player on average for an even longer season.  That's tiny pittance for a player with a typical 10-12 year career.

 

That's all without thinking about the impact on players' bodies of an extended season.  It's a damnably tough sport to be extending the season without allowing clubs to bring in a bigger squad to cope with the inevitable fallout.  The longer-term impact is that even an extra 3-4 games for a player getting tough hits will tell on the longevity of a career.

[Keith T]

Looking a bit further than SL1 and the top of SL2, if I am reading it correctly the 5th to 12th clubs in SL2 will play each other just once with the four highest placed clubs, 5th to 8th having 4 home matches, to decide which team is relegated.

It is inconceivable that the the team that finished 5th after 23 games could have a run of injuries or whatever and end up being relegated, is it not? Batley in 5th place currently have lost their last 6 games!!!!

[Rascal Bongo Stork]

Looking a bit further than SL1 and the top of SL2, if I am reading it correctly the 5th to 12th clubs in SL2 will play each other just once with the four highest placed clubs, 5th to 8th having 4 home matches, to decide which team is relegated.

It is inconceivable that the the team that finished 5th after 23 games could have a run of injuries or whatever and end up being relegated, is it not? Batley in 5th place currently have lost their last 6 games!!!!

 

the points totals for the 3rd group of 8 would include what they'd accrued in the first 23 games. 

[bobbruce]

Looking a bit further than SL1 and the top of SL2, if I am reading it correctly the 5th to 12th clubs in SL2 will play each other just once with the four highest placed clubs, 5th to 8th having 4 home matches, to decide which team is relegated.

It is inconceivable that the the team that finished 5th after 23 games could have a run of injuries or whatever and end up being relegated, is it not? Batley in 5th place currently have lost their last 6 games!!!!

Not only will they most likely have a points advantage over the other teams.

5 th place will be in a mini league were they will only play teams below them if they finish bottom they'll deserve to go down.

[Keith T]

the points totals for the 3rd group of 8 would include what they'd accrued in the first 23 games.

From what was said last night that appears to only happen for the top 8 in SL1.

[gogledd]

The way it was explained was SL1 play each other home and away, as do SL2 (including a Magic Weekend). This means each club plays 23 time. After this comes the 3 x 8 split. The top 8 take their existing points with them and play to become the Champion. Similarly the bottom 8 take their existing points and play to see who is relegated to the third teir (CH1). The middle 8 (SL1 9, 10,11 and 12 and SL2 1, 2, 3 and 4) play 7 games without their seasons points.  The play 7games to decide who goes into SL1 and SL2 for the next season. The SL2 teams will have 4 from 7 home fixtures.

[S72 Cat]

The way it was explained was SL1 play each other home and away, as do SL2 (including a Magic Weekend). This means each club plays 23 time. After this comes the 3 x 8 split. The top 8 take their existing points with them and play to become the Champion. Similarly the bottom 8 take their existing points and play to see who is relegated to the third teir (CH1). The middle 8 (SL1 9, 10,11 and 12 and SL2 1, 2, 3 and 4) play 7 games without their seasons points.  The play 7games to decide who goes into SL1 and SL2 for the next season. The SL2 teams will have 4 from 7 home fixtures.

 

So the SL1 teams from the middle 8 will have 14 home games and the top 4 SL2 teams 16 home games?

 

That seems ok, but with no chance of any play-off action, the income stream ends there.

[archibald]

So, rather than reducing the number of games, they've been increased. *bangs head against wall*

Edited July 31, 2013 by archibald

[Mumby Magic]

As people may know on here I am Mr Optimist, but the 8x8x8 will kill alot of clubs. It's not the way forward.

[JohnM]

8³ ?  Gosh that's 512!   I  have to say I am against the whole idea..however, it seems to have been thoroughly aired, discussed, debated, consulted on, modelled etc etc so prepared to wait until it's all decided and its operating..though that is in my view a huge risk.

[S72 Cat]

So, rather than reducing the number of games, they've been increased. *bangs head against wall*

 

Less games = less income.

[Maximus Decimus]

8³ ?  Gosh that's 512!   I  have to say I am against the whole idea..however, it seems to have been thoroughly aired, discussed, debated, consulted on, modelled etc etc so prepared to wait until it's all decided and its operating..though that is in my view a huge risk.

From what I've seen they appear to have made a decision and they're doing all this consulting to make it look like it's been thoroughly debated on. It would be a brave man to suggest that any where near a majority are in favour of it.

[Pen-Y-Bont Crusader]

Less games = less income.

Only if people turn up for the extra games at a time when many aren't flush with cash....

Edited July 31, 2013 by Pen-Y-Bont Crusader

[S72 Cat]

Only if people turn up for the extra games at a time when many aren't flush with cash....

 

People currently turn up for 27 regular games.  If you knock a game off, you would lose, let's say 8000 people at £20...that's 160k lost, before even thinking of the food, beer, hospitality...

 

That's not to say that more games will equal more money, as yes, money is finite, but 13 home games is generally accepted as the minimum number needed.

[Pen-Y-Bont Crusader]

Or more people will turn up for the games on the basis of supply and demand - limited supply, more demand. Bigger crowds, better atmosphere......

[S72 Cat]

Or more people will turn up for the games on the basis of supply and demand - limited supply, more demand. Bigger crowds, better atmosphere......

 

Good luck taking that business model to the bank.

 

Limited supply comes through selling out your games - tickets become harder to obtain, not by having less supply of the product.

 

I'm not sure that any of these changes alone, being discussed will actually raise attendances.  People want to watch successful, or at least competitive teams, but someone has to be last. 

 

I think I am coming round to the plan though...

[archibald]

Less games = less income.

Yes, on that basis lets play 50 games per season.

[DimmestStar]

Their findings, which I assume were technical accounts of the financial state of health of the clubs, were not made available to the media, so in that case we had to take their word for it.

 

This is slightly different, in that a proposed course of action has resulted from their report.

 

You don't need to see KPMG's report to be able to assess the proposals that flow from it, although it would be useful to be able to see it.

 

I believe that if yourselves in the press had been part of the process you would probably have been enthused.

 

Instead you are presented with the findings afterwards and out comes the negativity. For me the licensing system was brought into disrepute when a basket case like Crusaders almost had Wakefield sent into oblivion and we all know it WOULD have happened if Crusaders hadn't have pulled out of their own accord. Look at Wakefield now, 10,000 crowd last week what an utter disgrace it would have been for a club never once finishing bottom of Super League to make way for such a half baked alternative. Never again can we have the status of clubs decided by a few blokes in suits sat around a table it has be about performance on the pitch.

 

With the multiple financial failures of Super League clubs under the licensing system something had to change. If your newspaper was losing money hand over fist and people on a forum said no we like things as they are I'm sure you'd have no choice but to ignore them.

 

I think we have a brilliant and innovative solution to some of the games problems which importantly tries to address problems not just in Super League but across all divisions. Of course it will not be perfect and it will not please everyone but some of these people are still fantasising about SL clubs in places like Barcelona and would happily kick out a club with thousands of fans like Wakefield to accommodate them.

 

Meanwhile there are people running and financing rugby league clubs who are actually the most important people in the game. They've hired professionals to come up with ideas and have chosen what they think to be the pick of options presented. Don't like it? Why not stump up a few million to relieve the owners of some of their burden then I expect you'll get a say too.

[S72 Cat]

Yes, on that basis lets play 50 games per season.

 

Blimey!

 

Which idiot has suggested that??

 

Or are you just being silly?  Is that the depth of your debate?

[archibald]

Blimey!

 

Which idiot has suggested that??

 

Or are you just being silly?  Is that the depth of your debate?

"less games=less income" therefore, more games must surely = more income.

 

I'm sorry if you don't like my depth, I just figured if I altered it to your level it'd be easier for you to understand.

[S72 Cat]

People currently turn up for 27 regular games.  If you knock a game off, you would lose, let's say 8000 people at £20...that's 160k lost, before even thinking of the food, beer, hospitality...

 

That's not to say that more games will equal more money, as yes, money is finite, but 13 home games is generally accepted as the minimum number needed.

 

Can you read Archibald?

[gingerjon]

The clubs seem to think that putting on extra matches, regardless of the impact on players who are already overworked, will bring in more revenue. Actually, I think this is a false economy. The standard of play will decrease across a longer season, we'll find ourselves kicking off in January instead of the already criticised February, and the England team will also suffer.

 

Every club has those fans who attend every week, regardless of opponent. Of more interest from a financial perspective are those who pick and choose what games they will pay to watch. Milking the already committed won't get us anywhere, we need to turn the casuals into committed.

 

Under the new plans the occasional fan looks at his team's 15 home games and concludes that 6 of them are guaranteed to be of a high standard, 6 of them mediocre and the remaining 3 poor. He'll more likely than not decide to attend the first 6, make it to some of the middle group and miss out on the latter altogether.

 

On the other hand, if he sees 10 home games and knows that he is guaranteed a high standard in all of those matches, he is more likely to go to all the games. That is what the NFL banks on. A limited number of games, and of sufficiently high standard to generate interest.

 

We don't need more games, or more professional players. What we need is a higher standard of game, and a higher standard of player. That can only be achieved by creating a genuinely elite competition.

I think a point of interest with regards to the NFL is that they have been itching to move to an 18 game season for a few seasons but the players union is blocking it. A compromise may come out which cuts the pre season to allow for the two extra weeks.

[gingerjon]

People currently turn up for 27 regular games.  If you knock a game off, you would lose, let's say 8000 people at £20...that's 160k lost, before even thinking of the food, beer, hospitality...

 

That's not to say that more games will equal more money, as yes, money is finite, but 13 home games is generally accepted as the minimum number needed.

If you knock off a few games you may make the remaining ones more vital and more likely to have attendances over and above those lost to the flab you've removed.

[Steve May]

Shouldn't your hope be that fans flock to it due to the added 'jeopardy' elements, leading to more sponsors and increased commercial revenues? Surely you'd rather be wrong and it thrive?

 

I'm not hoping it fails.  It's blindingly obvious that it will fail. 

 

I'm hoping it will only last two years before the RFL see sense and change it.