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

[gingerjon]

Can the RFL make the Championship clubs go full-time or can everyone (except maybe Featherstone and the 2 demoted SL clubs) just take the money, say "thanks very much" and keep going as per normal?

 

The RFL couldn't enforce licencing and in the proposal just voted through it has reduced the standards required and said it will undertake less club governance.

 

The clubs can do what they like with the money.

[JohnM]

That's me most days!

 

I do what I can.

[Scubby]

The RFL couldn't enforce licencing and in the proposal just voted through it has reduced the standards required and said it will undertake less club governance.

 

The clubs can do what they like with the money.

 

And I would imagine that once Barrow, Whitehaven, Crusaders, Dewsbury, Batley, Rochdale, Leigh, Halifax, Featherstone, Sheffield, Workington et al realise they are realistically playing for only 2 places (in 2x8) many of them will use it to pay off the brewery, printers, VAT man, fence painters. Who would risk investing in a squad for those odds?

[gingerjon]

And I would imagine that once Barrow, Whitehaven, Crusaders, Dewsbury, Batley, Rochdale, Leigh, Halifax, Featherstone, Sheffield, Workington et al realise they are realistically playing for only 2 places (in 2x8) many of them will use it to pay off the brewery, printers, VAT man, fence painters. Who would risk investing in a squad for those odds?

 

The key problem is that there's not enough money coming into the game, even with jeopardy, to sustain a full time squad, invest in youth & development, sort out your facilities, do some awesome marketing and pay your bills.  Each club can determine where their priorities lie but given how even clubs with significant Sky money and big gates haven't squared that circle I don't see how clubs with lower gates and less Sky money will do any better.

[Scubby]

The key problem is that there's not enough money coming into the game, even with jeopardy, to sustain a full time squad, invest in youth & development, sort out your facilities, do some awesome marketing and pay your bills.  Each club can determine where their priorities lie but given how even clubs with significant Sky money and big gates haven't squared that circle I don't see how clubs with lower gates and less Sky money will do any better.

 

I fear for clubs like Leigh, Halifax, Featherstone and Wakefield (if relegated) if they go chasing the golden egg and forget about the other stuff. Leigh and Halifax in particular have only just put the collecting buckets back in storage in recent seasons and Wakefield have made a colossal mess of the last 24 months. The money just isn't there to fund this - it is just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

 

Some of the other clubs will simply see it as a opportunity to take some of the SL/Sky pot and pay off an overdraft.

[Keith T]

The RFL couldn't enforce licencing and in the proposal just voted through it has reduced the standards required and said it will undertake less club governance.

 

The clubs can do what they like with the money.

 

I think it is worth stating that at this point there isn't any extra money to share until the SL clubs have met next week and agreed to allow some of "their" money to be used this way.   This was the sticking point when 6 clubs walked out prior to the World Cup and that is still very much up in the air.

 

If the SL clubs don't agree then the Championship clubs will receive exactly what they got this year from central funds - £90k.

[John Drake]

Please John, If I want a newspaper to give me a different view from Conservative, I will read the Mirror etc, etc.

 

The editorial is belittling of the proposed system, it is very anti the proposed system, to use your (LE) terminology it's like a Party Political Broadcast, but only allow one party to spout then have a vote on it, C'mon.

 

For many many years - well over 40, I could not wait for Thursday to come around so I could buy my Rugby Leaguer, then it changed and was published on Monday then it became LE, and I am sorry to say I considered it nosedived, it no longer gave open minded views, but "I will tell you how it is", attitude. I prefer facts and being allowed to make my own mind up. 

 

I'm not saying you have to agree with the editorial, or anything else in LE for that matter, I'm just explaining why the editorial doesn't have an attributed author on it. If you disagree with it, you could write to the mailbag in the paper and have your say. Or say so on here, as you have already.

 

The poll isn't actually in the paper either. It's just something I came up with this morning to put on the website for a bit of topical interactive fun. True, it appears alongside the LE editorial which I published on the website this morning (as it always is, incidentally) but then that's not deliberate, it also appears alongside every other page on the website as well, because it's in the menu sidebar.

 

Blimey, I almost wish I hadn't bothered now.

[GaryO]

I'm not saying you have to agree with the editorial, or anything else in LE for that matter, I'm just explaining why the editorial doesn't have an attributed author on it. If you disagree with it, you could write to the mailbag in the paper and have your say. Or say so on here, as you have already.

 

The poll isn't actually in the paper either. It's just something I came up with this morning to put on the website for a bit of topical interactive fun. True, it appears alongside the LE editorial which I published on the website this morning (as it always is, incidentally) but then that's not deliberate, it also appears alongside every other page on the website as well, because it's in the menu sidebar.

 

Blimey, I almost wish I hadn't bothered now.

 

Iv'e got a spare spade if you want it.

[John Drake]

Iv'e got a spare spade if you want it.

 

Crash helmet would be more helpful when I'm banging my head against the wall.

[gingerjon]

I think it is worth stating that at this point there isn't any extra money to share until the SL clubs have met next week and agreed to allow some of "their" money to be used this way.   This was the sticking point when 6 clubs walked out prior to the World Cup and that is still very much up in the air.

 

If the SL clubs don't agree then the Championship clubs will receive exactly what they got this year from central funds - £90k.

 

That's a tremendously good point and shows pretty clearly why it would have been more useful for the RFL to sort out the governance issues first.

[The Parksider]

I have posed the question on this thread 3 times “why are the supporters of the teams in the lower echelons of SL afraid of the new system” It is quite obvious from some of the more vociferous comments placed by the supporters of these clubs that there is a fear factor in entering a 7 game play off against clubs from a “sub standard” competition.

 

I am a supporter of one of the 4 clubs of the Championship that is expected to be in the mix, and as such I welcome the opportunity of our players testing themselves in this format with the ultimate prize to take, if successful.

So in MHO, this format improves the quality of SL, by bringing more meaning which means more intensity to games, it also brings a new vigour, expectation and hope to those of the Championship that desire it, As I stated at the beginning I have asked the question what is the fear of this format, I never got any answers then, and I don’t expect any now. 

 

I haven't picked that up Gary that anyone fears 3x8. TBF the fear is that the competition won't be a level playing field, and that it will favour SL clubs? The jury is out on meaning and intensity I probably take an opposite view. Who is your club??

[The Parksider]

I think it is worth stating that at this point there isn't any extra money to share until the SL clubs have met next week and agreed to allow some of "their" money to be used this way.   This was the sticking point when 6 clubs walked out prior to the World Cup and that is still very much up in the air.

 

If the SL clubs don't agree then the Championship clubs will receive exactly what they got this year from central funds - £90k.

 

So the 3x8 may look a teensy weensy bit rigged then??

[jpmc]

Not suggesting Denis Betts takes his pearls of wisdom from this forum but according to my lovely copy of LE he is quoted as saying after yesterday's game;

"How you police licensing, that is the problem. If you set out minimum criteria and then you don't stick to it then it's not licensing that failed, it's the way you work it".

Nuff said!

Very true as far as i'm concerned,i'm not sure who to blame though.

If Bradford & Wakefield had been relegated from the league when they went into admin,then we would still have a strong and confident licence system in place

[yipyee]

So in your expert view no promotion deemed feasible by any team not at this time plying their trade in SL, and if one does manage to escape the net and wriggle through to SL, then they will get hammered each and every week by at least 50+

 

As I questioned what are the supporters of the expected survival fighters afraid off. You quite clearly state it is a non-contest.

 

You end your post with a classic statement "I don't see the benefit for SL......other than there will be meaningful games......"  as I stated more meaningful games means more intensity means better competition, but it seems Sir this is completely left field to you, it is quite obvious you do not want to see a better standard league structure in SL as this may impact your teams survival.

 

Admit it and stop hiding behind what you have been saying for a few weeks now in respect of for the good of the game your real objective is SL or nothing for your club, incidentals like improving League Intensity just does not count. 

 

I agree that SL clubs have nothing to fear.......if a club does come up to the 12 it will be one that is relegated this season......also meaningful games doesn't mean the standard is raised, just that the outcome of the game has a meaning....I watched newcastle (soccer) needing to win to prevent relegation....they were awfull no fight....it was a meaningful game but awful as a spectacle....

 

In the CC, sheffield vs London, it wasnt SL quality game, the standard wasnt raised, London went through the motions and won comfortably...

 

As for my side....they played sheffield in 2011 CC, rested half the team and put over 50 on them!! So no worries there then!

 

Oh and the 50+ scores I was referring to was those games in the middle 8 that a current champ side would be competing in.......

[sweaty craiq]

Just answer it honestly: how do you feel about the system we're actually getting. Glad, sad, or something in between. It's not a question about which system you'd prefer. If you asked 100 people which league structure they'd prefer, you'd get 100 different answers, as this thread has illustrated. But 2x12, 3x8 is what we're getting, so the question is about that and that alone.

 

There's no obligation on anyone to vote in the poll at all. It's not binding on anything, as Peter Snow used to say on election night about his swingometer, it's just a bit of fun really.

 

Its a weighted question John, imo aimed at proving a belief held at your HQ. At present we await the level of funding to tier2 if it is that previously muted then we will have 6/7 full time clubs and that imo will provide a vibrant mid 8 comp after a tough league campaign.

Do you prefer a or b would have been better at this stage

[Keith T]

So the 3x8 may look a teensy weensy bit rigged then??

 

Slightly biased with teams receiving £1.3 million against teams getting £90k, I think!!!

[Keith T]

Its a weighted question John, imo aimed at proving a belief held at your HQ. At present we await the level of funding to tier2 if it is that previously muted then we will have 6/7 full time clubs and that imo will provide a vibrant mid 8 comp after a tough league campaign.

Do you prefer a or b would have been better at this stage

I don't understand your problem with it.    It has been announced that this is the system we will have from 2015 and all the poll asks is whether you or me or anyone else is very happy or very unhappy or anywhere else on a scale between the two.    You seem to be unhappy about it so vote that way.  Simples.

[The Parksider]

Very true as far as i'm concerned,i'm not sure who to blame though.

If Bradford & Wakefield had been relegated from the league when they went into admin,then we would still have a strong and confident licence system in place

 

We couldn't have done because there were no clubs who met minimum standard to replace them. All four CC clubs didn't meet the fans criteria of 2,500, one club had a poor business plan, one club was in financial difficulties and another had £800,000 liabilities. Only two had fourth rate academies the RFL classed as "weak".

 

There cannot be a "strong licensing system" when only 4 clubs met the requirements in full. The reason clubs got away with being poor in Superleague was the replacements were even poorer. We seem to maintain the myth that the only reason clubs didn't improve themselves was that they were lazy and it just needed them to be "strongly managed".

[Griff]

That is about as good a summary of why licencing didn't work as I can think of.  The lack of transparency and the woeful management of it.

 

But it's all fine now because the RFL have committed to lower standards and less monitoring.

 

What's not transparent ?

 

I don't subscribe to this idea that businesses should open their books to their nosy customers and nosy customers of rivals.  No other business does it - why should Rugby League clubs ?

[The Parksider]

Slightly biased with teams receiving £1.3 million against teams getting £90k, I think!!!

 

Well we have some way to go and it remains to be seen if the SL clubs fund the key element of the new system properly, part properly or leave it fully rigged. Fascinating. Thanks.....

[Griff]

Can the RFL make the Championship clubs go full-time or can everyone (except maybe Featherstone and the 2 demoted SL clubs) just take the money, say "thanks very much" and keep going as per normal?

 

Sure - they can make conditions if they wish.  But there's been no suggestion that they will.

[John Drake]

Its a weighted question John, imo aimed at proving a belief held at your HQ. At present we await the level of funding to tier2 if it is that previously muted then we will have 6/7 full time clubs and that imo will provide a vibrant mid 8 comp after a tough league campaign.

Do you prefer a or b would have been better at this stage

 

Ok, I get it. I'll never get a job at YouGov or MORI or Gallup (other polling organisations are available).

 

But in all sincerity, the poll isn't there to prove or disprove anything. I just made it up, off the top of my head, on my own initiative, this morning. No one at LE asked me to put a poll up, and it isn't in the paper. It was intended to be a bit of fun on the website, that's all. To me, that's all it still is or ever should be.

 

For what it's worth (nothing), I voted for option 5 (not bothered at all).

 

I just can't emotionally attach myself to league structures or dive into a trench to defend one variety over another. They come, they go. None of them are ever perfect. I hope the latest one achieves positive things for our sport and all involved in it. I always hope that, so we don't have to have another one later.

[The Parksider]

What's not transparent ?

 

I don't subscribe to this idea that businesses should open their books to their nosy customers and nosy customers of rivals.  No other business does it - why should Rugby League clubs ?

 

If what is meant is opening up the books to see why the clubs hadn't properly staffed the academy, aren't marketing properly, haven't got the ground, are not spending the full cap etc then the answer is the patently obvious.....

 

That they didn't have the money to do these things. Unless any of them were syphoning the £hundreds of thousands standards needed off to Swiss bank accounts. Money is something constantly ignored at each twist and turn of the debate. It's the classic myth that the SL clubs were "badly managed" and top CC clubs are "well managed".

 

It's transparent the lot of them were/are skint I tell thee!!

Edited January 20, 2014 by The Parksider

[gingerjon]

What's not transparent ?

 

I don't subscribe to this idea that businesses should open their books to their nosy customers and nosy customers of rivals.  No other business does it - why should Rugby League clubs ?

Specifically I was meaning the RFL decision making and governance side of licensing. I tend to agree with you about clubs and their books.

[petesmithfan]

Its a free werld. Wy not take up jernolism youself?       

 

Its a free werld. Wy not take up jernolism youself?       

Tell you what instead of being a bore about my english skills, why do you not answer some of my points...............................  I have stated how fev have spent their cash and everyone has gone quiet.!