Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can’t wait! Last week it didn’t get delivered, but will be straight out for one of that happens again. I would like to know what “financial pressures” Martyn says will be put on clubs by the new structure. Last year he said clubs would bust a gut “overspending to avoid relegation”. The autumn clamour for players is just about over and all I can see is sensible spending and in some place s like Wakey and Bradford sensible cuts in the player budget.

 

I suggested to Ponte and Terry that Rovers did not seem to be busting their guts to get in the Superleague ASAP and seemed happy to do it through the 3x8 system. I think from the figures Martyn gives it’s clear they are financially well stretched but as has been said who isn’t outside the big boys and big bankrollers.

 

Martyn’s expose of the finances of Fev was part of Ponte’s debate with him hence he chose Fev to illustrate a point. I’m sure that post wasn’t tomorrows article in full or I may as well cancel my copy. I think the accounts at many of the clubs from HKR down to Leigh will all be pretty much the same with clubs spending to the limit. Let's see if he has the full low down?

 

All these ten clubs have struggled in Superleague apart from Featherstone who have never had the chance to either make or break. So for a couple of years now I for one have always thought they should have their chance regardless.

 

Parky, you're correct that Martyn's prediction of doom regarding overspending to stay in the 12 isn't going to happen.

 

I don't think the expose of Featherstone's finances tell us anything one way or the other.  They are nothing but a limited snapshot on an abitrary date in the company's year.  Without the context behind the numbers, they are utterly meaningless.

 

For example, I'm lucky enough to have a reasonable holding in two small companies, one has liabilities of around £300,000, the other has liabilities of around £15,000.  One of them is likely to close down this year, the other is in rude health.  Which one do you think is which?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My tuppence worth is that Franchising has failed because too many clubs were allowed to get away with underperforming. This comes down to a lack of leadership and strength at the top of the game.

Franchising was supposed to allow teams to up their game over the course of a 3 year licence period without the risks of relegation. What in fact has happened is far too many clubs have seen it as an opportunity to do the bare minimum.

The fact 2nd tier/Championship clubs have not had the same access to the sort of money Superleague clubs have means they've not been able to close the gap as much as they might. Although the gap is not as wide as it should have been because of the failures of Superleague clubs.

Looking forward I'd have preferred to have 2 leagues of 12 with 1 up 1 down but with minimum standards a la RU Premiership. That avoids the convoluted system we've now got where presumably if you can fund 13 players on the pitch pretty much anything else goes.

1 up 1 down with standards means you have to win on the pitch and look after the other bits. I'm not convinced that the 3rd group of 8 is going to add much. Are they really going to have playoffs to determine mid-table mediocrity?

I like the idea with a couple of midlands clubs we can have regionalised National Leagues with hopefully cross "conference" games as well.

It'll certainly be interesting to watch the scramble to avoid the bottom 2 this year and we might see a closing of the playing gap between SL and Championship gap over 3 years so we can hopefully see a 1 up 1 down next time round.

so you are saying licensing has failed but your last comment leans towards that the next system will faim and P&R will fail without closing the gap.....so enlighten us to what system isnt a failure and should be implemented! !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mmm maybe the accountant doing his best to limit the tax bill... whats the cash flow or more specific the FCF.

 

Tax bill ? :lol:

 

No, no.  Plenty of losses to bring forward to cover the occasional profit.

 

As has virtually every club in the league.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well again that's an argument that looks fine on the face of it.

However why were there such bad academies? Why did clubs have to do the bare minimum, why did many SL clubs not have the same staffing and facilities the big boys had??

It was a lack of money simple as that. Licensing was a medium for clubs to succeed in, but many of the clubs did not have the money to meet the licensing requirements fully.

Much of the £Millions put in by the Fulton's, Hudgell's, O'Connors, Hughes, Richardson, Wilkinson etc merely went to try to put a competitive team on the pitch. The clubs incomes could not pay for everything licensing demanded.

I think your maybe off beam to think the clubs were just lazy?

I think money does play a role to a certain extent but at the end of the day comes down to priorities on expenditure. They could've choosen to invest in academy structures and go over and above the bare minimum to maintain a franchise. Many didn't. Those that over achieved are now filling their teams will talent and supplying the rest of the game.

Some teams saw the ability to do as little as possible in order to have as much income as possible to fund the team without even really translating that into success on the pitch.

I don't agree with Lobby BTW that you have more than 1 promoted because RL has more "big teams". We may have had teams that have achieved historically but often more than a couple of generations ago and any goodwill that could be called on much diminished to make the club great again.

I agree opportunities have to be there so that a winner of a Championship Grandfinal can go up if it wants but the game cannot afford the annual disruption a 2 up 2 down or theoretical 4 up 4 down that now seems to be the case.

030910105148.jpg

http://www.wiganstpats.org

Producing Players Since 1910

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tax bill ? :lol:

 

No, no.  Plenty of losses to bring forward to cover the occasional profit.

 

As has virtually every club in the league.

 

chuckle....  my point was really that without proper analysis it is hard to say how financially healthy a company is.  

 

I would be surprised if any sports clubs is focused on making a profit, break even over a number of years - yes, but surely not profit.   Even if we ever got to a stage that their was "buckets of money" swilling around the sport, some clubs would still be financially unhealthy. That is as any sport that has lots of money it goes out into the players, coaching staff and their agents - football being a good example and nowadays the NRL as players wages go up.

 

Nice that we will perceive the sport as healthy if we ever replicate NRL monies in the sport here but that won't mean we have good financial strength at all clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, a nice way of putting what I say goes.  I reported a post to you back in July where some members were off topic slating Featherstone people.  Compared to my recent posts I have done nothing wrong but guess what mine were removed.

 

I suppose if you want a one way opinion on the state of the game then people like me can use other forums, after all that's exactly what you want us to do.

 

There is evidence all over this forum to prove what you are accusing me of to be absolute twaddle. Not least the fact that you are still an active member of it, despite having a go at me here.

 

In your head, I should be banning you for being critical of me, or at the very least deleting your critical posts, shouldn't I? But on the contrary, you've never been banned, warned or suspended at all on here, yet here you are still, claiming victimisation of some kind or other.

 

You witter on about censorship, then appear to demand it for anyone who has a view contrary to your own.

 

Honestly, if I censored stuff on here because I personally didn't agree with it, this thread would be about two pages long, not 200.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when has it been the role of the media to be a cheerleader for any sport! Even the mere suggestion betrays a woeful lack of understanding . Or should that be wilful?

I'm interested in that drive, that rush to judgment, that is so prevalent in our society. We all know that pleasurable rush that comes from condemning, and in the short term it's quite a satisfying thing to do, isn't it?

J. K. Rowling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you are saying licensing has failed but your last comment leans towards that the next system will faim and P&R will fail without closing the gap.....so enlighten us to what system isnt a failure and should be implemented! !

If we look towards the NRL with jealousy presumably it's because we can see a system properly implemented with a strong leadership and the benefits it bring. The NRL is clearly a ring fenced comp and accepted as such.

Clearly we have a different tradition in this country which means ring fencing means cutting off clubs not fortunate enough to finding themselves in the top tier.

We either do franchising properly or not at all. Properly means making sure all clubs are able to achieve the standards required and maintain them. But standards should be aspirational rather than a safety net. We've all seen what happens to the welfare system if people aspire to rely on the safety net.

I think RU actually do it quite well. Clearly a lot of clubs would like to close the door but there is sufficient merit in the system to allow clubs to rise to the top.

Bristol, Leeds, Cornish Pirates amongst others want to get to the top and no doubt there are others lower down the leagues who are bubbling up.

With minimum standards you are able to ensure any organisations is a well run club rather than just a expensively assembled team which will fall apart as quickly as assembled when arrangements off the pitch are found out or over stretched by any promotion.

Leigh now have a very nice stadium courtesy of Wigan Borough Tax payers and if they get everything else right could go well if promoted.

The test of those organisational structures would be the fact they are maintained regardless of any promotion or relegation. Minimum standards achieve this even if some clubs find it so etching to work down to as opposed doing the best they can.

Unfortunately we now seem to have got rid of this as a sport which means relying upon the action on the field to attract the fickle public rather than investing in the whole of the business.

030910105148.jpg

http://www.wiganstpats.org

Producing Players Since 1910

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parky, you're correct that Martyn's prediction of doom regarding overspending to stay in the 12 isn't going to happen.

 

I don't think the expose of Featherstone's finances tell us anything one way or the other.  They are nothing but a limited snapshot on an abitrary date in the company's year.  Without the context behind the numbers, they are utterly meaningless.

 

For example, I'm lucky enough to have a reasonable holding in two small companies, one has liabilities of around £300,000, the other has liabilities of around £15,000.  One of them is likely to close down this year, the other is in rude health.  Which one do you think is which?

 

If you have a say in the management of these companies....neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is evidence all over this forum to prove what you are accusing me of to be absolute twaddle. Not least the fact that you are still an active member of it, despite having a go at me here.

 

In your head, I should be banning you for being critical of me, or at the very least deleting your critical posts, shouldn't I? But on the contrary, you've never been banned, warned or suspended at all on here, yet here you are still, claiming victimisation of some kind or other.

 

You witter on about censorship, then appear to demand it for anyone who has a view contrary to your own.

 

Honestly, if I censored stuff on here because I personally didn't agree with it, this thread would be about two pages long, not 200.

**applause**

 

I really wonder why people hang around here if they hate the oppressive moderation so much...  If I had all my posts deleted on a forum and received repeated warnings for being all nice and polite then I'd not be here for long.

 

There are some seriously bitter people out there...

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've not described the SL playoffs there. You've described the SLPO and the Qualifying playoffs.

You've also not described the actual current playoffs. To say "there is a play off system to determine the champions" is not a description (and if it is, it can equally be said to apply to the new system, because THERE IS a playoff system to determine the champions, just a different one).

Try describing the playoff system currently and in as much detail as you have for the new system. Then tell me it's less complicated.

 

No.  You said was the new system more complex than the old one.  Given that in the old one there were only two parts and that for six of the teams nothing happened once they didn't make the play offs obviously it's more complicated now.

 

But, just for you.  This is how the entire Super League season can be summed up:

 

At present, in Super League, fourteen teams play a twenty-seven round regular season.  At the end of this season eight teams qualify for the play-offs from which a champion is crowned.  The other six teams play no further matches.  The play-offs last for four weeks.  In each of the weeks two teams are eliminated (with those who finished highest in the table having a second chance, those who finished lower going home on a single defeat) until the fourth week when the surviving teams contest the grand final.

 

In the future, in Super League, twelve teams will play a twenty-three round regular season.  At the end of this season eight teams qualify for the play-offs from which a champion is crowned.  The other four teams join with the top four teams from the Championship.  The eight SL play-off teams play seven further league fixtures adding to their points they have already accumulated.  The top four sides receive the advantage of having four home games.  After these fixtures the top four contest for the title in a straightforward knock-out lasting two weeks.  The other Super League sides also play an additional seven fixtures with four of their matches being away from home.  Their points start over at this point.  At the end of this mini-league the top three teams automatically join SL for the following season whilst teams 4 and 5 in the table play a one-off game, the winner of which joins SL.

 

Like I've said, it's one of the geniuses of the new system that its response to the oft-stated belief that 8 from 14 devalues the play-offs is to move it to 8 from 12.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think money does play a role to a certain extent but at the end of the day comes down to priorities on expenditure. They could've chosen to invest in academy structures and go over and above the bare minimum to maintain a franchise. Many didn't. Those that over achieved are now filling their teams will talent and supplying the rest of the game.

 

 

For me it's a bit complicated. ideally you want to spend long term, but if you don't put a good team on the pitch it heavily affects the income - just look at the spread of SL attendances last season from 15,000 down to 2,000. Spending on "infrastructure" AND the "team" is possible only if you get the gates.

 

If you don't it's the team otherwise your on a spiral of decline and even then some could could not spend enough on the team, several clubs were below the cap or went into debt to get to it.

 

The thing is it's easy to say what the clubs should be doing but when you need £6,000,000 a year to do it you know that half a dozen of them simply cannot do it. Licensing needed clubs to get growth and they didn't, that's why I believe we need a Superleague set up that can grow.

 

For me the six poor SL clubs and the two top championship clubs will just play at a lower financial level to survive, a massive gap will open with the eight and in three years it'll be "all change"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we look towards the NRL with jealousy presumably it's because we can see a system properly implemented with a strong leadership and the benefits it bring. The NRL is clearly a ring fenced comp and accepted as such.

Clearly we have a different tradition in this country which means ring fencing means cutting off clubs not fortunate enough to finding themselves in the top tier.

We either do franchising properly or not at all. Properly means making sure all clubs are able to achieve the standards required and maintain them. But standards should be aspirational rather than a safety net. We've all seen what happens to the welfare system if people aspire to rely on the safety net.

I think RU actually do it quite well. Clearly a lot of clubs would like to close the door but there is sufficient merit in the system to allow clubs to rise to the top.

Bristol, Leeds, Cornish Pirates amongst others want to get to the top and no doubt there are others lower down the leagues who are bubbling up.

With minimum standards you are able to ensure any organisations is a well run club rather than just a expensively assembled team which will fall apart as quickly as assembled when arrangements off the pitch are found out or over stretched by any promotion.

Leigh now have a very nice stadium courtesy of Wigan Borough Tax payers and if they get everything else right could go well if promoted.

The test of those organisational structures would be the fact they are maintained regardless of any promotion or relegation. Minimum standards achieve this even if some clubs find it so etching to work down to as opposed doing the best they can.

Unfortunately we now seem to have got rid of this as a sport which means relying upon the action on the field to attract the fickle public rather than investing in the whole of the business.

 

It's worth pointing out that the RFL's own doc says that they will be lowering the standards required and being less onerous in enforcing them.

 

This is all going to end so well.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there been any word anywhere on whether there are any plans at all for what was the Northern Rail Cup?  I know it's dead for 2014.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there been any word anywhere on whether there are any plans at all for what was the Northern Rail Cup?  I know it's dead for 2014.

 

When could it possibly be played ?  There are no weeks left.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When could it possibly be played ?  There are no weeks left.

 

That was the rather glum conclusion I'd come to myself.

 

Oh well.  Nobody wants to give lower league teams chances of silverware, I guess.  Where's the fun in winning trophies?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 up and down didnt work before (though was better than licensing). One spot didnt allow enough hope and refreshment for teams outside SL. Also the relegated club usually had an excessive parachute payment which put them at the advantage - also remember that RL has far more big clubs than RU outside their respective top flights, so its important to maintain interest for clubs outside SL. Should this new scheme not work (and I think it will), then 2 up 2 down would be a good compromise

 

Lobby that's utter rubbish - Bristol, Bedford, Cornish Pirates and even Leeds Carnegie are bigger than Championship clubs and the two Exile clubs would pick up more expat backers and plastic Scots / Welsh fans in the top flight. I cannot think of any "big" clubs outside Superleague.

 

Now if you were using the Greene King IPA Championship as an argument for P&R then you might be on more solid ground until you consider that the majority of these clubs are geographically isolated and thus do not compete for fans with other clubs, can get financial backers, do have a youth system and most importantly are better run off the field which is why a club like Exeter can thrive in the top division.

 

Sorry folks not trying to encourage more tedious Union - League postings but some factually inaccurate posts need challenging.

Edited by THE RED ROOSTER
Quote

When the pinch comes the common people will turn out to be more intelligent than the clever ones. I certainly hope so.

George Orwell
FjKZzCd.png

You either own NFTs or women’s phone numbers but not both

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was the rather glum conclusion I'd come to myself.

 

Oh well.  Nobody wants to give lower league teams chances of silverware, I guess.  Where's the fun in winning trophies?

 

I have to say that the concept of each division effectively having its own Cup, whilst not being barred from winning a Cup for a higher division (however unlikely that may be) was genius.

 

But - hey - let's go for some convoluted system where the winner's not so clear and the Big Day Out is exclusively for Fourth and Fifth.

Edited by Griff

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you been a Wakefield Fan (martyn) can probably see your shiny new stadium and thus future slipping away, because should you get relegated it will be very hard to justify the build. Good luck

The Wakefield Community Stadium would still go ahead SL or not . If we did get relegated the new system allows the chance to get straight back up doesn't it? so I would have though the removal of licensing would be a good argument against the no SL no community rumour. Im starting to warm to this new option as I hear the other option wasn't that good for the whole game + for clubs like us cas, Bradford it could increase investment as they know we won't be out of the top flight for at least 3 years due to licensing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wakefield Community Stadium would still go ahead SL or not . If we did get relegated the new system allows the chance to get straight back up doesn't it? so I would have though the removal of licensing would be a good argument against the no SL no community rumour. Im starting to warm to this new option as I hear the other option wasn't that good for the whole game + for clubs like us cas, Bradford it could increase investment as they know we won't be out of the top flight for at least 3 years due to licensing.

 

Investment ?  In what by whom ?

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that the concept of each division effectively having its own Cup, whilst not being barred from winning a Cup for a higher division (however unlikely that may be) was genius.

 

The only downside to it was to not have the games played in Blackpool.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...