League 1 restructuring

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

If you wish harry but it seems very much that you simply cannot address the argument and would rather ignore it and carry on peddling the same nonsense about gifting your favoured clubs the £2m per year clubs like Wakefield have earned and they may reach Wakefields level.

In fairness, on paper the only differences between the Wakefields, Salfords, even Castlefords and London Broncos of this world and a lot of the lower divisions is that they have better players which as you say they use to sell a product to sky. However what you seem intent on ignoring is that they can only afford those players because of that money they get from Sky. Its a reciprocal rather than simple cause and effect.

As businesses many of these SL clubs are tiny and several don't even spend the full cap. Taking their playing personnel aside, as of course that could move elsewhere should better opportunities arise, there are minimal reasons to separate many of these teams. Right now there are several clubs outside of super league with almost everything better than SL aside from its playing staff - does it make a difference if Wakefields current squad are playing at Belle Vue in a Wakefield shirt or at the Shay in a Fax shirt so long as that squad is in super league? 

This idea of "super league standard" therefore becomes entirely redundant. Widnes, Hull KR and Bradford were Super League standard, and then they weren't. Leeds United used to be top 6 in the country standard, and then they weren't. The same ability to move to a natural level has to be allowed, along with the ability to dream big and rise from the ashes. 

[Angelic Cynic]

There may be a new addition next year.

http://everythingrugbyleague.com/decision-on-new-york-rugby-league-bid-to-be-made-in-next-two-weeks.html?fbclid=IwAR1yMiNpe2_UYkR1SeZmGl7JT_izswiIqinrVs9LvOkwG3n7-GXUZgoVJ7I#.XE1-PkZsV5k.facebook

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

There may be a new addition next year.

http://everythingrugbyleague.com/decision-on-new-york-rugby-league-bid-to-be-made-in-next-two-weeks.html?fbclid=IwAR1yMiNpe2_UYkR1SeZmGl7JT_izswiIqinrVs9LvOkwG3n7-GXUZgoVJ7I#.XE1-PkZsV5k.facebook

If London after nearly 40 years of existence, and an amatuer set up in existance in its locality that any site in NA would relish, why are they not attracting a decent spectator base, so to copy the last sentance below if London attracted a mere fraction of the population turning up it would acheive the highest crowds in the English League.

Isn't  spin wonderful?

Whilst Toronto have a population of 2.7 million and average around 7,500 to each game (despite being in the lower leagues), New York City has a population just shy of 9 million people. In addition to this, New Jersey has a population of around 9 million people. Rugby League would require a mere fraction of people turning up to games in order to achieve the highest crowds in the English leagues.

 

[ojx]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Whilst Toronto have a population of 2.7 million and average around 7,500 to each game (despite being in the lower leagues), New York City has a population just shy of 9 million people. In addition to this, New Jersey has a population of around 9 million people. Rugby League would require a mere fraction of people turning up to games in order to achieve the highest crowds in the English leagues.

 

The population of the greater Toronto area (including suburbs) is about 6.5  million.

[pudsey hawk]

Everyone we spoke to in Toronto had never heard of them 

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

A Keighley supporter I was talking to at the Queensway last season was very much in favour of a New York team - He'd been to the Big Apple and reckoned that with cheap air fares it would be a great long weekend trip for supporters. Also, remember that, unlike Toronto, there are amateur clubs nearby, in what's know as the Tri-Counties district.

[Harry Stottle]

15 hours ago, ojx said:

The population of the greater Toronto area (including suburbs) is about 6.5  million.

Thanks ojx, the point I was making in London there are near 9million, the author of the piece was tring to make a correlation between populas and attendances, it just does not equate.

[The Parksider]

20 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Heres where your argument falls down, you have it the wrong way around. Wakefield et al arent better than those lower league clubs because they get £2m from Sky. They get £2m from sky because they are better than them.

Stick a halifax shirt on Wakefields players, have them play out of the shay, give them the £2m a year SL clubs get and the club will be bust within two years.

Your way way off the reality as usual. Halifax are a great club, tidy ground now, and SL would boost the local amateur clubs. I once posed the idea Mr. Carter was doing wonders with Wakey on a shoestring budget, I was told Mr. carter actually put money in. I remember when Ted Richardson was the man who put the extra in at Wakefield. When he left the administrators came a knocking.

But no matter, the reality you miss is that the £2M a year from SKY is inadequate for any club to operate fully professionally, what creates the hierarchy is the level of personal investment from the chairman and or board of directors, as well as supporter levels.

It's was quite obvious when Koukash had Salford they could compete (and if they were slow to do so only the salary cap caused that hence he broke it) and now they have lost him they are failing to compete starting with a thin squad.

23 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I do believe that come the end of this present TV contract, SL will revert once more to a closed shop, selection will not be done by "ticking the boxes" of suggested criteria. 

I watched your own club struggle badly in SL one season and recently I watched them do OK and avoid bottom spot. I think they hammered Wigan IIRC in one game. I can only put this down to Mr. Beaumont. They were stupidly relegated from 11th. when the bottom club were Widnes. As I understand it Widnes's demise was that Mr. O'Connor had stopped putting money in if he ever started.

If Ken Davey decided to leave Huddersfield and buy Bradford then it's very obvious what would happen.

It's not a Superleague, it's a rich mans league, and we should have held onto Mr. Beaumont. That lesson will be carried into the new low TV contract SKY era when admission has to be based even more so on who has the richest owners.

Finally the drop in the SKY contract will mean league one ends. Did nobody notice SL trying to end it in principle last year with their 2x10 league plans? They recognised professional RL clubs cannot be built on "growth" although Castleford were but that was  1927.

[RayCee]

“RFL must not only make a decision, but explain to the fans of the game why they made their decision.”

Two of the funniest things I've heard. 

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

Your way way off the reality as usual. Halifax are a great club, tidy ground now, and SL would boost the local amateur clubs. I once posed the idea Mr. Carter was doing wonders with Wakey on a shoestring budget, I was told Mr. carter actually put money in. I remember when Ted Richardson was the man who put the extra in at Wakefield. When he left the administrators came a knocking.

But no matter, the reality you miss is that the £2M a year from SKY is inadequate for any club to operate fully professionally, what creates the hierarchy is the level of personal investment from the chairman and or board of directors, as well as supporter levels.

It's was quite obvious when Koukash had Salford they could compete (and if they were slow to do so only the salary cap caused that hence he broke it) and now they have lost him they are failing to compete 

I watched your own club struggle badly in SL one season and recently I watched them do OK and avoid bottom spot. I think they hammered Wigan IIRC in one game. I can only put this down to Mr. Beaumont. They were stupidly relegated from 11th. when the bottom club were Widnes. As I understand it Widnes's demise was that Mr. O'Connor had stopped putting money in.

If Ken Davey decided to leave Huddersfield and buy Bradford then it's very obvious what would happen.

It's not a Superleague it's a rich mans league, and we should have held onto Mr. Beaumont. That lesson will be carried into the new low TV contract SKY era when admission has to be based even more on who has the richest owners.

If as you say and I have no reason to think otherwise that we will enjoy any new future contract to be as financially rewarding as the present one from Sky or indeed any broadcast company, I wonder how many present chairmen who are bolstered by the £2M leg up will continue to 'invest', I would suggest that a few may take stock and reasses the situation.

As for Mr Beaumont he is still at Leigh albeit he has taken a back seat, it is reported that he does not consider it financially worthwhile in trying to compete with Toronto for the one promotion spot on offer intimating that he will return to make a concerted challenge in 2020 should Toronto be promoted this term, as a fan of the club it is a logic I cannot argue with and I will get on board for the ride.

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Yes it is quite obvious that you need more than the Sky funding to survive in SL, thanknyou for proving my point.

Wakefield have it, Halifax don't. Leigh don't, Fev don't, that's why Wakefield are in SL and those clubs aren't, why those clubs keep getting relegated and keep going bust. 

SL average attendances 2017

Leigh 6506

Huddersfield 5890
Wakefield 5676
Widnes 5592
Salford 3842

Just saying

•  

[paulwalker71]

How did we end up talking about SL attendances on a thread about League 1?

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

How did we end up talking about SL attendances on a thread about League 1?

Like many threads Paul the discussion leads us down different pathways, not to many threads stay on topic, it only needs one sentance to be answered with a 'Ah But' and off we go.

[RP London]

21 hours ago, Angelic Cynic said:

There may be a new addition next year.

http://everythingrugbyleague.com/decision-on-new-york-rugby-league-bid-to-be-made-in-next-two-weeks.html?fbclid=IwAR1yMiNpe2_UYkR1SeZmGl7JT_izswiIqinrVs9LvOkwG3n7-GXUZgoVJ7I#.XE1-PkZsV5k.facebook

In a perfect world they would skip league one as i dont see the extra travel and (if it were like Toronto) the hammerings given out to a large number of league one clubs being helpful... however, we would then need an extra champ team to be nudged down to league one which is hardly going to be popular.. RFL in no win situation again.. there is plenty to bash the RFL for but I dont envy them on a number of decisions they have to make!

[paulwalker71]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

there is plenty to bash the RFL for but I dont envy them on a number of decisions they have to make!

It would be a good start to have the RFL actually make a decision at all when it comes to New York!

[RP London]

Just now, paulwalker71 said:

It would be a good start to have the RFL actually make a decision at all when it comes to New York!

well yes thats true.

[Harry Stottle]

After 2 years Toronto is still in the experinental stage, we do not know enough yet if that experiment is going to be good or have an adverse effect on the game in this country, the fact that they have not yet played in our flagship competition and how they will impact on that should be closely monitered for at least 3 years of them being in SL before a decision is made to grant another club from the N. American continent entry to our competition.

[Kayakman]

23 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

After 2 years Toronto is still in the experinental stage, we do not know enough yet if that experiment is going to be good or have an adverse effect on the game in this country, the fact that they have not yet played in our flagship competition and how they will impact on that should be closely monitered for at least 3 years of them being in SL before a decision is made to grant another club from the N. American continent entry to our competition.

I'm surprised at your negativity Harry...if you wait too long on the pier you will miss the boat ...  

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I'm surprised at your negativity Harry...if you wait too long on the pier you will miss the boat ...  

and that is the worry IMHO.

You look at London and France and think they didnt grasp the chance at the right time (london back in the 30s France in the 50s) and how different the game could have been.. yes there is a risk to the game here (but its slight) but there is also a risk of not taking these opportunities when they present themselves and IMHO that risk is much bigger and much harder to overcome as they very rarely come back.

[Kayakman]

39 minutes ago, RP London said:

and that is the worry IMHO.

You look at London and France and think they didnt grasp the chance at the right time (london back in the 30s France in the 50s) and how different the game could have been.. yes there is a risk to the game here (but its slight) but there is also a risk of not taking these opportunities when they present themselves and IMHO that risk is much bigger and much harder to overcome as they very rarely come back.

Exactly...exactly.   Not only should Toronto be openly welcomed into RL it should be emulated and praised, supported and helped...instead some people put in road blocks and the Naysayers fight the very  expansion which will ultimately save the game.

Such people are the complainers and then, due to their lack of inaction, will bemoan the obvious shortcomings caused by their very obstruction...reminds me of those old incompetent British generals who always had to be saved in the end by the bravery of the common British soldier.  The expansionists are like the common men in the trenches who will see this out in the end...Rimmer and his supporters must go the way of the dodo bird.

[RP London]

49 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Exactly...exactly.   Not only should Toronto be openly welcomed into RL it should be emulated and praised, supported and helped...instead some people put in road blocks and the Naysayers fight the very  expansion which will ultimately save the game.

Such people are the complainers and then, due to their lack of inaction, will bemoan the obvious shortcomings caused by their very obstruction...reminds me of those old incompetent British generals who always had to be saved in the end by the bravery of the common British soldier.  The expansionists are like the common men in the trenches who will see this out in the end...Rimmer and his supporters must go the way of the dodo bird.

not sure "ultimately save the game" is a great way to put it but certainly help it develop. 

My analogy rather than being saved by the common soldier would be more the British in WW1 who ended up abandoning the old school generals to turn to the Canadian and Australian Generals who developed combined warfare and the push that was the last 100 days. It was about talking to none professional soldiers who came with a different way of thinking that added something unexpected to the mix. 

However, I would also calm down on proclaiming it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and it all has to be taken with caution but I do think if everything looks ok we really need to embrace it rather than our usual attitude of "it'll never work"/"it'll kill the traditional areas" and look to what it can add and try to embrace it more, whilst also knowing you cant just leave it you have to still work on all the other areas, hard.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

League 1 probably needs a bit of consolidation rather than restructuring, in the short term it would be great to see all the teams get through the season without any dramas or crisis' and putting the full 17 out each week. The standard mostly is pretty good so modest increases in attendance at clubs would be great too, it's a bit too optimistic to think there are going to be large increases.

Next season (2020) it would be great to see the competition back up to 12 teams but with a competitive stable team, in the longer term I think 14 is the correct number but adding 3 teams in one go is not going to work if the last expansion is anything to go by. Probably looking at taking 5-10 years to get back to 14 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

not sure "ultimately save the game" is a great way to put it but certainly help it develop. 

My analogy rather than being saved by the common soldier would be more the British in WW1 who ended up abandoning the old school generals to turn to the Canadian and Australian Generals who developed combined warfare and the push that was the last 100 days. It was about talking to none professional soldiers who came with a different way of thinking that added something unexpected to the mix. 

However, I would also calm down on proclaiming it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and it all has to be taken with caution but I do think if everything looks ok we really need to embrace it rather than our usual attitude of "it'll never work"/"it'll kill the traditional areas" and look to what it can add and try to embrace it more, whilst also knowing you cant just leave it you have to still work on all the other areas, hard.

Isn't that exactly what I said RP, only that we may well differ on what is a good period to monitor, assess, gauge, appraise, evaluate and subsequently determine if the model in prototype (TWP) is worth going into production with, I chose 6 years that would be 3 years in the lower divisions and could well be 3 years  - or not - in the top flight where they prove or otherwise that tgey are a good fit, if it is deemed successful then by all means proceed with the N.American expansion, if not well.........

[Tommygilf]

33 minutes ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

League 1 probably needs a bit of consolidation rather than restructuring, in the short term it would be great to see all the teams get through the season without any dramas or crisis' and putting the full 17 out each week. The standard mostly is pretty good so modest increases in attendance at clubs would be great too, it's a bit too optimistic to think there are going to be large increases.

Next season (2020) it would be great to see the competition back up to 12 teams but with a competitive stable team, in the longer term I think 14 is the correct number but adding 3 teams in one go is not going to work if the last expansion is anything to go by. Probably looking at taking 5-10 years to get back to 14 

I agree with that. If the Cornwall stadium/ Bristol is announced as a venue for the WC tomorrow then we really should be looking to the south west.

[paulwalker71]

44 minutes ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

League 1 probably needs a bit of consolidation rather than restructuring, in the short term it would be great to see all the teams get through the season without any dramas or crisis' and putting the full 17 out each week.

I seem to recall the Championship having more problems than League 1 in that area last season