Proposal put forward to cut SL to 10

[Guest]

The player pool becomes even less, when you take into account the number of part time players, that would never switch to full time. Plenty won't switch because they have income that betters a FT position in RL.

[Krzzystuff]

16 hours ago, SL17 said:

But 16 is not 20,is it? Fax already had the opportunity to go FT ,but in their words chose the reserve route over that.

If you change the landscape one day to FT or amateur it's a different scenario.

I thunk we are much closer to the 20 than you think. Yes we don't have 20 now but the landscape doesn't require them, if you change the rules you will find people fighting to be part of that 20, it's just that simple. 

[Krzzystuff]

13 hours ago, The Parksider said:

We don't have 16 clubs at Superleague level.

question was 20 FT teams...do you work for trumps media team because you spew so much misinformation that it would make Russians blush.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Krzzystuff said:

If you change the landscape one day to FT or amateur it's a different scenario.

I thunk we are much closer to the 20 than you think. Yes we don't have 20 now but the landscape doesn't require them, if you change the rules you will find people fighting to be part of that 20, it's just that simple. 

The problem again would be the player pool,as I said above.

Most PT clubs would lose 50/70% of their squads by making the switch. Most of these guys are in secured employment.

They just wouldn't give that security up, or make the level.

So where would they get their new players from? The player pool struggles to keep 16     FT squads going. Now we want 20. 

No chance.

[Derwent]

2 hours ago, Krzzystuff said:

If you change the landscape one day to FT or amateur it's a different scenario.

I thunk we are much closer to the 20 than you think. Yes we don't have 20 now but the landscape doesn't require them, if you change the rules you will find people fighting to be part of that 20, it's just that simple. 

Clubs like Fev and Sheffield have tried the FT route in the past, it didn't work out well for them. Why would they want to do it again ?

[Krzzystuff]

1 hour ago, Derwent said:

Clubs like Fev and Sheffield have tried the FT route in the past, it didn't work out well for them. Why would they want to do it again ?

It all depends on what the options are. If by going on what this thread is referring to we go 20 FT teams in two divisions and everyone else is cut off do you think they will want to give it one more try?

[Sick39ed]

I don't get it. Why is everyone dissing Fax. We do nothing wrong. 

[Graham]

 

2 hours ago, Derwent said:

Clubs like Fev and Sheffield have tried the FT route in the past, it didn't work out well for them. Why would they want to do it again ?

Featherstone has not been full time. To date the club has been semi professional, with some full time players.

[Ooh Ah Timmy Street]

How many rounds would be in this new structure ? H & A = 18 games , plus magic = 19 . 

Thats a big difference to the current 30 .  

An extra round is the obvious answer , but that seems to make it lopsided , and too repetitive .

[Man of Kent]

5 minutes ago, Ooh Ah Timmy Street said:

How many rounds would be in this new structure ? H & A = 18 games , plus magic = 19 . 

Thats a big difference to the current 30 .  

An extra round is the obvious answer , but that seems to make it lopsided , and too repetitive .

I wondered that. It could be that there would be two conferences.

Conference A plays 18 fixtures home and away plus x fixtures with Conference B.

God knows how they would decide who goes in each conference!!

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Ooh Ah Timmy Street said:

How many rounds would be in this new structure ? H & A = 18 games , plus magic = 19 . 

Thats a big difference to the current 30 .  

An extra round is the obvious answer , but that seems to make it lopsided , and too repetitive .

Could they not throw a BBC 2 Floodlit trophy in...

[sweaty craiq]

21 minutes ago, Ooh Ah Timmy Street said:

How many rounds would be in this new structure ? H & A = 18 games , plus magic = 19 . 

Thats a big difference to the current 30 .  

An extra round is the obvious answer , but that seems to make it lopsided , and too repetitive .

28 including Magic, 9x3 +1 and a 4 team play off - 1v4, 2v 3 then a GF relegation promotion bottom and Top swap positions then 2nd bottom top division play 4th and 2v3 with a million pound game to decide

 

[BenGilesRL]

4 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

28 including Magic, 9x3 +1 and a 4 team play off - 1v4, 2v 3 then a GF relegation promotion bottom and Top swap positions then 2nd bottom top division play 4th and 2v3 with a million pound game to decide

 

Playing teams three times in a season minimum plus Cup and playoffs potential - please no, it's the biggest flaw of the Super 8s guaranteed every year 

[nadera78]

Do we want an elite sporting competition?

If the answer is yes, everything we do should be with the explicit aim of achieving that goal. Distributing our extremely limited resources (especially in comparison to our major competitors - NRL and union) amongst 20 clubs is so contrary to that aim as to be unbelievable. We're simply feeding mediocrity.

[Man of Kent]

20 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

Do we want an elite sporting competition?

If the answer is yes, everything we do should be with the explicit aim of achieving that goal. Distributing our extremely limited resources (especially in comparison to our major competitors - NRL and union) amongst 20 clubs is so contrary to that aim as to be unbelievable. We're simply feeding mediocrity.

How many clubs get money now...?

[nadera78]

1 minute ago, Man of Kent said:

How many clubs get money now...?

It's an issue now, and it'll get worse with these proposals.

We do not have the resources for this. It's as simple as that. We barely have the resources for an elite 12 team competition.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

It's an issue now, and it'll get worse with these proposals.

We do not have the resources for this. It's as simple as that. We barely have the resources for an elite 12 team competition.

Why will it get worse if the proposal is to reduce the amount of teams that get funding?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Why will it get worse if the proposal is to reduce the amount of teams that get funding?

Because the funding is peanuts to start with. The only benefit this brings is a springboard for future expansion clubs.

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, SL17 said:

Because the funding is peanuts to start with. The only benefit this brings is a springboard for future expansion clubs.

That isn't the point here. 

Nadera wants fewer teams funded, which is exactly what this is doing, but claims this will make it worse. 

It may not go as far as he would like, but it certainly doesn't make it worse.

I don't follow the logic.

[Spidey]

24 minutes ago, SL17 said:

Because the funding is peanuts to start with. The only benefit this brings is a springboard for future expansion clubs.

Clubs are getting more money than ever before. It’s not peanuts

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Clubs are getting more money than ever before. It’s not peanuts

Sorry! How much central funding does a L1 club get.

[sweaty craiq]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38650116

 

Try the above its a good read, and mirrors the problems of appeasing clubs with no chance of moving further up the tree.

[Dave T]

48 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The largest part log the supposed funding change wouldn't at elite level. It would be at a level below. 

It is pretty counterintuitive to look at at an elite level starving for elite money and instead give it to clubs below so they can compete for the same sponsors and players. That could make it worse

Meh, all a bit of a stretch to justify this being worse for the SL.

[Scubby]

30 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38650116

 

Try the above its a good read, and mirrors the problems of appeasing clubs with no chance of moving further up the tree.

But the problem we have Craig is that in any given decade clubs like Whitehaven, Barrow and Bradford (even the last two) have been stronger than clubs such as Featherstone, Leigh and Hull KR. So who the hell decides now is time to draw the line for eternity (or at least 3 years until it is changed again)? And on what basis do you do it?

[yipyee]

On 21/02/2018 at 9:41 PM, SL17 said:

But 16 is not 20,is it? Fax already had the opportunity to go FT ,but in their words chose the reserve route over that.

Very true, and if they did go FT would the players leave to get part time contracts to keep their day jobs?

And would their players improve more than be a bit fitter for 000s more a year?

Someone still needs to finish bottom not everyone can win.

Some people don't think things through!