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

[keighley]

Nope - doesn't work for me that. Unless your headline is:-

 

"P & R  will expand new markets in the game, and expand former markets by changing the participants of Superleague"

 

There's never anything behind these empty headlines. Nobody has to explain their theories of course, but again I'd like to know how changing Leeds, Wigan, Hull, Catalans, Warrington and Saints for say Oxford Gloucester, Sheffield, Keighley, Leigh and Featherstone will expand the market for the game.......Without destroying the market and infrastructure of the big clubs for a massive nett loss? Any takers or is that it for the debate now?

 

Anyhow today Martyn Sadler would like a system of P & R in which over 3 years you have to win the grand final and then all the GF winners play off for the three yearly SL place whilst all the SL losers over the three years play off to avoid the relegation place.

 

Simple, easy for the fans to understand and fair (??), after all it can relegate a club with money and replace it with a club without money, trapping that latter club to a possible disasterous three year stint - a la London Broncos.

 

The sight of poor Broncos having to stitch together a "club" just to see the 3 years out one would have thought would be proof enough this sort of thing is no good. Still clubs could refuse promotion in which if that happened we'd go six years with nothing.

 

The massive financial gap between the Elite and the rest prevents any results based system working for me.

In theory Wigan , Leeds, Warrington, Catalans, Hull and Saints could get relegated if we return to p and r. However, the much more likely relegation candidates would be London, Castleford, Widnes, Wakefield, Bradford or Hull KR.

All that second group have issues of some sort which makes them not top class candidates to be in SL . To replace any one of them by the likes of Fev, Fax or Leigh would not necessarily weaken SL. All three have good stadia, investors and good junior teams in the area.

Other potential SL promotees have their issues with finance and so should be obliged to meet pre arranged standards should they qualify for promotion by winning the Championship grand final. The chances of ANY of the championship teams being promoted on the 3 x 8 deal are very very slim IMVHO.

That is now. If p and r returns and is persisted with, in the future I can see a suitably financed Sheffield or Doncaster or Skolars winning promotion and expand the footprint of the league.

Further down the road, Oxford, Gloucester, Gateshead, Crusaders, Scorpions, York or even Coventry and perhaps one of the Cumbrian trio or the Rochdale/Oldham duo might be able to crack the big time. None of this might happen and is certainly not a possibility right now BUT if an avenue to SL is open, then clubs might attract money men or sponsors that eventually get them there. Without such a pathway, none of these clubs will ever achieve any of this including the big three of Fax, Fev and Leigh.

At the moment the SL is a northern ghetto, plus Catalans, forget the London team that has no apparent future. If we truly want a presence outside the northern heartlands and if we truly want a national if not international presence then opportunities for clubs to get into the top tier must be created. P and r is a must.

[Dave T]

IMVHO 2x12=2x8 isn't about anything other than allowing struggling SL clubs to cut costs and buy time whilst the rich men come. The trick to keeping this guys interest will be to ensure Cas are in the 4 that go back up every year. The minute they slip up (maybe to Fev) and lose their full SKY funding could be a disaster.

Don't 100% agree with all your post as it has pretty much a 100% financial approach, but I do agree with plenty.

 

On your last paragraph in particular, is that a bad thing? Allowing clubs to find their level and to maybe grow again, as you could argue Fev have done is not a bad thing in my eyes.

 

The move to 14 clubs in the last round of licensing was one of the most ridiculous decisions in recent times imho - we clearly don't have that many strong clubs.

 

I believe the Wakefield guy said this a while back too IIRC (the staleness of the comp) and if I'm honest I agree, and I never ever thought I would say that about RL.

[redjonn]

That's why I'm struggling to see the first and third Eights as play-offs.

 

in the current play-offs the gate money goes to RFL and is then shared to some formula.  I'm guessing that if its called play-off, even though a league before the final top 4 play-offs, then the same approach. Maybe one of the issues for some SL clubs...

[GIANTSTRIDES]

After the 23 game regular season and we have a top 8, can anyone explain how those 8 will play off.

 

Maybe Ponterover , who i think has read up on all aspects.

 

It seems to me the simplest thing is to call the top team after 23 rounds, Minor champs, but what sort of playoff would then follow i don't know.

 

I wish things didn't have to be so complicated, I can see how it may benefit one or two clubs short term, But i just see there being a corresponding loss at the top end.

[Griff]

in the current play-offs the gate money goes to RFL and is then shared to some formula.  I'm guessing that if its called play-off, even though a league before the final top 4 play-offs, then the same approach. Maybe one of the issues for some SL clubs...

 

I was thinking more of the public perception.   Joe Public's not going to say "Oh, we shared the gate in these games so they must be play-offs."

[Griff]

After the 23 game regular season and we have a top 8, can anyone explain how those 8 will play off.

 

Maybe Ponterover , who i think has read up on all aspects.

 

It seems to me the simplest thing is to call the top team after 23 rounds, Minor champs, but what sort of playoff would then follow i don't know.

 

I wish things didn't have to be so complicated, I can see how it may benefit one or two clubs short term, But i just see there being a corresponding loss at the top end.

 

The games are

 

Top Eight - play everybody once, then a top four play off on a 1v4, 2v3, Final basis.  Bring your points forward from the Twelve phase.

 

Middle Eight - play everybody once.  Grand Final between fourth and fifth.  Start off zero.

 

Third Eight - much the same as top eight.

 

What we're playing for - not entirely sure.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Griff

[The Parksider]

Don't 100% agree with all your post as it has pretty much a 100% financial approach, but I do agree with plenty.

 

On your last paragraph in particular, is that a bad thing? Allowing clubs to find their level and to maybe grow again, as you could argue Fev have done is not a bad thing in my eyes.

 

The move to 14 clubs in the last round of licensing was one of the most ridiculous decisions in recent times imho - we clearly don't have that many strong clubs.

 

I believe the Wakefield guy said this a while back too IIRC (the staleness of the comp) and if I'm honest I agree, and I never ever thought I would say that about RL.

I take a 100% financial approach usually because of wishful thinking posts in which the money is completely glossed over allowing the view to be formed the forthcoming proposals will be just what the game always needed.

You ask me "Is that a bad thing? Allowing clubs to find their level". I don't think it is to a point Dave. I think it makes good sense to find your level. I would guess that if the lower SL clubs who generally have to borrow at least half a £million a year, stop overspending and racking up debt then we can have them find their level and reduce debt.

I just fear that Clubs like Cas, Wakefield, HKR, Widnes, Bradford, in cutting their salary spend to say £1,000,000 may find that if their average crowds decline if they are cut early from SL every year, and asked to play with the championship that spend may have to go down again in a spiral of decline. How fans will react to seeing their clubs downsize is what I worry about. Fans want elite RL not annual second rate stuff.

You ask me about wether in "downsizing", clubs could "maybe grow again, as you could argue Fev have done". I think IMVHO your use of the word "Maybe" was very canny. I see no growth at all in the second tier, quite the opposite - a heavy decline 1996-2013. This is why I am concerned that if fans feel the middle 8 is a cut price "SL2" with clubs who can't compete with Superleague clubs they may not respond in the numbers KPMG predict with no evidence at all.

As for Featherstone's growth I see none. I remember Mark Campbell talking about a £100,000 he'd once put in, I remember Nahaboo putting in £100,000 and I remember Nahaboo pledging "Full cap if we get in Superleague". This isn't growth- it's the rack up a debt with a rich man policy. Far from growing Fev have simply resisted decline through private gifts.

For me an 8 club SL will be a recipe for staleness at a level we cannot afford, in which Leeds, Wigan, Saints and wire mop up the trophies for another 10 years. You yourself advocate a cut in SL numbers. I think we can find 10 clubs who can all compete at the highest level, but it won't happen by leaving it all to chance.

[Dave T]

After the 23 game regular season and we have a top 8, can anyone explain how those 8 will play off.

 

Maybe Ponterover , who i think has read up on all aspects.

 

It seems to me the simplest thing is to call the top team after 23 rounds, Minor champs, but what sort of playoff would then follow i don't know.

 

I wish things didn't have to be so complicated, I can see how it may benefit one or two clubs short term, But i just see there being a corresponding loss at the top end.

I'm not sure I agree with the loss at the top end.

 

The big clubs will now get to drop 4 games against the two weakest clubs in SL. They will then replace these games with games against other top 8 teams, plus add another couple in for good measure. People are calling out for more intense games, this should do that. There is a risk of repeat games losing attraction, but as I said earlier, the big games will still attract decent crowds even if slightly lower than the first game.

 

Why do you see a loss at the top?

[Dave T]

I take a 100% financial approach usually because of wishful thinking posts in which the money is completely glossed over allowing the view to be formed the forthcoming proposals will be just what the game always needed.

You ask me "Is that a bad thing? Allowing clubs to find their level". I don't think it is to a point Dave. I think it makes good sense to find your level. I would guess that if the lower SL clubs who generally have to borrow at least half a £million a year, stop overspending and racking up debt then we can have them find their level and reduce debt.

I just fear that Clubs like Cas, Wakefield, HKR, Widnes, Bradford, in cutting their salary spend to say £1,000,000 may find that if their average crowds decline if they are cut early from SL every year, and asked to play with the championship that spend may have to go down again in a spiral of decline. How fans will react to seeing their clubs downsize is what I worry about. Fans want elite RL not annual second rate stuff.

You ask me about wether in "downsizing", clubs could "maybe grow again, as you could argue Fev have done". I think IMVHO your use of the word "Maybe" was very canny. I see no growth at all in the second tier, quite the opposite - a heavy decline 1996-2013. This is why I am concerned that if fans feel the middle 8 is a cut price "SL2" with clubs who can't compete with Superleague clubs they may not respond in the numbers KPMG predict with no evidence at all.

As for Featherstone's growth I see none. I remember Mark Campbell talking about a £100,000 he'd once put in, I remember Nahaboo putting in £100,000 and I remember Nahaboo pledging "Full cap if we get in Superleague". This isn't growth- it's the rack up a debt with a rich man policy. Far from growing Fev have simply resisted decline through private gifts.

For me an 8 club SL will be a recipe for staleness at a level we cannot afford, in which Leeds, Wigan, Saints and wire mop up the trophies for another 10 years. You yourself advocate a cut in SL numbers. I think we can find 10 clubs who can all compete at the highest level, but it won't happen by leaving it all to chance.

We won't have an 8 club SL. We will have a 12 team SL.

[Griff]

We won't have an 8 club SL. We will have a 12 team SL.

 

In name, perhaps (and it's not definite).  But it's "The Emperor's New Clothes" - the reality is different.

[GIANTSTRIDES]

The games are

 

Top Eight - play everybody once, then a top four play off on a 1v4, 2v3, Final basis.  Bring your points forward from the Twelve phase.

 

Middle Eight - play everybody once.  Grand Final between fourth and fifth.  Start off zero.

 

Third Eight - much the same as top eight.

 

What we're playing for - not entirely sure.

 

Thanks for that.

[Dave T]

In name, perhaps (and it's not definite).  But it's "The Emperor's New Clothes" - the reality is different.

Nope it's not.

 

In Feb 2015, if this vote is put in, Round 1 of Super League will feature 12 teams.

[gingerjon]

Nope it's not.

 

In Feb 2015, if this vote is put in, Round 1 of Super League will feature 12 teams.

 

One of the posts on here in the past week said that there is still a chance that no vote, or another round of blocking, could lead to SL remaining at 14.

[redjonn]

Nope it's not.

 

In Feb 2015, if this vote is put in, Round 1 of Super League will feature 12 teams.

well for me the emperor clothes reality will be the case...

 

that is the thought is that yep 12 teams to start but the bottom 4 and the championship 4 will fall further behind an ongoing superleague of 8. All be it they begin each season in a 12 team league before they break into an increasing hard group to break into super8.

[The Parksider]

1. In theory Wigan , Leeds, Warrington, Catalans, Hull and Saints could get relegated if we return to p and r. However, the much more likely relegation candidates would be London, Castleford, Widnes, Wakefield, Bradford or Hull KR.All that second group have issues of some sort which makes them not top class candidates to be in SL . To replace any one of them by the likes of Fev, Fax or Leigh would not necessarily weaken SL. All three have good stadia, investors and good junior teams in the area.

2. Further down the road, Oxford, Gloucester, Gateshead, Crusaders, Scorpions, York or even Coventry and perhaps one of the Cumbrian trio or the Rochdale/Oldham duo might be able to crack the big time. None of this might happen and is certainly not a possibility right now BUT if an avenue to SL is open, then clubs might attract money men......

2. We can't run the game on the hope rich men may one day come riding over the hill. We have 37 clubs - who is putting the £Millions in?? Davey, Moran, Koucash. That is just three and two came along when there WAS P & R. You've given me nothing to back the idea annual on the field P & R attracts rich investors

1. I welcome your pragmatic approach here to finally admit clubs at the top of the championship are just as likely to be as weak in SL as the named weak SL clubs in Superleague. I also welcome you now realising Sheffield have no resources to become a true SL club.

We have made some serious progress. It's been worth keeping this thread open

Now how do we get a strong Superleague given you also admit we only have eight strong clubs?

[Dave T]

One of the posts on here in the past week said that there is still a chance that no vote, or another round of blocking, could lead to SL remaining at 14.

yep, I meant to say if this is voted in. Terrible wording by me!

[Dave T]

well for me the emperor clothes reality will be the case...

 

that is the thought is that yep 12 teams to start but the bottom 4 and the championship 4 will fall further behind an ongoing superleague of 8. All be it they begin each season in a 12 team league before they break into an increasing hard group to break into super8.

I don't get the logic. These 4 can still invest in players, facilities, coaching etc to finish in the 8. We are hardly talking a massively high standard to make the 8 as things stand. We will still have the same players knocking around.

 

Either way, at the moment we have a SL comp where the winner will come from a small group any way.

[The Parksider]

In name, perhaps. The reality is different.

Can we settle for the proposals meaning us having "a 12 club Superleague cutting to an 8 club Superleague after round 23"?

I suppose one remains a Superleague club now because at your final match of the season you are due to be in Superleague again, your name remains on the roster.

But under the proposals you are put with 4 Championship clubs if you come 9th. or lower and you have to win back your SL place so you have effectively lost it until you win it back??

What do you think Griff?? Also what's the weather like in Fev??

[Griff]

I don't get the logic. These 4 can still invest in players, facilities, coaching etc to finish in the 8. We are hardly talking a massively high standard to make the 8 as things stand. We will still have the same players knocking around.

 

What will they invest with ?  You yourself say that the top eight will have the big gates.

[GIANTSTRIDES]

I'm not sure I agree with the loss at the top end.

 

The big clubs will now get to drop 4 games against the two weakest clubs in SL. They will then replace these games with games against other top 8 teams, plus add another couple in for good measure. People are calling out for more intense games, this should do that. There is a risk of repeat games losing attraction, but as I said earlier, the big games will still attract decent crowds even if slightly lower than the first game.

 

Why do you see a loss at the top?

 

I was thinking in terms of the repeated games, What you are saying makes sense in so much as i like to watch top games on TV, but it seems  ( unless i have it wrong ) teams could be playing each other 4 times a season, I don't see that as particularly good for the game,

 

All that said, if / when this new system comes in ,  I hope to be still going to the games. One thing that is worth a mention is ,We all give our opinions and think we know how to sort the game,  Which is fair enough, I enjoy reading other peoples opinions,  but we very rarely get people looking at the money men's side of things, only to call them greedy,

 

The thing is between them they have put in £ millions and are still doing so, with little or no chance of any profit, They don't have to do this, so they must love the game equally as much as we do , Mostly all they get from the average fan is that they are greedy and want everything, and yet without them probably few clubs would exist at  pro level.

[Griff]

Can we settle for the proposals meaning us having "a 12 club Superleague cutting to an 8 club Superleague after round 23"?

I suppose one remains a Superleague club now because at your final match of the season you are due to be in Superleague again, your name remains on the roster.

But under the proposals you are put with 4 Championship clubs if you come 9th. or lower and you have to win back your SL place so you have effectively lost it until you win it back??

What do you think Griff?? Also what's the weather like in Fev??

 

Too dark to see ......

 

Who says the Top Twelve will be the $uperleague ?   Has that been decided yet ?

[yipyee]

Has anyone said it'll be the last round of the "regular season" ?  There's no reason why it should be.  It isn't now and I see no reason to change.

 

As the link said as a climax......

 

Yep, first mention I've seen of that. 

 

There are other sources too if you look for them..............

 

http://www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_616-bring-in-toulouse-and-relegate-three-from-super-league.html

Edited January 13, 2014 by yipyee

[Dave T]

What will they invest with ? You yourself say that the top eight will have the big gates.

but what's different tgere?

[redjonn]

I don't get the logic. These 4 can still invest in players, facilities, coaching etc to finish in the 8. We are hardly talking a massively high standard to make the 8 as things stand. We will still have the same players knocking around.

 

Either way, at the moment we have a SL comp where the winner will come from a small group any way.

 

yep your right currently silverware is won from a small band of clubs, a narrow elite you could say.

 

on point 1 and the logic. Not logic but a concern that the bottom 4 of SL and top 4 of championship interchange places on a regular basis which impacts there funding in the mid to long term and the gap with the super8 increases.

 

Maybe that is the reality now anyway as you say.

[keighley]

I agree with that.

So if the debt in Superleague was £68,000,000 amongst the bottom say 8 SL clubs then none of them should be operating a full time professional squad, but slashing wage bills.

Equally if the top two championship clubs cannot afford to run a full time professional squad then they should stay part time.

I'm happy the idea that only clubs who can afford to "run a full time professional squad" do so.

Where we differ is you count 20 of them and I can't get past about 8.....

To me, it's been patently obvious for the last few seasons that the game cannot afford to be a full time professional operation except at two or three clubs. To regain financial health at the majority of clubs, I think it is inevitable that part iome professionalism will have to return. In turn this should help to eliminate the gap between the Championship and many of the lower level SL teams.