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

[Griff]

$uperleague?   Really?

Really what ?

[a.n Other]

1, Yeah - but there are more $uperleague clubs to fill those spaces. Plus there are parachute funded ex-$uperleague clubs in $uperleague 2. Clubs from the current Championship will be seventh and eighth favourites for those four places.

2, This is nonsense. Firstly, anyone who reads my posts will recognize that I don't think Sheffield will be a $uperleague club until they get some decent crowds. Secondly, the reference to funding is something you gloss over in the first part of your post.

They might be 8th favourite in your opinion. But if a club like Fev or Leigh pay the full salary cap, they will compete for the players the two relegated clubs would be after. I get where you are coming from but I am optimistic that there will be existing championship clubs will be stronger then the 2 that are relegated next year.

2, So you aren't against the changes because it may have a detrimental effect on Sheffield? Potentially they will go from bring one of the strongest sides in the current set up and salary cap to being 7th best maybe?

[Griff]

They might be 8th favourite in your opinion. But if a club like Fev or Leigh pay the full salary cap, they will compete for the players the two relegated clubs would be after. I get where you are coming from but I am optimistic that there will be existing championship clubs will be stronger then the 2 that are relegated next year.

And they might not. We'll see.

So you aren't against the changes because it may have a detrimental effect on Sheffield? Potentially they will go from bring one of the strongest sides in the current set up and salary cap to being 7th best maybe?

Well, clearly not. Because I'm not against reducing the number of clubs in $uperleague, which would inevitably push us - and everyone else - down the pecking order. Imho, there are only about ten clubs (max) good enough for $uperleague but twelve is at least a step forward.

Just read what I post and stop making stuff up.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Griff

[Lobbygobbler]

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.

I dont like too many imports either Steve and don't see why this couldnt be tightened up. SL clubs are still signing Kolpacs. Why cant each club just have say 2 overseas players?

The new plans will see youth being developed at all clubs without just the priviledged few in SL hiving them off. There should also be more money for youth development

[Doghead]

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.

 

Well said that man.

[Doghead]

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.

 

Its also obvious you have closed your mind to these new changes.

[Doghead]

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.

 

But they have not crunched them the way he likes things crunched.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

To you it might not do, but to many more it does.

Like I said your answer was clear

It just wasnt the answer to the question I asked which was how?

[a.n Other]

Like I said your answer was clear

It just wasnt the answer to the question I asked which was how?

That's not something I can answer. I don't have access to clubs plans. I assume you don't either so neither of us can be sure at this stage if clubs will yoyo.

But it's great that clubs have the chance to move up divisions based primarily on what they do on the pitch. That is fantastic. I hope that potential sponsors aren't put off by all the doom mongers that post on here and this increases potential funding to a clubs.

Edited August 1, 2013 by a.n Other

[l'angelo mysterioso]

That's not something I can answer. I don't have access to clubs plans. I assume you don't either so neither of us can be sure at this stage if clubs will yoyo.

But it's great that clubs have the chance to move up divisions based primarily on what they do on the pitch. That is fantastic. I hope that potential sponsors aren't put off by all the doom mongers that post on here and this increases potential funding to a clubs.

But that was discredited over a period of 22 years with your club being one of the starkest examples of what was wrong with it

How will the competition be any different this time in terms of taking the game forward. It seems the only difference will be a subsidy for those who fail; this was my original question and I think it's the fourth time if asking

Edit: do you not think it will have an effect on the vitally important expansion of the game? As far as I'm aware clubs can move up from the championship to the elite competition under the current system

So far I haven't come across a doom monger other than those who for their own myopic self serving reasons complain about the current system. Do you consider say, lobbygobler to be a doom monger, or even yourself for instance?

Edited August 1, 2013 by l'angelo mysterioso

[a.n Other]

But that was discredited over a period of 22 years with your club being one of the starkest examples of what was wrong with it

How will the competition be any different this time in terms of taking the game forward. It seems the only difference will be a subsidy for those who fail; this was my original question and I think it's the fourth time if asking

My club won the Champiomship

and got to three major finals winning the challenge cup. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't swap them memories for anything.

I have said I can't answer you question as I don't know what the clubs business plans will be. But this will be the first time where money in the Chanpionship will be increased. What was the central funding for the 22 years you state?

[a.n Other]

1,Edit: do you not think it will have an effect on the vitally important expansion of the game? As far as I'm aware clubs can move up from the championship to the elite competition under the current system

2,So far I haven't come across a doom monger other than those who for their own myopic self serving reasons complain about the current system. Do you consider say, lobbygobler to be a doom monger, or even yourself for instance?

1, there is no reason why this should hinder expansion in my opinion and I hope more teams playing up and down the country the better

2, There are quite a few people yourself included could be classed as doom mongers yes. I just hope potential sponsors aren't put off by your one eyed view of things.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

1, there is no reason why this should hinder expansion in my opinion and I hope more teams playing up and down the country the better

2, There are quite a few people yourself included could be classed as doom mongers yes. I just hope potential sponsors aren't put off by your one eyed view of things.

Not at all I enjoy my rugby league and will do so whatever happens

Do you think potential sponsors gave been out off by people like you, lobby and the rest?

Edit still no answer to my question

Edited August 1, 2013 by l'angelo mysterioso

[a.n Other]

Not at all I enjoy my rugby league and will do so whatever happens

Do you think potential sponsors gave been out off by people like you, lobby and the rest?

I do hope not.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I do hope not.

Well the doom and gloom has been long and loud from people like you him and many others

Super league doesn't have a sponsor

[Keith T]

Why ?

The Magic Weekends are in the 12 team section of the season it was suggested that it would be better if they were in the section when the teams split in to groups of 8 so instead of 2 Magic Weekends that would mean 3 would it not?

[a.n Other]

Well the doom and gloom has been long and loud from people like you

No it hasn't.

[Steve May]

But they have not crunched them the way he likes things crunched.

 

You can crunch numbers to show anything you like.

[zorquif]

There's three kinds of lie. Lies, damned lies and statistics

[gingerjon]

This may have been covered but as we're only discussing the mediocre bit of the league in depth I've missed it but what do the top 8 teams do to decide a champion?

[Steve May]

Its also obvious you have closed your mind to these new changes.

 

We shall have to wait and see, but I'll be amazed if many of the same people who are claiming this to be the saviour of the game aren't claiming that it's destroying the game and are looking for yet another structure which will be the magic bullet.

 

In my time, we've had two divisions of 14 and 21 followed by three divisions split 14/8/14, followed by two divisions of 16, followed by three divisions of 11 and a move to summer, followed by three divisions split 12/11/12, followed by three divisions of 12/11/8, followed by two divisions of 14 and 18, followed by two divisions split 12/17 with a partial move back to winter, followed by two divisions of 12/19, followed by four divisions of 12/10/10/10 and a full move back to summer, followed by four divisions of 12/10/12/9, followed by three divisions of 12/12/10, followed by 12/10/12, followed by 14/11/10 with franchising, followed by 14/11/11 and a rebranding, followed by 14/11/10, followed by 14/10/10, followed by 14/14/9.

 

I've seen four different ways to determine the champions, three competitions vanish from the calender, several new competitions come and go, more clubs than I can be arsed counting slotted in only to vanish a year or two later and, I think, four different ways to determine how teams are placed or removed from the top flight.

 

Oh, and along the way we very nearly killed the international game.

 

And that's in just shy of 25 years.   You seriously expect me to believe firstly, that this structure will somehow revolutionise the sport and secondly, that it won't change next year anyway?

 

What the game needs is ten years or more of stability.   What it's getting is the latest madcap scheme dreamt up by idiots for a quick fix because they're too stupid to even see the problem, let alone solve it.

[Steve May]

This may have been covered but as we're only discussing the mediocre bit of the league in depth I've missed it but what do the top 8 teams do to decide a champion?

 

Unfortunately PWC ran out of space on the envelope to include that bit.  

 

We could throw dice?

[l'angelo mysterioso]

No it hasn't.

From people like you since 1995

Any chance of answering my question?

[Pottsy]

As arguments go, this one's about as spherical as it gets, so I'm not gonna get drawn into it.

On the one side we've got supporters who have concerns over the impact these changes will have upon the game as a whole, on the other side we generally have previously disgruntled fans who see this as a chance of a return to the 'big table.' Both are coming from entrenched positions and are unlikely to countenance any difference of opinion, so it's probably best to leave this debate at an impasse.

The decision has seemingly been made and history will now be the judge......

However, my one HUGE plea to the RFL is that they aren't swayed by the vociferous regressive minority in terms of the naming of the elite competition. They have to stay strong and stick with the 'Super League' brand (Barrie Mac made some great points regarding this topic on Tuesday's Backchat).

Aside from the fact that IMHO it's a strong brand that most general sports fans immediately associate with rugby league, there are also a couple of even more critical reasons:

1) if we ditch the Super League brand at the same time as we ditch licensing, move to a longer season etc, it will be seen by many as a tacit acknowledgement that rugby league's 'brave new dawn' from 1996 has been an abject failure. We wouldn't be handing the Stephen Jones' of this world with a stick to beat us with, we'd be handing them a nuclear weapon.

2) further to my first point, rushing through so much radical change at a time when the sport is acknowledged to be in a shaky financial position would (rightly or wrongly) be portrayed as a 'last desperate roll of the dice' by an increasingly marginalised sport. IMO this is not a particularly fetching proposition!

If people think these other changes do present a 'magic bullet,' fair play to them. Time will tell.

But please let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater and send the message that 'Super League has failed so rugby league has been forced to go back to the drawing board yet again.'

[a.n Other]

1,From people like you since 1995

2Any chance of answering my question?

1, Don't try to deflect your negativity and talking the game down on to me. You think the changes aren't going to be good. I can accept your views. I don't agree with them, along with many many more. But constantly talking the game down like you do on this matter isn't going to help the game prosper. And if you are such an advocate of the game expanding your attitude may in the long run affect this.

2, I have told you numerous times. I can't answer the question as i don't have access to the business plans etc of clubs.

Maybe you can answer my question. What central funding did clubs receive in these "22 years" of yoyoing you mentioned?

Edited August 2, 2013 by a.n Other