Jump to content

Another SL restructure is being planned


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, del capo said:

 

So when 40/20 talk of  a new blueprint ' from top to bottom ' for the game it would perhaps be nice of its authors to share it more widely. I for one would welcome their solutions for the many problems facing  all of those below SL.

 

I do wonder whether they mean League 1 as the bottom... that was my first thought when I read the comment. A restructure lower than that is going to be quite wide ranging and difficult... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, del capo said:

All clubs in the NCL technically need to apply for membership every year. Clubs at the bottom of the ladder need to seek re-election. Clubs come and go on a regular basis so there is an effective but friendly  'churn' and most importantly membership is open to any club with a good  enough on and off the park track record ( the standards criteria.)

On  rare occasion clubs have been expelled . The routes  between Tiers 4 and 5  are clear and unobstructed.

There is no mechanism between Tier 4 and Tier 3 ( league 1 ) . That is the choice of the RFL and its shareholders but many at Tier 4 level are comfortable with the protections that not having to be semi pro gives them.

In the past some NCL clubs courted a step up ( Rochdale Mayfield and i believe West Hull ) but were rebuffed largely because of 'local ' reactions. Manchester Rangers had a similar fate but were so far off the mark in playing standards that it was effectively a new application bypassing the playing results route. Bramley never won the NCL but faired ok in the RFL southern conference. Other League 1 entrants - ie Oxford , All Golds etc from that conference who got in struggled and then succumbed. 

 Years ago struggling semi pro clubs passed down from  what is now Tier 3 to the NCL invariably failed within a season or two as they could not cope either on or off the park without central funding support ( it disappeared after 12 months ).

The same would undoubtedly happen again. If League 1 clubs are cut adrift financially  ( as is likely following the TV deal ) then I fear for them. They would not live with an NCL competition all of whose clubs  self finance ( the RFL cut any direct finance support to the NCL members  this year ).

If there is to be a League 1 ( Tier 3 ) next year then I do wonder what it would look like. P and R between them and the Tier 4 NCL and its southern equivalent is certainly not a cure all.

So when 40/20 talk of  a new blueprint ' from top to bottom ' for the game it would perhaps be nice of its authors to share it more widely. I for one would welcome their solutions for the many problems facing  all of those below SL.

 

Thanks for the detailed reply. I think this highlights perfectly the lack of joined up thinking regarding the whole structure of the game. As you say, pro teams dropping from League 1 to the NCL may struggle with some of the minimum standards. It's arguably therefore the same problem in reverse for clubs who have aspirations to compete at the highest tiers - i.e. clubs would have to demonstrate various criteria for the NCL that wouldn't be required for League 1, so the NCL isn't an obvious avenue for them to follow if they have aspirations to turn pro.

So what can clubs like Manchester Rangers and Bramley do? Applying to the NCL may allow them to demonstrate playing strength, but it would also require them to fulfil various criteria that wouldn't subsequently be needed if they wanted to turn pro. Plus, competing in the NCL gives them zero guarantee that they would even be considered for League 1 anyway. The structure is a mess and isn't equitable. The same criticisms being levelled at some super league clubs (i.e. being lucky to have a chair in super league when the music happened to stop) can arguably be made about some League 1 clubs. But there's no mechanism for any of them to be replaced.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Thanks for the detailed reply. I think this highlights perfectly the lack of joined up thinking regarding the whole structure of the game. As you say, pro teams dropping from League 1 to the NCL may struggle with some of the minimum standards. It's arguably therefore the same problem in reverse for clubs who have aspirations to compete at the highest tiers - i.e. clubs would have to demonstrate various criteria for the NCL that wouldn't be required for League 1, so the NCL isn't an obvious avenue for them to follow if they have aspirations to turn pro.

So what can clubs like Manchester Rangers and Bramley do? Applying to the NCL may allow them to demonstrate playing strength, but it would also require them to fulfil various criteria that wouldn't subsequently be needed if they wanted to turn pro. Plus, competing in the NCL gives them zero guarantee that they would even be considered for League 1 anyway. The structure is a mess and isn't equitable. The same criticisms being levelled at some super league clubs (i.e. being lucky to have a chair in super league when the music happened to stop) can arguably be made about some League 1 clubs. But there's no mechanism for any of them to be replaced.

 

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. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

RL doesn't have a pyramid and does have a closed shop - the drawbridge is pulled up below League 1.

So which clubs in the division below League 1 have expressed a wish to join it ? , And have been refused ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Another club subsequently sprung to mind in Bramley, who have expressed a desire to return to the pro leagues on numerous occasions since they were kicked out. I agree there should be some minimum standards in order to gain promotion. It's my understanding that this is how it works to progress to higher levels of the football pyramid.

Currently the NCL is an application only competition as well, so there are no on-field means to be promoted in to it or to be relegated out of it. If the game decides that P&R is the way forward, I think the whole game would need a restructure from top to bottom, starting on a regional level and progressing up to national level. And like in football, teams can refuse promotion if they don't want to go up. The whole pro/amateur distinction should be dropped - it's a hang-up from the game's origins around broken time payments IMO.

If the game believes in P&R, there has to be a clear route for any club - whether it be based in Manchester, Bramley or Devon - to progress from the lowest levels of the competition to the highest levels. Otherwise, the system is not equitable, and people are just picking and choosing elements of P&R that suit a specific/convenient scenario. Either the pyramid is open or it isn't. Do you view League 1 as "not sport" given that there is no relegation from it? Do you view NCL Premier as "not sport" even though there is not promotion out of it? Or is just a lack of P&R to and from Super League that would be "not sport"?

It's all sport to me, and I personally don't believe that P&R is an integral part of it (nor do I think RL has enough money in the game to do it). However, I completely get why many people do want P&R. So if we are going to do P&R, then for me it has to be done properly from top to bottom, as opposed to cherry-picking certain elements of it.

Has anybody disagreed with you over this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

I am not trying to sing. I am playing piano, organ and keyboard. Your ignorance regarding my considerable musical talents is embarrassing.

Stick to defending the obscure, West Yorkshire backwater town of Featherstone. There are so few of you dinosaurs that the Post Office Road manager, security guard, and cleaner are grateful for everyone of you.

Oh you sad man. I don't have to defend my club to you. As they say ignorance is bliss.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

Stick to defending the obscure, West Yorkshire backwater town of Featherstone. There are so few of you dinosaurs that the Post Office Road manager, security guard, and cleaner are grateful for everyone of you.

Is this a serious post?

2008 RFL Wakefield & District Young Volunteer of the Year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like the shenanigans in football over the last week have made me appreciate P&R more. Even if it’s , it’s a necessary evil.

All these comparisons to football are probably useless, but the Premier League didn’t (quite) sell its soul completely to be able to drive its revenue up and its stature worldwide. We are able to have traditional clubs and increase revenues/TV numbers simultaneously

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/04/2021 at 11:36, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Or is just a lack of P&R to and from Super League that would be "not sport"?

To be fair, if you look back at what I said in my interpretation of Mr Guardiola's 'not sport' comment I included my personal complete disrespect of the suggestion that certain clubs can play in the same competition and be ringfenced from relegation whilst others who could perform better on the League ladder would suffer relegation.

In that situation for any ringfenced nominated club "It is not sport, if it doesn't matter when you lose" 

Edited by Harry Stottle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes 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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Edited by newbe
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...