If we brought back licensing....

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

taking people's silence as some sort of affirmation that you are correct is an interesting way to go... i think most people are bored of the thread to be honest.

which BTW i am happy to admit i added to the boredom and it was during discussion i was having with you and Scotchy about Parky that this thread drifted away from most people.. it just seems to be 2-3 people now arguing in a circle. so i wouldnt say people agree, they just dont want to get further involved in a thread that should probably just die off.

Simple question then , is my analogy of the creation of Les Cats closer than any single country , single competition merger we have seen previously or since IYO?

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Simple question then , is my analogy of the creation of Les Cats closer than any single country , single competition merger we have seen previously or since IYO?

Sorry I am not actually sure what you are asking, bit confused with the way you have worded the question.

I've already said this about Catalan though if it helps.... this is where I would do mergers. When there is no way that the 2 entities would be able to get into the competition on there own then they should look to merge if that is possible. I would look at Catalans, Inverness Caledonian thistle and a few others (i have a full post about this previously on this thread) and try and look at why they work etc and then start to put that out towards the teams it would apply to.. Your analogy of Hull and KR is wrong IMHO as one or both is strong enough to compete at the level they are looking at and so it wont/cant work. The other 2 were a debacle of takeovers and keeping heartland clubs afloat for the sake of it and were far too far apart to ever have a chance of working and everyone knew that at the time and they paid of gateshead and sheffield to go away quietly. 

personally i think the debate has reached a point where we should all just agree to disagree and move on as this has got very boring.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

Sorry I am not actually sure what you are asking, bit confused with the way you have worded the question.

I've already said this about Catalan though if it helps.... this is where I would do mergers. When there is no way that the 2 entities would be able to get into the competition on there own then they should look to merge if that is possible. I would look at Catalans, Inverness Caledonian thistle and a few others (i have a full post about this previously on this thread) and try and look at why they work etc and then start to put that out towards the teams it would apply to.. Your analogy of Hull and KR is wrong IMHO as one or both is strong enough to compete at the level they are looking at and so it wont/cant work. The other 2 were a debacle of takeovers and keeping heartland clubs afloat for the sake of it and were far too far apart to ever have a chance of working and everyone knew that at the time and they paid of gateshead and sheffield to go away quietly.

personally i think the debate has reached a point where we should all just agree to disagree and move on as this has got very boring.

Are Hull FC or HKR strong enough to compete in the NRL on their own ?

[RP London]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Are Hull FC or HKR strong enough to compete in the NRL on their own ?

Stupid question.. thats a league in australia that no one in a completley different hemisphere would look to enter in their right mind.. to be able to work that out would need more information than you or i could possible conjure up to make any sort of proper guess or answer.. 

[meast]

On 2/26/2019 at 8:52 PM, Cdd said:

For a team competiting in Super League they should either 1) offer high profile and attendance..... or 2) increase the player pool through player development. A club which doesn’t neither is of no value.

Our 6 biggest clubs would be guaranteed a place in my opinion....

Wigan, Leeds, Saints, Warrington, Hull FC Catalans

After that you’d be looking at clubs with potential to be in that top bracket....

Bradford, Hull KR, Castleford and York - big enough places to sustain a professional and successful team with no direct competition from premier league football. All would offer more to the competition than Salford in terms of profile, crowds, player production etc especially if they were given the handout from Sky.

Then you’d be looking at which expansion clubs are viable (give them one year notice and then two years exemption from relegation, copy an already successful model with Catalans)

Toulouse and Toronto seem the most viable. 

That would be 10 teams for me. It would be for Huddersfield, Wakefield, Salford, Widnes, Leigh, London etc to fight it out. 

 

Wigan, Leeds, Saints, Warrington, Hull FC, Catalans, Hull KR, Castleford, York, Bradford, Toronto, Toulouse and London would be my preference.

A good mixture of big clubs, traditional clubs, some clubs with massive potential, sleeping giants, expansion into new markets and clubs offering to increase the player pool.

This competition would more attractive to sponsors and broadcasters than the league is currently.

Add Wakefield, Salford or Huddersfield in if they can stop damaging the image of what is meant to be a ‘super’ league. 

 

So, Castleford should be in over Huddersfield? based on what? Huddersfield is a bigger, more prosperous town than Castleford, it has a bigger, better, more modern ground than Castleford, it has had better success on the field than Castleford, but Castleford currently get better average crowds? how does that logic work?

And no offence to any club, but Bradford had their chance, but blew it, York have as much potential as anyone, yes they are on a high at the moment, but this obsession people have with York is baffling.

There's no evidence that Toronto or Toulouse are viable, no more than, say West Wales.

Personally, if we had to go down that route, we would look at clubs that run themselves efficiently and not spend above their means, clubs that have facilities and ground fit for the 21st century, and clubs who can post reasonable attendances* and clubs that can bring sponsors and money into the game, so that rules most clubs out.

* whatever is deemed as reasonable.

[GUBRATS]

Just now, RP London said:

Stupid question.. thats a league in australia that no one in a completley different hemisphere would look to enter in their right mind.. to be able to work that out would need more information than you or i could possible conjure up to make any sort of proper guess or answer..

 

Just now, RP London said:

Stupid question.. thats a league in australia that no one in a completley different hemisphere would look to enter in their right mind.. to be able to work that out would need more information than you or i could possible conjure up to make any sort of proper guess or answer..

Is the NRL a stronger competition than SL ? , yes

Have either HULL FC or HKR been a force in SL ? , not really

If they wanted to compete in a stronger competition , the only way would be to merge and set up a completely new club while retaining their ' base ' playing in their existing competition

It isnt that hard to follow , it is a perfect analogy of what the 2 Perpignan clubs did , they combined to produce a new team to play in a completely new competition at a higher level and against better opposition than either of them had ever played in before

[RP London]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

 

Is the NRL a stronger competition than SL ? , yes

Have either HULL FC or HKR been a force in SL ? , not really

If they wanted to compete in a stronger competition , the only way would be to merge and set up a completely new club while retaining their ' base ' playing in their existing competition

It isnt that hard to follow , it is a perfect analogy of what the 2 Perpignan clubs did , they combined to produce a new team to play in a completely new competition at a higher level and against better opposition than either of them had ever played in before

no thats rubbish.. 

its not about being a "force" its about even being big enough and able enough to cope.. 

to jump halfway across the world with the extra massive costs that that brings is hugely difficult and pointless and to try to judge it is impossible. it is completely different to a catalans decision or a (for the sake of argument) cumbrian one. 

It is a terrible analogy and if you dont get that then it proves the point that this thread is dead.. or at least should be.. 

I wont reply but that is not me agreeing with you its me shaking my head thinking your daft and walking out the door 

[GUBRATS]

9 minutes ago, RP London said:

no thats rubbish..

its not about being a "force" its about even being big enough and able enough to cope..

to jump halfway across the world with the extra massive costs that that brings is hugely difficult and pointless and to try to judge it is impossible. it is completely different to a catalans decision or a (for the sake of argument) cumbrian one.

It is a terrible analogy and if you dont get that then it proves the point that this thread is dead.. or at least should be..

I wont reply but that is not me agreeing with you its me shaking my head thinking your daft and walking out the door

In this instance the distance is irrelivant , 2 clubs from 1 city wanting to compete in a better higher quality competition merging , leaving 1 team to continue in the existing competition , and a new one to compete in the bigger , better one , that is exactly what they did , But that is different to merging just to compete in your existing competition which is the usual suggestion

[Chris Taylor]

I love these threads. 

My team should be listed in the licensing, blah blah blah. Why have you criticised my team blah blah - we have better everything than [enter bitter local rivals].

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Chris Taylor said:

I love these threads.

My team should be listed in the licensing, blah blah blah. Why have you criticised my team blah blah - we have better everything than [enter bitter local rivals].

Not really much of that posted on here for days , more discussions on the pro's and con's of mergers really

[TIWIT]

15 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Of course they would. For certain clubs their mere existence is held up as unqualified success. Look at Grubrats on this thread or any thread parky posts on. The fact some clubs simply exist is, to some unarguably proof of their efficacy and necessity. To some widnes ceasing to exist twice yet there still being a club called widnes in our structure isn't a show of weakness but a show of strength. 

A Leeds RUFC existing, having relatively good crowds, playing in a decent stadium, developing a few players, not going bust. They would be held up as an example of heartland strength

Well said

[M j M]

28 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Of course they would. For certain clubs their mere existence is held up as unqualified success. Look at Grubrats on this thread or any thread parky posts on. The fact some clubs simply exist is, to some unarguably proof of their efficacy and necessity. To some widnes ceasing to exist twice yet there still being a club called widnes in our structure isn't a show of weakness but a show of strength. 

A Leeds RUFC existing, having relatively good crowds, playing in a decent stadium, developing a few players, not going bust. They would be held up as an example of heartland strength

They'd be like Huddersfield. Nobody thinks they are a great success story. On the other hand nobody in their right mind is demanding they get shut down and we abandon the fans of the club either.

[Smudger06]

Playing devils advocate, If we brought back Licencing.....

These would get a licence;

1. Brisbane Broncos 

2. Newcastle Knights 

3. Gold Coast Titans 

4. North Queensland Cowboys 

5. Melbourne Storm 

6. Canberra Raiders 

7. New Zealand Warriors 

8. St George Illawarra Dragons

9. Penrith Panthers 

10. Cronulla Sutherland Sharks 

11. Manly Warringah Sea Eagles 

12. Parramatta Eels 

13. Wests Tigers 

14. Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs

15. South Sydney Rabbitohs 

16. Sydney Roosters 

17. Wigan Warriors 

18. St Helens 

19. Leeds Rhinos 

20. Warrington Wolves

21. Bradford Bulls 

22. Hull FC 

23. Castleford Tigers 

24. Huddersfield Giants 

25. London Broncos 

26. Wakefield Trinity 

27. Salford Red Devils 

28. Catalans Dragons 

29. Hull Kingston Rovers 

30. Widnes Vikings 

31. Halifax 

32. Sheffield Eagles 

& the criteria would be.....

A current NRL team or else, holding a position in the top 16 on the all time Super League Table. 

I'd throw my licences about even more and sanction 288 Games over a 20 week season with every team playing 9 home games & 9 away games + 2 byes followed by a finals series which 14 Teams would qualify for on completion of the season. 

[Smudger06]

10 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Playing devils advocate, If we brought back Licencing.....

These would get a licence;

1. Brisbane Broncos 

2. Newcastle Knights 

3. Gold Coast Titans 

4. North Queensland Cowboys 

5. Melbourne Storm 

6. Canberra Raiders 

7. New Zealand Warriors 

8. St George Illawarra Dragons

9. Penrith Panthers 

10. Cronulla Sutherland Sharks 

11. Manly Warringah Sea Eagles 

12. Parramatta Eels 

13. Wests Tigers 

14. Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs

15. South Sydney Rabbitohs 

16. Sydney Roosters 

17. Wigan Warriors 

18. St Helens 

19. Leeds Rhinos 

20. Warrington Wolves

21. Bradford Bulls 

22. Hull FC 

23. Castleford Tigers 

24. Huddersfield Giants 

25. London Broncos 

26. Wakefield Trinity 

27. Salford Red Devils 

28. Catalans Dragons 

29. Hull Kingston Rovers 

30. Widnes Vikings 

31. Halifax 

32. Sheffield Eagles 

& the criteria would be.....

A current NRL team or else, holding a position in the top 16 on the all time Super League Table. 

I'd throw my licences about even more and sanction 288 Games over a 20 week season with every team playing 9 home games & 9 away games + 2 byes followed by a finals series which 14 Teams would qualify for on completion of the season. 

Furthermore......

I'd persuade my 32 licenced teams into the following structure by paying them $15,000,000 AUD each per year;

2 x 16 Team Conferences, would each be split into 4 Divisions of 4 Teams.

NRL Australia

NRL Australia North Division

1. Brisbane Broncos

2. North Queensland Cowboys

3. Gold Coast Titans

4. Newcastle Knights

NRL Australia South Division

1. Melbourne Storm

2. Canberra Raiders

3. St George Illawarra Dragons

4. Cronulla Sutherland Sharks

NRL Australia West Division

1. Penrith Panthers

2. Parramatta Eels

3. Wests Tigers

4. Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs

NRL Australia East Division

1. Sydney Roosters

2. Manly Warringah Sea Eagles

3. New Zealand Warriors

4. South Sydney Rabbitohs

NRL UK

NRL UK North Division

1. Leeds Rhinos

2. Bradford Bulls

3. Halifax

4. Huddersfield Giants

NRL UK South Division

1. Sheffield Eagles

2. London Broncos

3. Catalans Dragons

4. Warrington Wolves

NRL UK East Division

1. Hull FC

2. Castleford Tigers

3. Wakefield Trinity

4. Hull Kingston Rovers

NRL UK West Division

1. Wigan Warriors

2. St Helens

3. Salford Red Devils

4. Widnes Vikings

How each teams 18 Games are set to create the 288 Games I'd sanction:

Every team plays six games against the other three teams in its division, facing off twice per season — once at home and once on the road.

Every team plays two games against each of the four teams from a division within its conference — four games at home and four on the road. Which division a team plays is determined by a rotation system ensuring that the teams in one division will play the teams in every other division in its conference twice every three years

Every team plays one game against each of the four teams from a division in the other conference once per season — two games at home and two on the road. These matchups are also determined by a rotation, which ensures that all teams play every team from every division in the other conference once every four years. The next time the cross conference rotation has these teams facing off again, home field is switched from the previous rotation.

So, a 20 Week Regular Season with each Team playing 9 home games & 9 away games + 2 byes.

Weeks 1-4: Every team plays. (64 Games)

Weeks 5-8: Eight teams receive a bye each week, 4 Teams per conference. (48 Games)

Weeks 9-12: Every team plays. (64 Games)

Weeks 13-16: Eight teams receive a bye each week, 4 Teams per Conference. (48 Games)

Weeks 17-20: Every team plays. (64 Games)

= 288 regular Season Games. 

.....'Are you not entertained'........

(Basically advocating a Rugby League version of the late 1960's AFL - NFL Merger) 

[Gooleboy]

45 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Furthermore......

I'd persuade my 32 licenced teams into the following structure by paying them $15,000,000 AUD each per year;

2 x 16 Team Conferences, would each be split into 4 Divisions of 4 Teams.

NRL Australia

NRL Australia North Division

1. Brisbane Broncos

2. North Queensland Cowboys

3. Gold Coast Titans

4. Newcastle Knights

NRL Australia South Division

1. Melbourne Storm

2. Canberra Raiders

3. St George Illawarra Dragons

4. Cronulla Sutherland Sharks

NRL Australia West Division

1. Penrith Panthers

2. Parramatta Eels

3. Wests Tigers

4. Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs

NRL Australia East Division

1. Sydney Roosters

2. Manly Warringah Sea Eagles

3. New Zealand Warriors

4. South Sydney Rabbitohs

NRL UK

NRL UK North Division

1. Leeds Rhinos

2. Bradford Bulls

3. Halifax

4. Huddersfield Giants

NRL UK South Division

1. Sheffield Eagles

2. London Broncos

3. Catalans Dragons

4. Warrington Wolves

NRL UK East Division

1. Hull FC

2. Castleford Tigers

3. Wakefield Trinity

4. Hull Kingston Rovers

NRL UK West Division

1. Wigan Warriors

2. St Helens

3. Salford Red Devils

4. Widnes Vikings

How each teams 18 Games are set to create the 288 Games I'd sanction:

Every team plays six games against the other three teams in its division, facing off twice per season — once at home and once on the road.

Every team plays two games against each of the four teams from a division within its conference — four games at home and four on the road. Which division a team plays is determined by a rotation system ensuring that the teams in one division will play the teams in every other division in its conference twice every three years

Every team plays one game against each of the four teams from a division in the other conference once per season — two games at home and two on the road. These matchups are also determined by a rotation, which ensures that all teams play every team from every division in the other conference once every four years. The next time the cross conference rotation has these teams facing off again, home field is switched from the previous rotation.

So, a 20 Week Regular Season with each Team playing 9 home games & 9 away games + 2 byes.

Weeks 1-4: Every team plays. (64 Games)

Weeks 5-8: Eight teams receive a bye each week, 4 Teams per conference. (48 Games)

Weeks 9-12: Every team plays. (64 Games)

Weeks 13-16: Eight teams receive a bye each week, 4 Teams per Conference. (48 Games)

Weeks 17-20: Every team plays. (64 Games)

= 288 regular Season Games. 

.....'Are you not entertained'........

(Basically advocating a Rugby League version of the late 1960's AFL - NFL Merger) 

No place for the likes of Featherstone then?

[Smudger06]

26 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

No place for the likes of Featherstone then?

If I'd have included Fev, would have got my head bitten off. Concocted this in a moment of madness from tooth ache. Wouldn't mind, I watch Fev at Post Office Road and NRL on TV, the only reason super league is on TV at my house is cos my missus is a Cas Fan........

[Smudger06]

To be fair though if they hadn't of thrown us out when we finished nowhere near the relegation zone in the 1st Place in favour of London & Paris there's every chance we'd be at least somewhere in the top 16 in the all time SL Table!!!! 

[GazTheDon]

On 2/27/2019 at 11:03 PM, scotchy1 said:

The cost of producing content isn't that high.

The cost they pay to buy the rights is higher than the cost of sending an ob to Swinton. 

Skys rights budget and production budget is in the billions. The thousands a championship broadcast would cost is a drop in the ocean. They wouldn't even notice it. They dont show it because people dont watch

People don't watch because they don't show it. How can people watch the games if they're not being broadcast? Not everyone can get to the grounds to watch live. I, for instance, due to my disability go to maybe three or four games per year. The majority of the games I watch are on TV.

[Gooleboy]

9 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

To be fair though if they hadn't of thrown us out when we finished nowhere near the relegation zone in the 1st Place in favour of London & Paris there's every chance we'd be at least somewhere in the top 16 in the all time SL Table!!!! 

I am sure we would! We were worthy of a place when Powell was the Coach.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

The NRL wouldn’t be interested in a merger with an underperforming, poorly attended competition like Super League. It’s that simple. They’re making a $42m profit, The RFL recorded a £1.5m loss for the year ending 31st December ‘17 and Super League Europe made a profit of £1,269 for the year ending 31st December ‘17. We’re worlds apart on and off the pitch and there’s no reason why they’d want to merge with us, it’s not beneficial to them financially or commercially. 

Rather than wanting to piggy-back onto their success, we should be striving for our own success as a game. 

 

[TIWIT]

1 hour ago, Smudger06 said:

If I'd have included Fev, would have got my head bitten off. Concocted this in a moment of madness from tooth ache. Wouldn't mind, I watch Fev at Post Office Road and NRL on TV, the only reason super league is on TV at my house is cos my missus is a Cas Fan........

Any new super league like this that ignores Toronto and thus closes the door on North American expansion is very short-sighted.

[Smudger06]

5 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

Any new super league like this that ignores Toronto and thus closes the door on North American expansion is very short-sighted.

I ignored Toulouse as well, I feel guilty about excluding both but the original poster asked for criteria, I chose a simple and definitive one. 

[Smudger06]

1 hour ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

The NRL wouldn’t be interested in a merger with an underperforming, poorly attended competition like Super League. It’s that simple. They’re making a $42m profit, The RFL recorded a £1.5m loss for the year ending 31st December ‘17 and Super League Europe made a profit of £1,269 for the year ending 31st December ‘17. We’re worlds apart on and off the pitch and there’s no reason why they’d want to merge with us, it’s not beneficial to them financially or commercially. 

Rather than wanting to piggy-back onto their success, we should be striving for our own success as a game. 

 

I agree. But our success as a game is their success as a game and the other way round. 

But I bet that's what folk were saying prior to the AFL-NFL Merger that I based this on. 

[TIWIT]

2 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

I ignored Toulouse as well, I feel guilty about excluding both but the original poster asked for criteria, I chose a simple and definitive one. 

I can see that but basing a future League on criteria based on past events... you need more flexibility

And Toronto would carry a lot more weight to the casual fan in Oz than nearly all of the M62 towns

[TIWIT]

3 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

I agree. But our success as a game is their success as a game and the other way round. 

But I bet that's what folk were saying prior to the AFL-NFL Merger that I based this on. 

The reason they merged was to avoid getting into an expensive bidding war for on-field talent. More enlightened self-interest than anything else.