Eddie Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Not that bothered Leeds should be removed from SL too under your logic, as their crowds are lower than all but two of the nine Sydney teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Chopra Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said: Although promotion and relegation are usually thought of as two sides of the same coin, I would separate them. I think relegation can be immensely damaging, not just to the club relegated, but to the competition as a whole, depending on which club gets the chop. Promotion, on the other hand, can be highly motivating, exciting and encourages greater support for all the clubs in a promotion race. My ideal would be a Championship that gave the prospect of promotion to its clubs into Super League as long as they satisfied certain criteria, which wouldn't be set at an unattainable standard. If they won their Grand Final they could then join Super League, which would expand by one club. Ultimately Super League would expand in an organic way. I agree about the damage of relegation, I have very mixed feeling about it. But we can't just promote teams without relegating any as where does the money come from for their funding? Sky aren't going to pay any more because we add Leigh or York to SL. Organic expansion sounds nice, but what would it actually mean? The "criteria" we require for promotion would of course end up being that they enhance the value of the TV deal by enough to fund an extra team. Which currently only means - potentially - Toulouse and Ottawa. I suspect that's not the outcome you were after. Whether NRL or RFL, I'm afraid there's no way round financial reality. If we let sentiment and what we might wish to be the case drive decision making then in the long term the sport suffers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 11 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: It's clear nonsense. Leeds getting 15k being a big deal for them is a laughable assertion Prior to having building work restricting attendances they averaged about 15k. They don’t now though, their attendances have dropped alarmingly, as have Wigan’s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 10 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Lol. You're right, we should definitely remove leeds rhinos from the NRL Just give up, your argument is flawed in almost every way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 hour ago, AB90 said: Expanding by promotions great, but surely theres a limit to the amount of teams we can have in a top flight rugby league until its starts to dilute the talent and reduce the playing standard. More teams for the sake of it isn't always better. What affects the playing standard more than anything is the quality of coaching at the clubs, which isn't determined by the number of clubs. What's crucial is the entertainment value and I don't think that is determined by the standard, but by the closeness of the competition and of individual matches. I don't think that's related to how many teams are in Super League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 18 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said: I agree about the damage of relegation, I have very mixed feeling about it. But we can't just promote teams without relegating any as where does the money come from for their funding? Sky aren't going to pay any more because we add Leigh or York to SL. Organic expansion sounds nice, but what would it actually mean? The "criteria" we require for promotion would of course end up being that they enhance the value of the TV deal by enough to fund an extra team. Which currently only means - potentially - Toulouse and Ottawa. I suspect that's not the outcome you were after. Whether NRL or RFL, I'm afraid there's no way round financial reality. If we let sentiment and what we might wish to be the case drive decision making then in the long term the sport suffers. If we are going to boost our broadcasting income, then we have to give the impression that we are a sport that is on an upward curve. To have twelve teams in Super League in perpetuity, with perhaps two teams relegated and promoted in yo-yo fashion every other year, is extremely negative and is ultimately quite a turnoff for potential viewers. To be able to incorporate successful clubs into Super League, regardless of where they come from, would boost our profile and ultimately our income. The fact that the existing clubs in Super League might have the power to veto such a move is part of the problem that faces Rugby League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hela Wigmen Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: They had a reduced capacity for the last two years And don’t now and only hit over 15k in one home game this year, in which there were two games on at Headingley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hela Wigmen Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said: If we are going to boost our broadcasting income, then we have to give the impression that we are a sport that is on an upward curve. To have twelve teams in Super League in perpetuity, with perhaps two teams relegated and promoted in yo-yo fashion every other year, is extremely negative and is ultimately quite a turnoff for potential viewers. To be able to incorporate successful clubs into Super League, regardless of where they come from, would boost our profile and ultimately our income. The fact that the existing clubs in Super League might have the power to veto such a move is part of the problem that faces Rugby League. I don’t think you can attribute P&R to people “turning off” or being put off from watching RL. P&R creates big events, big games and memorable moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Picture Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 8 hours ago, GUBRATS said: Apart from the NFL perhaps which league in which sport has clubs of equal value ? I don't think that any league has clubs of equal value. One group of leagues has franchises with steadily increasing values though — the closed-shop major North American pro leagues which position their franchises strategically to maximize their income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Chopra Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 22 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said: If we are going to boost our broadcasting income, then we have to give the impression that we are a sport that is on an upward curve. To have twelve teams in Super League in perpetuity, with perhaps two teams relegated and promoted in yo-yo fashion every other year, is extremely negative and is ultimately quite a turnoff for potential viewers. To be able to incorporate successful clubs into Super League, regardless of where they come from, would boost our profile and ultimately our income. The fact that the existing clubs in Super League might have the power to veto such a move is part of the problem that faces Rugby League. Broadly I agree. But adding teams from the current contenders without a proper business case won't boost the image of the league in any valuable way, it will just dilute it. In the end, perhaps we're diagreeing over sequencing. Sounds like you think we can expand first and hope that follows through into increased reveunes, I tend to think that has to be the other way round - or at the very least adjacent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo5 Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 hour ago, scotchy1 said: Why are you making this nonsense up? Yeah,he really should know that's your job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hela Wigmen Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 13 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Why don't people watch or attend teams in a relegation battle then People don’t watch or attend the Challenge Cup Final, knockout rugby in any form or the the top sides. The threat of relegation isn’t the reason people aren’t attending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 46 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said: Broadly I agree. But adding teams from the current contenders without a proper business case won't boost the image of the league in any valuable way, it will just dilute it. In the end, perhaps we're diagreeing over sequencing. Sounds like you think we can expand first and hope that follows through into increased reveunes, I tend to think that has to be the other way round - or at the very least adjacent. If we keep doing the same thing over and over, we won't expand our revenues. They are far more likely to decline. What I think the game needs is a strategic vision that recognises the need to expand and gives a pathway whereby it is possible to do it. My view is that in the long term a league of only twelve clubs will gradually lose its appeal. The A-League in Australia has discovered that. Ultimately I think that 16 clubs is probably the minimum number needed to avoid that problem. That doesn't mean there should be 30 fixtures. A league could be Conference based and would benefit by being so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Picture Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 5 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said: Some of the more successful football competitions in the world have no promotion or relegation, including the NFL and the AFL. Promotion and relegation tends to weaken competitions, not strengthen them. The point about expansion is that it should be expanding the TV audience and thereby making it more valuable, which is why the AFL expanded into Sydney many years ago. Although the TV audience for AFL in Sydney isn't large, it still contributes massively to the overall value of the broadcast rights for that competition. So remembering that 20 teams played in the first season under the NRL moniker and that did not include Perth the question is, how many teams would there be and how would the resulting number be managed if half (or more) of them are in one metropolitan conurbation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB90 Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said: What affects the playing standard more than anything is the quality of coaching at the clubs, which isn't determined by the number of clubs. What's crucial is the entertainment value and I don't think that is determined by the standard, but by the closeness of the competition and of individual matches. I don't think that's related to how many teams are in Super League. Respectfully disagree with most of this. Quality of coaching obviously helps but what really determines playing standards is the amount of players available to pick from (combined with good coaching obviously). But if you don't have the numbers or quality natural athletes to turn into great pros then coaching won't really help. Why is Australia the best rugby league nation in the world and probably always will be.....playing numbers. Quality of players and entertainment go hand in hand. Super rugby in the southern hemisphere is dying because they continue to lose the the top players to European clubs. Stars and top quality athletes is what grabs the attention of casual sports fans. Most english premier league fans don't watch or follow other European football leagues as they know the premier league is the top league in the world. The A League in Australia may be very entertaining but the standards poor and even Australian football fans know this. The more team there are the poorer the standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Davo5 said: Yeah,he really should know that's your job. Post of the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 3 hours ago, scotchy1 said: They had a reduced capacity for the last two years I know, so now the ground is bigger again why are they not averaging more than 12,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 hours ago, scotchy1 said: Why don't people watch or attend teams in a relegation battle then They do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said: If we keep doing the same thing over and over, we won't expand our revenues. They are far more likely to decline. What I think the game needs is a strategic vision that recognises the need to expand and gives a pathway whereby it is possible to do it. My view is that in the long term a league of only twelve clubs will gradually lose its appeal. The A-League in Australia has discovered that. Ultimately I think that 16 clubs is probably the minimum number needed to avoid that problem. That doesn't mean there should be 30 fixtures. A league could be Conference based and would benefit by being so. Agreed, 12 teams is dull. 16 would be great but I don’t like the conference idea at all, one division with most teams playing eachother twice and a few just once would be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Because they have played 4 games (averaging nearer 14k than 12k) in the middle of february. That big attendance was because it was a double header with shed loads of Cas fans there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: They dont. Attendances go down at clubs threatened with relegation and the 'middle 8s' viewing figures were lower Attendances normally go down at teams not winning , wether there's relegation or not Attendances normally go up at teams winning , usually more so if there is promotion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 hours ago, AB90 said: Respectfully disagree with most of this. Quality of coaching obviously helps but what really determines playing standards is the amount of players available to pick from (combined with good coaching obviously). But if you don't have the numbers or quality natural athletes to turn into great pros then coaching won't really help. Why is Australia the best rugby league nation in the world and probably always will be.....playing numbers. Quality of players and entertainment go hand in hand. Super rugby in the southern hemisphere is dying because they continue to lose the the top players to European clubs. Stars and top quality athletes is what grabs the attention of casual sports fans. Most english premier league fans don't watch or follow other European football leagues as they know the premier league is the top league in the world. The A League in Australia may be very entertaining but the standards poor and even Australian football fans know this. The more team there are the poorer the standard. In 1959 there were twelve teams in the NFL. Today there are 32. The quality today is immeasurably higher than it was in 1959. And the NFL generates more than a thousand times as much broadcasting and commercial income than it did in 1959. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Ting Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 16 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said: In 1959 there were twelve teams in the NFL. Today there are 32. The quality today is immeasurably higher than it was in 1959. And the NFL generates more than a thousand times as much broadcasting and commercial income than it did in 1959. There were NFL 12 teams in 1959. However I'm sure you are aware that another 10 were added the following year when AFL was established. So, there were actually NFL 22 teams in 1960. Learn to listen without distortion and learn to look without imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB90 Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 48 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said: In 1959 there were twelve teams in the NFL. Today there are 32. The quality today is immeasurably higher than it was in 1959. And the NFL generates more than a thousand times as much broadcasting and commercial income than it did in 1959. Well you can say that about all US sports. We have been here before. In 2014 we had 14 teams but that was deemed to many and we wanted to create a more intense competition playing wise with financially viable clubs so it was reduced. Has Catalans increased TV audiences, TV revenue and overall value of the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Mister Ting said: There were NFL 12 teams in 1959. However I'm sure you are aware that another 10 were added the following year when AFL was established. So, there were actually NFL 22 teams in 1960. But creating ten new teams, and a new league, was regarded as a foolish gamble by many. It illustrates the general point that the more teams involved in a league tends towards greater success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.