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

[roughyedspud]

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

 

why does'nt it say that then...

 

 

and couldn't that result in it being mathematically impossible for teams to actually reach the grand final???

 

hull kr finished the season on 26pts last year....even if they win all 7 extra games they still have less points than warrington & hudderfield (41&42) finished the regular season....

Edited January 18, 2014 by roughyedspud

[bobbruce]

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

So if each club plays 7 fixtures that is the league season still and not the play off. I

[Ponterover]

 

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.

 

 

Martyn

 

Thank you for your concern.  I am well aware of the potential pitfalls, all of which you describe in the post.

 

As someone who knows our chairman, all I can tell you is that he knows all of the above too.

[gingerjon]

So if each club plays 7 fixtures that is the league season still and not the play off. I

 

The proposal doc calls them play offs.  7 fixtures followed by elimination semi finals.  Basically if you just about scrape into the top 8 the rest of your season is about how you impact the points difference of the top 4.

 

Points carry in first and third eights but not the middle.

[RLDave]

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

Widnes voted FOR yet Dennis Betts was in the media last week saying P&R could kill the game?

[gingerjon]

Widnes voted FOR yet Dennis Betts was in the media last week saying P&R could kill the game?

 

Widnes voted for London's readmission in 2005 knowing it could be them that went down as a result.  They are the turkey that votes for Christmas.

[RLDave]

I do hope that along with this restructure there is a major look at youth development also.

[GeordieSaint]

why does'nt it say that then...

 

Look into all the detail and it does... it is just a poorly written document as everything else from this administration:

 

5.1.22 Each Play Off group will consist of seven fixtures. In the SL Play Offs and the Championship Play Offs (i.e. top eight and bottom eight) the four highest ranked clubs will receive the benefit of four home fixtures. (That means the bottom four teams only get three home fixtures).

 

How people can trust the RFL to implement this when they can't even write a document correctly to explain it is beyond me...

Edited January 18, 2014 by GeordieSaint

[gingerjon]

I do hope that along with this restructure there is a major look at youth development also.

 

The document asks for fewer, better academies.

[Bod]

why does'nt it say that then...

 

 

and couldn't that result in it being mathematically impossible for teams to actually reach the grand final???

 

hull kr finished the season on 26pts last year....even if they win all 7 extra games they still have less points than warrington & hudderfield (41&42) finished the regular season....

Teams in the top 8 will be playing for a top 4 place, but you are right that it could be impossible for a team to reach the 4 if they don't have enough points to start with. Their season is as good as over but they could still affect the chances of teams above them. Complete madness. 

Edited January 18, 2014 by Bod

[guess who]

You do realise the precarious state of play at Bradford don't you? Its far from impossible that they could be relegated this year. Then what? Who is to say they wouldn't dissappear completely? Sorry mate but my club is far from safe.

 

Bradford have been badly run for a while now. For years we have had fans of clubs in SL, saying clubs in the lower leagues have to lift they game to into SL.

Maybe its time for clubs in SL to lift there game to stay in it.

Edited January 18, 2014 by guess who

[RLDave]

Teams in the top 8 will be playing for a top 4 place, but you are right that it could be impossible for a team to reach the 4 if they don't have enough points to start with. Their season is as good as over but they could still affect the chances of teams above them. Complete madness.

It should encourage teams to be more competitive and earn the chance to be the top 4. If you haven't got enough points then it's hardly a fault of the system.

[GeordieSaint]

The document asks for fewer, better academies.

 

Which in my opinion, completely goes against the idea of artifically creating more professional clubs; where will the players come from? The RFL's idea to increase participation is introduce more touch rugby... that will work well with no development officers to implement it and volunteers completely fed up of being messed around by the organisational body.

[gingerjon]

Which in my opinion, completely goes against the idea of artifically creating more professional clubs; where will the players come from? The RFL's idea to increase participation is introduce more touch rugby... that will work well with no development officers to implement it and volunteers completely fed up of being messed around by the organisational body.

 

I can see the logic behind the idea but, like so much in the proposal, you can't quite see how what's written will lead to the outcomes they claim for it.

[GeordieSaint]

I can see the logic behind the idea but, like so much in the proposal, you can't quite see how what's written will lead to the outcomes they claim for it.

 

Which proposal? The Academies? It will benefit the bigger clubs who will be running their own and cherry picking the best players from the others whilst the rest of the clubs fight for the scraps.

[Derwent]

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.

Cheers.

So it's 5 down from the Championship this season, unless Toulouse suddenly do exist halfway through the season, in which case it will be 6 down, unless the team that wins C1 doesn't meet minimum standards, in which case it'll be either 4 or 5 down depending on whether Toulouse exist.

Nowt ambiguous about that at all.

[gingerjon]

Which proposal? The Academies? It will benefit the bigger clubs who will be running their own and cherry picking the best players from the others whilst the rest of the clubs fight for the scraps.

 

The logic in reducing the number of academies to create better ones.

 

I don't agree there's any sanity in how it will be done.

[Bod]

It should encourage teams to be more competitive and earn the chance to be the top 4. If you haven't got enough points then it's hardly a fault of the system.

Correct, but should a team who have nothing to gain in those last 7 matches have any bearing on the eventual winners? The play off system we have now is useless but at least the team finishing in eighth had a reason to turn up and play.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Bod

[GeordieSaint]

The logic in reducing the number of academies to create better ones.

 

I don't agree there's any sanity in how it will be done.

 

With current resources (both finance and playing numbers), it makes sense. However, it will not provide long term benefits for the game. An ever diminishing player pool and lack of strategic direction will continue to drive this vicious circle of constant change to paper over the real issues in the game stated in an earlier post.

[JohnM]

At least the RFL press release has now ended all speculation and this topic will now not reach 200 pages and 4000 posts.   

[Lounge Room Lizard]

I just see this as moving things around and hoping things work rather than bringing in a system that will benefit the game as well as clubs. Does this concept even begin to look at solving some major issues in the game? Not really. It keeps a couple of clubs and fans believe things will be better. And the concept of 12 x 2 then 8 x 3 is just dumb and makes it very hard to explain to somebody new to the game. It comes across as a poor decision. I dont really know what this change really brings that will help the game that much. I think changes was needed, but one that actually looked at the problems in the game and one that helped clubs not look to cut corners but be run better than they have done in the past. Sorry but I dont see how this does that. 

 

I am a supporter of P and R, but not under this system, as it doesnt help the game as a whole or even look to address the problems within it. Certain minimum standards should be brought in for all on such things as stadium/Facilities, running of a proper reserve/U23 grade with each club forced to spend a set amount in this area, a club employing a development manager for the area etc. If clubs cant/wont meet some basic standards then do they really deserve to have the chance to play in the top league? I dont trust the RFL under its current management or the clubs to properly sort the problems out in the game and look to address them and this is for me just another example of why the game is not as strong as it should be. You can have P & R between all the leagues, but you also need to have set minimum standards for each league and incentives for clubs to not just improve the team squad but also off the field things and the future of the club. 

[GeordieSaint]

<Snip>

 

That is exactly my take on the current state of affairs.

[yipyee]

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?

they did with catalan...

..

[yipyee]

Cheers.

So it's 5 down from the Championship this season, unless Toulouse suddenly do exist halfway through the season, in which case it will be 6 down, unless the team that wins C1 doesn't meet minimum standards, in which case it'll be either 4 or 5 down depending on whether Toulouse exist.

Nowt ambiguous about that at all.

maybe the broncos will drop to CC1 with that barnet character as owner...... toulouse straight into SL as replacement. .....

somethings going on as they are only making plans for one year....and that bloke made noises of ownership. ....

[HKR AWAY DAYS]

It seems the RFL are trying to bridge the gap between Super League and the Championship.
 
I've always said that annual out-and-out promotion and relegation between the two division won't be of any benefit to anyone and I stand by that.
 
Nothing changes in respect of the top 8 playoffs, or indeed the bottom 8 but it is the middle end that is quite interesting because that is where the aforementioned 'gap-bridging' seems to be happening.
 
We have seen, albeit on the odd occasion, that a lower-placed SL club can come unstuck against a high-flying Championship club, or that the Championship club have pushed a SL club close. The only time we see this is in the Challenge Cup.
 
From 2015 Championship clubs will now have a chance, on a more regular basis, to compete against Super League clubs. If they succeed we must give them a shot at the top 12 league. This is their opportunity, but it also tells SL clubs that they will no longer be able to fall back on 'buy outs' to avoid 'relegation' or be 'kicked out' like we saw with a couple of clubs during the licencing era.
 
I liked licencing as an idea because the theory was that if you wanted in with the big boys, you had to prove your club as a whole was competitive on the pitch, and sustainable and capable of growth off it.
 
Unfotunately, in practice, with all things considered, it was probably the 'wrong place, wrong time' and that really bugs me.
 
Teams from the lower leagues -perhaps just 3 or 4 however- are capable of growing as a business, building a fan based and developing a squad capable of being a real benefit to the 'Super League' but that takes time and the 3-year licencing period was introduced to do exactly that.
 
Rovers and Widnes have benefited from that because they've both been given time to build on solid ground rather than putting everything together hastily within a few months, overspend and fall into the Wakefield/Bradford catagory.
 
I know the format isn't to everyone's taste. It looks like a quintessential RFL gimmick to me; however, if after a few years of this, the league pyramid is strong enough competitively and supported financially that annual promotion and relegation can return without the risk of teams 'going to the wall' from leftover debt as a result of relegation or overspending leading to debt as a result of promotion, then so be it.
 
Personally, I don't think Promotion and relegation is the be-all and end-all; it seems the majority like it so it has returned. The RFL have listened to the fans in this regard, but they must know that it'll kill teams by just simply introducting it straight out. This format, to me, seems like a 'bedding in' period with the aim of returning to what the majority of supporters want to see.