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

[brooza]

I don't. I just thought I'd join in contriving an argument to suit a desired outcome, however it didn't work. It got my club Hunslet no nearer Superleague. The views on the various schemes are so heavily tainted with self interest from "brilliant scheme it will last forever" from the Cas CEO, to "load of rubbish" from the Bradford head coach.

 

I blame the RFL, SLE and KPMG for a proposal with a stated outcome - "bigger crowds" - which in turn has been broadcasted to us in a PR fashion all without a shred of published analytical evidence to back it up.

They only tell you the bits they want you to hear. That's fair enough it's their business and I have no say nor right to be told anything. But I do think that if we debate PR guff and further slant our own interpretations of why the club representatives talk so differently about the same thing (Cas CEO "help were skint and need releasing gently from SL".....Bradford coach"Help we're useless and don't want relegating") then we drift.

 

I personally like the idea from Craiq and Gaz that no matter what, opening up the leagues like this can find people out.......

 

1. Let's see if London can swim without licensing to protect them?

2. Lets see if certain SL clubs really deserve to be in there?

3. Let's see if certain CC clubs really can be better than SL clubs

4. Let those with the wallets either open them up and stop threatening to invest or shut them and go

5. Lets see if KPMG were right or wrong

 

My predictions? London and Featherstone to quickly swap places, Bradford to regain past glories, Cas Fev and Wakey to all be outside the eight, and Sheffield to finally fade.

 

Still to come - the central funding issue, and the reaction to that in terms of which chairmen will continue to invest in light of central funding because I think the less central funding the more standing down we will get.

When have London been protected by licensing?

[yipyee]

I don't. I just thought I'd join in contriving an argument to suit a desired outcome, however it didn't work. It got my club Hunslet no nearer Superleague. The views on the various schemes are so heavily tainted with self interest from "brilliant scheme it will last forever" from the Cas CEO, to "load of rubbish" from the Bradford head coach.

 

I blame the RFL, SLE and KPMG for a proposal with a stated outcome - "bigger crowds" - which in turn has been broadcasted to us in a PR fashion all without a shred of published analytical evidence to back it up.

They only tell you the bits they want you to hear. That's fair enough it's their business and I have no say nor right to be told anything. But I do think that if we debate PR guff and further slant our own interpretations of why the club representatives talk so differently about the same thing (Cas CEO "help were skint and need releasing gently from SL".....Bradford coach"Help we're useless and don't want relegating") then we drift.

 

I personally like the idea from Craiq and Gaz that no matter what, opening up the leagues like this can find people out.......

 

1. Let's see if London can swim without licensing to protect them?

2. Lets see if certain SL clubs really deserve to be in there?

3. Let's see if certain CC clubs really can be better than SL clubs

4. Let those with the wallets either open them up and stop threatening to invest or shut them and go

5. Lets see if KPMG were right or wrong

 

My predictions? London and Featherstone to quickly swap places, Bradford to regain past glories, Cas Fev and Wakey to all be outside the eight, and Sheffield to finally fade.

 

Still to come - the central funding issue, and the reaction to that in terms of which chairmen will continue to invest in light of central funding because I think the less central funding the more standing down we will get.

 

 

London are favourites to go down so how will they swap places?

 

Fev wont be in the top division to miss the 8 (unless you think they wont make the middle to be perdantic every team will be 'in an 8'

 

Sheffield have been the top team for the last 2 years why would they suddenly fade? If anything they will grow with additional revenue....as its staggered through the division they will be on more than other clubs....

 

I honestly think its fev who may fade!!

[gingerjon]

When have London been protected by licensing?

 

Must have been that season they finished bottom.

[Griff]

When have London been protected by licensing?

 

Licensing itself is a protection.

[Keith T]

I'm hoping that we'll eventually have more than 1up/down to the third division if we are to have enhanced mobility for non heartland clubs. It could take a long time for clubs to get out of the third division. This year is critical for clubs to stay in the second division

From the end of the 2015 season there is to be 2 teams up and down between the Championship and Championship 1. The top team in Champ 1 promoted automatically and the other from a play-off between 2nd to 5th placed clubs. It is is only at the end of this season where ther is only 1 team promoted but with 5 (or 6) being relegated.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Keith T

[The Parksider]

London and Featherstone swapping places may well mean them both staying in the same division.

 

Ah yes but if they end a season with Fev finishing 3rd in the eight and London finishing 8 they will be swapping places won't they. Then will a freefalling London leave the Championship or the game altogether?

[The Parksider]

When have London been protected by licensing?

 

London never came bottom, suggest we look at the facts.

 

If you look at the history Richard Lewis rescued London from being booted out of SL and had them re-instated alongside Les Catalans and he introduced a quasi-licence for Catalans protecting them from relegation. So Lewis was protectionist IMVHO.

 

Then when full licensing came in he could then ensure that London, Wales and France were protected in Superleague, so his expansion policy was protected and they could "grow". Protectionism again?

 

As it was Crusaders collapsed but still got a licence - protected or what??

 

Were London 2011 up to another 3 year licence?? Were crowds improving, results improving, the structures at London improving?? Not at all, they were protected because they were seen as "strategic" as the licensing panel said.

[brooza]

Licensing itself is a protection.

Well then let's see if Wigan can swim without licensing to protect them?

[The Parksider]

London are favourites to go down so how will they swap places?

 

Fev wont be in the top division to miss the 8 (unless you think they wont make the middle to be perdantic every team will be 'in an 8'

 

Sheffield have been the top team for the last 2 years why would they suddenly fade? If anything they will grow with additional revenue....as its staggered through the division they will be on more than other clubs....

 

I honestly think its fev who may fade!!

 

We all have our thoughts. As it stands today London cannot survive in SL and Featherstone have Nahaboo lined up to bankroll the clubs losses in full. Massive difference.So London relegated. Featherstone stay where they are 2014??.......

 

Then Fev are in the top four 2015 whilst London may even have packed in by then.So there's a swap over with London the team going down down down and Fev going up up but no, I don't see them breaking the top eight.

 

Now if Nahaboo buys out Cas and Wakey and closes them down I can see it, otherwise it's a mid table Calder "derbyfest" year on year......

 

I also note Hudgell lined up with Pearson despite the latter trying to pinch his best players all the time. Hudge was the first to openly call for 12 clubs. Methinks IMVHO he hoped the saved SKY money would be divvied up amongst the 12, so I assume he's not happy despite fans of Fev saying he's seen the light!!

 

Will both clubs end up outside the "8" as they have done before. Hull's start at Bradford was poor HKR have lost Dobson. I don't like the idea of an 8 clubs Superleague with nobody from Hull or Calder in it but hey ho....

Edited January 23, 2014 by The Parksider

[gingerjon]

From the end of the 2015 season there is to be 2 teams up and down between the Championship and Championship 1. The top team in Champ 1 promoted automatically and the other from a play-off between 2nd to 5th placed clubs. It is is only at the end of this season where ther is only 1 team promoted but with 5 (or 6) being relegated.

 

I misread that bit before.  It is 2 up isn't it?  I thought it was 1.

[Griff]

Well then let's see if Wigan can swim without licensing to protect them?

 

OK - I reckon they will.  What do you reckon ?

 

What exactly is the point you're making ?  Is there one ?

[brooza]

OK - I reckon they will.  What do you reckon ?

 

What exactly is the point you're making ?  Is there one ?

The point is, licensing doesn't protect teams that don't finish bottom, which London didn't.

 

In the last few years, it has protected Crusaders, Catalans, Widnes and Salford.

 

Although if you want to expand it to 2 teams relegated, then yes it has protected London, along with the above mentioned and Wakefield and Castleford, but either way it seems pointless to single them out on this basis

[brooza]

London never came bottom, suggest we look at the facts.

 

If you look at the history Richard Lewis rescued London from being booted out of SL and had them re-instated alongside Les Catalans and he introduced a quasi-licence for Catalans protecting them from relegation. So Lewis was protectionist IMVHO.

 

Then when full licensing came in he could then ensure that London, Wales and France were protected in Superleague, so his expansion policy was protected and they could "grow". Protectionism again?

 

As it was Crusaders collapsed but still got a licence - protected or what??

 

Were London 2011 up to another 3 year licence?? Were crowds improving, results improving, the structures at London improving?? Not at all, they were protected because they were seen as "strategic" as the licensing panel said.

At what point after Crusaders collapsed were they granted a licence?

Edited January 23, 2014 by brooza

[audois]

Given that Les Catalans didn't vote in either vote then they must have wanted the status quo? Therefore everyone was for it so the Status Quo actually won unanimously?

I'm sure I read here that Guasch prefered the status quo of 14 clubs. Catalan not keen on 'R' word!

CEO Jouffret was present at both meetings; think Guasch may have made it to St Helens on Friday.

Edited January 23, 2014 by audois

[Griff]

The point is, licensing doesn't protect teams that don't finish bottom, which London didn't.

 

Look at it this way.  If you wear a hard hat at work, you're still protected, even if no-one drops a hammer on it.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Griff

[petesmithfan]

I have a feeling that had the Swiss experiment been a roaring success you would have been one of the first to use it as an example!!!!

These things are progressive so i dare say at some point it was actually a success.  It is still irrelevant to RL in ENGLAND.  And if it does not work in RL it would be changed (thats how it goes).  The only way we will find out is to try! we will not find out by talking the ###### out of it on here!

[petesmithfan]

Yet it's the only actual experience from which we can draw.

We do not need to draw anything................................ it is out of our control !!!  and its still irrelevant!

[Griff]

We do not need to draw anything................................ it is out of our control !!!  and its still irrelevant!

 

1. OK - it's the only experience on which the decision makers can draw as well.

 

2.  Why is it irrelevant ?

[GeordieSaint]

There's virtually no money trickling down to the third tier so, from 2015 onwards, it's going to be blinkin' hard work for any team to come up from the third tier to the second and stay there.

 

There's very little money trickling down to half the clubs in the Championship as well... we are going to end up with a full time/part time split in that league, never mind Championship 1. So much for the whole game solution!

 

(Last post on the topic... can't be bothered anymore!)

Edited January 23, 2014 by GeordieSaint

[The Parksider]

At what point after Crusaders collapsed were they granted a licence?

 

Look it up, what's the problem?

 

People went Bananas on here when they were protected.

 

IIRC they ticked no boxes.

[Saintslass]

I'm sure I read here that Guasch prefered the status quo of 14 clubs. Catalan not keen on 'R' word!

CEO Jouffret was present at both meetings; think Guasch may have made it to St Helens on Friday.

The Dragons abstained so it could be assumed he was there at St Helens otherwise would he have actually been able to lodge an abstention?

[Lobbygobbler]

For me, this should get at least as long as licensing. The figures of merit are:

-attendances of all three divisions

-TV revenues and TV viewing figs

-fan contentment

-mobility (I hope to see at least one second div club get into SL per year)

-Increase in no. of UK pro player base

-closer scorelines

[Griff]

Well, nearly two years to wait before we see if someone gets promoted.

 

Wonder how many posts will be on the thread by then ?

[yipyee]

These things are progressive so i dare say at some point it was actually a success.  It is still irrelevant to RL in ENGLAND.  And if it does not work in RL it would be changed (thats how it goes).  The only way we will find out is to try! we will not find out by talking the ###### out of it on here!

 

 

Licensing doesn't work you cant compare Aus/USA comps as there is a heritage and culture to UK sports....

 

Oh hang an a second look at what the swiss are doing.......................

[yipyee]

We all have our thoughts. As it stands today London cannot survive in SL and Featherstone have Nahaboo lined up to bankroll the clubs losses in full. Massive difference.So London relegated. Featherstone stay where they are 2014??.......

 

Then Fev are in the top four 2015 whilst London may even have packed in by then.So there's a swap over with London the team going down down down and Fev going up up but no, I don't see them breaking the top eight.

 

Now if Nahaboo buys out Cas and Wakey and closes them down I can see it, otherwise it's a mid table Calder "derbyfest" year on year......

 

I also note Hudgell lined up with Pearson despite the latter trying to pinch his best players all the time. Hudge was the first to openly call for 12 clubs. Methinks IMVHO he hoped the saved SKY money would be divvied up amongst the 12, so I assume he's not happy despite fans of Fev saying he's seen the light!!

 

Will both clubs end up outside the "8" as they have done before. Hull's start at Bradford was poor HKR have lost Dobson. I don't like the idea of an 8 clubs Superleague with nobody from Hull or Calder in it but hey ho....

 

 

Just 1 flaw to your logic good sir.....

 

you are presuming london will survive the drop this year......and then be dreadful next...

 

If London go down this year and continue (lets say wakey as well)

 

then fev would be looking to replace widnes, cas, bradford, and hull KR in the 12 team SL?

 

if bradford go down then your model looks good (london to stay up, then go bad) but we are forgetting that wakey and bradford (in this example) would also be battling fev to replace London, I would back the 2 former any day of the week to do this!

Edited January 24, 2014 by yipyee