Another SL restructure is being planned

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

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.

yes, completely see your points and I do have questions about a salary cap... it depends on its purpose and once you know that you build the actual cap around it.. at the moment i would suggest the cap's purpose is at odds with how it is structured (or vice versa depending on how you want to phrase it). 

equally while it would be hard on leeds and the away fans end of many clubs, they would almost certainly bounce back, they would add to the coffers of the lower leagues and perhaps would add more interest and reality to the league structure. However, it is unlikely to happen and basing a "grand plan" around a large "what if" is not the way to try and build something IMHO.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

However, it is unlikely to happen and basing a "grand plan" around a large "what if" is not the way to try and build something IMHO.

I think with that statement and especially the words in bold you have just censored 90% of the posts in this thread.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think with that statement and especially the words in bold you have just censored 90% of the posts in this thread.

its worth a try  

[RP London]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think with that statement and especially the words in bold you have just censored 90% of the posts in this thread.

Seriously though, I am all for planning for the worst but planning for every possible world ending scenario seems wrong.. IF Leeds were to get relegated we have to cope, but, more realistically we would be pulling a few clubs up by the boot straps. We would also clearly give lower league clubs an idea of where they need to be at, at which point the top league can cope if a Leeds were replaced by one of them.. and hopefully other clubs will have grown to mean the league has some strength in general. 

You have to work on the fact that the worst worse case is bad but then so is doing nothing, but if it were to succeed even slightly we are in a much better state than we are in now. Therefore the risk (a club like leeds having an utterly atrocious season) is worth it due to the up side and the likelihood of that risk actually happening.

In my opinion of course.

 

 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

equally while it would be hard on leeds and the away fans end of many clubs, they would almost certainly bounce back, they would add to the coffers of the lower leagues and perhaps would add more interest and reality to the league structure.

Fair point.

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

However, it is unlikely to happen and basing a "grand plan" around a large "what if" is not the way to try and build something IMHO.

This is why I lean more towards licensing. There are just too many uncertainties with P&R. If we had a really strong Championship, where relegation into it didn't mean falling off a proverbial cliff edge, then I'd be all in favour of P&R, as it is more interesting than a closed shop. But given that there is so little money in the game, and that relegation out of the top league means many people losing full time jobs, I just don't think it's the right way to go. This is why comparisons with football's Super League are daft - it's like trying to compare a push bike with a Ferrari. Take Toulouse and Catalans for example - they are going to struggle to develop any kind of long term tv deal whilst there's no certainty of whether or not they will be in the top flight from year to year. P&R prevents any sort of long-term strategic planning. Load of people have been using the example of clubs like Wakefield lacking ambition, but in reality, they're having to concentrate their limited resources on avoiding relegation every year, because they can't afford to risk falling out of the top flight.

 

[Rupert Prince]

16 minutes ago, RP London said:

seriously though i am all for planning for the worst but planning for every possible world ending scenario seems wrong.. IF Leeds were to get relegated we have to cope but more realistically we would be pulling a few clubs up by the boot straps. we also clearly give lower league clubs an idea of where they need to be at at which point the top league can cope if a Leeds were replaced by one of them.. and hopefully other clubs will have grown to mean the league has some strength in general.. you have to work on the fact that the worse worse case is bad but then so is doing nothing, but if it were to succeed even slightly we are in a much better state than we are in now. therefore the risk (a club like leeds having an utterly atrocious season) is worth it due to the up side and the likelihood of that risk actually happening.

In my opinion of course.

Paragraphs.  Full stops.

[Rupert Prince]

13 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Fair point.

This is why I lean more towards licensing. There are just too many uncertainties with P&R. If we had a really strong Championship, where relegation into it didn't mean falling off a proverbial cliff edge, then I'd be all in favour of P&R, as it is more interesting than a closed shop. But given that there is so little money in the game, and that relegation out of the top league means many people losing full time jobs, I just don't think it's the right way to go. This is why comparisons with football's Super League are daft - it's like trying to compare a push bike with a Ferrari. Take Toulouse and Catalans for example - they are going to struggle to develop any kind of long term tv deal whilst there's no certainty of whether or not they will be in the top flight from year to year. P&R prevents any sort of long-term strategic planning. Load of people have been using the example of clubs like Wakefield lacking ambition, but in reality, they're having to concentrate their limited resources on avoiding relegation every year, because they can't afford to risk falling out of the top flight.

Very good points indeed.  Exceptionally sensible.

[RP London]

11 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Fair point.

This is why I lean more towards licensing. There are just too many uncertainties with P&R. If we had a really strong Championship, where relegation into it didn't mean falling off a proverbial cliff edge, then I'd be all in favour of P&R, as it is more interesting than a closed shop. But given that there is so little money in the game, and that relegation out of the top league means many people losing full time jobs, I just don't think it's the right way to go. This is why comparisons with football's Super League are daft - it's like trying to compare a push bike with a Ferrari. Take Toulouse and Catalans for example - they are going to struggle to develop any kind of long term tv deal whilst there's no certainty of whether or not they will be in the top flight from year to year. P&R prevents any sort of long-term strategic planning. Load of people have been using the example of clubs like Wakefield lacking ambition, but in reality, they're having to concentrate their limited resources on avoiding relegation every year, because they can't afford to risk falling out of the top flight.

 

Totally understand your last point and why you are in favour of licencing... but i think the problem is the execution of it and the trust in it because of the last time. However, this "promotion with criteria" answer seems the safest for all involved. The job is to build the championship up as well, but you cannot do that if there is no obvious way to move onwards from it, why bother. P&R means you only go up if another comes down, but so does licencing in reality. Are they prepared to kick someone out to sit in the champ, i would suggest history tells us no. So maybe let P&R do that, but as you say take the shackles off therefore limiting the chances of a "big club" being in trouble. 

The league below need help to encourage them to build.. but also you have this underlying threat that in a couple of years maybe more than 1 will get relegated if they dont pull their socks up.. therefore we will have a rush forward (hopefully) which is also what you would hope to get from licencing announcement.. but you keep that P&R essence 

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Paragraphs.  Full stops.

apologies.. i assume you are always perfect?? no thought not.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

Totally understand your last point and why you are in favour of licencing... but i think the problem is the execution of it and the trust in it because of the last time. However, this "promotion with criteria" answer seems the safest for all involved.

It still has the year-on-year uncertainty for me though - this is the thing stopping clubs from planning longer term and being able to develop other areas of their businesses.

6 minutes ago, RP London said:

The job is to build the championship up as well, but you cannot do that if there is no obvious way to move onwards from it, why bother. P&R means you only go up if another comes down, but so does licencing in reality. Are they prepared to kick someone out to sit in the champ, i would suggest history tells us no. So maybe let P&R do that, but as you say take the shackles off therefore limiting the chances of a "big club" being in trouble. 

I'm not sure if licensing does mean that one must come down if one goes up. If all of the SL clubs are functioning successfully and maintaining the criteria, then I don't see any reason why the comp couldn't expand.

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

The league below need help to encourage them to build.. but also you have this underlying threat that in a couple of years maybe more than 1 will get relegated if they dont pull their socks up.. therefore we will have a rush forward (hopefully) which is also what you would hope to get from licencing announcement.. but you keep that P&R essence 

I wondered whether you could have P&R based on a 3-year cycle (e.g. the duraton of a broadcasting deal) so that clubs could plan longer term - i.e. the worst performing club over that period replaced by the best performing club, based on on-field performance as well as fulfilling certain off-field criteria. I haven't given it a great deal of thought though, so it's probably littered with flaws!

10 minutes ago, RP London said:

Totally understand your last point and why you are in favour of licencing... but i think the problem is the execution of it and the trust in it because of the last time.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here - for many, the failure of the execution is taken as evidence of failure of the concept.

[Chris Taylor]

26 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Fair point.

This is why I lean more towards licensing. There are just too many uncertainties with P&R. If we had a really strong Championship, where relegation into it didn't mean falling off a proverbial cliff edge, then I'd be all in favour of P&R, as it is more interesting than a closed shop. But given that there is so little money in the game, and that relegation out of the top league means many people losing full time jobs, I just don't think it's the right way to go. This is why comparisons with football's Super League are daft - it's like trying to compare a push bike with a Ferrari. Take Toulouse and Catalans for example - they are going to struggle to develop any kind of long term tv deal whilst there's no certainty of whether or not they will be in the top flight from year to year. P&R prevents any sort of long-term strategic planning. Load of people have been using the example of clubs like Wakefield lacking ambition, but in reality, they're having to concentrate their limited resources on avoiding relegation every year, because they can't afford to risk falling out of the top flight.

 

If Rugby League want a more successful Super League and clubs don't want to look over their shoulder constantly - the answer is to simply increase the number of teams in the top division.

At the moment, the league is far too skinny in terms of numbers, and we have this daft loop system - that fans hate. 

We should be looking at expanding the league to 16 - 18 teams over the next 5 - 10 years. That can easily be done, by adding teams that have traditional / community value and also the non-heartland teams. 

The game is very stagnant at the moment, with more teams in the top division it will increase the level of competitiveness and help drive the game forward. 

If we were to create a licensing system, the rug under the top division is swept - leaving yourself with teams in Super League just battling against each other year after year - meaning it will be more stale. 

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

It still has the year-on-year uncertainty for me though - this is the thing stopping clubs from planning longer term and being able to develop other areas of their businesses.

I'm not sure if licensing does mean that one must come down if one goes up. If all of the SL clubs are functioning successfully and maintaining the criteria, then I don't see any reason why the comp couldn't expand.

I wondered whether you could have P&R based on a 3-year cycle (e.g. the duraton of a broadcasting deal) so that clubs could plan longer term - i.e. the worst performing club over that period replaced by the best performing club, based on on-field performance as well as fulfilling certain off-field criteria. I haven't given it a great deal of thought though, so it's probably littered with flaws!

I think you've hit the nail on the head here - for many, the failure of the execution is taken as evidence of failure of the concept.

Agreed on much.. i dont like 3 year cycle P&R as it gets overly complicated but understand where it could be an option. 

Expanding the league can happen, and often does in other sports, with P&R. If you keep expanding a licenced division then you end up being back to a licenced 2 divisions and so on.. and what worries me is that teams get a licence and then just sit back anyway as they have done everything they need to to get the licence in the first place.. again history shows this with clubs getting "middle of the tableitus"

I think a criteria based P&R is the best way to go, I dont buy the idea that looking over your shoulder stops you moving forward, arguably moving forward stops you looking over your shoulder. You just need to be willing to move forward (or cattle prodded) and i think this could be done, but again you MUST make clubs already there do the same or lose their place.. which is why I am not too worried about clubs not moving forward. 

Link this to a major shake up in the salary cap, when the salary cap can be paid by the central distribution money why should clubs look for more revenue? There needs to be an incentive and the idea that if you make more you can spend more should make some clubs look at other revenue angles (including better, more useful, facilities).

Put together I think this could make the changes we all want to see. 

(I do get the French argument though in terms of tv deals etc but I think that needs to be worked out separate to this argument otherwise the Tail [the French] are wagging the dog).

[binosh]

27 minutes ago, Chris Taylor said:

If Rugby League want a more successful Super League and clubs don't want to look over their shoulder constantly - the answer is to simply increase the number of teams in the top division.

At the moment, the league is far too skinny in terms of numbers, and we have this daft loop system - that fans hate. 

We should be looking at expanding the league to 16 - 18 teams over the next 5 - 10 years. That can easily be done, by adding teams that have traditional / community value and also the non-heartland teams. 

The game is very stagnant at the moment, with more teams in the top division it will increase the level of competitiveness and help drive the game forward. 

If we were to create a licensing system, the rug under the top division is swept - leaving yourself with teams in Super League just battling against each other year after year - meaning it will be more stale. 

This!!!

A larger league, more competition, more choice for sky, more subscriptions may possibly deliver a better TV deal? Teams need to up their revenue streams internally.

Underpinned with a mandatory reserve team that travels with the first team home and away as curtain raiser.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

42 minutes ago, Chris Taylor said:

We should be looking at expanding the league to 16 - 18 teams over the next 5 - 10 years. That can easily be done, by adding teams that have traditional / community value and also the non-heartland teams. 

It would increase variety. But an issue I would have with this is that it would make the disparity in standards between Championship and SL even bigger. A team getting relegated would spell absolute disaster in terms of profile and attendances, because there simply wouldn't be any big clubs left in the Championship.

44 minutes ago, Chris Taylor said:

with more teams in the top division it will increase the level of competitiveness and help drive the game forward. 

I'm not sure this follows. Arguably it could dilute the quality significantly, and lead to an even bigger disparity between the likes of Saints, Wigan and Leeds and the also rans. 

[Chris Taylor]

12 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

It would increase variety. But an issue I would have with this is that it would make the disparity in standards between Championship and SL even bigger. A team getting relegated would spell absolute disaster in terms of profile and attendances, because there simply wouldn't be any big clubs left in the Championship.

I'm not sure this follows. Arguably it could dilute the quality significantly, and lead to an even bigger disparity between the likes of Saints, Wigan and Leeds and the also rans. 

From whichever angle you look at this, there will be a cut off point (whether you increase or perhaps decrease) the number of teams.

I don't think you would really get past Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Hull or Warrington from winning anything any time soon anyway. 

I think the more teams in the top league, the less risk of the YoYo effect and also, teams can "plan for longer" and would be more than happy to take the money.

It was around a year ago, but I mentioned on here that this moment in the game is just as significant as the start of Super League. The return of fans, could be the breath of fresh air this game needs. In my opinions, it's stagnant, robotic and it needs some life back in it. Toronto was that brief ray of light shining.

If teams wanted a bit more security on being in SL until we got to a specific number of teams - then we could easily suggestion no relegation until 2025 and promote one club at a time, giving them plenty of opportunity to meet a minimum standard. 

 

 

[RP London]

30 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

It would increase variety. But an issue I would have with this is that it would make the disparity in standards between Championship and SL even bigger. A team getting relegated would spell absolute disaster in terms of profile and attendances, because there simply wouldn't be any big clubs left in the Championship.

I'm not sure this follows. Arguably it could dilute the quality significantly, and lead to an even bigger disparity between the likes of Saints, Wigan and Leeds and the also rans. 

The thing is, what you do now will have an impact on now.. the disparity between divisions etc and all the things we have been talking about... What we MUST look at though is what best gets us to the point we want to be at in 5-10 years times. That may be an increase in teams in the top division it may just be the same number of teams but stronger, it may be same number of teams but with depth into the second division etc. 

All the ideas have merit be it a fix for today or to get us somewhere in the future but there is a risk today.. but where do we want to get too. I think this is the bit RL has missed for so long, where do we want to be? what does the structure in 10 years look like, is it a strong top league is it a strong pyramid, does it involve expansion teams etc then lets work out how best to get us there.

[binosh]

Let’s say Leigh were told no relegation this year but funding for next year was based on finishing position in the league. SL have decided to got to 13/14/15/16 teams, Derek could invest as much or as little as he liked into Leigh’s academy licence application and he could also start to offer deals to players for next year.

Let’s just say he also wanted to tip in 1M per year of his own money into the squad pot, it’s not unrealistic to think Leigh could start to attract some quality additions on longer than a 1 year deal, now let’s say that happens again the following year, slowly but surely Leigh could realistically consider  themselves as a SL contender within a few years. Same for York/Toulouse/Featherstone/Widnes/Bradford/London it doesn’t matter the club aslong  as there is someone with money, means & ambition at the top.

The same goes for any club with a “money man” as an owner, the problem has always been 1 year is not long enough to make a difference in a league as small as 12 teams. 

 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

Sorry if I've missed it but do we have any info on what proposals are, not what we want them to be? 

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

apologies.. i assume you are always perfect?? no thought not.

It's just that I found it impossible to read.  I am massively imperfect.

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

It's just that I found it impossible to read.  I am massively imperfect.

I've edited it to try and help. As a Dyslexic I don't always get these things right (hence the defensiveness) but that was written and posted in a bit of a rush (as am at work) which exacerbates the problem.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

All the ideas have merit be it a fix for today or to get us somewhere in the future but there is a risk today.. but where do we want to get too. I think this is the bit RL has missed for so long, where do we want to be? what does the structure in 10 years look like, is it a strong top league is it a strong pyramid, does it involve expansion teams etc then lets work out how best to get us there.

You're absolutely right - every structure has its pros and cons, be it licensing or P&R or middle 8s or whatever. The really disappointing thing is that I don't think RL over here has ever had much of a long term vision as to what it wants the competition to be. It just seems a mish-mash of different conflicting ideas. The only time the game has had much of a vision was the Framing the Future document (or whatever it was called) that led to Super League. And that went down like a fart in a lift!

[Chris Taylor]

14 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

You're absolutely right - every structure has its pros and cons, be it licensing or P&R or middle 8s or whatever. The really disappointing thing is that I don't think RL over here has ever had much of a long term vision as to what it wants the competition to be. It just seems a mish-mash of different conflicting ideas. The only time the game has had much of a vision was the Framing the Future document (or whatever it was called) that led to Super League. And that went down like a fart in a lift!

100% and I know we can agree to disagree on our points - but the intention of having a better game is most certainly there.

[RP London]

17 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

You're absolutely right - every structure has its pros and cons, be it licensing or P&R or middle 8s or whatever. The really disappointing thing is that I don't think RL over here has ever had much of a long term vision as to what it wants the competition to be. It just seems a mish-mash of different conflicting ideas. The only time the game has had much of a vision was the Framing the Future document (or whatever it was called) that led to Super League. And that went down like a fart in a lift!

spot on.. 

[GUBRATS]

7 hours 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 !

In truth nobody should have , but you lot needed the 12th club , don't blame those that offered to help you out , yes , help you out , let's get it right 

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, gingerjon said:

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.

Correct , but who won the Championship last year ?