Relegation

[Dunbar]

17 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

No we arent. Many many many sports dont have promotion and relegation. It's just wrong to say taking it away is on the road to sterility.

I am not going to get into a long protracted discussion with you on this, safe to say I know where that leads.

I will simply say we have a different opinion and leave it there.

[GUBRATS]

Anyway I've had my fun and as I don't want to upset the mods and I've some work to do , I'll leave it there

[Oxford]

NRL

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

We arent that far away from having a single division of professional clubs right now.

Expand SL to 14 and we are pretty much there

Well go on then admit your "traditional' none P&R argument is wrong based upon the facts I posted.

Professional:-

Paid or Salaried,  non amateur.

I said all professional clubs, are you suggesting a 14 team SL and scrap the rest of the full time and semi-professional clubs? That would sort out your P&R situation then!

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Is someone trying to quantify “successful” by saying it’s because of no P&R? 

Some people really waste the Internet. 

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, Oxford said:

NRL

What about it? Is it in context with a professional system.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Is someone trying to quantify “successful” by saying it’s because of no P&R? 

Some people really waste the Internet. 

Again please Ollie, lost me that one.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Do you watch the NRL or is it too sterile for you

Yes, I do.  And I love it.  It is competitive and intense from Round 1 to Round 25 and every team cares about every fixture despite the lack of relegation from the competition.

And I see your point, do you really think that I am not able to look at the NRL and see a Rugby League competition full of intensity and passion that doesn't involve P&R?  You haven't somehow caught me out and lured me into your trap.

We have to look at these things in cultural and historical context.  As far as I am aware, there is no history of P&R in the NSWRL or the NRL.  Teams beneath this layer are happy to live there and the fans seem happy as well.

From my perspective, franchising did two things to the passion/intensity in our game.

1. It led to unimportant games at the bottom of the table in SL later in the season.  For some reason in this country, the supporters seem to want every game to 'mean' something, something you don't see as much of in other sports/nations.

2. The Championship became a less relevant competition and the passion within the fan base fell away due to the lack of opportunity.

Don't get me wrong.  I agree there are benefits to be derived from the stability that the fixed model delivers.  As I say, I was a fan of franchising when it was introduced and I wanted it to be like the NRL model... but wanting something to be true does not make it so.

But, the bottom line is that it did impact on the passion in the game (from my perspective) and P&R, despite its faults, leads for a more intriguing system and season.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Ice hockey, basketball, many rugby union leagues, lots of different sports dont use P+R. It is largely the outlier not the default.

And over the last 24 years of Super league it has by no means been common enough to be the default 

There is substantial qualitative difference between those clubs. I'm not sure why are pretending there isnt. Widnes were bust a few months ago, leigh needed help to finish the season, bradford have no home and no money, why are you pretending qualitatively these clubs are the same? They obviously arent.

And even if they weren't, if there is no qualitative difference between the clubs why structure your whole game around swapping them between leagues and bringing in all the negatives and instability that brings? 

It makes no sense whatsoever that the priority of the game should be to swap clubs there is no qualitative difference between

Its not the priority its just a sporting principle.

Also, it seems Bradford Leigh and Widnes were all in SL and only hit (serious) financial problems outside of it. It seems getting 1.8 million a year helps turnover! Shock!

I have no doubt that if you dropped Wakefield, Salford etc into that scenario you'd end up with similar results.

[HawkMan]

Sorry to bring the F word into the discussion, but football has relegation, has had it for a hundred years or more, and is doing nicely thank you. Please don't say it's the money that makes P+R acceptable, if anything you would think money would make greedy club chairmen want a closed shop. But this will never happen, there would literally be riots in the streets if P+R was scrapped, not to.mention legal action, restraint of trade, that sort of argument. But why does P+R work in football? Firstly , relegation to the Championship isn't the cataclysmic drop into an abyss as is feared in RL, true teams relegated from the EPL lose money, about £90million.down to £30million, but it isn't a death sentence. Also interestingly there are big clubs in the Championship, Leeds, Nottm F, WBA to name a few, so again it isn't an abyss. Can RL replicate this at all albeit on a smaller scale. I believe it can. The key is making the RL Championship a less scary destination for relegated SL clubs. Having their own TV deal for starters, enticing Ch 4 or Ch5 with a three year offer, cheap as chips first year money, and if audience figures are good then year 2+3 the money goes up to a fair price. What I would also do is reduce the SL to eight teams, playing four times each other, 28 game regular season, no.loopy fixtures, top four in play offs. Bottom team relegated, replaced by Championship GF winners, second from bottom in play off with Championship GF runner up. So either one or two down from eight, yes that would make every game have something on it, if you're not playing for top four , you're avoiding bottom two. This means some teams with SL pedigree would be in The Championship , with only eight places in SL that's inevitable, and thereby The Championship becomes a real scrap, and it's already excellent now. To initialize this drop from 12 to 8, I'd relegate two automatically and third bottom play Championship GF winners for final SL place, this means 10 teams, then repeat following season.

More big teams with SL pedigree in Championship means some big games, good gates to look forward to, then the gap between SL and tier two isn't so scary.

Would this work, perhaps, will it happen?, no! Turkeys don't vote for Xmas. But I remind you The EPL.did reduce from 22 to 20 , so who knows.

[Liverpool Rover]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

Sorry to bring the F word into the discussion, but football has relegation, has had it for a hundred years or more, and is doing nicely thank you. Please don't say it's the money that makes P+R acceptable, if anything you would think money would make greedy club chairmen want a closed shop. But this will never happen, there would literally be riots in the streets if P+R was scrapped, not to.mention legal action, restraint of trade, that sort of argument. But why does P+R work in football? Firstly , relegation to the Championship isn't the cataclysmic drop into an abyss as is feared in RL, true teams relegated from the EPL lose money, about £90million.down to £30million, but it isn't a death sentence. Also interestingly there are big clubs in the Championship, Leeds, Nottm F, WBA to name a few, so again it isn't an abyss. Can RL replicate this at all albeit on a smaller scale. I believe it can. The key is making the RL Championship a less scary destination for relegated SL clubs. Having their own TV deal for starters, enticing Ch 4 or Ch5 with a three year offer, cheap as chips first year money, and if audience figures are good then year 2+3 the money goes up to a fair price. What I would also do is reduce the SL to eight teams, playing four times each other, 28 game regular season, no.loopy fixtures, top four in play offs. Bottom team relegated, replaced by Championship GF winners, second from bottom in play off with Championship GF runner up. So either one or two down from eight, yes that would make every game have something on it, if you're not playing for top four , you're avoiding bottom two. This means some teams with SL pedigree would be in The Championship , with only eight places in SL that's inevitable, and thereby The Championship becomes a real scrap, and it's already excellent now. To initialize this drop from 12 to 8, I'd relegate three automatically and a fourth to play Championship GF winners for final SL place.

More big teams with SL pedigree in Championship means some big games, good gates to look forward to, then the gap between SL and tier two isn't so scary.

Would this work, perhaps, will it happen?, no! Turkeys don't vote for Xmas. But I remind you The EPL.did reduce from 22 to 20 , so who knows.

There is not a chance that C4 or C5 will host championship games, if they are interested in RL at all it would only be the big clubs that would attract the biggest ratings for advertisers. Super League is the only major sellable asset that the game has and you really can't compare RL with Football. In their Championship there is a whole host of clubs who fight it out for promotion to the Premier League and there is a huge player pool for clubs to draw on. The RL Championship has only a handful of clubs that could make a decent fist of promotion and our small player pool means that it is hard for them to put a SL competitive team together.

8 teams is a no go either. Playing each other 4 times a season with playoffs and Cup will make it feel like teams are playing each other on an endless loop and there would soon be calls to increase the league and what if this season London, Hull KR and Leeds finish in the bottom 3 and go down in your system? You would lose Leeds v Wigan x4, Leeds v Saints x4, Leeds v Warrington x4, Hull v Hull KR x4 as well as Super Leagues presence in the capital and all of a sudden Super League doesn't look that attractive to broadcasters anymore. We need to be looking to increase the league more of a national and overseas presence, not contracting it and running the risk of having 8 teams from the M62 corridor.

 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Are you serious? Bradford went bust in SL and were in financial difficulties for years before hand.

Leigh have spent a grand total of 2 years in SL both of which were followed by serious financial difficulties and for some reason you want Salford et al to do the same and this is your argument in favour of P+R? That we will see more clubs suffer the problems Leigh and widnes have

Leigh didn't suffer any serious financial difficulties after their 2005 SL season until the owners business collapsed 4 years later , they actually posted a profit on that 2005 season , admitted their on field performance was terrible 

Post 2017 was a decision made by the owner to not pay a completely new squad of underperforming players a 2 nd year , simple as , on field we were very competitive and didn't finish bottom 

Nonsense by you as usual 

[Oxford]

I hate to say this but I suppose it'll be London I do hope it isn't because it's been great to have them back and I love it when all the predictions are wrong!

Eyes on the Prize Broncos, eyes on the prize!

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

So what you are saying is that Leigh is an unstable RL environment, dependent entirely on the input of its owners who haven't been able to sustain that input and both relegations have, within a few years, seen the club struggle financially. 

Why would we want that in SL and why would we want other clubs to suffer the same issues?

You can spin things anyway you want , I was just pointing out the nonsense you had posted as usual 

[davet]

So, who does everyone will get relegated again??  I seemed to have forgotten who said who after reading all the 12 pages of posts!!

[Lowdesert]

34 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Removed from the context of previous posts maybe. 

As ive said, 'those that don't' means the clubs held up as examples of clubs by those advocating P+R as been similar clubs who have been relegated and not gone bust.

 

That’s clear then.

[Dunbar]

38 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

As ive said, 'those that don't' means the clubs held up as examples of clubs by those advocating P+R as been similar clubs who have been relegated and not gone bust.

Sir Humphrey?

[LR23]

22 minutes ago, davet said:

So, who does everyone will get relegated again??  I seemed to have forgotten who said who after reading all the 12 pages of posts!!

I did think London due to their points difference but I'm edging towards Huddersfield as they look done in terms of confidence. The effort is there but there is no spark in attack at all. London just keep on bouncing back.

[Oxford]

2 minutes ago, LR23 said:

I did think London due to their points difference but I'm edging towards Huddersfield as they look done in terms of confidence. The effort is there but there is no spark in attack at all. London just keep on bouncing back.

That's a good call and I'd hate to lose the Giants too!

[GUBRATS]

33 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Sir Humphrey?

" If you can't blind them with brilliance , baffle them with ******** " as the saying goes