Leeds are my bet to go down

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, redsi42 said:

Lui may or may not be the answer for Leeds but its testament to the morals of the sport it happy to maintain the status quo by allowing a financially better off club to pick players up from a club with the potential to have a better season than them because they can’t afford to keep them.  What a level playing field.  It’s a joke.  

What do you want the sport to do and how is it different to any other sport?

Maybe Salford welcome the cash injection too.

[redsi42]

It’s not a Salford thing.  I didn’t want the sport to end up like football, but without the fan or player base. I’d like it to be different to every other sport where cash isn't the only way to success.  Oh what a dream! 

Yes I know it has been for a long time but I’m board of it.

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Attendances at Leigh dropped from 2600 to just over 1200 by the time licencing was abandoned , expect similar from the top 4/5 Championship clubs if it was reintroduced , there won't be any heartland ' successful clubs ' to replace any failing SL club

The assumption you are making is Leigh is not a full time club.

 

[rhinos78]

Is Lui any good? He'l be a massive improvement over Suttcliffe or Myler but havnt paid enough attention to him to know how good he is. 

Be nice to get honest opinions and not he's ###### because he looks to be joining Leeds. Cheers.

[The Parksider]

20 hours ago, Clogiron said:

Is it really worth the effort to reply??

No because it's game over. For the trillionth time the measure of Toronto's success agreed by both the game here and the mastermind of the Transatlantic League was they had to provide NATV money and NA players. They did neither and there is no sign of them ever doing this, so that really is that for SL. Change the goalposts every day if you want, but to date it's a total failure and if you really want to push it write to Mr. McManus who openly concluded all we have after 3 years is an Aussie with an English team in Canadian jerseys.

21 hours ago, hrtbps said:

If we're to remove free and fair promotion and relegation at the behest of Sky or anyone else, you may as well do away with any pretense that RL is a sport and recategorise it with WWE as sports entertainment. 

I have set out for you where "free and fair promotion" in your head was blocked (Hunslet, Dewsbury etc) and where clubs were "promoted" when they had not won anything (Crusaders, Catalans etc) and here we are years later and no we are not categorised as WWE. The choice of clubs to put on TV is important so it is rightly not always left to chance. For the trillionth time the game is under pinned by British fans buying SKY subs to watch their clubs, so Superleague needs to contain the best and biggest of these clubs who also produce the players and not relegate them. 

ESPECIALLY LEEDS

21 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

If Sky said they wanted Leeds up, Toronto were happy to take their funding from the sales of their rights outside of the UK(i.e they took none of the central funding from the Sky deal) 14 clubs would be a no brainer

Your the no brainer, Toronto have failed to deliver their own measures of success, see the the post at the top.How many more failed clubs who offer nothing to the game here would you allow into Superleague on the basis they "don't take any SKY money"

Why not fast track Ottawa and New York if they will enter SL straightaway and not take the SKY money? Let's go to 16 eh?

23 hours ago, Moove said:

1. Do you view licensing as the way forward? Or is the preference simply to remove Toronto and redistribute their players back to UK teams?  If Featherstone or Leigh win the Championship should they be refused entry if Leeds finish bottom? I imagine less Sky dishes are sold in those places too.

2. Just interested in what you see being the preferred solution. Not just a restating of perceived problems with Toronto either.

Thank heavens for a sensible point to debate. 

1. Absolutely not. It was disingenuous claiming Licensing was about picking the best clubs rather than leave that to chance. It was about getting Celtic Crusaders in SL and protecting Catalans and London from relegation. It was about (real) expansion.

 2. We have the “preferred solution” NOW. Superleague is undoubtedly run by the rich club owners and rightly so. It’s their money. They pull out and RL is dead. You have to let them decide. They have made it clear they do not want a transatlantic League, they have made it clear Toronto is a phoney club run by an Aussie dressing up players from the player pool here as Canadians. They are correct.

 As for “disbanding" Toronto, Why? the Championship clubs want them as they do Ottawa??. Let them carry on there until they can produce the players and some TV money, that's fair enough isn't it? What I would do is salary cap the championship again so the best players all go to Superleague which makes sense - let the North Americans develop their own, which again makes sense doesn't it?.

 Your Featherstone.v.Leigh point is fascinating and brings back memories for me of their Grand Final at Headingley. If this came about again The SL bosses would promote Leigh if they won as Mr. Beaumont has promised heavy investment again, but they would not promote Featherstone as they don’t have the adequate backing to compete. You may remember their collapse when Faisal Nahaboo walked out?   

They appear to have already decided on Toulouse if you read the McManus interview in full (I don't discount a moment of madness and TWP somehow get promoted). He states they want Toulouse and do not want Toronto. The real world on topic key question is would they go forward with Toulouse if Leeds came bottom? What do you think?

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, TheLegendOfTexEvans said:

The assumption you are making is Leigh is not a full time club.

 

Leigh will never be given a SL licence IMO

[Moove]

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

What do you think?

I also think the current solution is the best. If Leeds finish bottom they go down and we let the chips fall where they may.

As for who replaces them, it should be whoever wins the championship. There should be more clarity from SL as to what the minimum entry criteria is though - if that still exists. I want transparency, not rules changing on a whim at the end of the season.

Not sure about applying a more stringent salary cap to the championship though - unless it was high enough to promote some level of ambition and reduce the financial step up on promotion. I'd rather look for ways to increase commercial income than force everyone to spend at Swinton's level. If Leeds go down but can still afford to pay every player's current salary (or equivalent to some half decent ones ;)) then I'd rather they do that.

As for Toronto, they were made to pay £500k for the privilege of joining our league structure. The rules at the time included the same pathway to SL which is afforded to any club currently. If there are additional rules which are a prerequisite then this should be made clear (publicly), not drip fed in statements from several chairmen. To reject clubs arbitrarily or with changed rules would set a dangerous precedent and I imagine would put off anyone investing in other lower league clubs, existing or new, expansion or otherwise.

[redsi42]

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

No because it's game over. For the trillionth time the measure of Toronto's success agreed by both the game here and the mastermind of the Transatlantic League was they had to provide NATV money and NA players. They did neither and there is no sign of them ever doing this, so that really is that for SL. Change the goalposts every day if you want, but to date it's a total failure and if you really want to push it write to Mr. McManus who openly concluded all we have after 3 years is an Aussie with an English team in Canadian jerseys.

I have set out for you where "free and fair promotion" in your head was blocked (Hunslet, Dewsbury etc) and where clubs were "promoted" when they had not won anything (Crusaders, Catalans etc) and here we are years later and no we are not categorised as WWE. The choice of clubs to put on TV is important so it is rightly not always left to chance. For the trillionth time the game is under pinned by British fans buying SKY subs to watch their clubs, so Superleague needs to contain the best and biggest of these clubs who also produce the players and not relegate them. 

ESPECIALLY LEEDS

Your the no brainer, Toronto have failed to deliver their own measures of success, see the the post at the top.How many more failed clubs who offer nothing to the game here would you allow into Superleague on the basis they "don't take any SKY money"

Why not fast track Ottawa and New York if they will enter SL straightaway and not take the SKY money? Let's go to 16 eh?

Thank heavens for a sensible point to debate. 

1. Absolutely not. It was disingenuous claiming Licensing was about picking the best clubs rather than leave that to chance. It was about getting Celtic Crusaders in SL and protecting Catalans and London from relegation. It was about (real) expansion.

 2. We have the “preferred solution” NOW. Superleague is undoubtedly run by the rich club owners and rightly so. It’s their money. They pull out and RL is dead. You have to let them decide. They have made it clear they do not want a transatlantic League, they have made it clear Toronto is a phoney club run by an Aussie dressing up players from the player pool here as Canadians. They are correct.

 As for “disbanding" Toronto, Why? the Championship clubs want them as they do Ottawa??. Let them carry on there until they can produce the players and some TV money, that's fair enough isn't it? What I would do is salary cap the championship again so the best players all go to Superleague which makes sense - let the North Americans develop their own, which again makes sense doesn't it?.

 Your Featherstone.v.Leigh point is fascinating and brings back memories for me of their Grand Final at Headingley. If this came about again The SL bosses would promote Leigh if they won as Mr. Beaumont has promised heavy investment again, but they would not promote Featherstone as they don’t have the adequate backing to compete. You may remember their collapse when Faisal Nahaboo walked out?   

They appear to have already decided on Toulouse if you read the McManus interview in full (I don't discount a moment of madness and TWP somehow get promoted). He states they want Toulouse and do not want Toronto. The real world on topic key question is would they go forward with Toulouse if Leeds came bottom? What do you think?

That’s a cracking wind up post.  We the rich clubs will decide who gets to play with the big boys but be careful not to rock the status quo play if you play too well we’ll have have your players.  If you show too much ambition we’ll stop you even getting in the first place.  

Ha ha what a joke you think your the saviours of rl when really by stiffing the competition your really just removing the element of chance that makes sport fun and interesting for everyone else.

 Your right though if the big clubs went it would be the end of super league but by then only fans of the big clubs would care.

[Davo5]

3 hours ago, The Parksider said:

No because it's game over. For the trillionth time the measure of Toronto's success agreed by both the game here and the mastermind of the Transatlantic League was they had to provide NATV money and NA players. They did neither and there is no sign of them ever doing this, so that really is that for SL. Change the goalposts every day if you want, but to date it's a total failure and if you really want to push it write to Mr. McManus who openly concluded all we have after 3 years is an Aussie with an English team in Canadian jerseys.

I have set out for you where "free and fair promotion" in your head was blocked (Hunslet, Dewsbury etc) and where clubs were "promoted" when they had not won anything (Crusaders, Catalans etc) and here we are years later and no we are not categorised as WWE. The choice of clubs to put on TV is important so it is rightly not always left to chance. For the trillionth time the game is under pinned by British fans buying SKY subs to watch their clubs, so Superleague needs to contain the best and biggest of these clubs who also produce the players and not relegate them. 

ESPECIALLY LEEDS

Your the no brainer, Toronto have failed to deliver their own measures of success, see the the post at the top.How many more failed clubs who offer nothing to the game here would you allow into Superleague on the basis they "don't take any SKY money"

Why not fast track Ottawa and New York if they will enter SL straightaway and not take the SKY money? Let's go to 16 eh?

Thank heavens for a sensible point to debate. 

1. Absolutely not. It was disingenuous claiming Licensing was about picking the best clubs rather than leave that to chance. It was about getting Celtic Crusaders in SL and protecting Catalans and London from relegation. It was about (real) expansion.

 2. We have the “preferred solution” NOW. Superleague is undoubtedly run by the rich club owners and rightly so. It’s their money. They pull out and RL is dead. You have to let them decide. They have made it clear they do not want a transatlantic League, they have made it clear Toronto is a phoney club run by an Aussie dressing up players from the player pool here as Canadians. They are correct.

 As for “disbanding" Toronto, Why? the Championship clubs want them as they do Ottawa??. Let them carry on there until they can produce the players and some TV money, that's fair enough isn't it? What I would do is salary cap the championship again so the best players all go to Superleague which makes sense - let the North Americans develop their own, which again makes sense doesn't it?.

 Your Featherstone.v.Leigh point is fascinating and brings back memories for me of their Grand Final at Headingley. If this came about again The SL bosses would promote Leigh if they won as Mr. Beaumont has promised heavy investment again, but they would not promote Featherstone as they don’t have the adequate backing to compete. You may remember their collapse when Faisal Nahaboo walked out?   

They appear to have already decided on Toulouse if you read the McManus interview in full (I don't discount a moment of madness and TWP somehow get promoted). He states they want Toulouse and do not want Toronto. The real world on topic key question is would they go forward with Toulouse if Leeds came bottom? What do you think?

ZZZzzzzzzzzz

[Rupert Prince]

11 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Attendances at Leigh dropped from 2600 to just over 1200 by the time licencing was abandoned , expect similar from the top 4/5 Championship clubs if it was reintroduced , there won't be any heartland ' successful clubs ' to replace any failing SL club

How did teams survive in the era before 2 Divisions then?  There was no promotion relegation then. There was just effectively licencing for 30 clubs.

[Clogiron]

5 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

How did teams survive in the era before 2 Divisions then?  There was no promotion relegation then. There was just effectively licencing for 30 clubs.

The demographics of the population around clubs was different, people had less choices for their entertainment, they didn't tend to travel but probably walked to their local ground.   There was more local derbies, fans got to see the top clubs in their counties at there local ground, a smaller club had more chance of retaining good players instead of them being hoovered up by the big teams and with a transfer system a smaller club could sell players to balance the books and there was more chance of seeing a upset in a cup game that people looked forward to.

Different times, different circumstances, different people, but you can never go back.

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Leigh will never be given a SL licence IMO

May be not but I am arguing the game needs to go through a rationalisation process.

At the moment it's stumbling around from one disaster to another with no whole game plan.

We need to think different, even our current process for expansion is a contradiction.

Its all fish in a leaky barrel and the solution is to kill the small fish rather than sort out the leak.

It needs vision and people who can think a few steps ahead.

 

[Rupert Prince]

22 minutes ago, Clogiron said:

The demographics of the population around clubs was different, people had less choices for their entertainment, they didn't tend to travel but probably walked to their local ground.   There was more local derbies, fans got to see the top clubs in their counties at there local ground, a smaller club had more chance of retaining good players instead of them being hoovered up by the big teams and with a transfer system a smaller club could sell players to balance the books and there was more chance of seeing a upset in a cup game that people looked forward to.

Different times, different circumstances, different people, but you can never go back.

Your comment about transfer system is a good point well made.  It does not benefit teams these days.

Bateman came from Bradford and Smithies from Halifax... both products of the Wigan scouting and Academy system.  There is an argument for saying Smithies is the next best big new thing, and both the above clubs missed out on finding them.

[Lobbygobbler]

3 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

How did teams survive in the era before 2 Divisions then?  There was no promotion relegation then. There was just effectively licencing for 30 clubs.

Except that every club played against the top clubs, so the crowds were great even at the bottom

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

How did teams survive in the era before 2 Divisions then?  There was no promotion relegation then. There was just effectively licencing for 30 clubs.

As the other posters have alluded to , everybody was in SL , playing some of the top teams every year 

[Southern Reiver]

7 hours ago, Clogiron said:

The demographics of the population around clubs was different, people had less choices for their entertainment, they didn't tend to travel but probably walked to their local ground.   There was more local derbies, fans got to see the top clubs in their counties at there local ground, a smaller club had more chance of retaining good players instead of them being hoovered up by the big teams and with a transfer system a smaller club could sell players to balance the books and there was more chance of seeing a upset in a cup game that people looked forward to.

Different times, different circumstances, different people, but you can never go back.

Agreed. They were also all semi-pro so moving further was a big decision (it still is for some as Mum wont be doing their washing and cooking). The Economy was tanking (3 day week and all), we had a coal industry and RU wasn’t much better than pub rugby.  It was also the last time we beat Oz in a test series before they started to become more professional and left us behind.  A different era completely. 

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, TheLegendOfTexEvans said:

May be not but I am arguing the game needs to go through a rationalisation process.

At the moment it's stumbling around from one disaster to another with no whole game plan.

We need to think different, even our current process for expansion is a contradiction.

Its all fish in a leaky barrel and the solution is to kill the small fish rather than sort out the leak.

It needs vision and people who can think a few steps ahead.

 

' Rationalisation ' meaning , dumping or merging ?

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

' Rationalisation ' meaning , dumping or merging ?

No sitting down and bring in business experts to look at clubs business plans and the business plan for each competition\league.

Working out which clubs have viable business plans to be full time professional and which club needs to operate in the older semi professional model.

At the moment the plan appears to be to let clubs mismanage themselves until they naturally go out of business.

If in the past I have been able to predict which clubs are going to be going out of business 12 months ahead, pretty sure the business model of the whole competition is wrong.

 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, TheLegendOfTexEvans said:

No sitting down and bring in business experts to look at clubs business plans and the business plan for each competition\league.

Working out which clubs have viable business plans to be full time professional and which club needs to operate in the older semi professional model.

At the moment the plan appears to be to let clubs mismanage themselves until they naturally go out of business.

If in the past I have been able to predict which clubs are going to be going out of business 12 months ahead, pretty sure the business model of the whole competition is wrong.

 

' business plans ' , not worth a carrot , especially those which are dramatically affected by the bounce of a ball 

[GUBRATS]

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Isnt the more likely answer that the just didn't survive, hence there more pro clubs in more areas now than then

I suppose it depends which particular year we are talking about ?

I'll let you decide 

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

' business plans ' , not worth a carrot , especially those which are dramatically affected by the bounce of a ball 

Completely disagree, fail to plan.  Your planning to fail.

Ask Leeds United.  

[headtackle]

Can't see Leeds finishing bottom as the cynic in me suspects that they may start to get the rub of the green with some refereeing decisions to avoid the possibility

If they do however whilst it would be great fun it would cause some issues for the game as a whole 

Do we really want to lose a club like Leeds to the Championship at a time when we seem to be focusing on big city clubs as a means of attracting the international element

If Leeds went down would we be opening the door to the Union club. probably not but they wouldnt half milk it

Depending to your answer to the first question to make sure we don't lose the high profile "bigger" clubs are some clubs to be treated as too big to fail. I don't think so as would be unfair but then again Leeds is not my team

Would they be guaranteed to return quickly. Who knows - Leigh and Widnes havent and with Toulouse pushing hard for a SL place no guarantees

Interesting times !

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Well I would say the final year of 1 league system would be the obvious one if we are talking about clubs surviving, we had less clubs then that we do now

Did we ever have 37 clubs in 1 league?

Well on a different thread your ' year ' was like 70 years apart , so I couldn't give a sheeeiiit really ,fill your boots 

[redsi42]

The thing is rl as a hole doesn’t attract anyone people seem to think we need teams like Leeds to hold up rl which is rubbish.

to most people outside rl Leeds is just a little town up north. The other big rl towns would fair worse. 

What rl needs is a strong competition with competitive matches and some and this is the one thing it’s really missing, marketing. 

 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

8 hours ago, redsi42 said:

The thing is rl as a hole doesn’t attract anyone people seem to think we need teams like Leeds to hold up rl which is rubbish.

to most people outside rl Leeds is just a little town up north. The other big rl towns would fair worse. 

What rl needs is a strong competition with competitive matches and some and this is the one thing it’s really missing, marketing. 

 

Which rock do you live under? Depending on which figures you go by, Leeds is either the 3rd or 5th biggest city in the UK. That aside, Leeds along with Wigan and Saints are the biggest names in the game in the Northern Hemisphere. So yes, their ‘demise’ would have a huge impact and not for the good.