Jump to content

Another SL restructure is being planned


Recommended Posts


I'd be quite happy to see a 14 team Super League with a top 5 play off and 2 up, 2 down. Let's get a bit of variety back, get rid of loop fixtures and shake things up a little. I would though like to see an element of minimum standards that applies to all teams, not just prospective ones, too.

I'm certainly not a fan of some of the convoluted systems being proposed. Simplicity matters and on the whole most people are usually against them.

I am not against licensing with strict requirements for all teams, both existing and new, but I think the game in this country is incapable of doing that. I do think adding the likes of Toulouse, Newcastle and maybe London, if they can get their act together, gives the league a completely different look and appeal. Big cities and big markets with no competition from other clubs. I just can't see it happening and we can't afford to alienate anymore fans. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The storm said:

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

 

Salford

Wakefield

Leigh 

 

Should all stand to one side 

Salford reached the grand final in 2019 and Leigh are only 3 games into their return campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'd be quite happy to see a 14 team Super League with a top 5 play off and 2 up, 2 down. Let's get a bit of variety back, get rid of loop fixtures and shake things up a little. I would though like to see an element of minimum standards that applies to all teams, not just prospective ones, too.

I'm certainly not a fan of some of the convoluted systems being proposed. Simplicity matters and on the whole most people are usually against them.

I am not against licensing with strict requirements for all teams, both existing and new, but I think the game in this country is incapable of doing that. I do think adding the likes of Toulouse, Newcastle and maybe London, if they can get their act together, gives the league a completely different look and appeal. Big cities and big markets with no competition from other clubs. I just can't see it happening and we can't afford to alienate anymore fans. 

This. Absolutely this.

Work out what the core function of the SL clubs needs to be in order to sustain themselves as commercial entities and set the minimum standards based on that. Then, consider the role they play in supporting rugby league their local area. 

Get rid of dual registration and use the mandatory academy system to generate the very best players. Cherry pick those who will make it almost immediately into Super League and offer up the remaining youngsters to the other local clubs, but for the whole season. Slap an expectation on at least 4 home grown players in a 21-man matchday squad, but keep the marquee rules to attract the best oversees stars.

We need to be brave as a sport, which is why it is critically important that it is not run by the clubs themselves. You either sign up and agree to reach the standards, or disappear. 

  • Like 3
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?

Are you sure this isn’t just the whole Super League and RFL reunifying thing?

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

For the hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted in exploring investment for Super League, it could have been used to deploy a business development expert across the clubs to help them become more sustainable and productive companies, without the need to fight over a couple of hundred grand of extra central funding that they are desperate to stop anyone else getting.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 pages and nobody has the slightest idea what these plans, if they actually exist, are. The sooner the pubs open again the better.

 

Oh!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People on here should look at the NRL, with its 16 clubs, all of which have healthy fan bases unknown in Super League, and which are mostly not profitable on their own but which are all thriving on a generous TV contract, and  ample commercial sponsorship. This would have not been possible had four of the preexisting clubs not agreed to merge into two — something that many parochial northern Englishmen from Yorkshire find unacceptable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

I'm not sure why anybody would think that an odd number of teams is some sort of panacea.

Byes are great if they're in the right place, evenly spacing your season.  Start of a season, not so good.

I prefer not to think of them as byes, rather blank weeks.  And we definitely shouldn't give points forf byes like the Aussies. Folk were up in arms about bonus points - "a point for losing".  Yet the NRL give two points for not even bothering to turn up.

Crazy idea.

  • Like 2

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Manfred Mann said:

People on here should look at the NRL, with its 16 clubs, all of which have healthy fan bases unknown in Super League, and which are mostly not profitable on their own but which are all thriving on a generous TV contract, and  ample commercial sponsorship. This would have not been possible had four of the preexisting clubs not agreed to merge into two — something that many  parochial northern Englishmen from Yorkshire find unacceptable.

What about parochial northern Englishmen from Lancashire or Cumbria?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see nothing wrong with P&R as long as there’s some kind of system in place to protect clubs from financial ruin when relegated.

I would suggest that the RFL provide a dedicated team of staff to undertake the administration duties that befall a newly promoted club. These staff can be gradually replaced by the club’s own staff in season 2 & 3 , should they survive.

The replaced staff can then move to the next promoted club to perform the same duties for them.

The beauty of this is that upon relegation less jobs are lost and some of the financial burden is removed from the relegated club thus helping to avoid an insolvency event.

Im sure there are other ways in which the governing body can temporarily take on some of the costs of being promoted and thus the negative financial impact of being relegated.

This could be directly funded from the profits of Super League and in part funding from each of the clubs, after all its in everyone’s interest that a successful P&R system is in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

What about parochial northern Englishmen from Lancashire or Cumbria?

They are irrelevant at this time. It is the fans who live in the region of the Calder river whose parochialism inhibits progress in the current era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever it is, whatever the plan, stick with it. Chopping and changing so much devalues the competition. FWIW I didn't mind the middle 8's I think with a few tweaks it could have worked, same with a 14 team division and licensing. I'm not that tied to a particular format as long as it allows movement between divisions. 

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clear which existing clubs definitely belong in Super League:

Wigan

St Helens

Warrington

Leeds 

Hull FC

Hull KR

Catalans

Toulouse

 

There are the borderline existing Super League clubs:

Huddersfield (slightly insufficient fan base)

Castleford ( unacceptable stadium)

 

There are the attractive possible future Super League clubs:

London

York

Newcastle 

Avignon

Paris

Toronto

Ottawa

 

There are the failed existing Super League clubs who need to be relegated:

Wakefield (unacceptable stadium, inadequate fan base, inadequate finances)

Salford (inadequate fan base)

Leigh (inadequate fan base)

 

Edited by Manfred Mann
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northern Eel said:

For the hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted in exploring investment for Super League, it could have been used to deploy a business development expert across the clubs to help them become more sustainable and productive companies, without the need to fight over a couple of hundred grand of extra central funding that they are desperate to stop anyone else getting.

How many clubs don't have a Chief Commercial Officer or similar such role?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

How many clubs don't have a Chief Commercial Officer or similar such role?

In this day and age, there shouldn't be a single club without - and I certainly expect that all do have someone with such a remit. I am pretty sure many clubs would benefit from the input of an individual who could help them identify additional income streams and innovative ideas, unless of course they already generate every penny possible through their work. This isn't about whether employees are any good at their jobs, it is about being prepared to be an outward looking organisation, happy to receive help and ideas where it didn't previously exist. 

Edited by Northern Eel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

In this day and age, there shouldn't be a single club without - and I certainly expect that all do have someone with such a remit. I am pretty sure many clubs would benefit from the input of an individual who could help them identify additional income streams and innovative ideas, unless of course they already generate every penny possible through their work.

The issue I have with that is that I don't think it's the responsibility of a governing / central body to micro-manage clubs. 

What is needed is a system that, to be frank, allows clubs that don't do what you suggest to "fall behind". At the moment, because of the way the salary cap works, clubs that are successful are prevented from investing the fruits of that success into playing talent, whilst those clubs that don't succeed commercially are allowed to remain competitive because the salary cap doesn't even keep pace with inflation. 

As long as we have a salary cap that forces everyone to run at the pace of the slowest, areas like commercial development, PR and marketing will always be seen as costs that can easily be cut. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Manfred Mann said:

It is clear which existing clubs definitely belong in Super League:

Wigan

St Helens

Warrington

Leeds 

Hull FC

Hull KR

Catalans

Toulouse

 

There are the borderline existing Super League clubs:

Huddersfield (slightly insufficient fan base)

Castleford ( unacceptable stadium)

 

There are the attractive possible future Super League clubs:

London

York

Newcastle 

Avignon

Toronto

Ottawa

 

There are the failed existing Super League clubs who need to be relegated:

Wakefield (unacceptable stadium, inadequate fan base, inadequate finances)

Salford (inadequate fan base)

Leigh (inadequate fan base)

 

So the best licensed Super League structure should be:

Wigan

St Helens

Warrington

Leeds 

Hull FC

Hull KR

Catalans

Toulouse

 

Huddersfield*

Castleford* 

 

* = 3 years probation pending rectification of problems.

 

A 10 team Super League would then plan future expansion to 12 or 14 clubs with London, Newcastle, York, Avignon, Paris, Toronto and Ottawa as preferred candidates.

 

 

Edited by Manfred Mann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The issue I have with that is that I don't think it's the responsibility of a governing / central body to micro-manage clubs. 

What is needed is a system that, to be frank, allows clubs that don't do what you suggest to "fall behind". At the moment, because of the way the salary cap works, clubs that are successful are prevented from investing the fruits of that success into playing talent, whilst those clubs that don't succeed commercially are allowed to remain competitive because the salary cap doesn't even keep pace with inflation. 

As long as we have a salary cap that forces everyone to run at the pace of the slowest, areas like commercial development, PR and marketing will always be seen as costs that can easily be cut. 

I hear what you are saying. The salary cap was introduced to try and stop clubs spending money they don't have and therefore avoid administration/insolvency. My guess would be that in removing the salary cap, we would go back to some of the financial meltdowns suffered in the past. I am not suggesting micro-management, just a way of the governing body of the sport investing in the future of its 'biggest' competition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manfred Mann said:

People on here should look at the NRL, with its 16 clubs, all of which have healthy fan bases unknown in Super League, and which are mostly not profitable on their own but which are all thriving on a generous TV contract, and  ample commercial sponsorship. This would have not been possible had four of the preexisting clubs not agreed to merge into two — something that many parochial northern Englishmen from Yorkshire find unacceptable.

How's that tautology coming along, man?

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Griff said:

I'm not sure why anybody would think that an odd number of teams is some sort of panacea.

Byes are great if they're in the right place, evenly spacing your season.  Start of a season, not so good.

I prefer not to think of them as byes, rather blank weeks.  And we definitely shouldn't give points forf byes like the Aussies. Folk were up in arms about bonus points - "a point for losing".  Yet the NRL give two points for not even bothering to turn up.

Crazy idea.

I wouldn't give points for a blank week, 24, League games plus cup and play-off games would mean a player has at max 30 games a season which seams about right.

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...