Jump to content

If licensing returned?


Oldbear
 Share

Recommended Posts


IMHO there are 2 ways to go.. closed shop (properly done) or p&r.. if you are going to go with closed shop ALL emotion has to be taken out of the equation. You cannot just say "you must have the stadium now" but there must be concrete plans and full consequences for not fulfilling those plans, the only reason for this is because some clubs/areas do not have it but you need a representative from there. Pick the strong teams plus representatives of areas where there is strong interest in the game. 

Leeds, St Helens, Warrington, Wigan, Castelford/wakefield/featherstone (but only one), Hull, Hull KR (and make the derby really big), Catalans. 

Cas/wakey/featherstone may need to play out of a different stadium while they get theirs sorted, to not be able to play at home may just kick the wheels along.. but a new stadium must be built by 5 years after the license starts or they are relegated (5 years because you build in the issues that you can have with a stadium). 

I would then add London and Salford for strategic reasons. So you start with a 10 team league. I would then also say, as they did with Catalans (We really should learn from successes!) Newcastle, Toronto, Tolouse and AN Other (would love it to be Sheffield but cant see it, most likely York) will be admitted in 3 years from date of the start of the new league which gives them 3 years to get everything in place (with no distractions) to really hit the ground running. 

You then have it settled and you can add teams as the TV deal/sponsorship allows. Teams can buy their way in if it becomes a good league too and demand allows. It could then always change down the line to be a domestic conference and international one depending on the demand and basically just gives flexibility. The onus is on this league to support the leagues below though as well. They need viable and strong competitions below them to help produce the new clubs and players that feed into the top league. 

However, none of that is going to happen because there is too much vested interest. There will be the normal "you'll lose all the fans in xyz city" and so on.. and I do understand that but that is the way to do the closed shop/licence. Other than that it is straight P&R with its own pitfalls. 

Anything in between though is always going to be a mess because you are sort of making it up as you go along and there is too much wishy washy ness about the stipulations and grading etc. 

either way it needs strong leadership to drive the systems and that is something we sorely lack. 

I realise i am going to get lots of flack for this, teams will always be contentious but its an illustration, i know some people will be annoyed their teams are not in it but try not to get hung up on that (as the above is a post on an internet forum and not an actual plan the RFL are going to put into place) its just to show, if you were to really just decide to start again, it would probably/realistically end up. 

Its just a case of is P&R really viable for a sport like Rugby League? I would say probably not and if we were to want a 14 team league its almost certainly not. Therefore what would be the best and strongest way to go forward and IMHO its being strict but also strategic, with the strategy though has to come sense (hence a 3 year lead in).. 

Unless they are bold about how they do it, i am not sure there is a good alternative to P&R as its always a mess..

 

Edited by RP London
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Which tells us that any criteria based licencing is complete nonsense

Its only nonsense if you set the criteria then bend for certain clubs.

Criteria based licence is clearly the best way to go. 

I would also add a price tag to the licence which could be sold to another club 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

There you go, it’s all changed. So my original comment was correct then... 

How do I go about entering a side?

Edited by gingerjon

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

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?

I don't know Harry and that wasn't my point, which you chose to ignore once again. You were using an uneven comparison simply to try to prove your point, as you know.

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

You cannot adopt a strict approach to teams meeting the criteria of licensing because you’ll end up with four sides meeting that criteria, if you’re very lucky and nobody, that’s fans of clubs in that four and fans of other clubs, Super League, Sky etc, wants to see that. 

If you loosen the criteria, it’s a race to the bottom and it’s pointless having any criteria at all. You’re protecting those currently at the top table, as per the licensing phase, and it’s not a level playing field for those already out of the Super League. If you give clubs ultimatum’s of “you have years to come up with a plan for y” then I’m not sure how much change you’ll see over one cycle of licensing and how long do you give these clubs before you turf them out?

And if you’re not in Super League, can you seriously put together a bid good enough to better that of at least one Super League club when you’re trying to fund that whilst also trying to fund a squad capable of competing at the top end of the Championship on the central funding received? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RP London said:

IMHO there are 2 ways to go.. closed shop (properly done) or p&r.. if you are going to go with closed shop ALL emotion has to be taken out of the equation. You cannot just say "you must have the stadium now" but there must be concrete plans and full consequences for not fulfilling those plans, the only reason for this is because some clubs/areas do not have it but you need a representative from there. Pick the strong teams plus representatives of areas where there is strong interest in the game. 

Leeds, St Helens, Warrington, Wigan, Castelford/wakefield/featherstone (but only one), Hull, Hull KR (and make the derby really big), Catalans. 

Cas/wakey/featherstone may need to play out of a different stadium while they get theirs sorted, to not be able to play at home may just kick the wheels along.. but a new stadium must be built by 5 years after the license starts or they are relegated (5 years because you build in the issues that you can have with a stadium). 

I would then add London and Salford for strategic reasons. So you start with a 10 team league. I would then also say, as they did with Catalans (We really should learn from successes!) Newcastle, Toronto, Tolouse and AN Other (would love it to be Sheffield but cant see it, most likely York) will be admitted in 3 years from date of the start of the new league which gives them 3 years to get everything in place (with no distractions) to really hit the ground running. 

You then have it settled and you can add teams as the TV deal/sponsorship allows. Teams can buy their way in if it becomes a good league too and demand allows. It could then always change down the line to be a domestic conference and international one depending on the demand and basically just gives flexibility. The onus is on this league to support the leagues below though as well. They need viable and strong competitions below them to help produce the new clubs and players that feed into the top league. 

However, none of that is going to happen because there is too much vested interest. There will be the normal "you'll lose all the fans in xyz city" and so on.. and I do understand that but that is the way to do the closed shop/licence. Other than that it is straight P&R with its own pitfalls. 

Anything in between though is always going to be a mess because you are sort of making it up as you go along and there is too much wishy washy ness about the stipulations and grading etc. 

either way it needs strong leadership to drive the systems and that is something we sorely lack. 

I realise i am going to get lots of flack for this, teams will always be contentious but its an illustration, i know some people will be annoyed their teams are not in it but try not to get hung up on that (as the above is a post on an internet forum and not an actual plan the RFL are going to put into place) its just to show, if you were to really just decide to start again, it would probably/realistically end up. 

Its just a case of is P&R really viable for a sport like Rugby League? I would say probably not and if we were to want a 14 team league its almost certainly not. Therefore what would be the best and strongest way to go forward and IMHO its being strict but also strategic, with the strategy though has to come sense (hence a 3 year lead in).. 

Unless they are bold about how they do it, i am not sure there is a good alternative to P&R as its always a mess..

 

Featherstone don't need a new stadium. 

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

2 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Speak to the NGB of the nation you intend to represent. 

Bit of practice and all that 😂

Are you telling me there are restrictions? I can't just get a side together.

I feel cheated now.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Haha, no, you will be selected on your performances rather than other criteria.

But ... no, probably best leave it there. We don't want to annoy everyone else *too* much.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was little wrong with the licencing format we had last time, it was just pi$$ poorly administered by the RFL. They had criteria like stadia, revenue etc. but every time it looked like one of the current top flight clubs wouldn't make the grade they moved the goalposts to keep accommodating them.

Set the criteria for the stadium, set the criteria for financial stability etc. and stick to it. Everyone then knows what they need to achieve in order to gain a licence. If you don't meet it, or can't maintain it then you don't have a licence - Simple !!!

If it means starting with only say 10 clubs then so be it, and then keep adding licences until you reach the desired number (say 16). After that you can replace clubs who fail to maintain the standard required. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

There was little wrong with the licencing format we had last time, it was just pi$$ poorly administered by the RFL. They had criteria like stadia, revenue etc. but every time it looked like one of the current top flight clubs wouldn't make the grade they moved the goalposts to keep accommodating them.

Set the criteria for the stadium, set the criteria for financial stability etc. and stick to it. Everyone then knows what they need to achieve in order to gain a licence. If you don't meet it, or can't maintain it then you don't have a licence - Simple !!!

If it means starting with only say 10 clubs then so be it, and then keep adding licences until you reach the desired number (say 16). After that you can replace clubs who fail to maintain the standard required. 

In theory I would agree but such an approach would make any broadcast negotiations quite tricky. As always compromises occur for seemingly the best of reasons, short-term, which lead to further mess ultimately.

I don't really know how to get around this without destroying the sport in the process.

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

19 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

In theory I would agree but such an approach would make any broadcast negotiations quite tricky. As always compromises occur for seemingly the best of reasons, short-term, which lead to further mess ultimately.

I don't really know how to get around this without destroying the sport in the process.

There were similar arguments in the NRL not that long ago and they took that bold step, going even further than most have suggested for SL. They offered licences knowing that some established clubs would have to merge to form joint ventures, and if they didn't one of both would disappear.

They created new licences in paces like Brisbane, Gold Coast, N Queensland, NZ & Perth, and while some like Perth were spectacular failures the majority of these clubs have thrived. Look at Brisbane they are arguably the biggest RL club in the world and they came from nothing just a few decades ago.

While RL has always been more popular in Aus than it has in the UK they took that bold step and it didn't take long before TV companies and sponsors started to come on board and the money followed. Its been far from perfect with numerous examples of mis-management both at club and governing body level in the NRL but on the whole its been a success. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

There was little wrong with the licencing format we had last time, it was just pi$$ poorly administered by the RFL. They had criteria like stadia, revenue etc. but every time it looked like one of the current top flight clubs wouldn't make the grade they moved the goalposts to keep accommodating them.

Set the criteria for the stadium, set the criteria for financial stability etc. and stick to it. Everyone then knows what they need to achieve in order to gain a licence. If you don't meet it, or can't maintain it then you don't have a licence - Simple !!!

If it means starting with only say 10 clubs then so be it, and then keep adding licences until you reach the desired number (say 16). After that you can replace clubs who fail to maintain the standard required. 

I agree fully with this, the problem is we lack the strength of leadership and too many top flight clubs have too much influence which allows the criteria applied to be seriously distorted to protect those clubs.

As much as I love the thrill of P&R I do worry that the game is not strong enough to allow it in the future. When a team goes down they basically have to bounce back or they face near oblivion (Oldham and Workington are good examples and even Cas sailed close to the wind when they went down), and as I think BSJ said the reward for the players of a newly promoted team is usually notice to go find another club, as the newly promoted side invests to say up (usually ageing Antipodeans). I just worry that without the leadership and an overhaul to the way the game is run we will keep going round and round in circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, yipyee said:

They would buy their licence, think simolar happened in union with leeds/ yorkshire

My point being , why do the incumbent clubs get a free licence ? , If it's a ' buy in ' then it's a buy in , set the price and the criteria , with no exceptions , then ask for bids 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RP London said:

IMHO there are 2 ways to go.. closed shop (properly done) or p&r.. if you are going to go with closed shop ALL emotion has to be taken out of the equation. You cannot just say "you must have the stadium now" but there must be concrete plans and full consequences for not fulfilling those plans, the only reason for this is because some clubs/areas do not have it but you need a representative from there. Pick the strong teams plus representatives of areas where there is strong interest in the game. 

Leeds, St Helens, Warrington, Wigan, Castelford/wakefield/featherstone (but only one), Hull, Hull KR (and make the derby really big), Catalans. 

Cas/wakey/featherstone may need to play out of a different stadium while they get theirs sorted, to not be able to play at home may just kick the wheels along.. but a new stadium must be built by 5 years after the license starts or they are relegated (5 years because you build in the issues that you can have with a stadium). 

I would then add London and Salford for strategic reasons. So you start with a 10 team league. I would then also say, as they did with Catalans (We really should learn from successes!) Newcastle, Toronto, Tolouse and AN Other (would love it to be Sheffield but cant see it, most likely York) will be admitted in 3 years from date of the start of the new league which gives them 3 years to get everything in place (with no distractions) to really hit the ground running. 

You then have it settled and you can add teams as the TV deal/sponsorship allows. Teams can buy their way in if it becomes a good league too and demand allows. It could then always change down the line to be a domestic conference and international one depending on the demand and basically just gives flexibility. The onus is on this league to support the leagues below though as well. They need viable and strong competitions below them to help produce the new clubs and players that feed into the top league. 

However, none of that is going to happen because there is too much vested interest. There will be the normal "you'll lose all the fans in xyz city" and so on.. and I do understand that but that is the way to do the closed shop/licence. Other than that it is straight P&R with its own pitfalls. 

Anything in between though is always going to be a mess because you are sort of making it up as you go along and there is too much wishy washy ness about the stipulations and grading etc. 

either way it needs strong leadership to drive the systems and that is something we sorely lack. 

I realise i am going to get lots of flack for this, teams will always be contentious but its an illustration, i know some people will be annoyed their teams are not in it but try not to get hung up on that (as the above is a post on an internet forum and not an actual plan the RFL are going to put into place) its just to show, if you were to really just decide to start again, it would probably/realistically end up. 

Its just a case of is P&R really viable for a sport like Rugby League? I would say probably not and if we were to want a 14 team league its almost certainly not. Therefore what would be the best and strongest way to go forward and IMHO its being strict but also strategic, with the strategy though has to come sense (hence a 3 year lead in).. 

Unless they are bold about how they do it, i am not sure there is a good alternative to P&R as its always a mess..

 

What do you see happening to the clubs you haven't included ? , And what do you expect of their fans , like me ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Well I suppose there aren't rules but standards. Although those standards are er, shall we say flexible.....

NB that flexibility also applies to the grounds of Championship and L1 clubs, in some cases very notably so. 

So no then

sometimes you have to take a step backwards to move forward

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...