Another SL restructure is being planned

[Manfred Mann]

The only restructuring that makes any sense is a return to licensing, but with the rules of licensing enforced, unlike last time. This means modern 10,000 seat minimum stadium, and a fan attendance average of at least 5,000 or even 6,000. A viable business plan would also be necessary, of course.

That would end the burden of having Salford, Wakefield and probably Leigh weighing down Super League. If Castleford can’t get a 21st century stadium to play in, then they too will have to go. Their current stadium is an embarrassment and a disgrace. It would certainly guarantee the participation of Toulouse, and possibly other French or North American clubs, in Super League. It would give hope to Bradford (assuming their business side is guaranteed), Newcastle, York and London. 

The restructuring change I propose would surely make Super League more attractive to TV broadcasters and commercial sponsors.

[Hela Wigmen]

4 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

How many clubs would meet such standards though?

It depends on what we want the minimum standards to be, what we want the game to look like immediately and what we want the game and the league to look like in future. 

Expecting clubs to be at the level, say, Saints, Leeds, Warrington etc are at is not a viable option. However, when we have clubs with the most basic of youth development pathways, clubs playing out of grounds that were dated 40 years ago, clubs with crowds of less than a few thousand, others with declining crowds and clubs spending nowhere near the cap, we’re going wrong somewhere and need to address things. 

Plenty here could make cases for a handful of current Championship clubs and the removal of a few Super League clubs, I’m not going to be drawn into that but we need a strong competition to be tied into a wider vision for the sport from junior level up to the top. 

[HawkMan]

Definitely keep p+r it gives hope to lower league clubs and fans, without that the interest slowly dies.

I'd have 12 teams SL, playing each other twice , 22 games. Then league splits, top 6 play 5 more games against each other (points carried on with ), top 3 , 3 home ,2 away  4th to 6th place 2 home 3 away. Top two after 27 games in GF.

Bottom 6 likewise,  5 games against each other. Bottom relegated,  replaced by Championship winners,  2nd  bottom join 2nd to 4th Championship teams for SF and Final play off for last SL place.

Magic weekend to be 2days of 2  matches of Challenge Cup QFs each day. Might increase crowd,  people more likely to buy tickets for 2 games rather than 3 a day.

Overall slightly less number of games leaves room for international break.

[Northern Eel]

If there's to be minimum standards, it MUST include an Academy, a Women's team, a PDRL team, a Wheelchair team and a Community Foundation to ensure the engagement and development of local junior teams. 

[Hela Wigmen]

6 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

If there's to be minimum standards, it MUST include an Academy, a Women's team, a PDRL team, a Wheelchair team and a Community Foundation to ensure the engagement and development of local junior teams. 

That’s a good point. Pathway should go beyond an Academy. 

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

So a six team league and York are banned from entry. Plus you kill the second tier. What a awful competition this would be. There's enough teams for a 14 team league and clubs who fail to keep up with the commercial leaps of other clubs (York, Newcastle and Toulouse) will start to fall behind and be slowly shuffled out whilst keeping the door open for clubs to get there house in order in the championship. 

Only criteria I would have on those 14 (not including rules for French clubs) is they all have to run, or be part of, an academy. 

 

Go on, name these 14 teams...

[Northern Eel]

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

That’s a good point. Pathway should go beyond an Academy. 

Glad you agree. It is the only element of your proposed shut-out that would be of benefit to the wider game. 

[Manfred Mann]

3 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Definitely keep p+r it gives hope to lower league clubs and fans, without that the interest slowly dies.

 

The purpose of a successful professional sport is not to give hope to lower league clubs and fans. Most of these clubs have 1,000 - 2,000 fans or even less. They are a burden on the game because they attract no new fans, and certainly no more commercial sponsorship which the game desperately needs.

Clubs located in medium or large metropolises with good commercial funding prospects, like Toulouse, are what is needed. Catalans showed that such clubs massively increase their fan base when admitted to Super League. Toronto also would have ticked all the boxes had Covid not made it commercially unviable.

 

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, Northern Eel said:

Glad you agree. It is the only element of your proposed shut-out that would be of benefit to the wider game. 

I disagree. I think minimum standards is a must. I see no point continuing the merry go round of swapping between the same few clubs, while so many are poorly run/operating. 

[Northern Eel]

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

I disagree. I think minimum standards is a must. I see no point continuing the merry go round of swapping between the same few clubs, while so many are poorly run/operating. 

I am in agreement of minimum standards (if actually enforced), but not to the extent of stopping clubs outside of SL being promoted if they have their house in order. I also think that some of the minimum standards could be absolute and non-negotiable and others (such as average crowds for Championship clubs) negotiable by way of a clear and precise process.

[Manfred Mann]

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

So a six team league and York are banned from entry. Plus you kill the second tier. What a awful competition this would be. There's enough teams for a 14 team league and clubs who fail to keep up with the commercial leaps of other clubs (York, Newcastle and Toulouse) will start to fall behind and be slowly shuffled out whilst keeping the door open for clubs to get there house in order in the championship. 

Only criteria I would have on those 14 (not including rules for French clubs) is they all have to run, or be part of, an academy. 

 

Nothing that you have written logically follows from what I have proposed. 

Richard Lewis had a good licensing concept, but vested interests stopped the criteria from being enforced, and so violators of the criteria such as Wakefield, Castleford, and Salford we’re allowed to carry on playing in Super League while Toulouse were told to wait until some unspecified future date..

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, Northern Eel said:

I am in agreement of minimum standards (if actually enforced), but not to the extent of stopping clubs outside of SL being promoted if they have their house in order. I also think that some of the minimum standards could be absolute and non-negotiable and others (such as average crowds for Championship clubs) negotiable by way of a clear and precise process.

I don’t think it’s stopping clubs being promoted. Clubs should be promoted once they have their house in order and they would/could if I was in charge. It wouldn’t be a three year thing like it was before either. 

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Ok. If I was starting now.

Wigan & Saints

Catalan & Toulouse (locked in, minimum number of french players in match day squad0

Leeds/Cas

Warrington and London

Hull/ Hull KR 

York/Newcastle

Huddersfield/ Wakey

SL TV Money reduced accordingly, lowest ranked English team is relegated to championship. Doesn't close the door to other clubs. 

But you don't need to do this, you can simply say that we are moving to 14 and say next year one club is relegated but three (of which one is Toulouse) are promoted from RFL Championship. Then two top divisions of 14. Simple. 

So much the same as before but your tying the French’s hands behind their back and enforcing unfair rules upon them but not others and promoting two part time clubs well before they’re ready. Have you ever worked for The RFL/Super League?

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

Look I get it, we've had this conversation before. If you are too disingenuous or dense to see that were York or Newcastle to get into SL they would immediately go full time, I cannot explain it to you anymore. You think it is better that Toulouse sink money into the championship and don't see the point of generating a French team to grow the international game. 

Of course I understand that, you’ve automatically gone down drastically by chucking insults around, however, the conjecture that these two are metaphorical golden gooses, at this stage, is wild and untrue. Neither are ready. They’re growing clubs and doing a lot of good thing but they need to walk before they can run, which is something this sport is desperately bad at. 

[Scubby]

5 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Look I get it, we've had this conversation before. If you are too disingenuous or dense to see that were York or Newcastle to get into SL they would immediately go full time, I cannot explain it to you anymore. You think it is better that Toulouse sink money into the championship and don't see the point of generating a French team to grow the international game. 

I don't agree with the insults but get the points. If Wakefield or Salford are relegated this year they immediately go part time. There is no infrastructure to keep them full time they are struggling cost cutting clubs atm. The only thing keeping those two clubs being full time is central distribution. Similarly, if Newcastle, York or whoever get into SL they can go full time on the same basis. It is not difficult to understand.

[The storm]

2 hours ago, The Daddy said:

According to 40-20 magazine and rumours that are going around.

Anyone heard anything specifically?

Several clubs have gone stale and fail to add impact to the competition 

 

Salford

Wakefield

Leigh 

 

Should all stand to one side 

[Hela Wigmen]

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

York have an 8000 stadium so would be banned in your model. The championship is dead by licensing. Under a 14 p and r system, the teams that don't contribute commercially wouldn't be able to keep up due to reduced tv money 9and therefore more need to generate commercial revenue) and would find themselves shuffled out accordingly. 

Is the Championship not dead already or, at best, on life support? It’s a part-time league with two full time clubs (one of which is limping along anyway) with very few clubs with genuine ambition. Others are either content where they are, or are now shells of their former selves. 

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

No I'm just tired of your circle argument where you can't see that asking clubs to go full time in a part time league is lunacy but use the fact they are part time in a part time league against them is tedious. Clubs in the Championship to be sustainable and not run at a loss have to be part time. So we'll leave it there. 

Where have I suggested they go full time? I’m suggesting that one has played one year at Championship level in its existence and has grown from the bottom up, with an impetus on junior rugby and the other is moving into a new stadium just a handful of years after nearly going bust. To push them on right now is daft. 

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, The storm said:

Several clubs have gone stale and fail to add impact to the competition 

 

Salford

Wakefield

Leigh 

 

Should all stand to one side 

Leigh’s an odd choice to say the least. 

[Damien]

I'd be quite happy to see a 14 team Super League with a top 5 play off and 2 up, 2 down. Let's get a bit of variety back, get rid of loop fixtures and shake things up a little. I would though like to see an element of minimum standards that applies to all teams, not just prospective ones, too.

I'm certainly not a fan of some of the convoluted systems being proposed. Simplicity matters and on the whole most people are usually against them.

I am not against licensing with strict requirements for all teams, both existing and new, but I think the game in this country is incapable of doing that. I do think adding the likes of Toulouse, Newcastle and maybe London, if they can get their act together, gives the league a completely different look and appeal. Big cities and big markets with no competition from other clubs. I just can't see it happening and we can't afford to alienate anymore fans. 

[Cumbrian Mackem]

4 minutes ago, The storm said:

Several clubs have gone stale and fail to add impact to the competition 

 

Salford

Wakefield

Leigh 

 

Should all stand to one side 

Salford reached the grand final in 2019 and Leigh are only 3 games into their return campaign.

[Scubby]

Leigh would actually score highly on licensing, they do a lot of things well and have a great set up. The only clubs who should be worried about licensing are those standing still or regressing. 

[Northern Eel]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'd be quite happy to see a 14 team Super League with a top 5 play off and 2 up, 2 down. Let's get a bit of variety back, get rid of loop fixtures and shake things up a little. I would though like to see an element of minimum standards that applies to all teams, not just prospective ones, too.

I'm certainly not a fan of some of the convoluted systems being proposed. Simplicity matters and on the whole most people are usually against them.

I am not against licensing with strict requirements for all teams, both existing and new, but I think the game in this country is incapable of doing that. I do think adding the likes of Toulouse, Newcastle and maybe London, if they can get their act together, gives the league a completely different look and appeal. Big cities and big markets with no competition from other clubs. I just can't see it happening and we can't afford to alienate anymore fans. 

This. Absolutely this.

Work out what the core function of the SL clubs needs to be in order to sustain themselves as commercial entities and set the minimum standards based on that. Then, consider the role they play in supporting rugby league their local area. 

Get rid of dual registration and use the mandatory academy system to generate the very best players. Cherry pick those who will make it almost immediately into Super League and offer up the remaining youngsters to the other local clubs, but for the whole season. Slap an expectation on at least 4 home grown players in a 21-man matchday squad, but keep the marquee rules to attract the best oversees stars.

We need to be brave as a sport, which is why it is critically important that it is not run by the clubs themselves. You either sign up and agree to reach the standards, or disappear. 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

1 hour ago, Cumbrian Mackem said:

How do York, London, Newcastle and Coventry earn promotion?

Relegate Wakefield 

[Cumbrian Mackem]

1 minute ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Relegate Wakefield 

Every season?