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

[Steve May]

I think you are being very condescending towards a multinational, multi-billion pound turnover company there Martyn.  They are experts at providing advice for companies on the best way to run their business to make it as profitable as possible, having done if for thousands of organisations across the world.

 

*smiles knowingly*

[S72 Cat]

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.

 

Where are these new fans coming from?

 

You can't raise demand, simply by reducing supply.

 

Do you think the players will be happy having a pay cut for less work?

[gingerjon]

Where are these new fans coming from?

 

You can't raise demand, simply by reducing supply.

 

Do you think the players will be happy having a pay cut for less work?

The players are about to be paid the same for more work.

[S72 Cat]

The players are about to be paid the same for more work.

 

Nice!

 

How about the issue of running a stadium on less than 13 days match income?

 

And, especially for Archibald, let me stress, I am not advocating more games, simply pointing out that 13 home games has been identified as a necessary minimum previously.  It's a discussion point, not an opinion.

[S72 Cat]

The players are about to be paid the same for more work.

 

I have spent a little while thinking about this and I just cannot see how that contributes to a raising of standards.  Will players try harder in some way?

 

Actually, I think I remember reading that clubs would play a minimum of 30 games (inc play-offs), and this is possible in the top and bottom 8, but not in the middle 8, which doesn't have a play-off system planned.

 

The middle 8 could well end up with a straight "Premiership" knock-out at the end e.g.1v8, 2v7 etc.

 

Otherwise the middle 8 miss out on income from games and less TV and advertising exposure.

[Dave T]

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.

I disagree, I think if people are open minded enough, this COULD succeed, but that is a big if. If we all got behind the game in one option it could be a great success, my worry is that it will never happen.

[Lobbygobbler]

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.

Steve - What makes you think it will fail? And why will it be worse than what we have now? It seems to me to be very inclusive and will again give clubs outside the top flight much needed hope. I am expecting crowds to substantially increase at most of our pro or semi pro clubs (rather than just the top 12 or 14). It should make most games interesting and also speed up access to SL for the likes of Cru. Also I expect a larger fully pro player pool to be generated. Personally I cant wait

[The Parksider]

 I would have thought any journalist would have liked to get their teeth into why club x got a licence and club b didn't and question the findings. . But it seems it wasn't questioned by the RL print media at all.

 

Whats to question giving licenses to basket cases to be in the SL 14 as opposed to not giving them to clubs who on analysis would have been even bigger basket cases?

 

After all we now know from events that there were never 14 clubs capable of the sort Superleague licensing was supposed to be about.

 

I'm intrigued at the idea the changes will supposedly lead to 15% more income. Is that all more speccies? Or maybe it's now licensing is gone clubs can drop their standards back and spend less off the field.

[The Parksider]

I am expecting crowds to substantially increase at most of our pro or semi pro clubs

 

Noted. We will see........

[Pottsy]

My gut reaction was to dislike this plan and, overall, I still dislike it (I would take the time to list all the practical reasons I'm against this plan but most people here have fairly entrenched views so I'll save my fingers).

That said, I'm absolutely relieved that the speculation has now stopped and pleased that the RFL has finally got round to outlining (albeit sketchily) the rationale behind this restructure.

I still don't like it particularly and am not convinced that playing even more games is a good thing, but I am at least glad that we seem to be doing something, rather than engaging in circular arguments and self flagellation.

The only thing that does rankle slightly is the explanation that the (superior IMO) 2 x 10 proposal was dismissed on the grounds that "there wasn't an appetite for repeat fixtures."

Yet, correct me if I'm wrong, the plan that the RFL favours will also include repeat fixtures and, when the magic weekend is factored in, a guarantee that some clubs will face each other FOUR TIMES during the regular season.

There also seemed to be some selective logic where funding was concerned (inequality in SL1 = bad, inequality in SL2 = good) but, as concerned as I am about these proposals, I am at least relieved that the cat is out of the bag.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Pottsy

[Steve May]

Steve - What makes you think it will fail? And why will it be worse than what we have now? It seems to me to be very inclusive and will again give clubs outside the top flight much needed hope. I am expecting crowds to substantially increase at most of our pro or semi pro clubs (rather than just the top 12 or 14). It should make most games interesting and also speed up access to SL for the likes of Cru. Also I expect a larger fully pro player pool to be generated. Personally I cant wait

 

I think many of the problems in the game come from the extreme short sightedness of the clubs, and the short timescales on which they view their businesses.   For years the game has suffered a chronic lack of investment in facilities and infrastructure because the consequences of failure on the pitch are so extreme any spare money that comes into a club has to be put into the playing staff - not the development of playing staff, but the team that goes out on the pitch the next day.

 

This will be far worse because it forces clubs to look on a time horizon of about 2/3 of a season.

 

One thing you are dead right about though, is that it will generate a larger fully pro player pool.  Most of the extra players will be second rate Kolpaks, and they'll be brought in at the expense of development of young players, but there certainly will be more of them.

 

 

The last time I heard an idea as screamingly daft as this one was when some idiot decided the London Broncos should be renamed Quins RL.  

[Steve May]

I'm intrigued at the idea the changes will supposedly lead to 15% more income. Is that all more speccies? Or maybe it's now licensing is gone clubs can drop their standards back and spend less off the field.

 

What is there to back up the 15% more income figure?

 

Have this bunch of KPMG masterminds been out on the streets and done some market research?  Have they actually asked people who don't know anything about RL if this byzantine league structure will suddenly make them interested?   It doesn't sound like they have to me.

[Pottsy]

What is there to back up the 15% more income figure?

Have this bunch of KPMG masterminds been out on the streets and done some market research? Have they actually asked people who don't know anything about RL if this byzantine league structure will suddenly make them interested? It doesn't sound like they have to me.

I assume they've used existing crowd figures in order to calculate projections on any additional fixtures.

They aren't speculating as that's not what they do but they are assuming that current trends will be replicated over the additional fixtures.

[Steve May]

They aren't speculating as that's not what they do but they are assuming that current trends will be replicated over the additional fixtures.

 

Go and watch House of Lies, then come back and rethink your comments here.

[Pottsy]

Go and watch House of Lies, then come back and rethink your comments here.

Why? You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

KPMG are, essentially, number crunchers; they've crunched the numbers and come out with these projections.

[Steve May]

Why? You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

KPMG are, essentially, number crunchers; they've crunched the numbers and come out with these projections.

 

Well they must be right then.

[Pottsy]

Well they must be right then.

I didn't say they were right or comment on whether I thought their logic was flawed, I simply answered your initial question without passing an opinion.

This bloody forum at times!!!

[Town Globetrotter]

Steve - What makes you think it will fail? And why will it be worse than what we have now? It seems to me to be very inclusive and will again give clubs outside the top flight much needed hope. I am expecting crowds to substantially increase at most of our pro or semi pro clubs (rather than just the top 12 or 14). It should make most games interesting and also speed up access to SL for the likes of Cru. Also I expect a larger fully pro player pool to be generated. Personally I cant wait

 

 

This proposed solution appears to be innovative and will hopefully be the shot in the arm the domestic game craves in both the Super League and Championships. Accessible and inclusive are certainly words that I would associate with the proposal.

 

Hopefully, over time my beloved Town will sneak into the Championship top 4, to enable a crack at the bottom four Super League clubs. The idea of welcoming Super League clubs to Derwent Park for meaningful fixtures in the Mid-Eight would be great for the club and the game in Cumbria!

[Oracle]

This is a good idea but would players sign up to this agreement? It would surely have to be agreed across all the clubs to include the contract clause.

 

I disagree, when a player signs a contract they should stick with the club for the length of that contract regardless of the league they are in

For me, contracts should be signed onn a sliding scale to account for differences in Salary cap.

For example a player will be on X amount if in tier 1, Y amount if the team gets relegated - that way then clubs can build for the future despite relegation and keep a squad together which can hopefuly push for promotion again the foloiwng year.

In my opinion this would prevent a mass exodus at the end of a season for the relegated team followed by panic buying - - Leigh for example when they got promoted - players like Darren Fleary who simply wasn't good enough.

If players cotracts become void because of relegation then the better players sign for top clubs whilst average ones for lesser clubs - think some players got relegated 3 yrs on the bounce from jumping ships,

[BBR]

This madcap idea must work for the sake of the game. Scrapping the licencing so early and recent bad press over broke clubs and lack of sponsor are making super league look anything but super to the outside world. I think through cc games and play offs that fans can't afford or don't want to attend extra fixtures even when they are against a top team. I fail to see how fans will turn out now for more games.

Serious questions. ... How can teams sell season tickets without any guarantee of the number of games or the opposition for one third of the matches?

Is the top 8 mini league the new play offs or will there be play offs in addition? If there are play offs (top 5) and the top 5 are already clear after the split then what is the point of the 8 having more fixtures?

If the bottom 4 of sl1 have such a financial advantage over the top 4 of sl2 how likely is it that we will ever see a side promoted? After 2 or 3 years of no promotion will there be another change to the format?

How long do we give the new system if crowds are significantly down?

I really hope this works and actually like the idea but I can't see it doing anything other than be a perfect excuse for already disillusioned fans to walk away from the game

[Derwent]

 

If the bottom 4 of sl1 have such a financial advantage over the top 4 of sl2 how likely is it that we will ever see a side promoted? After 2 or 3 years of no promotion will there be another change to the format?

Equally, within the lower 12 each year there will be a financial imbalance to begin with as funding will be on a sliding scale based on previous season's league position. So, for example, if this was being applied tomorrow then Sheffield would get £650k and the 12th placed team would get £150k. All you're going to get is the same 4 teams being 'promoted' to the middle 8 each year due to their superior financial position. Its all a bit of a nonsense really - I'm willing to bet that, with the very odd exception, you see the same 8 clubs making up the middle tier almost every year.

[nadera78]

The only good thing about these proposals is that they won't be around for very long. Absolutely guaranteed that within 18 months we'll be discussing some other set up. The worry is how much damage will be done in the meantime?

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

Why does the Magic Weekend have to be in the first phase of the comp (i.e. the 2x12 bit)? It adds an additional repeat fixture and arguably creates a lopsided fixture list. Plus the second phase (the 3x8 bit) will presumably give clubs an additional 7 fixtures, which would also have to be lopsided as some clubs would play 4 home games, whereas others would play 3. If the Magic Weekend was in this second phase it would therefore leave 3 home games for each club and make the whole structure much fairer.

Edited August 1, 2013 by RugbyLeagueGeek

[Steve May]

I disagree, when a player signs a contract they should stick with the club for the length of that contract regardless of the league they are in

For me, contracts should be signed onn a sliding scale to account for differences in Salary cap.

For example a player will be on X amount if in tier 1, Y amount if the team gets relegated - that way then clubs can build for the future despite relegation and keep a squad together which can hopefuly push for promotion again the foloiwng year.

 

No sensible player joining a medium sized club (ie one that is likely to end up in the weird middle tier) would sign a contract for longer than one year if that was the case.

[Griff]

Why does the Magic Weekend have to be in the first phase of the comp (i.e. the 2x12 bit)? It adds an additional repeat fixture and arguably creates a lopsided fixture list. Plus the second phase (the 3x8 bit) will presumably give clubs an additional 7 fixtures, which would also have to be lopsided as some clubs would play 4 home games, whereas others would play 3. If the Magic Weekend was in this second phase it would therefore leave 3 home games for each club and make the whole structure much fairer.

It's always been over a Bank Holiday (with one exception) so I'm assuming that it needs to be in May.