Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Either that or the best clubs should be properly ring fenced, properly controlled and financially protected if that is the better model.

Not sure leaving business to chance/drift is a great strategy

 

It's everyday life played out on a rugby pitch. When you try and micro-manage any system that needs chance to thrive then it becomes false. We'd become the North Korea of sport. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Competitive professional sport is not, and never has been a market.  In business you need to weaken your competitors, in professional sport you are dependent upon them as they are on you.  That's why many businessmen when they come to running sports clubs fail.  They see it as a business like any other and it isn't.  You only have to look at the mess Ken Bates has made of Leeds U to see that.  There are too many uncertainties, mishaps,and upsets in sport that do not occur in ordinary businesses.  As for the market for Super League, it may be very strong in Wigan and Warrington, but in many other places in the UK they've never heard of it.  Murdoch may provide the cash for Super League, but that's all he provides.  Compared to the exposure he gives soccer, Union, cricket, boxing and F1 we get nothing. From the point of view of expanding the game Murdoch has been a disaster.  His sports news programmes on Sky gave no coverage at all to the recent RL World Cup as far as I could see.  Until recently his sycophants described the Challenge Cup as a "distraction."   I don't know how it could be done, but the sooner we divorce our game from his malign influence, the better we'll get on.

 

 

I agree that you depend on your compeitors in League , But i think you will have to admit that you also have to eliminate some of them to reach your max potetial, For eg Fev will be a lot stronger without Cas or Wakefield to compete with, 4 local Derby's will not sustain them, I know the avowed pledge to give up the game before watch another team is well stated on here, but it doesn't apply to everyone surely, I'm not saying the Derby's will not be well attended , but i feel any one of the three clubs in ( Calder ) would be stronger without the other two , over a period of time.

 

 Quite the opposite would be true for say Wigan, Wolves ,Saints, simply because they also play Derby's which draw big crowds, but they also draw big crowds for a lot of other games as well, so can co exist with their strong competition , There support is at a level that allows them ,with a bit of help to be at the top of the game.

 

I take your point about businesses, and i don't believe any of these wealthy owners seriously expect to make a profit in the normal business sense, I think most of them would be content to just break even, It will be interesting to see how far Mr N is prepared to go when Fev get promoted.

 

If he is totally committed, which would be good, I warn all Fev fans to prepair yourself for all the abuse about Sugar Daddies and the charges of unfairness that will come your way, I tell you also that When/If  it happens ignore it. It matters not where the money comes from, It's being up there and doing the business that counts.

Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody can win the championship without financial loss. The Panthers were financially stable. They were an example of the only requirement that Keighley has put forward for his/her conditional promotion and relegation. My point being that he/ she hasn't defined what financial stability is for his/ her purposes. Important in the financially insane world of professional sport.

And again we have still to be told what the other conditions should be if any.

I'm pretty sure winning the competition was part of his conditional promotion as well. If you don't believe that Prescott Panthers would be able to win the Championship without financial loss, then your point about them making profit at one point doesn't really hold water.

There needs to be certain conditions to be promoted, we all probably agree with that. But the key part is that a team has the right to be able to be promoted if they meet them, and that right is earned by winning the Championship. At present, a club could meet all the conditions necessary and still be turned down because their face doesn't fit. I doubt there are many that thought Celtic Crusaders were a better bet than Widnes in 2009, despite meeting pretty much all the conditions asked of them.

Imho there is a massive element of self interest in this discussion, hence I use the tern self serving. By far the most support for this restructure or for prom and the in whatever firm is from people who's club would in imho the very short-term Hetherington it with no benefit to the progress of the sport in actuality or potentially. I think that this is unfair and unjust on the sports elite competition.

I know of no decision taken by the governing body that has been taken in order to do a club down. People take decisions for the benefit of the sport as they see it. Not giving people what suits them or doesn't suit them is not being unfair or unjust.

I disagree with this restructure. It doesn't suit me, it isn't what I want. That doesn't make it unfair or unjust in my eyes.

So how can you dismiss his points as self-interest and not dismiss your own points as self-interest? That's the point I'm trying to make. It's not an argument that can be used to bat one side with when you could say equally the same about the other.

As for arguing why p and r isn't the best way: FFS where have you been wellsy? For years myself and many others have argued against it supplying hard information to support that argument. Do I have to go over it all again? Although there is s sample on this thread if you take the trouble to look.

And there have been many others arguing the opposite that have supplied hard information to support that argument and continue to do so.

What I'm saying is argue against the points being made, not the messenger.

Nothing is ring fenced otherwise clubs wouldn't be admitted.

The only club to be admitted at the expense of another is Widnes over Crusaders, and that's because Crusaders withdrew. Had they not withdrawn, they'd probably still have been in SL bumping along from one financial disaster to another. Their face fit.

What do you suppose makes a clubs 'face fit'?

Being from a different area gives a club more scope than those in the heartlands, apparently no matter how ready they are. I'm not against expansion, but I am against expansion at all costs.

Then there are those with friends in the right places. I'm not saying this happens, but it surely isn't beyond the realms of possibility that some executives know "the right people" to get decisions pushed through in their favour. The Super League "club" could be another one of those things that stops teams leaving. It's all such a grey area. One that I don't think should be left to back room decisions.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Clubs will have been denied their chance by their own inability to meet the conditions set before promotion can be achieved. In the same way that a licence would not be issued to an insolvent team. The difference is, if the standards were met, results on the field would determine promotion.

 

Your wriggling about here. What particular standards are we talking about then?

 

1. Size of crowd??

2. Size of stadium??

3. Business plan??

4. Youth development??

5. Marketing and administration??

 

These look like good standards to me, now who decides them??

 

Because you'll need a committee in a smoke filled room to decide what level of standards are "adequate", and you'll need KPMG accountants deciding on what business plan is "acceptable" for SL.

 

So if a club fails to meet the standards and is not promoted, they will have been deemed by faceless people to have not been good enough to be given their chance, and that's exactly the unfairnesss you go on about yet you continue to advocate that unfairness.

 

Whoever decides the standards will deny clubs their chance.

 

Have a good new year, and let Ange know your a "He"......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Competitive professional sport is not, and never has been a market.  In business you need to weaken your competitors, in professional sport you are dependent upon them as they are on you.  That's why many businessmen when they come to running sports clubs fail.  They see it as a business like any other and it isn't.

 

I like that. Well said. I think we saw some sense when the SL clubs asked members not to poach Bradford's players, and when SL were prepared to buy the Bradford club. The principle of clubs being dependent on each other for a strong game overall is a great one.

 

So maybe it's time for Hull/HKR, Cas/Fev/Wakey, Bradford/Hudds/Halifax to get together and stop trying to weaken each other as competitors for Superleague places. All join together because they all need each other as you say.

 

Pleased you have seen the light, have a great new year.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure winning the competition was part of his conditional promotion as well. If you don't believe that Prescott Panthers would be able to win the Championship without financial loss, then your point about them making profit at one point doesn't really hold water.

There needs to be certain conditions to be promoted, we all probably agree with that. But the key part is that a team has the right to be able to be promoted if they meet them, and that right is earned by winning the Championship. At present, a club could meet all the conditions necessary and still be turned down because their face doesn't fit. I doubt there are many that thought Celtic Crusaders were a better bet than Widnes in 2009, despite meeting pretty much all the conditions asked of them.

So how can you dismiss his points as self-interest and not dismiss your own points as self-interest? That's the point I'm trying to make. It's not an argument that can be used to bat one side with when you could say equally the same about the other.

And there have been many others arguing the opposite that have supplied hard information to support that argument and continue to do so.

What I'm saying is argue against the points being made, not the messenger.

The only club to be admitted at the expense of another is Widnes over Crusaders, and that's because Crusaders withdrew. Had they not withdrawn, they'd probably still have been in SL bumping along from one financial disaster to another. Their face fit.

Being from a different area gives a club more scope than those in the heartlands, apparently no matter how ready they are. I'm not against expansion, but I am against expansion at all costs.

Then there are those with friends in the right places. I'm not saying this happens, but it surely isn't beyond the realms of possibility that some executives know "the right people" to get decisions pushed through in their favour. The Super League "club" could be another one of those things that stops teams leaving. It's all such a grey area. One that I don't think should be left to back room decisions.

I was being mildly skittish  about the Panthers...after all they no longer exist. I was trying to point up the emptiness if saying clubs should be financially stable to be promoted without quantifying it (he/ she has still yet to do that) and to add absolutely what surely must be other conditions otherwise the defunct Panthers would genuinely qualify.

 

Doesn't licensing Kay

 

Lay out conditions? I thought that was the idea. How does Toulouse fit in to your scenario? What you are proposing is a recipe for parochialism and insularity, I couldn't bear that I'm afraid.

I yet to see anything but anecdotal impressionistic empirical evidence to show recognition and relegation is anything but destructive and debilitating to professional rugby league in the UK, and believe me I've been paying attention.

 

Can you give examples of these clubs?

 

I know of one club that the rfl bent the rules for in giving  them a grant towards building new stands...grants should only be given to commencing projects not those already underway...but this club is in the championship. We haven't had any conspiracy paranoia for a while, well played.

 

I don't think anyone is under the impression that crusaders(weren't they promoted?) Was anything but a disaster. 

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015

Keeping it local

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony there is that they wouldn't have got relegated so the lucky was also unlucky?

With P & R any club can overspend and make it to the top.....its when they are on the way back down the damage is caused......

If you look at the latest financial report for Bolton Wanderers it becomes clear the true effects of P & R (and they had a parachute payment)!

 

P & R is fine if the clubs are on a level playing field but you need to split into divisions of current ability....This model does not work in the 21st century!

 

The tier system in RL was to address this and works to a degree....At the lower end it is deemed sensible and is championed.........

 

tier 4 has P & R but once you hit the top division you need to apply and meet criteria to join tier 3,

 

Tier 3 has P & R and again you hit a plateau where you then need to apply and meet criteria to advance to tier 2,

 

once this championed logic is applied to Tier 2-1 it causes outrage!

 

Part of the issue is when tier 1 was expanded to 14 and 2 clubs failed they should have immediately shrunk back to 12.....

That's right, they should have dropped the team which was financially insolvent, playing in the worst stadium with massively declining crowds. No prizes for guessing which team that would have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 21st century (a few people on here are still in the 20th/19th....) you cannot smoke inside public places......

 

Unless you are thinking 19th century and people still have coal fires.....

That's my very point. These decisions would not take place in public with everything being seen to be fair and above board but instead would have been taken in private backrooms where you can smoke as much as you wish and vote in your preffered members of SL with no questions asked even when patently unfair decisions were made as to SL membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because people in Sheffield aren't interested in Rugby League.  Those that are probably already have them for the soccer.

 

The "record" comment wasn't aimed at you particularly.  I just noticed we'd passed 2000 posts.

So the alleged SL commitment to expansion from the heartlands into big cities is just flim flam and window dressing then. When it actually might come to pass Sky will not sell any boxes and we should stick to playing in Castleford because the people there are interested in RL.

The people pushing a big city team SL expanding to new areas seem to be hypocritical when push comes to shove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your wriggling about here. What particular standards are we talking about then?

 

1. Size of crowd??

2. Size of stadium??

3. Business plan??

4. Youth development??

5. Marketing and administration??

 

These look like good standards to me, now who decides them??

 

Because you'll need a committee in a smoke filled room to decide what level of standards are "adequate", and you'll need KPMG accountants deciding on what business plan is "acceptable" for SL.

 

So if a club fails to meet the standards and is not promoted, they will have been deemed by faceless people to have not been good enough to be given their chance, and that's exactly the unfairnesss you go on about yet you continue to advocate that unfairness.

 

Whoever decides the standards will deny clubs their chance.

 

Have a good new year, and let Ange know your a "He"......

But if they do meet the standards they WILL be promoted because they won the right on the field. Under licencing, if they meet the standards they MIGHT probably WON'T be given a licence because others were deemed to have met the standards to a better level and we know how well those decisions have turned out at Crusaders, Bradford (twice) and Salford.

Let's hope the game finds a pot of gold in the New Year. have a happy one. I'm definitely a "He" with the kids and wife to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if they do meet the standards they WILL be promoted because they won the right on the field.

 

Which faceless committees will set the standards and play god over clubs, denying them the chance they earned on the pitch?

 

I think we should be told?

 

Hope 2014 is a better year for you!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if they do meet the standards they WILL be promoted because they won the right on the field. Under licencing, if they meet the standards they MIGHT probably WON'T be given a licence because others were deemed to have met the standards to a better level and we know how well those decisions have turned out at Crusaders, Bradford (twice) and Salford.

Let's hope the game finds a pot of gold in the New Year. have a happy one. I'm definitely a "He" with the kids and wife to prove it.

What are these standards that you refer to? 

As you say yourself promotion should be dependent on conditions conditions that you have yet to provide detailed meaningful information about

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015

Keeping it local

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which faceless committees will set the standards and play god over clubs, denying them the chance they earned on the pitch?

 

I think we should be told?

 

Hope 2014 is a better year for you!!!

 

That would be up to the league, maybe with advice from KPMG and using the accumulated data gathered from the experiences of issuing and vetting licences.

 

If it was up to me there would be no club owners involved. An audit of the finances would be crucial and this could be done by an independent, unbiased company.

 

The other probable standards could be set for grounds standards by whatever measure they use to evaluate SL grounds although London are currently setting the bar quite low in this area.,

 

Junior development could be evaluated based on existing setups measured against the leagues they played in and future comittments, bearing in mind that the teams would have been operating on a \championship budget.

 

That's all thrown together at a moment's notice by myself. I am sure the professionals can come up with something better. Before the standards are finalised there should be some input from the championship side of things.

 

All in all, if some thought was given to the standards required, a reasonable set should be able to be established that would make sure the promoted club are pretty sure making it in SL without being so onerous as to be totally prohibitive as to exclude most reasonably run and well prepared organisations.

 

With these standards being known in advance, the clubs would know that if they measured up to them, promotion would be guaranteed and that there would no anonymous vetoes by self interested SL organisations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be up to "the league", maybe with "advice from KPMG"..

 

With these standards being known in advance, the clubs would know that if they measured up to them, promotion would be guaranteed and that there would no anonymous vetoes by self interested SL organisations.

 

Oh for heavens sake Mr. K. it's "the league" and "KPMG" that you complain about who are giving SL places to the chosen few whilst others are subject to "anonymous vetoes by self interested SL organisations".

 

Those "self interested SL organisations" ARE "the league" and "KPMG".

 

Just admit you have it wrong please, standards led P & R means clubs who win promotion can  have it "vetoed by self interested SL organisations".

Edited by The Parksider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With these standards being known in advance, the clubs would know that if they measured up to them, promotion would be guaranteed and that there would no anonymous vetoes by self interested SL organisations.

 

Whoever sets the standards can in effect stuff a club who wins promotion. Hardly giving clubs who beat everybody on the field of play a ""Chance"" is it??

 

The irony is that you fear a sub standard club may beat all other CC clubs and win promotion and yet be "not up to standard"?

 

Is this a tacit admission that you know darn well the Championship probably has nothing to offer Superleague??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony is The Parksider telling someone to just admit that they're wrong!

I don't know why there is such a push to get keighley to look stupid. P&R with standards does not stuff a club or give then an "unfair chance" at all. They know exactly what they need to do to get promoted. To suggest that promotion with conditions is the same as licensing is complete ludicrous.

As has been said, under licensing, a club could do everything asked and yet still get rejected because someone thinks someone else is a better bet. That wouldn't happen under P&R. You either meet the standards and are in, or don't and so aren't. There's no grey area.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony is The Parksider telling someone to just admit that they're wrong!

I don't know why there is such a push to get keighley to look stupid. P&R with standards does not stuff a club or give then an "unfair chance" at all. They know exactly what they need to do to get promoted. To suggest that promotion with conditions is the same as licensing is complete ludicrous.

As has been said, under licensing, a club could do everything asked and yet still get rejected because someone thinks someone else is a better bet. That wouldn't happen under P&R. You either meet the standards and are in, or don't and so aren't. There's no grey are

There is no such 'push' as far as I can see. The discussion centres around ideas...everybody's ideas including yours 

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015

Keeping it local

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such 'push' as far as I can see. The discussion centres around ideas...everybody's ideas including yours

C'mon l'ang, he's been trying to put words in his mouth from the moment "conditional" was added to P&R! It's clear as day, and in fact he's now gone as far to say that he's wrong. The irony!
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon l'ang, he's been trying to put words in his mouth from the moment "conditional" was added to P&R! It's clear as day, and in fact he's now gone as far to say that he's wrong. The irony!

See Keighleys attempt to put words into my mouth: quite objectionably earlier in the thread.

If you think someone is wrong you have an obligation to be able to explain why.

I'm not justifying what Parksider is saying

Just disagreeing with your view that Keighley is being tried to be made look stupid.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015

Keeping it local

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Keighleys attempt to put words into my mouth: quite objectionably earlier in the thread.

If you think someone is wrong you have an obligation to be able to explain why.

I'm not justifying what Parksider is saying

Just disagreeing with your view that Keighley is being tried to be made look stupid.

Fair enough. I disagree with your disagreement but I'll leave it at that!

Parky is often one to be provocative to get a reaction, but cannot take it himself (hence why he doesn't respond to me anymore!).

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such 'push' as far as I can see. The discussion centres around ideas...everybody's ideas including yours 

 

Indeed it's a discussion/debate, all ideas welcome, but any ideas are up for scrutiny and question. The  simple question is the idea that allowing administrators to choose minimum standards before allowing the Championship play off winners to be promoted is unfair.

 

Under licensing we don't seem to want faceless administrators blocking clubs but somehow it's OK for faceless administrators to block clubs under P & R.

If it's too awkward a question I pose to my good friend Mr. Keighley who avoids answering it then I won't ask him it again.

 

Where the "standard" is set is IMVHO a "grey area". I believe the "standard" for CC clubs is 2,500 fans for promotion. Featherstone only got 2,400 so they should be refused promotion had P & R been in now which would certainly be unfair. "Ludicrous" is not an answer.

Edited by The Parksider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed it's a discussion/debate, all ideas welcome, but any ideas are up for scrutiny and question. The simple question is the idea that allowing administrators to choose minimum standards before allowing the Championship play off winners to be promoted is unfair.

Under licensing we don't seem to want faceless administrators blocking clubs but somehow it's OK for faceless administrators to block clubs under P & R.

If it's too awkward a question I pose to my good friend Mr. Keighley who avoids answering it then I won't ask him it again.

Where the "standard" is set is IMVHO a "grey area". I believe the "standard" for CC clubs is 2,500 fans for promotion. Featherstone only got 2,400 so they should be refused promotion had P & R been in now which would certainly be unfair. "Ludicrous" is not an answer.

Under licensing, there were more standards and criteria, and then even if you ticked enough boxes it was still a case of who the RFL wanted most. It quote literally wasn't who ticked the most boxes. I believe it was a case of "if you get an A or B license then you're in. If you get a C, then we'll pick the ones we want."

With P&R, you know that if you win the competition and meet the black and white standards, you're in.

Your argument is where the standards are placed, and you're picking the over-zealous licensing ones to try and prove a point that isn't there. No one has suggested using all that criteria, it's words you're putting into his mouth.

Financially solvent. Makes sense. Don't want them popping halfway through the season.

Ground of certain criteria. Again, crowd safety and televised standards. Makes sense.

The rest is for the club to decide. If they don't want to find junior production, marketing, and get by on tiny crowds, well that's to their own detriment and the natural order will probably see them sink back down and replaced by a bigger club. If they get a backer willing to pump in millions like Huddersfield, who are we to deny then that chance at the top to grow just because their face doesn't fit?

Financial solvency and an appropriate ground are essential for entry into the top flight. The rest are just expected.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you think someone is wrong you have an obligation to be able to explain why.

 

 

I have looked up the standard for finances. CC clubs need a £1,000,000 turnover. That may leave Leigh and Halifax out. The standard for the ground is 10,000 leaving Sheffield out.

 

Standards actually block all four clubs who want promotion, and the other thing about promotion is that there are clubs who would not accept it anyway like Batley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked up the standard for finances. CC clubs need a £1,000,000 turnover. That may leave Leigh and Halifax out. The standard for the ground is 10,000 leaving Sheffield out.

Standards actually block all four clubs who want promotion, and the other thing about promotion is that there are clubs who would not accept it anyway like Batley.

Why do you keep quoting licensing standards as an argument to keighley's conditional P&R? It was never suggested they'd be used.

L'ang, this is exactly what I mean. How many posts on this line now?

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
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...