League One's Future

[West Leeds Riviera]

20 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

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.

 

I think mixed conferences would work in League 1, let's say two conferences of 8 with North and South teams mixed together with 1 up from each and 2 down from the championship. 

It could make the expansion teams more competitive as they've got something to play for in a smaller league but they're also being tested against good teams. So for example you'd have: 

League 1 A

Workington 

Whitehaven

Hemel 

Skolars

Hunslet

West Wales

Crusaders

York

LEAGUE 1 B

Doncaster

Bradford

Newcastle

Coventry

Oldham

Bristol

Irish/ Scottish team/ Manchester

Keighley

[OriginalMrC]

2 hours ago, DoubleD said:

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.

Agree completely. Far to much emphasis is put on results. There will always be teams at the bottom and new clubs into the league will inevitably struggle without significant intial investment. If newer clubs in the league can demonstrate they are sustainable businesses and are doing community work, and developing youth they have as much right to be there as anyone else. 

[OriginalMrC]

1 hour 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. 

 

On what basis do they not have a right to be in league one? Results? Is that the only basis we view the success of a club? If so then most clubs in the pyramid should just pack up and go home. 

[newbe]

Every one is surmising different ideas bottom line is S/L want a bigger share of the money, they can't do anything till 2021. Then the new TV deal kicks in and I should think it will be lower amount than it is now. People have got to realise it is S/L decides how much Championship n League One receive, and the way certain S/L chairman are thinking it will be the end of League 1 with expanded S/L 1 n 2.

[jpmc]

11 hours ago, bowes said:

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

Do you not think it worked last season with Toronto ?

[Rach]

3 hours 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. 

 

So lets see this season  march 11th Cougars 6 -Bulls 54 , last weekend Bulls 52 - Bears 6 ....why is the Bears result any worse than an established Northern Club ???

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, newbe said:

Every one is surmising different ideas bottom line is S/L want a bigger share of the money, they can't do anything till 2021. Then the new TV deal kicks in and I should think it will be lower amount than it is now. People have got to realise it is S/L decides how much Championship n League One receive, and the way certain S/L chairman are thinking it will be the end of League 1 with expanded S/L 1 n 2.

That's what seems to be a likely outcome. It would be a shame to see the L1 go IMO, as it gives much to the game in the UK and beyond without costing an arm and a leg. 

[Worky]

2 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

If newer clubs in the league can demonstrate they are sustainable businesses and are doing community work, and developing youth they have as much right to be there as anyone else. 

This! Forget the strategic putting in of pins in a map. If a new club wants to enter the League then the only thing that matters is does their business plan look sustainable? Not just in short term funding but in building long term interest in the community.

[The Parksider]

23 hours ago, RayCee said:

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? 

Because your analysis of the league is completely wrong, and is pure wishful thinking.

League one was created to get away from one large Championship of 20 clubs and create a third tier so clubs had more to play for. Nothing ever to do with your trans-euro-atlantic nonsense.

Fans did not take to a third division so eventually as the RFL saw expansion to London and Wales falter, they decided to lift several northern clubs back into the Championship and add expansion clubs from outside the North to create a bottom up expansion league 1 yes....but....

It failed badly with clubs unable to find the players to compete or the fans to watch. Northampton never made the start, South wales, Oxford and Gloucester failed, Hemel perform even worse than they did often performing before less than 100 fans with players bussed in from the north, and we now see West Wales getting battered every week.

The fact that a professional ex-Leigh side breezed through it didn't make it a "success" as some sort of stepping stone for the international development of Superleague. You invented that.

Superleague plan two leagues of 10. That means 20 clubs will come under their juridstiction, so 18 clubs would remain with the RFL whose remit is the game below Superleague. What they do with these clubs will be up to them, but one thing is for sure, whatever fantasy clubs enter any league outside Superleague 1 & 2  there will still be be no automatic entry into Superleague.

[RP London]

14 hours ago, paulwalker71 said:

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.

 

and this is the issue that i was pointing out in my post.. while i empathise with your reasoning why should London and Newcastle be punished here.. they are doing ok, they are building, Newcastle sit nicely above a few heartland sides and are developing really well off the field too why should they now have to "step down"? 

The thing with League one is there is a fair bit of baby and bathwater.. when one or two teams arent doing so well on the pitch there must be a wholesale change... either that or we could look at why those teams arent doing so well and see if help can be given.. dont punish teams doing well on and off the field by ripping apart the league just because one or two arent getting the results on the field. 

[AB Knight]

28 minutes ago, RP London said:

and this is the issue that i was pointing out in my post.. while i empathise with your reasoning why should London and Newcastle be punished here.. they are doing ok, they are building, Newcastle sit nicely above a few heartland sides and are developing really well off the field too why should they now have to "step down"? 

 

Exactly. Last season Newcastle had the 3rd highest average attendance and finished 6th out of 16 teams - higher average crowds than clubs like Barrow, Keighley, Whitehaven, Workington, Doncaster and Hunslet.

This season they have the 5th highest average, with what should be a huge crowd against Bradford to come. At the moment they are averaging more than Doncaster, Whitehaven, Oldham and Hunslet. There is some very good work being done up there.

London's average this season has really dropped off, but again last season they had the 9th highest average out of 16 teams. Higher even than Hunslet, who they lost to in the NL1 shield final.

I'm not saying all is rosy in NL1, it's clearly not when you have teams getting cricket scores past them. But I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think constantly changing the format helps. I like the simple home and away fixtures, it stops the farce we had last season with some teams going to Toronto twice yet not playing them at home and allows fans to plan in advance - no more hastily arranged fixtures as with the previous league split. Right now me and my partner are planning a weekend trip to the West Wales-York game because we have plenty of time to sort it.

For anyone interested, here is this seasons average crowds (attendances taken from loverugby.com which some say is not 100% accurate).

League 1  matches only (2017 avg in brackets)

Bradford 3756 (3913) -4%

York 2226 (1088) +105%

Keighley 1383 (808) +71%

Workington 990(654) +51%

Newcastle 886 (910) - 3%

Doncaster 745 (562) +33%

Whitehaven 755 (674) +12%

Oldham 592 (792) -25%

Hunslet 499 (413) +21%

North Wales 359 (342) +5%

Coventry 311 (366) -15%

West Wales 306 (229 as S.Wales) +34%

London 266 (443) -40%

Hemel 162 (118) +37%

 

[David Shepherd]

On 18/04/2018 at 8:34 AM, bowes said:

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

Wow. What a bunch of elitist guff.

It's that kind of muddled thinking that had lead to the failure of every single previous attempt at expansion*

Every new team should start at the bottom, build a following and work their way up.

The way we are structured right now is absolutely correct.  We've got more teams in more places than ever in our history, the new teams just need time and effort and they will rise.

 

*Before you say it, Catalan are not and never were an expansion team.

[Angelic Cynic]

9 hours ago, The Parksider said:

Because your analysis of the league is completely wrong, and is pure wishful thinking.

League one was created to get away from one large Championship of 20 clubs and create a third tier so clubs had more to play for. Nothing ever to do with your trans-euro-atlantic nonsense.

Fans did not take to a third division so eventually as the RFL saw expansion to London and Wales falter, they decided to lift several northern clubs back into the Championship and add expansion clubs from outside the North to create a bottom up expansion league 1 yes....but....

It failed badly with clubs unable to find the players to compete or the fans to watch. Northampton never made the start, South Wales, Oxford and Gloucester failed, Hemel perform even worse than they did often performing before less than 100 fans with players bussed in from the north, and we now see West Wales getting battered every week.

The fact that a professional ex-Leigh side breezed through it didn't make it a "success" as some sort of stepping stone for the international development of Superleague. You invented that.

Superleague plan two leagues of 10. That means 20 clubs will come under their juridstiction, so 18 clubs would remain with the RFL whose remit is the game below Superleague. What they do with these clubs will be up to them, but one thing is for sure, whatever fantasy clubs enter any league outside Superleague 1 & 2  there will still be be no automatic entry into Superleague.

   Northampton never made the start because the individual,Cardoza,who owned the association football club mislaid 10 million pounds.

    I don't see how South Wales failed.The original Crusaders,who fielded some overseas players who did great work in the community,played their way through the divisions to Super League.

    The coach at South Wales Scorpions,Anthony Seibold,is now head coach of that fairly well-known club,south Sydney Rabbitohs.

Former player Flowers is at Wigan and former player Gil Dudson was signed to Widnes by former England assistant head coach Denis Betts.    Over on another thread,a supporter of heartland club Leigh,the one that flickers between administration and Super League,has written -

Quote

 

 The club is trying to do exactly that which is why we are running reserves, 19's and 16's this year. You can't plant a tree and expect the fruit to come straight away.

 

    The highlighted part must apply to West Wales.( Please remember how the heartlands fans disliked Crusaders winning games )

   League 1 may also exist for the clubs in Super League that lose money,by whatever means,such as Bradford Bulls,and those clubs that seem quite happy to remain there,season after season,like Hunslet.

1 hour ago, AB Knight said:

Exactly. Last season Newcastle had the 3rd highest average attendance and finished 6th out of 16 teams - higher average crowds than clubs like Barrow, Keighley, Whitehaven, Workington, Doncaster and Hunslet.

This season they have the 5th highest average, with what should be a huge crowd against Bradford to come. At the moment they are averaging more than Doncaster, Whitehaven, Oldham and Hunslet. There is some very good work being done up there.

London's average this season has really dropped off, but again last season they had the 9th highest average out of 16 teams. Higher even than Hunslet, who they lost to in the NL1 shield final.

I'm not saying all is rosy in NL1, it's clearly not when you have teams getting cricket scores past them. But I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think constantly changing the format helps. I like the simple home and away fixtures, it stops the farce we had last season with some teams going to Toronto twice yet not playing them at home and allows fans to plan in advance - no more hastily arranged fixtures as with the previous league split. Right now me and my partner are planning a weekend trip to the West Wales-York game because we have plenty of time to sort it.

For anyone interested, here is this seasons average crowds (attendances taken from loverugby.com which some say is not 100% accurate).

League 1  matches only (2017 avg in brackets)

Bradford 3756 (3913) -4%

York 2226 (1088) +105%

Keighley 1383 (808) +71%

Workington 990(654) +51%

Newcastle 886 (910) - 3%

Doncaster 745 (562) +33%

Whitehaven 755 (674) +12%

Oldham 592 (792) -25%

Hunslet 499 (413) +21%

North Wales 359 (342) +5%

Coventry 311 (366) -15%

West Wales 306 (229 as S.Wales) +34%

London 266 (443) -40%

Hemel 162 (118) +37%

 

One,or both of you,must be very sensible.

[newbe]

17 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

   Northampton never made the start because the individual,Cardoza,who owned the association football club mislaid 10 million pounds.

    I don't see how South Wales failed.The original Crusaders,who fielded some overseas players who did great work in the community,played their way through the divisions to Super League.

    The coach at South Wales Scorpions,Anthony Seibold,is now head coach of that fairly well-known club,south Sydney Rabbitohs.

Former player Flowers is at Wigan and former player Gil Dudson was signed to Widnes by former England assistant head coach Denis Betts.    Over on another thread,a supporter of heartland club Leigh,the one that flickers between administration and Super League,has written -

    The highlighted part must apply to West Wales.( Please remember how the heartlands fans disliked Crusaders winning games )

   League 1 may also exist for the clubs in Super League that lose money,by whatever means,such as Bradford Bulls,and those clubs that seem quite happy to remain there,season after season,like Hunslet.

One,or both of you,must be very sensible.

How true are these figures? It was acknowledged by chairmen at a recent meeting some of these figures were bogus 

*Sorry meant for AB Knight previous quote. *

[RayCee]

The point of the post was to clarify L1’s future. It seems SL wants rid of it and it’s up to the RFL to run it if they wish but unconnected to any divisions above it. That may suit the likes of Hunslet which seem to be happy where they are but other teams may want a pathway upwards. 

If the SL clubs want to create an exclusive group of clubs, then players with ambition and potential can join but clubs with the same credentials will be excluded. Ironically the NRL has been an exclusive competition but initiatives are being put in place to allow teams up. 

[AB Knight]

39 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

  

 

One,or both of you,must be very sensible.

We both have the week off preceding the game so may make a trip of it. If so, I'll drop you a message to ask your suggestions :-)

[AB Knight]

30 minutes ago, newbe said:

How true are these figures? It was acknowledged by chairmen at a recent meeting some of these figures were bogus 

*Sorry meant for AB Knight previous quote. *

That's the thing, I've no idea how accurate they are, some clubs don't give their own attendances, sometimes the League Express has to estimate crowds. I just think for me the best way is to take the loverugby figures otherwise it would take me hours asking on every clubs forum what their crowd was. Either way, I don't think the attendances will be that inaccurate - I can't see there being 500 regularly attending Hemel home matches but the attendance being given as the usual 155. Likewise, I doubt Keighley are getting say 400 but giving the attendance as 800.

I'm 100% sure the York figures are correct though, I usually have an idea what the crowd is from how busy the footfall is before the match.

[Toby Chopra]

57 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

The way we are structured right now is absolutely correct.  We've got more teams in more places than ever in our history, the new teams just need time and effort and they will rise.

I'm sorry but there's no evidence for this at all. The only thing that will allow an "expansion" team to rise through the ranks is money, and lots of it. Buy a team like Toronto? That works. Otherwise, teams need to be in a different place.

The idea that non-heartland clubs can "grow" their way to the top without an infusion of cash has always been wishful thinking. Semi pro teams will never beat Pro teams, even Fev and Fax, who have the pick of the heartland semi pro player pool can't do it consistently. 

We need to get away from this idea that if all clubs aren't in the same system then some huge injustice is being done. 

We need a professional tier, a heartland semi pro tier (with - perhaps - selected teams from the non heartland areas with the strongest community games, so basically London and the North East) and then below that the NCL and a subsidised revamped CLS that is focused on player pathway. 

None of these should be automatically linked. 

[RP London]

27 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

1. I'm sorry but there's no evidence for this at all. The only thing that will allow an "expansion" team to rise through the ranks is money, and lots of it. Buy a team like Toronto? That works. Otherwise, teams need to be in a different place.

2. The idea that non-heartland clubs can "grow" their way to the top without an infusion of cash has always been wishful thinking. Semi pro teams will never beat Pro teams, even Fev and Fax, who have the pick of the heartland semi pro player pool can't do it consistently. 

3. We need to get away from this idea that if all clubs aren't in the same system then some huge injustice is being done. 

4. We need a professional tier, a heartland semi pro tier (with - perhaps - selected teams from the non heartland areas with the strongest community games, so basically London and the North East) and then below that the NCL and a subsidised revamped CLS that is focused on player pathway. 

None of these should be automatically linked. 

1. To be honest you could say the same with a heartland team and I dont think anyone would deny that money is needed, but its how you get it.. Toronto was someone wanting to drop a club in, there are people who may want to invest in say a Hemel and then invest more money etc etc.. it isnt an if you build it they will come scenario and I agree with youthere. 

2. I dont think anyone would say they dont need cash as above so does everyone. I also dont think people are saying a semi pro team should beat a pro team what is being said is that these expansion teams can build as much as a heartland team can given the exposure. No one is expecting Coventry to go and beat Leigh tomorrow. what people can see though is the potentital to do it in the future. 

3. again I dont think people are saying it is an injustice at all. I think people are talking generally (the topic has been very interesting so far) that to take them away and put them in a separate comp can actually damage their chances and that part of what can help the expansion clubs is to be in a comp with heartland clubs and build using that. They need to somehow keep that to be able to benchmark. No one is talking of injustice but more wont help.

4. Could possible work, but I would want to get input from those teams that would now be forced out about how that may affect them. Coventry have good community links too and what if those clubs do grow and get those community links how do they then step up to that "heartland semi pro tier"? For expansion to work those clubs need to be able to move up at least to that level, as at semi pro the players may well not move. 

If you want to get rid of P&R i wouldnt argue I would say at the moment that at league 1 level you do have that. you cannot just come into it, it is ringfenced at the bottom. If people didnt concentrate on the results there is some fantastic work being done off the pitch to get those community links working but, as we can see with this thread, people seem to concentrate on where the teams are in the league table and want change due to that.

I would argue a lot of what you are asking for exists. Hemel had fantastic community links, that has actually been undermined by the chase for results. Coventry is building some great links too, to kick them out of that league could actually damage a lot of that work.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

48 minutes ago, RayCee said:

The point of the post was to clarify L1’s future. It seems SL wants rid of it and it’s up to the RFL to run it if they wish but unconnected to any divisions above it. That may suit the likes of Hunslet which seem to be happy where they are but other teams may want a pathway upwards. 

If the SL clubs want to create an exclusive group of clubs, then players with ambition and potential can join but clubs with the same credentials will be excluded. Ironically the NRL has been an exclusive competition but initiatives are being put in place to allow teams up. 

What makes you think that? I'd argue that Hunslet is the most concentrated area (for it's size) for RL anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Hunslet isn't happy where it is, but has it's only challenges in progressing forward. I'm not wanting to turn this into a 'heartland v expansion' debate but it does seem to be only mentioned about how expansion clubs want to move upwards. I assure you all traditional clubs have that aspiration too - we've just had longer to become disillusioned about it.

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

What makes you think that? I'd argue that Hunslet is the most concentrated area (for it's size) for RL anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Hunslet isn't happy where it is, but has it's only challenges in progressing forward. I'm not wanting to turn this into a 'heartland v expansion' debate but it does seem to be only mentioned about how expansion clubs want to move upwards. I assure you all traditional clubs have that aspiration too - we've just had longer to become disillusioned about it.

The point of the heartland clubs not being mentioned is because they are also not the ones that would be adversely affected by half these plans.. the expansion clubs are the ones to "Drop out" or "drop down" or move to one side etc.. the heartland clubs then get this league to themselves without the pesky expansion teams in the way. 

 

[slowdive]

How can a club like Hemel survive with attendances like that? 

[Bearman]

44 minutes ago, slowdive said:

How can a club like Hemel survive with attendances like that? 

They own their own club and ground. Arsenal juniors were playing out of  it out at one point.

They let the club out for functions and have a thriving lottery that many clubs would be envious of.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

41 minutes ago, RP London said:

The point of the heartland clubs not being mentioned is because they are also not the ones that would be adversely affected by half these plans.. the expansion clubs are the ones to "Drop out" or "drop down" or move to one side etc.. the heartland clubs then get this league to themselves without the pesky expansion teams in the way. 

 

How would heartland clubs not be affected - do you not recognise they are as at risk of 'dropping out' as any other club? They don't have any protective ring around them that prevents that. Check the history of now defunct RL clubs. The fact a club like Hunslet still remains is a miracle to be honest with the resources (or lack of) they work with. All clubs aspire to be better, otherwise what's the point - so whatever is agreed should make sure it meets the needs of all not just the ones that are perceived to be looking up. 

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

How would heartland clubs not be affected - do you not recognise they are as at risk of 'dropping out' as any other club? They don't have any protective ring around them that prevents that. Check the history of now defunct RL clubs. The fact a club like Hunslet still remains is a miracle to be honest with the resources (or lack of) they work with. All clubs aspire to be better, otherwise what's the point - so whatever is agreed should make sure it meets the needs of all not just the ones that are perceived to be looking up. 

We are in broad agreement here as you say in your last sentence but what is often mentioned for league one is to tell the expansion teams that they arent good enough and need to be put somewhere else, that is never muted about heartland clubs. 

Yes everyone has the dreaded running out of money issue but Hunslet are not going to be told by the RFL sorry but your not welcome in League 1 as Hemel, Cov, the Welsh clubs etc are being told by some on here, thats why they are not being talked about in this way.