Any 1 from 7

[Chris22]

We now have five sides separated by just two points and all of those sides are in danger as the bottom three sides are all picking up wins. 

I've had a look over the tables in past years.  The highest points totals for a bottom placed sides are:

1. Catalans in 2006 - 16 points
2. Huddersfield in 2001 and Salford in 2007 - 13 points 

It is quite likely that whoever gets relegated may finish on a record number of points for a bottom-placed side in Super League. It will be a shame for whichever sides goes down and for the league, as all 12 sides have contributed to the league this year. Saying that, whoever does go down this year, if they retain the bulk of their squad, should bounce back next year.

Maybe in 2021, we will be in a position to expand to 14, but I don't think we should rush to it, as I don't think we have the player pool and quality to sustain it at present.

Interesting watching RL Back Chat this week, hearing Francis Cummins saying that we should change the rules to prevent Leeds getting relegated. If we believe that any club is too important or too big to go down, then we cannot have automatic relegation from Super League.

One thing that is quite unique about a relegation battle (in rugby league terms) is that it makes every round gain importance. Everything else in our sport is decided solely in a one-off match.

In an ideal world, I would quite like a 14-team Super League, with bottom place relegated automatically and first place in the Championship automatically promoted, with the 13th place Super League team having a survival play-off or perhaps entering the Championship play offs as the first ranked seed, as they do in Scottish football.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Chris22 said:

We now have five sides separated by just two points and all of those sides are in danger as the bottom three sides are all picking up wins. 

I've had a look over the tables in past years.  The highest points totals for a bottom placed sides are:

1. Catalans in 2006 - 16 points
2. Huddersfield in 2001 and Salford in 2007 - 13 points 

It is quite likely that whoever gets relegated may finish on a record number of points for a bottom-placed side in Super League. It will be a shame for whichever sides goes down and for the league, as all 12 sides have contributed to the league this year. Saying that, whoever does go down this year, if they retain the bulk of their squad, should bounce back next year.

Maybe in 2021, we will be in a position to expand to 14, but I don't think we should rush to it, as I don't think we have the player pool and quality to sustain it at present.

Interesting watching RL Back Chat this week, hearing Francis Cummins saying that we should change the rules to prevent Leeds getting relegated. If we believe that any club is too important or too big to go down, then we cannot have automatic relegation from Super League.

One thing that is quite unique about a relegation battle (in rugby league terms) is that it makes every round gain importance. Everything else in our sport is decided solely in a one-off match.

In an ideal world, I would quite like a 14-team Super League, with bottom place relegated automatically and first place in the Championship automatically promoted, with the 13th place Super League team having a survival play-off or perhaps entering the Championship play offs as the first ranked seed, as they do in Scottish football.

If you're going to do that then whoever finishes top is the SL Champions 

[Jacko45]

16 hours ago, Private Baldrick said:

Well either way, Leeds will be in the do do if they lose to Saints on Friday.

One silver lining if they do get relegated, it will put an end to the moaners and whingers of our (Fev's) dual reg partnership we have with them!  

More chance of my hair growing back than Leeds getting relegated, & if it happened sky money would drop a lot with the next tv deal & nobody would be laughing then.

[Man of Kent]

Competitive tension is good.

Leeds seem run well enough to cut their cloth accordingly if they went down and not go pop like Bradford. If not, tough titties. 

[Clogiron]

3 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Relegation and the risk of relegation is too big a risk for clubs and the game to bear and the benefits of P+R are so minor as to be inconsequential. 

The people so vociferously in favour of P+R are in favour of it because they would like their club to be promoted without it having the infrastructure necessary to take the game forward. They complain that there are clubs in SL that don't contribute to its value and they would like their club to be one of those clubs in SL not contributing to its value. 

Right now, if we made a decision to go to14 sides, no P+R, promoting Toulouse and Toronto they could be preparing for SL now, SL could go out and sell multi-year broadcast deals to france and Canada, we could be creating a package to sell to sky, putting in place the time-slots and fixtures we would need to to make it as attractive as possible to broadcasters, London could be looking at what they need to do to strengthen their young, largely british, often London developed squad, Leeds could be giving more game time to the fantastic crop of young players on cusp of breaking through, Hull KR could be investing in their youth development so they have more than 1 product getting games. 

Instead, London will be picked apart, players like Ferres will continue getting game time because its too much of a risk to rely on the likes of Holroyd and Trout, Hull KR will rely on players they have brought in from elsewhere, we can't sell tv rights because we don't know the make up of the comp.

And the biggest irony is, all this "interest" apparently being generated by the relegation dog-fight isn't attracting people to watch. 

This lack of intrest you talk of are you referring to at the gate or in TV viewer's?  Certainly for fan's of the game there's great intrest in it, Leeds being involved makes it even more so.

You can't beat a good bit of Car Crash TV,  and don't give me any of that carp about people's livelihoods being at stake, that's the nature of being a professional sportsman, you have to perform when it matters or else you get shipped out just as people in day to day life understand

[Taxi4stevesmith]

18 hours ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

The introduction of Golden Point has ruined this next week for me .... all week I’d have been praying for a draw between Broncos and KR so Leeds could be bottom

I wouldn’t be surprised if Leeds just break the salary cap to stay up and take a penalty next year. Remember Wigan a few years ago ....

Didn't you win the 2005 Grand Final signing Adrian Morley and been over the cap?

[Odsal Outlaw]

2 minutes ago, Taxi4stevesmith said:

Didn't you win the 2005 Grand Final signing Adrian Morley and been over the cap?

And?

[Taxi4stevesmith]

10 minutes ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

And?

So why so bitter if Leeds did?

[paulwalker71]

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Right now, if we made a decision to go to14 sides, no P+R, promoting Toulouse and Toronto they could be preparing for SL now, SL could go out and sell multi-year broadcast deals to france and Canada, we could be creating a package to sell to sky, putting in place the time-slots and fixtures we would need to to make it as attractive as possible to broadcasters, London could be looking at what they need to do to strengthen their young, largely british, often London developed squad, Leeds could be giving more game time to the fantastic crop of young players on cusp of breaking through, Hull KR could be investing in their youth development so they have more than 1 product getting games. 

So, to be absolutely clear, you are proposing that we change the rules of competition mid-season based on the possibility (by no means guaranteed) that 'multi-year broadcast deals' could be secured off the back of parachuting Toronto and Toulouse into what would then become a closed shop?

Can you really not see why a lot of people would have an issue with that scenario?

To be clear, I hope (and expect) that Toronto will be promoted this year, and I'd also like to see Toulouse in SL as well (although I'm not convinced they are anywhere close to being ready for it). At some stage, I'm not against the idea of a properly developed 'closed shop' top division. But why is there such a rush to do it now, even to the extent of changing the rules mid season? I don't suppose it could be connected to your club being in some danger of relegation could it?

And before you bite back, yes I am a Bulls fan and I don't want the door slamming in my clubs face. So we've all got self interest here. What I do want is for us to earn promotion, if there is going to be promotion and relegation, OR, if we are not going to have p&r, then I want us to have at least the opportunity to be considered as a candidate for that licensed / franchise league. That means putting the date for that in the future, and telling ourselves and other aspirational clubs what conditions we'd need to meet to be considered.

What I can't accept is a bunch of chairmen, some from clubs that actually contribute nothing to the size of the TV deal themselves, deciding to invite their hand-picked two clubs (only picked, if we are honest, so that we can get overseas TV deals), then telling the rest of the clubs that they can sod off, before slamming the door shut forever on them. If that happens, well, this supporter of almost 50 years will be done with RL.

[Cheshire Setter]

15 minutes ago, Taxi4stevesmith said:

So why so bitter if Leeds did?

I think he’s just championing it as a method of achieving the goal without much of a penalty!

He didn’t say he didn’t agree with it!

[GUBRATS]

16 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

So, to be absolutely clear, you are proposing that we change the rules of competition mid-season based on the possibility (by no means guaranteed) that 'multi-year broadcast deals' could be secured off the back of parachuting Toronto and Toulouse into what would then become a closed shop?

Can you really not see why a lot of people would have an issue with that scenario?

To be clear, I hope (and expect) that Toronto will be promoted this year, and I'd also like to see Toulouse in SL as well (although I'm not convinced they are anywhere close to being ready for it). At some stage, I'm not against the idea of a properly developed 'closed shop' top division. But why is there such a rush to do it now, even to the extent of changing the rules mid season? I don't suppose it could be connected to your club being in some danger of relegation could it?

And before you bite back, yes I am a Bulls fan and I don't want the door slamming in my clubs face. So we've all got self interest here. What I do want is for us to earn promotion, if there is going to be promotion and relegation, OR, if we are not going to have p&r, then I want us to have at least the opportunity to be considered as a candidate for that licensed / franchise league. That means putting the date for that in the future, and telling ourselves and other aspirational clubs what conditions we'd need to meet to be considered.

What I can't accept is a bunch of chairmen, some from clubs that actually contribute nothing to the size of the TV deal themselves, deciding to invite their hand-picked two clubs (only picked, if we are honest, so that we can get overseas TV deals), then telling the rest of the clubs that they can sod off, before slamming the door shut forever on them. If that happens, well, this supporter of almost 50 years will be done with RL.

Which is what happened to me after 3 years of licencing , it wasn't a conscious decision , I just lost interest , watching more away games than home for the day out 

[Odsal Outlaw]

2 hours ago, Cheshire Setter said:

I think he’s just championing it as a method of achieving the goal without much of a penalty!

He didn’t say he didn’t agree with it!

Indeed!

[Harry Stottle]

8 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Relegation and the risk of relegation is too big a risk for clubs and the game to bear and the benefits of P+R are so minor as to be inconsequential. 

The people so vociferously in favour of P+R are in favour of it because they would like their club to be promoted without it having the infrastructure necessary to take the game forward. They complain that there are clubs in SL that don't contribute to its value and they would like their club to be one of those clubs in SL not contributing to its value. 

Right now, if we made a decision to go to14 sides, no P+R, promoting Toulouse and Toronto they could be preparing for SL now, SL could go out and sell multi-year broadcast deals to france and Canada, we could be creating a package to sell to sky, putting in place the time-slots and fixtures we would need to to make it as attractive as possible to broadcasters, London could be looking at what they need to do to strengthen their young, largely british, often London developed squad, Leeds could be giving more game time to the fantastic crop of young players on cusp of breaking through, Hull KR could be investing in their youth development so they have more than 1 product getting games. 

Instead, London will be picked apart, players like Ferres will continue getting game time because its too much of a risk to rely on the likes of Holroyd and Trout, Hull KR will rely on players they have brought in from elsewhere, we can't sell tv rights because we don't know the make up of the comp.

And the biggest irony is, all this "interest" apparently being generated by the relegation dog-fight isn't attracting people to watch. 

What a load of gonads that is and the bit highlighted could very well be the fear of relegation from a threatend clubs supporter, your spin is as good as Alister Campbell and he was two notches below shi-ite.

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Its funny to see you pretend this is some kind of gotcha. It literally says that the threat of relegation and relegation are hugely damaging above. That is literally the reason I said I was against it

Well if the likes of you get your way, me and I am sure many others will never watch RL again and Club's may as well pack it all in. I cannot believe for the life of me why you want this closed shop scenario that stops smaller Clubs ambition stone dead. Elitism is a terrible thing.

[HKR AWAY DAYS]

On 16/06/2019 at 04:54, The Future is League said:

Now with Tony Smith in charge of KR  they will climb the table and i think we are looking at a Leeds v London shoot out for relegation

Here's hoping.

We have made an excellent start under Smith and we now have a quick turnaround before Thursday's game.

The spotlight is on Leeds it seems. I think a lot of people would love for London to stay up, nobody has really talking been about us, which is strange considering we are 11th, and Leeds seem to be in free fall.

Still plenty of games to play. I think another 4/5 wins keeps us up and London's run in is difficult.

[bamfordsbeans]

If the likes of London,Salford,Huddersfield and Wakefield are our "elite",the game is in a sorry state.

[Wolford6]

Anyway, after yesterday, I've decided that promotion is vastly overrated.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

Thread is titled 'Any 1 from 7' but quickly descended into yet another thread of people fantasising about Leeds getting relegated.....

Can't the ones of you who are getting a little too hot and sweaty about the prospect of this just set up a thread called '50 Shades of Blue & amber - my Leeds fantasy' and i'll know to avoid it. You'll be with likeminded people and as long as you keep it relatively PG I'm sure you'll help each other get the gratification you desire. 

Meanwhile......I agreed with an earlier post, we've been crying out for the league to be more balanced and competitive for a long time and with the number of clubs within 4-6 points of each other it's certainly starting to feel a bit more like that. The random blow out scores are still frustrating but usually by now there's at least one or two sides relatively cut adrift at the bottom but it doesn't look like that will be the case, which is good for a one up one down league. I hope in seasons to come the gap at the top is the talking point rather than the relegation battle but ultimately as long as there's plenty of teams still fighting for something in the latter stages then that's a great league IMO. 

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Thread is titled 'Any 1 from 7' but quickly descended into yet another thread of people fantasising about Leeds getting relegated.....

Can't the ones of you who are getting a little too hot and sweaty about the prospect of this just set up a thread called '50 Shades of Blue & amber - my Leeds fantasy' and i'll know to avoid it. You'll be with likeminded people and as long as you keep it relatively PG I'm sure you'll help each other get the gratification you desire. 

Meanwhile......I agreed with an earlier post, we've been crying out for the league to be more balanced and competitive for a long time and with the number of clubs within 4-6 points of each other it's certainly starting to feel a bit more like that. The random blow out scores are still frustrating but usually by now there's at least one or two sides relatively cut adrift at the bottom but it doesn't look like that will be the case, which is good for a one up one down league. I hope in seasons to come the gap at the top is the talking point rather than the relegation battle but ultimately as long as there's plenty of teams still fighting for something in the latter stages then that's a great league IMO. 

The gap at the top will only become more interesting when the club finishing top is proclaimed as the Champions , ATM , they are playing for home advantage in the ' main event ' 

[Faithful1865]

Can someone explain why its only a problem if Leeds are the ultimate losers. Is it a case of Animal Farm syndrome where all teams are equal but some are more equal than others. Just asking!!

[DimmestStar]

On 15/06/2019 at 20:24, The Future is League said:

Now with Tony Smith in charge of KR  they will climb the table and i think we are looking at a Leeds v London shoot out for relegation

I hope you prove to be a good judge.

Rovers have signed 3 players on loan since the win against Warrington. Harvey Livett and Luis Johnson from Warrington and Daniel Murray from Salford.

If nothing else they will add much needed depth with 3 players having to retire, another out all season and others like Lunt pretty much never available. Lannon has gone the other way to Salford but has been injured pretty much all season so in that respect won't be missed.

The biggest signing though is Tony Smith the step change in intensity since his arrival has been very noticeable.