Super League Structure Sorted Within Next Fortnight

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Its not a poor comparison because its not like for like, its a poor comparison because its incomplete and does show what it purports to show.

 

It claims to show that the middle 8's are pretty popular in RL terms. It then shows that in a random week (this time last year) that 2 middle 8 games were more popular on Sky TV than the LLS in a local derby, and the highest figure that week was on the Sat middle 8 game.

It doesn't claim any more than that.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If thats all it claims then it claims nothing of worth or substance.

Feel free to stay out of conversations you are not interested in.

But the numbers support the claim that people are interested in the middle 8's.

In Week 1 of the Middle 8's last year, they were the 2 highest ranked shows on Sky Sports Action that week. Not a great lot of competition to be fair, but returning decent figures for the braodcaster.

[Private Baldrick]

Lies, damn lies and statistics. After 17 pages of discussion has anyone changed their opinion? In the red corner there are those who slate the system, in the blue corner there are those who support the system. Ideas, claims and counter claims are banded to and fro but at the end of the day has anyone or anything changed?

[Toby Chopra]

The problem is that the middle 8s are popular among established rugby league nuts because having watched the other SL teams loads already this season, we quite like the interest of the new teams coming into the mix. 

Unfortunately there's no evidence - TV viewing or attendance - that the qualifiers do anything at all to widen interest in the game beyond those already interested. 

Only the competition for the national championship - and internationals - can do that. However, we currently have a system where we switch off from that battle for the next 7 weeks, and then suddenly expect everyone, including the media and the wider public, to tune back in with great enthusiasm. It's too big a change of direction. 

If we're going to mess around with systems, and have something non-traditional, let's design something that builds over the season towards the ultimate prize and builds interest with it. Maybe split the league into divisions, with cross division games, followed by 4 weeks of playoffs, NA style. I don't really mind.

But I know that as much as I love the qualifiers, it's doing absolutely nothing to promote the best of rugby league as a top tier British sports competition, on a par with the union premiership, EFL championship or cricket T20. If we're not aiming for that, the game will be up by the middle of the next decade. 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

The problem is that the middle 8s are popular among established rugby league nuts because having watched the other SL teams loads already this season, we quite like the interest of the new teams coming into the mix. 

Unfortunately there's no evidence - TV viewing or attendance - that the qualifiers do anything at all to widen interest in the game beyond those already interested. 

Only the competition for the national championship - and internationals - can do that. However, we currently have a system where we switch off from that battle for the next 7 weeks, and then suddenly expect everyone, including the media and the wider public, to tune back in with great enthusiasm. It's too big a change of direction. 

If we're going to mess around with systems, and have something non-traditional, let's design something that builds over the season towards the ultimate prize and builds interest with it. Maybe split the league into divisions, with cross division games, followed by 4 weeks of playoffs, NA style. I don't really mind.

But I know that as much as I love the qualifiers, it's doing absolutely nothing to promote the best of rugby league as a top tier British sports competition, on a par with the union premiership, EFL championship or cricket T20. If we're not aiming for that, the game will be up by the middle of the next decade. 

thats probably a fair summation... 

I would personally like to see a Yorkshire & Lancashire conference style structure (where the 2 old league trophies can come back out) with them having a cross conference fixture and where the winners, runners up and maybe 3rd placed teams enter play offs.. but that means a lot of changes as relegation would be hard to do properly unless there is similar repeat structure below and so on and so forth.. or you dipsense with P&R and add a team (splitting the conferences to East & West/North & South 4 each top 2 to play offs and so on) to expand the league.. 

the only simple change is back to what we had before (12 & 12 with P&R).. anything more means every league being tweaked and a massive upheavel which will take more planning than they have had time to do and will take a few years to put into practice PROPERLY

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

It doesnt show the middle 8s are pretty popular in RL terms any more than a couple of weeks later definitively proves they arent, with the middle 8s as part of a double header which you would hope led to an increase in viewership getting only 48k and 78k compared to 110k and 172k for the Top 8s.

Or 'randomly' picking round 16 where the SL games which you could also compare against because that would be the replacement, 166k and 154k.

48k and 78k against 166k and 154k seems pretty conclusive doesnt it?

The only person being selective with their numbers here is you. 

Once again, and this is becoming really, really boring now - you are making your own argument up.

I never once said that the middle 8's are more popular than the Top 8's.

In fact, I said the opposite.

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Where have I stated that you have, at any stage, said that the middle 8s are more popular than the top 8s?

The answer is, I havent. YOU have made that up.

I have simply said that the comparison you made was a poor comparison, and that that comparison doesnt show that the middle 8s are pretty popular in RL terms. The figures i provided showed, quite clearly that your figures did not show that at all.

I quote numbers that show that they are in the mix of normal Rugby League figures on Sky.

They do well on some of their channels. 

The fact that they can even get close to figures for the top of SL playing a game shows that there are pretty popular. Of course some of them are low, but then so are some of the SL games. 

Stating that the Middle 8's are pretty popular in RL terms is hardly a controversial statement. I;m not interested in an argument on that point.

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

You quoted one single outlier that gave a misleading impression.

Thats why you chose to use that example instead of the example i used which you were clearly aware of as you went on to use it as an example of volitility

The middle 8s arent pretty popular in RL terms. By that measure they are less popular than the top 8s and less popular than what it replaced. In that context they havent created interest they have lost it.

The fact that you measure their success against "even getting close to the figures for the top of SL" doesnt show they are pretty popular at all. It just shows you are measuring them to a lower standard.

The argument you wanted to 'put in context; was regarding the 8s creating interest. Being lower than SL even closely does not equate to creating interest. In fact it proves the opposite.

 It really hurts you that some people enjoy Rugby League doesn't it?

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

 

Im not sure why you think pretending less is more makes you a better RL fan. It just seems a little delusional.

I don't even know what you are banging on about. That is delusional.

Maybe put all the numbers available in a spreadsheet, you may find that the middle 8's are pretty popular in RL terms. 

I wonder why Sky are keen on showing more of them this year.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I wonder why sky are happy to get rid of them!

Contrary to popular belief that Sky run the game, they have been happy to televise whatever the structure we have had over the years, many of them now dismissed as barmy.

[Private Baldrick]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

And still, they dont want this one.

Perhaps they don't really care about your relativism.

Is their any official announcement that Sky don't want or like them?

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

And still, they dont want this one.

Perhaps they don't really care about your relativism.

Well that argument doesn't really work. They are going out of their way to show more of something they don't want?

If them being ok with the sport choosing it's own structure means they don't want a certain one then we are goosed, as that would mean they also don't want standard league with p&r or one with licensing either.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

To summarise, different people have different opinions. 

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

But they don't want this one. As we have been told.

Probably because the viewing figures arent great even if we tell ourselves they are.

To put it as bluntly as Mr Lenagan. Sky don't care.

I'd like to see some evidence that Sky dont like this structure.

[Private Baldrick]

10 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Well i dont think Sky would ever announce that themselves, but there has been public statements from those involved that they don't like it.

Names?

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Its very easy to find. Look it up.

I'm not making the claim. 

The evidence I see is that they are showing more than ever.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

And yet you expected me to put together a spreadsheet to disprove your claim that the middle 8s got good viewing figures.

Hmmm....

Nope. You don't like numbers I quote so feel free to compile your own. Because they suggest that the middle 8s are popular in RL terms.

But good distraction Parky Jr.

[Private Baldrick]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

“I think the broadcasters may well not like that uncertainty as well.”  Robert Elstone.

If you don't like those public statements regarding the 8 find your own.

That is not a definitive 'Sky don't like the 8's.' Elstone THINKS they MAY not like them, subtle difference there

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

"Fans aren't sure about fixture lists, broadcasters aren't sure about fixture lists, and I think we just have to take the uncertainty out and go back to something we are used to"   Robert Elstone.

If you don't like those public statements regarding the 8 find your own.

I asked for evidence Sky don't like it.

If uncertainty was such an issue for Sky then why do they work with a model that sees them announce fixtures they will televise with just over 2 weeks notice?

The evidence is broadcasters don't care about that. They still haven't announced eds 5 to 7 yet.

[Blind side johnny]

On 8/19/2018 at 3:16 PM, scotchy1 said:

To say Lenegan said nobody cared about the championship takes his comments out of context. He was clearly talking within the context of a paying TV deal.

Here is the big question that the game refuses to ask never mind get an answer for.  Over the past 4 years lower league clubs have been given more funding than ever before, millions of pounds more. They have been given more games against SL opposition than ever before, they have been given more access to better players than ever before and have a clear, unambiguous path to Super League. They have been given everything they could have thought possible.

And what has been the result? crowds have fallen at SL level, we have fewer academies than previously, and more overseas players, the competitions in the lower leagues have barely been able to be classed as competitions, League 1 has been dominated at the top by sides who barely lose and at the bottom by clubs who barely win, the championship has a clear demarcation between the top and the rest, to the point that a third of their season has become utterly pointless, of the 26 British clubs in the lower leagues 2 have disappeared, 2 have gone pop and 10 have publicly stated they are in severe financial difficulties.

other clubs have had to move miles to survive, some at the bottom of L1 are getting pummeled week after week without any real help, but the lower league clubs are fighting tooth and nail to preserve the status quo. They are selling this as the best time to be a lower league club. That the lower leagues are great, competitive competitions full of clubs threatening SL. That clearly isnt true.

So the question we need to ask is. What does success look like for the lower leagues? Is it this? living off SL money, clubs going bust but may be a club getting promoted every now and then? Because if it is, what they are selling as success looks an awful lot like failure.

You're at it again!

It isn't SL money, it's RL money.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

That is not a definitive 'Sky don't like the 8's.' Elstone THINKS they MAY not like them, subtle difference there

 

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Im confident that they made sure this was an informed view before setting out on this path. It would have been hilariously incompetent not to.

There was nothing saying sky don't like it. 

He made a factual statement that couldn't be refuted. Broadcasters aren't sure about fixtures lists - that is true. But broadcasters work to a couple of weeks notice regularly by choice. It's clearly not an issue for them.

[Dave T]

I'm that opening press conference it was quite clearly put to the panel about what Sky's view was. Lenegan stated that Sky are a broadcaster and broadcast the sport that the game puts on. 

Surely if Sky didn't like this structure it would have been the time to quote it and tbh would have put most debate to bed.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

No, it isnt. Its SL money. Quite literally. The SL deal is £40m £14m of that is distributed elsewhere per year.

This isnt a discussion of personal thought. Its a legal fact.

Even the money paid for the Challenge Cup and England internationals? And Sky try?

[David Shepherd]

Sky absolutely love the 8s and in particular the MPG

 

 

 

 

I've no evidence for that, but it doesn't seem to stop other folk from making stuff up and presenting it as fact.

[Private Baldrick]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Im confident that they made sure this was an informed view before setting out on this path. It would have been hilariously incompetent not to.

Your initial claim was a specific 'Sky don't like the 8's'.

When challenged you back tracked to claiming 'People connected' have said it.

When challenged further it is now your 'confident' opinion.

Try and stick to facts, not guessing it was an 'informed view'.