Another Restructure?

[TheReaper]

I say do 5 leagues of 5.

8 games, then 8 games against other divisions, then a reseeding into 3 groups of 8 with 1 eliminated, then a rock-paper-scissors tournament, then Magic Weekend but they play Polo instead (teams who can't afford horses can just have the backs ride on the forwards), followed by a final between Toronto and Catalans. 

Why not, it hasn't been tried yet, may just be the solutions

[Blind side johnny]

From an authoritative reporter:

"The delay is thought to be precautionary. Though yet another restructure is not expected in the immediate future, the RFL is aware that the ongoing negotiations with Sky could change course as they develop. If a league restructure was to happen it would change how, or if, promotion and relegation would occur.

Rugby league is bracing for a reduced TV deal and it's believed that Super League is currently trying to negotiate a shorter deal, which will allow the sport to reassess and restructure following the news that Super League's executive chairman Robert Elstone is to resign."

Full article here: Super League promotion and relegation decision latest as RFL provide key update - Hull Live (hulldailymail.co.uk)

That should be reassuring for non-SL clubs then.

[dkw]

1 hour ago, TheReaper said:

I say do 5 leagues of 5.

8 games, then 8 games against other divisions, then a reseeding into 3 groups of 8 with 1 eliminated, then a rock-paper-scissors tournament, then Magic Weekend but they play Polo instead (teams who can't afford horses can just have the backs ride on the forwards), followed by a final between Toronto and Catalans. 

Why not, it hasn't been tried yet, may just be the solutions

18 leagues of 2, each team plays the other 13.78 times, then the ones with most points gets to take 3 of the opposing teams players pets. The pets then race each other 3 times, the winning pet is eaten after a pagan ritual where evil spirits are cleansed from the sport, mostly the dodgy vodka.

[Oldbear]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

18 leagues of 2, each team plays the other 13.78 times, then the ones with most points gets to take 3 of the opposing teams players pets. The pets then race each other 3 times, the winning pet is eaten after a pagan ritual where evil spirits are cleansed from the sport, mostly the dodgy vodka.

We have a winner!

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

“He’s no Finnish, he’s only 28”

You've spent too much time in Edinburgh

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

18 leagues of 2, each team plays the other 13.78 times, then the ones with most points gets to take 3 of the opposing teams players pets. The pets then race each other 3 times, the winning pet is eaten after a pagan ritual where evil spirits are cleansed from the sport, mostly the dodgy vodka.

Strange bunch those Cumbrians , all that radiation 

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Going back to the original post, May I remind you all that at the time that when applications were being put in for the Super League place as Toronto's replacement . The RFL did state that at least 6-7 clubs including Leigh who were selected were all suitable for Super League. If you add Widnes Vikings you have your  2x 10 clubs. It does read like the game is preparing to circle the wagons so to speak with revenue declining

It would also explain the moves by London Broncos (to Wimbledon) and Bradford Bulls (back to Odsal) if this was being given serious consideration by the powers that be.

The one thing that stops this educated guess becoming reality is the nature of the game itself where proposals leak like a sieve. We have websites such as Wikileaks and Wokeyleaks, Perhaps we could have Leaguileaks or is that the function of this forum?

[DI Keith Fowler]

53 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

From an authoritative reporter:

"The delay is thought to be precautionary. Though yet another restructure is not expected in the immediate future, the RFL is aware that the ongoing negotiations with Sky could change course as they develop. If a league restructure was to happen it would change how, or if, promotion and relegation would occur.

Rugby league is bracing for a reduced TV deal and it's believed that Super League is currently trying to negotiate a shorter deal, which will allow the sport to reassess and restructure following the news that Super League's executive chairman Robert Elstone is to resign."

Full article here: Super League promotion and relegation decision latest as RFL provide key update - Hull Live (hulldailymail.co.uk)

That should be reassuring for non-SL clubs then.

Reads like they're offering Sky a restructure and seeing what they make of it. A little bit of  a caveat that while they don't expect a change it may well change. 

[Leyther_Matt]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

You've spent too much time in Edinburgh

 

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

From an authoritative reporter:

"The delay is thought to be precautionary. Though yet another restructure is not expected in the immediate future, the RFL is aware that the ongoing negotiations with Sky could change course as they develop. If a league restructure was to happen it would change how, or if, promotion and relegation would occur.

Rugby league is bracing for a reduced TV deal and it's believed that Super League is currently trying to negotiate a shorter deal, which will allow the sport to reassess and restructure following the news that Super League's executive chairman Robert Elstone is to resign."

Full article here: Super League promotion and relegation decision latest as RFL provide key update - Hull Live (hulldailymail.co.uk)

That should be reassuring for non-SL clubs then.

Read that too, doesn't look good.

[dkw]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Strange bunch those Cumbrians , all that radiation 

Can you argue that its a worse idea than some of the things the rfl come up with?

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, dkw said:

Can you argue that its a worse idea than some of the things the rfl come up with?

Not really no

[Rupert Prince]

5 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

From an authoritative reporter:

"The delay is thought to be precautionary. Though yet another restructure is not expected in the immediate future, the RFL is aware that the ongoing negotiations with Sky could change course as they develop. If a league restructure was to happen it would change how, or if, promotion and relegation would occur.

Rugby league is bracing for a reduced TV deal and it's believed that Super League is currently trying to negotiate a shorter deal, which will allow the sport to reassess and restructure following the news that Super League's executive chairman Robert Elstone is to resign."

Full article here: Super League promotion and relegation decision latest as RFL provide key update - Hull Live (hulldailymail.co.uk)

That should be reassuring for non-SL clubs then.

This is in relation with the Championship and League 1.  The TV deal, which seems to have been determined but not published, is for the Super League.  

The delay is to decide promotion if any.  Assuming any promotion it seems the obvious is the promote the team that finishes top, since if there is relegation the bottom team will simply go down.

The real issue for the lower leagues is far wider than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.   

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

This is in relation with the Championship and League 1.  The TV deal, which seems to have been determined but not published, is for the Super League.  

The delay is to decide promotion if any.  Assuming any promotion it seems the obvious is the promote the team that finishes top, since if there is relegation the bottom team will simply go down.

The real issue for the lower leagues is far wider than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.   

Not really practical or fair to promote on League position if they play a shortened season and place on % 

[DOGFATHER]

On 15/02/2021 at 17:17, whatmichaelsays said:

No. I don't think it's good for the game. 

But equally, I don't think that the answer is to prevent those clubs from trying to improve the product and put the best players that they can afford to in front of the paying public. The answer, in my view, is to create an environment where the smaller clubs can grow to compete with those bigger clubs. 

You talk about smaller clubs keeping hold of their talent, but the salary cap is a blunt instrument in that sense. We know that the smaller clubs have less spending power under a salary capped system - the smaller clubs, with poorer playing and training facilities, with inferior coaching and less likelihood of reaching major events end up paying more for the same players as bigger clubs. When a player has a choice between club X, who offer a good chance of playing at Old Trafford, Wembley and playing in front of >10k crowds every week, or club Y, who offer none of those things, then club Y has to dig deeper to win that contract. 

We've had a salary cap since 1999. In that time, four names have been etched onto the trophy. It doesn't work to make the league more competitive, it doesn't work to help smaller clubs attract talent, it doesn't help clubs retain their best talent and it doesn't help clubs, big or small, to attract new audiences or sponsors.

I've got no issue with some sort of financial handicapping but it needs to be the right sort of system. A hard cap is a blunt instrument that simply results in a race to the bottom and makes the players pay for the poor commercial performance of a small number of clubs. A better system would be a turnover-linked 'financial fair play' system - one that encourages clubs to invest in the growth of their businesses and rewards those that successfully do it.   

Maybe so, but I don't really think the SC has been properly managed, or as I stated in my response to Damien, it has been put together in a way that it has more holes than a pga tour season in it to stop it from being effective.

It really isn't an easy problem to solve. I don't really care what sytem they use, be it salary cap, financial handicapping or any other system, just so long as it ensures each division is competitive.

I just cannot see how knowing which teams will make the top 4 in SL and the CH every year is doing the game any favours, in attracting fans, sponsors, new eyes on the game. I honestly do think it helps to increase the number of participants within the game either. I simply do not think any form of restucturing will solve the fundamental problem.

 

[LeeF]

On 15/02/2021 at 17:00, Rupert Prince said:

It's been frittered away who know where.  Its probably too frightening to look.  We know its gone though because there had been no investment in the game to underpin the real viable clubs that could be the cornerstone of modern rugby league. 

Now both questions being evaded

[whatmichaelsays]

15 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

Maybe so, but I don't really think the SC has been properly managed, or as I stated in my response to Damien, it has been put together in a way that it has more holes than a pga tour season in it to stop it from being effective.

It really isn't an easy problem to solve. I don't really care what sytem they use, be it salary cap, financial handicapping or any other system, just so long as it ensures each division is competitive.

I just cannot see how knowing which teams will make the top 4 in SL and the CH every year is doing the game any favours, in attracting fans, sponsors, new eyes on the game. I honestly do think it helps to increase the number of participants within the game either. I simply do not think any form of restucturing will solve the fundamental problem.

 

The various loopholes and exemptions were brought in because a flat salary cap was damaging the product. You can argue about maintaining a pretence of "fairness" all you like, but a poor quality product, that loses it's best talent because it handicaps the ability of teams that could otherwise afford it to pay for it is not an attractive proposition - no matter how many teams think that they might have a chance of winning it. 

The game doesn't improve by racing to the bottom and bringing the bigger clubs down to the level of the smallest ones. The game improves by setting standards that the smaller clubs need to rise to in order to compete with the bigger ones. If we have clubs that still can't afford to pay up to a salary cap that is £1m less than it should be, maybe it is those clubs that are the problem?

[DOGFATHER]

4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The various loopholes and exemptions were brought in because a flat salary cap was damaging the product. You can argue about maintaining a pretence of "fairness" all you like, but a poor quality product, that loses it's best talent because it handicaps the ability of teams that could otherwise afford it to pay for it is not an attractive proposition - no matter how many teams think that they might have a chance of winning it. 

The game doesn't improve by racing to the bottom and bringing the bigger clubs down to the level of the smallest ones. The game improves by setting standards that the smaller clubs need to rise to in order to compete with the bigger ones. If we have clubs that still can't afford to pay up to a salary cap that is £1m less than it should be, maybe it is those clubs that are the problem?

I quite agree, but where would you get those 7 or 8 clubs from that could compete to make the league interesting?

The game has tried in cities with good populations such as London, Paris, Sheffield, Toronto and I keep hearing a lot of noise about Newcastle, a team that so far have only managed to get out of L1 via a vote. 

Sometimes you need to take a step back to move forward, maybe this might be one of those occasions. 

[whatmichaelsays]

6 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

I quite agree, but where would you get those 7 or 8 clubs from that could compete to make the league interesting?

The game has tried in cities with good populations such as London, Paris, Sheffield, Toronto and I keep hearing a lot of noise about Newcastle, a team that so far have only managed to get out of L1 via a vote. 

Sometimes you need to take a step back to move forward, maybe this might be one of those occasions. 

The game has arguably been "taking a step back" for the best part of 125 years. It's time to move forwards. 

I'm a bit different to most expansionists on here in that I don't see the game's issues as a geography problem - and certainly not one solved by plonking teams in random cities. Don't get me wrong, being in cities would be great, but we're not there. 

There isn't a single existing club out there than cannot expand its audience. There isn't a single club out there that cannot broaden its appeal to people both inside and outside of their traditional catchment area - who cannot find ways to appeal to new generations of fans, demographics of fans and compete with other leisure activities in their area for that spend. There isn't a single club out there that shouldn't be doing more to engage audiences through digital channels. There isn't a single club out there that can't enhance what they offer to sponsors and the media. 

Every time you hear a club chairman complaining about Thursday nights or away fans not showing up, you're listening to somebody with no imagination, no creativity and no gumption to go out and find new audiences for their club. 

You might argue that all of that sounds like hard work and sounds expensive, but that's the cost of doing business and the clubs that can't meet that cost have, in my view, no right to hold back those that can in order to maintain a pretence of "fairness".

[DOGFATHER]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The game has arguably been "taking a step back" for the best part of 125 years. It's time to move forwards. 

I'm a bit different to most expansionists on here in that I don't see the game's issues as a geography problem - and certainly not one solved by plonking teams in random cities. Don't get me wrong, being in cities would be great, but we're not there. 

There isn't a single existing club out there than cannot expand its audience. There isn't a single club out there that cannot broaden its appeal to people both inside and outside of their traditional catchment area - who cannot find ways to appeal to new generations of fans, demographics of fans and compete with other leisure activities in their area for that spend. There isn't a single club out there that shouldn't be doing more to engage audiences through digital channels. There isn't a single club out there that can't enhance what they offer to sponsors and the media. 

Every time you hear a club chairman complaining about Thursday nights or away fans not showing up, you're listening to somebody with no imagination, no creativity and no gumption to go out and find new audiences for their club. 

You might argue that all of that sounds like hard work and sounds expensive, but that's the cost of doing business and the clubs that can't meet that cost have, in my view, no right to hold back those that can in order to maintain a pretence of "fairness".

I quite agree, but in 25 years of SL, niether the clubs, nor the game has been able to attract the other 7 or 8 owners it has so desperately needed, with the drive and the finances you cite, to accomplish that.

I just fail to see how reducing the number of teams taking part in the game, and therefore the pathways for players to develop and improve, can be seen in any way part of the silver bullet that will miraculoously turn the fortunes of the game around.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

There isn't a single existing club out there than cannot expand its audience. There isn't a single club out there that cannot broaden its appeal to people both inside and outside of their traditional catchment area - who cannot find ways to appeal to new generations of fans, demographics of fans and compete with other leisure activities in their area for that spend. There isn't a single club out there that shouldn't be doing more to engage audiences through digital channels. There isn't a single club out there that can't enhance what they offer to sponsors and the media.

What evidence underlies the conclusion that the traditional clubs are capable of broadening their appeal outside their traditional catchment area?  Manchester and Liverpool are both only just outside that traditional catchment area, how would you go about appealing to Mancunians and Liverpudlians who know what the game is but haven't shown interest in it before?

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, DOGFATHER said:

I just fail to see how reducing the number of teams taking part in the game, and therefore the pathways for players to develop and improve, can be seen in any way part of the silver bullet that will miraculoously turn the fortunes of the game around.

I'm not arguing that it is. I think that the 2x10 idea is pointless and I've said why I think that. 

I do think there needs to be a more objective and mature discussion about whether throwing SL broadcast revenues at the Championship so that they can run full-time squads represents the best possible return on investment, but that's not necessarily "reducing the number of teams". 

[whatmichaelsays]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

What evidence underlies the conclusion that the traditional clubs are capable of broadening their appeal outside their traditional catchment area?  Manchester and Liverpool are both only just outside that traditional catchment area, how would you go about appealing to Mancunians and Liverpudlians who know what the game is but haven't shown interest in it before?

For starters, I'd stop obsessing about geographically-specific terms. The aim should not be to find "Mancunians" or "Liverpudlians" who might watch RL, but to instead find "audiences" that might be tempted to watch RL - be that in person, on TV or online. 

Decide the audience you want to reach and then cater the product to the audience. "Mancunians" or "Liverpudlians" aren't an audience segment in the same way that "millenials" aren't an audience segment- they share no common characteristics other than one very broad commonality and in turn, they're no different to "[Insert city of your choice]ians".   

[Hela Wigmen]

What’s Super about a league with twelve or fourteen teams anyway? If North America has taught us one thing its go big or go home. That’s why we need a THIRTY-SIX team league. 

Twenty four teams get promoted and the Super League clubs clinging on to the coat tails of the comp can’t go getting relegated. What’s not to like?

[fighting irish]

2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'm not arguing that it is. I think that the 2x10 idea is pointless and I've said why I think that. 

I do think there needs to be a more objective and mature discussion about whether throwing SL broadcast revenues at the Championship so that they can run full-time squads represents the best possible return on investment, but that's not necessarily "reducing the number of teams". 

Mike! I've been reading your stuff, since one of us, first appeared in here, (I don't know which one it was). I have never mounted a single argument against anything you've ever said.

Maybe you are eager to hide your light under your bushel, until the SL, RFL or one of the SL clubs comes forward to ask for your help, I don't know?

What I would really enjoy and Big Picture is hinting at, is if you would show us a plan (or a skeleton of a plan) which you believe would bring about the kind of growth you keep telling us all is possible.

I too believe there's so much more out there for us and I agree we just don't seem to have the imagination to tap into it.

You claim (if only they'll pay your rates) to know how to draw out the growth potential we both believe exists, so please, please tell us how you'd do it?

It doesn't have to be a fully integrated one-stop-shop solution but just tell us one way (or more) you would increase revenue for the clubs/game?

Make the doubters believe.