Putting Leigh in SL is the biggest mistake RL ever made (Merged threads)

[Spidey]

11 minutes ago, Manfred Mann said:

Hull KR have a strong fan base. The other two don't.

It’s a shame to they were garbage on the field last year. Which is where it counts in a P&R structure 

[Manfred Mann]

7 minutes ago, Spidey said:

It’s a shame to they were garbage on the field last year. Which is where it counts in a P&R structure 

Hull KR aren't garbage on the field this year.  Leigh are.

But more important, we need to get rid of P & R. The game is too weak, too under-sourced financially, to be at the whim of the P & R system. We need a strategic vision that will expand the game in the UK and other countries, and that means giving intelligent executive authority the ability to relegate sponsorship and fan unattractive clubs and to promote new sponsorship and fan attractive clubs as members of Super League.

In a franchise-licensing system we can get the important missing English clubs -- London, Newcastle, Bradford and York -- into Super League soon. We can also get Toulouse and perhaps other French clubs into the Super League competition in a timely manner.

 

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Manfred Mann said:

Hull KR aren't garbage on the field this year.  Leigh are.

But more important, we need to get rid of P & R. The game is too weak, too under-sourced financially, to be at the whim of the P & R system. We need a strategic vision that will expand the game in the UK and other countries, and that means giving intelligent executive authority the ability relegate unattractive clubs and to select new attractive clubs as members of Super League.

 

Leigh haven’t played any of their rivals yet. I’d leave assessment of their abilities until then. They showed up well against Wigan - if I were Leigh I’d be picking my games. 
 

We’ve tried binning off P&R previously and it didn’t work, it shouldn’t be considered again until there are 12-14 strong clubs in place, probably about 10 at the moment

[Manfred Mann]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Leigh haven’t played any of their rivals yet. I’d leave assessment of their abilities until then. They showed up well against Wigan - if I were Leigh I’d be picking my games. 
 

We’ve tried binning off P&R previously and it didn’t work, it shouldn’t be considered again until there are 12-14 strong clubs in place, probably about 10 at the moment

In what way didn't "binning of P & R" work previously?

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Leigh haven’t played any of their rivals yet. I’d leave assessment of their abilities until then. They showed up well against Wigan - if I were Leigh I’d be picking my games. 
 

We’ve tried binning off P&R previously and it didn’t work, it shouldn’t be considered again until there are 12-14 strong clubs in place, probably about 10 at the moment

Ten? What ten do you think are “strong” and what does “strong” look like?

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Ten? What ten do you think are “strong” and what does “strong” look like?

I was probably being generous there. Point being after the top % of clubs, everybody else underneath isn’t that much difference so what’s the harm in P&R you’re just swapping similar clubs around. 

[Spidey]

6 minutes ago, Manfred Mann said:

In what way didn't "binning of P & R" work previously?

Look up the goals of licensing, who met minimum standards, and how many fulfil those now. 

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

I was probably being generous there. Point being after the top % of clubs, everybody else underneath isn’t that much difference so what’s the harm in P&R you’re just swapping similar clubs around. 

I’d argue there’s a fair amount of harm and we’re just interchanging between the same handful of clubs and players on an annual basis, without it actually being any worth to many at all. 

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I’d argue there’s a fair amount of harm and we’re just interchanging between the same handful of clubs and players on an annual basis, without it actually being any worth to many at all. 

You could always let them all in and have a top league of 16. I doubt the “top” clubs would like their central funding to only be a 16th though

[whatmichaelsays]

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Look up the goals of licensing, who met minimum standards, and how many fulfil those now. 

That doesn't mean that "scrapping P&R doesn't work and should never be tried again". It just means that one, largely flawed, version of licencing shouldn't be tried again. 

The old system measured the wrong things and encouraged the wrong behaviours. That doesn't mean that licencing is a bad concept.

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

You could always let them all in and have a top league of 16. I doubt the “top” clubs would like their central funding to only be a 16th though

Or you could build slowly and introduce minimum standards with a long term goal of expanding the competition. 

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

That doesn't mean that "scrapping P&R doesn't work and should never be tried again". It just means that one, largely flawed, version of licencing shouldn't be tried again. 

The old system measured the wrong things and encouraged the wrong behaviours. That doesn't mean that licencing is a bad concept.

What makes you think if it happened again the same mistakes wouldn’t crop up?  

 

[Spidey]

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

Or you could build slowly and introduce minimum standards with a long term goal of expanding the competition. 

Tried that before. What would be different this time around?

[whatmichaelsays]

19 minutes ago, Spidey said:

What makes you think if it happened again the same mistakes wouldn’t crop up?  

 

What makes you assume that they would?

The fundamental issue with the old licencing system was the metrics are poorly thought out, poorly measured, poorly enforced and encouraged the wrong behaviours. For example, the "10k average crowd" KPI was the wrong KPI and it encouraged mass discounting of tickets. It should have been a "revenue from ticket sales" KPI. 

Start by addressing those key issues, and you have the basis of a much improved system. 

But seeing as you mentioned the "goals" of the old licencing system, let's pick up on two - we now have more clubs playing in facilities appropriate for modern spectators and a large proportion of the last England World Cup Final team made debuts, or because established first team players, in the licencing era. I seem to recall that those were two big aims. 

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

What makes you assume that they would?

The fundamental issue with the old licencing system was the metrics are poorly thought out, poorly measured, poorly enforced and encouraged the wrong behaviours. For example, the "10k average crowd" KPI was the wrong KPI and it encouraged mass discounting of tickets. It should have been a "revenue from ticket sales" KPI. 

Start by addressing those key issues, and you have the basis of a much improved system. 

But seeing as you mentioned the "goals" of the old licencing system, let's pick up on two - we now have more clubs playing in facilities appropriate for modern spectators and a large proportion of the last England World Cup Final team made debuts, or because established first team players, in the licencing era. I seem to recall that those were two big aims. 

I’ve seen nothing from the management of our game in recent years to assume anything else. What have you seen to think things would be different?

[Man of Kent]

The latest Forty-20 mentions a ‘radical restructuring plan’ has been proposed for Super League but no detail given. Watch this space?

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

The latest Forty-20 mentions a ‘radical restructuring plan’ has been proposed for Super League but no detail given. Watch this space?

We can’t go 3-5 years without a restructure so not unsurprising

[Harry Stottle]

51 minutes ago, Manfred Mann said:

Hull KR aren't garbage on the field this year.  Leigh are.

But more important, we need to get rid of P & R. The game is too weak, too under-sourced financially, to be at the whim of the P & R system. We need a strategic vision that will expand the game in the UK and other countries, and that means giving intelligent executive authority the ability to relegate sponsorship and fan unattractive clubs and to promote new sponsorship and fan attractive clubs as members of Super League.

In a franchise-licensing system we can get the important missing English clubs -- London, Newcastle, Bradford and York -- into Super League soon. We can also get Toulouse and perhaps other French clubs into the Super League competition in a timely manner.

 

If Leigh emulate their 6.5K average SL attendance of '17, there are other candidates ahead of them by your reckoning.

[whatmichaelsays]

8 minutes ago, Spidey said:

I’ve seen nothing from the management of our game in recent years to assume anything else. What have you seen to think things would be different?

So because people got it wrong before (ignoring the successes of the franchising era), they're doomed to get it wrong again so we should never bother trying? Christ, what a world we'd have with that sort of thinking.

LIke I said, so many of the problems of the old system were rooted in the measurement criteria. I don't think it is beyond the capabilities of even the slackest RL administrator to learn from that and work towards the right KPIs. 

One thing I do think is an issue to overcome is this sense of "keeping everyone happy". You see it in this very thread with mentions of 14 or even 16 team league, like this is some sort of school sports day where everyone gets to take part and where everyone gets a trophy. This is elite sport - it's not a bad thing to expect a bit of "elitism" and set standards to achieve that. 

[Spidey]

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

So because people got it wrong before (ignoring the successes of the franchising era), they're doomed to get it wrong again so we should never bother trying? Christ, what a world we'd have with that sort of thinking.

LIke I said, so many of the problems of the old system were rooted in the measurement criteria. I don't think it is beyond the capabilities of even the slackest RL administrator to learn from that and work towards the right KPIs. 

One thing I do think is an issue to overcome is this sense of "keeping everyone happy". You see it in this very thread with mentions of 14 or even 16 team league, like this is some sort of school sports day where everyone gets to take part and where everyone gets a trophy. This is elite sport - it's not a bad thing to expect a bit of "elitism" and set standards to achieve that. 

None of that actually answers my question

[whatmichaelsays]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

None of that actually answers my question

Probably because you're posing a bit of a non sequitur. "It didn't work before, so you need to explain why they won't make those mistakes again" isn't really making any sort of point at all. 

I've said what I think the flaws (and the successes) of the old licencing system were, what could be learnt from that in any alternative system and you're just making an ad hominem attack at the people running the game. What is there to answer?

[JM2010]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

We can’t go 3-5 years without a restructure so not unsurprising

I think we should start a thread on this!

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

like this is some sort of school sports day where everyone gets to take part and where everyone gets a trophy. This is elite sport - it's not a bad thing to expect a bit of "elitism" and set standards to achieve that. 

Now you know that is not true, not every club will ever have an opportunity to take part (in SL) because they will simply never be able to acheive anywhere near the standard required, both on and off the field. What I believe you are referring to is about at this present time 6 clubs in the Championship.

The question is, do we have enough clubs that without the 'handout' deserve to be amongst those as you describe as 'elite'. 

There was one poster on this site who said that ALL Super League clubs earned their distribution money because they were part of SL and appeared on TV, the only reason that some clubs could do so and earn the said handout is because they are financed to take part in SL. Look for this discussion we will stay with a 12 club SL, if there were 12 clubs so far in front of all the rest I would agree immediately seperate them from the rest and work with them to really make them elite.

We simply don't have 12 clubs that fit this catagorie, nor do we have 12 clubs who would be so far ahead in any list of criteria that separates them from the rest, if licencing came back tommorow and the selection process was to choose 12 clubs after the first 6 have proved their worth you could throw another 10 or 12 names into a hat and draw out for who should be included, the handout after a 'bedding in period' will give them as much chance as it presently affords some present SL incumbents.

Think back to the unveiling of Mr Elstone, at that very same meeting it was stated that the 8's system was to be abolished and be replaced by a straight 1 up 1 down, Mr Leneghan interjected with "Only if the promoted club had the right qualities (or words to that effect)" those qualities never came light simply because there were member clubs of SL that would not qualify if those required qualities were published.

I will ask your goodself and all those who want a return to licencing for a 12 club SL, what criteria would/could be drawn up to ensure it was selected correctly and not contrived as was done previously.

[Scubby]

The only way you can build a top side on a £1.9m cap is to have an amazing infrastructure of juniors coming through to fit out the squad. It is no coincidence that the sides like Wigan and Saints who invest the most into academy and junior pathways over decades keep being consistently at the top of the table.

You cannot buy a top team from scratch on such a pitiful cap level. Leigh and other clubs are finding that the players are simply not there off the shelf.

[Gooleboy]

Personally, and it's maybe an age thing, I am for P+R, but if the powers that be decide to return to Licensing, there will be criteria to be met. So surely whatever the criteria is, Clubs already in the League should have to be at that standard before it commences. Then Clubs who aspire to reach the Promised Land cannot have any excuse to point the finger at existing Clubs being let off the hook. If they do that and their is a fair pathway for ambitious Clubs to be included it should start in say two years time to give all Clubs currently in there and those outside to improve their standards to the required level, whilst maintaining one up and one down until then. Tin hat at the ready!