If Leeds Finish Bottom (or London for that matter)

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Is that all we’re using as a measure, if a team has beaten a current Super League team recently or not? So have Oldham and Swinton, are we chucking them in to the mix too? 

Do any of those teams, excluding Toronto, have the infrastructure and finances in place to compete in Super League over the short (1-5 years), medium (6-9 years) and long term (10+ years)? Three of the clubs you mention have had financial difficulties in the last five years, two of them in the last twelve months. 

 

Toronto could outspend a significant chunk of SL. Toulouse look like for the foreseeable future to be playing in one of Club Rugby's most successful grounds, which is surely a better basis for growth than Wheldon Road or Belle Vue. Both would be spending to cap in SL, which has been a real problem in the recent past.

Its not about whether current championship clubs are currently SL worthy, its a circular argument as that's why they're in the championship. But with such a relatively low salary cap, its about whether there are 14 RL clubs in the league who can spend close to that cap whilst maintaining/expanding their off field operations. Currently we have 12 in SL, you might argue less as some clubs deliberately do not spend to cap.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Toronto could outspend a significant chunk of SL. Toulouse look like for the foreseeable future to be playing in one of Club Rugby's most successful grounds, which is surely a better basis for growth than Wheldon Road or Belle Vue. Both would be spending to cap in SL, which has been a real problem in the recent past.

Its not about whether current championship clubs are currently SL worthy, its a circular argument as that's why they're in the championship. But with such a relatively low salary cap, its about whether there are 14 RL clubs in the league who can spend close to that cap whilst maintaining/expanding their off field operations. Currently we have 12 in SL, you might argue less as some clubs deliberately do not spend to cap.

Championship clubs have the same salary cap as Super League, so a club could hypothetically spend up to the cap. However their central funding, if they receive it, is where the big difference is, as it’s significantly lower. 

It actually is whether clubs are, in your words, “SL worthy” as we have to have clubs who are worthy of their place in the competition. I’m not saying the measure is on the pitch, it shouldn’t be. It’s about club’s infrastructure’s, not so much their results on pitch. Clubs need to be able to afford to be there and as you say, their ability to spend the cap, or close to the cap, over an extended period should be measured. 

[GUBRATS]

Or if they win the competition below to ,' earn ' the right to play in the top tier 

[GUBRATS]

10 hours ago, rhinos78 said:

Yeah that would be a concern, but its not really the point im making. Most people , me included,think 14 teams is a good idea , my point is more the timing, that if it is going to happen, next season potentially  looks a good time to do it with how everythings shaping up in the lower leagues, the expansion teams  and no one being out of there depth in superleague. Again, its just my opinion, we'v all got one on the structure. If theres no plans for it atall then its a moot point.

On your point, i think Torontos current squad would be competitive already, theyd obviously look to improve but they wouldnt be your usual championship team coming up. Would only really be one club needing to find players, London didnt sign a great deal and theyv held there own, it could give more young players would get a chance at superleague level. The concern id have is that teams would keep hold of these young players to fill out there reserves.

I saw 2 teams today who are out of their depth in SL 

[rhinos78]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I saw 2 teams today who are out of their depth in SL 

Give it 20 minutes and a few facts and you'l say you meant Salford and Hull KR

[Oxford]

If Leeds Finish Bottom

 

They won't

[solly]

On 25/05/2019 at 19:55, dkw said:

Fully agree with this, if Leeds went down it should be used as a vehicle to promote the championship rather than denigrate it. Point out that a strong international theme led to toulouse/Toronto being promoted to take Leeds place, and that a league with Leeds, widnes, Bradford etc is also a strong one. 

This and the post you referred to have been the only sensible posts so far.

Everything else has been thumb twiddling in front of a mirror.

[HKR AWAY DAYS]

Leeds going down would be absolutely insane but Wigan aren't out the mix either. Can you imagine it? Mental.

[The Future is League]

1 hour ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

Leeds going down would be absolutely insane but Wigan aren't out the mix either. Can you imagine it? Mental.

I think you Robins fans can rest easy now as I'm certain that London will go down

[HKR AWAY DAYS]

14 hours ago, The Future is League said:

I think you Robins fans can rest easy now as I'm certain that London will go down

We certainly can't do that, we are still hovering. The smart tip was London down but I don't think anyone would have put money on Leeds being in such strife. Good for the competition overall though.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

I think Super League should be a 14 team competition, but not in 2020, it’s too late in the day for that. Teams need to know what they are playing for in terms of promotion and relegation before the start of the season.

A 14 team Super League from 2021 is what should happen. No relegation and 2 teams to be promoted in 2020, top of the Championship and the play off winner. 

[David Shepherd]

On 24/05/2019 at 22:57, The British Lion said:

Apologies if this has already been covered. I couldn't see that it has.

If Leeds continue in what looks to be a huge struggle for them, and they finish bottom - do you think the SL and The RFL will stop this happening?

London, also, having only just made it back to SL, and people believing we need a successful London team in the comp (I am one of those btw)

 

With Toronto and Toulouse sitting 1st and 2nd, could the authorities be justified in promoting both these teams to make the numbers up to 14, ditch the stupid loop fixtures, and provide expansion, and security for 2 big name teams?

How would you fans feel about this?

Im not overly keen on overriding the promotion and relegation set up. However, personally I believe it would be smart to protect Leeds and London, and promote 2 expansion teams, in Toulouse and Toronto.

Thoughts?

 

You just can't change the rules mid season.

If Leeds go down, then they're to blame.  They'll have a year of getting back some humility and visit a few places they've not been to for a while.  It'll do them the world of good and will no doubt be a one season blip.

 

[lucky 7]

In the unlikely event of Leeds finishing bottom my money would be on fact that they wont get relegated. The rules would be changed so they didn't.

London and Hull KR wont get the same favourable treatment if they finish bottom

[overtheborder]

On 26/05/2019 at 09:36, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Championship clubs have the same salary cap as Super League, so a club could hypothetically spend up to the cap. However their central funding, if they receive it, is where the big difference is, as it’s significantly lower. 

It actually is whether clubs are, in your words, “SL worthy” as we have to have clubs who are worthy of their place in the competition. I’m not saying the measure is on the pitch, it shouldn’t be. It’s about club’s infrastructure’s, not so much their results on pitch. Clubs need to be able to afford to be there and as you say, their ability to spend the cap, or close to the cap, over an extended period should be measured. 

I'm not sure it matters whether the clubs can spend anywhere near the cap or not to be honest. For me i think a club's measure of being SL worthy should be their results, while being aware of the effects of good infrastructure on them. But infrastructure looks differently from club to club. One club's infrastructure is a big-signing, big-spending culture that spends up to the cap on wages, whereas another's is a tightly run ship with an astute coach and lots of top local academy players coming through. If the clubs get it right, and get the results off the back of it, then to me that measures worthiness - not from a revenue-generating/TV perspective necessarily, but from a sporting perspective, which for me is how it should be.

[overtheborder]

Going back to the original question, i'm not sure if the RFL would stop it, but i i don't think they should if it's at the expense of a promoted side. Stop a club going down by all means if it makes sense, but not at the expense of blocking another, and if the plan would be to expand then it should be before the season starts and before there's any indication of which team is struggling so it's not based on keeping a specific club in the league.

[DEANO]

I would say the championship and league 1 clubs give sl clubs players. They also keep sl players fit on dual reg. it also gives older players somewhere to play when sl no longer wants them

[HKR AWAY DAYS]

22 hours ago, SL17 said:

It will just get blamed on P&R anyhow, parachute payment and all is good again.

I am anti-P&R. I don't believe the game is strong enough to sustain it for a few reasons - but that's another discussion all together.

It is hard to see where London's next win is coming from; it is Saints at home then they're away in France. By the time we go there we could be 6 points from 12th. 

 

[TIWIT]

If, for instance, Leeds, or London, finish last and Toronto wins the Championship and SL then decides that sorry, this year there will be no relegation/promotion, two things will happen:

1. TWP will cease to exist as Argyle will want nothing to do with with SL/RFL

2. SL/RFL will destroy any credibility they have with the sporting public

[rhinos78]

1 hour ago, TIWIT said:

If, for instance, Leeds, or London, finish last and Toronto wins the Championship and SL then decides that sorry, this year there will be no relegation/promotion, two things will happen:

1. TWP will cease to exist as Argyle will want nothing to do with with SL/RFL

2. SL/RFL will destroy any credibility they have with the sporting public

Agreed. Dont think theres any chance of that happening though, Toronto will 100% be promoted if they win the championship and rightly so.

[DEANO]

3 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

So they exist and take players from the SL clubs. That is their selfless, altruistic contribution. 

I take it your team will never be relegat

[Lobbygobbler]

10 hours ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

I am anti-P&R. I don't believe the game is strong enough to sustain it for a few reasons - but that's another discussion all together.

It is hard to see where London's next win is coming from; it is Saints at home then they're away in France. By the time we go there we could be 6 points from 12th. 

 

Were you anti-P&R after your club went down?

[lucky 7]

If Leeds were to finish bottom of Super League and were not relegated through a smoke and mirrors job, i and many others will be finished with the game.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Why do people think Leeds wouldn't get relegated if they finished bottom? What evidence is there of this conspiracy theory happening in the past?

[Chrispmartha]

16 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

If Leeds were to finish bottom of Super League and were not relegated through a smoke and mirrors job, i and many others will be finished with the game.

But what if they announced it soonish, they wouldn’t be doing it to keep Leeds up, more likely to keep London up!

IMO they missed a trick when London got promoted, they should have announced it straight away that 2 from the championship go up and none relegated from SL creating a SL with potentially Toronto and Toulouse in it along with London.

which IMO would be the way to go.

I would have no issues with them changing during this season but would if they wait to see who finishes bottom.

FWIW people worrying about what the wider sporting public would think is a nonsense, the wider sporting public wouldn’t give a

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

I am anti-P&R. I don't believe the game is strong enough to sustain it for a few reasons - but that's another discussion all together.

It is hard to see where London's next win is coming from; it is Saints at home then they're away in France. By the time we go there we could be 6 points from 12th. 

 

Would you still be anti-P&R if your club was in the Championship?