Proposal put forward to cut SL to 10

[The Daddy]

A proposal has been put forward to cut SL to 10 clubs and the Championship to 10. According to Gary Carter in the S*n. If true a truly ridiculous idea the sport should be expanding its footprint not retracting it. Our sport is run by simple minds, so their viewpoint is less clubs equals more money for them. 

Also how do you account for all of the American and French clubs that want to join? This would be a bad move. 

Eddie Hearn is absolutely right, great sport in the wrong hands. 

[Sick39ed]

Absolutely ridiculous idea. We should expand the Super League to 16 teams. With a 16 team second tier underneath it!

[westlondonfan]

Unless that means two full time teams so effectively a two tier Super League with two or three or even more teams going up and down each year?

its all about money really though isn’t it?

[Bob8]

59 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

A proposal has been put forward to cut SL to 10 clubs and the Championship to 10. According to Gary Carter in the S*n. If true a truly ridiculous idea the sport should be expanding its footprint not retracting it. Our sport is run by simple minds, so their viewpoint is less clubs equals more money for them. 

Also how do you account for all of the American and French clubs that want to join? This would be a bad move. 

Eddie Hearn is absolutely right, great sport in the wrong hands. 

To play Devil's advocate, it could make sense.

I suspect it is a negotiating stand, but reducing the number would not affect the TV value unduly, as it is only a handful of clubs that add much value (an assumption). 

It you have Hull, Leeds, Saints, Warrington, Wigan, then most of the TV contract is secure.  Throw in Toulouse and Cats, and the typical turnover of SL clubs is clearly boosted.  That leaves room for another three clubs, which could well be used to expand the footprint.

I am not saying I agree, but if times look desperate, it could be considered.

Consider that Beaumont was suggesting a top league of ten teams himself.

[Spidey]

18 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

To play Devil's advocate, it could make sense.

I suspect it is a negotiating stand, but reducing the number would not affect the TV value unduly, as it is only a handful of clubs that add much value (an assumption). 

It you have Hull, Leeds, Saints, Warrington, Wigan, then most of the TV contract is secure.  Throw in Toulouse and Cats, and the typical turnover of SL clubs is clearly boosted.  That leaves room for another three clubs, which could well be used to expand the footprint.

I am not saying I agree, but if times look desperate, it could be considered.

Consider that Beaumont was suggesting a top league of ten teams himself.

Does Beaumont want that simply to boost the league below? Leigh have had two failed shots at SL, does he just want some sort competition for his club as they’ve not cut it at SL and doesn’t envisage a time when they would

[Scubby]

35 minutes ago, westlondonfan said:

Unless that means two full time teams so effectively a two tier Super League with two or three or even more teams going up and down each year?

its all about money really though isn’t it?

There is no money for this  - full stop. The reason SL clubs are stalling over even expanding from 12 teams to 14 teams is that many are desperate not to lose another slice of the pie. There is no regard to what growth can be achieved over the next 5-10 years by opening to new markets. That is too far ahead for some.

It is the hand to mouth existence of some clubs that means they would rather continually tinker and change for their own ends, than see a long to path towards growing the sport. Another reason is that they may also fear growing the sport eventually edges them out by design over time. This scenario is where leaders guide their sport but Nigel has overseen the RFL losing their seat at the SL table. Fun and games ahead (again).

[Maximus Decimus]

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Does Beaumont want that simply to boost the league below? Leigh have had two failed shots at SL, does he just want some sort competition for his club as they’ve not cut it at SL and doesn’t envisage a time when they would

I doubt that very much, I don't think anybody would settle for second best like that. 

Ive said before that two leagues of 10 might make the most sense but it would be reliant on the second league being much better than the current championship otherwise you're just reducing the number of decent RL teams in this country. 

 

[Bob8]

7 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Does Beaumont want that simply to boost the league below? Leigh have had two failed shots at SL, does he just want some sort competition for his club as they’ve not cut it at SL and doesn’t envisage a time when they would

I am sure that is his motivation.  And that there should be generous funding for SL2.

[redjonn]

Well for me it could make sense depending upon the detail.

If the aim is two full time leagues with P&R plus funding for each,  with the ability to sell a TV contract for the 2nd league then surely that helps with expansion. Especially if the leagues strengthen leading subsequently to increasing number of teams in each.

[Bob8]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

Well for me it could make sense depending upon the detail.

If the aim is two full time leagues with P&R plus funding for each,  with the ability to sell a TV contract for the 2nd league then surely that helps with expansion. Especially if the leagues strengthen leading subsequently to increasing number of teams in each.

P&R for Toulouse, Catalans and TWP?

[Scubby]

The aim should be focussed towards the fact that we have a rival competition down under that has a A$2b tv deal, has a salary cap of A$9m+ and has every game broadcast live. It also pays every single contracted player a minimum of approx. £50k+ (A$100,000). Some of our guys are SL contracted players on 12k at year.

We may not be able to match this given the sport's place here, but how do we get on the path to making inroads, making commercial impact and growing to potentially new markets? Clubs arguing between themselves for insular one-upmanship is going to do nothing to ensure growth. It is about making more money for the game not clinging on for dear life to the scraps we have.

 

[The Daddy]

I fear that with the recent apparent shift of power from the RFL to the clubs the sport has jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. 

The sport simply cannot sustain a p and r system with 20 pro teams. Essentially it's a variation of the existing format that requires several pro championship clubs to be nearly as competitive as SL clubs. The sport just does not have that depth. 

[Dave T]

I don't think we need to be so against different ideas. Nothing should be off the table.

Is it a good idea? Not a clue as don't know the full proposal.

[fevtom]

I'm neither for or against this until I find out more information. I wonder which teams would make the cut. Let's say, just for example, Salford and Catalans end up in the 2nd division. Leigh, Toronto, Toulouse, London would be nailed on meaning only another 4 teams would be needed (assuming this follows the two divisions of ten that's been mentioned before). As it stands my beloved Fev should also make it but depending on how they allocate places that might not be the case and presumably there would be one eye on further expansion clubs. Either way two current super league clubs plus Leigh, Toronto, Toulouse, London, Featherstone, Halifax, possibly a rekindled Bradford plus one more would already be a decent and more competitive 2nd division.

I'm assuming this system would leave no room for promotion from the third division (that would defeat the object of two professional divisions if they could be replaced by semi-professional/amateur teams) I would worry about these clubs, i'm not a fan of locking them out but how do we give smaller clubs something to aspire to while keeping the leagues competitive.

[JohnM]

Sweaty Craig, where are you? 

[EastLondonMike]

I've always thought 10 was a good starting point.  And build from there.  Gives a bit of space in the calendar for International games mid-season also.

 

Don't think a two tier SL would work though. Would effectively just be the championship re-packaged.

[Maximus Decimus]

46 minutes ago, fevtom said:

I'm neither for or against this until I find out more information. I wonder which teams would make the cut. Let's say, just for example, Salford and Catalans end up in the 2nd division. Leigh, Toronto, Toulouse, London would be nailed on meaning only another 4 teams would be needed. As it stands my beloved Fev should also make it but depending on how they allocate places that might not be the case and presumably there would be one eye on further expansion clubs. Either way two current super league clubs plus Leigh, Toronto, Toulouse, London, Featherstone, Halifax, possibly a rekindled Bradford plus one more would already be a decent and more competitive 2nd division.

I'm assuming this system would leave no room for promotion from the third division (that would defeat the object of two professional divisions if they could be replaced by semi-professional/amateur teams) I would worry about these clubs, i'm not a fan of locking them out but how do we give smaller clubs something to aspire to while keeping the leagues competitive.

Just before the season I posted a very long blog outlining the problems with creating a workable system for British RL. Far too often people proclaim to have the answers and one of these answers involves locking out smaller clubs and concentrating on the strongest clubs. My argument against this is we are continually placing fewer and fewer bigger eggs into the RL basket. The obvious problem is when one of those big eggs goes wrong it is a bigger problem (see Bradford Bulls). 

However, there needs to be a happy medium. With the current strength of clubs we should still have some form of P&R but in my opinion only for clubs willing and able to take a SL place. We don't want a repeat of the early 2000s where clubs win the league but cannot be promoted. It is a form of licensing but for say the top 20-24 clubs rather than the top 14.

[Futtocks]

6 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

I've always thought 10 was a good starting point.  And build from there.  Gives a bit of space in the calendar for International games mid-season also.

 

Don't think a two tier SL would work though. Would effectively just be the championship re-packaged.

If the second tier had a TV deal (with the money that came from it), that might make the concept more workable. But, as has already been said, we don't know much about this proposal apart from the 10-team headline.

[paulwalker71]

I do wonder if people bother to read the source before commenting. Many of the points raised are covered in the article! Well, to save everyone the hassle, here goes

Quote

 

SUPER League could be CUT to 10 clubs and a second tier of the competition formed under controversial alternative plans for rugby league’s future. And about half of the game’s current pyramid may face being left to fend for themselves if it gets the go-ahead. 

Top flight clubs are talking about the future of the competition after seizing more power from the Rugby Football League over the off-season.

It is expected they will vote on whether to increase the top tier to 14, with much stricter off-field rules on eligibility to play in Super League, for the 2020 campaign.

But SunSport has learned of another proposal that would see it cut from 12 to 10, with another tier of 10 underneath. However, all central funding would go to those 20 clubs, meaning anyone outside them would have to find money themselves or wither and die.

In the plan, which is believed to have support among some clubs:

•  TWO clubs would go up and down between Super League 1 and 2, with parachute payments to sides that drop
•  ONE would go up and down to and from the lower league
• NEW York to enter Super League 2

These plans are likely to cause uproar if they were to be put to a vote and sources admit it would be a ‘hard sell', especially with the lack of funding outside the top two tiers.

As things stand, all the teams who make the Super 8s and Qualifiers would get in, along with the proposed New York franchise and the top three in the Championship Shield.

But even then they would have to satisfy off-field criteria, including making sure stadia and business plans are good enough. Clubs were thought to have made a decision on the competition’s structure for 2019 before this season started. However, failure to do so, with at least two different camps emerging, is thought to have pushed those back a year. It is expected plans to go to 14 and this one of cutting it to 10 will be discussed in the coming weeks.

 

 

[Mattrhino]

1 hour ago, fevtom said:

I'm neither for or against this until I find out more information. I wonder which teams would make the cut. Let's say, just for example, Salford and Catalans end up in the 2nd division. Leigh, Toronto, Toulouse, London would be nailed on meaning only another 4 teams would be needed (assuming this follows the two divisions of ten that's been mentioned before). As it stands my beloved Fev should also make it but depending on how they allocate places that might not be the case and presumably there would be one eye on further expansion clubs. Either way two current super league clubs plus Leigh, Toronto, Toulouse, London, Featherstone, Halifax, possibly a rekindled Bradford plus one more would already be a decent and more competitive 2nd division.

I'm assuming this system would leave no room for promotion from the third division (that would defeat the object of two professional divisions if they could be replaced by semi-professional/amateur teams) I would worry about these clubs, i'm not a fan of locking them out but how do we give smaller clubs something to aspire to while keeping the leagues competitive.

Who is supposed to be putting this forward. Silly idea, to get the required amount of home games to make the chairmen happy would mean playing even more repeat fixtures.

Seems like 14 teams is the popular choice in the SL owners club.

[Hopping Mad]

Sound suspiciously like what happened in football with the advent of the Premier League. The big clubs, with the connivance of the Football Association, engineered a structure enabling them to keep almost all the money in the sport. The big clubs didn't give a monkeys about the medium-size and small clubs, most of whom have been left to flounder and struggle since 1992.

[JohnM]

5 hours ago, The Daddy said:

A proposal has been put forward to cut SL to 10 clubs and the Championship to 10. According to Gary Carter in the S*n. If true a truly ridiculous idea the sport should be expanding its footprint not retracting it. Our sport is run by simple minds, so their viewpoint is less clubs equals more money for them. 

Also how do you account for all of the American and French clubs that want to join? This would be a bad move. 

Eddie Hearn is absolutely right, great sport in the wrong hands. 

Isn't the topic title somewhat innaccurate?  

As far as i can see its proposing an increase to 20 clubs. There have long been complaints that our players are called on to play too many games. Is this proposal a solution to that, especially if  a nes or revised TV deal meant more  televised clubs and more money?

Should not  be dismissed out of hand but debated on the basis of the proposal, not on a misreading of it. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Isn't the topic title somewhat innaccurate?  

As far as i can see its proposing an increase to 20 clubs. There have long been complaints that our players are called on to play too many games. Is this proposal a solution to that, especially if  a nes or revised TV deal meant more  televised clubs and more money?

Should not  be dismissed out of hand but debated on the basis of the proposal, not on a misreading of it. 

Indeed. And the key missing pieces of info are how funding works and how the fixtures work. £1.8m across 20 teams would be 36m a year. Could the clubs get that? No doubt they would want SL1 to have a bigger share but if you are serious about funding 20 teams then maybe you go even funding and make it truly competitive. If you are going to genuinely expand you need to fund it.

Are the lower tier teams simply then feeder clubs or DR clubs? Or at worst standalone lower tier clubs?

A lot unknown to know whether it is a good or bad idea.

[westlondonfan]

2 hours ago, The Daddy said:

I fear that with the recent apparent shift of power from the RFL to the clubs the sport has jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. 

The sport simply cannot sustain a p and r system with 20 pro teams. Essentially it's a variation of the existing format that requires several pro championship clubs to be nearly as competitive as SL clubs. The sport just does not have that depth. 

If the two French and two North  American clubs each  bring in their own funding then that only means 16 professional teams are needed. You could have Bradford, a Cumbrian team and maybe a London club with more funding as well. Maybe the tv deal for that would be worth more than Sky want to pay at the moment?

 I haven’t got a clue what is really being planned but I’m just thinking out loud.

[The 4 of Us]

SL 1 and SL 2.

£2m per club in SL 1

£1 per club in SL 2

£30m per year will be affordable from current contract. 

As for the fixture format, that looks like 3 x fixtures for 27 games.