League One's Future

[RayCee]

I live far away form the UK and only with the TWP entering L1 did I start to take notice of it. It seems to play an important part of the UK RL scene. In addition, clubs from the likes of Serbia, France, North America etc see it as an excellent starting point to improve their game. We've seen that a team turning up in SL doesn’t work so L1 is a no brainer for assimilating new teams from overseas. L1 is an ideal stepping stone.

So why is there talk of doing away with it? Is it costly to run? To me it seems to offer excellent value to the game in the UK and potentially elsewhere. It could be a gateway to a true European Super League. I must be missing something, so could someone connect the dots for me? 

Thanks.

[Man of Kent]

Problem is there’s effectively a League 1A and a League 1B and the gap between the two is cavernous. 

There may need to be a League 2.

[RayCee]

16 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Problem is there’s effectively a League 1A and a League 1B and the gap between the two is cavernous. 

There may need to be a League 2.

I have to admit I am not overly familiar of the structures below L1. So I take it you mean that a team coming into L1 from below will find that too much of a step up.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, RayCee said:

I have to admit I am not overly familiar of the structures below L1. So I take it you mean that a team coming into L1 from below will find that too much of a step up.

He probably means the gap between the traditional clubs in League 1 and the expansion clubs there.  As a look at the League 1 table shows, the top half are all traditional clubs expert for Newcastle (for now) and the other expansion clubs are all at the bottom.

[RayCee]

24 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

He probably means the gap between the traditional clubs in League 1 and the expansion clubs there.  As a look at the League 1 table shows, the top half are all traditional clubs expert for Newcastle (for now) and the other expansion clubs are all at the bottom.

Thank you BP. I get it now. I didn't read MoK's comment thoroughly enough. West Wales & Hemel are two sides that are really struggling to be competitive. 

With new sides from North America and Europe joining in due course, a L1 & L2 may become necessary as the numbers grow. 

[Getmefood]

Eventually. Maybe post 2021 WC..

[bowes]

League 1's not really a suitable entry point for international teams, it's too low a level

[bamfordsbeans]

With the exception of Newcastle the development teams are certainly struggling.Bearing in mind we have already lost Oxford and Gloucester from last season,the present situation is not great.

Unfortunately the people at the top seem to be moving towards a streamlined set up and there doesn't seem to be the money or the will to do anything about it.

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, bowes said:

League 1's not really a suitable entry point for international teams, it's too low a level

Say a new team from the likes of Serbia would be ideally suited to it don’t you think?

[iangidds]

I think the Red Star Belgrade team will be reliant on starting in League 1.  Without this I think they will find it nigh on impossible to join

[RP London]

16 minutes ago, RayCee said:

Say a new team from the likes of Serbia would be ideally suited to it don’t you think?

yes and no... 

its a good level for that team to come into as the pinnacle of their country's game but the clubs they are going up against are poorly funded for the most part and are very much part time players with jobs.. the clubs coming in are better funded for the most part as they will get governing body funding bigger sponsors involved etc. This means teams are weaker at that level than some NCL teams (whose players dont want to give up better paid jobs or put pressure on themselves by training more often for winning money) but also when they travel will be even weaker due to players needing to take longer periods of time off work. 

The league is stuck between two stools at the moment, its trying to be an expansion league on one hand but the heartland teams are very strong compared to most expansion teams, but those expansion teams need/want to play against heartland teams for experience and marketing... but equally its trying to be a 3rd teir for heartland teams to play in but they struggle with crowds when battering expansion teams... 

as far as I see it the RFL are damned if they do damned if they dont with league 1... if they put in a league 2 which will basically be an expansion league at the moment those teams will kick up as they need the exposure so what is the point, and the NCL teams will say its not truly 4th tier of the structure as it would be a weaker league than the NCL.. equally at the moment if they leave it as is it is quite painful to see the division (and I really wouldnt want Eagles to get relegated to it a an eagles fan). 

I dont really see a solution that keeps everyone happy.

[deluded pom?]

I think the NCL comparison is a red herring IMO. None of the teams involved appear to want to become semi pro. Any players who want to try their luck at semi or full time pro level have or have had the opportunity to do so. The NCL is a separate entity so I don't see the need to bring them into the discussion.

[Kris]

I agree, damned if you do etc

So the question becomes not why should we but why don't we, a subtle but significant shift.

Traditionally we have looked at expansion and either thrown the doors wide open to what then appeared to be badly administered attempts or kept it tightly shut

For the first time L1 gives a testing ground for teams that want to try

We now start to widen the 'why...' question to why don't we let them join and fail if that's what is to happen?

In business entrepreneurs know failure very well, its what they learn from and the better ones make sure the failures are quick and cheap so they can progress on.

Sport is a business, never more so than now. If we start at the point where we say why don't we let them try instead of why should we, then the question about teams in L1 and their 'relevance' to the wider sport answers itself - you test the team, the administration, the local markets you are in. If it fails get over it, review the failure and look at what if anything you have as a legacy, such as a junior set up, any community work, school work etc.

Bristol is a strategic objective, but will take cash. Diverting the energies of administrators in that area into the start up of Bristol generates some cash and interest. That allows a team to be raised and play out of Bristol, a team that should have been in place post 2013 RLWC. The fact it is being done now is down to politics in that area and the game following the cash to Gloucester instead. Gloucester and Oxford should inform the start up and growth of Bristol. Is that being done?

Back to L1 and we now see if you allow teams to join having a standard criteria for joining, hitting the relevant expansion indicators and having cash ring fenced to finish any given season as per Toronto and their 'due diligence' tests and 'bond' lodged with the RFL, you start to say why shouldn't we rather than why should we. The bottom line is not affected negatively and the reputation of the sport is enhanced through clear governance and testing of each business plan.

If they grow the game at that level bringing value to the traditional teams and the game as a whole, they are a success. What the RFL don't do is have a measure for that and an idea of what consistent success looks like as a strategic objective for the whole sport. Then its a question of making that a growth business and enhance the value to the game. Everywhere Toronto go they enhance the experience, crowds grow, people want to watch it. People spend money. It creates more interest in papers and online. In areas that a few years ago didn't know and couldn't give a hoot about our game. That's one team!

Following the 'lets dump a team here' model into super league without paying due diligence to start up principles and testing the plan will always cost huge amounts of cash to work and be a failure as often as not.

L1 is our testing ground and the teams already in there are a stern test for any team on their day and are none the less relevant for that. L1 currently hold a lot of teams struggling for organic growth and that's OK, but if they do fail there has to be a strategic review of the sport in that area, what's left after the headline club goes, what can be utilised in another team in the same area, is there a case to carry that on or move on? L1 should not be defined by the clubs in there, the game should be brave enough to accept it wont be a success everywhere all the time and failure there is far better than failure at SL level, where the reputational damage is huge.

What I am trying to say is that clubs failing in L1 isn't a problem if there is learning from that failure. The reviews should be carried out, stringently, by the RFL who provide governance and strategic lead for the sport as a whole. The reason it is a 'poor' business in my view is that they appear to follow a very Victorian view of sport, if you want to join the party front up, if you fail thanks for coming. No learning. Certainly no transparency which is as good a reason to criticise as any other.

If I was looking at investing in this sport I would use the business principles that had brought me the wealth to invest, remove the emotion from it and run it as a business. Argyle appears to have done this very well. Here's the cash, here are the business team, I can now be a fan. Good for him, but I bet he had really clear and firm strategic objectives at the start and had done his research before he invested. Certainly Perez was very strategically astute and perhaps that's why we don't see him more often now, job done move on.

The RFL should be very interested in how that business is being run and what is successful and what isn't. Bring in more teams to L1 and let them follow the same model but provide governance and guidance to improve on the Toronto model for success. Use it to help teams like York and Bradford learn what needs to be done to refresh renew and grow the sport again in their own areas. Learn from what York are doing. Follow that through to Wales and the south west, the logical outcome is a sport with a cohesive business structure and support network that capitalises on the good will and hard bloody work of individuals across the UK because the clubs lower down the ladder don't have that business acumen or experience and cant grow without it. Winning something is a pyrrhic victory if you cant sustain the business. Just ask a Bulls supporter.

The end of L1 is potentially the end of our sports wish to expand and cant be left behind. the Championship is too hard a nut to crack straight off. In business confidence and momentum is everything. Look at the Bulls now, a better team with a better support now than in the years they fell down the ladder. Looking up with some confidence is better than looking around and down with no idea where you go next.

I am a Giants fan, I know all about that!

Anyway targets out, have a shot!

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Kris said:

 

Anyway targets out, have a shot!

It was a long post so have edited it down so it doesnt take up too much room but 

[Bearman]

Rugby League is a traditional game.

Traditionally new clubs struggle at the bottom of the pile.

Latterly Skolars. Before that London in all its guises. Before that your Kent, Mansfield, Chorley, Blackpool, various Welsh clubs.  Who could forget "An other bloody Sunday"?

Even York who are doing ok now havent set the RL world alight in their professional career.

The one thing that seems to push strugglers up the league is the introduction of new blood at the bottom of the pyramid.

It was ever thus.

[Adeybull]

2 hours ago, Kris said:

... Look at the Bulls now, a better team with a better support now than in the years they fell down the ladder...

Curious to undertand what you mean by "better" in both cases?

[Busted Dick]

7 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

Curious to undertand what you mean by "better" in both cases?

The Bulls are clearly more stable now and have a very good coach who I am sure is committed to the cause (Wakey's loss, I'm afraid).  Not sure you have a better team, but the Bulls are surely a better club than in recent years. As for support, you are probably now relying on 'hardcore' support which is proving to be numerous and resilient.  A good foundation on which to rebuild the club.  Need to sort your stadium out tho (Wakey fan - I know!).

[Marrafan]

5 hours ago, bowes said:

League 1's not really a suitable entry point for international teams, it's too low a level

Interesting point of view. “Too low level”. It’s elitist views like this that cause the problems. Apart from 3/4 teams as stated above the league is the most competitiv3 it has been. 

[DoubleD]

I would also add that too much emphasis gets put on struggling clubs - as part of any league you'll have clubs struggling at the bottom of the table. It's the nature of sport. We shouldn't be too hung up about it. Only when clubs struggle to do the basics, which include fielding a team and not paying the bills, should alarms bells start ringing. Gateshead Thunder struggled for a number of years at the bottom of League 1, suffering many a defeat but they've turned themselves around. A bit of persistence and longer term view is required.

[Stirlin]

2 hours ago, Busted Dick said:

The Bulls are clearly more stable now and have a very good coach who I am sure is committed to the cause (Wakey's loss, I'm afraid).  Not sure you have a better team, but the Bulls are surely a better club than in recent years. As for support, you are probably now relying on 'hardcore' support which is proving to be numerous and resilient.  A good foundation on which to rebuild the club.  Need to sort your stadium out tho (Wakey fan - I know!).

Yep , all lge 1 teams will see the benefit of Bulls away army this season.

[bowes]

2 hours ago, Marrafan said:

Interesting point of view. “Too low level”. It’s elitist views like this that cause the problems. Apart from 3/4 teams as stated above the league is the most competitiv3 it has been. 

Nonsense. No other sport has semi-professional intercontinental leagues 

[Moscow01]

Coventry, Hemel and West Wales ideally would be playing in a strong southern league. They’ve no place whatsoever playing in League 1. They get battered every time they face a decent northern team. At the moment the aforementioned teams would struggle to beat the best amateur teams. 

I’d like nothing more than for them to be successful but they are a million miles off even being competitive in League 1. 

 

[bowes]

7 minutes ago, Moscow01 said:

Coventry, Hemel and West Wales ideally would be playing in a strong southern league. They’ve no place whatsoever playing in League 1. They get battered every time they face a decent northern team. At the moment the aforementioned teams would struggle to beat the best amateur teams. 

I’d like nothing more than for them to be successful but they are a million miles off even being competitive in League 1. 

 

I honestly don't believe a southern league could ever be created that could accommodate them. The NCL is probably the appropriate level, though that isn't without travel cost issues, or else a change to four divisions of ten would take the stronger clubs out of the division 

[paulwalker71]

26 minutes ago, Moscow01 said:

Coventry, Hemel and West Wales ideally would be playing in a strong southern league. They’ve no place whatsoever playing in League 1. They get battered every time they face a decent northern team. At the moment the aforementioned teams would struggle to beat the best amateur teams. 

I don't particularly see the benefit of a 'southern league', other than the travel costs (which could be covered centrally). However, I do think we should be looking to get to the point where we had a 10 team development league.

It didn't help binning Oxford and Gloucester, who had the potential - realised better with Gloucester than Oxford admittedly - to be competitive at that level.

Let's see

1. Hemel
2. Oxford
3. West Wales
4. North Wales
5. Coventry
6. Newcastle
7. Bristol
8. London Skolars
9. Irish team that has been mooted
10. Scottish team that has been mooted
11. ?
12. ?

We're not that far away (or could have been). With some decent central funding to cover necessary expenses, that sort of league could be a place for potential areas that want to 'give it go'. Teams in that league would be able to gradually build without getting mullered every week.

And there could still be a pathway available for those clubs - such as Newcastle - that can get to the point where they can regularly compete with the 'heartland' clubs. You might argue that they are there already?

This sort of league wouldn't be the level for teams like Toronto or New York, they'd be coming straight in at the next level up - as they'd obviously have squads that were 'bought in' and be way above the development sides.

 

[West Leeds Riviera]

3 hours ago, Marrafan said:

Interesting point of view. “Too low level”. It’s elitist views like this that cause the problems. Apart from 3/4 teams as stated above the league is the most competitiv3 it has been. 

Personally I think we need 2 entry points- one for teams like Toronto who are being bankrolled to SL and another for teams such as Bristol who are building slowly