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

[thundergaz]

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

There is better teams currently in the championship than them that would miss out. Also you talk about expansion but what about Cumbria? Their is 3 teams in the champ at this present time and they are all better than the four teams you have mentioned. I'm all for expansion but it as to be earned not just thrown in like Paris/crusaders were. Edited August 19, 2013 by thundergaz

[Ponterover]

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

 

No.  Artificially placing teams at a level that is currently beyond them has been proved time and again to be doomed to failure.  Paris, Gateshead, Celtic Crusdaders and sadly now London are 4 casualties too many.

 

With P&R these teams will find their level and have an opportunity to grow.

 

There is an argument to include Toulouse in SL2 from the start, but they are not exactly new, or expansion.  They have a firm base already.

[Northern Sol]

Agreed.

Crusaders may well be there on merit. The same for Toulouse.

But for Skolars or Hemel, it would be too much, too soon. No need to throw away their promise.

[keighley]

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?

 

indeed it would but a change that is long overdue.

[keighley]

There is better teams currently in the championship than them that would miss out. Also you talk about expansion but what about Cumbria? Their is 3 teams in the champ at this present time and they are all better than the four teams you have mentioned. I'm all for expansion but it as to be earned not just thrown in like Paris/crusaders were.

 

There is a lot to admire about Skolars, Hemel, Crusaders and Toulouse and even Gloucester, South Wales and Oxford.

 

By the same token, there are any number of older championship clubs who are also worthy of admiration. They are also playing in better facilities and playing to better crowds, with the exception of the Crusaders, than the first group e.g Rochdale, Barrow, Workington, Doncaster, Leigh, Batley, Dewsbury and others. Even Oldham, in a very sub standard ground have attracted attendances much larger than their peers in Championship 1. Even Keighley are attracting attendances in the 6 to 900 range from the bottom half of the division.

 

How do you judge any one club more worthy of admiration and advancement to new divisions than others ? The league should not be picking favourites like that. Let them sort  out on the field and promote the best four, subject to minimum standards checks. The geographical location of the teams should not come in to it. Let the best teams take their place on merit.

[The Parksider]

No.  Artificially placing teams at a level that is currently beyond them has been proved time and again to be doomed to failure.  Paris, Gateshead, Celtic Crusdaders and sadly now London are 4 casualties too many.

 

With P&R these teams will find their level and have an opportunity to grow.

 

There is an argument to include Toulouse in SL2 from the start, but they are not exactly new, or expansion.  They have a firm base already.

 

Same old myth.

 

As long as Paris, Cru, London and Gateshead had money they did fine in SL.

 

Nobody has "grown" in the lower leagues, just survived.

 

The idea P & R helps club grow has no basis whatsoever unless you want to set out how it did so in the past.

[Griff]

There is better teams currently in the championship than them that would miss out. Also you talk about expansion but what about Cumbria? Their is 3 teams in the champ at this present time and they are all better than the four teams you have mentioned. I'm all for expansion but it as to be earned not just thrown in like Paris/crusaders were.

 

"Expansion" is surely a policy decision. It shouldn't be left to clubs to earn it.

 

Better teams missing out ?  Slip a club a few quid from central funds and they can always improve the team.

[Griff]

Same old myth.

 

As long as Paris, Cru, London and Gateshead had money they did fine in SL.

 

Nobody has "grown" in the lower leagues, just survived.

 

The idea P & R helps club grow has no basis whatsoever unless you want to set out how it did so in the past.

 

Agree.

[Ackroman]

Agree.

Sadly you ignore the fact that clubs like Fev have grown. Clubs like Leigh, Halifax, Dewsbury and Batley have better facilities and will continue to do so to the benefit of their fans and communities. Clubs like Sheffield are showing the potential they did in the 90's. Skolars are really moving forward, Oldham are climbing off the canvass, Rochdale is a secure little club ready to tap into it's community again. York have a new stadium in the pipeline, Crusaders are doing fantastically - it's like the RFL kissed a few frogs but actually got it right looking at North Wales not south.

 

The reason they have been static in terms of attracting punters, is a mindset in the supporters and the economic conditions. If we consider the new format for the game, the improving economic conditions and the fact that these clubs have invested, you can see a marked improvement from 10 years ago. The potential is much greater and the RFL have a duty to recognise the resiliance of it's lower level teams to "grow" despite (rather than because of) the structure of the game.

 

I therefore couldn't disagree more with you and Parksider.

[Griff]

Clubs like Sheffield are showing the potential they did in the 90's. .

 

Sheffield were in the same position in 1991/92 - top of the second tier behind a 14 team top division.

 

In 1991/92, their average crowd was just under 2500.  This year - so far - it's just under 1000.

 

How can you describe losing 60% of your fanbase as "growth" or "potential" ?

 

Or are we just looking at on the field performances ?

[Ackroman]

Sheffield were in the same position in 1991/92 - top of the second tier behind a 14 team top division.

 

In 1991/92, their average crowd was just under 2500.  This year - so far - it's just under 1000.

 

How can you describe losing 60% of your fanbase as "growth" or "potential" ?

 

Or are we just looking at on the field performances ?

What more do you want?

 

If you want to discount the loss of RFL status, and having to rebuild from scratch then that's up to you. If you want to discount the wandering nature of the club, then again go ahead. But despite all this they've gone and shown what the actual draw of Sheffield is .What they need to correct are a few factors that may pay dividends in an improving economic climate in a new league structure. Remember Sheffield's attendances will be boosted under the new system and you may see the same averages again.

 

Your problem I am sure is that history always dictates your opinion without the ability to extrapolate against future factors i.e this is what you were, therefore this what you will be. There's far too much of that washing around on here, but the fact remains there's generally a lot to be optimistic about, particularly for clubs like Sheffield. They have the ability to build on a very strong competitive side. If they can secure there future in a good facility then I think they could regain SL status under the 3x8.

 

I will admit that one factor against this happening is if the club don't want it but again that doesn't tap into the measured potential, just the limitations of it's administrators.

[Griff]

What more do you want?

 

 

Well, I'd rather like to avoid finding that my relatively successful on the field club has relocated to Huddersfield.

[The Parksider]

Sadly you ignore the fact that clubs like Fev have grown.

 

You ignore the fact the Fev chairman put very large sums of money in to rescue Fev from CC1, now very large sums of money are going in to rescue them from CC.

 

The idea that there's a virtuous cycle in which a club attracts paying fans, buys betters players, attracts more paying fans buys even better players, attracts even more paying fans still and attracts even better players still is nonsense and has never happened.

 

Show me where it has?

[Griff]

What more do you want?

 

If you want to discount the loss of RFL status, and having to rebuild from scratch then that's up to you. If you want to discount the wandering nature of the club, then again go ahead. But despite all this they've gone and shown what the actual draw of Sheffield is .What they need to correct are a few factors that may pay dividends in an improving economic climate in a new league structure. Remember Sheffield's attendances will be boosted under the new system and you may see the same averages again.

 

Your problem I am sure is that history always dictates your opinion without the ability to extrapolate against future factors i.e this is what you were, therefore this what you will be. There's far too much of that washing around on here, but the fact remains there's generally a lot to be optimistic about, particularly for clubs like Sheffield. They have the ability to build on a very strong competitive side. If they can secure there future in a good facility then I think they could regain SL status under the 3x8.

 

 

Actually, this deserves a better reply.

 

You say that I wish to discount the loss of RFL status and having to rebuild from scratch.  On the contrary - those events of 1999 were caused by exactly the sort of misplaced optimism that you advocate.  "Win the Cup and they will come."  Fourteen years ago, we weren't in recession - the economic climate is not significantly worse than that of today.

 

You say that Sheffield's attendances will be boosted by the new system.  Will they ?  That remains to be seen.

 

I find that history is actually a very good guide to what might happen in the future.  What is so different in the future ?  A new, complex competition structure ?  Is that really enough to bring fans flooding back ?  Sheffield just need to increase their gates by 1500% to get back to where they were 20+ years ago.........

[keighley]

Same old myth.

 

As long as Paris, Cru, London and Gateshead had money they did fine in SL.

 

Nobody has "grown" in the lower leagues, just survived.

 

The idea P & R helps club grow has no basis whatsoever unless you want to set out how it did so in the past.

 

Huddersfield, Hull KR, Hull, Wakefield, Featherstone ( from CC1),

[keighley]

Sheffield were in the same position in 1991/92 - top of the second tier behind a 14 team top division.

 

In 1991/92, their average crowd was just under 2500.  This year - so far - it's just under 1000.

 

How can you describe losing 60% of your fanbase as "growth" or "potential" ?

 

Or are we just looking at on the field performances ?

 

 It's not the same club is it. The Sheffield Eagles were destroyed to bail out Huddersfield and have had to start from scratch in CC1 and have grown from that nadir to their present position.

[Griff]

Huddersfield, Hull KR, Hull, Wakefield, Featherstone ( from CC1),

 

Just having a benefactor chipping in millions is not "growing".

[Griff]

 It's not the same club is it. The Sheffield Eagles were destroyed to bail out Huddersfield and have had to start from scratch in CC1 and have grown from that nadir to their present position.

 

Ah - that's not fair, Keighley.  Eagles overstretched themselves, living the dream, the backer got fed up with subsidising the club and Huddersfield took over the assets - largely the playing staff which was much better than theirs at the time.

 

What they didn't take was the fanbase - the customers, if you prefer.  It wasn't like Eagles 2000 Ltd started with no supporters at all, as we did in 1984.

 

Not the same club ?  Well, that's a moot point.  I always think that the club is the fanbase.  It's the one thing that is, largely, unchanging.  Players, coaches, admin staff, directors and backers all come and go.

[keighley]

You ignore the fact the Fev chairman put very large sums of money in to rescue Fev from CC1, now very large sums of money are going in to rescue them from CC.

 

The idea that there's a virtuous cycle in which a club attracts paying fans, buys betters players, attracts more paying fans buys even better players, attracts even more paying fans still and attracts even better players still is nonsense and has never happened.

 

Show me where it has?

 

Not without financing added to the mix. on the other hand, without finacing it hasn't happened in SL either. Show me where it has ?

[The Parksider]

Just having a benefactor chipping in millions is not "growing".

 

Not in the sense of the growing from the bottom up myth of course not.

 

The  examples are all confused anyway. Campbells money got Fev out of CC1 Davey's money has taken Fartown to the top, Richardson's money took Wakey up and when it ran out Wakey collapsed. Hudgell puts in wedges of half a million.

 

Hull didn't have a rich benefactor but a stadium on a plate has helped them get back to what they once were, but they're a ci=uople of thousand fans short of that.

 

It's a gold plated myth that you can grow an RL club ever upwards without heavy investment that delivers no return to the investor therefore making it in essence a gift.

 

Growth from the bottom all the way up to the top with no gifts? Never been done since Victorian days when clubs started and await a modern day example.

[The Parksider]

Without finacing it hasn't happened in SL either. Show me where it has ?

 

Put any club in SL and the gates go up significantly. Want a long list??

[keighley]

Actually, this deserves a better reply.

 

You say that I wish to discount the loss of RFL status and having to rebuild from scratch.  On the contrary - those events of 1999 were caused by exactly the sort of misplaced optimism that you advocate.  "Win the Cup and they will come."  Fourteen years ago, we weren't in recession - the economic climate is not significantly worse than that of today.

 

You say that Sheffield's attendances will be boosted by the new system.  Will they ?  That remains to be seen.

 

I find that history is actually a very good guide to what might happen in the future.  What is so different in the future ?  A new, complex competition structure ?  Is that really enough to bring fans flooding back ?  Sheffield just need to increase their gates by 1500% to get back to where they were 20+ years ago.........

 

 So, on the basis of history then Swinton, hunslet. Oldham and Workington will soon be back at the top of SL sweeping all befiore them.

[Griff]

 So, on the basis of history then Swinton, hunslet. Oldham and Workington will soon be back at the top of SL sweeping all befiore them.

 

You need to be a bit more selective than reading the honours board.

[keighley]

Ah - that's not fair, Keighley.  Eagles overstretched themselves, living the dream, the backer got fed up with subsidising the club and Huddersfield took over the assets - largely the playing staff which was much better than theirs at the time.

 

What they didn't take was the fanbase - the customers, if you prefer.  It wasn't like Eagles 2000 Ltd started with no supporters at all, as we did in 1984.

 

Not the same club ?  Well, that's a moot point.  I always think that the club is the fanbase.  It's the one thing that is, largely, unchanging.  Players, coaches, admin staff, directors and backers all come and go.

 

 Huddersfield took the million pounds on offer from the RFl for mergers. How much of that went to the eagles?

[Ackroman]

Actually, this deserves a better reply.

 

1. You say that I wish to discount the loss of RFL status and having to rebuild from scratch.  On the contrary - those events of 1999 were caused by exactly the sort of misplaced optimism that you advocate.  "Win the Cup and they will come." 

 

2. Fourteen years ago, we weren't in recession - the economic climate is not significantly worse than that of today.

 

3. You say that Sheffield's attendances will be boosted by the new system.  Will they ?  That remains to be seen.

 

4. I find that history is actually a very good guide to what might happen in the future.  What is so different in the future ?  A new, complex competition structure ?  Is that really enough to bring fans flooding back ?  Sheffield just need to increase their gates by 1500% to get back to where they were 20+ years ago.........

 

1. If I have misplaced optimism then you're a pessimist 

 

2. I am completely at a loss as to your economic comparisons of 14 years ago. Were we in recession or not? Is it worse or not? well clearly it is worse, much, much worse than 1999.

 

3. Being a pessimist you can't grasp what a positive attitude can bring.

 

4. I didn't realise Sheffield's gates were 15,000 back then so maybe you have a point after all.