Super eight or relegate?

[distantdog]

relatively very few people do watch sport outside the top tier.

I wouldn't disagree, but should we deny those relatively few people the opportunity to derive some excitement from watching their team compete?

[The Parksider]

The top clubs, for many reasons already get the best crowds, sponsorship and everything else, they get even better crowds, sponsorship and everything else when they play each other.

However that risks leaving everything else behind, it risks exacerbating the gap between the haves and have nots, which is a very vicious cycle for the lesser clubs to get in to.

So we are left with a position where even if 'every second matters' and across the board we see rises in attendances, If that happens disproportionately at the top end that gaps becomes unavoidable.

If that where to happen, then the system just will not work it becomes damaging very quickly. For this system to work it not only needs to grow attendances across the board, it needs to narrow the gap between top and bottom because an entrenched top 8 would make the vast majority of the season entirely pointless

 

I started a thread on how we think the clubs will go this season and it's completely hi-jacked into one about formats. It's usually me that get's accused of hijacking threads!! Any way it doesn't bother me, a discussion is a discussion and next season will be ultra fascinating to see how the format goes alongside the clubs within it.

 

I thought your post was fascinating as was Padges, but the question is is this format going to be the cause of a perceived problem that the haves will have even more than the have nots, or is it actually an attempt at a solution?

 

I never have bought the idea that the new format will be more exciting to the point of raising crowds and therefore revenue across the board (well 16 clubs anyway) but I do buy the idea that if something wasn't done about decreasing competitiveness then the effect of that could be just as bad 

 

I think we need to remember that the last format was 14 clubs made year on year to push towards "standards" in all aspects of their businesses. What happened was Wakefield collapsed, Celtic C. collapsed, London collapsed, Bradford collapsed, Salford collapsed, Hudgell nearly walked out which would have seen HKR collapse, and Mr. Fulton wrote maybe his last big cheque and Cas avoided collapse. £68M was run up in debts.

 

That's half the league in financial crisis, so they have invented a new format where the half that ALREADY has all the money and that can attract all the best players (don't forget nowadays the top half of SL take the bottom half's best senior AND junior players) play their own competition and the rest are cut free of standards, and also cut free of having to play clubs they can never beat to a trophy beyond the first half of the season.

 

The format is kind of a "lets give the skint clubs who don't have the resources a game, then send them off the the Championship once Superleague get's into the business end of the season".

 

Castleford's success last season was hailed loudly on here because I think we all know what's happening and it was a kind of "denial" that SL was breaking up. In the end Castlefords reward was survival through Clark's sale to Warrington for the desperately needed cash, and Huby also left for the top eight.  

[The Parksider]

Clubs should be trying to compete to be the top, not thinking that being the least worst is an achievement. 

 

As above nobody tried harder than Castleford to do this. Their best player was taken from them as was their best go forward player. This follows regular raids over several years to take Castleford's best young stars. That's what you get for trying.

[Padge]

As above nobody tried harder than Castleford to do this. Their best player was taken from them as was their best go forward player. This follows regular raids over several years to take Castleford's best young stars. That's what you get for trying.

 

Their best player was sold to pay the bills, he wasn't "raided".

[The Parksider]

Their best player was sold to pay the bills, he wasn't "raided".

 

Not a Padge like answer that?

 

Cas's financial insecurity, and therefore the insecurity of their best players against the secure financial footing of such as Hull, Salford, Huddersfield or Wire enabled in all cases the rich clubs to pick off Castleford's best players. Westerman, Chase, Hauraki, Clark or Huby.

 

I think you know the challenge to your assertion that such as Cas should be "trying to compete" is that it is not as simple as that.

 

It's a pointless excersise trying to compete if you don't have the money to do so. Empty shells like Fartown and Salford can clearly compete, but it's not as if they are the greatest of RL clubs. Cas produce RL players, Cas attract thousands of fans.

 

The bottom line for me is that fat wallets ruling SL ruin SL.

[scotchy]

I wouldn't disagree, but should we deny those relatively few people the opportunity to derive some excitement from watching their team compete?

in favour of more people getting that opportunity? Yes

[Padge]

Not a Padge like answer that?

 

Cas's financial insecurity, and therefore the insecurity of their best players against the secure financial footing of such as Hull, Salford, Huddersfield or Wire enabled in all cases the rich clubs to pick off Castleford's best players. Westerman, Chase, Hauraki, Clark or Huby.

 

I think you know the challenge to your assertion that such as Cas should be "trying to compete" is that it is not as simple as that.

 

It's a pointless excersise trying to compete if you don't have the money to do so. Empty shells like Fartown and Salford can clearly compete, but it's not as if they are the greatest of RL clubs. Cas produce RL players, Cas attract thousands of fans.

 

The bottom line for me is that fat wallets ruling SL ruin SL.

 

Fat wallets have always ruled professional sport.

 

Thin wallets can rule for a short period, until the wallet is very quickly emptied.

 

Cas did what many other businesses do, they balanced the books by selling an asset, there is nothing wrong with that, in fact its the right thing to do. If tehy want to hang on to valuable assets then they have to generate more cash.#

 

Oh look, its all about the money again.

[scotchy]

I started a thread on how we think the clubs will go this season and it's completely hi-jacked into one about formats. It's usually me that get's accused of hijacking threads!! Any way it doesn't bother me, a discussion is a discussion and next season will be ultra fascinating to see how the format goes alongside the clubs within it.

I thought your post was fascinating as was Padges, but the question is is this format going to be the cause of a perceived problem that the haves will have even more than the have nots, or is it actually an attempt at a solution?

I never have bought the idea that the new format will be more exciting to the point of raising crowds and therefore revenue across the board (well 16 clubs anyway) but I do buy the idea that if something wasn't done about decreasing competitiveness then the effect of that could be just as bad

I think we need to remember that the last format was 14 clubs made year on year to push towards "standards" in all aspects of their businesses. What happened was Wakefield collapsed, Celtic C. collapsed, London collapsed, Bradford collapsed, Salford collapsed, Hudgell nearly walked out which would have seen HKR collapse, and Mr. Fulton wrote maybe his last big cheque and Cas avoided collapse. £68M was run up in debts.

That's half the league in financial crisis, so they have invented a new format where the half that ALREADY has all the money and that can attract all the best players (don't forget nowadays the top half of SL take the bottom half's best senior AND junior players) play their own competition and the rest are cut free of standards, and also cut free of having to play clubs they can never beat to a trophy beyond the first half of the season.

The format is kind of a "lets give the skint clubs who don't have the resources a game, then send them off the the Championship once Superleague get's into the business end of the season".

Castleford's success last season was hailed loudly on here because I think we all know what's happening and it was a kind of "denial" that SL was breaking up. In the end Castlefords reward was survival through Clark's sale to Warrington for the desperately needed cash, and Huby also left for the top eight.

the system is in place because it provides a soft landing for clubs who don't have the courage to admit they can't compete in the top league.

We saw Hudgell complain of a 'glass ceiling' so what do we do? Give that glass ceiling a name and pretend it is a competition.

This system codified what was already apparent. That there is a split in RL, but that makes a big difference. It entrenches the attitude that some clubs are just warm bodies. It is now writ large in big letters that some clubs, some games are just making up the numbers before the competition proper

One thing I would pick argument with. That 68m figure is incredibly misleading. 68m in debt doesn't really mean much if we have assets worth £100s of millions. The game is nowhere near the poor financial health it pretends it is. It benefits certain parties in the game to pretend it is and it provides a convenient excuse for failure. But that £68m comes down pretty rapidly when you look at how much are tax efficient directors loans, mortgages against new build stadiums, and we remember how much the games assets are worth (not least A £200m tv contract that even big Nige said was enough that it was time for clubs to indulge in a bit of big spending on players)

[Padge]

the system is in place because it provides a soft landing for clubs who don't have the courage to admit they can't compete in the top league.

We saw Hudgell complain of a 'glass ceiling' so what do we do? Give that glass ceiling a name and pretend it is a competition.

This system codified what was already apparent. That there is a split in RL, but that makes a big difference. It entrenches the attitude that some clubs are just warm bodies. It is now writ large in big letters that some clubs, some games are just making up the numbers before the competition proper

 

You've got it pretty much spot on there.

 

On the courage thing some clubs don't have the  courage to admit something else but that is a no go area.

[The Parksider]

Fat wallets have always ruled professional sport.

 

Thin wallets can rule for a short period, until the wallet is very quickly emptied.

 

Cas did what many other businesses do, they balanced the books by selling an asset, there is nothing wrong with that, in fact its the right thing to do. If tehy want to hang on to valuable assets then they have to generate more cash.#

 

Oh look, its all about the money again.

 

The lad is back!

 

It is about the money and therefore that's what the salary cap was supposedly put in place to produce - financial parity and stability.

 

My word something has gone wrong somewhere?

 

I'm not sure that fat wallets do "rule" all professional sports across the globe, I think somewhere some sports set themselves up to prevent a wallet competition.

 

Having said that to have half a dozen SL clubs competing is a part achievement. The cap prevents Mr. Koukash paying the best 25 players half a £Million a year!!

[scotchy]

Having said that to have half a dozen SL clubs competing is a part achievement. The cap prevents Mr. Koukash paying the best 25 players half a £Million a year!!

Other options for doing that are available

[The Parksider]

1. One thing I would pick argument with. That 68m in debt

 

2. The system is in place because it provides a soft landing for clubs who don't have the courage to admit they can't compete in the top league.We saw Hudgell complain of a 'glass ceiling' so what do we do? Give that glass ceiling a name and pretend it is a competition.

3. This system codified what was already apparent. That there is a split in RL, but that makes a big difference. It entrenches the attitude that some clubs are just warm bodies. It is now writ large in big letters that some clubs, some games are just making up the numbers before the competition proper

 

1. Well you have won that argument. I just didn't have a figure for the collective debts of the SL clubs who collapsed!!

 

2. Tremendous quote!! You get quote of the year.

 

3. Well in discussing the way in which championship clubs are scrambling for the top SL clubs players it dawned on me that several SL clubs have started to do that in recent hard times. There's a complaint from several CC fans about this "affecting the integrity of the competition"  but it comes to something when SL clubs have to beg players. 

 

I'm finding all this fascinating and intriguing and can't get away from my overall feeling we truly have now gone down to an 8 club Superleague and whilst that may save many clubs in the short term, I fear in the long term our flagship competition will suffer from this decision.

 

It's horrible to have to see Bradford Bulls not in that flagship Super 8, It's awful to see no Humberside club on last seasons standings in the Super 8, and if predictions of Cas's demise come true no club from Calder in the super eight.

 

This is the disaster waiting to happen, Strong RL areas at risk of serious decline whilst weak RL areas will have "Super Eight" because their chairman has a fat wallet.

 

The future of RL cannot be Salford can it? 

[redjonn]

Not a Padge like answer that?

 

Cas's financial insecurity, and therefore the insecurity of their best players against the secure financial footing of such as Hull, Salford, Huddersfield or Wire enabled in all cases the rich clubs to pick off Castleford's best players. Westerman, Chase, Hauraki, Clark or Huby.

 

I think you know the challenge to your assertion that such as Cas should be "trying to compete" is that it is not as simple as that.

 

It's a pointless excersise trying to compete if you don't have the money to do so. Empty shells like Fartown and Salford can clearly compete, but it's not as if they are the greatest of RL clubs. Cas produce RL players, Cas attract thousands of fans.

 

The bottom line for me is that fat wallets ruling SL ruin SL.

 

 

Of course money is a big factor... but players surely move for other reasons. Not least when a salary cap limits salaries which ever club your at.   I want Cas to do well but if I'm a top player what makes Cas attractive enough to overcome going to a more fashionable club if that club makes at least a comparable offer.   

 

Maybe we should make money more of a factor by allowing "less fashionable" clubs have a larger salary cap so that they can persuade the bigger stars to stay or be attracted to the club.  Of course if they can't manage within the salary cap, what ever the size well their doomed anyway.   But giving certain clubs more leverage may help.    Especially if the central body takes a higher proportion of central income to subsidize certain clubs to help them have a higher cap.   Come up with a formula taking account of various factors over a number of years that pushes more money to certain clubs to help them.   Mind you their is a morale hazard if it ended up subsiding badly run clubs against the better run clubs.

 

Otherwise natural evolution will always have the more fashionable clubs in a league of their own if no counter leverage is applied.  If not prepared to come up with some bias system then we should just accept the current status will strengthen.

 

I say this only if more competitive number of clubs is the priority.

[Padge]

Of course money is a big factor... but players surely move for other reasons. Not least when a salary cap limits salaries which ever club your at.   I want Cas to do well but if I'm a top player what makes Cas attractive enough to overcome going to a more fashionable club if that club makes at least a comparable offer.   

 

Maybe we should make money more of a factor by allowing "less fashionable" clubs have a larger salary cap so that they can persuade the bigger stars to stay or be attracted to the club.  Of course if they can't manage within the salary cap, what ever the size well their doomed anyway.   But giving certain clubs more leverage may help.    Especially if the central body takes a higher proportion of central income to subsidize certain clubs to help them have a higher cap.   Come up with a formula taking account of various factors over a number of years that pushes more money to certain clubs to help them.   Mind you their is a morale hazard if it ended up subsiding badly run clubs against the better run clubs.

 

Otherwise natural evolution will always have the more fashionable clubs in a league of their own if no counter leverage is applied.  If not prepared to come up with some bias system then we should just accept the current status will strengthen.

 

Our problem isn't just competition for players within our own organisation though.

 

If I'm a top player with opportunities limited at top British RL clubs I have options other than going to a "less fashionable club" in British RL.

 

I could go to Union, I could go to the NRL trying to force top players to go where they don't want to is doomed too failure.

 

If you want "unfashionable clubs" to attract top players then you have to make them fashionable in the first place, punishing clubs for being successful by giving less successful clubs a higher cap is about as dumb as it gets.

[distantdog]

in favour of more people getting that opportunity? Yes

 

Really? So are you suggesting that Dewsbury for example, should play in front of no spectators, or indeed should not play, and their supporters should be forced to go and watch Leeds or some other more 'successful' team?

[scotchy]

Really? So are you suggesting that Dewsbury for example, should play in front of no spectators, or indeed should not play, and their supporters should be forced to go and watch Leeds or some other more 'successful' team?

if it meant more people as a whole watching the game yes.

[Ackroman]

I wouldn't disagree, but should we deny those relatively few people the opportunity to derive some excitement from watching their team compete?

Clearly not. The game should enjoyed at whatever level they see fit.

 

I believe that no matter how much professional football you can watch in the Heavy Woollen Area, on aggregate more watch amateur RL on any given weekend. Overall probably 3-4000 may watch RL at some level or other across the district.

 

There is no argument to be had that Leeds can somehow attract these customers. The type of RL people are used to in Leeds, is not what people want at Overthorpe Park.

[distantdog]

if it meant more people as a whole watching the game yes.

 

And do you believe it would?

[scotchy]

And do you believe it would?

I don't believe we should stop clubs playing no.

I do believe that our greatest potential lies in a geographically spread game focused on the top level. I don't believe P+R attracts fans.

[distantdog]

Clearly not. The game should enjoyed at whatever level they see fit.

 

I believe that no matter how much professional football you can watch in the Heavy Woollen Area, on aggregate more watch amateur RL on any given weekend. Overall probably 3-4000 may watch RL at some level or other across the district.

 

There is no argument to be had that Leeds can somehow attract these customers. The type of RL people are used to in Leeds, is not what people want at Overthorpe Park.

 

I would agree with this, though many on here would label me as a regressive luddite for holding such views.

Taking myself as a typical lower league supporter, if my club were forcibly euthanased (!!!) I would find it extremely difficult to watch any other club with as much passion and love as I currently do. I suppose the argument would be put forward that it might grow if I went along to the Giants, or that my £20 is still £20 whether it is handed over with passion and love, but I tend to disagree.

[distantdog]

I don't believe we should stop clubs playing no.

I do believe that our greatest potential lies in a geographically spread game focused on the top level. I don't believe P+R attracts fans.

 

Ah now that's different, and I couldn't agree more. I was actually supportive of licensing, as I could see a way forward for those clubs to thrive who had the potential. It also provided opportunities (missed) for new clubs to enter and to have the time to grow, embed and thrive. OK, there were failures, but that's life I guess, and shouldn't prevent other clubs/teams/areas from attempting to grow, embed and thrive!

[keighley]

the system is in place because it provides a soft landing for clubs who don't have the courage to admit they can't compete in the top league.

We saw Hudgell complain of a 'glass ceiling' so what do we do? Give that glass ceiling a name and pretend it is a competition.

This system codified what was already apparent. That there is a split in RL, but that makes a big difference. It entrenches the attitude that some clubs are just warm bodies. It is now writ large in big letters that some clubs, some games are just making up the numbers before the competition proper

One thing I would pick argument with. That 68m figure is incredibly misleading. 68m in debt doesn't really mean much if we have assets worth £100s of millions. The game is nowhere near the poor financial health it pretends it is. It benefits certain parties in the game to pretend it is and it provides a convenient excuse for failure. But that £68m comes down pretty rapidly when you look at how much are tax efficient directors loans, mortgages against new build stadiums, and we remember how much the games assets are worth (not least A £200m tv contract that even big Nige said was enough that it was time for clubs to indulge in a bit of big spending on players)

 

In general, I agree with your post. There is though, a chink in the armour of the top eight. If a bottom eight club can find players or find finance and purchase players they can crash the eight and some top eight team who are not quite ready for the competition can be displaced.

 

Next season, I think Salford, having the money and having recruited widely might cause a surprise. This last season, Castleford having recruited well crashed the party. Big City, Big team clubs, Hull, London and Bradford being unprepared paid the price.

 

Hull KR re another mystery package next season .Look out for them. Leeds are suddenly looking fallible and old, Huddersfield also may have peaked. It will be interesting

[GaryO]

"Give that glass ceiling a name and pretend it's a competition " great quote Scotchy, but the irony is it is a competition, and a pretty meaningful one.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the teams will begin the season with exactly zero points, and their success or otherwise will determine how they proceed in the competition, and you usually find that their attendances are affected by the very same criteria.

 

It is a clubs management, players and supporters who eventually determine their status, this is how it always has been. 

 

I couldn't agree more with your comment on meaningless games before the competition starts and the "warm bodies" statement, so my comment here is should the SL be a closed shop.

 

Yes I am a supporter of a Championship club, I relish the opportunity to welcoming the Wigan's, Saints Leeds et all, to our ground, and if successful (long shot) I don't care who we would replace be it Wakey, Widnes or whoever, I am afraid that is how all this is panning out, those who are terrified and those of us who have been given a chance - however slim - of realising our dream.

[redjonn]

Our problem isn't just competition for players within our own organisation though.

 

If I'm a top player with opportunities limited at top British RL clubs I have options other than going to a "less fashionable club" in British RL.

 

I could go to Union, I could go to the NRL trying to force top players to go where they don't want to is doomed too failure.

 

If you want "unfashionable clubs" to attract top players then you have to make them fashionable in the first place, punishing clubs for being successful by giving less successful clubs a higher cap is about as dumb as it gets.

 

You could be right.... I was just suggesting some form of bias towards helping the "weaker" clubs to be able to more easily compete if the goal or should say highest priority is more equal competition... if not prepared to bias then we should just accept the way it is and we will always have a non level field and hence certain teams will be stronger. I prefer the way it is but was just suggesting the dumb idea as an example... which I agree is as dumb as:

 

say the NFL bias towards the poorer performing teams in their draft selection system... with the goal of leveling up competitive advantages or disadvantage as the case may be... that is disadvantaging the stronger teams in favour of the weaker.... or in your words ....  "punishing clubs for being successful by giving less successful clubs"  a weighted advantage.

 

My point being that maybe not the use of money as my example but a bias of some sort....

[Padge]

You could be right.... I was just suggesting some form of bias towards helping the "weaker" clubs to be able to more easily compete if the goal or should say highest priority is more equal competition... if not prepared to bias then we should just accept the way it is and we will always have a non level field and hence certain teams will be stronger. I prefer the way it is but was just suggesting the dumb idea as an example... which I agree is as dumb as:

 

say the NFL bias towards the poorer performing teams in their draft selection system... with the goal of leveling up competitive advantages or disadvantage as the case may be... that is disadvantaging the stronger teams in favour of the weaker.... or in your words ....  "punishing clubs for being successful by giving less successful clubs"  a weighted advantage.

 

My point being that maybe not the use of money as my example but a bias of some sort....

 

Can we really afford a draft system, you would have to offer something very tempting for young lads to move areas if they are assigned to say Workington or London. What sort of money can these clubs afford to pay draftees. If they can't offer enough are we in danger of pushing them out of the game. It works in American Football because the sport as a whole is very rich, RL is not, not by a long way.

 

The only real answer is for clubs to be bigger, that is what will generate more cash, and cash is the key.