Clubs consider combining Championship and League 1 for 24-team competition

[GUBRATS]

23 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Yeah I’ve noted you like posting questions,offer no answers or new ideas then have a dig at others who do.

I’ll leave you to it.

There is no answer , it is impossible to ' balance out ' RL , our clubs are too diverse 

All we can do is put steps onto the ladder , it's just a matter of how many , this thread suggests just the one , to me , that isn't enough 

[GUBRATS]

24 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

If nobody is relegated from Super League that would eliminate that problem 

And create some others , haven't you been listening ?

[GUBRATS]

29 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Even that cuts out 3 "western" Championship clubs though Harry and the precise reason for the extremity of the imbalance has been the funding. Whilst that has been reduced in disparity somewhat (exact figures aren't public) the impact of those years of imbalance will take time to change. 

If you want entertainment from the league, you have to agree to a certain amount of equal funding. If you want competition, then you have to sacrifice an equal spread of finance and "entertainment" that comes from relatively equal opposition. 

You sound at one point like a Leeds/Wigan/Saints etc fan complaining about the Super League being ran at lowest common denominator level, then at another advocating Corinthian spirit between equal sporting opponents.

Equal funding , fine 

Equal spending , fine 

No Parachute payment , not fine , or fine depending on which side of the line you're on , so equal funding or parachute payment ? , Which do you suggest ?

Salary cap ? , At what level do you suggest ?

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Equal funding , fine 

Equal spending , fine 

No Parachute payment , not fine , or fine depending on which side of the line you're on , so equal funding or parachute payment ? , Which do you suggest ?

Salary cap ? , At what level do you suggest ?

By nature you couldn't set an equal spend League's salary cap above the central distribution level. That would almost certainly mean no club would be full time and that any prospective new full time club would be going straight for super league.

I'm not in favour of that, but I recognise the problems of my position meaning some clubs will be superior to others and an inherent imbalance in the league. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

Have to laugh at the hypocrisy of those who want a level playing field in SL via the SC to enable them to be competitive against the big boys but support a different system in the Championship which suits them as their club can generate more income than others.

But it is blindingly obvious that both SL and the Championship should have the same financial model.  Firstly, I have always opposed the SC as IMHO it supports mediocrity and some clubs are happy to rely on the payment to survive rather than having to go out there and generate other income streams.  Secondly, one of the reasons the SC was introduced was to stop clubs over stretching themselves financially which was laudable but has held the game back.

Therefore I believe that the best option is that clubs should be allowed to spend up to a certain percentage of income on salaries.  That to me is what competition should be about.  Also the money allocated to salaries should be based on the previous seasons financial performance and not some guesstimate for the forthcoming season.

By introducing such a model it may actually attract investors into existing clubs across the divisions.  As investors/consortiums are usually people that have been successful because there is no ‘salary cap’ in the business world why would they want to invest in a sport where they are told it doesn’t matter if you are a billionaire or own the local butchers you can only spend up to the SC.  Crazy!

The onus should always be on clubs to grow financially and again IMHO there are clubs currently outside SL that may have the capability to generate greater income than some currently in SL.

[Oldbear]

41 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Have to laugh at the hypocrisy of those who want a level playing field in SL via the SC to enable them to be competitive against the big boys but support a different system in the Championship which suits them as their club can generate more income than others.

But it is blindingly obvious that both SL and the Championship should have the same financial model.  Firstly, I have always opposed the SC as IMHO it supports mediocrity and some clubs are happy to rely on the payment to survive rather than having to go out there and generate other income streams.  Secondly, one of the reasons the SC was introduced was to stop clubs over stretching themselves financially which was laudable but has held the game back.

Therefore I believe that the best option is that clubs should be allowed to spend up to a certain percentage of income on salaries.  That to me is what competition should be about.  Also the money allocated to salaries should be based on the previous seasons financial performance and not some guesstimate for the forthcoming season.

By introducing such a model it may actually attract investors into existing clubs across the divisions.  As investors/consortiums are usually people that have been successful because there is no ‘salary cap’ in the business world why would they want to invest in a sport where they are told it doesn’t matter if you are a billionaire or own the local butchers you can only spend up to the SC.  Crazy!

The onus should always be on clubs to grow financially and again IMHO there are clubs currently outside SL that may have the capability to generate greater income than some currently in SL.

Not sure there’s anything wrong with salary caps, after all the NFL and NHL seem to do OK with them, the problem is that firstly the cap needs to be higher to allow the sport to keep hold of star names, plus pay a living wage to the lower earners, and secondly there needs to be a minimum spend for each league and if you can’t afford the minimum spend then perhaps you shouldn’t be in that league at all.

[Adelaide Tiger]

3 minutes ago, Oldbear said:

Not sure there’s anything wrong with salary caps, after all the NFL and NHL seem to do OK with them, the problem is that firstly the cap needs to be higher to allow the sport to keep hold of star names, plus pay a living wage to the lower earners, and secondly there needs to be a minimum spend for each league and if you can’t afford the minimum spend then perhaps you shouldn’t be in that league at all.

Two comments on your post.

1. the NFL and NHL do not have relegation so they can have whatever cap they want as no team is in danger of being relegated to a lesser competition and having to shed their players to meet a lower SC.

2. A ‘minimum spend’ needs to be challenging to clubs and not set at such a low level that clubs can meet that spend without having to grow their income.

[GUBRATS]

I'm amazed that there are people who think club owners don't want or attempt to grow income into their clubs 

It must be true because let's face it , it isn't hard to do is it , anybody could do it , there are experts everywhere on here who could do it , people so rich because of their business acumen they spend their days on internet forums lambasting others who don't

[dkw]

51 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I'm amazed that there are people who think club owners don't want or attempt to grow income into their clubs 

 

Who has said that?

[gingerjon]

20 minutes ago, dkw said:

Who has said that?

Oddly, I think quite a lot of people have made the point that it is the owners' understandable focus on growing income for their own clubs that means they aren't the best people to be tasked with leading whole game solutions.

[Smudger06]

7 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Two comments on your post.

1. the NFL and NHL do not have relegation so they can have whatever cap they want as no team is in danger of being relegated to a lesser competition and having to shed their players to meet a lower SC.

2. A ‘minimum spend’ needs to be challenging to clubs and not set at such a low level that clubs can meet that spend without having to grow their income.

The salary cap is the same across the board. So no need to shed players to meet a lower cap. 

[Hela Wigmen]

The salary cap is pointless. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

2 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

The salary cap is the same across the board. So no need to shed players to meet a lower cap. 

Are you referring to point 1 or point 2 in my post that you responded to?

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

The salary cap is pointless. 

Got to say I agree. Why was it brought in? Wasn't it meant to create a more even competition and to stop clubs living above their means? In my mind neither of these have happened. Teams are still in financial trouble and how many different winners of the SL has their been. At least with an open cap it would give people willing to put money in to our game a chance to make it to the top. At the moment the product in SL is boring and stale and this has been getting worse for a number of seasons now.

[Adelaide Tiger]

4 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

I'm amazed that there are people who think club owners don't want or attempt to grow income into their clubs 

It must be true because let's face it , it isn't hard to do is it , anybody could do it , there are experts everywhere on here who could do it , people so rich because of their business acumen they spend their days on internet forums lambasting others who don't

If your post was in response to a comment I made earlier on this page then I accept that my comment was lazy.  I will quantify my comment with ‘some clubs rely on the SC income more than other clubs as they do not have either the staff and/or the capability to grow income streams compared to other clubs.’

P.S. is there anything else in my post that you disagreed with?
 

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

The salary cap is pointless. 

Agreed. It is just a mechanism that suits everyone for all the wrong reasons. The big clubs stay on top without having to spend too much and safe in the knowledge that they cant be challenged by any wealthier newcomers. Meanwhile the also rans cling on with some false sense of equality doing the care minimum to progress and again safe in the knowledge that it makes it harder for some uppity team to come up from the Championship and outspend them. It doesn't stop clubs going bust and it doesn't create a fairer league, hence we still get the same small pool of winners. No one can even agree what the supposed point of it is.

[marklaspalmas]

14 minutes ago, Damien said:

Agreed. It is just a mechanism that suits everyone for all the wrong reasons. The big clubs stay on top without having to spend too much and safe in the knowledge that they cant be challenged by any wealthier newcomers. Meanwhile the also rans cling on with some false sense of equality doing the care minimum to progress and again safe in the knowledge that it makes it harder for some uppity team to come up from the Championship and outspend them. It doesn't stop clubs going bust and it doesn't create a fairer league, hence we still get the same small pool of winners. No one can even agree what the supposed point of it is.

A good summary

[Toby Chopra]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

Agreed. It is just a mechanism that suits everyone for all the wrong reasons. The big clubs stay on top without having to spend too much and safe in the knowledge that they cant be challenged by any wealthier newcomers. Meanwhile the also rans cling on with some false sense of equality doing the care minimum to progress and again safe in the knowledge that it makes it harder for some uppity team to come up from the Championship and outspend them. It doesn't stop clubs going bust and it doesn't create a fairer league, hence we still get the same small pool of winners. No one can even agree what the supposed point of it is.

Agreed. When you look at other sports leagues round the world, you see that the SC on its own won't achieve the things you've laid out. They all add radical revenue sharing models and minimum spend rules to achieve competitive parity, while having robust 'financial fair pay rules' to ensure stability. On it's own the SC is a blunt instrument that does more harm than good. 

But all those other things are only possible when owners take the conceptual leap to realise that they are business partners selling a single product (the competition as a whole), rather than business rivals.  

RL owners at all levels seem a million miles away from being able to make that leap.    

[Smudger06]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Are you referring to point 1 or point 2 in my post that you responded to?

Point 1, as that's where you mention clubs shed players to meet a lower cap, there isn't a lower cap. 

[del capo]

The top 6 of the EPL do not seem to want  any further  new owners  from the mega rich after Man City stormed in and even UEFA have their financial fair play rules........ more to do with self interest or a genuine desire to try to keep the top end of soccer as competitive as it can be  ( after the horse has bolted ) ?

Talk of a closed shop SL anyone ?

[GUBRATS]

10 hours ago, dkw said:

Who has said that?

Adelaide Tiger 2 posts above yours , and countless others every day 

 

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

If your post was in response to a comment I made earlier on this page then I accept that my comment was lazy.  I will quantify my comment with ‘some clubs rely on the SC income more than other clubs as they do not have either the staff and/or the capability to grow income streams compared to other clubs.’

P.S. is there anything else in my post that you disagreed with?
 

It was your post yes , but it isn't just you , as I put , I am truly amazed how we have so many experts on these boards , who when asked why don't they offer their considerable talents usually use the " they couldn't afford me " get out clause , I'd suggest it's more a " I'm full of sheeitte but like to criticise those who are cleverer than me and love the sport more than me "

[Adelaide Tiger]

8 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

Point 1, as that's where you mention clubs shed players to meet a lower cap, there isn't a lower cap. 

You have misinterpreted my post.

 Oldbear posted that the Salary Cap works in the NFL and NHL.  I responded - the post to which you replied to - by stating that the SC works in those leagues because there is no relegation.  But, I added that if there was relegation from those competitions to a second tier that had a lower SC then those clubs would have to release players.

[Adelaide Tiger]

3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

It was your post yes , but it isn't just you , as I put , I am truly amazed how we have so many experts on these boards , who when asked why don't they offer their considerable talents usually use the " they couldn't afford me " get out clause , I'd suggest it's more a " I'm full of sheeitte but like to criticise those who are cleverer than me and love the sport more than me "

So, if anyone who has no experience working for a club and has the temerity to criticise, then those people are ‘full of sheeitte’ and obviously do not love the game as much as those involved with a club on a daily basis.

It’s a shame that you do not practice what you preach as I am pretty sure - although please point out if I am wrong - that you have had no experience whatsoever in setting up an running an expansion club.  But you sure have spent many hours venting your spleen and continually criticising those that gave it a go.  So does this make you ‘full of sheeitte’?

Of course not.  You are only offering your view.  That’s what we are all doing on here so don’t get so precious.

[GUBRATS]

9 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

So, if anyone who has no experience working for a club and has the temerity to criticise, then those people are ‘full of sheeitte’ and obviously do not love the game as much as those involved with a club on a daily basis.

It’s a shame that you do not practice what you preach as I am pretty sure - although please point out if I am wrong - that you have had no experience whatsoever in setting up an running an expansion club.  But you sure have spent many hours venting your spleen and continually criticising those that gave it a go.  So does this make you ‘full of sheeitte’?

Of course not.  You are only offering your view.  That’s what we are all doing on here so don’t get so precious.

I was a director of a Championship and SL club for 4 years , so have some knowledge of Pro RL in the UK , I also set up and ran a business from scratch for 19 years turning over 20 odd million in that time 

As for criticising those that ' gave it a go ' , if you are referring to David Argyle , you are completely wrong , I haven't ever criticised anybody who has put their hard earned into a RL club , it is a thankless task , rarely does it end with anybody giving them praise 

As I said , plenty of experts , but not expert enough to make enough money to ' give it a go ' themselves