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

[Griff]

Sigh? You're the person arguing against what the vast majority of sporting clubs do and has had no better alternative in ensuring fans get to games. I haven't even implied that we do market research on here so you can take back your attempted patronising tone.

If you're willing to pay out £150-200 up front for a season pass to a game of rugby then you're hardly being tricked into buying one. They are clearly buying one for a reason and the most sensible reaon is that they think they will save money across a season. The reality however is that if they didn't buy one a large number wouldn't attend all of the games for a variety of reasons. Your idea encourages people to potentially opt for a lower priced alternative.

Let's look at some facts rather than idle speculation. Season tickets are more popular compared to average attendances over here than in the NRL where the game has a higher profile.

Leeds Rhinos have about 10,000 ST holders and so far this year have managed a biggest crowd of 18,500 and a lowest of 12,500. So there is not even a 50% increase from the lowest to the highest crowd. Then look at a team like South Sydney, they have had a much bigger highest crowd of 32,000 yet have a lower lowest crowd of just 11,000. That is a difference of almost 3 times from their lowest to their biggest.

This difference is replicated across Super League, where most clubs see a relatively small increase from their biggest to their smallest regardless of derbies. I would suggest it is because of the success that British clubs have had in encouraging their fans to buy season tickets.

There's nothing worse than somebody acting all enlightened as if they have the answers when in reality they have none of them.

 

Whatever.

 

I expect we'll muddle through on the huge gates most of us already have.

[Maximus Decimus]

Whatever.

 

I expect we'll muddle through on the huge gates most of us already have.

When you have all the answers Griff! It's so frustrating.

If only the vast majority of sporting clubs would listen to you, they'd have their problems solved.

[Griff]

When you have all the answers Griff! It's so frustrating.

If only the vast majority of sporting clubs would listen to you, they'd have their problems solved.

 

I just made a suggestion.

 

I pointed out the weaknesses of the season ticket system.

 

You decided to continue the argument.  I said it was off topic.

 

Clubs can either improve their income by attracting more supporters or by hitting the same blokes pockets again and again.

 

I accept that other people may have other views.  Why can't you ?   I don't need your bile.

[Maximus Decimus]

I just made a suggestion.

 

I pointed out the weaknesses of the season ticket system.

 

You decided to continue the argument.  I said it was off topic.

 

Clubs can either improve their income by attracting more supporters or by hitting the same blokes pockets again and again.

 

I accept that other people may have other views.  Why can't you ?   I don't need your bile.

It's odd that when I represented my views (with absolutely no bile) you responded with sighs and attempts to patronise me. Yet I'm the one who can't take opposite opinions?

You can't respond in that way and expect to be treated with respect back.

And you haven't come close to providing a genuine alternative to the ST system.

[Griff]

It's odd that when I represented my views (with absolutely no bile) you responded with sighs and attempts to patronise me. Yet I'm the one who can't take opposite opinions?

You can't respond in that way and expect to be treated with respect back.

And you haven't come close to providing a genuine alternative to the ST system.

 

As you wish.

[redjonn]

Then if the clubs accept 3x8, as a consequence, they may need to reconsider their marketing.

 

Marketing includes getting the product right. That currently includes the structure around the game that partly turns a good game into a good product. Of course other aspects need to be included in "marketing".

 

I'm guessing you are focusing on the narrower aspect of promoting the game or from an overall perspective the product. I apologise if I have made an incorrect assumption on how you define marketing, no slight intended.

 

Currently we have a great game but not a good product.

Edited August 15, 2013 by redjonn

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I presume the middle 8 is a mini-league that starts again.

Is this true for the top 8 though? If so it is actually madness as it provides no incentive for clubs like Leeds, Wigan and Wire that will see no achievement in simply making it into that top league.

Personally I think it would be madness to continue the points into the second stage. There'd be nothing for the teams around 7-8th to play for as they likely won't be able to make the top 4 come the split.

The LLS would be given out to the team finishing top. That's enough incentive for the top four teams to push for up to round 22. Especially if it comes with a cash incentive. The rest will be battling to make top eight.

The only league I can see it making sense to carry the points on is the bottom league, as there would be something to play for at both ends if a small league. OK, the prize for winning that competition doesn't mean a lot, but if you're in the middle of a league you aren't likely to win anything anyway so it's better than nothing. There's always next year.

[Maximus Decimus]

Personally I think it would be madness to continue the points into the second stage. There'd be nothing for the teams around 7-8th to play for as they likely won't be able to make the top 4 come the split.

The LLS would be given out to the team finishing top. That's enough incentive for the top four teams to push for up to round 22. Especially if it comes with a cash incentive. The rest will be battling to make top eight.

The only league I can see it making sense to carry the points on is the bottom league, as there would be something to play for at both ends if a small league. OK, the prize for winning that competition doesn't mean a lot, but if you're in the middle of a league you aren't likely to win anything anyway so it's better than nothing. There's always next year.

IMO you either have a prestigious playoffs which determines the winner or you have a prestigious league which determines the winner. I'm not sure that you can have both.

Clubs and fans will know that the big prize is still the Grand Final, so you're taking a big risk in hoping that the league leaders shield will provide motivation to the clubs and the fans guaranteed to make the 8. If it didn't work, then we could have a real damp squib of a season for 22 rounds amongst the top clubs. I think the better balance is to continue the points into the second part. We could also see teams making the 8 comfortably but not being in contention and then resting their players in preparation for the second part of the season.

Your point about the 7th and 8th clubs is valid, and to be fair I think the whole system is flawed but if it has to be done I'd rather risk these having little to play in some seasons for than our best clubs.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Maximus Decimus

[Griff]

Remains to be seen how this pans out but I suspect that some clubs' fans will see phase 1 as a waste of time and look forward to phase 2, whilst others will see the excitement in phase 1 whilst having little to play for in phase 2.

 

The more you play the same teams, the bigger the gaps between them.  Beat a team twice and you're more than likely going to beat them a third time.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

IMO you either have a prestigious playoffs which determines the winner or you have a prestigious league which determines the winner. I'm not sure that you can have both.

Clubs and fans will know that the big prize is still the Grand Final, so you're taking a big risk in hoping that the league leaders shield will provide motivation to the clubs and the fans guaranteed to make the 8. If it didn't work, then we could have a real damp squib of a season for 22 rounds amongst the top clubs. I think the better balance is to continue the points into the second part. We could also see teams making the 8 comfortably but not being in contention and then resting their players in preparation for the second part of the season.

Your point about the 7th and 8th clubs is valid, and to be fair I think the whole system is flawed but if it has to be done I'd rather risk these having little to play in some seasons for than our best clubs.

To be honest, I think you underestimate how much teams want to be the league leaders. Huddersfield are really going for it. I know Wigan and Wire have in the past as well. It is a meaningful trophy at the end of the day, just not the big one.

I think the battle for top spot is definitely worth watching.

[keighley]

Under this system, there would never be a game like the one last night when Widnes went to Warrington.an short for half the match, and still knocked off the top dwelling Wolves.

 

Under this system Widnes would be in the middle eight, there would be no derby with Warrington and no upset.

 

I think two divisions with p and r is far superior.

[Pottsy]

I think two divisions with p and r is far superior.

I'm inclined to agree but more because it would at least allow the funding for all 20 clubs to be fully pro.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Under this system, there would never be a game like the one last night when Widnes went to Warrington.an short for half the match, and still knocked off the top dwelling Wolves.

Under this system Widnes would be in the middle eight, there would be no derby with Warrington and no upset.

I think two divisions with p and r is far superior.

Eh?

Why wouldn't there be a derby with Warrington and Widnes?

[keighley]

Eh?

Why wouldn't there be a derby with Warrington and Widnes?

 

Not at this stage of the season. Widnes would have qualified for the middle eight and Warrington the top eight and the fixture would not have taken place.

[matt newsholme]

If widnes started season in SL1 then fixture would have taken place. Current format under discussion is for SL1 teams to play each other home and away before the split.

[a.n Other]

If widnes started season in SL1 then fixture would have taken place. Current format under discussion is for SL1 teams to play each other home and away before the split.

And in addition to this, Widnes may have had to win to stay in the top 8. Much much more to play for.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Not at this stage of the season. Widnes would have qualified for the middle eight and Warrington the top eight and the fixture would not have taken place.

It would have taken place, just earlier.

[Maximus Decimus]

To be honest, I think you underestimate how much teams want to be the league leaders. Huddersfield are really going for it. I know Wigan and Wire have in the past as well. It is a meaningful trophy at the end of the day, just not the big one.

I think the battle for top spot is definitely worth watching.

I'm not sure it could sustain a whole 22 round set of games when it was still classed as a secondary achievement. I'm usually quite good at remembering stats and I could probably give a good stab at naming all the Grand Final winners and the Challenge Cup winners since the early 80's. I'd have to look up the LLS for the last 3 years though, I think most view it as very secondary. You could always try and make the competition more prestigious by making it a bigger prize but then you take the risk of this initial stage being seen as the real prize with the playoffs becoming like the old Premiership.

As I said earlier, another problem would be the clubs that might start resting players in anticipation of the 2nd part of the year. Currently the Rhinos, Saints, Dragons and Hull are guaranteed safety at this stage without being able to challenge, so they would inevitably start resting star players ready for the season part two. This would give them an advantage over the top clubs and be unfair on clubs that played them and lost when they put out stronger sides.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Maximus Decimus

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I'm not sure it could sustain a whole 22 round set of games when it was still classed as a secondary achievement. I'm usually quite good at remembering stats and I could probably give a good stab at naming all the Grand Final winners and the Challenge Cup winners since the early 80's. I'd have to look up the LLS for the last 3 years though, I think most view it as very secondary.

It's not the big one, but ask Wigan, Warrington or Huddersfield if they think it means nothing. Three sides that (will) have picked it up in the last four years. Leeds in 2009 also wanted to make a point if winning it IIRC.

You could always try and make the competition more prestigious by making it a bigger prize but then you take the risk of this initial stage being seen as the real prize with the playoffs becoming like the old Premiership.

I think just a cash incentive would be enough.

The prize for winning the play-offs is the label of champions, a shot in the WCC and a cash prize.

The prize for topping the regular season should be the LLS, a cash prize and an easier run in the play-offs. With the play-offs changing to a round robin, perhaps more home games (since it's an odd number) and against the bigger teams?

I said earlier, another problem would be the clubs that might start resting players in anticipation of the 2nd part of the year. Currently the Rhinos, Saints, Dragons and Hull are guaranteed safety at this stage without being able to challenge, so they would inevitably start resting star players ready for the season part two. This would give them an advantage over the top clubs and be unfair on clubs that played them and lost when they put out stronger sides.

This can happen in any league format though. What do Saints, Leeds, Widnes and Castleford have to play for? Or Bradford and Wakefield? Wigan had been resting players when they were clear at the top. Warrington have been rotating. It just happens in a league system.

Teams that want to win all the trophies don't have that luxury. But if they win them all that's what makes them legendary teams. Bradford (2003) and Saints (2006) are the only sides I can think of that have done the treble.

Call me idealistic, but I'd say I'm being more optimistic. Most of your arguments against can apply to the others argue formats.

[Pottsy]

Like it or not (and personally I'd prefer two fully funded, fully professional leagues of ten) it's quite clear that this new structure will be in place come 2015.

Rather than pointing out the apparent flaws it'd be better to focus on tweaking things to get the system as good as it can be (ie, figuring out a way to reward those teams who finish further up the table after 22 rounds).

[The Parksider]

I'm inclined to agree but more because it would at least allow the funding for all 20 clubs to be fully pro.

 

Still don't get this. They are struggling to have 12 professional clubs???

 

Give me some figures?

[Maximus Decimus]

It's not the big one, but ask Wigan, Warrington or Huddersfield if they think it means nothing. Three sides that (will) have picked it up in the last four years. Leeds in 2009 also wanted to make a point if winning it IIRC.

I think just a cash incentive would be enough.

The prize for winning the play-offs is the label of champions, a shot in the WCC and a cash prize.

The prize for topping the regular season should be the LLS, a cash prize and an easier run in the play-offs. With the play-offs changing to a round robin, perhaps more home games (since it's an odd number) and against the bigger teams?

This can happen in any league format though. What do Saints, Leeds, Widnes and Castleford have to play for? Or Bradford and Wakefield? Wigan had been resting players when they were clear at the top. Warrington have been rotating. It just happens in a league system.

Teams that want to win all the trophies don't have that luxury. But if they win them all that's what makes them legendary teams. Bradford (2003) and Saints (2006) are the only sides I can think of that have done the treble.

Call me idealistic, but I'd say I'm being more optimistic. Most of your arguments against can apply to the others argue formats.

There is a difference between this system and other formats. Currently, teams are still playing for positions as theoretically the higher up you finish the better chance you have. Hull KR can still finish 5th or 8th. Also, if Warrington were so desperate to win the LLS, surely they wouldn't be resting players? They won't be resting them come playoff time.

The top 8 is basically a resetting of the season. It's not like saying what do Widnes, Cas etc have to play for because the important part of the season would completely reset. It would be in their interests to be as injury free as possible for this 2nd part. For fans also they would know that league position means absolutely nothing apart from top so what happens when a team runs away with it? It's not like football where a position defines how good a season you've had, as long as you're top 8 then the season resets and that is where it would really matter.

Optimism and idealism has a fine line and even optimism doesn't guarantee success. WC2000 and the WCC 1997 were clearly organised by optimistic and ambitious people but they ignored obvious problems that they hoped would go away. I think 3x8 falls into this category.

[The Parksider]

I'm not convinced that the middle division will be competitive, though things have already changed on the financial side and I'd be prepared to give it a go.  I will, however, be saying "I told you so" if it isn't competitive.

 

The third league of eight seems utterly pointless for the top teams in it.  It's quite likely that they'll already be safe from relegation at the outset.  This will be a huge anticlimax to their season and won't help their season ticket sales for the following season.

 

Gotta give 3 x 8 a go for me otherwise if they don't it will be hailed for years to come as the "missed opportunity" to revitalise the game, attract heavy private finance, professionalise 24 clubs, and get half the country watching and playing RL.

 

Shuffle the darn deckchairs, it won't kill the game IMHO.

 

As for the third tier do you really think RFL/SLE have looked beyond the needs of the top sixteen/seventeen clubs? That would be a sea change?

[Griff]

Rugby League always gets it wrong, Parky. That's why changes are needed every ten minutes.

 

The classic example is promoting four, relegating none last year just so that we have the problem of how to eliminate four (maybe five) teams from Division 2 next year.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Griff

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Taking up the cause of expansion, if as Gareth Walker of LPL pointed out on Super League Backchat. The RFL's "whole game solution" involves going from 37 Pro and semi-Pro clubs down to 24 and given the London Broncos probable demise. should not the following clubs be automatically included in the second Tier :

 

London Skolars

Toulouse (if not replacing London Broncos)

Hemel Stags

North Wales Crusaders

 

Not forgetting that Sheffield - who are an expansion club - would be there on merit plus the two dropping out of Super League. That would leave five / six spaces for the strongest "heartland" clubs. 

 

Now whilst the RFL plans for the lower tiers of the game are shrouded in smoke and mirrors, would this not make more sense for the future viability of the game