Jump to content

Another SL restructure is being planned


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Clogiron said:

Thirteen teams, each club gets 2 byes, 24 games top 4 play off, bottom team plays top team in championship for promotion, break for mid season internationals, draw for whose bye coincides with magic if it must be continued with, if chosen taken out of draw for following seasons until all clubs have missed it. So obvious that it will never be implemented.

You cannot have an odd number of games and an odd number of teams 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

No, we haven’t. There were no minimum standards, just a ring fence put around some clubs and not others. A properly policed set of minimum standards is desperately required, though simply won’t happen. 

How many clubs would meet such standards though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only restructuring that makes any sense is a return to licensing, but with the rules of licensing enforced, unlike last time. This means modern 10,000 seat minimum stadium, and a fan attendance average of at least 5,000 or even 6,000. A viable business plan would also be necessary, of course.

That would end the burden of having Salford, Wakefield and probably Leigh weighing down Super League. If Castleford can’t get a 21st century stadium to play in, then they too will have to go. Their current stadium is an embarrassment and a disgrace. It would certainly guarantee the participation of Toulouse, and possibly other French or North American clubs, in Super League. It would give hope to Bradford (assuming their business side is guaranteed), Newcastle, York and London. 

The restructuring change I propose would surely make Super League more attractive to TV broadcasters and commercial sponsors.

Edited by Manfred Mann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

How many clubs would meet such standards though?

It depends on what we want the minimum standards to be, what we want the game to look like immediately and what we want the game and the league to look like in future. 

Expecting clubs to be at the level, say, Saints, Leeds, Warrington etc are at is not a viable option. However, when we have clubs with the most basic of youth development pathways, clubs playing out of grounds that were dated 40 years ago, clubs with crowds of less than a few thousand, others with declining crowds and clubs spending nowhere near the cap, we’re going wrong somewhere and need to address things. 

Plenty here could make cases for a handful of current Championship clubs and the removal of a few Super League clubs, I’m not going to be drawn into that but we need a strong competition to be tied into a wider vision for the sport from junior level up to the top. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely keep p+r it gives hope to lower league clubs and fans, without that the interest slowly dies.

I'd have 12 teams SL, playing each other twice , 22 games. Then league splits, top 6 play 5 more games against each other (points carried on with ), top 3 , 3 home ,2 away  4th to 6th place 2 home 3 away. Top two after 27 games in GF.

Bottom 6 likewise,  5 games against each other. Bottom relegated,  replaced by Championship winners,  2nd  bottom join 2nd to 4th Championship teams for SF and Final play off for last SL place.

Magic weekend to be 2days of 2  matches of Challenge Cup QFs each day. Might increase crowd,  people more likely to buy tickets for 2 games rather than 3 a day.

Overall slightly less number of games leaves room for international break.

Edited by HawkMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Manfred Mann said:

The only restructuring that makes any sense is a return to licensing, but with the rules of licensing enforced, unlike last time. This means modern 10,000 seat minimum stadium, and a fan attendance average of at least 5,000 or even 6,000. A viable business plan would also be necessary, of course.

That would end the burden of having Salford, Wakefield and probably Leigh weighing down Super League. If Castleford can’t get a 21st century stadium to play in, then they too will have to go. Their current stadium is an embarrassment and a disgrace. It would certainly guarantee the participation of Toulouse, and possibly other French or North American clubs, in Super League. It would give hope to Bradford (assuming their business side is guaranteed), Newcastle, York and London. 

The restructuring change I propose would surely make Super League more attractive to TV broadcasters and commercial sponsors.

So a six team league and York are banned from entry. Plus you kill the second tier. What a awful competition this would be. There's enough teams for a 14 team league and clubs who fail to keep up with the commercial leaps of other clubs (York, Newcastle and Toulouse) will start to fall behind and be slowly shuffled out whilst keeping the door open for clubs to get there house in order in the championship. 

Only criteria I would have on those 14 (not including rules for French clubs) is they all have to run, or be part of, an academy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

If there's to be minimum standards, it MUST include an Academy, a Women's team, a PDRL team, a Wheelchair team and a Community Foundation to ensure the engagement and development of local junior teams. 

That’s a good point. Pathway should go beyond an Academy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

So a six team league and York are banned from entry. Plus you kill the second tier. What a awful competition this would be. There's enough teams for a 14 team league and clubs who fail to keep up with the commercial leaps of other clubs (York, Newcastle and Toulouse) will start to fall behind and be slowly shuffled out whilst keeping the door open for clubs to get there house in order in the championship. 

Only criteria I would have on those 14 (not including rules for French clubs) is they all have to run, or be part of, an academy. 

 

Go on, name these 14 teams...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Definitely keep p+r it gives hope to lower league clubs and fans, without that the interest slowly dies.

 

The purpose of a successful professional sport is not to give hope to lower league clubs and fans. Most of these clubs have 1,000 - 2,000 fans or even less. They are a burden on the game because they attract no new fans, and certainly no more commercial sponsorship which the game desperately needs.

Clubs located in medium or large metropolises with good commercial funding prospects, like Toulouse, are what is needed. Catalans showed that such clubs massively increase their fan base when admitted to Super League. Toronto also would have ticked all the boxes had Covid not made it commercially unviable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Northern Eel said:

Glad you agree. It is the only element of your proposed shut-out that would be of benefit to the wider game. 

I disagree. I think minimum standards is a must. I see no point continuing the merry go round of swapping between the same few clubs, while so many are poorly run/operating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

I disagree. I think minimum standards is a must. I see no point continuing the merry go round of swapping between the same few clubs, while so many are poorly run/operating. 

I am in agreement of minimum standards (if actually enforced), but not to the extent of stopping clubs outside of SL being promoted if they have their house in order. I also think that some of the minimum standards could be absolute and non-negotiable and others (such as average crowds for Championship clubs) negotiable by way of a clear and precise process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

So a six team league and York are banned from entry. Plus you kill the second tier. What a awful competition this would be. There's enough teams for a 14 team league and clubs who fail to keep up with the commercial leaps of other clubs (York, Newcastle and Toulouse) will start to fall behind and be slowly shuffled out whilst keeping the door open for clubs to get there house in order in the championship. 

Only criteria I would have on those 14 (not including rules for French clubs) is they all have to run, or be part of, an academy. 

 

Nothing that you have written logically follows from what I have proposed. 

Richard Lewis had a good licensing concept, but vested interests stopped the criteria from being enforced, and so violators of the criteria such as Wakefield, Castleford, and Salford we’re allowed to carry on playing in Super League while Toulouse were told to wait until some unspecified future date..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Go on, name these 14 teams...

Ok. If I was starting now.

Wigan & Saints

Catalan & Toulouse (locked in, minimum number of french players in match day squad0

Leeds/Cas

Warrington and London

Hull/ Hull KR 

York/Newcastle

Huddersfield/ Wakey

SL TV Money reduced accordingly, lowest ranked English team is relegated to championship. Doesn't close the door to other clubs. 

But you don't need to do this, you can simply say that we are moving to 14 and say next year one club is relegated but three (of which one is Toulouse) are promoted from RFL Championship. Then two top divisions of 14. Simple. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Northern Eel said:

I am in agreement of minimum standards (if actually enforced), but not to the extent of stopping clubs outside of SL being promoted if they have their house in order. I also think that some of the minimum standards could be absolute and non-negotiable and others (such as average crowds for Championship clubs) negotiable by way of a clear and precise process.

I don’t think it’s stopping clubs being promoted. Clubs should be promoted once they have their house in order and they would/could if I was in charge. It wouldn’t be a three year thing like it was before either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Ok. If I was starting now.

Wigan & Saints

Catalan & Toulouse (locked in, minimum number of french players in match day squad0

Leeds/Cas

Warrington and London

Hull/ Hull KR 

York/Newcastle

Huddersfield/ Wakey

SL TV Money reduced accordingly, lowest ranked English team is relegated to championship. Doesn't close the door to other clubs. 

But you don't need to do this, you can simply say that we are moving to 14 and say next year one club is relegated but three (of which one is Toulouse) are promoted from RFL Championship. Then two top divisions of 14. Simple. 

So much the same as before but your tying the French’s hands behind their back and enforcing unfair rules upon them but not others and promoting two part time clubs well before they’re ready. Have you ever worked for The RFL/Super League?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manfred Mann said:

Nothing that you have written logically follows from what I have proposed. 

Richard Lewis had a good licensing concept, but vested interests stopped the criteria from being enforced, and so violators of the criteria such as Wakefield, Castleford, and Salford we’re allowed to carry on playing in Super League while Toulouse were told to wait until some unspecified future date..

York have an 8000 stadium so would be banned in your model. The championship is dead by licensing. Under a 14 p and r system, the teams that don't contribute commercially wouldn't be able to keep up due to reduced tv money 9and therefore more need to generate commercial revenue) and would find themselves shuffled out accordingly. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

So much the same as before but your tying the French’s hands behind their back and enforcing unfair rules upon them but not others and promoting two part time clubs well before they’re ready. Have you ever worked for The RFL/Super League?

Look I get it, we've had this conversation before. If you are too disingenuous or dense to see that were York or Newcastle to get into SL they would immediately go full time, I cannot explain it to you anymore. You think it is better that Toulouse sink money into the championship and don't see the point of generating a French team to grow the international game. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

Look I get it, we've had this conversation before. If you are too disingenuous or dense to see that were York or Newcastle to get into SL they would immediately go full time, I cannot explain it to you anymore. You think it is better that Toulouse sink money into the championship and don't see the point of generating a French team to grow the international game. 

Of course I understand that, you’ve automatically gone down drastically by chucking insults around, however, the conjecture that these two are metaphorical golden gooses, at this stage, is wild and untrue. Neither are ready. They’re growing clubs and doing a lot of good thing but they need to walk before they can run, which is something this sport is desperately bad at. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

Of course I understand that, you’ve automatically gone down drastically by chucking insults around, however, the conjecture that these two are metaphorical golden gooses, at this stage, is wild and untrue. Neither are ready. They’re growing clubs and doing a lot of good thing but they need to walk before they can run, which is something this sport is desperately bad at. 

No I'm just tired of your circle argument where you can't see that asking clubs to go full time in a part time league is lunacy but use the fact they are part time in a part time league against them is tedious. Clubs in the Championship to be sustainable and not run at a loss have to be part time. So we'll leave it there. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Look I get it, we've had this conversation before. If you are too disingenuous or dense to see that were York or Newcastle to get into SL they would immediately go full time, I cannot explain it to you anymore. You think it is better that Toulouse sink money into the championship and don't see the point of generating a French team to grow the international game. 

I don't agree with the insults but get the points. If Wakefield or Salford are relegated this year they immediately go part time. There is no infrastructure to keep them full time they are struggling cost cutting clubs atm. The only thing keeping those two clubs being full time is central distribution. Similarly, if Newcastle, York or whoever get into SL they can go full time on the same basis. It is not difficult to understand.

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Daddy said:

According to 40-20 magazine and rumours that are going around.

Anyone heard anything specifically?

Several clubs have gone stale and fail to add impact to the competition 

 

Salford

Wakefield

Leigh 

 

Should all stand to one side 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

York have an 8000 stadium so would be banned in your model. The championship is dead by licensing. Under a 14 p and r system, the teams that don't contribute commercially wouldn't be able to keep up due to reduced tv money 9and therefore more need to generate commercial revenue) and would find themselves shuffled out accordingly. 

Is the Championship not dead already or, at best, on life support? It’s a part-time league with two full time clubs (one of which is limping along anyway) with very few clubs with genuine ambition. Others are either content where they are, or are now shells of their former selves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

No I'm just tired of your circle argument where you can't see that asking clubs to go full time in a part time league is lunacy but use the fact they are part time in a part time league against them is tedious. Clubs in the Championship to be sustainable and not run at a loss have to be part time. So we'll leave it there. 

Where have I suggested they go full time? I’m suggesting that one has played one year at Championship level in its existence and has grown from the bottom up, with an impetus on junior rugby and the other is moving into a new stadium just a handful of years after nearly going bust. To push them on right now is daft. 

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...