Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martyn Sadler

The structural problem that hampers Super League

Recommended Posts

The cliff edge is the structural problem. The voting issue is a governance problem. 

Clubs arent going to vote long term for the benefit of the game when there is a chance they will fall off the edge of a cliff if they have a bad year.

Why are wakefield ever going to be in favour of building Toronto if the benefit of a strong toronto comes when Wakefield are in the championship? The answer is, they arent. It's a mirror image of the championship, championship clubs dont make the best decisions for the championship because they dont want to be in it. Super league struggles to make the best decisions for SL because the priority for some clubs is just staying in it.

Whilst ever the game is build around clubs hanging on to the coat tails of the big clubs and hoping to jump on those coat tails it is never going to be anything other than underinvested and short term

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a saying that timing is everything and while I don’t necessarily think the games journalists should force positive stories or paint the game out to be anything that it isn’t but given we’ve got the Super League champions days away from facing the back-to-back NRL champions, to earn the right to be called the best club rugby league side on the planet, I will question the timing of Martyn Sadler here. 

It’s also not like there isn’t anything to talk about either. Mark Percival was done for last week and now he’s likely to line up against Sydney, putting off an operation for another week, Round Three into the season and the only side with a 100% record is Huddersfield Giants, with their first ever marquee player Aidan Sezer (do we make enough noise as a game about marquee players and clubs’ use of the ruling?), Salford’s two impressive home attendances so far, Matty Ashton looking like the best English prospect at fullback since Sam Tomkins emerged on the scene, three teams in the Championship flying out of the traps in Leigh, London and Toulouse, many people’s dark horses York starting off with back-to-back defeats, the links between Rochdale Hornets, the forces and Fiji ahead of the Hornets playing The Army in the Cup, a local derby between Cas and Wakefield coming up this weekend, Hull KR v Huddersfield and many thinking it would have been a “four pointer” so early in the season, Toronto returning to Warrington for the first time since they hit the self destruct button there in the Cup a couple of years ago and Wigan playing Hull this weekend in a game many can’t call. 

We’ve had many a good Rugby League piece in various forms this week, the podcast with Paul Sculthorpe talking about the 2007 WCC game and the Regan Grace piece where it talks about him as a lad at Aberavon are two that come to mind  and this isn’t the worst article I’ve seen ever or even from Sadler but it’s timing, for me at least, is poor. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Why are wakefield ever going to be in favour of building Toronto if the benefit of a strong toronto comes when Wakefield are in the championship? The answer is, they arent. 

Oh? What have Wakefield voted against, regarding "building" Toronto?

Is there a reason you have named them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to be able to grow the number of top level teams... and subsequently the player pool... without increasing the number of games and still keeping the competition vibrant and exciting week by week ... culminating in a play off system, the contenders for which are unpredictable. 
 

in my opinion we do not need a super LEAGUE we need Superleague (reference the sport not the structure) to be a conference based competition ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one knows what they want the sport to look like in the future. Are we going trans Atlantic? Two French teams? 14 teams? Promotion and relegation? Licensing and franchising? Clubs are more bothered about surviving than thriving.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

There’s a saying that timing is everything and while I don’t necessarily think the games journalists should force positive stories or paint the game out to be anything that it isn’t but given we’ve got the Super League champions days away from facing the back-to-back NRL champions, to earn the right to be called the best club rugby league side on the planet, I will question the timing of Martyn Sadler here. 

It’s also not like there isn’t anything to talk about either. Mark Percival was done for last week and now he’s likely to line up against Sydney, putting off an operation for another week, Round Three into the season and the only side with a 100% record is Huddersfield Giants, with their first ever marquee player Aidan Sezer (do we make enough noise as a game about marquee players and clubs’ use of the ruling?), Salford’s two impressive home attendances so far, Matty Ashton looking like the best English prospect at fullback since Sam Tomkins emerged on the scene, three teams in the Championship flying out of the traps in Leigh, London and Toulouse, many people’s dark horses York starting off with back-to-back defeats, the links between Rochdale Hornets, the forces and Fiji ahead of the Hornets playing The Army in the Cup, a local derby between Cas and Wakefield coming up this weekend, Hull KR v Huddersfield and many thinking it would have been a “four pointer” so early in the season, Toronto returning to Warrington for the first time since they hit the self destruct button there in the Cup a couple of years ago and Wigan playing Hull this weekend in a game many can’t call. 

We’ve had many a good Rugby League piece in various forms this week, the podcast with Paul Sculthorpe talking about the 2007 WCC game and the Regan Grace piece where it talks about him as a lad at Aberavon are two that come to mind  and this isn’t the worst article I’ve seen ever or even from Sadler but it’s timing, for me at least, is poor. 

Who is this "Sadler" of whom you talk? Your post reads to me as if you have some sort of problem with Martyn and possibly with LE, or are a competitor maybe. 

I've not read this week's issue yet but I fully expect that it will cover a wide range of issues like the ones you mention. 

Superleague, it's constituent clubs, the RFL, and indeed the whole of the UK game are small fry, small businesses in fact, so maybe the accepted corporate definitions of role such as CEO don't fully apply.

Nevertheless, this definition captures the essence. 

"The CEO is responsible for the overall success of a business entity or other organization and for making top-level managerial decisions. They may ask for input on major decisions, but they are the ultimate authority in making final decisions."

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/careers/jobs/what-is-a-ceo-chief-executive-officer/


Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is a conflict of interest. Everything about RL has that issue. As long as the NRL and SL run the show, the game will be held back by self interest instead of the overall benefit of the game. The two pro comps generate the money so they call the tune. In fact, over the last few years, they seem to have tightened their grip on proceedings. 

The expansion of the game in Australasia that was going on a few decades back has been stalled for some time now. The opportunities of France and North America (the latter handed to SL on a plate) risk being lost. Nothing will change unless those guiding the game can do so without conflict of interest.

I can only assume that paying Robert Elstone big money was to use his expertise. Is it now a case of SL clubs can’t help themselves interfering and limiting his influence to ensure they get what they want? If so, what a waste of money.

  • Like 2

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously don’t care about all this nonsense, Toronto are the best thing to happen to our game in years.

Anti expansionists can always go watch a pennine division 5 match if they want to see “good old fashioned rugby league” 

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dboy said:

Oh? What have Wakefield voted against, regarding "building" Toronto?

Is there a reason you have named them?

I'm not having a go at them. Just highlighting that there are times that the interests of toronto, wakefield and the long term growth of the league will be in conflict 

And whilst they are in a structure which basically means one club must face the cliff edge every year they arent going to making decisions for the longer term or wider good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Wollongong said:

We have to be able to grow the number of top level teams... and subsequently the player pool... without increasing the number of games and still keeping the competition vibrant and exciting week by week ... culminating in a play off system, the contenders for which are unpredictable. 
 

in my opinion we do not need a super LEAGUE we need Superleague (reference the sport not the structure) to be a conference based competition ... 

And therein is the problem of multiple start ups in North America, any club there will be totally relient on others producing player's capable of Super League status for a very very long time, I agree it will be wonderful if we can entice many more people interested enough in the sport to regularly attend games, but it would not be without consequences to other established clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mr Plow said:

No one knows what they want the sport to look like in the future. Are we going trans Atlantic? Two French teams? 14 teams? Promotion and relegation? Licensing and franchising? Clubs are more bothered about surviving than thriving.

And Mr Plow that is precisely what all club Chairmen are realistically charged with,  and why shouldn't they be, if they are pumping in their own time and money to what many of them is a lifelong interest, most of them are born in the town, supported the club as a kid, made good in life, and giving something back to their town and club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not having a go at them. Just highlighting that there are times that the interests of toronto, wakefield and the long term growth of the league will be in conflict 

And whilst they are in a structure which basically means one club must face the cliff edge every year they arent going to making decisions for the longer term or wider good

Which leads back into the P&R debate Scotchy, which is a discussion done to death so no point redressing that topic, but for your comment the 'wider good' no, no, no it would not be for the wider good it would be a narrow emphasis on a few clubs, especially if Mr Leneghans proposed intention of all funding being withdrawn from any club not in the SL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not having a go at them. Just highlighting that there are times that the interests of toronto, wakefield and the long term growth of the league will be in conflict 

And whilst they are in a structure which basically means one club must face the cliff edge every year they arent going to making decisions for the longer term or wider good

I'd have thought by now you'd have come up with an answer to this conundrum ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I'd have thought by now you'd have come up with an answer to this conundrum ?

It's not really a conundrum. Stick with P+R and see short-term self interest take priority or scrap it and put in place long term plans to grow the league and sport but accept that not all clubs can be top tier clubs. 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Which leads back into the P&R debate Scotchy, which is a discussion done to death so no point redressing that topic, but for your comment the 'wider good' no, no, no it would not be for the wider good it would be a narrow emphasis on a few clubs, especially if Mr Leneghans proposed intention of all funding being withdrawn from any club not in the SL. 

Super league subsidises the entire sport. Growth at SL level means there is more money to spread through the sport. A smaller SL means less money to do that. 

Growth for SL is for the wider good, even if that means that the minority of clubs who arent big enough for SL but think they are too big for the championship dont like it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Check out my article on the problem that hampers the prospect of Super League making any significant progress.

Has anyone at your organisation asked why SLE seem to be in breach of their own articles of association by not transferring a share and directorship to Toronto and leaving it with london who arent in SL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Has anyone at your organisation asked why SLE seem to be in breach of their own articles of association by not transferring a share and directorship to Toronto and leaving it with london who arent in SL

I can tell you that , because the SL club owners are only concerned about one thing , the welfare of THEIR club , just like everybody else 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

I can tell you that , because the SL club owners are only concerned about one thing , the welfare of THEIR club , just like everybody else 

The clubs also amended the articles last year. So why have they created articles of association they then breached within months. 

If self-interest was the sole reason then they could have created articles of association which did that served  that purpose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A possible solution to the P+R / growth of the game conundrum.  Why not stop P+R for three years, allow teams to grow, nurture academy talent without fear of the cliff edge and then resume p+r after that. The Championship could be kept alive by having the points gained in season 1 of no promotion and of seasons 2+3 tallied up at the end of season 3, and whoever has the highest points total for the three seasons of no p+r gets promoted. Likewise in SL whoever has the lowest points total tallied up after three years of no relegation gets the chop. If you've been the worst over three years you deserve to be relegated. 

Edited by HawkMan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HawkMan said:

A possible solution to the P+R / growth of the game conundrum.  Why not stop P+R for three years, allow teams to grow, nurture academy talent without fear of the cliff edge and then resume p+r after that. The Championship could be kept alive by having the points gained in season 1 of no promotion and of seasons 2+3 tallied up at the end of season 3, and whoever has the highest points total for the three seasons of no p+r gets promoted. Likewise in SL whoever has the lowest points total tallied up after three years of no relegation gets the chop. If you've been the worst over three years you deserve to be relegated. 

The trouble as usual is that by the time the three years have passed andSL clubs have been able to develop their academy talent etc the promoted club will be so far behind they will need to spend big to compete and off we go again

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HawkMan said:

A possible solution to the P+R / growth of the game conundrum.  Why not stop P+R for three years, allow teams to grow, nurture academy talent without fear of the cliff edge and then resume p+r after that. The Championship could be kept alive by having the points gained in season 1 of no promotion and of seasons 2+3 tallied up at the end of season 3, and whoever has the highest points total for the three seasons of no p+r gets promoted. Likewise in SL whoever has the lowest points total tallied up after three years of no relegation gets the chop. If you've been the worst over three years you deserve to be relegated. 

You've got the possible scenario there that a club has two terrible seasons then gets their act together through the players they have developed via academy/reserves and finish mid table in the third year only to then be relegated anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LR23 said:

You've got the possible scenario there that a club has two terrible seasons then gets their act together through the players they have developed via academy/reserves and finish mid table in the third year only to then be relegated anyway. 

Yet another one that crops up from time to time 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Yet another one that crops up from time to time 😂

They do it in Brazillian football and it’s never struck me as the best idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...