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

[Griff]

So at the end of 2014 London, Salford are relegated to the Championship. And after the 22 league games of 2015 London, Salford, Sheffield and Fev qualify for the middle 8 play offs along with Cas, Wakey, widnes and Bradford. That should be a very competitive play off.

But, the key to making this work is to encourage closing the gap between the SL and the Championship. So it is essential that the SKY money that currently goes to the 13th and 14th team of SL is distributed to the teams in the Championship. I would also have a SC of £1 million for the Championship (hark at those spluttering whilst supping their tea). OK some teams will never spend close to this but that is not the point.

i.e. Using the above scenario this lets David Hughes reduce his investment at a level to grow London sustainably, also Mr Nahaboo may pump more money into Fev. If Salford are relegated it lets Mr Koucash use his financial muscle. This may also open the opportunity for a consortium from Sheffield?

Don't lets ever have a SC in the Championship that panders to mediocrity.

 

 

London beat both Sheffield and Fev in the Cup which doesn't look all that promising for their competitiveness.

 

Totally agree it's about the funding but - again - do we want a game that just relies on handouts from Hughes, Nahaboo and Koukash ?  Is that stability or will it lead to boom and bust as "investors" (and I'm so suspicious of "investors" in a RL context) get fed up of waiting for their "investment" ship to dock ?

[Maximus Decimus]

But you only get used to it by playing in it.

I think this is quite an idealistic way of looking at it.

In theory, the salary cap and licensing would have produced this evening out across the division but it still hasn't in anything like the way we would hope and perhaps more importantly for this concept, it hasn't spread the talent across the division and has in fact worsened it by increasing to 14.

I still think we would find the top 6 clubs being a lot better than the bottom 6 clubs and that would include those making the bottom 2 of the 8. There just isn't the talent pool in British RL to have a competitive 8 clubs.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Maximus Decimus

[Ackroman]

Looking back at the history of the game, particularly to the 1973 and 1974 seasons, it seems that P&R actually had a more negative impact than I expected.

 

In 1973 with the one divisional structure, if your team finished 14th you had a fair few games watching your team win. They were in touch with the top and you only needed a modest improvement to start to compete for the playoff's or even the championship. In 1974, if you were 14th you got 7 wins if you were lucky and your team was relegated. The knock on effect is then a period of demise and weakness, lack of interest and loss of revenues. Other clubs then tried to avoid this by investing more money to be promoted. Thus the actual amount of money to improve your club was larger under P&R than under a 1 divisional structure.

 

Therefore if this 3x8 structure is based on some analysis of the game from 40 years ago, then I believe it would be a valid argument that teams would be more attractive to fans because they have more chance of watching their team win over the season. Further the level of investment to improve can be deliberately applied over a number of seasons without losing touch, or losing blue chip fixtures.

 

One other benefit is that instead of each league having 3 or 4 non competitive sides, losing fans and money, it will only be the teams at the bottom of the lowest league who cannot compete and may not attract the punters.

 

 

I can only see this being a good thing.

[Pottsy]

There are some ok points in favour of the split season proposals here.

My only question remains: if this is truly a 'whole game solution' then why does it not extend beyond the top 24 clubs?

Edited August 12, 2013 by Pottsy

[thundergaz]

London beat both Sheffield and Fev in the Cup which doesn't look all that promising for their competitiveness.

Totally different though Richie London are full time and played against part timers. The salary cap is a big gulf too. I just hope the salary caps between the 2 leagues are similar as it will enable us to go full time and compete with the top 12 teams in this country. If the cap doesn't become similar then like you say I expect much of the same old and very unlikely a SL2 team will get promoted.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

There are some ok points in favour of the split season proposals here.

My only question remains: if this is truly a 'whole game solution' then why does it not extend beyond the top 24 clubs?

Fair point. Maybe because they don't know how many clubs will be involved underneath the top 24?

[Pottsy]

Fair point. Maybe because they don't know how many clubs will be involved underneath the top 24?

My understanding is that when Cov and Toulouse join that will take us to 39 as long as none of the current clubs go bump.

[Griff]

Totally different though Richie London are full time and played against part timers. The salary cap is a big gulf too. I just hope the salary caps between the 2 leagues are similar as it will enable us to go full time and compete with the top 12 teams in this country. If the cap doesn't become similar then like you say I expect much of the same old and very unlikely a SL2 team will get promoted.

 

The funding proposals have ameliorated since these proposals came out.  Presumably Ralph and Nigel have read this thread .......

[Adelaide Tiger]

London beat both Sheffield and Fev in the Cup which doesn't look all that promising for their competitiveness.

 

Totally agree it's about the funding but - again - do we want a game that just relies on handouts from Hughes, Nahaboo and Koukash ?  Is that stability or will it lead to boom and bust as "investors" (and I'm so suspicious of "investors" in a RL context) get fed up of waiting for their "investment" ship to dock ?

You missed my point. My point is not about a quick fix and how can you base an argument when London spend about £1.5 million more than Fev or Sheffield

The new proposal (if left in place for 3/4 years) should enable the likes of Fev and Sheffield to improve the playing ability by having more competitive matches against the likes of Cas, Wakey, Bradford etc. This should improve attendances, bring in more income, help clubs improve their off field operations, attract investors and give the clubs a better chance of beating current SL clubs.

Investors can be good for the game providing the investment (not just in monetary terms) is in developing long term structures withina club.

[Griff]

You missed my point. My point is not about a quick fix and how can you base an argument when London spend about £1.5 million more than Fev or Sheffield

The new proposal (if left in place for 3/4 years) should enable the likes of Fev and Sheffield to improve the playing ability by having more competitive matches against the likes of Cas, Wakey, Bradford etc. This should improve attendances, bring in more income, help clubs improve their off field operations, attract investors and give the clubs a better chance of beating current SL clubs.

Investors can be good for the game providing the investment (not just in monetary terms) is in developing long term structures within a club.

 

No doubt we'll see.  I think that the funding originally on offer has been seen to be unworkable. 

 

But how does the current proposal affect the second tier twelve ?  Do we just get a well-funded four breaking away from a less well-funded eight ?   If we do, then three quarters of the season is a foregone conclusion....

 

And I still think that "investors" want a return on their investment ......

[808tone]

Sometimes reading about what if's and what has been done or want's to be done makes my head blled.

[Griff]

Sometimes reading about what if's and what has been done or want's to be done makes my head blled.

 

 

Best just not read any Rugby League fora, then.

[redjonn]

You missed my point. My point is not about a quick fix and how can you base an argument when London spend about £1.5 million more than Fev or Sheffield

The new proposal (if left in place for 3/4 years) should enable the likes of Fev and Sheffield to improve the playing ability by having more competitive matches against the likes of Cas, Wakey, Bradford etc. This should improve attendances, bring in more income, help clubs improve their off field operations, attract investors and give the clubs a better chance of beating current SL clubs.

Investors can be good for the game providing the investment (not just in monetary terms) is in developing long term structures withina club.

 

But surely its promotion and relegation that brings in the potential investment because of the aspirational hopes.  If those teams that have the aspiration can see they could achieve the goal of promotion each of those teams will invest more (assuming investment into the club) and then those teams are more competitive, increasing crowds, etc, etc etc...

 

The question is how does the 2 into x3 structure offer better than the straight forward x2 divisions with P&R.   The same will be achieved.

 

If it's because more monies will be allocated to the lower tier in the x2 into x3 then it could also have more monies allocated into the other straight forward structure.

 

The question always for me how does the x2 into 3 achieve something much more than the straight forward.  

Edited August 14, 2013 by redjonn

[Ponterover]

 

The question always for me how does the x2 into 3 achieve something much more than the straight forward.  

 

Meaningful fixtures for the worst SL and best SL2 teams.

 

Rather than week after week of drubbings or runaway wins, closer more exciting games that can be marketed to within an inch of their lives (if the clubs are savvy)

[Griff]

Meaningful fixtures for the worst SL and best SL2 teams.

 

Rather than week after week of drubbings or runaway wins, closer more exciting games that can be marketed to within an inch of their lives (if the clubs are savvy)

 

That's the theory, Ponterover.  But, of course, that could be achieved much more simply with smaller divisions.  Why the need for the big ones in the first place ?  Which take up three quarters of the season.

 

And how do you ensure that the top four $uperleague 2 teams are financially equipped to compete whilst not destroying the first phase of the competition which will last for three quarters of the season ?  It's not as straightforward as you imply.

[thundergaz]

That's the theory, Ponterover. But, of course, that could be achieved much more simply with smaller divisions. Why the need for the big ones in the first place ? Which take up three quarters of the season.

And how do you ensure that the top four $uperleague 2 teams are financially equipped to compete whilst not destroying the first phase of the competition which will last for three quarters of the season ? It's not as straightforward as you imply.

Don't the top 5 clubs destroy the competition now? (In both leagues in fact) So I don't see any difference if I'm being honest.

[Maximus Decimus]

The new proposal (if left in place for 3/4 years) should enable the likes of Fev and Sheffield to improve the playing ability by having more competitive matches against the likes of Cas, Wakey, Bradford etc. This should improve attendances, bring in more income, help clubs improve their off field operations, attract investors and give the clubs a better chance of beating current SL clubs.

This is exactly the sort of idealism that was banded about pre-licensing and it is just that, idealism. The reality is that there just aren't enough good players for the number of clubs to be competitive.

Sadly, 5 years of security, forward-planning and regular competition hasn't resulted in the likes of Salford, London, Cas, Hull Kr or Wakey becoming any more competitive and successful, if anything some of they were more successful in the year before licensing. The point I'm making is that when licensing was brought in this is exactly what was argued that it would achieve like we see in the NRL. The reality is that the same strong clubs have monopolised the top positions because they still have more money and attract the best players.

This will happen with the 3 x 8 system, the stronger clubs will almost always make the top 8 and the likes of Fev or Sheffield will get comfortably beaten by the bottom 4 from SL year on year because they won't be able to attract the best players and probably won't be playing in a full time league for the rest of the year. They'll only get a shot if a team implodes like Halifax did in 2003.

I admire your positivity but I've heard it all before, another example is the 4 Nations and how it would improve Wales/France through regular competition. The problem here is that the 3 x 8 system could do unfortold damage to the game, it's a real risk and not one worth taking in my opinion.

[Ponterover]

That's the theory, Ponterover.  But, of course, that could be achieved much more simply with smaller divisions.  Why the need for the big ones in the first place ?  Which take up three quarters of the season.

 

And how do you ensure that the top four $uperleague 2 teams are financially equipped to compete whilst not destroying the first phase of the competition which will last for three quarters of the season ?  It's not as straightforward as you imply.

 

My only reservation with the 4 x 10 smaller division set up is that it would only be 1 up 1 down (presumeably), which doesn't allow enough mobility for me.

 

As for the risk of destroying the 1st half of the season, don't the top 4 or 5 in the championship do this anyway now?

[Ackroman]

History tells us that a 1 divisional league was the best way for clubs to find their level without alienating fans by losing all the time, or being forced into investment way above a club means to get promotion. A club in 14th position in the 1 divisional structure won half their games. The 14th club in SL has won 3. The 15th club under this scheme had a similar record whereas under P&R they needed a big budget to win way more matches.

Further, under both schemes at any point in history the top 8 or so clubs have pretty much been the same give or take 1 or 2. Same goes for the middle 8.

The opportunity for the 3x8 system is to try and offer a more fluid way for clubs to develop without selling themselves short. Clubs will have more opportunities to win games, to retain fans, to retain sponsors.

Or it will cause as much untold damage as the 1 divisional system.

[Maximus Decimus]

History tells us that a 1 divisional league was the best way for clubs to find their level without alienating fans by losing all the time, or being forced into investment way above a club means to get promotion. A club in 14th position in the 1 divisional structure won half their games. The 14th club in SL has won 3. The 15th club under this scheme had a similar record whereas under P&R they needed a big budget to win way more matches.

Further, under both schemes at any point in history the top 8 or so clubs have pretty much been the same give or take 1 or 2. Same goes for the middle 8.

The opportunity for the 3x8 system is to try and offer a more fluid way for clubs to develop without selling themselves short. Clubs will have more opportunities to win games, to retain fans, to retain sponsors.

Or it will cause as much untold damage as the 1 divisional system.

You cannot compare the 3 x 8 to the one-divisional league, it's a nonsense.

The middle 8 league is the worry under this system, and it has been borne out in the one incidence where this was tried in Switzerland. The middle 8 league struggled for profile and to get anybody interested. For the bottom 4 teams in Super League it will be the result of a bad season and I'm sorry but beating lower division sides after failing in the top division is not going to bring fans or sponsors in. For the teams in the 2nd tier coming up, they will likely face regular and heavy beatings against clubs that have better players than them.

The problem is that at a club like Widnes, Salford, Castleford etc the prospect of being in the middle 8 at the end of the season might result in fewer season tickets being sold and budgeting issues.

It's idealistic and a PR disaster in my view.

[Adelaide Tiger]

But surely its promotion and relegation that brings in the potential investment because of the aspirational hopes.  If those teams that have the aspiration can see they could achieve the goal of promotion each of those teams will invest more (assuming investment into the club) and then those teams are more competitive, increasing crowds, etc, etc etc...

 

The question is how does the 2 into x3 structure offer better than the straight forward x2 divisions with P&R.   The same will be achieved.

 

If it's because more monies will be allocated to the lower tier in the x2 into x3 then it could also have more monies allocated into the other straight forward structure.

 

The question always for me how does the x2 into 3 achieve something much more than the straight forward.

Ok. Let's be hypothetical. Imagine that either Salford or London (or both) get relegated next season and clubs retain their wealthy backers. That Toulouse are admitted to the Championship and bring big investment as well. Imagine if Fev sell some of the land they own and/or Feisal puts money into them.

So for the 2015 season you have 4 clubs that will be big hitters in the Championship. Your preferred choice of 2x10 will mean one club is promoted. The other 3 clubs will then be battling against the club relegated from SL in 2015 for promotion in 2016. How long will investors choose to be associated with a club that just misses out on promotion? The one up one down may lead to the scenario where Widnes overspent

With the 3 x 8 system ithere is a chance that all 4 clubs may be promoted (a long shot i grant you, but nevertheless a possibility) or no clubs go up. But the following season all 4 clubs ( plus the others) know they don't have to finish top of the league to have a shot at promotion. So IMHO it enables clubs to grow responsibly.

[Ackroman]

You cannot compare the 3 x 8 to the one-divisional league, it's a nonsense.

Face the facts of the matter instead of just poo pooing a decent fist of explaining why the 3x8 might work because the rest of your post is a gripe about little old Widnes not getting as many season ticket holders under the new system. Maybe Widnes should actually live up to the hype then and aim for the top 8, instead of mediocrity backed up by a guaranteed hand out.

[Griff]

My only reservation with the 4 x 10 smaller division set up is that it would only be 1 up 1 down (presumeably), which doesn't allow enough mobility for me.

 

As for the risk of destroying the 1st half of the season, don't the top 4 or 5 in the championship do this anyway now?

 

Wow, you and Gaz are like echoes ......

 

They do - but at the moment they get the same funding as the rest, so it's easier for things to change.  Once the funding depends on your league position, it'll be much harder to break into the existing top four.

[Griff]

Face the facts of the matter instead of just poo pooing a decent fist of explaining why the 3x8 might work because the rest of your post is a gripe about little old Widnes not getting as many season ticket holders under the new system.

 

Season tickets again !!  An outdated product belonging to the Victorian era of the members' club. 

 

They need a big rethink.

[Griff]

Ok. Let's be hypothetical. Imagine that either Salford or London (or both) get relegated next season and clubs retain their wealthy backers. That Toulouse are admitted to the Championship and bring big investment as well. Imagine if Fev sell some of the land they own and/or Feisal puts money into them.

So for the 2015 season you have 4 clubs that will be big hitters in the Championship. Your preferred choice of 2x10 will mean one club is promoted. The other 3 clubs will then be battling against the club relegated from SL in 2015 for promotion in 2016. How long will investors choose to be associated with a club that just misses out on promotion? The one up one down may lead to the scenario where Widnes overspent

With the 3 x 8 system ithere is a chance that all 4 clubs may be promoted (a long shot i grant you, but nevertheless a possibility) or no clubs go up. But the following season all 4 clubs ( plus the others) know they don't have to finish top of the league to have a shot at promotion. So IMHO it enables clubs to grow responsibly.

 

I still think the most likely scenario is no clubs going up.  How long will your wealthy backers stand for that ?

 

It's easy to say that things are possible.  A few years down the line, they'll still be possible but if the track record is that they don't happen, they'll become pipe dreams rather than possibilities.

 

It was possible that a Championship could have won the Challenge Cup this year.  But - guess what - they didn't.