Jump to content

Another SL restructure is being planned


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Maybe it was the only way to get rid of Elstone?

Again, that would be somewhat typical.

  • Like 2

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 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

By that logic, presumably you would also advocate relegation from League 1 in order to have a full pyramid system from top to bottom, enabling any club to work their way through the ranks from regional community level to Super League?

Yes maybe, but and it is a big but the community clubs would have to prove they had through a due diligence process the finances in place and facilities to a mininmum standard to take the place of a present L1 club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cardypaul said:

Except there is a hardcore of people on here want some form of licensing or cherry pick clubs based on their location or what they perceive as their value to the game which is as bad as what is going on in football but at least they have got the balls to stand up to it.

Not remotely the same thing. People are concerned about the future of Rugby League and want to see it grow. There are a lot of clubs who have had it their way for 100 years or so, without significant difference. Maybe cherry picking teams is exactly what is needed. But we'll probably never find out.

As for principles, all these people kicking off about money corrupting the game were,  until Sunday, quite happy to support players earning hundreds of thousands of pounds PER WEEK. Yet suddenly money is the problem? Aye ok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours 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.

If it does come it will do Damien, when Leigh played in the 8 team second division I think it was the only time I purposefully stopped attending, 10 would be no better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes maybe, but and it is a big but the community clubs would have to prove they had through a due diligence process the finances in place and facilities to a mininmum standard to take the place of a present L1 club.

Agreed - I believe this is how it works in soccer. Presumably you would also advocate the same between Champ and Super League at the top end? Incidentally, I suspect quite a few community clubs may have far better financial models than some of the clubs in L1...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Would this be done by leaving the distribution money at one side?

Not sure what you mean

Edit: presume you mean the TV money and factoring it in to their finances? Haven't given it a great deal of thought, but I do think there should be some minimum standards if we're having P&R, and these could include things like facilities, development work, and also evidence of financial stability/good financial practices.

Edited by RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Not sure what you mean

Edit: presume you mean the TV money and factoring it in to their finances? Haven't given it a great deal of thought, but I do think there should be some minimum standards if we're having P&R, and these could include things like facilities, development work, and also evidence of financial stability/good financial practices.

i think this is key... central distribution could be factored in or not as the calculation would change if you did or didnt anyway..  but this may drive those minimum standards.. but it has to be clear and it has to be obvious for example it should be clear that a team would not be promoted unless they did xyz.. i remember Wycombe being told very clearly for a couple of years what they needed to do, they did it and then got promoted. Ealing Trailfinders have been told similar. BUT they also need to be very clear to other teams within the league when this is brought in that they MUST do the same in a set timeframe or be relegated and they MUST follow through on that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Would this be done by leaving the distribution money at one side?

thats a bit irrelevant really.. if the distribution money is in the calculation would be based around that.. for example a turnover of £3m but with £1,4m from central funding (figures made up).. or if you leave it to one side you cannot expect them same figures to be needed therefore you would drop the turnover needed to £1.6m for example.. 

the key is it should be based on facts, so based on the lower league actual figures knowing that they should be able to scale that up when entering super league.. otherwise you are into finger in the wind calculations.. 

This is basic principle rather than a thought out deep dive idea but hopefully you see what I am meaning. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RP London said:

the key is it should be based on facts, so based on the lower league actual figures knowing that they should be able to scale that up when entering super league.. otherwise you are into finger in the wind calculations.. 

I think it's not just the scaling up, but also the scaling down when teams get relegated. 

For me, I just don't think the game is financially strong enough to cope with P&R, either on a club level where teams have to massively cut costs in order to survive being relegated, or on a competition level where it could be disaster in terms of losing viewers/profile/sponsorship if a giant like Leeds had a bad season and got relegated. Attendances and viewing figures could take a massive hit.

However, I completely get the attraction of P&R, and confess that I get engrossed in and enjoy the drama of it as well. But IMO if we're going to have P&R then we've got have P&R throughout the entire pyramid, so that a club can progress from bottom to top. We've also got to ditch the absolute salary cap, which is completely at odds with the principle of P&R. The argument for P&R is that it can allow the cream to rise to the top, but the salary cap artificially limits a club's ability to compete on the field. If a really strong club has one bad season they can get relegated because they were prevented from signing more and/or better players in order to allow weaker clubs to compete with them. Any salary cap under P&R should be based on a club's ability to generate income. This would reward the stronger clubs and encourage clubs to develop their businesses, and would massively reduce the risk of one of the stronger clubs being relegated and harming the profile of the competition. It would also stop clubs from overspending.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I think it's not just the scaling up, but also the scaling down when teams get relegated. 

For me, I just don't think the game is financially strong enough to cope with P&R, either on a club level where teams have to massively cut costs in order to survive being relegated, or on a competition level where it could be disaster in terms of losing viewers/profile/sponsorship if a giant like Leeds had a bad season and got relegated. Attendances and viewing figures could take a massive hit.

However, I completely get the attraction of P&R, and confess that I get engrossed in and enjoy the drama of it as well. But IMO if we're going to have P&R then we've got have P&R throughout the entire pyramid, so that a club can progress from bottom to top. We've also got to ditch the absolute salary cap, which is completely at odds with the principle of P&R. The argument for P&R is that it can allow the cream to rise to the top, but the salary cap artificially limits a club's ability to compete on the field. If a really strong club has one bad season they can get relegated because they were prevented from signing more and/or better players in order to allow weaker clubs to compete with them. Any salary cap under P&R should be based on a club's ability to generate income. This would reward the stronger clubs and encourage clubs to develop their businesses, and would massively reduce the risk of one of the stronger clubs being relegated and harming the profile of the competition. It would also stop clubs from overspending.

yes, completely see your points and I do have questions about a salary cap... it depends on its purpose and once you know that you build the actual cap around it.. at the moment i would suggest the cap's purpose is at odds with how it is structured (or vice versa depending on how you want to phrase it). 

equally while it would be hard on leeds and the away fans end of many clubs, they would almost certainly bounce back, they would add to the coffers of the lower leagues and perhaps would add more interest and reality to the league structure. However, it is unlikely to happen and basing a "grand plan" around a large "what if" is not the way to try and build something IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

However, it is unlikely to happen and basing a "grand plan" around a large "what if" is not the way to try and build something IMHO.

I think with that statement and especially the words in bold you have just censored 90% of the posts in this thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think with that statement and especially the words in bold you have just censored 90% of the posts in this thread.

its worth a try 😄 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think with that statement and especially the words in bold you have just censored 90% of the posts in this thread.

Seriously though, I am all for planning for the worst but planning for every possible world ending scenario seems wrong.. IF Leeds were to get relegated we have to cope, but, more realistically we would be pulling a few clubs up by the boot straps. We would also clearly give lower league clubs an idea of where they need to be at, at which point the top league can cope if a Leeds were replaced by one of them.. and hopefully other clubs will have grown to mean the league has some strength in general. 

You have to work on the fact that the worst worse case is bad but then so is doing nothing, but if it were to succeed even slightly we are in a much better state than we are in now. Therefore the risk (a club like leeds having an utterly atrocious season) is worth it due to the up side and the likelihood of that risk actually happening.

In my opinion of course.

 

 

Edited by RP London
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

equally while it would be hard on leeds and the away fans end of many clubs, they would almost certainly bounce back, they would add to the coffers of the lower leagues and perhaps would add more interest and reality to the league structure.

Fair point.

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

However, it is unlikely to happen and basing a "grand plan" around a large "what if" is not the way to try and build something IMHO.

This is why I lean more towards licensing. There are just too many uncertainties with P&R. If we had a really strong Championship, where relegation into it didn't mean falling off a proverbial cliff edge, then I'd be all in favour of P&R, as it is more interesting than a closed shop. But given that there is so little money in the game, and that relegation out of the top league means many people losing full time jobs, I just don't think it's the right way to go. This is why comparisons with football's Super League are daft - it's like trying to compare a push bike with a Ferrari. Take Toulouse and Catalans for example - they are going to struggle to develop any kind of long term tv deal whilst there's no certainty of whether or not they will be in the top flight from year to year. P&R prevents any sort of long-term strategic planning. Load of people have been using the example of clubs like Wakefield lacking ambition, but in reality, they're having to concentrate their limited resources on avoiding relegation every year, because they can't afford to risk falling out of the top flight.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RP London said:

seriously though i am all for planning for the worst but planning for every possible world ending scenario seems wrong.. IF Leeds were to get relegated we have to cope but more realistically we would be pulling a few clubs up by the boot straps. we also clearly give lower league clubs an idea of where they need to be at at which point the top league can cope if a Leeds were replaced by one of them.. and hopefully other clubs will have grown to mean the league has some strength in general.. you have to work on the fact that the worse worse case is bad but then so is doing nothing, but if it were to succeed even slightly we are in a much better state than we are in now. therefore the risk (a club like leeds having an utterly atrocious season) is worth it due to the up side and the likelihood of that risk actually happening.

In my opinion of course.

Paragraphs.  Full stops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Fair point.

This is why I lean more towards licensing. There are just too many uncertainties with P&R. If we had a really strong Championship, where relegation into it didn't mean falling off a proverbial cliff edge, then I'd be all in favour of P&R, as it is more interesting than a closed shop. But given that there is so little money in the game, and that relegation out of the top league means many people losing full time jobs, I just don't think it's the right way to go. This is why comparisons with football's Super League are daft - it's like trying to compare a push bike with a Ferrari. Take Toulouse and Catalans for example - they are going to struggle to develop any kind of long term tv deal whilst there's no certainty of whether or not they will be in the top flight from year to year. P&R prevents any sort of long-term strategic planning. Load of people have been using the example of clubs like Wakefield lacking ambition, but in reality, they're having to concentrate their limited resources on avoiding relegation every year, because they can't afford to risk falling out of the top flight.

Very good points indeed.  Exceptionally sensible.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Fair point.

This is why I lean more towards licensing. There are just too many uncertainties with P&R. If we had a really strong Championship, where relegation into it didn't mean falling off a proverbial cliff edge, then I'd be all in favour of P&R, as it is more interesting than a closed shop. But given that there is so little money in the game, and that relegation out of the top league means many people losing full time jobs, I just don't think it's the right way to go. This is why comparisons with football's Super League are daft - it's like trying to compare a push bike with a Ferrari. Take Toulouse and Catalans for example - they are going to struggle to develop any kind of long term tv deal whilst there's no certainty of whether or not they will be in the top flight from year to year. P&R prevents any sort of long-term strategic planning. Load of people have been using the example of clubs like Wakefield lacking ambition, but in reality, they're having to concentrate their limited resources on avoiding relegation every year, because they can't afford to risk falling out of the top flight.

 

Totally understand your last point and why you are in favour of licencing... but i think the problem is the execution of it and the trust in it because of the last time. However, this "promotion with criteria" answer seems the safest for all involved. The job is to build the championship up as well, but you cannot do that if there is no obvious way to move onwards from it, why bother. P&R means you only go up if another comes down, but so does licencing in reality. Are they prepared to kick someone out to sit in the champ, i would suggest history tells us no. So maybe let P&R do that, but as you say take the shackles off therefore limiting the chances of a "big club" being in trouble. 

The league below need help to encourage them to build.. but also you have this underlying threat that in a couple of years maybe more than 1 will get relegated if they dont pull their socks up.. therefore we will have a rush forward (hopefully) which is also what you would hope to get from licencing announcement.. but you keep that P&R essence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

Totally understand your last point and why you are in favour of licencing... but i think the problem is the execution of it and the trust in it because of the last time. However, this "promotion with criteria" answer seems the safest for all involved.

It still has the year-on-year uncertainty for me though - this is the thing stopping clubs from planning longer term and being able to develop other areas of their businesses.

6 minutes ago, RP London said:

The job is to build the championship up as well, but you cannot do that if there is no obvious way to move onwards from it, why bother. P&R means you only go up if another comes down, but so does licencing in reality. Are they prepared to kick someone out to sit in the champ, i would suggest history tells us no. So maybe let P&R do that, but as you say take the shackles off therefore limiting the chances of a "big club" being in trouble. 

I'm not sure if licensing does mean that one must come down if one goes up. If all of the SL clubs are functioning successfully and maintaining the criteria, then I don't see any reason why the comp couldn't expand.

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

The league below need help to encourage them to build.. but also you have this underlying threat that in a couple of years maybe more than 1 will get relegated if they dont pull their socks up.. therefore we will have a rush forward (hopefully) which is also what you would hope to get from licencing announcement.. but you keep that P&R essence 

I wondered whether you could have P&R based on a 3-year cycle (e.g. the duraton of a broadcasting deal) so that clubs could plan longer term - i.e. the worst performing club over that period replaced by the best performing club, based on on-field performance as well as fulfilling certain off-field criteria. I haven't given it a great deal of thought though, so it's probably littered with flaws!

10 minutes ago, RP London said:

Totally understand your last point and why you are in favour of licencing... but i think the problem is the execution of it and the trust in it because of the last time.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here - for many, the failure of the execution is taken as evidence of failure of the concept.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Fair point.

This is why I lean more towards licensing. There are just too many uncertainties with P&R. If we had a really strong Championship, where relegation into it didn't mean falling off a proverbial cliff edge, then I'd be all in favour of P&R, as it is more interesting than a closed shop. But given that there is so little money in the game, and that relegation out of the top league means many people losing full time jobs, I just don't think it's the right way to go. This is why comparisons with football's Super League are daft - it's like trying to compare a push bike with a Ferrari. Take Toulouse and Catalans for example - they are going to struggle to develop any kind of long term tv deal whilst there's no certainty of whether or not they will be in the top flight from year to year. P&R prevents any sort of long-term strategic planning. Load of people have been using the example of clubs like Wakefield lacking ambition, but in reality, they're having to concentrate their limited resources on avoiding relegation every year, because they can't afford to risk falling out of the top flight.

 

If Rugby League want a more successful Super League and clubs don't want to look over their shoulder constantly - the answer is to simply increase the number of teams in the top division.

At the moment, the league is far too skinny in terms of numbers, and we have this daft loop system - that fans hate. 

We should be looking at expanding the league to 16 - 18 teams over the next 5 - 10 years. That can easily be done, by adding teams that have traditional / community value and also the non-heartland teams. 

The game is very stagnant at the moment, with more teams in the top division it will increase the level of competitiveness and help drive the game forward. 

If we were to create a licensing system, the rug under the top division is swept - leaving yourself with teams in Super League just battling against each other year after year - meaning it will be more stale. 

  • Like 1

2008 RFL Wakefield & District Young Volunteer of the Year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

It still has the year-on-year uncertainty for me though - this is the thing stopping clubs from planning longer term and being able to develop other areas of their businesses.

I'm not sure if licensing does mean that one must come down if one goes up. If all of the SL clubs are functioning successfully and maintaining the criteria, then I don't see any reason why the comp couldn't expand.

I wondered whether you could have P&R based on a 3-year cycle (e.g. the duraton of a broadcasting deal) so that clubs could plan longer term - i.e. the worst performing club over that period replaced by the best performing club, based on on-field performance as well as fulfilling certain off-field criteria. I haven't given it a great deal of thought though, so it's probably littered with flaws!

I think you've hit the nail on the head here - for many, the failure of the execution is taken as evidence of failure of the concept.

Agreed on much.. i dont like 3 year cycle P&R as it gets overly complicated but understand where it could be an option. 

Expanding the league can happen, and often does in other sports, with P&R. If you keep expanding a licenced division then you end up being back to a licenced 2 divisions and so on.. and what worries me is that teams get a licence and then just sit back anyway as they have done everything they need to to get the licence in the first place.. again history shows this with clubs getting "middle of the tableitus"

I think a criteria based P&R is the best way to go, I dont buy the idea that looking over your shoulder stops you moving forward, arguably moving forward stops you looking over your shoulder. You just need to be willing to move forward (or cattle prodded) and i think this could be done, but again you MUST make clubs already there do the same or lose their place.. which is why I am not too worried about clubs not moving forward. 

Link this to a major shake up in the salary cap, when the salary cap can be paid by the central distribution money why should clubs look for more revenue? There needs to be an incentive and the idea that if you make more you can spend more should make some clubs look at other revenue angles (including better, more useful, facilities).

Put together I think this could make the changes we all want to see. 

(I do get the French argument though in terms of tv deals etc but I think that needs to be worked out separate to this argument otherwise the Tail [the French] are wagging the dog).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chris Taylor said:

If Rugby League want a more successful Super League and clubs don't want to look over their shoulder constantly - the answer is to simply increase the number of teams in the top division.

At the moment, the league is far too skinny in terms of numbers, and we have this daft loop system - that fans hate. 

We should be looking at expanding the league to 16 - 18 teams over the next 5 - 10 years. That can easily be done, by adding teams that have traditional / community value and also the non-heartland teams. 

The game is very stagnant at the moment, with more teams in the top division it will increase the level of competitiveness and help drive the game forward. 

If we were to create a licensing system, the rug under the top division is swept - leaving yourself with teams in Super League just battling against each other year after year - meaning it will be more stale. 

This!!!

A larger league, more competition, more choice for sky, more subscriptions may possibly deliver a better TV deal? Teams need to up their revenue streams internally.

Underpinned with a mandatory reserve team that travels with the first team home and away as curtain raiser.

  • 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...