Jump to content

Another SL restructure is being planned


Recommended Posts

Go big or go home restructure. Leagues in same format, start Feb end in July with challenge cup final

No repeat fixtures, no playoffs. 4 Leagues of 10 teams one up one down in each.

Scrap the cap allow Toronto, New York and Ottawa in plus a couple of additions from Europe such as Red Star Belgrade to fill the league structures

Then from July to October I would start the international and/or representative origin calender potential of fixtures like Yorks vs Lancs or North vs South or North West, WF & Hull mergers.

Internationals such as England Knights vs Wales, England vs France, Canada vs USA etc. Internationals and origins to be played in UK Rugby league stadiums with host stadium getting % of gate money and all bar takings. 

Not saying I fully support the above but would shake up the game a bit with a variety of fixtures. You could please your flatcappers and your franchisees with a bit of both.

The problem with a merger is to create franchises although sounds sensible ruins the history of both the game and clubs.

If you take the "WF problem" there are 3 sides steeped in proud history in Wakey, Cas and Fev, someone looking at that from a franchise view point with their USA American Sports hat on would say a one club merger "WF" but you would lose 100 years of tradition, rivalry etc.The same goes with the 2 clubs of Hull

You could also argue a North West super merger all within 20 miles of each other of Wigan, St Helens, Leigh, Salford and Warrington under a North West/ Manchester banner could be achieved but same as above also applies. 

I personally don't think mergers are the way forward as although commercially less competition you lose the sole of the comp and the fans. Would people turn out for a combined best of the North West sides vs best of WF or Hull? I am not sure

However if we sold out and a capital equity franchiser got a proper hold on the comp they could say Wigan has a near on 30K stadium use that and bring these together and Hull FC has a similar capacity with Leeds/Huddersfield merger at Headingley due to the location and facilities. When you look at American owners they moved Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas 550 odd miles away in a different state and you only have to look at the recent uproar in soccer with the "ESL". Do we go big, stay stagnant or make little changes be interesting to see what if anything changes. 

 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


18 hours ago, Northern Eel said:

The moment you pull up the drawbridge is the same moment that you inspire complacency and lose ingenuity. 

Works for the NRL !!

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

...Featherstone definitely needs to be binned. I have been to their ground on game day. They have a paltry fan base, and little prospect of good commercial sponsorship in their tiny, nationally unknown social backwater of west Yorkshire.

After Toulouse is highly successful, as they will be, Super League needs to have a future place for Avignon, and perhaps even Paris, Toronto and Ottawa. Featherstone in Super League would be a depressing drag on growth of the game

Featherstone would fit very nicely in a second division of semi-professional clubs. An impressive history of cup winning success and the production of players of world renown, a small but enthusiastic and committed fan base, the attraction of being a small town club surviving in a difficult and hostile commercial leisure environment, an area where the sport of Rugby League has been integral for generations, and probably has a greater proportion of players per population than any other town in the country, and an absolute certainty that it will continue to be a town with a rugby league team as long as the game is played.

This second division could exist very nicely in the trickle down glory of a Pan-European Super League. Can’t wait.

But I do wonder how long I will have to wait. Can you, perhaps, suggest a timetable - a road map - for the growth and building of this super Super League. Possibly an 8 team beginning (5 obvious top teams, two French teams, and a whipping boy), adding another team every five years or so, as each new targeted area develops a body of junior teams and supporting lower leagues in order to generate players, spectators and enthusiasm; or as multi-millionaires are attracted to the vast profits which will become available?

Or do you not have a timetable and roadmap for your vision, and are simply talking out of your armpit in an attempt to upset a few folk who are probably more resilient than you think, having been brought up in a difficult economic and social backwater?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not against licensing if it can initiate a virtuous circle of improved quality/competitiveness on the field and commercial revenue off it. 

Any restructure should include a minimum salary cap. If we don’t insist clubs spend, say, 90% of the cap, don’t bother restructuring at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Harrogate Fire Ants said:

Go big or go home restructure. Leagues in same format, start Feb end in July with challenge cup final

No repeat fixtures, no playoffs. 4 Leagues of 10 teams one up one down in each.

Scrap the cap allow Toronto, New York and Ottawa in plus a couple of additions from Europe such as Red Star Belgrade to fill the league structures

Then from July to October I would start the international and/or representative origin calender potential of fixtures like Yorks vs Lancs or North vs South or North West, WF & Hull mergers.

Internationals such as England Knights vs Wales, England vs France, Canada vs USA etc. Internationals and origins to be played in UK Rugby league stadiums with host stadium getting % of gate money and all bar takings. 

Not saying I fully support the above but would shake up the game a bit with a variety of fixtures. You could please your flatcappers and your franchisees with a bit of both.

The problem with a merger is to create franchises although sounds sensible ruins the history of both the game and clubs.

If you take the "WF problem" there are 3 sides steeped in proud history in Wakey, Cas and Fev, someone looking at that from a franchise view point with their USA American Sports hat on would say a one club merger "WF" but you would lose 100 years of tradition, rivalry etc.The same goes with the 2 clubs of Hull

You could also argue a North West super merger all within 20 miles of each other of Wigan, St Helens, Leigh, Salford and Warrington under a North West/ Manchester banner could be achieved but same as above also applies. 

I personally don't think mergers are the way forward as although commercially less competition you lose the sole of the comp and the fans. Would people turn out for a combined best of the North West sides vs best of WF or Hull? I am not sure

However if we sold out and a capital equity franchiser got a proper hold on the comp they could say Wigan has a near on 30K stadium use that and bring these together and Hull FC has a similar capacity with Leeds/Huddersfield merger at Headingley due to the location and facilities. When you look at American owners they moved Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas 550 odd miles away in a different state and you only have to look at the recent uproar in soccer with the "ESL". Do we go big, stay stagnant or make little changes be interesting to see what if anything changes. 

 

 

Least I got a couple of laughs 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Oldbear said:

We still can’t get around the problem that for a licensing system (which should still allow the possibility of teams moving up), we need a minimum of 12 strong clubs, who can be clearly differentiated from the rest. We don’t have that in SL now, and of the potential candidates constantly put forward you have to say they all have flaws so are not shoe ins by any stretch.

 

With respect I don't think  12 clubs is the minimum is it?

IIRC ten clubs has certainly been suggested in the past.

I don't know how that would be set up? Could every SL club play each other 3 times? I don't like it but I can see arguments for the teams maybe been more even in such a set up, maybe better crowd income?

But above all the SKY money going 10 ways??

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, steve oates said:

With respect I don't think  12 clubs is the minimum is it?

IIRC ten clubs has certainly been suggested in the past.

I don't know how that would be set up? Could every SL club play each other 3 times? I don't like it but I can see arguments for the teams maybe been more even in such a set up, maybe better crowd income?

But above all the SKY money going 10 ways??

 

 

I've already said previously that I want more variety, 10 clubs is going even more the other way and frankly the thought of it bores the life out of me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i've said numerous times on here before, Franchising as a concept works, its just that last time it was administered by incompetent idiots who moved the goalposts every time one of the clubs looked like they wouldn't meet the criteria. That was the farce, not the system.

Bring back franchising but ensure its linked with a good long term TV Rights deal (min 10 years) whereby the TV monies goes up or down dependent on the number of clubs who meet the criteria to get a SL Franchise.  

Criteria should be fixed for a period (say 5 years min) and then made tougher as time goes on to drive up the quality.

If only say 8 or 9 clubs qualify for the initial franchise, then so be it - we have an 8 or 9 team league with 8 or 9 good quality teams. As more teams meet the criteria then the numbers increase up to a maximum of say 16 or 18. The fixture schedule just gets amended in order to suit the number of teams in the franchise.

Qualifying for entry (and staying in) should be a combination of on and off field criteria on a points based system. Everything from on field results, to stadium quality, Revenue generated, profits made, having a full pathway system from the most junior teams to reserves, crowd size in relation to your geographical location, numbers of development officers etc.

Where the club is in the world shouldn't matter, from Northern England, to London, to France or Canada - if you meet the qualifying criteria and are able to continue meeting it then you get a franchise place. If you don't meet it or fail to continue to score enough qualifying points across each of the criteria then you lose your franchise - Simple. No changing the rules to keep on club or another in. Your either good enough or your not !

As a starting point for the first qualifying they should also set the bar high. Don't set the bar low just to try and accommodate a few weak teams just because they're heartland clubs or because you want a certain number of clubs to start with. It should all be about quality not quantity and then about having stable, sustainable clubs going forward. 

Also none of this "They're new so should get dispensation for this or that" Rubbish. 1 set of rules for every club regardless of who they are.

In terms of the assessment, this should be done every year by an independent panel, who's members have no links to any club. And the assessment should get published so the process is completely transparent. 

  • Like 1

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

In terms of the assessment, this should be done every year by an independent panel, who's members have no links to any club. And the assessment should get published so the process is completely transparent. 

Who will define the criteria and who will appoint this independent panel?  Current governance is so stacked to the incumbent clubs that'll it'll never truly be independent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

Featherstone definitely needs to be binned. I have been to their ground on game day. They have a paltry fan base, and little prospect of good commercial sponsorship in their tiny, nationally unknown social backwater of west Yorkshire.

After Toulouse is highly successful, as they will be, Super League needs to have a future place for Avignon, and perhaps even Paris, Toronto and Ottawa. Featherstone in Super League would be a depressing drag on growth of the game

No team, ever needs to be binned. Whether you like them or dislike them - they serve a purpose to the game and it's community. 

  • Like 4

2008 RFL Wakefield & District Young Volunteer of the Year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing a group of clubs in football want to hijack the game to create there own league where they can’t be relegated and new clubs invited in. The condemnation has been virtually unanimous ex players and fans turning their back on the idea. They have thrown their support behind the pyramid which allows clubs from the bottom to reach the top and vice versa.

Compare that to the opinions on here! Never thought football would have the moral high ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cardypaul said:

Amazing a group of clubs in football want to hijack the game to create there own league where they can’t be relegated and new clubs invited in. The condemnation has been virtually unanimous ex players and fans turning their back on the idea. They have thrown their support behind the pyramid which allows clubs from the bottom to reach the top and vice versa.

Compare that to the opinions on here! Never thought football would have the moral high ground.

There are dozens of big UK soccer clubs so the so-called big 6 there is a joke. In SL we are lucky to cobble together 6 clubs worthy of being called big.

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I've already said previously that I want more variety, 10 clubs is going even more the other way and frankly the thought of it bores the life out of me.

😄 fair enough mate, but we have just had a suggestion Superleague could be 8 clubs if strict standards applied.  I think the structure is linked to the new SKY deal and I would guess they (SKY) would like to see the maximum number of dishes sold whilst the SL bosses would want a bigger share of the smaller pot so wether we want 8 or 14 I'd guess it's a SL/SKY compromise at 10?

How they would get there I don't know.......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Leigh have shown promotion and relegation doesn’t work. Had Leigh got the nod a long time ago or around the expansion period, they’d be a different club to the one who has been promoted twice and relegated once in the past five seasons they’ve completed. 

But we wouldn't have got ' the nod ' then would we , simply because of our geographical location , we only got it this time because of covid and Derecks willingness to make up the shortfall , all to satisfy SKY 

So Leigh haven't shown anything 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

But we wouldn't have got ' the nod ' then would we , simply because of our geographical location , we only got it this time because of covid and Derecks willingness to make up the shortfall , all to satisfy SKY 

So Leigh haven't shown anything 

Who knows? You can rewrite history whatever way you want, it’s ultimately, meaningless and remains the unknown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

How am I rewriting history , have Leigh ever been given a SL franchise ?

No team has ever had a Super League franchise. 

Geographical location was also never given as a reason why Leigh weren’t given a licence during the 2009-2011 cycle, where 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

There are dozens of big UK soccer clubs so the so-called big 6 there is a joke. In SL we are lucky to cobble together 6 clubs worthy of being called big.

Nothing to do with the size of clubs it’s about respecting the pyramid and integrity of the game. But thanks for proving my point 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

No team has ever had a Super League franchise. 

Geographical location was also never given as a reason why Leigh weren’t given a licence during the 2009-2011 cycle, where 

And yet a Welsh club playing out of a sheeeeite hole in front of 500 people , that was breaking the salary cap rules and running on ileagal visas was 

Bye 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cardypaul said:

Amazing a group of clubs in football want to hijack the game to create there own league where they can’t be relegated and new clubs invited in. The condemnation has been virtually unanimous ex players and fans turning their back on the idea. They have thrown their support behind the pyramid which allows clubs from the bottom to reach the top and vice versa.

Compare that to the opinions on here! Never thought football would have the moral high ground.

They don’t have any moral high ground though. They developed their game properly years and years ago, so they don’t need things like no P&R now. They can feasibly lose those 6 clubs (although it would be a huge blow) and professional football would still continue. 
Rugby League tried to get the clubs to be more competitive and/or better run in order to boost the whole game and generate wider interest in the long run. It didn’t work but the intention was for the benefit of the whole sport.

Football fans have never followed a struggling sport and have no comprehension about things like expansion etc so the idea of no P&R is anathema to them. However, football wasn’t above putting teams in their league without playing a competitive game when it suited their aims. (Chelsea or Bradford City) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Harrogate Fire Ants said:

Go big or go home restructure. Leagues in same format, start Feb end in July with challenge cup final

No repeat fixtures, no playoffs. 4 Leagues of 10 teams one up one down in each.

Scrap the cap allow Toronto, New York and Ottawa in plus a couple of additions from Europe such as Red Star Belgrade to fill the league structures

Then from July to October I would start the international and/or representative origin calender potential of fixtures like Yorks vs Lancs or North vs South or North West, WF & Hull mergers.

Internationals such as England Knights vs Wales, England vs France, Canada vs USA etc. Internationals and origins to be played in UK Rugby league stadiums with host stadium getting % of gate money and all bar takings. 

Not saying I fully support the above but would shake up the game a bit with a variety of fixtures. You could please your flatcappers and your franchisees with a bit of both.

The problem with a merger is to create franchises although sounds sensible ruins the history of both the game and clubs.

If you take the "WF problem" there are 3 sides steeped in proud history in Wakey, Cas and Fev, someone looking at that from a franchise view point with their USA American Sports hat on would say a one club merger "WF" but you would lose 100 years of tradition, rivalry etc.The same goes with the 2 clubs of Hull

You could also argue a North West super merger all within 20 miles of each other of Wigan, St Helens, Leigh, Salford and Warrington under a North West/ Manchester banner could be achieved but same as above also applies. 

I personally don't think mergers are the way forward as although commercially less competition you lose the sole of the comp and the fans. Would people turn out for a combined best of the North West sides vs best of WF or Hull? I am not sure

However if we sold out and a capital equity franchiser got a proper hold on the comp they could say Wigan has a near on 30K stadium use that and bring these together and Hull FC has a similar capacity with Leeds/Huddersfield merger at Headingley due to the location and facilities. When you look at American owners they moved Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas 550 odd miles away in a different state and you only have to look at the recent uproar in soccer with the "ESL". Do we go big, stay stagnant or make little changes be interesting to see what if anything changes. 

 

 

Noone wants to watch internationals with b teams and this talk of NA teams just gives people who are against expansion justifiable ammo about how unworkable that is. Also, we have enough teams now without this awful talk of mergers.

As someone from a non heartland having games with big rivalries is part of what makes the product appealing. Why we want to reduce Wakefield Cas or Fev to one team when if they play each other it generates a great event is strange to me. 

Take the current twelve, just say we are going to 14. Pop Toulouse in and probably Fev get promoted this year. Then let Newcastle, York, London and any other club who is in the top to duke it out to make it to SL. A club in Manchester centre is of way more importance to the game than SL subsidising Australians to play in Canada. 

  • Like 1
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...