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

[Griff]

 

It's noticeable that the posts are now all  about money,  Surprise Surprise ! I thought this was all about the good of the game,

 

 

How is being short of money good for the game ?

 

And that post's a bit rich coming from a supporter of one of most heavily subsidised clubs in the league.

[Griff]

yes but it was free....if you've paid you will be more inclined to go!

if you are locked out from a free ticket its unfortunate, if you are locked out from a ticket you have paid for its amateurish and quite possibly criminal!

 

What ?

 

Paid ?   You think I'm suggesting you pay an optional separate fee for the Cup ticket ?

 

Get real and move on ........

[Widnesbernie]

toulouse and 1 from championship maybe

Thats 2 down & 1 up & 1 in.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Widnesbernie

[DAZROVER1985]

Thats 2 down & 1 up & 1 in.

very true

[jpmc]

I often thought i'd like to see a system were the home club sends "lets say" 1000 tickets to the away club for them to sell,be it in the league or cup games.

The away club then gets to keep all the proceeds,whether they sell them for a fiver or more,that way every away club has a incentive to sell as many tickets as they possibly can for every game

[The Parksider]

Despite the attractiveness of the top eight fixtures, I think the constant repetition, multiple times in a single season, with little variation and new or different opponents could well result in boredom

 

Your alternative is what? 14 clubs unsustainable....

Edited January 10, 2014 by The Parksider

[DAZROVER1985]

Despite the attractiveness of the middle eight fixtures, I think the constant repetition, multiple times in a single season, with little variation and new or different opponents could well result in boredom

Despite the attractiveness of the third eight fixtures, I think the constant repetition, multiple times in a single season, with little variation and new or different opponents could well result in boredom

doesnt that sum up the current set up in super league though?

[Keith T]

At one point there was an eight team 2nd division with a larger 1st and 2rd Division and the teams played each other 4 times and , as I recall, the attendances in that 2nd tier were very poor.

 

As I recall it the average attendance wasn't too bad but the crowds lessened as the season went on.    Carlisle played Workington either 6 or 7 times that season and it got very boring even though they were local derbies.

[The Parksider]

doesn't that sum up the current set up in super league though?

 

Fev.v.Halifax x4 and sheffield,v,Leigh x4 2012

[DAZROVER1985]

Fev.v.Halifax x4 and sheffield,v,Leigh x4 2012

yes and the championship, which is why the sport needs invigorating

[The Parksider]

I agree with your general premise, but not so sure on the potential increase in attendance being sustained for the super 8.   No evidence but purely speculation of playing the teams so many times may dilute desire to always attend as the seasons go over the years. 

 

That is will play each team  x3 times minimal, one team at least x4 times taking account of magic weekend.  Then have the final top 4 play-off round will mean at least 4^th time played that team and possible x5 times depending on magic weekend. 

 

Kind of a choice between watching Leeds play Bradford again or watching Leeds put 80 on London.

 

Leeds/Bradford  2003 & 2004......10 meetings.......lowest crowd 19,786

[The Parksider]

yes and the championship, which is why the sport needs invigorating

 

I know what it needs.

 

So how would you invigorate it?

 

As soon as any division starts to get too big the 60,70,80 point matches start

[redjonn]

Kind of a choice between watching Leeds play Bradford again or watching Leeds put 80 on London.

 

Leeds/Bradford  2003 & 2004......10 meetings.......lowest crowd 19,786

 

maybe i'm wrong but I did say it was speculation for what may happen over the years of playing the same team at least x4 times. sometimes x5 times, year in year out over more than 2 years.

 

I may not be the average fan but it will affect my attendance as to whether having seen it so often I'll do one of the other things I like doing... but your evidence over x2 years may be the same over x5 years.....  time will tell.... mind you if every game was vital and had me on the edge of me seat I may think differently. But reality is not many games will be vital....

Edited January 10, 2014 by redjonn

[DAZROVER1985]

I know what it needs.

So how would you invigorate it?

As soon as any division starts to get too big the 60,70,80 point matches start

i honestly don't know, I'm hoping the powers that be know and I would hope the clubs back them

[The Parksider]

I may not be the average fan but it will affect my attendance as to whether having seen it so often I'll do one of the other things I like doing... but your evidence over x2 years may be the same over x5 years.....  time will tell.... mind you if every game was vital and had me on the edge of me seat I may think differently. But reality is not many games will be vital....

 

Stretch the league to 20 and get loads of mind numbingly dull blowouts, compress it to 8 and get up to 4,5,6 meetings a season.

 

The balance was 14 clubs play each other twice, but cup, millenium magic and play offs still end with clubs playing 4 times e.g. Leeds.v.Wigan 4 times last year lowest crowd 14,600.

 

If we have to repeat anything at least repeat things that are quality and competitive and attractive.

[Lobbygobbler]

crusaders would have auto gone up with 2up....its widnes who wouldnt be there now!!!

Thats possibly true and it would have been mych better fanwise if theyd gone up promoted rather than gifted. We'll never know as ludicrous licensing came in about half way through the season and some clubs in that division gave up I think. If it had been all to play for who knows.....

[GIANTSTRIDES]

How is being short of money good for the game ?

 

And that post's a bit rich coming from a supporter of one of most heavily subsidised clubs in the league.

 

 

You are correct being short of money is not good for the game. I didn't know i had suggested it was. My point was that the thread was about the new structure of the game , Or both sides of the argument for it . It now seems to have been accepted as a given, and the argument has shifted to money from crowds.

 

 Whether crowds will be up or down 500 here or there, does not address the question of where the clubs get the required £3.5 million every year , Which is what they need to compete at the top. The alternative seems to be as Parky keeps repeating, A 8 team SL playing each other over and over , and a lower level second tear.

 

Desirable as crowds are they are secondary to the Sky contract, because if that is not delivered to Skys satisfaction it won't matter what the crowds are, And only IMO of course, Playing teams 4/5 times a year is not going to be particularly pleasing for them any more than for the fans.

 

If you had read many of my posts you would know i have well covered how lucky i concider  the Giants have been, But it proves that in their case, Crowds have not been the deciding factor in their limited success.

[Dave T]

Toulouse seem think that they are already in for 2015. How does that work with 2 up & 2 down? 

 

http://www.superleague2015.to13.com/

Really? They think they are in?

[keighley]

No, they weren't.  On the contrary, they were very good.

 

I am not going to argue because I don 't have the facts at my disposal but, from memory the division suffered from having some not so well supported teams in it and that, plus the repetitive nature of the fixtures resulted In some poor attendances. As I recall some of the teams were Swinton, Carlisle, Rochdale and London and the attendances were poor.

 

I have searched the net and the books at my disposal but can't find the averages for the two seasons this system was in operation which was 1990/91  and 1992/93.

[keighley]

Your alternative is what? 14 clubs unsustainable....

 

Well, it would seem that we are between a rock and a hard place if my belief is correct. On the one hand, you believe 14 clubs are unsustainable but if an 8 team league causes malaise and declining interest, then that might become unsustainable also. 

 

p and r on a conventional model might be a better bet because it would sustain interest by changing the makeup of the league producing new, unusual fixtures, maybe even new derbys and also the money to be found by the CC clubs might be more sustainable than some constant cellar dwelling team who had exhausted it's financial resources.

 

This model would guarantee promotion if standards were also met whereas the 3 x8 system does not guarantee promotion and, indeed, would seem to be stacked against the Championship clubs in terms of resources available to, pursue success in the middle eight.

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

os correct

[keighley]

As I recall it the average attendance wasn't too bad but the crowds lessened as the season went on.    Carlisle played Workington either 6 or 7 times that season and it got very boring even though they were local derbies.

 

My point exactly.

[keighley]

Kind of a choice between watching Leeds play Bradford again or watching Leeds put 80 on London.

 

Leeds/Bradford  2003 & 2004......10 meetings.......lowest crowd 19,786

 

10 years ago. What were the figures for this last season ? No where near 20,000, I'll bet.

[The Parksider]

Well, it would seem that we are between a rock and a hard place if my belief is correct. On the one hand, you believe 14 clubs are unsustainable but if an 8 team league causes malaise and declining interest, then that might become unsustainable also. 

 

Firstly I don't advocate an 8 team league, it's you who keeps suggesting I do. I know for a fact the Superleague bosses who have the accounts say SL is unsustainable at 14. The best evidence is the sight of scratch teams at Salford and London shipping in 1,900 points before average gates of 2,600

 

I do "believe" it doesn't threfore follow that Superleague is sustainable at 12. Above those clubs you have two relatively big sides in Bradford and Wakefield both capable of big crowds, in administration and both coming out of administration and straight back into debt.

 

Next up are two clubs one heavily in debt to their directors with the asset of their ground at risk, because they couldn't sell it for enough to secure a modern venue that doesn't eat money. Then another club who have spent money on their ground to hopefully entertain more fans whilst at the same time leaking their best players to predatory clubs. Two more major accidents "waiting to happen". You say......

 

"P and r on a conventional model might be a better bet because it would sustain interest by changing the makeup of the league producing new, unusual fixtures, maybe even new derbys and also the money to be found by the CC clubs might be more sustainable than some constant cellar dwelling team who had exhausted it's financial resources.

 

There's no interest in P & R for the umpteenth time, all the interest is in top class elite RL. There's no money at the CC clubs again for the umpteenth time. The last money I heard was a Wonga loan from Nahaboo to Featherstone, which they spent.

Edited January 11, 2014 by The Parksider

[The Parksider]

You are correct being short of money is not good for the game. I didn't know i had suggested it was. My point was that the thread was about the new structure of the game , Or both sides of the argument for it . It now seems to have been accepted as a given, and the argument has shifted to money from crowds.

 

 Whether crowds will be up or down 500 here or there, does not address the question of where the clubs get the required £3.5 million every year , Which is what they need to compete at the top. The alternative seems to be as Parky keeps repeating, A 8 team SL playing each other over and over.

 

I never ever said that my old Claret and Gold Fartowner friend. The required money is £6,000,000 per club which is roughly what the big six clubs Hull, Saints, Wire, Cats, Leeds and Wigan turn over. Diluting that isn't an option unless you want more top players walking away.

 

Nobody can show me a Championship club capable of that proper SL level of spend. What their fans do is predict that Championship clubs will find very rich owners (excited by P & R) and they will become one overnight. Your own club is exactly that. In 2007 you finally made the play offs in Superleague attracting 7,068 fans.

 

Ken's pumped the £Millions in to keep the investment going since and the return over the last seven years has been no trophies and a drop in crowds to 6,368. As I understand it Featherstone Rovers are now adopting that business plan due to their mentor having "Money coming out of his ears". Salford are on the very same business plan which doesn't require an audience.

 

Far from the fans being "Important" being people who "should have a say" who should "cast votes" they are actually totally  irrelevant in terms of the Marwan Koukash, Ken Davey and Faisal Nahaboo business plan.

 

If you want an SL with the strongest "real world" business plan it looks like 10 clubs @ £6,000,0000 spread out across the M62 and southern france. That's the customer choice if anyone want's Elite RL. Every penny goes into that. Fans can take it or leave it and go watch their supporters run club, or their local amateur club.

 

Sure they play each other 3 times at least, but that's been going on for years and years. It's a problem yes.

[The Parksider]

I may not be the average fan but it will affect my attendance as to whether having seen it so often I'll do one of the other things I like doing... but your evidence over x2 years may be the same over x5 years.....  time will tell.... mind you if every game was vital and had me on the edge of me seat I may think differently. But reality is not many games will be vital....

 

Firstly what you may have found at Leeds is that there's nothing "Vital" about most of the games at Headingley. As long as the team is winning enough games to be in the mix, the club isn't that bothered because the season starts in July when you have to try to up your game, get into form "at the right time of the season" (something Nobby taught Mac) then the real "vital" business starts.

 

I don't view RL games as "meaningless" in an attempt to justify P & R and I don't think you should fall for that. The records and the facts are clear, failure and second tier RL is "meaningless" to people.

 

When we know who will win the trophies then it renders most games meaningless but somehow tens of thousands of fans turn out for "meaningless".

 

All spectator sport is entertainment . I think the reality is people want big games, close games and a good positive night out watching top class players in front of great crowds. If they didn't them why do they buy so many season tickets for it.

 

I am aware of the repetitivenss of fixtures we have if we have too few teams, but the solution to a hitch in a good plan is not to abandon the plan but to sort it.

 

The first thing I'd look at is abandoning Millenium and saving all the costs of that, and putting on three double header league games. Hull.v.Wakefield, Leeds.v.Bradford at Elland Road with a seven comp?

 

Saints.v.Wigan, Warrington.v.Widnes at a big Lancashire soccer ground?? Toulouse.v.Les Catalans in wherever?? This could up the profits on league games, create showcase games, and cut out one of the third fixtures.

 

Then again we could bring back P & R.