Which Two Clubs to Take SL to 14?

[MrPosh]

For me it's definitely Fev and then either a third team from Hull or one of Batley or Dewsbury.

[Hela Wigmen]

5 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Two tens - intensity of fixtures in both divisions, ability to grow up or consolidate down much easier and with less overhaul.

Too few teams in a league, not enough teams are full-time professional to create a twenty team competition, too many loop games. 

[Loiner]

7 hours ago, Damien said:

How do you define artificially? Is it just putting a team straight into Super League?

Toronto worked their way up through the pyramid and earned promotion on the field but were in a new RL area. Would you deem that to be artificial? 

As a matter of interest what happens to Toronto next season ? Are they in the championship or have they gone bust ?

[sweaty craiq]

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Too few teams in a league, not enough teams are full-time professional to create a twenty team competition, too many loop games. 

We have 11 plus the 6 add back TW or Ottawa or Newcastle or Widnes or another French Elite1 club, and you have 20 FT - you then make the door open for other clubs to become FT. SC should be min spends and overseas tv deals must be obtained - on that basis £2m funding SL1 and £1m SL2 is very achievable.

[WakefieldCityLoyal]

Halifax and Oldham 

[Hela Wigmen]

5 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

We have 11 plus the 6 add back TW or Ottawa or Newcastle or Widnes or another French Elite1 club, and you have 20 FT - you then make the door open for other clubs to become FT. SC should be min spends and overseas tv deals must be obtained - on that basis £2m funding SL1 and £1m SL2 is very achievable.

Most of the six aren’t full-time professionals and have some form of hybrid model, differing at each club. Toronto don’t exist any more, Ottawa have yet to play a game, Newcastle are growing nicely at slow but successful rate, Widnes are recovering from financial ruin and there’s little indication that a third French club are willing to step up or are even wanted. 

[lingard]

17 hours ago, RayCee said:

If the NRL took a major stake in SL and wanted 14 sides, which two would be invited? I would have thought Toulouse one. The other from London, York or Fev. My pick York as London need to sort their location out and Fev too small.

idiot.  Why are Fev too small?  what is actually Super about SL?  Prior to it’s inception Wakefield, Salford, Hull, Wigan had their own grounds and facilities.  Now they are teams in name only.  Huddersfield have been like that for years, Hull and Huddersfield have both merged with other teams, Bradford have imploded several times, Widnes have collapsed, London have wondered all around the South play in an amateur rented set up. Toronto lol.   

I watched a video of little Fev in lockdown giving Halifax a beating at Post Office Road, Halifax, not (Wigan, Saints or Widnes) in 1989 in The first division.  there was 6500 there.  Every home game we played in the old first division the ground was full. Same for Halifax and Oldham etc all the so callled non super clubs.  How has SL grown the sport. it hasn’t, it’s ruined it.  It’s time to turn the game back to semi professional, sustainable format for many clubs and rebuild from the ground up.

It is never going to compete with RU as the elite in this country will never let it happen, just like SL ‘elite’ will not let Fev in. 

[Oxford]

Which Two Clubs to Take SL to 14?

 

https://www.salfordcityroosters.co.uk/news/

&

https://irlam.cylex-uk.co.uk/company/irlam-hornets-arlfc-19319100.html

 

 

[Spidey]

That escalated quickly. Note to self don’t call Fev small

[Oldbear]

9 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Whether you use the criteria that has been outlined for the twelfth place of Super League, the criteria used during the previous licencing period or a hybrid of the two, you’re going to have five or six clubs who tick the boxes and get their place in Super League. 

You then have another couple of clubs who probably tick nearly all the boxes but have a black mark over their name in terms of one or two things, one that can’t just be rectified in the space of a year or two.

You then have another handful of 5-6 clubs, who are either current Super League sides or Championship sides, who tick some boxes but not all.

You then have another 2-5 clubs who at this time only tick a couple of boxes but have ambitions to start ticking more boxes over the next 5-10 years and are growing slowly and organically without being parachuted into leagues. 

By extending the league to fourteen, you’re putting too many teams in who aren’t ticking enough boxes of the criteria just to lose playing five teams three times instead of two and if we’re doing that, what’s the point of the criteria in the first place?

I’ve got no problems with looking to expand to fourteen in time but it, like absolutely everything to do with Rugby League, needs to be as part of a strategy and a plan to shape the future of the game. That’s before you even discuss the infamous “E word”, expansion. 

This is the reality, not enough clubs meet all the criteria that you really need for a true Super League, as a result clubs are put in to make up the numbers, but they are no better than others excluded, so not a fair system. If we do go to 14, and it’s a big if, depending on TV money, then how about deciding it on the field of play!

[Scotchy1]

2 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

We have 11 plus the 6 add back TW or Ottawa or Newcastle or Widnes or another French Elite1 club, and you have 20 FT - you then make the door open for other clubs to become FT. SC should be min spends and overseas tv deals must be obtained - on that basis £2m funding SL1 and £1m SL2 is very achievable.

There is no reason to suppose that broadcasters would be any more interested in the lower league than this one

[yipyee]

22 hours ago, RayCee said:

If the NRL took a major stake in SL and wanted 14 sides, which two would be invited? I would have thought Toulouse one. The other from London, York or Fev. My pick York as London need to sort their location out and Fev too small.

Well they would have to force the clubs to take a pay cut or allow 2 clubs in that take no central funding

2 previous clubs that did this are 

Toronto

Newcastle (gateshead)

[Oldbear]

1 hour ago, yipyee said:

Well they would have to force the clubs to take a pay cut or allow 2 clubs in that take no central funding

2 previous clubs that did this are 

Toronto

Newcastle (gateshead)

Yes and look how well that turned out!

[DC77]

15 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I would say that RL has never experienced even half the hostility in London as it has in Melbourne.

At the time of expanding to Canberra, RU and AFL were equally as ingrained in local culture as RL.

What a shame that areas of RL culture like South of France and London have not survived.

Im not on my high horse, I just think the game in the north is predominantly administered by imbeciles.

RL is a big deal in Aus though. Surely people in Melbourne would have been familiar with it, even if they didn’t follow it. Because it’s part of Aussie pop culture (NRL grand final, state of origin) it permeates Aussie society, with people anywhere in Aus having a basic knowledge of it regardless of their interest in it.

The UK, and London, is a different cattle of fish. Outside RL heartlands, if you asked joe public when was the last GB won the RLWC, I’d say you’d get less than 1 percent who would know. There’s a BBC article that touches on this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/7656503.stm

Sam Tomkins can go on the London Underground and not a soul know who he is (iirc there was footage of him on a train filmed by his mate). The same applies to Liverpool and Manchester, both on the doorstep of the RL heartlands. This last point I recall suprised an Aussie poster, who assumed RL being popular in the north that somehow this would extend to northern cities. RL is enclosed in its own areas. It’s like a mini culture within a larger UK culture. Tony Collins in his podcast mentions this, you can go a few miles outside a RL town and basic knowledge of the sport ends. He brought up an example but I can’t remember the location he used.

So really the NRL are pushing an open door even with the like of Melbourne. Doing similar to London is a different story. The fella bankrolling the Broncos today has spent millions on them (tens of millions?), their profile is no bigger than a fourth tier football club. Give the RFL the Australian sporting landscape, and give the NRL the British sporting landscape, I know who I’d put my money on who would appear to be more successful.

[Saint Toppy]

19 hours ago, binosh said:

My last sentence said it costs no more money than it does now.

 

Except your proposal DOES cost more money - Money that we already know doesn't exist - hence why your proposal is completely unrealistic

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

11 hours ago, yipyee said:

Well they would have to force the clubs to take a pay cut or allow 2 clubs in that take no central funding

2 previous clubs that did this are 

Toronto

Newcastle (gateshead)

You missed reduced funding for Bradford, another success story.... 

[Scotchy1]

7 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

You missed reduced funding for Bradford, another success story.... 

And Wakefield.

Its a plan with a wonderful 0% success rate  

[Sports Prophet]

8 hours ago, DC77 said:

RL is a big deal in Aus though. Surely people in Melbourne would have been familiar with it, even if they didn’t follow it. Because it’s part of Aussie pop culture (NRL grand final, state of origin) it permeates Aussie society, with people anywhere in Aus having a basic knowledge of it regardless of their interest in it.

The UK, and London, is a different cattle of fish. Outside RL heartlands, if you asked joe public when was the last GB won the RLWC, I’d say you’d get less than 1 percent who would know. There’s a BBC article that touches on this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/7656503.stm

Sam Tomkins can go on the London Underground and not a soul know who he is (iirc there was footage of him on a train filmed by his mate). The same applies to Liverpool and Manchester, both on the doorstep of the RL heartlands. This last point I recall suprised an Aussie poster, who assumed RL being popular in the north that somehow this would extend to northern cities. RL is enclosed in its own areas. It’s like a mini culture within a larger UK culture. Tony Collins in his podcast mentions this, you can go a few miles outside a RL town and basic knowledge of the sport ends. He brought up an example but I can’t remember the location he used.

So really the NRL are pushing an open door even with the like of Melbourne. Doing similar to London is a different story. The fella bankrolling the Broncos today has spent millions on them (tens of millions?), their profile is no bigger than a fourth tier football club. Give the RFL the Australian sporting landscape, and give the NRL the British sporting landscape, I know who I’d put my money on who would appear to be more successful.

I know all very well the culture of RL in London, the North and Melbourne and Victoria.

I know very well who David Hughes is and his financial support of the Broncos and the minuscule profile the club holds there (not that this was always the case).

I understand the lack of awareness for RL in London, which is similar in the ignorance of those south of the NSW border here.

The hostility in my opinion is very different between the two, albeit in Melbourne, far less now than it was pre-Storm. Don’t think that Cameron Smith or Billy Slater or Cooper Cronk would be recognised on trams though.

[sentoffagain2]

19 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Too few teams in a league, not enough teams are full-time professional to create a twenty team competition, too many loop games. 

No need to have loop games.Play everyone in your division home and away 18 games.And play all the teams in the other division once 10 games,5 at home 5 away.= 28 games without duplication.

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, sentoffagain2 said:

No need to have loop games.Play everyone in your division home and away 18 games.And play all the teams in the other division once 10 games,5 at home 5 away.= 28 games without duplication.

Cross division games rather than cross conference games are not a great idea and this just looks like a short-term alternative to getting rid of loop fixtures rather than it being for the betterment of Rugby League. 

[binosh]

4 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Except your proposal DOES cost more money - Money that we already know doesn't exist - hence why your proposal is completely unrealistic

Tell me how it costs more money.

[sentoffagain2]

42 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Cross division games rather than cross conference games are not a great idea and this just looks like a short-term alternative to getting rid of loop fixtures rather than it being for the betterment of Rugby League. 

Not enogh players of the required standard for two sets of ten.I was offering a formula that could work better than loop fixtures.We need to go to 14 and then work to 16 team S.L within 5 years .That would give 30 games without duplication.Get more younger players playing the game and spread academy  players more evenly between all clubs instead of the top few teams hoarding them .However the clubs have become too reliant on SKY money i cant see it happening.

[Hela Wigmen]

14 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

Not enogh players of the required standard for two sets of ten.I was offering a formula that could work better than loop fixtures.We need to go to 14 and then work to 16 team S.L within 5 years .That would give 30 games without duplication.Get more younger players playing the game and spread academy  players more evenly between all clubs instead of the top few teams hoarding them .However the clubs have become too reliant on SKY money i cant see it happening.

We need to stay at twelve in my opinion, for some of the reasons you mention. Start off with twelve, get teams there hitting minimum standards first and then look to go to fourteen in, say, 3-5 years and sixteen in 7-10. That’s what I’d like to see and those 3-5 and 7-10 can be more or less, if needed. 

[spanishknight]

York and Toulouse no brainer.

[sweaty craiq]

10 minutes ago, Celt said:

Toronto is done unfortunately. We will never see them again. Thinking otherwise is fantasy stuff.

I will have you a £5 charity wager they are back within 2 years