Another SL restructure is being planned

[Saint Toppy]

15 minutes ago, Chris Taylor said:

 

Take a look at Leigh in SL and all you get is your face doesn't fit. Tough! And good on Leigh. It's time to end this nonsense that no team is allowed in the top league. If you deserve the chance by winning the Championship GF then let's embrace it and make it a celebration. This team may have bags of heritage and the team will have worked damn hard to get into this position. 

Except Leigh didn't win their place in SL for this year by winning on the field, and I think that's why so many people have an issue, not because they're Leigh, or because of their geographical location !

[gingerjon]

21 minutes ago, Chris Taylor said:

Take a look at Leigh in SL and all you get is your face doesn't fit. Tough! And good on Leigh. It's time to end this nonsense that no team is allowed in the top league. If you deserve the chance by winning the Championship GF then let's embrace it and make it a celebration. This team may have bags of heritage and the team will have worked damn hard to get into this position. 

Leigh were promoted because they won a contest of powerpoint presentations and business plans.

So, y'know, exactly the opposite of what you're saying.

[RP London]

3 hours ago, Cardypaul said:

Except there is a hardcore of people on here want some form of licensing or cherry pick clubs based on their location or what they perceive as their value to the game which is as bad as what is going on in football but at least they have got the balls to stand up to it.

I think the thing is for most is that over the past 25 years of super league nothing seems to have changed with the vast majority of clubs. There is development in some, new grounds, better youth facilities etc but others seem to limp from on season to another with no real improvement. Where as in football if you do that you go backwards down the pyramid in RL it seems that that doesnt happen (mainly because there is no one behind looking to push you out). The belief is that some sort of minimum standards is needed to be enforced but, of course, without risk of losing your place you still dont really get to have that raising of the standard (as shown with licencing last time around). 

I would suggest that IF teams were being pushed and the pyramid worked as above then no one would want the end of P&R.. however, at the present moment with that not happening then the closed shop/franchise/licence idea is still open and debated. 

There is no argument in football that makes a closed shop right, there are arguments in other sports including our friends at twickenham (who debate this every couple of years).

[Chris Taylor]

3 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Except Leigh didn't win their place in SL for this year by winning on the field, and I think that's why so many people have an issue, not because they're Leigh, or because of their geographical location !

People have had an issue ever since the concept of Super League was mooted. 

Just look at the comments above. X Team should just be killed off..... 

[Saint Toppy]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

I think the thing is for most is that over the past 25 years of super league nothing seems to have changed with the vast majority of clubs. There is development in some, new grounds, better youth facilities etc but others seem to limp from on season to another with no real improvement. Where as in football if you do that you go backwards down the pyramid in RL it seems that that doesnt happen (mainly because there is no one behind looking to push you out). The belief is that some sort of minimum standards is needed to be enforced but, of course, without risk of losing your place you still dont really get to have that raising of the standard (as shown with licencing last time around). 

I would suggest that IF teams were being pushed and the pyramid worked as above then no one would want the end of P&R.. however, at the present moment with that not happening then the closed shop/franchise/licence idea is still open and debated. 

There is no argument in football that makes a closed shop right, there are arguments in other sports including our friends at twickenham (who debate this every couple of years).

Your right we can't really compare RL to football. While there's a relatively small number of mega rich clubs, the sheer number clubs overall means that if one starts failing there's always another of a comparable size and competitiveness waiting to take their place. And because there's much more money in the game those clubs can build in advance so they can be fairly competitive once they do get promoted.

That just can't happen with RL. The majority of lower league clubs are part time, run on a shoestring and don't have rich owners. So when they come up they're simply not able to compete & P&R means they're almost always likely to go straight back down. P&R only works when you have a comparable league below who's clubs can come up and be competitive straight away. 

[Harry Stottle]

On 18/04/2021 at 16:22, Manfred Mann said:

It is clear which existing clubs definitely belong in Super League:

Wigan

St Helens

Warrington

Leeds 

Hull FC

Hull KR

Catalans

Toulouse

 

There are the borderline existing Super League clubs:

Huddersfield (slightly insufficient fan base)

Castleford ( unacceptable stadium)

 

There are the attractive possible future Super League clubs:

London

York

Newcastle 

Avignon

Paris

Toronto

Ottawa

 

There are the failed existing Super League clubs who need to be relegated:

Wakefield (unacceptable stadium, inadequate fan base, inadequate finances)

Salford (inadequate fan base)

Leigh (inadequate fan base)

 

What was it Supertramp sang about?

And you didn't answer my question the last week when I pointed out that in '17 Leigh posted 6,500 average gates of which 5,500 were home fans, why was that?

[steve oates]

12 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Phil Caplan elaborated on this in today’s Forty-20 podcast. Says a plan has been drawn up for a complete overhaul of the game from top to bottom, and apparently there is corporate money behind it to fund it all (I assume he means private equity). 

The clubs are undecided on it (nothing new there!). Says more on the plan should come out in the next couple of weeks. 

Can I add my "interesting" to this as well!!  Who doesn't love a good old re-structure!!  But the fascinating thing is where has this "corporate money" appeared from as before Christmas Mr. Elstone seemingly left no stone unturned?

[steve oates]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I pointed out that in '17 Leigh posted 6,500 average gates of which 5,500 were home fans, why was that?

Not sure why so much Leigh bashing on one hand and so much Featherstone promoting on the other? Why is this? Both are great smaller clubs............ 

[Man of Kent]

13 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Can I add my "interesting" to this as well!!  Who doesn't love a good old re-structure!!  But the fascinating thing is where has this "corporate money" appeared from as before Christmas Mr. Elstone seemingly left no stone unturned?

To be fair, Elstone didn't fail in that regard. As you will recall, there were offers on the table. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

4 hours ago, Cardypaul said:

Except there is a hardcore of people on here want some form of licensing or cherry pick clubs based on their location or what they perceive as their value to the game which is as bad as what is going on in football but at least they have got the balls to stand up to it.

By that logic, presumably you would also advocate relegation from League 1 in order to have a full pyramid system from top to bottom, enabling any club to work their way through the ranks from regional community level to Super League?

[Harry Stottle]

On 18/04/2021 at 16:49, Manfred Mann said:

So the best licensed Super League structure should be:

Wigan

St Helens

Warrington

Leeds 

Hull FC

Hull KR

Catalans

Toulouse

 

Huddersfield*

Castleford* 

 

* = 3 years probation pending rectification of problems.

 

A 10 team Super League would then plan future expansion to 12 or 14 clubs with London, Newcastle, York, Avignon, Paris, Toronto and Ottawa as preferred candidates.

 

 

How long has Cas been on probation to improve their stadium, on entering the last licencing period they along with Wakefield and Salford were given an ultimatum, improve or out only Salford abided.

When will you lot wanting another licencing situation realise it cannot be done to choose the best clubs to compete in a SL of  12, 13, 14 or 16 clubs (all numbers have been suggested on this site) without leaning to give an unfair advantage to some clubs, in an excersize of ticking the boxes on a list of criteria we all know that we have a max of 6 clubs that are ahead of the rest, there will be very little daylight if any between the rest that could put some clubs in Shangri-La with the £2M payout whilst leaving the others on the outside and if has been suggested no distribution money at all below SL. 

All this talk of York, Newcastle, Toulouse, even London and your tinpot Paris, Avignon, Toronto and Ottawa are just someones fancy, it would be not unlike the selection panel would do in awarding SL places to some clubs above others, a Criteria has to be adjudged by what is in place, not what will be promised, promises are not useually met see Wakefield and Castleford the SL money they have been given has been employed to recieving more SL money.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

To be fair, Elstone didn't fail in that regard. As you will recall, there were offers on the table. 

It would be somewhat typical of rugby league to decline one lot of financial equity at a significant cost only to then get an incredibly similar investment a few months later.

[Harry Stottle]

On 18/04/2021 at 16:57, Blind side johnny said:

How's that tautology coming along, man?

No point in repeating yourself Johnny!

[Spidey]

Just now, gingerjon said:

It would be somewhat typical of rugby league to decline one lot of financial equity at a significant cost only to then get an incredibly similar investment a few months later.

Maybe it was the only way to get rid of Elstone?

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Maybe it was the only way to get rid of Elstone?

Again, that would be somewhat typical.

[marklaspalmas]

SLE (rugby league) is jealous of ESL(soccer) so they're trying to invent some fresh hell to alienate the fans as much as the soccer mob is doing?

Carry on.

Insert that Michael Jackson eating popcorn meme here.

[Harry Stottle]

19 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

By that logic, presumably you would also advocate relegation from League 1 in order to have a full pyramid system from top to bottom, enabling any club to work their way through the ranks from regional community level to Super League?

Yes maybe, but and it is a big but the community clubs would have to prove they had through a due diligence process the finances in place and facilities to a mininmum standard to take the place of a present L1 club.

[Harry Stottle]

On 19/04/2021 at 06:07, Hela Wigmen said:

Only three clubs that don’t exist? Why not Mogadishu?

Quite obvious,

His dart he threw blindfolded didn't stick in that location on the map.

[Harry Stottle]

18 hours ago, Damien said:

I've already said previously that I want more variety, 10 clubs is going even more the other way and frankly the thought of it bores the life out of me.

If it does come it will do Damien, when Leigh played in the 8 team second division I think it was the only time I purposefully stopped attending, 10 would be no better.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

19 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes maybe, but and it is a big but the community clubs would have to prove they had through a due diligence process the finances in place and facilities to a mininmum standard to take the place of a present L1 club.

Agreed - I believe this is how it works in soccer. Presumably you would also advocate the same between Champ and Super League at the top end? Incidentally, I suspect quite a few community clubs may have far better financial models than some of the clubs in L1...

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Presumably you would also advocate the same between Champ and Super League at the top end?

Would this be done by leaving the distribution money at one side?

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Would this be done by leaving the distribution money at one side?

Not sure what you mean

Edit: presume you mean the TV money and factoring it in to their finances? Haven't given it a great deal of thought, but I do think there should be some minimum standards if we're having P&R, and these could include things like facilities, development work, and also evidence of financial stability/good financial practices.

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Not sure what you mean

Edit: presume you mean the TV money and factoring it in to their finances? Haven't given it a great deal of thought, but I do think there should be some minimum standards if we're having P&R, and these could include things like facilities, development work, and also evidence of financial stability/good financial practices.

i think this is key... central distribution could be factored in or not as the calculation would change if you did or didnt anyway..  but this may drive those minimum standards.. but it has to be clear and it has to be obvious for example it should be clear that a team would not be promoted unless they did xyz.. i remember Wycombe being told very clearly for a couple of years what they needed to do, they did it and then got promoted. Ealing Trailfinders have been told similar. BUT they also need to be very clear to other teams within the league when this is brought in that they MUST do the same in a set timeframe or be relegated and they MUST follow through on that.

[RP London]

26 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Would this be done by leaving the distribution money at one side?

thats a bit irrelevant really.. if the distribution money is in the calculation would be based around that.. for example a turnover of £3m but with £1,4m from central funding (figures made up).. or if you leave it to one side you cannot expect them same figures to be needed therefore you would drop the turnover needed to £1.6m for example.. 

the key is it should be based on facts, so based on the lower league actual figures knowing that they should be able to scale that up when entering super league.. otherwise you are into finger in the wind calculations.. 

This is basic principle rather than a thought out deep dive idea but hopefully you see what I am meaning. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

the key is it should be based on facts, so based on the lower league actual figures knowing that they should be able to scale that up when entering super league.. otherwise you are into finger in the wind calculations.. 

I think it's not just the scaling up, but also the scaling down when teams get relegated. 

For me, I just don't think the game is financially strong enough to cope with P&R, either on a club level where teams have to massively cut costs in order to survive being relegated, or on a competition level where it could be disaster in terms of losing viewers/profile/sponsorship if a giant like Leeds had a bad season and got relegated. Attendances and viewing figures could take a massive hit.

However, I completely get the attraction of P&R, and confess that I get engrossed in and enjoy the drama of it as well. But IMO if we're going to have P&R then we've got have P&R throughout the entire pyramid, so that a club can progress from bottom to top. We've also got to ditch the absolute salary cap, which is completely at odds with the principle of P&R. The argument for P&R is that it can allow the cream to rise to the top, but the salary cap artificially limits a club's ability to compete on the field. If a really strong club has one bad season they can get relegated because they were prevented from signing more and/or better players in order to allow weaker clubs to compete with them. Any salary cap under P&R should be based on a club's ability to generate income. This would reward the stronger clubs and encourage clubs to develop their businesses, and would massively reduce the risk of one of the stronger clubs being relegated and harming the profile of the competition. It would also stop clubs from overspending.