Passage to SL?

[tms]

4 minutes ago, meast said:

Impossible to read due to all the intrusive adverts, same as most through that company, basically, he is saying to increase by 1 club per year and build that way?

so what he's really saying is for the next few years I wont have to spend any money on improving HKR  to keep them in SL

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, Oldbear said:

Given that we have never been in a position where we can negotiate with Canadian TV companies about a SL TV contract, and certainly not with a strong TWP (not the 0-6 incarnation that started the season), we have no idea what Canadian TV is willing to pay and until we do then perhaps the whole Canadian experiment needs to be put on ice.

Agreed, return with sonething positive, and the same will happen with Ottawa.

[meast]

9 hours ago, Oldbear said:

The truth is for all the closed shop talk we don’t have enough viable candidates to realistically allow it. We currently have one pretty strong group (Saints, Leeds, Wire, Cats, Wigan, Hull), who have good corporate income, good home crowds, decent stadia and access to a stream of young talent, two more teams (Hudds and Cas), both of whom do a great job on the field but have limitations (Hudds is crowd, Cas stadium), off the field, then 3 teams just trying to survive and honestly no stronger than a bunch of championship teams, they just happen to be sitting tenants in the big league. Then we have a vacancy, and the reality is whoever fills it is either going to be one of the latter category and not really offering more to the league than those teams, or a huge risk (Toulouse). Toronto cannot come back without a Canadian TV deal and as much as I would love Newcastle in there it’s just too much of a jump at this time. Then there’s Bradford, a big city club who can attract fans, but have a 3rd World stadium and a 3rd World accounting system to match. Maybe it has to be 11 teams for this and next year, just don’t ask me how we handle Magic.

As a Huddersfield fan i have to take issue with some of your points here, First, we have a superb academy, junior production line, in the last few years, we have been competing with and beating the academy sides of Leeds, Wigan and Saints, and outperforming Warrington, Hull and 'Cats' (presumably you mean Catalans as opposed to Wakefield?) also, Castleford have performed better than Warrington, Catalans and Hull, Hull and Catalans haven't even run academy sides of their own in recent years!

Huddersfield also have a decent stadium, are currently sustainable, and have a decent fan base, (don't believe the myth), we average around 4500 hardcore and 5,300-5,700 averages, we all know WIgan and sometimes Hull fudge their figures and base their "good home crowds" on how many tickets were issued for the game rather than attendance, we also are one of the few clubs that haven't flouted the salary cap in order to be successful, 

Yes, the likes of Saints, Wigan, Leeds are rightly regarded as flag bearers for our sport, but there's merit to every other club too.

[meast]

8 hours ago, Oldbear said:

Oh and before anyone wonders why I didn’t focus on London as a possible can I say I think they have done amazing work with their player development, I think David Hughes deserves a knighthood for what he has done and their fans are incredible people who deserve medals for what they put up with, however there’s just not enough of them, and even if there were, the stadium will always be an issue. Trailfinders is not a viable solution and going anywhere else puts them at the mercy of soccer teams who will screw them for rent, then kick them out at a moments notice. Buying land to develop in London is a non starter so their future may always be at the Championship level, developing players to move on.

Almost the same as Huddersfield, but we get slaughtered for it.

I agree though, London are a pretty likeable club for a lot of people, whether you agree with how they got into SL in the first instance or not, but like lots of rugby league clubs and the sport as a whole, they just need more backers!

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, redjonn said:

Although one has to wonder if ultimately TV will be competing with ground attendee's if they get the TV experience better and better than being at a ground.

Eh, smell the liniment, hear the collisions and the ooh's and aah's, rejoice and moan with your fellow supporters, see the stratergy of the line defence, the angles and second phase of attack, I could go on there is much more I could mention that however good TV broadcasts become they will always be secondary to actually being at a live game.

[Harry Stottle]

49 minutes ago, meast said:

Financially yes, but after a successful world cup, we failed to capitalise on it, the international game should have been hammered, take England games or even other international teams around the country, Bristol, for example had a superb crowd for USA V Cook islands, then what? instead of pushing the game to the Bristolians we didn't bother, we played one game there and moved on, even by helping the Bristol sonics club, but we didn't, we just patted ourselves on the back and got on with the day to day regular stuff.

We should be pushing the world cup NOW, get some of the teams over as soon as restrictions allow, get them playing tour matches etc, get people talking about it NOW, get people looking forward to it NOW, not a week before it starts.

RE: the other thing, I'm not sure, I'd be tempted to stick with P&R , what do you suggest? 

First point, I must have read it wrong I thought you was implying that we had to learn from the tournament itself, absolutely correct on the aftermath of the competion it seemed like we were going downhill on a bike gathering momentum all the time the tournament was on, but when it was over and we reached the bottom of the hill, the authorities stopped peddling and we ground to a stop.

P&R in my opinion is essential.

[meast]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

First point, I must have read it wrong I thought you was implying that we had to learn from the tournament itself, absolutely correct on the aftermath of the competion it seemed like we were going downhill on a bike gathering momentum all tge tine tge tournament was on, but when it was over and we reached tge bottom of the hill, the authorities stopped peddling and we ground to a stop.

P&R in my opinion is essential.

That's exactly what I'm saying, we stopped giving a toss about the international game as soon as the final hooter went in the world cup final when we should have been going all out to promote it.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes as in anything in life finance is the driver if you ain't got it you are going nowhere,  but I can't see the relevance of your reply to LR's post, you describe the ailment but offer no treatment.

Back to the old chestnut of we can't afford to bring player's through without stabillity, what a complete load of tosh, 2020 is the 6th season we have been away from the closed shop, there has been a plethora of new young talent emerging in that time, just look at your own club for an example, they have brought some wonderful talent through in the last 6 season's, and a lotof them in the times of crisis of threatened relegation, what would you sooner have done Tommy gone out and splashed the cash on first rate Aussies?

I would strongly suggest that in your clubs situation a cap restriction has brought more talent to the fore, if Leeds could have bought themselves out of trouble I have no doubt they would have done. 

So what are you actually saying in this piece, we know the game is poor, what is your solution?

I never said players can't be brought through without stability, so you're arguing a non point there H. 

We have brought in a handful of youngsters, Newman, Walker, Oledzki and Handley. All 4 were brought into the team in years we won the Grand Final, so I don't see them as great examples of adversity giving opportunities. We have also signed big recently too, including two Tongan internationals and Luke Gale amongst others.

My main point was that the reason for contracting to 12 SL teams was at heart financial. Clubs that are financially weak on average have worse facilities, attract and produce worse players, and signed less good aussies and kiwis. 

To me that would suggest the solution is a loosening of the financial restraints to allow clubs to sign top players not just squad filler types. Hand in hand with that is the expectation of a minimum spend imo. 

[Harry Stottle]

21 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I never said players can't be brought through without stability, so you're arguing a non point there H. 

We have brought in a handful of youngsters, Newman, Walker, Oledzki and Handley. All 4 were brought into the team in years we won the Grand Final, so I don't see them as great examples of adversity giving opportunities. We have also signed big recently too, including two Tongan internationals and Luke Gale amongst others.

My main point was that the reason for contracting to 12 SL teams was at heart financial. Clubs that are financially weak on average have worse facilities, attract and produce worse players, and signed less good aussies and kiwis. 

To me that would suggest the solution is a loosening of the financial restraints to allow clubs to sign top players not just squad filler types. Hand in hand with that is the expectation of a minimum spend imo. 

Just wrote out a a long reply Tommy, caught the back button on my tablet and lost it, may re address at some point but not at the moment. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Just wrote out a a long reply Tommy, caught the back button on my tablet and lost it, may re address at some point but not at the moment. 

Ah no worries H. Like I say minimum spend should be a requirement for SL imo. Its a lack of that which weakens the comp as a whole.

[tms]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Ah no worries H. Like I say minimum spend should be a requirement for SL imo. Its a lack of that which weakens the comp as a whole.

but what happens if one season you have a group of top notch youngens coming through to take the place of players  who you were going to replace but now you don't so  you don't need to spend any money to improve your team

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Eh, smell the liniment, hear the collisions and the ooh's and aah's, rejoice and moan with your fellow supporters, see the stratergy of the line defence, the angles and second phase of attack, I could go on there is much more I could mention that however good TV broadcasts become they will always be secondary to actually being at a live game.

I agree personally,   but for many TV is a good experience for them....  for some preferring  Pubs. if not socialising at home or individually.

Were the committed... plus many just watch the ball I don't think many are as attuned to the nuances as yourself.

[Tommygilf]

26 minutes ago, POR said:

but what happens if one season you have a group of top notch youngens coming through to take the place of players  who you were going to replace but now you don't so  you don't need to spend any money to improve your team

Considering how much, or rather how little, our Young players are paid I think its a mute point. In that unlikely scenario it should be the demonstrable ability to spend. Every team should have some star players too which makes that point mute.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Ah no worries H. Like I say minimum spend should be a requirement for SL imo. Its a lack of that which weakens the comp as a whole.

Affordability

Edit, all clubs should be the same or it's not much use having it, is it?

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Affordability

Edit, all clubs should be the same or it's not much use having it, is it?

The minimum spend should be for all clubs yes.

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The minimum spend should be for all clubs yes.

Then I ask again affordabillity?

Obviously your suggestion is either at or in excess of the presnt cap level, what if some clubs cannot physically spend that amount - which your suggestion is?

And, if it is a minimum spend, the gulf, ravine, canyon between the top and the bottom will just get wider and wider,

And forget about jettisoning those teams who can't afford to keep up and replace them with multiple teams in the America's, if our club's have to pay their own way over 3 or more times a year they will have spent all their money competeing against each other so they don't fall behind, none left for airlines and hotels and subsistence etc

And lastly which would probably be the best bit of your suggestion, present player's at clubs would see a wage increase, it may be that there are not many more new player's on show though, the player's and more importantly agents know exactly where they stand with a ceiling spend, just wait until negotiations commence when they are aware and know it is open season.

[Liverpool Rover]

3 hours ago, meast said:

Impossible to read due to all the intrusive adverts, same as most through that company, basically, he is saying to increase by 1 club per year and build that way?

That is what he was getting at.

[Liverpool Rover]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

So tell me LR, if your club had not been in those relegation battles would Mr Hudgell have spent to improve his team to avoid the drop, it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines of all his 'headline" calls that given the choice of trundling along with what he has and avoiding spending anything he would, add him to those clubs of the same ilk and no threat of jeapordy would have them shrugging their shoulders with a "it doesn't matter attitude".

Then would those ambitious Championship clubs and owner's (Mr Hudgell wouldn't) have the same desire to finance/improve their teams to battle it out for the success if there was no promotion to play for, no Chucking Fance, and a goodly portion of fans would walk as well and why wouldn't they. So yes it would be the fault of the clubs but the overriding factor that Complacency of some SL clubs and the Lack of Enthusiasm of some Championship clubs will have been brought about with no P&R.

Leeds and Warrington should never ever have been in the situation they were, for both it was just a combination of Pi$$ poor management, bad recruitment and totally ordinary coaching, if they had been relegated who are what could they have highlighted to apportion any blame, absolutely nothing or no one, and on the situation of Catalan the same applies we are continually informed they are one if the wealthier clubs in SL, could I offer they just chose the wrong antipodeans?

Maybe without the worry of being in a relegation battle we could set our sights higher than the need to win enough games to just avoid finishing bottom. If clubs are happy to finish at the foot of the table every year because “it doesn’t matter” they will find that it does when fans stop going as they are fed up of paying money to watch losing teams. The Rovers fan base for one wouldn’t tolerate it. In the NRL teams have their bad years where they struggle at the bottom but they get through them and compete again. They certainly aren’t happy to finish bottom every year like you think clubs over here would.

 

[Tommygilf]

20 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Then I ask again affordabillity?

Obviously your suggestion is either at or in excess of the presnt cap level, what if some clubs cannot physically spend that amount - which your suggestion is?

And, if it is a minimum spend, the gulf, ravine, canyon between the top and the bottom will just get wider and wider,

And forget about jettisoning those teams who can't afford to keep up and replace them with multiple teams in the America's, if our club's have to pay their own way over 3 or more times a year they will have spent all their money competeing against each other so they don't fall behind, none left for airlines and hotels and subsistence etc

And lastly which would probably be the best bit of your suggestion, present player's at clubs would see a wage increase, it may be that there are not many more new player's on show though, the player's and more importantly agents know exactly where they stand with a ceiling spend, just wait until negotiations commence when they are aware and know it is open season.

I still agree with a form of cap. I'm not entirely sure whether that should be %of turnover or a set figure with caveats and marquees as it is now.

The main point should be minimum spend that ensures the quality of the competition. The NRL achieves this through paying 130% of the salary cap through central funding. I don't think thats realistic for Super league right now but going forward it has to be an aim. We can't be presenting a supposedly elite competition with a commitment to a salary cap whilst some teams are 10% plus off that level at best.

I don't see why you've brought up the idea of more teams in the Americas before I have and then said forget it?

So minimum spend within a cap? I don't think that is too controversial?

[Smudger06]

Good thread this, loads of debate rather than arguement, plenty of ideas getting chucked about. 

[Harry Stottle]

22 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

Maybe without the worry of being in a relegation battle we could set our sights higher than the need to win enough games to just avoid finishing bottom. If clubs are happy to finish at the foot of the table every year because “it doesn’t matter” they will find that it does when fans stop going as they are fed up of paying money to watch losing teams. The Rovers fan base for one wouldn’t tolerate it. In the NRL teams have their bad years where they struggle at the bottom but they get through them and compete again. They certainly aren’t happy to finish bottom every year like you think clubs over here would.

 

Everything in Rugby League is a Maybe, if Toronto get funding, if Toulouse get a TV deal, if we don't have relegation, it does get tiresome.

I am not saying it would be acceptable, but it would be the norm, 4 winners in 25 years of SL, 1 winner in the previous 8 prior to SL, it nay not be the way of the world,  but it is certainly the way of British RL, when did you last win the Championship '85 yes just checked (three years before Leigh) and it ain't going to change.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Everything in Rugby League is a Maybe, if Toronto get funding, if Toulouse get a TV deal, if we don't have relegation, it does get tiresome.

I am not saying it would be acceptable, but it would be the norm, 4 winners in 25 years of SL, 1 winner in the previous 8 prior to SL, it nay not be the way of the world,  but it is certainly the way of British RL, when did you last win the Championship '85 yes just checked (three years before Leigh) and it ain't going to change.

There's been only 7 winners of the FA cup since 1992, compared to 17 in the first 20 odd years after the war. Sport is getting less competitive where there are major funding disparities 

[The Rocket]

On 30/07/2020 at 21:59, Eddie said:

And do you think the standard at the bottom of SL would improve if there was no risk of being relegated?

How about wanting to win the comp their in !

[Harry Stottle]

23 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I still agree with a form of cap. I'm not entirely sure whether that should be %of turnover or a set figure with caveats and marquees as it is now.

The main point should be minimum spend that ensures the quality of the competition. The NRL achieves this through paying 130% of the salary cap through central funding. I don't think thats realistic for Super league right now but going forward it has to be an aim. We can't be presenting a supposedly elite competition with a commitment to a salary cap whilst some teams are 10% plus off that level at best.

I don't see why you've brought up the idea of more teams in the Americas before I have and then said forget it?

So minimum spend within a cap? I don't think that is too controversial?

That would have an effect of widening the gap even further than we have at present.

Re the America's statement, I can see you have never been involved in boardroom negotiations Tommy, I was expanding the conversation, answer it then don't just evade it?

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

There's been only 7 winners of the FA cup since 1992, compared to 17 in the first 20 odd years after the war. Sport is getting less competitive where there are major funding disparities 

Exactly, and you suggest making thise disparities greater in SL.