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

[Derwent]

This may have been covered but as we're only discussing the mediocre bit of the league in depth I've missed it but what do the top 8 teams do to decide a champion?

From what I can gather its going to be a top 4 play offs with a straight 1 v 4, 2 v 3, winners meet in GF format.

[gingerjon]

From what I can gather its going to be a top 4 play offs with a straight 1 v 4, 2 v 3, winners meet in GF format.

Do they play each other again or do teams 5-8 just go home?

[Derwent]

Do they play each other again or do teams 5-8 just go home?

I could be wrong but I have been told that it will be :-

Regular season - 23 games, home & away x 11 plus magic weekend

Second phase (after 8 x 8 x 8 split) - play each of the other 7 teams once, points carried forward from regular season, to determine top 4. Teams 5-8 season over.

Play offs - top 4 play 2 semi-finals and a GF

[Pottsy]

I could be wrong but I have been told that it will be :-

Regular season - 23 games, home & away x 11 plus magic weekend

Second phase (after 8 x 8 x 8 split) - play each of the other 7 teams once, points carried forward from regular season, to determine top 4. Teams 5-8 season over.

Play offs - top 4 play 2 semi-finals and a GF

That's correct. So all the good teams will still play each other three times in the regular season and some will play each other four times.

So much for there not being an appetite for repeat fixtures!

[l'angelo mysterioso]

1, Don't try to deflect your negativity and talking the game down on to me. You think the changes aren't going to be good. I can accept your views. I don't agree with them, along with many many more. But constantly talking the game down like you do on this matter isn't going to help the game prosper. And if you are such an advocate of the game expanding your attitude may in the long run affect this.

2, I have told you numerous times. I can't answer the question as i don't have access to the business plans etc of clubs.

Maybe you can answer my question. What central funding did clubs receive in these "22 years" of yoyoing you mentioned?

Clubs received a levy from

Central funds it was one if the causes of discontent that led to the mooted breakaway by the big clubs in the late eighties early nineties. Informally poorly attended clubs were also subsidised by the away following of the bigger clubs not reciprocated via the return fixture- another source of discontent

The way clubs manage their affairs is irrelevant since the question relates to how the structure basically a rehash of the discredited 73-95 structure will take the game forward. You must have an idea or is it just blinkered self interest that motivates you? There's a lot of it about.

People have expressed concern about the new structure on a fairly limited platform. I hope the new structure should it come to pass works.

Do you not feel you are operating dual standards by saying that this limited discourse will have a negative effect on possible sponsorship

When we've 18 years of small minded, uninformed self interested whingeing loud and long about sl and its current incarnation and the elite competition currently lacks a sponsor?

[Griff]

The Magic Weekends are in the 12 team section of the season it was suggested that it would be better if they were in the section when the teams split in to groups of 8 so instead of 2 Magic Weekends that would mean 3 would it not?

That's not what I asked why to ...... but .....

Imho, it'd be better if it were in an 11 game, 12 team section, followed by a 14 game 8 team section. Better still would be getting rid of the 8 team section altogether.

But things only happen if it's reckoned they'll make money.

There's no guarantee that there'll be a Magic Weekend outside the top division of 12 or 8 - depending on what stage of the season the Magic Weekend falls in.

[Lobbygobbler]

We shall have to wait and see, but I'll be amazed if many of the same people who are claiming this to be the saviour of the game aren't claiming that it's destroying the game and are looking for yet another structure which will be the magic bullet.

In my time, we've had two divisions of 14 and 21 followed by three divisions split 14/8/14, followed by two divisions of 16, followed by three divisions of 11 and a move to summer, followed by three divisions split 12/11/12, followed by three divisions of 12/11/8, followed by two divisions of 14 and 18, followed by two divisions split 12/17 with a partial move back to winter, followed by two divisions of 12/19, followed by four divisions of 12/10/10/10 and a full move back to summer, followed by four divisions of 12/10/12/9, followed by three divisions of 12/12/10, followed by 12/10/12, followed by 14/11/10 with franchising, followed by 14/11/11 and a rebranding, followed by 14/11/10, followed by 14/10/10, followed by 14/14/9.

I've seen four different ways to determine the champions, three competitions vanish from the calender, several new competitions come and go, more clubs than I can be arsed counting slotted in only to vanish a year or two later and, I think, four different ways to determine how teams are placed or removed from the top flight.

Oh, and along the way we very nearly killed the international game.

And that's in just shy of 25 years. You seriously expect me to believe firstly, that this structure will somehow revolutionise the sport and secondly, that it won't change next year anyway?

What the game needs is ten years or more of stability. What it's getting is the latest madcap scheme dreamt up by idiots for a quick fix because they're too stupid to even see the problem, let alone solve it.

Steve - Bear in mind that anything more than the poor 1up 1 down P&R system to SL, has never been trialled under a funded fully pro system. A larger recycling adds mobiliy and freshness - I think it will really work. We ought to be trying to flog the rights for the lower tiers for much more when it happens as it will be really exciting

[Rascal Bongo Stork]

That's not what I asked why to ...... but .....

Imho, it'd be better if it were in an 11 game, 12 team section, followed by a 14 game 8 team section. Better still would be getting rid of the 8 team section altogether.

But things only happen if it's reckoned they'll make money.

There's no guarantee that there'll be a Magic Weekend outside the top division of 12 or 8 - depending on what stage of the season the Magic Weekend falls in.

 

Rimmer said the other night that SL1 and SL2 (or whatever they will be called) will both have their own magic weekend. So it's before the split and there's two of them

[thundergaz]

That's correct. So all the good teams will still play each other three times in the regular season and some will play each other four times.

So much for there not being an appetite for repeat fixtures!

Personally I would rather watch the best four teams play each other more than say a top team play a lower club team. At least the games are more exciting between the top clubs. Also other than an odd blip at least the top four playing each other more times we won't have blow out boring games to watch. I like the system if I'm honest as I think it makes more competetive games in the long run than their is now and that doesn't include just the SL either. Before you say that its because I'm a Fev supporter no it isn't as for me I would prefer my team to get a licence as its security for my club with the 3 year grace. I think its for the good of the game and not my club. The more competetive games their is surely its very beneficial to the national team and to help promote our game.

[Griff]

We shall have to wait and see, but I'll be amazed if many of the same people who are claiming this to be the saviour of the game aren't claiming that it's destroying the game and are looking for yet another structure which will be the magic bullet.

 

In my time, we've had two divisions of 14 and 21 followed by three divisions split 14/8/14, followed by two divisions of 16, followed by three divisions of 11 and a move to summer, followed by three divisions split 12/11/12, followed by three divisions of 12/11/8, followed by two divisions of 14 and 18, followed by two divisions split 12/17 with a partial move back to winter, followed by two divisions of 12/19, followed by four divisions of 12/10/10/10 and a full move back to summer, followed by four divisions of 12/10/12/9, followed by three divisions of 12/12/10, followed by 12/10/12, followed by 14/11/10 with franchising, followed by 14/11/11 and a rebranding, followed by 14/11/10, followed by 14/10/10, followed by 14/14/9.

 

I've seen four different ways to determine the champions, three competitions vanish from the calender, several new competitions come and go, more clubs than I can be arsed counting slotted in only to vanish a year or two later and, I think, four different ways to determine how teams are placed or removed from the top flight.

 

Oh, and along the way we very nearly killed the international game.

 

And that's in just shy of 25 years.   You seriously expect me to believe firstly, that this structure will somehow revolutionise the sport and secondly, that it won't change next year anyway?

 

What the game needs is ten years or more of stability.   What it's getting is the latest madcap scheme dreamt up by idiots for a quick fix because they're too stupid to even see the problem, let alone solve it.

Don't worry. There'll be another boatload of changes before 2020.

[Griff]

Steve - Bear in mind that anything more than the poor 1up 1 down P&R system to SL, has never been trialled under a funded fully pro system. A larger recycling adds mobiliy and freshness - I think it will really work. We ought to be trying to flog the rights for the lower tiers for much more when it happens as it will be really exciting

What makes you think this will lead to a "larger recycling"?

[gingerjon]

That's correct. So all the good teams will still play each other three times in the regular season and some will play each other four times.

So much for there not being an appetite for repeat fixtures!

Five times including the play offs, strong chance of six including the Challenge Cup for a couple.

Edited August 2, 2013 by gingerjon

[Pottsy]

Personally I would rather watch the best four teams play each other more than say a top team play a lower club team. At least the games are more exciting between the top clubs. Also other than an odd blip at least the top four playing each other more times we won't have blow out boring games to watch. I like the system if I'm honest as I think it makes more competetive games in the long run than their is now and that doesn't include just the SL either. Before you say that its because I'm a Fev supporter no it isn't as for me I would prefer my team to get a licence as its security for my club with the 3 year grace. I think its for the good of the game and not my club. The more competetive games their is surely its very beneficial to the national team and to help promote our game.

I agree, I'm only flagging it up because "lack of appetite for repeat fixtures" was the reason given for not going for the (IMO preferable) 2x10 format.

It just seems an odd excuse to give when it's clear that the one thing this system will throw up is repeat fixtures.

[Martyn Sadler]

We shall have to wait and see, but I'll be amazed if many of the same people who are claiming this to be the saviour of the game aren't claiming that it's destroying the game and are looking for yet another structure which will be the magic bullet.

 

In my time, we've had two divisions of 14 and 21 followed by three divisions split 14/8/14, followed by two divisions of 16, followed by three divisions of 11 and a move to summer, followed by three divisions split 12/11/12, followed by three divisions of 12/11/8, followed by two divisions of 14 and 18, followed by two divisions split 12/17 with a partial move back to winter, followed by two divisions of 12/19, followed by four divisions of 12/10/10/10 and a full move back to summer, followed by four divisions of 12/10/12/9, followed by three divisions of 12/12/10, followed by 12/10/12, followed by 14/11/10 with franchising, followed by 14/11/11 and a rebranding, followed by 14/11/10, followed by 14/10/10, followed by 14/14/9.

 

I've seen four different ways to determine the champions, three competitions vanish from the calender, several new competitions come and go, more clubs than I can be arsed counting slotted in only to vanish a year or two later and, I think, four different ways to determine how teams are placed or removed from the top flight.

 

Oh, and along the way we very nearly killed the international game.

 

And that's in just shy of 25 years.   You seriously expect me to believe firstly, that this structure will somehow revolutionise the sport and secondly, that it won't change next year anyway?

 

What the game needs is ten years or more of stability.   What it's getting is the latest madcap scheme dreamt up by idiots for a quick fix because they're too stupid to even see the problem, let alone solve it.

Steve, what you're forgetting is that stability doesn't generate income for management consultancies such as KPMG.

 

And let's not forget, as some other posters have pointed out, how clever they are, so we must follow their advice.

 

Which management consultancy ever recommended stability?

 

I may quote your comments, or some of them, in League Express on Monday, even at the risk of provoking another missive from the RFL.

[thundergaz]

I agree, I'm only flagging it up because "lack of appetite for repeat fixtures" was the reason given for not going for the (IMO preferable) 2x10 format.

It just seems an odd excuse to give when it's clear that the one thing this system will throw up is repeat fixtures.

Yeah true. But surely this system as less repeat games than the two 10s leagues. The only problem I see with this system is the CC (that's if its staying in our game) as that means extra fixtures even more so for the top clubs. I personally feel the salary cap needs making higher for both leagues considerably but not too stupidly(its hard to do I know without clubs overspending) but surely with the cap being in place this long clubs know what they can and can't spend. The reason I say this is with all the extra fixtures clubs surely need bigger squads so they can rotate more.

[a.n Other]

1, Clubs received a levy from

Central funds it was one if the causes of discontent that led to the mooted breakaway by the big clubs in the late eighties early nineties. Informally poorly attended clubs were also subsidised by the away following of the bigger clubs not reciprocated via the return fixture- another source of discontent

2, The way clubs manage their affairs is irrelevant since the question relates to how the structure basically a rehash of the discredited 73-95 structure will take the game forward. You must have an idea or is it just blinkered self interest that motivates you? There's a lot of it about.

People have expressed concern about the new structure on a fairly limited platform. I hope the new structure should it come to pass works.

3 Do you not feel you are operating dual standards by saying that this limited discourse will have a negative effect on possible sponsorship

4, When we've 18 years of small minded, uninformed self interested whingeing loud and long about sl and its current incarnation and the elite competition currently lacks a sponsor?

1, So do you know how much money clubs received?

2, This structure hasn't been used before. The splitting of the leagues is a great idea and could allow for teams to grow gradually and provides them with a chance of sustained growth with the funding being on offer. The only blinkered self interest I can see now is your appeared hatred off all clubs in the Championship that want this move. I can only assume this is as a result of a fall out with the club you supported.

3, No

4, Maybe.

[Pottsy]

Yeah true. But surely this system as less repeat games than the two 10s leagues. The only problem I see with this system is the CC (that's if its staying in our game) as that means extra fixtures even more so for the top clubs. I personally feel the salary cap needs making higher for both leagues considerably but not too stupidly(its hard to do I know without clubs overspending) but surely with the cap being in place this long clubs know what they can and can't spend. The reason I say this is with all the extra fixtures clubs surely need bigger squads so they can rotate more.

I actually worked this out yesterday, Gaz.

Under 2x10, all clubs would play 9 teams three times for 27 fixtures (including Magic which would take care of the 'odd' fixture), giving each team 13 home games.

Under 2x12+3x8 all clubs (with the exception of those in the middle eight) will play seven of their rivals three times and one of them FOUR times during the regular season, providing some clubs with 14 home fixtures and some with 15, plus magic.

If you process all that, the net result is that for most clubs a 2x10 system would only throw up ONE more repeat fixture than they're going to have under 2x12+3x8.

[thundergaz]

I actually worked this out yesterday, Gaz.

Under 2x10, all clubs would play 9 teams three times for 27 fixtures (including Magic which would take care of the 'odd' fixture), giving each team 13 home games.

Under 2x12+3x8 all clubs (with the exception of those in the middle eight) will play seven of their rivals three times and one of them FOUR times during the regular season, providing some clubs with 14 home fixtures and some with 15, plus magic.

If you process all that, the net result is that for most clubs a 2x10 system would only throw up ONE more repeat fixture than they're going to have under 2x12+3x8.

Very interesting and thank you for working/pointing that out. I also agree with you as I don't see enough teams to make up the 2nd tier as no way will all the 2nd tier clubs be full time (maybe 6 at the very most). So if your theory is correct (which it will be no doubt) then why for one extra fixture have they chosen the route they have? The only reason I can think of is the more teams the better/ easier it is for expansion clubs maybe? But I honestly don't know.

[Steve May]

I may quote your comments, or some of them, in League Express on Monday, even at the risk of provoking another missive from the RFL.

 

 

Feel free - you'll want to edit it into English as it was a bit of a stream of conciousness!

[thundergaz]

Feel free - you'll want to edit it into English as it was a bit of a stream of conciousness!

No need to buy the paper then I've read it on here lol.

[Ackroman]

Steve, what you're forgetting is that stability doesn't generate income for management consultancies such as KPMG.

 

And let's not forget, as some other posters have pointed out, how clever they are, so we must follow their advice.

 

Which management consultancy ever recommended stability?

 

I may quote your comments, or some of them, in League Express on Monday, even at the risk of provoking another missive from the RFL.

If wishes were ponies and all that but the fact remains it's a easy line to say we need stability. What do you suggest?

It is also easy to dismiss consultants statistics and advise. Go ahead.

But for balance maybe you could also come up with the period of the games history when it was stable? I'm not talking about when we did or didn't have P&R, I'm talking about when it was stable by whatever definition you choose.

Surely some analysis on how the game copes with change might also be suitable. Some comparisons with previous challenges. Surely this would at least qualify some of your objections because the transition in the last generation to full time professional status hasn't been dealt with very well and isn't sustainable based on the licencing model.

The 3x8 is untested and not comparable in our history so at least offer some balance instead of sniping at KPMG and inferring that "stability" is within the games grasp.

[Pottsy]

Very interesting and thank you for working/pointing that out. I also agree with you as I don't see enough teams to make up the 2nd tier as no way will all the 2nd tier clubs be full time (maybe 6 at the very most). So if your theory is correct (which it will be no doubt) then why for one extra fixture have they chosen the route they have? The only reason I can think of is the more teams the better/ easier it is for expansion clubs maybe? But I honestly don't know.

I don't get it either. Are we really going to pretend that Swinton (aka Warrington A), to pick on one example, need to be pushing for elite status?

I really think the genuinely ambitious Championship clubs have missed a trick here. Dropping four clubs from the top flight would free up between £4.8-5.2million in central funding which, using the RFL's own figures, would be enough to fund a FULLY PRO 10-team second tier.

I really don't get why, other than Sheffield, none of the Championship clubs have twigged to the fact that they've been offered an illusion.

I also worry that the sliding scale payments in the second tier will lead to a rather predictable " or bust" scenario.

[Derwent]

 

Steve, what you're forgetting is that stability doesn't generate income for management consultancies such as KPMG.

Q - How many management consultants does it take to change a light bulb ?

A - That's difficult to say. First, we need to do a study to see if you really need light in that area, determine historically why the light burned out, and an analysis to determine whether it's the right kind of light anyway. Then we may need to do a feasibility study to investigate the possibility of re-positioning the light to a different, more value-adding area. Then, maybe, we can recommend appropriate action - although we may need to do additional studies to determine the light sensitivity of people visiting the area. After that, we can develop RFPs and RFQs, evaluate the abilities of various maintenance workers to perform the task, recommend personnel selection, and supervise the activity. We can advise on procurement strategies to ensure the optimum light fitting is procured, though we will not accept any level of liability should any of the above produce an unsatisfactory outcome - but we would be pleased to be re-engaged to assist you to devise a new strategy to overcome any deficiencies in the original scenario.

[nadera78]

All through this process I've had the feeling that the RFL are basing their plans on assumptions and guesswork. That they 'think' attendances will increase, that investors will step forward, that sponsors will be lining up, that broadcasters will vie for contracts.

 

And all along they've insisted that their goal is to strengthen player production and challenge Australia. Do these changes do that?

 

If they have any actual evidence to support these claims then they really should come forward and put it on display.

[Griff]

Will we be suing KPMG if these changes don't produce the results they claim ?

Just wondering like ......