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

[Marty Funkhouser]

Rugby League in this country has had more years without P&R than with it.

 

The familiar is no P&R

 

 A bit disingenuous Padge.

 

Of the seasons we have had more than a single division, therefore able to have P&R, have we had more with P&R than without?

[Tonka]

I just think the idea of splitting the league up mid season sounds a bit gimmicky and mad. You can have p and r without it if that's what you want. Not convinced it will add anything, and just seems confusing.

I think that will be my whole contribution to the debate.

Cheers

[Methven Hornet]

exactly. where is Toulouse fitting in? I'm sorry, the whole thing is ludicrous.

 

BOLD PREDICTION: there will be another total "restructure" by 2017.

 

Funny how Oz league, which is absolutely thriving, doesn't have these endless "restructures"…

 

That last line crossed my mind as well. Couldn't we improve the NRL in a similar way? After a certain number of regular games the borrom 8 go off and play in a competition with the best 4 each from the NSW and Queensland Cups. The top eight of that go into next season's NRL.

That would certainly jeopardise things a little.

[gingerjon]

So.....is it 4, 5 or 6 clubs relegated from the Championship this season ?

If Toulouse aren't admitted for 2015 and no promotion from C1 then it's 4.

If Toulouse aren't admitted for 2015 but 1 up from C1 then it's 5.

If Toulouse are admitted for 2015 and no promotion from C1 then it's 5.

If Toulouse are admitted for 2015 and 1 up from C1 then it's 6.

Or are there still 2 promotion places from C1 in which case there could be 7 relegated from the Championship ?

 

This is what they're planning:

 

6.4 Subject to meeting only the revised Minimum Standards Criteria and proof of 

solvency, the clubs finishing in positions 1 to 12 in the 2014 Super League 

competition (Tier 1) enter the 2015 Super League season. 

 

6.5 Subject to meeting only the revised Minimum Standards Criteria and proof of 

solvency, the clubs finishing in positions 13 and 14 of the 2014 Super League 

competition (Tier 1) enter the 2015 Championship competition (Tier 2) (with the 

highest two central distributions in that competition). 

 

6.6 In addition, these two clubs will receive a one off payment of £250k each. 

 

6.7 Subject to meeting only the revised Minimum Standards Criteria and proof of 

solvency, the clubs finishing in positions 1 to 9 of the 2014 Championship 

competition (Tier 2) enter the 2015 Championship competition (Tier 2) (with the 

central distributions paid in order of finishing, from the third highest to tenth highest 

distributions in that competition). 

 

6.8 Subject to meeting only the revised Minimum Standards Criteria and proof of 

solvency, the club finishing in position 1 of the Championship 1 (Tier 3) competition 

in 2014 enters the 2015 Championship competition (Tier 2) (with the lowest central 

distribution in that competition). 

 

 

So:

Finish in places 1-12 in SL 2014 and you're in Tier 1

Places 13-14, & 1-9 of CC, & 1 in CC1 enter Tier 2

 

Toulouse doesn't exist.

[roughyedspud]

I just think the idea of splitting the league up mid season sounds a bit gimmicky and mad. You can have p and r without it if that's what you want. Not convinced it will add anything, and just seems confusing.

I think that will be my whole contribution to the debate.

Cheers

its not being split up mid season though....

 

each league will play a  full home,away & magic game season....then the top8 play in the  super league playoffs,

 

the bottom4 & championship top4 play in the super league qualifying playoffs

 

and the bottom 8 championship clubs play in the championship shield...

[glemiln]

 

From what we can gather (from Castleford's CEO), Toulouse will enter the second division and build from there.

Assuming that second division is the current Championship, the end of 2014 will see another club relegated to C1 - eg. the bottom 5th placed club feeling secure only to be ditched for Toulouse at the eleventh hour!   Toulouse should build from C1 and prove their credentials.  Would SL will allow another club to be relegated to accommodate Toulouse?

[gingerjon]

Is it more difficult to understand than the play off system currently and previously?

 

Yes.

 

The current play off system can be basically summed up as: play 27 rounds and at the end of that there is a play off system to determine the champions.

 

The new system can be basically summed up as: play 23 rounds in a 12 team league and then the top four have further fixtures and semi finals to determine the champions, the bottom four join with the top of the league below in new a league starting from scratch to determine the top three who are automatically promoted, the middle two places play off for the last promotion place, the bottom eight of the second tier have further fixtures and semi finals to determine their champions, the bottom team of the bottom tier is relegated.

 

It might not be too complex but it is more complicated - to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

[Grinner]

To those who think the system is too complex, we've just had a World Cup that used a rather contrived system.  It delivered close, meaningful games, which is what I reckon this new system will do too.

[Martyn Sadler]

Jeopardy is good for the soul, it'll make everyone at Bradford work extra hard to stay in the 12. You'll have a great season of entertainment along the way, enjoy the ride!

If jeopardy is good for the soul, then you had better prepare your soul for an interesting ride at Featherstone.

 

Although you insist that licensing hasn't worked for a club like yours, the truth is that it has actually made very good progress in the licensing era, not least in developing the stadium, which I suspect it wouldn't have focused upon if it had been thinking about promotion and relegation.

 

But now the directors will be under pressure from the fans to secure a Super League place at all costs, and this will create tremendous dangers for the club of a sort that some other clubs don't face.

 

Because you own the freehold of your own stadium, with about 17 acres in total, you are one club that can't afford to go into administration, because if you did the stadium could be sold for an alternative use.

 

At the moment your stadium is carried in your accounts at something over £1.2 million, which would be a gross under-valuation if alternative uses were considered.

 

 

For the year ending 30 November 2012 you show current assets of £137,400 and current liabilities of £453,308, while you also have long term liabilities of £531,162.

 

 

The lodged accounts don't, of course, show the details of these liabilities, and I'm sure the club is on top of them. But there will be an enormous temptation to increase the liabilities to secure a place in the top-flight.

 

At Bradford, when the club looked as though it might be heading for administration, the directors there put the stadium out of the reach of the administrator by selling it to the RFL.

 

I would suggest that the Featherstone directors need to put your stadium similarly out of reach and separated from the club itself, perhaps in a trust, to safeguard its future.

 

Otherwise, as a Featherstone supporter, you might find that jeopardy isn't quite as much fun as you think it's going to be.

[The Parksider]

You can't compare Oz with UK, Sport in the UK has P&R running right through it, Oz doesn't.  We tried to emulate your set up with a (virtually) closed off league and it failed.

 

 

 

Bye gum lad your buoyed up with this decision. P & R failed, don’t you remember 1996-2008?? They then tried to slow it down and give clubs time to “build”  through a licensed P & R system. Clubs in CC could “build” up towards Superleague and be “ready” clubs in Superleague could “grow” without the fear of relegation.

 

But the clubs didn’t “get ready” in the Championship, their crowds just kept on dropping and they couldn’t build a professional team on a low salary cap.The clubs did not grow in Superleague either. The top clubs with the money hogged all the best players, won all the trophies and attracted the majority of paying fans leaving those at the bottom to run up debts.

 

There is no way licensing was emulating the NRL, I can’t let you get away with that. We have never had a closed shop of big clubs well run for the purpose of an even competitive league. It does look like Ponte my old Rover, that you are preparing for 3 years down the line when the NRL model will probably be called for. “It doesn’t work” will be your cry. “We tried in 2009-2013 and it failed”. What failed was “standards led P & R on a three year cycle”.

 

This is why I am querying why Martyn wanted “non-standards led P & R on a three year cycle”. I was never told why?

[Saintslass]

Just out of interest (or maybe it isn't interesting!) the Salford Faithful Twitter feed posted which way the clubs voted on Friday.  Presumably it was the Dragons who abstained:

 

FOR: London Wakefield Cas Bradford Leeds Saints Widnes

 

AGAINST: Wigan Wire Salford Hudd HullFC HullKR

[gingerjon]

 

If jeopardy is good for the soul, then you had better prepare your soul for an interesting ride at Featherstone.

 

Although you insist that licensing hasn't worked for a club like yours, the truth is that it has actually made very good progress in the licensing era, not least in developing the stadium, which I suspect it wouldn't have focused upon if it had been thinking about promotion and relegation.

 

But now the directors will be under pressure from the fans to secure a Super League place at all costs, and this will create tremendous dangers for the club of a sort that some other clubs don't face.

 

Because you own the freehold of your own stadium, with about 17 acres in total, you are one club that can't afford to go into administration, because if you did the stadium could be sold for an alternative use.

 

At the moment your stadium is carried in your accounts at something over £1.2 million, which would be a gross under-valuation if alternative uses were considered.

 

 

For the year ending 30 November 2012 you show current assets of £137,400 and current liabilities of £453,308, while you also have long term liabilities of £531,162.

 

 

The lodged accounts don't, of course, show the details of these liabilities, and I'm sure the club is on top of them. But there will be an enormous temptation to increase the liabilities to secure a place in the top-flight.

 

At Bradford, when the club looked as though it might be heading for administration, the directors there put the stadium out of the reach of the administrator by selling it to the RFL.

 

I would suggest that the Featherstone directors need to put your stadium similarly out of reach and separated from the club itself, perhaps in a trust, to safeguard its future.

 

Otherwise, as a Featherstone supporter, you might find that jeopardy isn't quite as much fun as you think it's going to be.

 

 

Brutal.

 

Featherstone have done well under the restrictions of the licencing era but something did need to give.  Super League could not continue as a closed shop.  Or, rather, a bloated Super League that had Featherstone as they are now outside it but London as they are now inside was one that was fairly obviously not delivering what it should.

 

The obvious answer would be to toughen up the requirements for the elite division and then work around how many teams could actually meet that whilst continuing to improve the stability, attractiveness and spread of the game underneath that.

[gingerjon]

Just out of interest (or maybe it isn't interesting!) the Salford Faithful Twitter feed posted which way the clubs voted on Friday.  Presumably it was the Dragons who abstained:

 

FOR: London Wakefield Cas Bradford Leeds Saints Widnes

 

AGAINST: Wigan Wire Salford Hudd HullFC HullKR

 

London should have given their vote to Barnet FC.

[GeordieSaint]

Well I'm prepared to give it a go and see - an interesting concept I'm sure you'll agree

 

It is an interesting concept but I don't want to give a go just to see if it works or not?! We have absolutely no stability in our game and are constantly changing the structures etc in order to find a quick fix to the real issues in the game, which NEVER go away and will NEVER do so by simple making comestic surgery in the upper echolons of the league structure. The game's issues run much deeper than that and until governance, widening participation, developing commercial interest and financial resources, we will never progress as a sport and achieve the holy grail of parity across the professional echolons of the game.

 

The Lewis administration may have made a mistake in the structure of the professional game in 2008 (implemented by Wood et al) but were making great progress in the key areas listed above (in bold). We saw strong governance from the RFL bringing organisations like BARLA, Student RL etc whilst drastically increasing participation and large sponsorship deals worth more than a £1m per season with the likes of Engage. However, these gains and developments have been lost under the Wood administratin and has fundamentally weakened the game considerably. The game needs real stability, something this structure will not deliver because it does not address the root causes of the games woes.

Edited January 18, 2014 by GeordieSaint

[paulalmanack]

As the new structure for 2015 has now been decicded one thing for sure is that it can't be called Super league any more, not even SL1 and SL2, seeing as the bottom 8 in teams would be more or less part-time. So let's start the debate to re-brand the League(s)... I'll admit nothing suitable comes off the top of my head.

[The Parksider]

The obvious answer would be to toughen up the requirements for the elite division and then work around how many teams could actually meet that whilst continuing to improve the stability, attractiveness and spread of the game underneath that.

 

Not sure if there's the money to tidy up both ends of the game this way.

 

In fact IMVHO there isn't.

[Martyn Sadler]

Brutal.

 

Featherstone have done well under the restrictions of the licencing era but something did need to give.  Super League could not continue as a closed shop.  Or, rather, a bloated Super League that had Featherstone as they are now outside it but London as they are now inside was one that was fairly obviously not delivering what it should.

 

The obvious answer would be to toughen up the requirements for the elite division and then work around how many teams could actually meet that whilst continuing to improve the stability, attractiveness and spread of the game underneath that.

I don't disagree.

 

I can certainly accept that some clubs in Super League appeared to be stagnating under licensing.

 

And I have no problems with clubs in the Championship having ambition and wanting to join the elite.

 

But promotion and relegation in Rugby League has a record of causing financial havoc, and I can't see any obvious mechanisms in the current proposals for avoiding them.

 

Ultimately, whether we like it or not, money, and its presence or absence, tends to determine outcomes.

 

And in a sport like ours, where there is a relative lack of people with money fighting to get involved, financial stability is a key issue.

[DAZROVER1985]

If jeopardy is good for the soul, then you had better prepare your soul for an interesting ride at Featherstone.

Although you insist that licensing hasn't worked for a club like yours, the truth is that it has actually made very good progress in the licensing era, not least in developing the stadium, which I suspect it wouldn't have focused upon if it had been thinking about promotion and relegation.

But now the directors will be under pressure from the fans to secure a Super League place at all costs, and this will create tremendous dangers for the club of a sort that some other clubs don't face.

Because you own the freehold of your own stadium, with about 17 acres in total, you are one club that can't afford to go into administration, because if you did the stadium could be sold for an alternative use.

At the moment your stadium is carried in your accounts at something over £1.2 million, which would be a gross under-valuation if alternative uses were considered.

For the year ending 30 November 2012 you show current assets of £137,400 and current liabilities of £453,308, while you also have long term liabilities of £531,162.

The lodged accounts don't, of course, show the details of these liabilities, and I'm sure the club is on top of them. But there will be an enormous temptation to increase the liabilities to secure a place in the top-flight.

At Bradford, when the club looked as though it might be heading for administration, the directors there put the stadium out of the reach of the administrator by selling it to the RFL.

I would suggest that the Featherstone directors need to put your stadium similarly out of reach and separated from the club itself, perhaps in a trust, to safeguard its future.

Otherwise, as a Featherstone supporter, you might find that jeopardy isn't quite as much fun as you think it's going to be.

you appear to be stating the very worse case scenario Martyn, could you also give a worse case scenario for the likes of Wigan, Leeds, St. Helens etc I'm sure there are scenarios where they could go into financial meltdown

[The Future is League]

So the latest reconstruction starts from the 2015. I would bet by that by 2018 there wiill be calls to reconstruct super league yet again or what ever it is called then as this will turn out to be a failure in my book.  I could see the long term prospects for licencing, this latest idea for me is trying to be all things to all men and in my opinion it won't work. I hope for the sake of the game I'm proven wrong.

[Martyn Sadler]

you appear to be stating the very worse case scenario Martyn, could you also give a worse case scenario for the likes of Wigan, Leeds, St. Helens etc I'm sure there are scenarios where they could go into financial meltdown

Any club that owns its stadium is potentially in greater danger from insolvency than those that don't, simply because if it goes into administration the insolvency practitioner has to obtain the best possible price for the club's assets, which usually involves selling the stadium for an alternative use.

 

So any club that owns its stadium could be in danger, but the historical evidence is that a club that experiences successive promotions and relegations is in the most danger.

[bobbruce]

See, I've seen this suggested so many times but I don't understand why?

Why not just have a season ticket that covers all 14 games? History shows that people don't like paying on the gate in large numbers, and I doubt they'll be able to afford another chunk at the end of the season.

Having a season pass that covers at least 14 games (that's how many are guaranteed) will improve play off attendances, be a good selling point ("more games") and also stop the risk of small crowds at the lower-end play-offs.

If there's a split season pass, I guarantee the play off crowds will be awful all round, and I reckon the negative vibe from that decision (based on the crowds being low) could even be enough to kill off this format.

Season ticket for the season.

Can someone clear this up for me. When teams split into their 8s are they then not just finishing their league season off. After this has been completed I thought the top three or four teams then go into a play off.

[roughyedspud]

Can someone clear this up for me. When teams split into their 8s are they then not just finishing their league season off. After this has been completed I thought the top three or four teams then go into a play off.

 

its clear as mud...

 

in the RFL document it clearly states that each playoff group will consist of 7 FIXTURES...

 

to me thats 

 

1v8

2v7

3v6

4v5

 

semi final x 2

 

a grand final

 

thats 7 fixtures...

 

 

but....why are league points carried over into "the playoffs"

Edited January 18, 2014 by roughyedspud

[GeordieSaint]

its clear as mud...

 

in the RFL document it clearly states that each playoff group will consist of 7 FIXTURES...

 

but....why are league points carried over into "the playoffs"

 

Because each club plays 7 fixtures, not 7 fixtures in total in the playoffs!

[DAZROVER1985]

Any club that owns its stadium is potentially in greater danger from insolvency than those that don't, simply because if it goes into administration the insolvency practitioner has to obtain the best possible price for the club's assets, which usually involves selling the stadium for an alternative use.

So any club that owns its stadium could be in danger, but the historical evidence is that a club that experiences successive promotions and relegations is in the most danger.

featherstone are not in administration though and are not in any danger of been, so talk of possible consequences of it are pretty irrelevant unless you know any different of coarse. All clubs could potentially go into administration if they get into financial difficulties nobody is exempt, the poorly run clubs have greater chance where as the better run clubs are a lot less likely to.

[gingerjon]

 The game's issues run much deeper than that and until governance, widening participation, developing commercial interest and financial resources, we will never progress as a sport and achieve the holy grail of parity across the professional echolons of the game.

 

This.