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

[southstand loiner]

ask simmo  he has the answer for most things

I rely on his judgements and live my life by them .

 

right just off to throw myself under a train

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Whats the point of the league games? May as well just have the play off also where will the play off be played and who will bother going? Will they have a trophy to lift after the game? ?

To qualify for the play-offs (like it's always been, and like it is in Australia)?

 

The top six of the middle 8 will be current SL sides therefore a current championship side will never be in that position!

First of there's no guarantee that will be the case, that's a huge assumption. In fact, we have no idea if London will be around, let alone good enough to be in the mix in 2015.

Secondly, the 6 won't be current SL clubs that year. There's no guarantee that the two SL clubs that are relegated will be the two best clubs in the Championship. There  could be huge transition issues. There's certainly no guarantee that they always will be.

 

If London who were woeful last year beat Sheffield( who won the second division) comfortabley in Sheffield, then I would imagine it's a forgone conclusion. ..it just depends on what the order is!

Also what would be better..

To qualify for the top12 to get beat every week or to be in the bottom 12 and win every week?

Regardless of which side of the split you would be guaranteed to be in the middle 8

Again, you cant keep making assumptions like this. Sport just doesn't work that way. That argument is as good as me saying Featherstone beat Castleford the other year, so it's a forgone conclusion that they'd beat all the teams below Castleford in the league that year.

 

To say you'd be beaten every week one way or win every week the other way isn't even worth arguing because that's not exactly a choice. Has that ever happened?

 

The idea is to gradually work your way up from the middle 8 to the top 8. But according to your logic, no team will ever progress above what they are currently at. Ever.

[Griff]

If London who were woeful last year beat Sheffield( who won the second division) comfortably in Sheffield, then I would imagine it's a forgone conclusion. ..it just depends on what the order is!

 

Well, that might be true if London were starting the season in the top division.

 

But two of them won't be, will they ?  Two of them will be ex-$uperleague sides who may fail to attract - or afford - the likes of Jamie Soward to pop over for half a season.

 

I agree that the four top division sides are likely to be favourites for the top four Middle-Eight places, but the ex-$uperleague sides to be fifth and sixth ?  That's a much bigger assumption, imho.

[keighley]

You still seem to be on the conspiracy theory that the RFL/SLE (your "Powers in the Land") have it in for the poor championship clubs. Remember the Championship clubs are where they are because of their own failings during 10 years of P & R from 1996 to 2006.

 

The deck is stacked against them because they cannot get the same handout  as their SL counterparts. This is down to SKY very understandably not being prepared to allow the game to water itself down, and spend the TV contract meant to underpin a high standard of "TV product" on the second tier

 

Martyn Sadler set out in LE how the relegation of two SL clubs could destroy them so no protectionism of those poor souls. Beyond that we will see just how strong the bottom four SL clubs are against the CC clubs but out of your list at least one CC club is claiming they will have the money to make the transition.

 

After it all settles down we may well see the deck stacked against the four CC clubs leading to the play offs being something of going through the motions, but in the opening season or two there's some sorting out to happen which will be very interesting.

 

What I'll be looking for is whether the mighty KPMG's declaration of bigger crowds will come to pass.

Poor performance or not, their own fault or not is not the problem. The problem is that they have no chance to rectify or recover because there is no avenue for advancement and redemption by promotion. As for the fate of relegated clubs, well as you so glibly cast blame at CC clubs of it being their own fault, well any relegated club can be held to the same measure, it will be their own fault for poor performance and or financial competence but mostly poor on field performance.

[Lobbygobbler]

With regards to comparisons with the NRL, perhaps rugby league in Australia would be far bigger with P&R and a pyramid structure. My understanding is that although RL is top dog in NSW and Q it isnt that hugely supported like soccer is here. Also from what I've read it isnt anywhere near as tribal as soccer or RL is here perhaps because there are no lower teams which can rise up

[Griff]

Is "more tribal" a good thing ?

[Lobbygobbler]

Is "more tribal" a good thing ?

IMO yes and has kept many clubs afloat during bad times

[Griff]

Well, it's an opinion I can't disprove.

 

Maybe they have smaller gates because there are only about 22 million people there, covering an area the size of Europe.

[Keith T]

Why does it have to be fair (as in everyone getting an equal chance)? Can't it be weighted depending on where you finish?

1st in KPC - 3 home v KPC, 1 vs SL

2nd in KPC - 2 home v KPC, 2 vs SL

3rd in KPC - 1 home v KPC, 3 vs SL

4th in KPC - 0 home vs KPC, 4 vs SL

9th in SL - 3 home v KPC, 0 vs SL

10th in SL - 2 home v KPC, 1 vs SL

11th in SL - 1 home v KPC, 2 vs SL

12th in SL - 0 home vs KPC, 3 vs SL

Think that works out.

Hang on, thinking out loud here!...

Week 1 - C1vC2, C3vC4, SL10vSL9, SL12vSL11

Week 2 - SL9vC1, C2vC3, C4vSL12, SL11vSL10

Week 3 - C1vC3, SL9vC2, C4vSL11, SL12vSL10

Week 4 - SL10vC1, C2vC4, C3vSL12, SL11vSL9

Week 5 - C1vC4, SL10vC2, C3vSL11, SL12vSL9

Week 6 - SL11vC1, C2vSL12, SL9vC3, C4vSL10

Week 7 - C1vSL12, C2vSL11, C3vSL10, C4vSL9

 

 

 

As I implied totally unbalanced and generally unfair to some clubs.    It has already been stated by the RFL that the Championship clubs will have four home games which tends to suggest they see some unfairness and wish to try to balance things up a bit.    However, when you get down to it with the fixtures, it still comes out unfair to some and more than fair to others!!!

[yipyee]

To qualify for the play-offs (like it's always been, and like it is in Australia)?

First of there's no guarantee that will be the case, that's a huge assumption. In fact, we have no idea if London will be around, let alone good enough to be in the mix in 2015.

Secondly, the 6 won't be current SL clubs that year. There's no guarantee that the two SL clubs that are relegated will be the two best clubs in the Championship. There could be huge transition issues. There's certainly no guarantee that they always will be.

Again, you cant keep making assumptions like this. Sport just doesn't work that way. That argument is as good as me saying Featherstone beat Castleford the other year, so it's a forgone conclusion that they'd beat all the teams below Castleford in the league that year.

To say you'd be beaten every week one way or win every week the other way isn't even worth arguing because that's not exactly a choice. Has that ever happened?

The idea is to gradually work your way up from the middle 8 to the top 8. But according to your logic, no team will ever progress above what they are currently at. Ever.

Australia don't have a middle 8 and there will be no pkay offs! (Middle

When a team go down and stay pro they win every game (as good as, Huddersfield, cas)

A side comes up and gets smashed every week leigh, crusaders year 1, catalan year1...

The two relegated clubs would stay pro and therefore be the best in the champion ship

And finally my logic is sound, the top8 will be a closed shop as will the middle 8 unless a millionaire comes to a small club, when the millionaire walks away the small club will find its natural place (which is the whole point of P&R)......

[yipyee]

Well, that might be true if London were starting the season in the top division.

But two of them won't be, will they ? Two of them will be ex-$uperleague sides who may fail to attract - or afford - the likes of Jamie Soward to pop over for half a season.

I agree that the four top division sides are likely to be favourites for the top four Middle-Eight places, but the ex-$uperleague sides to be fifth and sixth ? That's a much bigger assumption, imho.

I agree on the face of it but if Hughes stays the can afford whoever they can tempt! IMO any relegated team will stay pro to bounce back the following year what will probably happen is the same six teams sharing the championship two positions. ...how long can fev operate at fully pro to attempt to break into this cartel? For me that is the only exciting thing about this whole system, I would prefer them to be given 3years in SL proper, but hey ho

[yipyee]

Is "more tribal" a good thing ?

No

It leads to hatred and violence in the name of a team! Shouldn't be part of our game!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

As I implied totally unbalanced and generally unfair to some clubs. It has already been stated by the RFL that the Championship clubs will have four home games which tends to suggest they see some unfairness and wish to try to balance things up a bit. However, when you get down to it with the fixtures, it still comes out unfair to some and more than fair to others!!!

Why is it unfair? It's weighted for a reason: that reason being where you finish in the league.

The Championship clubs get four home games because they finished top of their competition. They achieved and are rewarded.

The SL clubs get less because they finished bottom of their competition. They failed and have to take the consequence.

After that, who you play is dependent on where you finish. You are rewarded with "easier" ties at home the higher you finish. You are punished with more challenging home fixtures the lower you finish.

What's unfair about that?

Why should it be perfectly balanced? If it was balanced, what's the insensitive to finish higher in the league you're in? If you're 12th with a few weeks to go and know you can't make the 8, why would you want to finish higher if it made no difference at the next stage? Unless you're only drawing one team from each competition to form a play-off, I personally believe there SHOULD be an imbalance to the way the format is presented to reward where you finish.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Australia don't have a middle 8 and there will be no pkay offs! (Middle

You miss my point.

In Australia, they finish with a play-off series. So what's the point of the league games? It's your same question applied to your preferred option. If you can't answer it in a way that wouldn't apply to the other proposed option, you can't use it as an argument against it!

When a team go down and stay pro they win every game (as good as, Huddersfield, cas)

Err... No they don't.

Huddersfield played very well, and won all but one game in a different league format to what there is today. That aside, no other team has won anywhere near. When Cas first went down, they didn't even win the League Leaders Shield. When Widnes and Leigh went down, they didn't even win promotion the year after. And for the majority of 2007, Widnes looked like they'd be promoted over Cas.

So no, your statement doesn't hold water. It's a very ill-informed opinion and factually incorrect.

A side comes up and gets smashed every week leigh, crusaders year 1, catalan year1...

Widnes year 1? Hull KR? Huddersfield 2003? Salford 2004?

You can't just pick and choose what facts you're going to use and ignore others.

The two relegated clubs would stay pro and therefore be the best in the champion ship

Err... no, that doesn't mean they'd be the best in the Championship. If other clubs in the Championship go full time, why wouldn't they compete?

2005 saw two teams relegated: Widnes and Leigh. Both stayed full time I believe. Neither won promotion. So that blows your theory out of the water completely.

And finally my logic is sound, the top8 will be a closed shop as will the middle 8 unless a millionaire comes to a small club, when the millionaire walks away the small club will find its natural place (which is the whole point of P&R)......

If your logic was sound, there wouldn't be so many flaws in it for me to point out.

We hear it every year regarding this "closed shop". I remember when everyone used to say that the top 6 would be some order of Leeds, Wigan, Bradford, Saints, Hull and Warrington as they were clearly the biggest clubs. Tell me, how many times have those 6 clubs finished in the top 6 in the same season?

This "closed shop" is a myth.

[The Parksider]

IMO any relegated team will stay pro to bounce back the following year.......

 

Steady, as I say Mr. Sadler has looked at this and takes an informed view certain clubs if relegated could be decimated financially.

[yipyee]

You miss my point.

In Australia, they finish with a play-off series. So what's the point of the league games? It's your same question applied to your preferred option. If you can't answer it in a way that wouldn't apply to the other proposed option, you can't use it as an argument against it!

The middle 8 aren't having a playoff series so that rules your ramblings as nonsense. .....

Err... No they don't.

Huddersfield played very well, and won all but one game in a different league format to what there is today. That aside, no other team has won anywhere near. When Cas first went down, they didn't even win the League Leaders Shield. When Widnes and Leigh went down, they didn't even win promotion the year after. And for the majority of 2007, Widnes looked like they'd be promoted over Cas.

So no, your statement doesn't hold water. It's a very ill-informed opinion and factually incorrect.

Widnes year 1? Hull KR? Huddersfield 2003? Salford 2004?

You can't just pick and choose what facts you're going to use and ignore others.

Ha 2 clubs went down then licensing began again you are wrong, also you forgot Salford so again you are picking and choosing and as you point out in your first ramblings this then counters yourself and a tad hypocritical. ...

Err... no, that doesn't mean they'd be the best in the Championship. If other clubs in the Championship go full time, why wouldn't they compete?

2005 saw two teams relegated: Widnes and Leigh. Both stayed full time I believe. Neither won promotion. So that blows your theory out of the water completely.

Errm hat trick time, unless a millionaire came in and financed full time then it wouldn't happen so no it is you sir who has been blown out of the water!

If your logic was sound, there wouldn't be so many flaws in it for me to point out.

We hear it every year regarding this "closed shop". I remember when everyone used to say that the top 6 would be some order of Leeds, Wigan, Bradford, Saints, Hull and Warrington as they were clearly the biggest clubs. Tell me, how many times have those 6 clubs finished in the top 6 in the same season?

This "closed shop" is a myth.

If its a myth then why do they keep changing the rules to protect the top clubs! Whelan was prepared to pay a club to not apply for super league if wigan finished bottom. ...and the RFL would have let them! ! Funnily the clubs you quote as not being big clubs in a closed shop are just that! You can't see the wood for the trees!!

[yipyee]

Steady, as I say Mr. Sadler has looked at this and takes an informed view certain clubs if relegated could be decimated financially.

Yes but certain clubs. ...if say widnes and Castleford they will be okay in the championship, London maybe not, but who knows if hughes would keep bankrolling them?

At this stage it's all hypothetical but if they gambled that the first part of the season would be a loss but the 7 games would bring in income then it would not cripple them. ...

What i am certain of is that we will end up with three leagues with very little movement!

[The Parksider]

Yes but certain clubs. ...if say widnes and Castleford they will be okay in the championship, London maybe not, but who knows if hughes would keep bankrolling them?

 

 

You've named one club who could be wiped out by relegation according to Mr. Sadler, and although London fit that bill it wasn't them he mentioned. There is also the fact that rich club owners want Superleague so when they lose that what is there to make us assume they will stay on, what if they just take their money back out? A couple of chairmen of SL clubs who have realised their ambitions and established their clubs in SL have been posturing by "standing down". Is Mr. Nahaboo really going to put £Millions in. I think he's managed £100K so far. What will happen will be fascinating, but it would be sad if CC clubs get in Superleague via the administration of others.

Edited December 23, 2013 by The Parksider

[Trojan]

If its a myth then why do they keep changing the rules to protect the top clubs! Whelan was prepared to pay a club to not apply for super league if wigan finished bottom. ...and the RFL would have let them! ! Funnily the clubs you quote as not being big clubs in a closed shop are just that! You can't see the wood for the trees!!

They effectively did this, outbidding Cas for Michael Dobson, and thus exceeding the salary cap, Cas were relegated.

[Griff]

I agree on the face of it but if Hughes stays the can afford whoever they can tempt! IMO any relegated team will stay pro to bounce back the following year what will probably happen is the same six teams sharing the championship two positions. ...how long can fev operate at fully pro to attempt to break into this cartel? For me that is the only exciting thing about this whole system, I would prefer them to be given 3years in SL proper, but hey ho

 

If, if, if ...... more assumptions then.

 

Fev can operate at fully pro so long as the finance is there.  That's always the bottom line.

[gingerjon]

If, if, if ...... more assumptions then.

Fev can operate at fully pro so long as the finance is there. That's always the bottom line.

Anyone can operate full time if the finance is there

[GaryO]

 There is also the fact that rich club owners want Superleague so when they lose that what is there to make us assume they will stay on, what if they just take their money back out? A couple of chairmen of SL clubs who have realised their ambitions and established their clubs in SL have been posturing by "standing down". 

 

C’mon Parky, there are chairmen in all the clubs in the Pro/Semi Pro leagues and they know there place by the size of their bank balance, a person with interest in investing in a club who has only say a couple of million in collateral should never choose a SL club as an entry point in Chairmanship.

 

I would assume that the richer one is the more ambition they have to get to the top, and that obviously means staying in SL. This objective together with affordability is a “game within a game” played out with and for this group of wealthy people. It’s all about who has the shiniest penny, that coin becoming tarnished or losing interest, or lack of time/ambition would lose them from the sport. To lose SL status would mean they would no longer be in the big boys club and it would be tantamount to failure, which usually does not sit with the ethos of these successful men, and to quote a group of very prosperous individuals would probably say “I’m Out”  

 

What will happen will be fascinating, but it would be sad if CC clubs get in Superleague via the administration of others.

 

You really surprise me with this statement, if a club loses it’s backing for whatever the reason and cannot pay it’s way and ends up in administration yes it will be sad, but not sad to the point of them being replaced by a club who at the time would be buoyant and deserving of their shot at the big league.

 

Seems like you are advocating a real Closed Shop and the member clubs of the first 8 should be protected financially whatever the situation they find themselves in, very much like some opinions I have read on here in another thread re a certain “Big City” club in West Yorkshire. 

[Griff]

Anyone can operate full time if the finance is there

 

Exactly the point I'm making.  At the moment Fev have the promise of finance.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

If its a myth then why do they keep changing the rules to protect the top clubs! Whelan was prepared to pay a club to not apply for super league if wigan finished bottom. ...and the RFL would have let them! ! Funnily the clubs you quote as not being big clubs in a closed shop are just that! You can't see the wood for the trees!!

Errr... what?

The rules are changed in favour of the top clubs? I'm pretty sure this argument is about opening up the SL, and this not in favour of the top clubs?

You think the RFL should have lost all its integrity by letting a club pay to change the rules? What an awful idea. What next? The RFL should have let him pay to be in the Grand Final? (Only the big clubs should be in the finals).

And what clubs are big clubs in a closed shop? Are the League Leaders part if this closed shop? Or should a bigger club be allowed to buy their place out?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I can't believe there are people that still want this "half way house" that is licensing. It's not P&R and it's not franchising. It is killing the Super League. Clubs are in more trouble than ever financially. We haven't got a sponsor. Crowds are going down.

Can someone remind me what the point of licensing was again and whether it has achieved any of its goals over 5 years?!