Jump to content

Another SL restructure is being planned


Recommended Posts


5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Drop the WC, has I say it's a contrived competition of Aussie Nationals, I am sure plenty NRL coaches would agree with me!

They won't accept the mid season games either, so by your plan we've now got a season we have to stop 2 months in to go to Australia for 6 weeks or play them over here in a world cup and no internationals in our off season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They won't accept the mid season games either, so by your plan we've now got a season we have to stop 2 months in to go to Australia for 6 weeks or play them over here in a world cup and no internationals in our off season.

Good in'it, I call that 6 weeks down under just about a good holiday period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% do not drop the world cup, just ban switching teams.  One nation thats it.  Let Aussies get on with Oceanic Cup but if they are binning that then invite Kiwis over for four nations with France. 

For me, we just need to get to a stage where tv companies and sponsors know they are getting at least 5 England games. I'd like to see someone from Europe have an international against Canada in the summer too,  just to grow the game. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

100% do not drop the world cup, just ban switching teams.  One nation thats it.  Let Aussies get on with Oceanic Cup but if they are binning that then invite Kiwis over for four nations with France. 

For me, we just need to get to a stage where tv companies and sponsors know they are getting at least 5 England games. I'd like to see someone from Europe have an international against Canada in the summer too,  just to grow the game. 

I agree. Keep the WC but make sure there's tournaments in the 3 years between WCs which cater for the big nations such as a 4N or 6N plus smaller comps like Euro, Americas, Africa, Asia/Pacific.

Mid season needs a couple of weeks at Origin time for test matches. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2021 at 10:24, DC77 said:

And right here we have the difference between here and North America. In North America the owner is king, it’s HIS team, he can move it to a different location at the whim of further lining his pockets from his customers. He even picks up the trophy before any players/manager who won the bleedin thing. It’s soulless. These “franchises” (horrible term) are businesses first, second and third, vehicles to make money for their owner. They exist to maximise his (or her) profit. 

Good stuff. But I have just replied to the thread that concludes the only way to maximise the private money in Supeleague to try to negate the severe drop in the TV income is to invite the richest owners into Superleague.

I take your points entirely but can't a rich owners league be played to rules that do not allow the excesses or the antics American Football suffers?? We know Toulouse have a lot of money behind them and so do Newcastle.

If we did this could we see a couple more rich people considering investing? Didn't Marwan Koukash walk away because his spending was limited by the RFL/SL  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2021 at 02:24, DC77 said:

Franchises there up sticks and move if the owner decides he can milk more money for himself from customers elsewhere. 

Not that many years ago Seattle nearly lost the Seahawks as the then owner, decided that he could get a better deal moving them down the cost to California. Had it not been an intervention from the late Paul Allen, the team would have been lost to the city, a city with a very passionate supporter base and where getting game tickets is almost impossible. It just shows the danger of having very rich individuals involved, on the one hand it’s great for investment in the club, providing your owner is actually a fan and not just in it for profit, tax breaks or pure ego, on the other remember rich people like to get their own way and when they get bored, or are advised that the money may be more tax efficiently spent elsewhere, they walk. By all means let’s get more rich people involved in the game, after all we need the money, but please be careful to do due diligence on their true motives, and always ensure there is a structure to ensure the team survives when they are no longer around.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Oldbear said:

Not that many years ago Seattle nearly lost the Seahawks as the then owner, decided that he could get a better deal moving them down the cost to California. Had it not been an intervention from the late Paul Allen, the team would have been lost to the city, a city with a very passionate supporter base and where getting game tickets is almost impossible. It just shows the danger of having very rich individuals involved, on the one hand it’s great for investment in the club, providing your owner is actually a fan and not just in it for profit, tax breaks or pure ego, on the other remember rich people like to get their own way and when they get bored, or are advised that the money may be more tax efficiently spent elsewhere, they walk. By all means let’s get more rich people involved in the game, after all we need the money, but please be careful to do due diligence on their true motives, and always ensure there is a structure to ensure the team survives when they are no longer around.

Just be glad that most rugby league clubs are in not exactly affluent areas and/or don't own their grounds or else you'd already have seen the sort of asset stripping that's endemic in non league football.

Or maybe we already have. Oldham, Swinton don't have homes any more, do they?

But, still, let's be grateful that no hypothetical Americans have got involved.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, steve oates said:

Good stuff. But I have just replied to the thread that concludes the only way to maximise the private money in Supeleague to try to negate the severe drop in the TV income is to invite the richest owners into Superleague.

I take your points entirely but can't a rich owners league be played to rules that do not allow the excesses or the antics American Football suffers?? We know Toulouse have a lot of money behind them and so do Newcastle.

If we did this could we see a couple more rich people considering investing? Didn't Marwan Koukash walk away because his spending was limited by the RFL/SL  

The Koukash case ultimately exposed the critical flaw of the salary cap; namely that we couldn't have a Man City or a Chelsea in RL where 1 ambitious owner could come in and spend to overcome the historical advantages of the big clubs and create a title contender in a short space of time.

We can have slow burners, Warrington would be the prime example of that, but slow burners aren't exciting are they? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Wakey fan, I can take 2 x 10...as long as promotion/relegation is a guaranteed feature. And it's properly funded and features in the main Sky schedule - 1 game from SL1 and 1 game from SL2 (+Dragons home games).

That would really give the SL something to sell as a secondary rights package!

It would push my club on (to remain in SL1), and give the likes of Fev, Fax, London, York, Toulouse, Newcastle a real chance to bridge the gap, in a truly competitive league.

I'm sure it could create a yo-yo effect, with the top 6 SL1 clubs never in doubt, but worthy of discussion.

Equally, I'd be happy with a 14 team SL (and rising over time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two tens or a fourteen team league discussed, how have we gone from announcing a structure two-three years ago of twelve teams in Super League to wanting to either drop or gain two sides so soon after? I don’t think we should go below twelve myself and I can’t see why we’d drop to ten. Again, it seems we’re attempting to satisfy a handful of relatively small clubs, while really holding the game back. 

Ten probably means three games a year against the other nine sides, with Magic, the Challenge Cup and the play-offs to throw up Groundhog Day Rugby League style. But hey, we get to give a couple of thousand fans some jeopardy by way of promotion to the Super League. Playing everyone again and again and again doesn’t excite me in the slightest. Fourteen would probably look like everyone home and away and a Magic round, so twenty-seven games overall. 

But away from who you’d see and how many times you’d see them, the bigger question is what is the purpose of a structure change? Why are we doing this? What do we want from this? How do we want the league to look in 10, 15 and 20 years? How do we get to ten or fourteen teams? All of that, an actual business plan and a proper strategy, just isn’t Rugby League, but as long as some former pit villages have the pipe dream of Super League, let’s ignore the overarching issues in the sport.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

A ten team SL being requested by the clubs? Aren't we supposed to be expanding the footprint of RL? 

Seems like the clubs and the people in governance positions aren't learning their lessons. If that goes through I can assure you we'll get back within 3 years talking about another restructure and RL in the UK will be on its ass. Essentially it will become a smaller number of clubs sharing an ever decreasing amount of monies until there's nothing left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

A ten team SL being requested by the clubs? Aren't we supposed to be expanding the footprint of RL? 

Seems like the clubs and the people in governance positions aren't learning their lessons. If that goes through I can assure you we'll get back within 3 years talking about another restructure and RL in the UK will be on its ass. Essentially it will become a smaller number of clubs sharing an ever decreasing amount of monies until there's nothing left.

We are nowhere near two division of 10 as a SL product , SL2 is a reduced championship in all but name unless it's conferences which means that the top 3 would make a 6 team playoff for an overall GF winner. But they aren't going to do that, they are just cutting the SL down again and Championship. So this is a terrible idea. Just 14/14, lowest English club relegated and promotion from Championship. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

We are nowhere near two division of 10 as a SL product , SL2 is a reduced championship in all but name unless it's conferences which means that the top 3 would make a 6 team playoff for an overall GF winner. But they aren't going to do that, they are just cutting the SL down again and Championship. So this is a terrible idea. Just 14/14, lowest English club relegated and promotion from Championship. 

Folk still dont grasp this concept, and continue to stupidly call it the 'Championship in all but name'. For 20 years 2 x 10 has been the solution to strengthen foundations whilst building the extension. FT with min spends, cant spend it dont join it

14-18 in L1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

We are nowhere near two division of 10 as a SL product , SL2 is a reduced championship in all but name unless it's conferences which means that the top 3 would make a 6 team playoff for an overall GF winner. But they aren't going to do that, they are just cutting the SL down again and Championship. So this is a terrible idea. Just 14/14, lowest English club relegated and promotion from Championship. 

We’re also so far away from anything beyond the 14 full-time professional clubs we have, of which we have clubs who have the most basic academy set-up’s, terrible stadia, declining crowds and can’t spend the cap. So really, we’re struggling to get to 14. 

Edited by Hela Wigmen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sweaty craiq said:

Folk still dont grasp this concept, and continue to stupidly call it the 'Championship in all but name'. For 20 years 2 x 10 has been the solution to strengthen foundations whilst building the extension. FT with min spends, cant spend it dont join it

14-18 in L1

You think there’s another six teams, who, in a post pandemic world, can go full time? That’s some gear, you’re drinking. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sweaty craiq said:

Folk still dont grasp this concept, and continue to stupidly call it the 'Championship in all but name'. For 20 years 2 x 10 has been the solution to strengthen foundations whilst building the extension. FT with min spends, cant spend it dont join it

14-18 in L1

If it is actually both SL, two conferences with top 3 from each in a playoff, then fine. If it's SL1 and 'SL2' but there's promotion and relegation between and they don't all play eachother it's just a reduced championship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dboy said:

It would push my club on (to remain in SL1), and give the likes of Fev, Fax, London, York, Toulouse, Newcastle a real chance to bridge the gap, in a truly competitive league.

There is a truly competitive league now in the Championship featuring all those teams.

The 2 leagues of 10 is nothing short of greed and short sightedness for those that are still wanting to stay full time and in the mix for the money. 

If the game wants to "grow" like it's constantly saying then you can only do that by increasing the number of teams in the leagues and produce a strategy where it will be consistent for years and won't be changed.

Arguements for the loop fixtures were "there's not enough games" - well that most certainly screams to me like there's not enough games now, unless all teams play each other a minimum of three times.

Grow SL 1 team per year, for the next 4 years as it currently is without relegation. The teams, then must hit a minimum criteria involving finances, marketing, strategy, support base, commercial revenue, etc, etc.

So many questions that I have.

 

  • Like 2

2008 RFL Wakefield & District Young Volunteer of the Year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

You think there’s another six teams, who, in a post pandemic world, can go full time? That’s some gear, you’re drinking. 

I named the 8 on a previous thread I believed would step up - I talk about min spends, I also believe in Bonds left and shares bought.

We are told York are cashed up, Newcastle are, TO, Avignon, Fev keep pushing at the door, Cardiff/Swansea could be, Widnes can pull a crowd, and then London - can Cumbria unite? Can Barrow go it alone? Will Carlisle return or is there a smell of Haggis on the wind to challenge any of the above

 

Edited by sweaty craiq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

If it is actually both SL, two conferences with top 3 from each in a playoff, then fine. If it's SL1 and 'SL2' but there's promotion and relegation between and they don't all play eachother it's just a reduced championship. 

still not getting it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sweaty craiq said:

I named the 8 on a previous thread I believed would step up - I talk about min spends, I also believe in Bonds left and shares bought.

We are told York are cashed up, Newcastle are, TO, Avignon, Fev keep pushing at the door, Cardiff/Swansea could be, Widnes can pull a crowd, and then its one more - can Cumbria unite? Can Barrow go it alone? Will Carlisle return or is there a smell of Haggis on the wind?

 

So a load of clubs that don’t exist? So, we don’t have another six, let alone six who can spend up to the cap, upgrade stadia, sort out player pathways and attract decent crowds. That’s before we address the clubs we do have who can’t do those things even with an annual financial  handshake from Super League. 

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...