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

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Having accepted that the new structure is going to be implemented, the one tweak I would suggest is that the magic weekend should occur during the 'super eight' stage of the season.

This would fix the quandary about inequitable fixtures and would mean that the Magic games would really matter.

My preference would be for all 24 clubs involved in Magic and for the cost of magic to be incorporated into each club's season ticket (Salford already does this).

The only venue that could handle 24 clubs is Cardiff though (assuming the Arms Park is still there).

I agree, although the main issue there is that round 22 (which is the stage we're at this season) is in the start of August, meaning its pretty close to the Challenge Cup Final. That could affect one or both events. Could moving the CCF back to May be an option? (People keep suggesting this). Would that damage the cup?

On the flip side it would make the Magic Weekend far better in summer AND far more important to the season. The new Man City academy will be finished by 2014/2015 so that could house the Championship Magic weekend whilst the SL and play-off tier play at the Etihad across the road.

[Ackroman]

what if the team doesn't get drawn at home during its tenure in the comp that particular season? Also there is the revenue from a shared gate to be considered. I think these are the two main reasons why cup games aren't included in season tickets

I kind of had an answer in mind when I posted.

I believe all professional clubs included in the first round of the Challenge Cup pool their proportion of the season ticket sales which are then distributed according to how many attend the matches at each ground.

So although the top clubs may seem to miss out they are likely to get what they would expect anyway. The aim is to give the cup a boost in terms of overall attendance.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I kind of had an answer in mind when I posted.

I believe all professional clubs included in the first round of the Challenge Cup pool their proportion of the season ticket sales which are then distributed according to how many attend the matches at each ground.

So although the top clubs may seem to miss out they are likely to get what they would expect anyway. The aim is to give the cup a boost in terms of overall attendance.

Interesting idea

I agree strongly about the need to boost the cup

[nadera78]

I agree, although the main issue there is that round 22 (which is the stage we're at this season) is in the start of August, meaning its pretty close to the Challenge Cup Final. That could affect one or both events. Could moving the CCF back to May be an option? (People keep suggesting this). Would that damage the cup?

On the flip side it would make the Magic Weekend far better in summer AND far more important to the season. The new Man City academy will be finished by 2014/2015 so that could house the Championship Magic weekend whilst the SL and play-off tier play at the Etihad across the road.

IIRC the BBC had some say in the scheduling of the Challenge Cup. Not a definitive say, but an opinion on when it would be best for the various rounds and final to be played.

Edited August 7, 2013 by nadera78

[Pottsy]

I agree, although the main issue there is that round 22 (which is the stage we're at this season) is in the start of August, meaning its pretty close to the Challenge Cup Final. That could affect one or both events. Could moving the CCF back to May be an option? (People keep suggesting this). Would that damage the cup?

On the flip side it would make the Magic Weekend far better in summer AND far more important to the season. The new Man City academy will be finished by 2014/2015 so that could house the Championship Magic weekend whilst the SL and play-off tier play at the Etihad across the road.

I'd love to see the Cup Final move back to May, personally.

[Griff]

IIRC the BBC had some say in the scheduling of the Challenge Cup. Not a definitive say, but an opinion on when it would be best for the various rounds and final to be played.

It was when they had nothing else on. Spreading the cup out over such a long period that they've had to alter the qualification rules has not helped it at all. Imho, three weeks apart is right - bit more between the semi and final - and each club should get one home and one away league game between rounds.

[redjonn]

The challenge cup plays on nostalgia and in particular the romance of any club being able to win it. This also includes a good chance of lower clubs (nowadays that being the championship) causing upsets.  Unfortunately that is a rare occurrence nowadays and thus younger fans are losing that romantic aspect with the same clubs winning over a long period – in the last 25 years only x9 clubs have won the CC, with just x3 teams winning x20 out of the 25years.

 

Until super-league is more competitive and the lower league teams close the gap the CC will continue to lose interest. The exception being the final which is a show-case occasion with many fans attending from across all the teams fan base plus non regular rugby league goers.

 

Until the overall issues of rugby league, of which the review is trying to identify ways forward, the CC will continue to be poorly attended. IMHO The romance and nostalgia is but a lingering memory too far back for a lot of the younger generation of fans.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

Until the overall issues of rugby league, of which the review is trying to identify ways forward, the CC will continue to be poorly attended. IMHO The romance and nostalgia is but a lingering memory too far back for a lot of the younger generation of fans.

I reckon the CC is poorly attended for much the same reasons as the play-offs are poorly attended - because they aren't included in the season tickets and folk are generally pretty skint.

[redjonn]

I reckon the CC is poorly attended for much the same reasons as the play-offs are poorly attended - because they aren't included in the season tickets and folk are generally pretty skint.

 

You could be right but I think that is too simplistic or at least is partially true given the relative low pricing against other entertainments and what you may pay down the local for a round or a meal, let alone the more expensive entertainments like the cinema or nights out the younger generation may spend on.   Its just not attractive enough for people to swap the spend.   Of course for some they won't have any pennies at all and hence you are right but I don't think that really impacts the really low attendances.

 

Maybe the hassle, all be it very limited hassle, of getting the extra tickets impacts but if they saw it as attractive enough those whom could afford would make more effort or maybe they plan other things on those nights and because its not a regular planned game they would rather continue doing what they would normally do....

 

Anyway no doubt many reasons and the demographics of rugby league fans will be a factor but then the pricing and attractiveness needs changing.

[Adelaide Tiger]

Was KPMG also behind the Scottish Professional Football League's similar idea of this 2 x; 3 x 8 split system which was thrown out in April 2013 by the clubs.

The scottish proposal was thrown out even though clubs voted 10-2 IN FAVOUR of it. It needed an 11-1 majority for it to be brought in. St Mirren and Ross County voted against it - talk about the tail wagging the dog.

The crazy part about all this is that the clubs in favour tried to pass an amendment to change the votes required to 9-3 majority But when this was put to the meeting the amendment was defeated as it needed an 11-1 majority vite to be passed ....... And guess which 2 clubs voted against the amendment.

[gingerjon]

The scottish proposal was thrown out even though clubs voted 10-2 IN FAVOUR of it. It needed an 11-1 majority for it to be brought in. St Mirren and Ross County voted against it - talk about the tail wagging the dog.

The crazy part about all this is that the clubs in favour tried to pass an amendment to change the votes required to 9-3 majority But when this was put to the meeting the amendment was defeated as it needed an 11-1 majority vite to be passed ....... And guess which 2 clubs voted against the amendment.

 

I know forums aren't a representative sample but at the time of the vote there seemed to be a huge number of fans of other teams desperate for Saints and County to vote the way they did.

[flyingking]

Warrington CEO says show us the money http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/wolves/wolvesnews/10599991.Where_is_the_money__RFL_/?ref=rss

[audois]

I know forums aren't a representative sample but at the time of the vote there seemed to be a huge number of fans of other teams desperate for Saints and County to vote the way they did.

Do we anticipate a transparent vote shortly on these new arrangements. Who voted for what. As far as I'm aware Huddersfiled with Hull KR pushed the 2 X 10 SLs. No idea what others went for.

[Maximus Decimus]

You could be right but I think that is too simplistic or at least is partially true given the relative low pricing against other entertainments and what you may pay down the local for a round or a meal, let alone the more expensive entertainments like the cinema or nights out the younger generation may spend on.   Its just not attractive enough for people to swap the spend.   Of course for some they won't have any pennies at all and hence you are right but I don't think that really impacts the really low attendances.

 

Maybe the hassle, all be it very limited hassle, of getting the extra tickets impacts but if they saw it as attractive enough those whom could afford would make more effort or maybe they plan other things on those nights and because its not a regular planned game they would rather continue doing what they would normally do....

 

Anyway no doubt many reasons and the demographics of rugby league fans will be a factor but then the pricing and attractiveness needs changing.

The season ticket culture is the biggest contributing factor to low playoff and CC attendances in comparison to SL games.

Put it this way the crowd at the Wigan-Leeds semi-final decider last year was lower than for a routine home game against London. It is impossible to imagine that there was more interest in the town of Wigan for the London game than the Leeds game.

The problem is that you have approximately 10,000 or so people that automatically have a ticket for every home game because they paid out in full. So for the London game you only have approximately 3,000 people paying for that game whereas for the Leeds game you are selling 12,000 tickets. For whatever reason there is clearly a significant portion of that 10,000 that are not willing to pay for any extra matches. I think only a small part is laziness and is probably more to do with the habit of paying for games especially when you can watch on TV or in the pub.

If you pay out in a big chunk, paying for RL games stops being a part of your regular outgoings. So when a game comes up that you weren't necessarily expecting you are having to find the £22 odd quid out of your regular outgoings to pay for the game. If you bring a family you are multiplying that. A season ticket takes out the will I/ wont I decision because you've already paid and with SKY it's all to easy to save a bit of money and watch in on tele.

The answer is a hard one and probably not answerable. As for the playoffs, a return to a decent and valuable playoff system would at least help matters.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Maximus Decimus

[Maximus Decimus]

The scottish proposal was thrown out even though clubs voted 10-2 IN FAVOUR of it. It needed an 11-1 majority for it to be brought in. St Mirren and Ross County voted against it - talk about the tail wagging the dog.

The crazy part about all this is that the clubs in favour tried to pass an amendment to change the votes required to 9-3 majority But when this was put to the meeting the amendment was defeated as it needed an 11-1 majority vite to be passed ....... And guess which 2 clubs voted against the amendment.

They also tried it in Switzerland who ended up returning to a more normal system. An official urged the Scots not to do it and said whilst it made for more excitement at times the middle league was essentially cast out and nobody was interested in it.

[Griff]

The scottish proposal was thrown out even though clubs voted 10-2 IN FAVOUR of it. It needed an 11-1 majority for it to be brought in. St Mirren and Ross County voted against it - talk about the tail wagging the dog.

The crazy part about all this is that the clubs in favour tried to pass an amendment to change the votes required to 9-3 majority But when this was put to the meeting the amendment was defeated as it needed an 11-1 majority vite to be passed ....... And guess which 2 clubs voted against the amendment.

 

The irony, of course, is that the 11-1 majority was brought in so that Rangers and Celtic could veto any changes.

[Griff]

They also tried it in Switzerland who ended up returning to a more normal system. An official urged the Scots not to do it and said whilst it made for more excitement at times the middle league was essentially cast out and nobody was interested in it.

 

I fear for the bottom section, myself.  If the middle section can be made competitive and provide a genuine exchange of clubs in promotion and relegation, I think it will be fine.  The revised finances go some way to this - whether or not they go far enough remains to be seen.  I suspect some "investment" from the stake-holders will still be needed.  And I'd still prefer P+R of 1.

[ckn]

A friend of mine who is a Widnes fan mentioned something I hadn't thought about with the middle 8 if you're a current SL team:  The bean counters won't be happy.  If you finish 9th in SL, you're not going to have paid out a lot of win bonuses to your players, you then go into a middle 8 contest where you expect to win all your games while you're probably going to get reduced crowds for any home games you have compared to an extended season against the top 8.  More money out for less money in.

 

He then said, what if you get in a middle 8 including London, Catalans and Toulouse.  If you get them as your home games then you're away team ticket takings will be down, if you get them as your away games then your travel costs go up.

Bit of a miserable sod is my friend but then he is a Yorkshireman living in Birmingham supporting Widnes.

[Lobbygobbler]

A friend of mine who is a Widnes fan mentioned something I hadn't thought about with the middle 8 if you're a current SL team: The bean counters won't be happy. If you finish 9th in SL, you're not going to have paid out a lot of win bonuses to your players, you then go into a middle 8 contest where you expect to win all your games while you're probably going to get reduced crowds for any home games you have compared to an extended season against the top 8. More money out for less money in.

He then said, what if you get in a middle 8 including London, Catalans and Toulouse. If you get them as your home games then you're away team ticket takings will be down, if you get them as your away games then your travel costs go up.

Bit of a miserable sod is my friend but then he is a Yorkshireman living in Birmingham supporting Widnes.

Or crowds could go up because every game counts if you want to reclaim your place in SL the following year. Any SL club going into that middle 8 thinking they would win every game, would be very foolish. In Widnes's case they have nowt to play for now which might explain the drubbing they got at Hull. However Widnes in the middle 8 with the likes of Bradford, Fax, etc would have to fight for every win

[Wellsy4HullFC]

A friend of mine who is a Widnes fan mentioned something I hadn't thought about with the middle 8 if you're a current SL team: The bean counters won't be happy. If you finish 9th in SL, you're not going to have paid out a lot of win bonuses to your players, you then go into a middle 8 contest where you expect to win all your games while you're probably going to get reduced crowds for any home games you have compared to an extended season against the top 8. More money out for less money in.

He then said, what if you get in a middle 8 including London, Catalans and Toulouse. If you get them as your home games then you're away team ticket takings will be down, if you get them as your away games then your travel costs go up.

Bit of a miserable sod is my friend but then he is a Yorkshireman living in Birmingham supporting Widnes.

You could always change your win bonus to be worth less if you're in the middle 8. And on the flip side, you could increase it if you're in the top 8!

[Maximus Decimus]

You could always change your win bonus to be worth less if you're in the middle 8. And on the flip side, you could increase it if you're in the top 8!

Unless there is a change in the strength of Rugby League clubs across the board (and I don't think there will be for some time), the top 8 might not be a great place for the bottom 2 clubs.

Before Widnes went off the boil, we were in the run in to make the top 8. However, if we theoretically made the top 8 after the split I've little doubt that it would actually be a pretty miserable existence in the top 8 as it would be a run of almost certain defeats many of them large. This would only get worse as it would be these teams that would struggle with the regular intensity.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Unless there is a change in the strength of Rugby League clubs across the board (and I don't think there will be for some time), the top 8 might not be a great place for the bottom 2 clubs.

Before Widnes went off the boil, we were in the run in to make the top 8. However, if we theoretically made the top 8 after the split I've little doubt that it would actually be a pretty miserable existence in the top 8 as it would be a run of almost certain defeats many of them large. This would only get worse as it would be these teams that would struggle with the regular intensity.

But you only get used to it by playing in it.

[Pottsy]

This still isn't my preferred option (2 x 10 all the way) and, if it is voted through, some fairly major 'tweaks' are still needed. However, I am coming around to the idea.

[Adelaide Tiger]

I know forums aren't a representative sample but at the time of the vote there seemed to be a huge number of fans of other teams desperate for Saints and County to vote the way they did.

Whenever change is mooted those against are always more vociferous than those who either accept change or aren't really bothered about which way forward is chosen.

But it would be interesting to read why Celtic voted for it. They coud play in a sunday morning pub league and still get a capacity crowd .... So why did they think it was a good thing? Was it because they saw how it may strengthen Scottish football as a whole?

[Adelaide Tiger]

A friend of mine who is a Widnes fan mentioned something I hadn't thought about with the middle 8 if you're a current SL team:  The bean counters won't be happy.  If you finish 9th in SL, you're not going to have paid out a lot of win bonuses to your players, you then go into a middle 8 contest where you expect to win all your games while you're probably going to get reduced crowds for any home games you have compared to an extended season against the top 8.  More money out for less money in.

 

He then said, what if you get in a middle 8 including London, Catalans and Toulouse.  If you get them as your home games then you're away team ticket takings will be down, if you get them as your away games then your travel costs go up.

Bit of a miserable sod is my friend but then he is a Yorkshireman living in Birmingham supporting Widnes.

Well the milkman who visited our house must have come from outside Yorkshire as i am not such a miserable sod and have a totally different view!

I will make my point by using the league placings after round 24.

So at the end of 2014 London, Salford are relegated to the Championship. And after the 22 league games of 2015 London, Salford, Sheffield and Fev qualify for the middle 8 play offs along with Cas, Wakey, widnes and Bradford. That should be a very competitive play off.

But, the key to making this work is to encourage closing the gap between the SL and the Championship. So it is essential that the SKY money that currently goes to the 13th and 14th team of SL is distributed to the teams in the Championship. I would also have a SC of £1 million for the Championship (hark at those spluttering whilst supping their tea). OK some teams will never spend close to this but that is not the point.

i.e. Using the above scenario this lets David Hughes reduce his investment at a level to grow London sustainably, also Mr Nahaboo may pump more money into Fev. If Salford are relegated it lets Mr Koucash use his financial muscle. This may also open the opportunity for a consortium from Sheffield?

Don't lets ever have a SC in the Championship that panders to mediocrity.

.