Jump to content

If licensing returned?


Oldbear
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

1 criteria raise the Salary cap to £3m and clubs guarantee to spend a minimum of say £2.4m. The clubs that can do are in the clubs that can’t come back when you can. 

That will not improve the quality very much if at all, it will just increase the present player's wages and make some more NRL performer's who are surplus to requirement over there more available to come here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


8 hours ago, DavidM said:

I’m very old fashioned . Decide things on the pitch , if you deserve it you get relegated ... if you earn it you get promoted . 

I’d prefer P&R but I think we need to be realistic and not compare ourselves to football or what the structure of the sport was like 30-40 years ago. The championship is not a level playing field as you have full time clubs playing against part time clubs. Batley openly admitted they didn’t want to get promoted when they were in the Qualifiers a few years ago. 
 

I think the most sensible option would be to have the best clubs in SL and by best I mean the ones who meet every criteria set by the league. I’d have a second division of teams with SL ambitions and a third division of feeder clubs.

Like I said, I’d love to have P&R but I just don’t think it’s a realistic or sensible structure to have atm. Since it was reintroduced in 2015 only Hull KR have managed to stay up

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They've barely updated in 70+ years but have never had a cast iron threat of relegation that could be held up with viable second tier replacements.

But Cas and Wakey along with Salford were told 11 years ago in 2009 when awarded a licence that they had to improve their stadia or action would be taken, it was, they were given full SL funding, you can't say that if any number of the Championship clubs had recived (rough estimation) £16M over that time period they themselves would not be viable.

It really is relevant Tommy, it must have been near on a toss of a coin who was awarded a licence, at the time there was hardly the thickness of a Cigarette paper between those clubs on the border line of selection, Cas and Wakey have done very well out of that licence, so sorry if Stadium facilities are to be a part of any future selection criteria they will in my opinion be subject to being "marked down" on that aspect not given another 5 years grace as you suggest.

Edited by Harry Stottle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But Cas and Wakey along with Salford were told 11 years ago in 2009 when awarded a licence that they had to improve their stadia or action would be taken, it was, they were given full SL funding, you can't say that if any number of the Championship clubs had recived (rough estimation) £16M over that time period they themselves would not be viable.

It really is relevant Tommy, it must have been near on a toss of a coin who was awarded a licence, at the time there was hardly the thickness of a Cigarette paper between those clubs on the border line of selection, Cas and Wakey have done very well out of that licence, so sorry if Stadium facilities are to be a part of any future selection criteria they will in my opinion be subject to being "marked down" on that aspect not given another 5 years grace as you suggest.

Of course much of that money would have been spent upon maintaining their own stadiums, as distinct from just paying out rent on match days.

There are no simple comparisons, much as we would like there to be.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Of course much of that money would have been spent upon maintaining their own stadiums, as distinct from just paying out rent on match days.

There are no simple comparisons, much as we would like there to be.

Yes of course Johnny, there are a number of clubs now in 'rented' accommodation even SL clubs, is that good management and how many other clubs would do the same if offered?

Edited by Harry Stottle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Like 1

"We are easily breakable, by illness or falling, or a million other ways of leaving this earthly life. We are just so much mashed potato."  Don Estelle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duplicate post.

Edited by Futtocks

"We are easily breakable, by illness or falling, or a million other ways of leaving this earthly life. We are just so much mashed potato."  Don Estelle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But Cas and Wakey along with Salford were told 11 years ago in 2009 when awarded a licence that they had to improve their stadia or action would be taken, it was, they were given full SL funding, you can't say that if any number of the Championship clubs had recived (rough estimation) £16M over that time period they themselves would not be viable.

It really is relevant Tommy, it must have been near on a toss of a coin who was awarded a licence, at the time there was hardly the thickness of a Cigarette paper between those clubs on the border line of selection, Cas and Wakey have done very well out of that licence, so sorry if Stadium facilities are to be a part of any future selection criteria they will in my opinion be subject to being "marked down" on that aspect not given another 5 years grace as you suggest.

I agree Harry its of massive relevance and importance.

However, the threats were followed through, they just weren't the threat of relegation. Wakefield get less Super League money for example. My suggestion would be that this was a real threat they had to agree to which gives impetus to the council and clubs to get their act together 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Bingo.

To give an example from the past few weeks: if Harrogate Town don't spend money to replace the pitch at their ground then Harrogate Town are not getting promoted.

Which is why both Cas and London should never have been granted promotion to SL 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Anyway, we're agreed. There's no professional sport that anyone can think of that doesn't enforce off-the-pitch standards and requirements alongside any performance on the pitch.

Yes RL , they allowed CAS re entry into SL , simply by changing the criteria ?

Similarily with London 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Absolutely. I doubt they'd ever get the agreement to place immediate relegation in for clubs that didn't meet facilities criteria in particular. That said, a 5 year grace period with a season in the process of forming those regulations could knock heads together. 

There's also the reality that a lot of clubs look very different between Super League and Championship, and arguably even more so between relegation scrappers and steady Super League clubs. London after 4 years in Super League consistently improving may look at investing in a better ground for example which would make no sense in the championship. 

There's only two solutions to that problem which is either stopping relegation or putting more places in Super league so that the risk of being outside the top 6 isn't bottom half of the table. 

We've had 3 years , now at 5 , anybody want to bid higher ? , We'll have a 20 year ' grace ' in an hour or two 😤

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

If you want ' licencing ' , then you have licencing , no periods of ' grace ' , no exceptions , you go with the number that pass 

Yeah I think of it was done properly first time round then some clubs would be in better situations. A shared stadium between Wakefield and Cas would be sensible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–11_Super_League_licences
reading through the the Results section on here was interesting. Not much has changed for most clubs in 10 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Davo5 said:

And that’s the problem,last time we had licensing teams in Superleague continually got away with not achieving the standards that Championship clubs were expected to.

They do get as far as getting their grand plans out of moth balls! 

Edited by MADREDNIGE
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Not sure they changed the criteria (they certainly weren't for London) but granted 'exemptions' as allowed within the regulations.

Exemptions lol. So there is no criteria then

  • Haha 1

sometimes you have to take a step backwards to move forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about a club buying a licence? 

So 14 licences valued at 1/14th of the value of the comp.

A club wanting to join would need to buy a licence from an exsisting club.

Money raised goes to the RFL to purchase a home stadium and to create financial growth including regular international calender.

Lower divisions to partner with the SL clubs.

SL clubs given areas for player development so for example st helens cant sign junior players who are registered with wigan or leigh clubs etc..

SL junior development to occur at the lower division partner club once the players develop to open age rugby.

Simples

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, yipyee said:

What about a club buying a licence? 

So 14 licences valued at 1/14th of the value of the comp.

A club wanting to join would need to buy a licence from an exsisting club.

Money raised goes to the RFL to purchase a home stadium and to create financial growth including regular international calender.

Lower divisions to partner with the SL clubs.

SL clubs given areas for player development so for example st helens cant sign junior players who are registered with wigan or leigh clubs etc..

SL junior development to occur at the lower division partner club once the players develop to open age rugby.

Simples

Why do they need to purchase from existing club ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...