Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John Drake

League 1 restructuring

Recommended Posts

Just now, GeordieSaint said:

Something been announced?

No, it's a new thread to avoid dragging the Keighley thread off topic.

Dunno why I bother though.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 No need to change League 1, just keep it to 10-12 teams and don’t add teams being bankrolled like Toronto and Toulouse to it because that didn’t help to development of Coventry, Newcastle, West Wales ect ect

Edited by Mr Plow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, John Drake said:

No, it's a new thread to avoid dragging the Keighley thread off topic.

Dunno why I bother though.

Why? Whats happened at Keighley??

??.

 

.....runs away from thread.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I mean, just how can League 1 be restructured?  Hard to see how new teams can be created out of thin air. 

There is an argument for restructuring the entire Rugby League outside of those viable super league standard clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

But I mean, just how can League 1 be restructured?  Hard to see how new teams can be created out of thin air. 

There is an argument for restructuring the entire Rugby League outside of those viable super league standard clubs.

I think there’s an issue about where new teams start, should it be at the bottom or should some go straight to SL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

But I mean, just how can League 1 be restructured?  Hard to see how new teams can be created out of thin air. 

There is an argument for restructuring the entire Rugby League outside of those viable super league standard clubs.

There are a few options. L1 suffers the worst from the pyramidal structure of the game which doesnt really work.

Football can have a pyramid structure because of the amount of clubs it has. There are 140 leagues, 480 divisions, 5300 clubs. In the football league professional levels there are 92 clubs and below that is the vanarama national league with clubs the size of wrexham, halifax town, barnet.

There is a slower more gradual decline in size and quality as you go down the leagues. In RL you are looking at clubs 34, 35, 36,37, 38 as North Wales, Coventry, Skolars, Hemel, West Wales. In football right now those clubs are QPR, Stoke, Sheffield Wednesday, Brentford and Preston.

The curve in RL is too great to sustain that pyramidal structure. Once we move past that there are other jobs that L1 could do. Once we remove the idea that it functions as a gateway to the championship it can function as a development ground, and incubator for clubs and players. We can prioritise these clubs in strategic areas and set up the league structure to their benefit

Call League1 SL2 Put 12 expansion clubs in there affiliate each to an SL side for whom it is the development area. They share facilities, players, scouts, coaches, knowledge. Leveraging the SL brand name and the SL clubs existing expertise in those areas in to their expansion development area . The expansion club is then tasked with only two things. Getting people through the doors and getting kids playing. Then when/if one of these expansion clubs hits a certain level they can go it alone in SL or the championship.

We need to remove the hierarchical thinking thats in place that means Newcastle are best developed by doing what oldham do but better because what oldham do isnt working either. Newcastle need to put in place a 5-10 year plan not to be better than Oldham but to be of the level we need in the areas we need and thats what L1 should be tasked with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

But I mean, just how can League 1 be restructured?  Hard to see how new teams can be created out of thin air. 

There is an argument for restructuring the entire Rugby League outside of those viable super league standard clubs.

Could you please define what exactly is a "Super League Viable Club" Rupert.

In doing so you would have to establish a set of criterior that is applicable to all the clubs presently in Super League, so e.g. Cas/Wakey's facilities are deemed acceptable, Salford's average attendance being > 3,000 is acceptable, again using Salford but could easily mention Hull or Hull KR being that they do not themselves run academies so having no a academy is acceptable, London having insufficient seating....... really we could go on and on using examples.

Obviously there are teams that are there in SL on their own merits and are the yardstick that should be set, but we all know it is a completely farcical situation that a number of teams are in the top division just on the cuertosy of the funding they recieve, they could easily be replaced by half a dozen clubs from the division below who given the opportunity to receive same amount of funding would/could make the fit without any disruption, for a start the full time players would transfer to where the best money would be paid for their services and the lesser earning player's would find their level.

What do you think Rupert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There are a few options. L1 suffers the worst from the pyramidal structure of the game which doesnt really work.

Football can have a pyramid structure because of the amount of clubs it has. There are 140 leagues, 480 divisions, 5300 clubs. In the football league professional levels there are 92 clubs and below that is the vanarama national league with clubs the size of wrexham, halifax town, barnet.

There is a slower more gradual decline in size and quality as you go down the leagues. In RL you are looking at clubs 34, 35, 36,37, 38 as North Wales, Coventry, Skolars, Hemel, West Wales. In football right now those clubs are QPR, Stoke, Sheffield Wednesday, Brentford and Preston.

The curve in RL is too great to sustain that pyramidal structure. Once we move past that there are other jobs that L1 could do. Once we remove the idea that it functions as a gateway to the championship it can function as a development ground, and incubator for clubs and players. We can prioritise these clubs in strategic areas and set up the league structure to their benefit

Call League1 SL2 Put 12 expansion clubs in there affiliate each to an SL side for whom it is the development area. They share facilities, players, scouts, coaches, knowledge. Leveraging the SL brand name and the SL clubs existing expertise in those areas in to their expansion development area . The expansion club is then tasked with only two things. Getting people through the doors and getting kids playing. Then when/if one of these expansion clubs hits a certain level they can go it alone in SL or the championship.

We need to remove the hierarchical thinking thats in place that means Newcastle are best developed by doing what oldham do but better because what oldham do isnt working either. Newcastle need to put in place a 5-10 year plan not to be better than Oldham but to be of the level we need in the areas we need and thats what L1 should be tasked with.

With a good number of the those those SL clubs becomming surrogate clubs in that they are only deputising for properly run clubs by means of the funding they recieve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Could you please define what exactly is a "Super League Viable Club" Rupert.

In doing so you would have to establish a set of criterior that is applicable to all the clubs presently in Super League, so e.g. Cas/Wakey's facilities are deemed acceptable, Salford's average attendance being > 3,000 is acceptable, again using Salford but could easily mention Hull or Hull KR being that they do not themselves run academies so having no a academy is acceptable, London having insufficient seating....... really we could go on and on using examples.

Obviously there are teams that are there in SL on their own merits and are the yardstick that should be set, but we all know it is a completely farcical situation that a number of teams are in the top division just on the cuertosy of the funding they recieve, they could easily be replaced by half a dozen clubs from the division below who given the opportunity to receive same amount of funding would/could make the fit without any disruption, for a start the full time players would transfer to where the best money would be paid for their services and the lesser earning player's would find their level.

What do you think Rupert?

Its very strange to argue that 1 because we don't have enough clubs at the level we want therefor we should just let anyone in and have no standards.

Or that some clubs are only in SL because of the funding they receive in SL. Clubs had to get there to start with and they couldnt be easily replaced by half a dozen clubs from the division below because if that were true, they would have been replaced by them and those clubs wouldnt be going bust every other year.

That SL possibly wouldnt miss certain clubs is different to the idea that the clubs below them could or should replace those clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

With a good number of the those those SL clubs becomming surrogate clubs in that they are only deputising for properly run clubs by means of the funding they recieve. 

Thats nonsense Harry. If clubs like Leigh or Fev or Halifax could easily replace the likes of Wakefield or Castleford they would have right now.

The fact you are avoiding is that all the clubs you are thinking of have had plenty of opportunity to make SL level and when they have it has had disastrous effects on those clubs. Workington got 5 points in SL and went bust and have never really recovered, Oldham got 9 points and then collapsed with debts of over £2m, Halifax finished with 0 points lost their stadium and very nearly slipped in to insolvency, Leigh scored 5 points in 2004 struggled when back in The Championship and were saved from relegation to L1, they did better last time but then were relegated and a year later threatening bankruptcy to avoid playing players what they were owed.

The idea that the clubs at the top of the championship could easily replace those at the bottom of SL has proven nonsense throughout history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There are a few options. L1 suffers the worst from the pyramidal structure of the game which doesnt really work.

Football can have a pyramid structure because of the amount of clubs it has. There are 140 leagues, 480 divisions, 5300 clubs. In the football league professional levels there are 92 clubs and below that is the vanarama national league with clubs the size of wrexham, halifax town, barnet.

There is a slower more gradual decline in size and quality as you go down the leagues. In RL you are looking at clubs 34, 35, 36,37, 38 as North Wales, Coventry, Skolars, Hemel, West Wales. In football right now those clubs are QPR, Stoke, Sheffield Wednesday, Brentford and Preston.

The curve in RL is too great to sustain that pyramidal structure. Once we move past that there are other jobs that L1 could do. Once we remove the idea that it functions as a gateway to the championship it can function as a development ground, and incubator for clubs and players. We can prioritise these clubs in strategic areas and set up the league structure to their benefit

Call League1 SL2 Put 12 expansion clubs in there affiliate each to an SL side for whom it is the development area. They share facilities, players, scouts, coaches, knowledge. Leveraging the SL brand name and the SL clubs existing expertise in those areas in to their expansion development area . The expansion club is then tasked with only two things. Getting people through the doors and getting kids playing. Then when/if one of these expansion clubs hits a certain level they can go it alone in SL or the championship.

We need to remove the hierarchical thinking thats in place that means Newcastle are best developed by doing what oldham do but better because what oldham do isnt working either. Newcastle need to put in place a 5-10 year plan not to be better than Oldham but to be of the level we need in the areas we need and thats what L1 should be tasked with.

I don't want to go agonisingly into the details but yes I agree with you that the pyramid structure does not work for RL.  

I think the best word I can find that we should all try to base our ideas on is "holistic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Its very strange to argue that 1 because we don't have enough clubs at the level we want therefor we should just let anyone in and have no standards.

Or that some clubs are only in SL because of the funding they receive in SL. Clubs had to get there to start with and they couldnt be easily replaced by half a dozen clubs from the division below because if that were true, they would have been replaced by them and those clubs wouldnt be going bust every other year.

That SL possibly wouldnt miss certain clubs is different to the idea that the clubs below them could or should replace those clubs.

 

32 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Thats nonsense Harry. If clubs like Leigh or Fev or Halifax could easily replace the likes of Wakefield or Castleford they would have right now.

The fact you are avoiding is that all the clubs you are thinking of have had plenty of opportunity to make SL level and when they have it has had disastrous effects on those clubs. Workington got 5 points in SL and went bust and have never really recovered, Oldham got 9 points and then collapsed with debts of over £2m, Halifax finished with 0 points lost their stadium and very nearly slipped in to insolvency, Leigh scored 5 points in 2004 struggled when back in The Championship and were saved from relegation to L1, they did better last time but then were relegated and a year later threatening bankruptcy to avoid playing players what they were owed.

The idea that the clubs at the top of the championship could easily replace those at the bottom of SL has proven nonsense throughout history

With due respect Scotchy, those examples you give are long before the sustained season on season benefit of receiving near on £2 million each year became available, hand on heart Sir in all honestly pray tell me that if that funding was no more would you expect at least half a dozen clubs presently residing in SL could maintain that status?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I don't want to go agonisingly into the details but yes I agree with you that the pyramid structure does not work for RL.  

I think the best word I can find that we should all try to base our ideas on is "holistic".

And the "Super League Viable Clubs" you suggest exit, what is the criteria that enables them to be accepted as viable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mr Stottle...

Thanks for that.  Different clubs have a range of different qualities to assess their criteria as you say.  In broad terms I suspect there are about 8 clubs that have suitable infrastructure.  However I am not particularly trying to agonize over numbers.  Realistically we can count on a finite number of clubs, a small number, who can aspire to be be in a top league.

That number is a moot point.  But the purpose of all the others needs to be honestly reassessed. That is not to say these clubs are not unimportant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

With due respect Scotchy, those examples you give are long before the sustained season on season benefit of receiving near on £2 million each year became available, hand on heart Sir in all honestly pray tell me that if that funding was no more would you expect at least half a dozen clubs presently residing in SL could maintain that status?

You make no sense and have had to change the goalposts.

Firstly those clubs don't get given £2m they have something worth £2m a year which they sell. They get that money by virtue not of where they are but having got there and stayed there. Something these other clubs havent been able to do.

You argue that say Wakefield are only better than say halifax because they get £2m year on year on year, but we don't need to speculate on whether that is true because what we know, without equivocation, is that Wakefield have been able to do what is required to earn that £2m year on year on year. Halifax have tried to do so and failed miserably.

Whether Wakefield are better than Halifax only because of the Sky funding is irrelevant, Wakefield have been able to do what is required to get that Sky funding. Halifax have not. Swap them tomorrow and there is no reason for us to assume that Halifax wouldnt fail as miserably as they did last time and you will be back raging that the only reason they struggle is they don't get this money they are incapable of earning.

Also the question of whether some clubs in SL could stay at the level they are without the TV Funding they earn is a completely different question to whether or not another club could replace them. Do I think Wakefield could survive in SL without the funding, not really. They would still probably do a much better job than any club in the championship bar Toronto.

 

Edited by scotchy1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

To Mr Stottle...

Thanks for that.  Different clubs have a range of different qualities to assess their criteria as you say.  In broad terms I suspect there are about 8 clubs that have suitable infrastructure.  However I am not particularly trying to agonize over numbers.  Realistically we can count on a finite number of clubs, a small number, who can aspire to be be in a top league.

That number is a moot point.  But the purpose of all the others needs to be honestly reassessed. That is not to say these clubs are not unimportant!

Fair enough, all clubs as you intimate are important, in my opinion there are 4 levels off pro rugby league, that being 6 clubs who by good management will very nearly always be at the top of the tree, then we have 12 clubs who could with the same amount of funding over a sustained period would be interchangeable between the top 2 divisions, the renainder of the championship clubs and the very top of League 1 are much of a muchness and then we have those who languish in the bottom of Div 1.

The moot point as you say is not the number of clubs in SL, it is the fact in my opinion that the have's and have not's is dictated by the money they recieve from central funding.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

You make no sense and have had to change the goalposts.

Firstly those clubs don't get given £2m they have something worth £2m a year which they sell. They get that money by virtue not of where they are but having got there and stayed there. Something these other clubs havent been able to do.

You argue that say Wakefield are only better than say halifax because they get £2m year on year on year, but we don't need to speculate on whether that is true because what we know, without equivocation, is that Wakefield have been able to do what is required to earn that £2m year on year on year. Halifax have tried to do so and failed miserably.

Whether Wakefield are better than Halifax only because of the Sky funding is irrelevant, Wakefield have been able to do what is required to get that Sky funding. Halifax have not. Swap them tomorrow and there is no reason for us to assume that Halifax wouldnt fail as miserably as they did last time and you will be back raging that the only reason they struggle is they don't get this money they are incapable of earning.

Also the question of whether some clubs in SL could stay at the level they are without the TV Funding they earn is a completely different question to whether or not another club could replace them. Do I think Wakefield could survive in SL without the funding, not really. They would still probably do a much better job than any club in the championship bar Toronto.

 

Well we ain't going to agree, lets end it there before we continue to round in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well we ain't going to agree, lets end it there before we continue to round in circles.

We arent going to agree because it would involve you admitting the failings of your club and your favoured group of clubs cannot be blamed on other clubs.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...