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

[Ponterover]

If we're to believe those in the know, Toulouse were sold a place in the top tier without any mention of widespread restucturing.

 

I'm going on what Steve Gill, CEO of C*s said at their recent fans forum.  I reckon he'll know significantly more than anyone that posts on here

[Keith T]

Thereby creating another divide.

Great stuff. All this is well thought out, innit ?

Innit? And you also have to throw in to the mix the fact that the relegated SL clubs are believed to be receiving parachute payments of several hundred thousand pounds!!!

[Celtic Rooster]

Good old Rugby League. It used to be a fantastic sport, when it was about sport, and the reason I stopped following Manchester United 32 years ago.

[keighley]

It is not the case. That was an extreme example. What is more likely to happen is that a club like Wakefield, Castleford or London will realise with 5 games of the 1x12 to go that they will drop into 2x8. Therefore, they will play kids and reserve graders for the last few fixtures giving their first choice players a break.

 

They will then go into 2x8 and win their first 3/4 games - guaranteeing that they are back in SL next year by finishing in the top 4 of 8. Then, in effect, it is job done and the season is over. Will they be that bothered about winning 2x8 when they have guaranteed full funding back in SL with 4/5 weeks of the season still to go? Not sure. They will probably be busy signing players and planning for SL next year and how to spend their full funding.

 

If people think this won't turn into the cynical example shown above then they are in for a shock. The fans will also soon twig and attendances could fall away for the last third of the season (against what this radical change is trying to be achieved).

 

This whole set up is too complicated and has more holes in it than swiss cheese. A simple return to one or 2 up and down p and r is all that is needed. An increase in funding for the championship teams would also be welcome.

 

I don't think the average fan will understand or take the time to follow the chopping and changing and too complicated scenarios thrown up by the 3 x 8 format. It seems like a backdoor way to ensure a top six SL elite who will never fall into the middle eight and perpetually contest the playoffs and grandfinal.

[JohnM]

Good old Rugby League. It used to be a fantastic sport, when it was about sport, and the reason I stopped following Manchester United 32 years ago.

 

 

and just as Man U has  survived and thrived and indeed has gone from strength to strength, so RL is STILL a fantastic sport and one that lives and breathes in the conditions that prevail in the 21st century...at least the 10, 000 who  went through the turnstiles tonight at Wakefield thought so. 

[Northern Sol]

Griff, I strongly disagree when you say,"We RL supporters don't half like to moan don't we ? |"  

 

Its much more than half, and if one uses this forum as a sample, it's about 80%, reinforced by the disproportionate number of posts by the naysayers with their  relentless and numerous attack on the game, the rules,  present and future structures, referees,  present and future game leadership, quality and volume of TV coverage, etc.  These people claim to love the game so much that one advocated/suggested that his club should turn to union.

I'd say that we like to dream the impossible dream myself.

 

In the last few years we've had the Stade Francais RL team that never was, the mythical Barcelona SL bid, Southern Orcas (of New Zealand) at SL level, the second London SL side.

 

Below that we've had: Irish side Limerick Flame, un-named Scottish side, Cornwall / Bristol etc.

 

All of which were defended to the hilt by multiple forumites. None of them had much reality.

 

There were probably more but 

[Pottsy]

Maybe I'm being to simplistic here, but here goes.....

* reducing Super League to 10 teams would free up £5.2m in central funding.

* using the RFL's own figures, that would be more than enough to fund a further 10 clubs in 'Super League 2' to also go full time.

* if each team played each other three times across the course of the season that would give us 27 rounds (the same as we have now) without having to resort to convoluted/contrived splits.

* 10 team divisions would also see a return to the old (and IMO much better) top five playoff system.

* one up, one down promotion between two centrally funded fully pro divisions would be far more manageable.

* this would effectively be an expansion of Super League from 14 to 20 clubs as well as a return to automatic P&R, something I think the RFL would have found it far easier to sell to the clubs, the fans and the media.

The only complicated bit in my eyes would be figuring out how to link the top two fully pro divisions with the part time operations below.

My opinion is that we'd still need licensing to determine which 20 clubs the game should invest in but, as the whole thing is hypothetical now, it doesn't really matter.

[Dave T]

Maybe I'm being to simplistic here, but here goes.....

* reducing Super League to 10 teams would free up £5.2m in central funding.

* using the RFL's own figures, that would be more than enough to fund a further 10 clubs in 'Super League 2' to also go full time.

* if each team played each other three times across the course of the season that would give us 27 rounds (the same as we have now) without having to resort to convoluted/contrived splits.

* 10 team divisions would also see a return to the old (and IMO much better) top five playoff system.

* one up, one down promotion between two centrally funded fully pro divisions would be far more manageable.

* this would effectively be an expansion of Super League from 14 to 20 clubs as well as a return to automatic P&R, something I think the RFL would have found it far easier to sell to the clubs, the fans and the media.

The only complicated bit in my eyes would be figuring out how to link the top two fully pro divisions with the part time operations below.

My opinion is that we'd still need licensing to determine which 20 clubs the game should invest in but, as the whole thing is hypothetical now, it doesn't really matter.

I agree with much of this, I'm ok with the splits halfway through, but I think it would work much better from a logistical and funding point of view if we stuck to 20 teams. 24 feels like too many.

[The Parksider]

Maybe I'm being to simplistic here, but here goes.....

* reducing Super League to 10 teams would free up £5.2m in central funding.

 

 

The top ten clubs forming SL1 would get £1.3M and income from 10,000 crowds.

 

The second 10 forming SL2 would get £520,000 and income from crowds averaging around 2,000+

 

The gap between the finances would be still enormous.

 

The best players (and we know the quality player pool is shrinking) would all be in SL1

 

The wealthy chairmen would also all end up in SL1 also crating a funding gap.

 

What we need for this to work as for any divisional split is for clubs at the bottom end of SL1 to have the same sort of resources as clubs at the top of SL2.

 

I think you have a big gap and I think clubs will Yo-Yo still Just IMHO.

[Pottsy]

I don't agree to be honest. If clubs in SL2 were smart with recruitment, focusing on developing young talent and then augmenting it with tried and tested pros when they get promoted (as tends to be the the most successful approach in Premiership football).

There's always going to be a need for the promoted team to 'step up' and, as in football, some will make it and others won't. That's sport.

The biggest barrier previously has been moving from a part time environment to a full time competition; this funding model would eliminate that.

I also think that your idea of lowering the funding for tailend SL1 clubs would create a similar situation to 2x12 + 3x8 whereby the same clubs would be trapped in a kind of 'groundhog day' year on year.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Pottsy

[Dave T]

The top ten clubs forming SL1 would get £1.3M and income from 10,000 crowds.

 

The second 10 forming SL2 would get £520,000 and income from crowds averaging around 2,000+

 

The gap between the finances would be still enormous.

 

The best players (and we know the quality player pool is shrinking) would all be in SL1

 

The wealthy chairmen would also all end up in SL1 also crating a funding gap.

 

What we need for this to work as for any divisional split is for clubs at the bottom end of SL1 to have the same sort of resources as clubs at the top of SL2.

 

I think you have a big gap and I think clubs will Yo-Yo still Just IMHO.

Is yo-yo'ing a big issue?

 

SL1 - Workington relegated and struggled financially

SL2 - Salford came up and finished 6th, Oldham relegated and struggled financially

SL3 - Hudds came up finishes bottom, Hull came up and finished 9th. No teams relegated **************************************

SL4 - Gateshead admitted. Wakefield promoted - finished 11th. No team relegated as Hudds/Sheff merge.

SL5 - No teams promoted. Hudds bottom no relegation.

SL6 - Hudds finally relegated - come back much stronger.

SL7 - Widnes promoted - finish 7th. Salford relegated - still going in SL with a rich backer.

SL8 - Hudds back up, finish 10th. Halifax relegated struggle financially.

SL9 - Salford back up, finish 9th. Cas down.

SL10 - Leigh up and back down! Widnes also relegated for Catalan.

SL11 - Cas promoted and back down (finished 2nd from bottom)

SL12 - Hull KR up finish 11th. Salford relegated.

SL13 - Cas promoted, finish bottom no relegation. 

 

 

So during the first 13 years of SL, we had 7 different clubs that suffered relegation, with 3 other clubs leaving the SL (Gateshead, Paris and Crusaders).

 

We also have 5 of the 14 teams in SL currently not original members of SL1.

 

There seems to be an argument that yo-yoing is an issue, when I think the bigger issue is that a relegated team cannot always manage the move down to becoming a smaller company on a smaller budget. People will blame relegation, but often the reason these teams are relegated in the first place is because they are poor teams/clubs.

 

Cas are a team who could be described as a yo-yo team during the last decade, they got relegated because they were poor - has licensing helped them?

 

Plenty of teams got relegated and didn;t come back up, nothing to do with yo-yoing.

Plenty of teams get prmoted and don't go back down, nothing to do with yo-yoing.

 

IMHO the bigger issue is the step down is too large - a solution like Pottsy suggests, and to a slightly lesser extent the RFL proposal, this addresses that funding issue.

 

There has been a tendancy recently for people to scare-monger too, asking what would happen if a club like Catalan had a few injuries and got relegated - all the hard work would be undone - I ask, when has this ever happened? Look at the above list, no so-called top club has been relegated due to a few injuries. The weak clubs with the smaller crowds and smaller budgets generally get relegated.

[The Parksider]

1. I think that your idea of lowering the funding for tailend SL1 clubs.......

2. I don't agree to be honest. If clubs in SL2 were smart with recruitment, focusing on developing young talent and then augmenting it with tried and tested pros when they get promoted

3. The biggest barrier previously has been moving from a part time environment to a full time competition; this funding model would eliminate that.

1. I didn't suggest SL1 sides should get disparate money, apologies If I misled, just that if you want plenty of movement up and down the SL2 clubs need to be close to the SL1 clubs in overall finances.

2. Under your model they would be £780,000 adrift in TV money and 8,000 fans adrift in gate money not to mention if the lowest SL1 clubs had rich owners and the top SL2 clubs did not which is very possible. You then also have the "can we stay up in just one season" problem which used to be exacerbated because by the time the second tier was decided the top tier had bought up all the best players, PLUS the best kids will all be at the top tier academies.

half a dozen reasons for it not to work?

3. The barrier you speak about can be removed by removing the disparate salary cap between SL1 & SL2 - make it the same. The barrier of disparate funding can be removed by giving all 20 clubs £910,000 TV money each.

Now that'd be better?

Edited July 28, 2013 by The Parksider

[The Parksider]

1. IMHO the bigger issue is the step down is too large - a solution like Pottsy suggests, and to a slightly lesser extent the RFL proposal, this addresses that funding issue.

2.Is yo-yo'ing a big issue?

 

3. There has been a tendancy recently for people to scare-monger too, asking what would happen if a club like Catalan had a few injuries and got relegated - all the hard work would be undone - I ask, when has this ever happened? Look at the above list, no so-called top club has been relegated due to a few injuries. The weak clubs with the smaller crowds and smaller budgets generally get relegated.

1. I don't disagree I just think Mr. P doesn't go far enough. IMHO SL is suffering from trying to be an island, ring fencing failure, and drifting under a failed policy which the lower SL chairmen react to by "stepping down" and withdrawing private funding, whilst clubs who want to get on and can find rich men are being stifled by "standards" even SL clubs aren't meeting.

If we neeed to involve more clubs and go back to P & R because the clubs want this rather than Rimmer and lewis wanting it then this is what we have to do. It's no good IMHO telling Hudgell, O'Connor, Fulton etc they have to spend on "infrastructure" whilst their best players are nicked and london get a free SL ticket every time.

If we want SL1/SL2 do it properly, but the top clubs won't wear it as far as I can see.

2. Not really unless we get the same club who goes up coming down again every year. Thanks for your anlysis of the past movements. I feel without equal funding of the two leagues you will create far more of a "chance" of yo-yoing.

3. Yes I agree and again under my modified "Potts" model there'd be less problems for the relegated club. Just make all clubs even on the TV funding.

"All" it needs is SKY and the top chairmen to swallow it. Anything less and it's loaded....

[robinson2]

As far as I can see, we're going round in circles here trying to make the existing pot of money stretch as far as possible. Without growing that pot of money, notions of 20 full time sides are fanciful.

Edited July 28, 2013 by robinson2

[Dave T]

1. I didn't suggest SL1 sides should get disparate money, apologies If I misled, just that if you want plenty of movement up and down the SL2 clubs need to be close to the SL1 clubs in overall finances.

2. Under your model they would be £780,000 adrift in TV money and 8,000 fans adrift in gate money not to mention if the lowest SL1 clubs had rich owners and the top SL2 clubs did not which is very possible. You then also have the "can we stay up in just one season" problem which used to be exacerbated because by the time the second tier was decided the top tier had bought up all the best players, PLUS the best kids will all be at the top tier academies.

half a dozen reasons for it not to work?

3. The barrier you speak about can be removed by removing the disparate salary cap between SL1 & SL2 - make it the same. The barrier of disparate funding can be removed by giving all 20 clubs £910,000 TV money each.

Now that'd be better?

I think one of the important things to remember if a 10/10 structure was in would be that the 2nd division should be made of quite strong teams.

 

Season 1 could easily see:

Widnes

Castleford

Salford

London

Featherstone

Halifax

Sheffield

Leigh

Toulouse

NW Crusaders

 

It should be a division full of ambitious well run clubs. I think if you gave these teams a competitive environment with some funding, it would be a worthy investment.

 

Without being harsh, I think we have too many weak teams in the Championship at the moment, a restructure to get teams playing in the right groupings is overdue imho.

[Dave T]

As far as I can see, we're going round in circles here trying to make the existing pot of money stretch as far as possible. Without growing that pot of money, notions of 20 full time sides are fanciful.

Don't forget we are not talking 20 top division teams. Players in the 2nd division may be full time, but their wage would not be anywhere near as big as SL. These 10 clubs would have players who are on £30k rather than the average £65k in SL. This can allow younger lads to make a living from the game and aim for a place in either a SL club or progressing with their club.

 

Again, as I often say, anything can be done, we can start again with a blank canvas if we want.

 

Have a top 10 with a requirement to spend £1.8m on players - meaning that after central funding they have to self-fund around £5-600k themselves.

Have a 2nd 10 with a requirement to spend £900k on players - meaning that after central funding they have to self fund around £3-400k themselves.

 

Top 10 average salary of £72k

2nd 10 average salary of £36k

[Pottsy]

I think one of the important things to remember if a 10/10 structure was in would be that the 2nd division should be made of quite strong teams.

Season 1 could easily see:

Widnes

Castleford

Salford

London

Featherstone

Halifax

Sheffield

Leigh

Toulouse

NW Crusaders

It should be a division full of ambitious well run clubs. I think if you gave these teams a competitive environment with some funding, it would be a worthy investment.

Without being harsh, I think we have too many weak teams in the Championship at the moment, a restructure to get teams playing in the right groupings is overdue imho.

When you look at it like that, it's very enticing (although from a talent production perspective I'd love to see 'Cumbria' in there somehow).

The RFL itself has stated that it requires £500,000 in funding for a club to go fulltime, so it's clear that the funding is already in place, it just comes down to how we choose to distribute it.

Personally, I think if the licenses were viable whilst still leaving a big geographical footprint it'll be a worthwhile investment and could reinvigorate the sport.

[archibald]

10 teams in SL. 20 league games and a "magic weekend". Top 5 play-offs.

 

What goes on lower down, I genuinely don't care about. There'll be bitching and moaning about the unfairness of it all, tough.

 

SL clubs in to the CC in rd 4.

[Pottsy]

1. I didn't suggest SL1 sides should get disparate money, apologies If I misled, just that if you want plenty of movement up and down the SL2 clubs need to be close to the SL1 clubs in overall finances.

2. Under your model they would be £780,000 adrift in TV money and 8,000 fans adrift in gate money not to mention if the lowest SL1 clubs had rich owners and the top SL2 clubs did not which is very possible. You then also have the "can we stay up in just one season" problem which used to be exacerbated because by the time the second tier was decided the top tier had bought up all the best players, PLUS the best kids will all be at the top tier academies.

half a dozen reasons for it not to work?

3. The barrier you speak about can be removed by removing the disparate salary cap between SL1 & SL2 - make it the same. The barrier of disparate funding can be removed by giving all 20 clubs £910,000 TV money each.

Now that'd be better?

Not really, because you'd still want the teams that earn a place in the top division to have more funds available to recruit the best players.

The two divisions shouldn't be 'equal' - just look at football - the 'energy' comes from being able to aspire to join the top flight and then get equal funding.

[robinson2]

I think what the above posts show is that those who have the power to decide the restructuring have been far too quick to dismiss Ken Davy's proposal out of hand.

[Pottsy]

I think what the above posts show is that those who have the power to decide the restructuring have been far too quick to dismiss Ken Davy's proposal out of hand.

I agree.

[robinson2]

I think it was established four teams were broadly in favour of it with Huddersfield evidently the keenest proponent. What I'd like to know is when this was first put forward in relation to the other ideas, why X clubs agreed with it, why the others were against, whether those who were against it were never going to agree to it no matter how much their arms were twisted and at what point was it decided not to pursue it further. Surely a job for a good investigative journalist à la Caroline Wilson in AFL. If this info is already in the public domain, I apologise in advance for my ignorance!

[The Parksider]

Not really, because you'd still want the teams that earn a place in the top division to have more funds available to recruit the best players.

The two divisions shouldn't be 'equal' - just look at football - the 'energy' comes from being able to aspire to join the top flight and then get equal funding.

 

I dunno, as far as things are going there aren't going to be that many "top" players to recruit. If the player drain goes on we won't need to spend £1.65M a year per club on players. Don't you think that simply being part of the elite is actually everything?

[The Parksider]

I think it was established four teams were broadly in favour of it with Huddersfield evidently the keenest proponent. What I'd like to know is when this was first put forward in relation to the other ideas, why X clubs agreed with it, why the others were against, whether those who were against it were never going to agree to it no matter how much their arms were twisted and at what point was it decided not to pursue it further. Surely a job for a good investigative journalist

 

Well said, check out the RFL Chairman responds to criticism thread.

 

It's pretty darn hard to discuss these massive changes/proposals when nobody is explaining what the exact problems are and in what way the various proposals may overcome those problems. The RFL don't seem to want to be open about the problems, the clubs only comment in terms of what's good for them, and the RL Journos just aren't getting to the bottom of it when there's plenty of avenues to pursue the truth.

 

All I can think of is the bottom half of SL don't want to be bit part players whilst the same clubs at the top hog the limelight, and if something more vibrant isn't introduced the top SL clubs may find themselves on their own......

[audois]

Mark Aston thinks there's only 10 clubs maximum viable for any SL2 even if SL1 is 12 in number.

Like others here I thought licencing across both divisions is the best way to go.

SL2 to me should be 10 and a means to bring in in time representatives from Cumbria, Wales and France. With Toulouse now could add on Avignon & Carcassonne eventually. That could be really exciting and a wider foot print.If NRL continue to take our best a larger number of clubs playing full time here but on lower salaries may be the way to go in exchange for geographical expansion now. Making those new entities into really bigger clubs will be for another day.

A while back I heard talk of a SL1 playing each other twice & SL1 clubs once giving 28 fixtures. At the moment that would give four of the present SL clubs still contact with the top tier. For the SL1 clubs only difference instead of playing the botom four twice add on the likes of Featherstone, Halifax, Sheffield and Leigh et al once. Not a fan of sides playing each other 3 times in regular season.