Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't want to sound negative nor do I claim to have a full understanding on all things about SL, living as I do in the antipodes. Do despite that caveat, here goes:

There is only one factor that drives any decision in SL and that's money. Some say there are only 12 clubs due to player depth but its really because SL are dividing the central funding up between less teams. They accepted TWP on the understanding they took no central funding and Leigh's being agreeable to taking less than half the funding helped their bid no end. More money to the incumbent clubs.

To maximise the Sky payout, so many games have to be played. With so few teams, the same teams play each other repeatedly. This reduces the specialness of key clashes such as Saints and Wigan, not to mention the repetitiveness of the comp in general. In the short term, it means more money per club, the longer term it devalues the comp through too much repetition. 

The game is tough on the body but with international fixtures needed, when can the be played and not overtax the best players? Short turn arounds between seasons aren't good but the pro game can't do without a long club season to make more money. The international scene suffers. 

They also waste precious resources at time on people such as R. Elstone who - regardless of what he achieved or not - was to me a luxury the sport couldn't afford. I don't even know why his post was deemed necessary when the SL clubs were going to do whatever was in their best interests anyway, regardless of what he thought. 

I'm not saying clubs don't have a reason to chase whatever money they can. However, short term gain is ultimately going to hurt the game as a product in the longer term. It's a shame that sport with a good product has got itself into such a dire situation. For how much longer will SL be able to afford 12 clubs? Ever decreasing circles. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its why the game is dying a slow death. Pure greed.

 

I laugh when people talk about expanding SL to 14 teams. Firstly that would mean an increase on the TV deal would be needed which will not happen and secondly it would mean the 11 that are in there that do already get the money getting less of it which again is never going to happen.

Luckily for the usual suspects Sl decided to throw the Championship a bone this year by including one of them in SL this season albeit on reduced funding. As per the thread, choosing Leigh to be that team was not the worst decision ever, choosing any team and not giving them a fair shot was the worst decision ever and come half way through the season when it is clear that they will be relegated I wouldn't for one second blame Beaumont if he freed up some cash for the rest of the season by releasing players to teams in the Championship and let the remaining team take some blowout scores. that would not be Leigh's fault, that would be the rest of the teams and the RFL's for letting it happen.

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

18 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Its why the game is dying a slow death. Pure greed.

 

I laugh when people talk about expanding SL to 14 teams. Firstly that would mean an increase on the TV deal would be needed which will not happen and secondly it would mean the 11 that are in there that do already get the money getting less of it which again is never going to happen.

Luckily for the usual suspects Sl decided to throw the Championship a bone this year by including one of them in SL this season albeit on reduced funding. As per the thread, choosing Leigh to be that team was not the worst decision ever, choosing any team and not giving them a fair shot was the worst decision ever and come half way through the season when it is clear that they will be relegated I wouldn't for one second blame Beaumont if he freed up some cash for the rest of the season by releasing players to teams in the Championship and let the remaining team take some blowout scores. that would not be Leigh's fault, that would be the rest of the teams and the RFL's for letting it happen.

 

The SL clubs didnt "throw the Championship clubs a bone", they did it purely for their own reasons not out of charity or the interests of the game. Your Leigh scenario, which I can't see happening on any sort of scale for numerous reasons, would be nothing to do with the RFL.

SL could (and in my opinion should) go to 14 clubs. There are plenty of capable and progressive clubs able to step up, but I agree it won't happen as the other clubs simply will not take that cut in central funding. Short term self interest always rules in SL.

Edited by Whippet13
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view, everything that an SL or Championship club does (or is allowed to do) should be in the interests of their own team, players, fans, sponsors, shareholders and owners. 

They should be doing this within  a set or rules and parameters defined and enforced by the governing body. Those rules and parameters should represent  the interests of the whole sport. The governing body should do just that: govern the sport.

Ain't going to happen, though.

 

  • Like 5

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

In my view, everything that an SL or Championship club does (or is allowed to do) should be in the interests of their own team, players, fans, sponsors, shareholders and owners. 

They should be doing this within  a set or rules and parameters defined and enforced by the governing body. Those rules and parameters should represent  the interests of the whole sport. The governing body should do just that: govern the sport.

Ain't going to happen, though.

 

Isn't SL the de facto governing body?

A governing body without a vested interest is needed. 

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Its why the game is dying a slow death. Pure greed.

 

I laugh when people talk about expanding SL to 14 teams. Firstly that would mean an increase on the TV deal would be needed which will not happen and secondly it would mean the 11 that are in there that do already get the money getting less of it which again is never going to happen.

Luckily for the usual suspects Sl decided to throw the Championship a bone this year by including one of them in SL this season albeit on reduced funding. As per the thread, choosing Leigh to be that team was not the worst decision ever, choosing any team and not giving them a fair shot was the worst decision ever and come half way through the season when it is clear that they will be relegated I wouldn't for one second blame Beaumont if he freed up some cash for the rest of the season by releasing players to teams in the Championship and let the remaining team take some blowout scores. that would not be Leigh's fault, that would be the rest of the teams and the RFL's for letting it happen.

 

It was purely to placate SKy and the Magic weekend , no other reason 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RayCee said:

Isn't SL the de facto governing body?

A governing body without a vested interest is needed. 

currently, I think SL is only a partial governing body at best.  In my view it should on that basis, set and police the boundaries that SL cubs work within as defined by the top level body with no vested interest.

Not going to happen though. Sport is too small, too poor etc, even after 125 years of existence

  • Like 1

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Its why the game is dying a slow death. Pure greed.

 

I laugh when people talk about expanding SL to 14 teams. Firstly that would mean an increase on the TV deal would be needed which will not happen and secondly it would mean the 11 that are in there that do already get the money getting less of it which again is never going to happen.

The current TV deal provided the perfect opportunity to go to 14 teams. That did give the massive increase in funding that you refer to, to the extent that every team could still have received more money that the previous TV deal even with 14 teams. Instead greed took over and SL clubs decided to pocket an extra £500,000 each.

No trying to grow the pie or competition to give more to sell. No real strategy or plan to spend that extra money wisely. Just more of the same.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Its why the game is dying a slow death. Pure greed.

 

I laugh when people talk about expanding SL to 14 teams. Firstly that would mean an increase on the TV deal would be needed which will not happen and secondly it would mean the 11 that are in there that do already get the money getting less of it which again is never going to happen.

Luckily for the usual suspects Sl decided to throw the Championship a bone this year by including one of them in SL this season albeit on reduced funding. As per the thread, choosing Leigh to be that team was not the worst decision ever, choosing any team and not giving them a fair shot was the worst decision ever and come half way through the season when it is clear that they will be relegated I wouldn't for one second blame Beaumont if he freed up some cash for the rest of the season by releasing players to teams in the Championship and let the remaining team take some blowout scores. that would not be Leigh's fault, that would be the rest of the teams and the RFL's for letting it happen.

Nobody forced a Championship club into SL.

And of course any club getting promotion only opens the door to short term over spending on 3rd rate imports and then bankruptcy.

Longtermism is sticking to 12, no relegation and growing the value of the game... preferably by bringing in investment and support.

Australia is wanting to expand their comp.  Where are they going to get players? Isn't it obvious?  Who do we need our players?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Nobody forced a Championship club into SL.

And of course any club getting promotion only opens the door to short term over spending on 3rd rate imports and then bankruptcy.

Longtermism is sticking to 12, no relegation and growing the value of the game... preferably by bringing in investment and support.

Australia is wanting to expand their comp.  Where are they going to get players? Isn't it obvious?  Who do we need our players?

Good point. The NRL is already using SL as a place to manage its own salary cap. Release players to SL (and pay half their wages) to get them off their books. Sign UK players for under market value because SL clubs can't pay them a decent salary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Nobody forced a Championship club into SL.

And of course any club getting promotion only opens the door to short term over spending on 3rd rate imports and then bankruptcy.

Longtermism is sticking to 12, no relegation and growing the value of the game... preferably by bringing in investment and support.

Australia is wanting to expand their comp.  Where are they going to get players? Isn't it obvious?  Who do we need our players?

This investment and support ? , What do you spend it on ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RayCee said:

I don't want to sound negative nor do I claim to have a full understanding on all things about SL, living as I do in the antipodes. Do despite that caveat, here goes:

There is only one factor that drives any decision in SL and that's money. Some say there are only 12 clubs due to player depth but its really because SL are dividing the central funding up between less teams. They accepted TWP on the understanding they took no central funding and Leigh's being agreeable to taking less than half the funding helped their bid no end. More money to the incumbent clubs.

To maximise the Sky payout, so many games have to be played. With so few teams, the same teams play each other repeatedly. This reduces the specialness of key clashes such as Saints and Wigan, not to mention the repetitiveness of the comp in general. In the short term, it means more money per club, the longer term it devalues the comp through too much repetition. 

The game is tough on the body but with international fixtures needed, when can the be played and not overtax the best players? Short turn arounds between seasons aren't good but the pro game can't do without a long club season to make more money. The international scene suffers. 

They also waste precious resources at time on people such as R. Elstone who - regardless of what he achieved or not - was to me a luxury the sport couldn't afford. I don't even know why his post was deemed necessary when the SL clubs were going to do whatever was in their best interests anyway, regardless of what he thought. 

I'm not saying clubs don't have a reason to chase whatever money they can. However, short term gain is ultimately going to hurt the game as a product in the longer term. It's a shame that sport with a good product has got itself into such a dire situation. For how much longer will SL be able to afford 12 clubs? Ever decreasing circles. 

I think this is a great sunmary of where things are the moment. The central fund money has been largely wasted on some clubs too with very little in the way of ground improvements and some not running academies or reserves. 

All is not lost but things will need to change. A 2nd French team plus a successful Broncos would be a start

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

UK RL does not exist in isolation, there was a time when to all intents and purposes it did. Those days have long gone thankfully because during that time the game here nosedived.

All clubs across all levels in the UK have to stop looking back thinking if we could only return to this or return to that, only when the game grasps the reality of how the modern world works will we truly progress.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

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

I think this is a great sunmary of where things are the moment. The central fund money has been largely wasted on some clubs too with very little in the way of ground improvements and some not running academies or reserves. 

All is not lost but things will need to change. A 2nd French team plus a successful Broncos would be a start

Large sums from TV money has gone to cgampionship cluvs.  What has it done?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Large sums from TV money has gone to cgampionship cluvs.  What has it done?

Ironically some teams have used it to improve their grounds and facilities while also investing in reserve teams.

Taking Batley as an example they have a fine little ground and are very well run, give them an extra couple of million pound and they would likely be in better shape than Wakefield. Sad isn't it that a Championship team getting millions of pounds less of funding is in better shape than one of our elite clubs.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Ironically some teams have used it to improve their grounds and facilities while also investing in reserve teams.

Taking Batley as an example they have a fine little ground and are very well run, give them an extra couple of million pound and they would likely be in better shape than Wakefield. Sad isn't it that a Championship team getting millions of pounds less of funding is in better shape than one of our elite clubs.

It's been a uphill struggle at Batley for a long time!

Great club and well run.

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

The current TV deal provided the perfect opportunity to go to 14 teams. That did give the massive increase in funding that you refer to, to the extent that every team could still have received more money that the previous TV deal even with 14 teams. Instead greed took over and SL clubs decided to pocket an extra £500,000 each.

No trying to grow the pie or competition to give more to sell. No real strategy or plan to spend that extra money wisely. Just more of the same.

It’s not the perfect opportunity, it’s a pretty terrible opportunity presently. We don’t have a strong enough twelve team Super League as it is, diluting it further by adding two teams and not addressing the problems we have, which would just be exacerbated by the addition of two clubs, would be just repeating old mistakes we made last time we went to fourteen. It’s short term thinking to think this is a good opportunity as all it solves is the loop fixtures.

Fourteen most definitely should be the long-term aim, however, we need to get our house in order first before we add to the existing problems we face. 

We’ll still have clubs with issues around stadiums, clubs with declining crowds, clubs with the most basic player pathways set ups, questions around the player pool, questions around the commercial viability of clubs and the competition. None of this is magically solved by the addition of two clubs. The problems will continue to exist. 

We’ve also got only two professional clubs outside the twelve in Super League. One who probably won’t play a home game all year and the other haemorrhaging the small number of fans they do have and moving into a stadium where the projections are, at best, unsustainable. Granted, there are clubs with potential who are currently part-time, however, they’ve grown organically and naturally so far, why are we going to fast track these clubs, when we know full well that in true Rugby League fashion, we’ll put them ill prepared into Super League without the appropriate aides and we’ll get people on here when they inevitably fail complaining about it. 

We’ve got five, possibly six clubs who are strong enough at present and another three or so clubs who have some things right and others not, we’ve not got enough at a minimum level, adding two more makes it even fewer. Why would we want to do that? It’s a ten year project, at a very minimum. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

Large sums from TV money has gone to cgampionship cluvs.  What has it done?

I'd say the championship is in pretty good shape, definitely been better value for money than SL when considering the relatively modest amount has gone to them in comparison 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s not the perfect opportunity, it’s a pretty terrible opportunity presently. We don’t have a strong enough twelve team Super League as it is, diluting it further by adding two teams and not addressing the problems we have, which would just be exacerbated by the addition of two clubs, would be just repeating old mistakes we made last time we went to fourteen. It’s short term thinking to think this is a good opportunity as all it solves is the loop fixtures.

Fourteen most definitely should be the long-term aim, however, we need to get our house in order first before we add to the existing problems we face. 

We’ll still have clubs with issues around stadiums, clubs with declining crowds, clubs with the most basic player pathways set ups, questions around the player pool, questions around the commercial viability of clubs and the competition. None of this is magically solved by the addition of two clubs. The problems will continue to exist. 

We’ve also got only two professional clubs outside the twelve in Super League. One who probably won’t play a home game all year and the other haemorrhaging the small number of fans they do have and moving into a stadium where the projections are, at best, unsustainable. Granted, there are clubs with potential who are currently part-time, however, they’ve grown organically and naturally so far, why are we going to fast track these clubs, when we know full well that in true Rugby League fashion, we’ll put them ill prepared into Super League without the appropriate aides and we’ll get people on here when they inevitably fail complaining about it. 

We’ve got five, possibly six clubs who are strong enough at present and another three or so clubs who have some things right and others not, we’ve not got enough at a minimum level, adding two more makes it even fewer. Why would we want to do that? It’s a ten year project, at a very minimum. 

Not so much a criticism of the post as agree with a number of points. We live between a straight franchise which excludes certain teams or the current P&R approach. Neither satisfies everyone or anyone quite frankly.

If went to 14 teams with two in France isn’t a bad a draw on a UK TV deal potentially. The points about greed in ‘the SL club’ is an issue. The heads are all the next year not the next ten or twenty.

If you ensured a team within London you do open up another market, Broncos or whoever left in the lower leagues will never see the talent continue to flow through into the upper areas of the game on the same basis (but The RFL will wait till too late). Okay you’d get one or two but not the numbers potentially coming through now. 

Somewhere along the line a decision that quite a few very good teams in the heartlands (next door to another) are left in the lower leagues and act as feeder clubs. At some point you decide club B, D, F will be treated the same as Newtown Jets or North Sydney Bears and fixed in the lower comp and isn’t going to appear in SL. 
 

 

  • Like 1

Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.

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

Not so much a criticism of the post as agree with a number of points. We live between a straight franchise which excludes certain teams or the current P&R approach. Neither satisfies everyone or anyone quite frankly.

If went to 14 teams with two in France isn’t a bad a draw on a UK TV deal potentially. The points about greed in ‘the SL club’ is an issue. The heads are all the next year not the next ten or twenty.

If you ensured a team within London you do open up another market, Broncos or whoever left in the lower leagues will never see the talent continue to flow through into the upper areas of the game on the same basis (but The RFL will wait till too late). Okay you’d get one or two but not the numbers potentially coming through now. 

Somewhere along the line a decision that quite a few very good teams in the heartlands (next door to another) are left in the lower leagues and act as feeder clubs. At some point you decide club B, D, F will be treated the same as Newtown Jets or North Sydney Bears and fixed in the lower comp and isn’t going to appear in SL. 
 

 

That’s ultimately the argument and has been for some time. Do we close the door, try and grow the sides in the elite level, with aims to grow further in the future or do we continue with the promotion and relegation system?

If Toulouse were to satisfy enough aspects of the sport that we decide are important to us now and in the future, let them in. 

Your last paragraph is ultimately a decision that needs to be made. There are some clubs that are quite happy to exist as a part-time club, there are others who are (still) pretty big fish in a smaller pond and others who are growing nicely, naturally and pretty organically and could be big fish in the future. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

That’s ultimately the argument and has been for some time. Do we close the door, try and grow the sides in the elite level, with aims to grow further in the future or do we continue with the promotion and relegation system?

If Toulouse were to satisfy enough aspects of the sport that we decide are important to us now and in the future, let them in. 

Your last paragraph is ultimately a decision that needs to be made. There are some clubs that are quite happy to exist as a part-time club, there are others who are (still) pretty big fish in a smaller pond and others who are growing nicely, naturally and pretty organically and could be big fish in the future. 

We know the answer though. If you directly ripped off what the NRL is doing you would have a much stronger SL. Promotion and relegation is not the answer. You need bigger city markets.

new rise.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pulga said:

We know the answer though. If you directly ripped off what the NRL is doing you would have a much stronger SL. Promotion and relegation is not the answer. You need bigger city markets.

I think you’re right in terms of some form of league structure similar to the NRL. As for the “big city markets”, I’m less sure of. We have few, of those few not many are in a particularly good place and we’ve seen that sticking pins in maps hasn’t worked. 

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

 we’ve seen that sticking pins in maps hasn’t worked. 

I'd agree with that but the fundamental structure and the good quality administration is likely more the problem than anything. 

new rise.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...