League One's Future

[RP London]

to say the league is not developing sustainable clubs I think is disingenuous when you look at clubs like York and Newcastle who are slowly building themselves up to being good solid clubs with development and an ability to sustain themselves. Then there is Bradford who can build in league one and spend a bit of time to get other parts of the house in order to come back stronger, which is different to building a club but rebuilding one. 

I also dont see the argument of them being stand alone. I cannot see many 3rd or 4th tier league who can justify the money that is "given to them". Even if you look at football their league 2 (i would guess and it is impossible to actually know) is getting more money  from the overarching "football league" sponsorship package than they could justify getting as a "stand alone" comp... league 1 is part of a larger "whole" and it is that whole that is being paid for. I am sure Sky would pay the same even if league 1 didnt exist but that isnt really the point league 1 isnt supposed to be stand alone and that isnt the aim of it (and certainly shouldnt be). 

The NA clubs do do good for league 1 Toronto added a fair bit of interest to the league last year a continual barrage of new and interesting names (red star belgrade for example) give the league some coverage it would not normally get, some clubs even thought ahead and used that to make it an occasion and get more people through the gates. I'm not saying this is the way forward by any stretch and there has to be limits and not all clubs can cope with the extra pressures put on them but I dont see the argument of them adding nothing even with a short stint in league one, even if it is just a bit of extra interest in a league that struggles to get some. 

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, RP London said:

to say the league is not developing sustainable clubs I think is disingenuous when you look at clubs like York and Newcastle who are slowly building themselves up to being good solid clubs with development and an ability to sustain themselves. Then there is Bradford who can build in league one and spend a bit of time to get other parts of the house in order to come back stronger, which is different to building a club but rebuilding one. 

I also dont see the argument of them being stand alone. I cannot see many 3rd or 4th tier league who can justify the money that is "given to them". Even if you look at football their league 2 (i would guess and it is impossible to actually know) is getting more money  from the overarching "football league" sponsorship package than they could justify getting as a "stand alone" comp... league 1 is part of a larger "whole" and it is that whole that is being paid for. I am sure Sky would pay the same even if league 1 didnt exist but that isnt really the point league 1 isnt supposed to be stand alone and that isnt the aim of it (and certainly shouldnt be). 

The NA clubs do do good for league 1 Toronto added a fair bit of interest to the league last year a continual barrage of new and interesting names (red star belgrade for example) give the league some coverage it would not normally get, some clubs even thought ahead and used that to make it an occasion and get more people through the gates. I'm not saying this is the way forward by any stretch and there has to be limits and not all clubs can cope with the extra pressures put on them but I dont see the argument of them adding nothing even with a short stint in league one, even if it is just a bit of extra interest in a league that struggles to get some. 

Totally agree. As ever the problem with Super League or the Championship criticising the lower divisions is that fundamentally little actually separates them. People in glass houses and all that. I read a great comment either on here or somewhere else saying 'give Doncaster a million pounds and they'd be a Super League club' and that is exactly the issue here. Aside from the current financial big 5 plus Catalans, what difference is there between York, Featherstone and Salford, or Newcastle, Halifax and Wakefield for example, other than Salford and Wakefield get the much larger amount of central funding?

It epitomises the lack of vision and leadership in our sport at the moment beyond short term interests. If I were a bottom half of Super League (financially) club and had the choice between a league structure with the opportunity for progression and relegation versus a 20 team closed shop I know what I'd be voting for; purely on the basis there is no guarantee that all of those clubs will get in to that select 20. League 1 is a necessary, valuable part of the Rugby League and must continue to be so.

[glossop saint]

6 hours ago, ojx said:

Trouble with SL is that there are only about 4 or 5 super clubs. The rest are hangers on who rely on the salary cap to be competitive. 

 

5 hours ago, RayCee said:

True. That's why the likes of Toronto are needed, to add to the super clubs which I believe they will become. 

At the risk of sounding like Parky...

I agree that at the moment there are only 4 or 5 super clubs, I agree that clubs like Toronto being added will help this situation BUT we do need to be very careful how we do it.  For example, replacing Wakey, Salford, Hull KR and Widnes with Toronto, New York, Boston and Hamilton is not without it's problems.  What happens to those 4 current SL clubs?  Presumably they drop to the Championship and in the current model would likely turn semi-pro.  What happens to their player development?  What happens to players like Batchelor, Jowitt, Evalds, Lawler, Marsh, Johnstone, Walker, Chapelhow? Or more to the point what happens to the next generation of these players?  I understand that some player development occurs in the Championship but a lot less than in SL.

I want to see the equivalent of those players from NA, I can't wait to see a New Yorker waltzing through the Wigan defence and streaking down the wing.  This will take time though.  We need to be careful not to abandon our current clubs in the pursuit of the "Super" clubs elsewhere, especially if it means that we half our player production line.  By no means am I a heartland flat capper (Glossop is definitely NOT traditional RL area) but I don't want to see this great game suffer, possibly irreversibly, especially if we commit to American expansion that then doesn't work.  Expansion needs to happen, but needs to be properly thought through.

[newbe]

If S/L want to use D/R in league 1(which I hate) then they should  let team's keep the 75k a year or even increase it. Or run there own reserve comp, and let league 1 try an get a media deal. 

[EssexRL]

10 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

If it were a viable competition in its own right it wouldnt need £1m a year from SL would it. The bar for a million pound a year investment  is higher than simply existing.

It’s an interesting question for both L1 and Champ, whether there are better media deals available than the crumbs from Sky, particularly given the lack of any TV coverage of the lower tiers. I’ve seen more L1 clubs on the BBCs CC coverage, than on Sky. 

As mentioned before the league does more than exist. Skolars for example have a thriving community presence and links including getting local MPs to the match. We have the annual Capital Challenge game in the city, all raising the flag for RL outside of the heartland. Then there are the junior teams and summer camps and Friday Night Lights. 

[RayCee]

27 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

 

At the risk of sounding like Parky...

I agree that at the moment there are only 4 or 5 super clubs, I agree that clubs like Toronto being added will help this situation BUT we do need to be very careful how we do it.  For example, replacing Wakey, Salford, Hull KR and Widnes with Toronto, New York, Boston and Hamilton is not without it's problems.  What happens to those 4 current SL clubs?  Presumably they drop to the Championship and in the current model would likely turn semi-pro.  What happens to their player development?  What happens to players like Batchelor, Jowitt, Evalds, Lawler, Marsh, Johnstone, Walker, Chapelhow? Or more to the point what happens to the next generation of these players?  I understand that some player development occurs in the Championship but a lot less than in SL.

I want to see the equivalent of those players from NA, I can't wait to see a New Yorker waltzing through the Wigan defence and streaking down the wing.  This will take time though.  We need to be careful not to abandon our current clubs in the pursuit of the "Super" clubs elsewhere, especially if it means that we half our player production line.  By no means am I a heartland flat capper (Glossop is definitely NOT traditional RL area) but I don't want to see this great game suffer, possibly irreversibly, especially if we commit to American expansion that then doesn't work.  Expansion needs to happen, but needs to be properly thought through.

Hi Parky. Trying a new, softer approach I see under a different name. Worth a try.

What some want to do is reduce or retain the same number of SL clubs, which would mean as new teams arrive such as Toronto, others would have to be relegated. I'd like to see current teams be retained if good enough and increase the league size. The reason is if teams from N America come, they should bring in money, negating the issue of less funds shared among more teams. 

[RayCee]

26 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Almost none of the development of new players comes from the systems in place below SL, almost every player in SL comes through an SL academy or from the Australian system.

So the SL academy start at six years of age do they. Just wondering.

[glossop saint]

38 minutes ago, RayCee said:

Hi Parky. Trying a new, softer approach I see under a different name. Worth a try.

What some want to do is reduce or retain the same number of SL clubs, which would mean as new teams arrive such as Toronto, others would have to be relegated. I'd like to see current teams be retained if good enough and increase the league size. The reason is if teams from N America come, they should bring in money, negating the issue of less funds shared among more teams. 

Exactly.  We want a strong game everywhere.  How we go about doing that is the big question in the sport at the moment.  Personally I would lean towards a conference system but even that has almost endless possibilities on how that could be structured and there are no doubt plenty of issues with that.

To bring it back to the original thread and not get onto yet another structure debate, League 1 has a wide range of clubs with a wide range of goals and ambitions and varying potential.  To keep them all happy will be difficult but there must be compromises and whatever the structure there must be a place within the pyramid for these clubs.  If they want to and they show themselves to be good enough with all aspects of running a successful there needs to be room to progress and the support to do so.

[Ackroman]

6 minutes ago, RayCee said:

So the SL academy start at six years of age do they. Just wondering.

Exactly. RL talent is developed by the community. 

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

All three of those clubs were nigh on dead a year ago. There is a long way to go to sustainable.

Also Toronto and Toulouse took one of the promotion places. Constantly putting in a club spending masses amount more for promotion and seeing them taking one of the promotion spots doesnt help ambitious league 1 clubs. It also isnt sustainable there isnt an infinite amount of clubs looking to come in and spend big money in league 1. Next season likely wont see  Toulouse, Toronto or a Bradford in league 1. What do they do.

Newcastle werent nigh on dead a year ago.. I said that Bradford were rebuilding and for all 3 I said they were slowly building towards being sustainable.. of course its a long road and no one is denying that but you said " it isnt developing sustainable and growing clubs," there are plenty of clubs there that are developing towards that aim, Coventry are developing that way, Skolars etc etc.. 

I'm pretty sure me saying "I'm not saying this is the way forward by any stretch and there has to be limits and not all clubs can cope with the extra pressures put on them but I dont see the argument of them adding nothing even with a short stint in league one, even if it is just a bit of extra interest in a league that struggles to get some." acknowledges this about the other clubs, however, the point is they do add something while they are there which is what you said they did not do. 

35 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It isnt a conspiracy from the media, league 1 and the championship clubs dont do anything to make themselves attractive to a potential broadcaster. There is potential but it will  need sacrifice to be exploited. They are singularly unwilling to make any sacrfices whatsoever.

I think with this you have to look at the fact that many broadcasters dont want to look at lower leagues, that is across many many sports, a huge swathe of sports cant get the top level broadcast let alone lower leagues. you mention that they are unwilling to make sacrifices but what sacrifices do you think they should make and why are they being unwilling to make them? 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

1. They may add that, but they havent been and havent yet. There is good work at league 1 nobody denies that but pull that £1m from SL clubs and the league collapses in on itself. Those clubs may get there, but it wont be because of the structure of league 1.

We need to avoid this false dichotomy that is usually the starting points in this kind of discussion where the only options are leave it as it is and give it more money or we kill it with fire. Nobody is talking about there being nothing for these clubs.

2.Well we can look to what has happened with the broadcast of Bradford and Toronto. We can also look at things like when they play games ( saturday and sunday afternoons are pretty full sports wise) where they play (if sky are happy with the Summer Bash, why arent they trying for double headers etc)  looking at investing in their own streaming services whether individually or as a group.

1. but you could say that about virtually any 3rd tier league in any sport in the country, that is just the way of the world, you need to have some handouts.. by giving some handouts it can grow into something that can potentially look after itself but it is a long way down the line.

I think you are the only one with that false dichotomy,.. from what i have seen on here there are suggestions of making it better, how best to help all clubs and then suggestions which people are then looking at critically I dont think any one is suggestion there would be nothing its just that if the something is going to help them or hinder them. This has been a very good thread on how to make it better

2. There are some interesting ideas (though I'm not entirely sure summer bash is a great example) but I dont see why any of those are a "sacrifice" and I dont see why any team is "unwilling" to do those... for example Newcastle make sure they play on a friday night to make the most of the magic weekend, Skolars do the friday night before the challenge cup final... I think most clubs would be willing to do any of these to help.

You used the word sacrifice, what do you want them to sacrifice? and you said they were unwilling to do so, how so?

[Toby Chopra]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

We arent talking about the amateur game are we. We are talking about league 1.

League 1 and the championship contribute very little to the production of SL players. I would be delighted to see some money redirected from the championship and league 1 to the amateur game.

Exactly, this is the crucial bit. When the role and structure of the championship/L1 is even questioned, people seem to act like it's the death of the entire game being proposed. It's nonsense. It's the hundreds of amateur heartland clubs out there that provide the vast bulk of domestic players into SL, yet everyone seems to want to die in a ditch to keep giving Hemel 75k a year. 

If you gave Siddal or Fev Lions 75k a year for 10 years you'd be guaranteed a far higher flow of players, because the money would only enhance the physical/human/community infrastructure they already have, rather than building from scratch. 

And before people go off on one, I'm NOT saying Hemel should lose their money, just that we don't seem to really know what we want from L1 (is it a presence in expansion areas, community programs, both, something else) let alone whether a 3rd so-called professional tier is the best way to do it. 

[Angelic Cynic]

10 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

L1 can't sustain NA and european clubs. It is a hurdle for them to overcome and once they do its forgotten about. The transient importation of these clubs in to L1 is good for neither the L1 clubs nor the new clubs.

SL don't 'get' money they earn it. The fact is the money used in SL gets a return. The money put in to L1 doesnt at the moment. We can hide behind this emotion of how we all love L1 and the wonderful clubs in there and hardworking people who sustain it but we are just avoiding addressing the issues that plague it. Clubs have crowds in the hundreds and are almost entirely sustained by a hand-out from SL, it isnt acting as a pathway to the top of the game, it isnt developing sustainable and growing clubs, its not a competitive league, we have a team at the bottom of the league whose average score so far has been an average of a 72-7 loss, for the last 2 seasons the top teams record has been 29 played, 28 won, 1 draw.

There is potential for league 1 to be more than it is, the clubs in league 1 have potential to be more than they are, there is potential for league 1 to contribute more to the game than they do.

     It's a tad unfair,at this early point in the season,to use the spending power of 2 overseas clubs and then contrast it with a newly formed club undergoing a difficult time with a multitude of injuries in an effort to prove a futile point.

    When the Northern Union was formed/broke away in 1895 I am sure a side would have been at the bottom in the next few seasons.It didn't make the Northern Union an irrelevance.

   

28 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

We arent talking about the amateur game are we. We are talking about league 1.

League 1 and the championship contribute very little to the production of SL players. I would be delighted to see some money redirected from the championship and league 1 to the amateur game.

    Without spending too much time attempting to disprove this point - Last years Steve Prescott Man of Steel was Luke Gale who spend his early career turning out for Doncaster,who were,and continue to be,in League 1

    There also need to be a stage for future coaches to be developed.They are currently touting James ford,at York,in League 1 as a future super League coach.

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

1. This is why i say its important to avoid that false dichotomy. I've only argued that the money league 1 get should be an investment not a handout. That we should see a return as a game and that we should make sure league 1 is fulfilling its potential, yet there is an attitude that this is anti league 1 or anti league 1 clubs. If there is that potential for more in york, in newcastle, in coventry, is this the best way of extracting it. The evidence doesnt seem to get close to showing this is the case.

2. They are a sacrifice because clubs are locked in to doing what they do, at the times that they do them, selling them to the people they sell them to. Anything else would be a sacrifice. Friday night isnt a better option. You arent going to find a broadcaster wanting to go up against SL or football. Thursday and Friday nights are out, Saturday evening are SL every other week, saturday lunchtime and afternoon are football, sunday afternoons are football. There is a small gap that they could maybe do something in the summer. but for most of the season you are looking at a different time to where we have traditionally held games. That to many is a big sacrifice. It would take time to build an audience for those games, that is also a sacrifice, double headers require investment that is a sacrifice, a streaming service would require investment and a change of business plan, that is a sacrifice.

1. As I say i think most people on this thread are avoiding that dichotomy. The 3 examples are developing well and i would say the evidence shows that it is working in those sorts of clubs. Whether something else could work better is very much up for debate and that seems to have been happening on here quite well.. i am not sure your warning is needed to be honest. 

2. Ok your definition of sacrifice is not the same as mine. none of that is a sacrifice if it works. The example of friday nights were (and i am sure you knew this you just like an argument) an example of clubs changing the way they normally do things to help them progress, it is of course not meant to be the rule that that is what everyone should do.  I do understand what you are getting at is changing the mentality but I do believe almost all clubs are happy to look at options, a change in business plan is not a sacrifice it is what all business do from time to time and actually I would argue that most of the expansion clubs are very very open to this. 

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

1. I dont think it is unfair, it highlights the problem exactly. Toulouse and Toronto and West wales are in entirely different positions, with entirely different goals and at entirely different points in their development. What is the point of shoehorning them together?

2. Luke Gale spent his early career at Leeds Rhinos.

2. Rodley Rockets

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The idea that clubs dont see those changes as a sacrifice doesnt hold a lot of water when you take in to account the response t Toronto and Bradford and also the thursday night championship games on Premier. Championship and league1 dont have a tv deal because they don't want one enough to make the changes necessary to get one. They arent willing to make the sacrifices necessary to build an audience for one.

I dont agree with that. They dont have a TV deal because I dont think there is any interest in showing their matches on a weekly basis, no matter when they play, not by the top level TV companies, they are also tied in to the deal from Sky I believe so they cannot easily get anything seperate. If you said to them you do xyz and you get £abc then I am sure they would do it.. 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

But thats the sacrifice. Its an issue RL has never understood. TV companies arent going to do the whole thing for us. We need to put together a package for them to buy. They cant buy if we have nothing to sell. We have to be the driving force.

I dont disagree (except for your continual use of the word sacrifice) that RL in general is rubbish at this sort of thing but it is still the third tier competition and they tend not to get tv deals, even if it was something the league could do (which i am not sure they can as think sky preclude this and own the rights)

a tv deal is pie in the sky IMHO the clubs need to build themselves into sustainable and growing entities with bums on seats and development which is where this all started 7 pages ago before being derailed. the fact it survives on handouts means it is just like most other 3rd teir comps in sport so I dont see that being a massive problem. What we need to make sure is that the structure of this league with any changes or splits etc can give all those involved the best chance to use this hand out to the best of its ability, which was being discussed and was interesting.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

They arent building themselves in to anything if their plan is to survive on handouts

As already stated the majority of SL clubs are surving on handouts. Where do you draw the line?

[RP London]

15 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

they arent building themselves in to anything if their plan is to survive on handouts

Jesus wept you'd argue with a sweaty cloth

at which point has "they plan to survive on handouts" been mentioned.. what I said was to "use the handout to the best of its ability", which would be to do things it doesnt "need" to do to survive but help it to grow even more... 

 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

They still arent building themselve to anything if they are expecting someone else to pay for it.

I have quite clearly stated that they would grow to the point they dont need the handout...

businesses get loans, crowd funding etc to start the building process, every 3rd tier (bar football probably) is subsidised to some extent by handouts the aim should be that they are not but the reality is that they need it at the moment. If by using those handouts they can grow to no longer need them then that is the aim. 

Yet again with an argument you are involved in we are going around in circles 

[deluded pom?]

In the early years of SL we had Bradford, Worky and Oldham. Now L1 clubs. The expression is 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

[Big Picture]

4 hours ago, glossop saint said:

At the risk of sounding like Parky...

I agree that at the moment there are only 4 or 5 super clubs, I agree that clubs like Toronto being added will help this situation BUT we do need to be very careful how we do it.  For example, replacing Wakey, Salford, Hull KR and Widnes with Toronto, New York, Boston and Hamilton is not without it's problems.  What happens to those 4 current SL clubs?  Presumably they drop to the Championship and in the current model would likely turn semi-pro.  What happens to their player development?  What happens to players like Batchelor, Jowitt, Evalds, Lawler, Marsh, Johnstone, Walker, Chapelhow? Or more to the point what happens to the next generation of these players?  I understand that some player development occurs in the Championship but a lot less than in SL.

I want to see the equivalent of those players from NA, I can't wait to see a New Yorker waltzing through the Wigan defence and streaking down the wing.  This will take time though.  We need to be careful not to abandon our current clubs in the pursuit of the "Super" clubs elsewhere, especially if it means that we half our player production line.  By no means am I a heartland flat capper (Glossop is definitely NOT traditional RL area) but I don't want to see this great game suffer, possibly irreversibly, especially if we commit to American expansion that then doesn't work.  Expansion needs to happen, but needs to be properly thought through.

You don't sound like Parky IMO.

You make good points, the prospect of the four successful teams in the Qualifying 8s this year being Toronto, Toulouse, Catalans and London — aided by potentially 8 of the 28 matches which precede MPG the being in France, 4 in Canada and 3 in London —  is probably making a few traditional clubs' management (and maybe RFL management also) nervous, especially with the prospect of New York, Boston and others following them.  Whether the RFL is capable of managing such developments well is seriously open to question.

As for what happens to player development, I suspect that formation of a genuine Super League would boost it by raising the game's profile and attracting more young guys into the sport.  The lack of any Premier League terms in the southwest or East Anglia doesn't prevent amateur soccer from thriving there after all, or players from those areas coming up into pro soccer, does it?  If anything that amateur soccer scene has likely grown rather than contracted in the Premier League era.

As Captain Survival has stated elsewhere, there are plenty of athletes over here who could probably transition well to RL if and when they get serious about doing that.  Dozens of big universities in the US are essentially athlete factories when it comes to sports, spending millions of dollars a year each on their sports programs.  Many of those potential players will have gridiron backgrounds — players like Doug Flutie and Tim Tebow could have been great RL halfbacks for example .  However they first have to know that RL exists and what it is, and see a good opportunity in playing it.  Creating that awareness might need 5-6 teams from here playing at the top level and/or a successful World Cup in 2025 and the latter likely needs a competitive US team.

[FearNothing]

There's a lot of good stuff discussed on this thread, and a lot of guff too. Wading through it all would take too long, but here's some thoughts...

1. If L1 is no good for player development, why does:-

a. dual reg exist?

b. not every SL/Champ club run academies/reserve teams?

2. Surely the RFL can get "a" tv deal to show L1 games regularly, as it appears sky don't have tv rights to the division? Even if it's low £ value, any extra coverage is good, yes??

3. Whilst it's ok for full-time pro clubs to play on thur/fri/sat/sun, it's not very viable for part-time players to do this on top of full-time jobs, sat/sun are really the only viable days.

4. the community work done by hemel, skolars, etc. is  outside the heartlands, and shouldn't be dismissed lightly for the future of the sport.

 

there's probably a lot more to add, but if a measly 2.5% of tv money split between almost 37% of the pro teams in the country is such an issue to SL, which division is actually the best value-for-money to the sport as a whole?? 

[glossop saint]

43 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

You don't sound like Parky IMO.

You make good points, the prospect of the four successful teams in the Qualifying 8s this year being Toronto, Toulouse, Catalans and London — aided by potentially 8 of the 28 matches which precede MPG the being in France, 4 in Canada and 3 in London —  is probably making a few traditional clubs' management (and maybe RFL management also) nervous, especially with the prospect of New York, Boston and others following them.  Whether the RFL is capable of managing such developments well is seriously open to question.

As for what happens to player development, I suspect that formation of a genuine Super League would boost it by raising the game's profile and attracting more young guys into the sport.  The lack of any Premier League terms in the southwest or East Anglia doesn't prevent amateur soccer from thriving there after all, or players from those areas coming up into pro soccer, does it?  If anything that amateur soccer scene has likely grown rather than contracted in the Premier League era.

As Captain Survival has stated elsewhere, there are plenty of athletes over here who could probably transition well to RL if and when they get serious about doing that.  Dozens of big universities in the US are essentially athlete factories when it comes to sports, spending millions of dollars a year each on their sports programs.  Many of those potential players will have gridiron backgrounds — players like Doug Flutie and Tim Tebow could have been great RL halfbacks for example .  However they first have to know that RL exists and what it is, and see a good opportunity in playing it.  Creating that awareness might need 5-6 teams from here playing at the top level and/or a successful World Cup in 2025 and the latter likely needs a competitive US team.

Player development in expansion areas will only happen if there are the systems in place and even then it will take at least 5 years to bring any players through to a reasonable standard and possibly many decades to bring through players of Super League standard in a key creative position such as hooker, half back or full back.  I am not familiar with Flutie or Tebow (presumably NFL quarter backs?) and I have no doubt that they are extremely talented but I really do think that you are under appreciating rugby league skills.  Rugby League has a long way to go before it can compete for talent with the NFL.

Just as I was getting into the sport we saw that a world class sprinter in Dwain Chambers couldn't adapt and only a few years later we saw Andy Powell, a regular in the Wales Union team, fail to make much of an impression.  Not only that but they were playing in positions which are no way near as technical or pressurised as half back.  I'm sure that athletes can convert but this will take time.  We can't go halving our developing player pool over the course of a few years just to chase a bit or even a lot of short term money.

[RayCee]

5 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Almost none of the development of new players comes from the systems in place below SL, almost every player in SL comes through an SL academy or from the Australian system.

Hold that thought....

14 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

SL don't 'get' money they earn it.

When a person has a job, they ‘get’ paid. You'd argue no they don’t, they earn it. Semantics. 

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

We arent talking about the amateur game are we. We are talking about league 1.

Look at your comment at the top. You were talking about the game below SL. When I disagreed with that claim, you say you were talking about League 1.Wrong. Your argument has become bogged down to the point you are contradicting yourself.

To all the other contributors, thank you for your posts. It will be interesting to see what happens to League 1.