Another SL restructure is being planned

[Harry Stottle]

18 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

The top of our 'pyramid' needs to be internationals , which is why I favour locking in the french sides

And do you consider that would be a smooth transition, and more importantly not open to abuse and accusations by clubs who could be on the wrong side of results.

Let me try to give an example, if the 'locked in clubs' elected to play understrength teams in certain games that would contribute to another team being relegated do you think that would acceptable?

Actually, a couple of seasons ago when London got relegated I think the game dodged a bullet, had it been one of the other three who went into the final weekend with London on the same number of points which in my opinion was cuertosy of Saints 'gifting' London 4 points, had one of the other 3 teams been relegated do you believe that would have gone without comment and even some kind of juducial challenge.

 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, sweaty craiq said:

What was the league below L1 - and were they in it. If not they had various promotions to WIN to push for L1 from the league below it

But thats not how it works.. you can apply to join league one from anywhere, and even from not existing in the first place. That is the whole anathema that is being spoken about. 

 

[Eddie]

16 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

I would go two leagues of 14 (SL and Champ) with RFL North and RFL South underneath.  Winner of playoff between top 2 of each and provided they meet certain criteria of targeted minimum crowds, appropriate stadium (a stadium that is way too big is also inappropriate) and budget for minimum spend on playing squad at Champ, they can step up. 

NCL should go back to winter. 

A South L1 would be the death of the game there imho, clubs like Coventry and Skolars need to be playing heartlands teams to improve and progress. And the standard of north would be 10x that of south. 

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

And do you consider that would be a smooth transition, and more importantly not open to abuse and accusations by clubs who could be on the wrong side of results.

Let me try to give an example, if the 'locked in clubs' elected to play understrength teams in certain games that would contribute to another team being relegated do you think that would acceptable?

Actually, a couple of seasons ago when London got relegated I think the game dodged a bullet, had it been one of the other three who went into the final weekend with London on the same number of points which in my opinion was cuertosy of Saints 'gifting' London 4 points, had one of the other 3 teams been relegated do you believe that would have gone without comment and even some kind of juducial challenge.

 

On your last point. I dont think it would have succeeded because they did not break any rules of the sport. It happens in every sport that clubs, when they have earned the right to, rest players for more serious games ahead (or choose not to play injured players that, perhaps, if they had to win the game they would have played). Its not that they deliberately want to lose, I am sure Saints thought the team they put out could win the game, they were just wrong and London played better. it was a game they could afford to lose (by getting their choices wrong) but it wasnt a game they wanted to lose or "threw".

I understand your argument but I cannot see clubs "throwing games" no matter what. Nor do I remember Catalans doing that when they were ring fenced initially (which is important as its the only time it has happened, therefore evidential for an argument like this).. though happy if someone has proof otherwise. 

I'm not a big fan of the idea but i think there is definitley a long term game v short term pain argument to be had.

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

What was the league below L1 - and were they in it. If not they had various promotions to WIN to push for L1 from the league below it

Seeing as its entirely and strictly amateur, the actual definition of a club being at the "level" below League 1 is only possible by the fact they existed and had players playing - which is true of every team below L1.

[Damien]

27 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

What was the league below L1 - and were they in it. If not they had various promotions to WIN to push for L1 from the league below it

It has never worked like that. Which team has ever been promoted into the professional ranks from the NCL, which is the highest standard amateur league?

[newbe]

Last team from NCL, I think was Hemel they won the comp Div 3. They had Aussies playing for them, but when they went up to semi pro there was lots of visa problems. Or could be Coventry 

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

It has never worked like that. Which team has ever been promoted into the professional ranks from the NCL, which is the highest standard amateur league?

 

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, newbe said:

Last team from NCL, I think was Hemel they won the comp Div 3. They had Aussies playing for them, but when they went up to semi pro there was lots of visa problems. 

 

That wasn't the NCL Premier Division, which is the top amateur standard and the League what would be considered below L1. National League 3 and 4 was a different beast entirely with a different purpose, to provide a proper pyramid. A good idea that was unfortunately scrapped and a route not available to Manchester Rangers when they wanted to join the professional ranks.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

That wasn't the NCL Premier Division, which is the top amateur standard and the League what would be considered below L1. National League 3 and 4 was a different beast entirely with a different purpose, to provide a proper pyramid. A good idea that was unfortunately scrapped and a route not available to Manchester Rangers when they wanted to join the professional ranks.

National League 3 was meant to be followed by the NCL clubs joining a pyramid and then BARLA clubs (either with BARLA still organising or not, I genuinely don't remember) fitting in after that. The easiest comparison would be with the RU pyramid.

It all fell apart pretty quickly.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

National League 3 was meant to be followed by the NCL clubs joining a pyramid and then BARLA clubs (either with BARLA still organising or not, I genuinely don't remember) fitting in after that. The easiest comparison would be with the RU pyramid.

It all fell apart pretty quickly.

National League 3 was for BARLA clubs that wanted to play in the summer, only a handful ever joined it, and a lot of non heartland teams with higher ambitions. It was meant to be a Football conference type league but never really managed it. When the NCL clubs did finally switch to the summer National League 3 became the bottom NCL tier. 

[gingerjon]

42 minutes ago, Damien said:

National League 3 was for BARLA clubs that wanted to play in the summer, only a handful ever joined it, and a lot of non heartland teams with higher ambitions. It was meant to be a Football conference type league but never really managed it. When the NCL clubs did finally switch to the summer National League 3 became the bottom NCL tier. 

Even Andy Wilson managed to sound optimistic:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/may/03/rugbyleague.andywilson

[Gooleboy]

10 hours ago, Oldbear said:

Wish he would join Davey, and get on the road again!

He will never be a "Joybringer"!

[Spidey]

Ignore me..

[Damien]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Even Andy Wilson managed to sound optimistic:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/may/03/rugbyleague.andywilson

Thanks for that. I forgot that it was another good idea instigated by Richard Lewis to make the game more national. Its pretty sad it fell away. 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Even Andy Wilson managed to sound optimistic:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/may/03/rugbyleague.andywilson

I played in the first couple of seasons of the NL3.. it was a really good comp and thought it was well structured and organised. There was real optimism at the time that the slightly over complicated amateur base was going to be made less complicated with a pathway for newer teams and an ability for southern amatuer teams to really know where they were in the "grand scheme" of RL.. such a shame it didnt pan out as such.. 

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

They were amateur, as all teams below L1 are, meaning that they are in essence equal versus the pro/semi pro game.

Nonsense 

[GUBRATS]

Right , so it's now established , we don't have a pyramid structure below L1 , so there isn't , hasn't and cannot be promotion , as ' Geek ' has moaned about 

So yes clubs do have to apply , everybody happy now ? 

[RP London]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Right , so it's now established , we don't have a pyramid structure below L1 , so there isn't , hasn't and cannot be promotion , as ' Geek ' has moaned about 

So yes clubs do have to apply , everybody happy now ? 

as long as people stop saying that we have a pyramid structure in RL and that P&R is part of our DNA (or any other P&R is vital to our sport) or vice versa that a closed shop is alien to the sport (when in fact we have a closed shop already) then yes... 

Argue that P&R should be kept between the top 3.. yes absolutely but just dont rattle off rubbish as above.

[Tommygilf]

56 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Nonsense 

I appreciate that might be a very complicated concept 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

5 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Right , so it's now established , we don't have a pyramid structure below L1 , so there isn't , hasn't and cannot be promotion , as ' Geek ' has moaned about 

So yes clubs do have to apply , everybody happy now ? 

You don't seem very happy for some reason...

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

You don't seem very happy for some reason...

I'm fine , why are you now getting personal , rather than discussing the point of interest ?

 

[Big Picture]

On 21/04/2021 at 06:57, Sports Prophet said:

It’s funny that. Whilst I wholeheartedly accept your opinion and would happily argue in favour of it if it meant a free pint, I personally have no issue with the NRL format where a top 4 side of the qualifying top 8 finalists gets a second chance if losing in the first round.

I doubt you would find many detractors in Australia with the current NRL format. Yet in England, which is more akin to the knockout style of finals, I would suggest most people are in favour of your opinion.

Says a lot about what and where an individual is brought up on and in.

Understanding the context in which the original McIntyre system was invented helps one to understand just how brilliant it is.  It was the VFL's second attempt to cure the flaws inherent in a straight knockout playoff system, namely that the minor premiers could miss playing for the league title if they lost in the semi-final.

The first attempt was the Argus system, in which the minor premiership came with the right to challenge the winner of the Final to a Grand Final for the premiership.  Under that system a Grand Final was played in some years but not others.

The original McIntyre system perfected that by guaranteeing a Grand Final in every season and ensuring that the league title could not be won from 3rd or 4th place unless that team could beat all the others in the process.  The McIntyre system is without a doubt the best playoff system in existence.

[Big Picture]

On 21/04/2021 at 09:46, ShropshireBull said:

I think comparisons to Soccer  or American Sports are unwise purely because it is the international game that will give us the commercial and exposure to strengthen the sport. 

The top of our 'pyramid' needs to be internationals , which is why I favour locking in the french sides and the game collectively working to get Welsh RL a proper home. 

With increased internationals I think it will help us attract new investors and potential owners to the sport.

It will eh?  Just how will those increased internationals overcome the fact that the game remains a small regional sport which undoubtedly deters new investors and potential owners given that most of them will invariably be played in that one region whereas internationals in other sports are not?

[Big Picture]

11 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because it massively expands the potential audience size and exposure of the game which could lead people not in the heartlands to take a greater interest in the sport. The last time England had a proper test series vs NZ , it brought it significant commercial income and over 4 million people watched the 3 games on the BBC (alongside nearly £500,000 in TV money).

A regular international calendar allows the sport to push beyond heartlands to engage a new audience that can filter into crowds and clubs across the countries. Be that England, France or anywhere else.  

First we need the regular internationals then we need to join them up with clubs to boost the offer. So, as an example, we should be having an international in London and saying to the Broncos "ok, we're doing a game in London in November. We need to work together so that everyone of those 20-30,000 fans who comes is bombarded with info on the Broncos and we capture 1% for you next season. 

I see that you missed my point.  That nearly 500,000 £ in TV money (in fact 431,607 £ or not even 150,000 £ per match from what I've read) you mentioned really is a paltry mount compared to the 90 million £ per year the BBC and ITV are jointly paying for the RU Six Nations currently which (assuming they televise all 15 matches every year) works out to 6 million £ per match.  A comparison of the commercial income for the two would no doubt be equally revealing.

The TV audiences aren't too flash either; this thread about international RL and TV money indicates that 1.5 million is a peak audience for RL internationals on the BBC whereas the Six Nations can often get over 8 million for a match between two of the "home countries".

I suggest that in fact the numbers back up my view that RL internationals are not able to break through the game's image of being a small time regional sport with limited appeal, not without changing the reality which underlies that perception of the game.  For that reason your idea of that bombarding southern International goers with information about the Broncos will attract them to watch the Broncos play teams from a bunch of little towns up north won't ever work.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

No you've missed the point. It shows the potential of what having an annual international tournament can do for the finances of your game. To compare a one off test series with a tournament which involves the home nations and Union's biggest commercial market and conclude with all the money RU internationals make, that the problem is internationals (and not the lack of them), is warped. You are from North America so I understand your attachment to some franchise model that works on your continent but it has no purchase here.

We clearly need our own annual RL international tournament in the northern hemisphere to start to pick up some of the cash that is out there. 

I didn't say the problem is internationals or lack of them.  The problem is the game's small footprint, its dependence on what Sean McGuire has described as "smallish economically deprived towns" in the north and the perception that creates among the British public that it's just a small time regional game with limited appeal.

Changing that perception is crucial if the game is going to stop continually falling further behind the other sports in the UK, but a few more internationals which will mostly be played in those same smallish towns up north won't cut it.  The idea that additional income which amounts to less than 150,000 £ per match (even if that was every year) will make any material difference in the game's finances is naive and fanciful.

As for the franchise model you mentioned, decades of experience in five sports have proven beyond doubt that that's how to make investment in big time pro sports franchises profitable for their owners.