Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Really? I absolutely love watching the likes of Murrell. If the choice for these guys is retirement at 32 or knocking around in the Championship until they are 35, I choose the latter. I am genuinely excited to see what BJB, Cuthbertson, Sammut, Casty, Peyroux, Brough, Moors, etc. can still do. Just as I am excited to see these same players get put on their ***** by a kid fresh out of the academy. I think this is one of the joys of the Championship.

Bingo.

  • Like 1

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 post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 393
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hope not, a ten team SL (or championship) would be woeful. 

2x10 just smacks of trying to please everyone, whilst at the same time not really pleasing anyone.  For starters, calling it "SL2" just cheapens the Super League brand. You may as well call it "S

This. I want 14 and a bit of variety. 10 just doesnt do it for me.

25 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Really? I absolutely love watching the likes of Murrell. If the choice for these guys is retirement at 32 or knocking around in the Championship until they are 35, I choose the latter. I am genuinely excited to see what BJB, Cuthbertson, Sammut, Casty, Peyroux, Brough, Moors, etc. can still do. Just as I am excited to see these same players get put on their ***** by a kid fresh out of the academy. I think this is one of the joys of the Championship.

I'm not saying you can't enjoy that.

I'm saying that it's fair to question whether taking money from the Super League TV deal and using it to keep those players in full-time contracts is delivering a better return on investment than that it could if it were invested elsewhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

In terms of the salary cap, how is having a massive gap between the top and bottom clubs good for the game?

How is imposing a £1m real terms pay cut across the players at every club good for anyone other than the club owners? 

If clubs can't afford to pay to a salary cap that is £1m less in real terms than it was two decades ago, surely it is those clubs that are the problem - not the bigger clubs looking to try and attract better players and build teams that are more enjoyable to watch? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Controversially I think it's an ok format and reasonable idea. 

27 fixtures (play each team 3 times with 13 H, 13 A and magic) 

Only issue is do we end up with 10 full time and 10 semi pro or will it be more like 15 pro and 5 semi pro? 

If 10 and 10 that's my big worry. 

1 relegation spot or potential for between SL1 and SL2 and likewise potential of promotion between SL2 and leagues below is a must. 

 

£1.8m to top 10 

900k to next 10 

50k to teams below? 

 

I'm not sold on it but above provides potentially to build to 20 pro clubs and I think should be in mix alongside other proposals 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeeF said:

You’ve ducked the question as you clearly cannot admit the massive differences between St Pats & the clubs I named. 
 

BTW any evidence of the millions “given away” and then apparently “wasted”?

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. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

How is imposing a £1m real terms pay cut across the players at every club good for anyone other than the club owners? 

If clubs can't afford to pay to a salary cap that is £1m less in real terms than it was two decades ago, surely it is those clubs that are the problem - not the bigger clubs looking to try and attract better players and build teams that are more enjoyable to watch? 

Can you honestly say that the same 4 clubs winning everything year in, year out is good for the game? 

How helpful is it to the smaller clubs that are trying to grow their fan base, increase sponsorship and the amount they can pay players in the future, and improve the spectacle of the game in general when realistically they have no chance of ever winning anything or keeping hold of a star player they might have nutured or unearthed?

Things like increasing customer base is difficult enough to almost every type of business, but in this case, where you have 4 organisations that can afford to outclass the product/service on offer anywhere else in the country, the rest have little to no chance of ever competing.

In the business world this is okay to some extent, 4 strong businesses providing a great product or service, it would offer choice to the market and competition to keep those 4 striving to constantly improve. In terms of sport, it doesn't work like that.

I do agree with your point, in an ideal world we would have 12 teams spending right up to the max in terms of the SC and even outspending clubs in the NRL and RU to attract the best talent in the world. Following the model used over the last 25 years of SL, I would say we are no closer to seeing that happen than we were 25 years ago.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That whole thing just looks like an attempt to cut off funding to nearly half of the clubs currently receiving it. So just go 2 x 10 and let the other 16 clubs fend for themselves? It's basically a land grab which will see the sport lose a hell of a lot more supporters than its likely to gain. Also anyone who thinks the semi Pro teams will just carry on as an entirely amateur club are deluding themselves, the majority will cease to exist either immediately or pretty soon after.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

Only issue is do we end up with 10 full time and 10 semi pro or will it be more like 15 pro and 5 semi pro? 

If 10 and 10 that's my big worry. 

1 relegation spot or potential for between SL1 and SL2 and likewise potential of promotion between SL2 and leagues below is a must. 

It must be 20 FT clubs, the closeness of the comps is the key to media buy in - you cant have clubs thinking they can go cheap, the comps should have min salary spends - if you cant make that guarantee you shouldn't be in £1.5m spend min in SL on £1m funding with a max of 60% turnover if you want to spend more

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dkw said:

That whole thing just looks like an attempt to cut off funding to nearly half of the clubs currently receiving it. So just go 2 x 10 and let the other 16 clubs fend for themselves? It's basically a land grab which will see the sport lose a hell of a lot more supporters than its likely to gain. Also anyone who thinks the semi Pro teams will just carry on as an entirely amateur club are deluding themselves, the majority will cease to exist either immediately or pretty soon after.

You cannot risk the 30,000 fans that Widnes, Leigh, Bulls and HKR have to prop up 500 in West Cumbria or South Yorkshire. The 30000 will be more than the rest put together and may cause Cumbria to come together and enter.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

Can you honestly say that the same 4 clubs winning everything year in, year out is good for the game? 

How helpful is it to the smaller clubs that are trying to grow their fan base, increase sponsorship and the amount they can pay players in the future, and improve the spectacle of the game in general when realistically they have no chance of ever winning anything or keeping hold of a star player they might have nutured or unearthed?

Things like increasing customer base is difficult enough to almost every type of business, but in this case, where you have 4 organisations that can afford to outclass the product/service on offer anywhere else in the country, the rest have little to no chance of ever competing.

In the business world this is okay to some extent, 4 strong businesses providing a great product or service, it would offer choice to the market and competition to keep those 4 striving to constantly improve. In terms of sport, it doesn't work like that.

I do agree with your point, in an ideal world we would have 12 teams spending right up to the max in terms of the SC and even outspending clubs in the NRL and RU to attract the best talent in the world. Following the model used over the last 25 years of SL, I would say we are no closer to seeing that happen than we were 25 years ago.

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.   

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'm not saying you can't enjoy that.

I'm saying that it's fair to question whether taking money from the Super League TV deal and using it to keep those players in full-time contracts is delivering a better return on investment than that it could if it were invested elsewhere. 

Is Superleague clubs keeping numerous over the hill Aussies /Kiwis in full time highly paid contracts delivering a better investment. ?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 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. 

It will be an insignificant amount compared to what some perennial underperforming Superleague clubs have. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Is Superleague clubs keeping numerous over the hill Aussies /Kiwis in full time highly paid contracts delivering a better investment. ?

Historically RL plundered Wales RU for top ups, today its ex NRL who cant get a gig as we cant compete with RU contracts due to the perception we are forced to sell

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Is Superleague clubs keeping numerous over the hill Aussies /Kiwis in full time highly paid contracts delivering a better investment. ?

Given that the revenue is coming from broadcasters who are willing to pay for the rights to show said over-the-hill Aussies, arguably so. 

The question is whether those 'over the hill Aussies' are better than the players we could overwise fill our teams with? If they are then maybe, just maybe, the best option for that funding is to throw it at the community game and development officers, rather than having players bumbling around the Championship going from 12-month contract to 12-month contract? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's what happens now anyway.

Exactly, root and stem reform of the cap is a good thing, because right now it doesn't help the smaller clubs compete, it doesn't stop the same 3 or 4 clubs winning everything, and it does stop the league as a whole competing with its rivals for talent - the NRL and 3 European pro RU leagues

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Well obviously it depends on the side of the fence you are (literally) on. If you're Batley or Dewsbury you'll probably think to some extent that you're birthright is being cut off from you, likewise obviously opportunities open up elsewhere for others.

in 2010 ish central funding for the championship was about 50k

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

There was a meeting between the RFL and Championship clubs last week.

This meeting was it just with the Championship clubs only then?

If there was one then it is certainly news to me.

 And as I mentioned in an earlier post I wish the clubs and the RFL would come out and tell us what is going on and if anything is being proposed then they should be open,honest and transparent.Especially if there is a restructure which sees or potentially sees a number of clubs at Championship and Championship 1 level being no longer a part of that.

It annoys and angers me when they keep hushed up.

 And in my opinion I think that given the season will be starting in April/May then now is the time for the RFL and the clubs to come out and be upfront with us.

Is that too much for you to do RFL?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harrogate Fire Ants said:

I think we have covered this in another thread but if there was to be a restructure I would rather have a conference/group style system than reducing numbers. With playoffs for all with something to play for. 

I don't remotely support this but if you were to split 20 from the rest then 2x10 is a dumb as rocks way of doing it because you've immediately devalued half of your product for no benefit. Plus you've set in stone a 3x9 fixture set up which is never particularly well liked.

If you were going to split the 20 off then, yes, there has to be a salary floor alongside a salary cap. Shift it to a minimum of 2 conferences. Play everyone is your own conference home and away plus five home and five away games across the 10 in the other conference.

And if you can't right now find 20 clubs who can definitely 100% commit to the salary floor spending (and any other requirements) then drop the idea of the split. We've had enough pipe dreams.

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 post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

Is that not what I wrote? What did you think I had written.

You were arguing for salary cap cuts and quoting someone arguing the opposite. If you are simply arguing for a race to the bottom and dumbing down of standards, which will again simply end up with the same 4 clubs winning everything, then no thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Given that the revenue is coming from broadcasters who are willing to pay for the rights to show said over-the-hill Aussies, arguably so. 

The question is whether those 'over the hill Aussies' are better than the players we could overwise fill our teams with? If they are then maybe, just maybe, the best option for that funding is to throw it at the community game and development officers, rather than having players bumbling around the Championship going from 12-month contract to 12-month contract? 

How many community development officers were employed with the £1.9 million withheld from Toronto or the £0.8 million from Leigh.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they opt to go for 2x10s, then I would just play home and away for 18 league games, plus play offs. I'd then make the rest of the fixtures up by restructuring the challenge cup into more of a Champions League type format - 4 groups of 5 from all of the 20 'pro' clubs, played home and away to guarantee another 8 fixtures. Then into quarter finals.

If you look back to the late 80s/early 90s, clubs often played each other 4-5 times a season, with the championship, county cups, Regal Trophy, Challenge Cup and premiership. I think the reason that was more exciting than loop fixtures was the fact that there were so many different comps to keep fans interested.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...