Jump to content

Championship and Championship 1.Where now


Recommended Posts

No the bigger Clubs hold the cards, as without them there's no central funding to dish out is there? Not even 75k. These League 1 Clubs and bottom Championship won't be able to generate even 500 paying views without the bigger clubs involved, nor 500 tickets to the game either. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


35 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

Right now I can only see York,Newcastle,London Broncos and daft as it might sound Coventry(Because of location)being absolute nailed on certs of winning a Championship place. And because they are cities.

Well half those teams should be in an increased Super League to start with.

Coventry I've brutally cut in my hypothetical 14/14 split. Yes, it would be great to have a successful team in the midlands and the ground they play at is ok. The negatives though are clear, they've been at same level for 5 years and they've finished 12th, 11th, 14th, 11th and 9th (out of 11). They've never been close to playoffs and they barely average 400 fans. 

Could Coventry at higher levels be sustainable and competitive? Maybe but with now 3 sports teams (Wasps, Coventry City and Cov RU) against and no serious money to make that happen I'd say it's time for a RFL North/South for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go, working on potential fans from big cities again. Think we need to work on the basis of existing fans, more realistic way of surviving. Obviously need to save as many clubs as  possible and the best way to do that is work together, not in cahoots etc. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, EssexRL said:

Maybe there’s an opportunity not just with the lower end Championship but other teams who have mooted playing in the English league like Serbia. 

One issue here is whatever league structure emerges below SL, is there going to be any chance of lower league teams joining the top? 

Absolutely true on your second point especially. That is a vital distinction which we aught to remember how relegation only returned in the last TV deal.

The foreign/expansion sides are an interesting one. I'm of the opinion that clubs should enter, if its generally affordable to all parties, at the level they intend to play at. By that I mean no FT teams steamrollering League 1 and no expectations that part time West Wales Raiders or Coventry Bears will be Super League Grand Finalists in 5 years. I'd expect the RFL to funnel international sides in particular to the fully pro set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PhilCarrington said:

League 1 - its been that for years.

League One looks like it could be in trouble. Let’s turn the negative into a positive. Spitting the League into a League One North and League One South would significantly reduce travel costs for clubs at that level, while also allowing us to bring in new expansion clubs into League One South, at a level their more likely able to compete at.

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

Just now, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

League One looks like it could be in trouble. Let’s turn the negative into a positive. Spitting the League into a League One North and League One South would significantly reduce travel costs for clubs at that level, while also allowing us to bring in new expansion clubs into League One South, at a level their more likely able to compete at.

That time of the week again for your “League One South” post. It’s a terrible idea. As you’ve been told many, many times. 

League One Yorkshire is the way to go. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Here we go, working on potential fans from big cities again. Think we need to work on the basis of existing fans, more realistic way of surviving. Obviously need to save as many clubs as  possible and the best way to do that is work together, not in cahoots etc. 

If its a league with no promotion to Super League in the traditional sense, then it should absolutely focus on being a community focussed traditional type competition I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I disagree, of the 3 Leagues I'd argue its the Championship whose model is most at risk. L1 clubs will go from £75k to even a third of that and still be relatively ok - paying part timers £100 a game to £40 for example.

Championship clubs on bloated central funding of upwards of £500k dropping back to £75k ish will be stuffed on their current model.

Its far more likely every non SL club moves closer to L1 in style from next season, whereas they have been moving in the other direction in the recent past. I don't have any specific opinions on that right now.

I agree with this as long as League One do keep getting some funding. Championship clubs will all have to revert to part time and will see a drop In playing standard. Championship clubs have been competing with Super League clubs for players, that’ll no longer be the case. 

You have to question if promotion and relegation in its current format will be viable with the gulf in standards that will exist between Super League and the Championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

I agree with this as long as League One do keep getting some funding. Championship clubs will all have to revert to part time and will see a drop In playing standard. Championship clubs have been competing with Super League clubs for players, that’ll no longer be the case. 

You have to question if promotion and relegation in its current format will be viable with the gulf in standards that will exist between Super League and the Championship.

Promotion will  be viable, because clubs who are in good commercial areas will have the opportunity to upscale when they reach SL. Newcastle , York and Toulouse (even Bradford if we weren't trapped with Odsal) could generate enough revenue to be a threat in SL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Promotion will  be viable, because clubs who are in good commercial areas will have the opportunity to upscale when they reach SL. Newcastle , York and Toulouse (even Bradford if we weren't trapped with Odsal) could generate enough revenue to be a threat in SL. 

The problem was and would remain doing that upscaling in an off season and then not getting relegated. If there was a distinct "pro" and "semi pro" divide, which is not what we have now, then the step up would be immense - entire squads replaced and the club operating to a whole new timetable.

Now if you guaranteed no relegation for a newly promoted side for 2/3 years then maybe that transition could be managed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The problem was and would remain doing that upscaling in an off season and then not getting relegated. If there was a distinct "pro" and "semi pro" divide, which is not what we have now, then the step up would be immense - entire squads replaced and the club operating to a whole new timetable.

Now if you guaranteed no relegation for a newly promoted side for 2/3 years then maybe that transition could be managed.

Is there actually much difference between one year or three years?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The problem was and would remain doing that upscaling in an off season and then not getting relegated. If there was a distinct "pro" and "semi pro" divide, which is not what we have now, then the step up would be immense - entire squads replaced and the club operating to a whole new timetable.

Now if you guaranteed no relegation for a newly promoted side for 2/3 years then maybe that transition could be managed.

We're never going to make everyone happy but tbh I think an expanded SL will see an evolution of the league as teams like Newcastle York and London start to push out the Salfords and Leighs. I'm betting the commercial ops that the more affluent or populated areas have will allow them to be competitive with the lower half immediately and expose the bottom half of SL's lack of commercial income. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Is there actually much difference between one year or three years?

Considering all but Hull KR of the recently promoted clubs have gone down or gone bust or both within one season when they were able to basically operate as Super League clubs in the championship would suggest that for a transition from part time to full time clubs (as its not just the playing squad of course) needs a decent amount of time.

That's before you get into the problems of recruitment of players on more than 1 year contracts, recruiting better players assured of your super league place etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Well half those teams should be in an increased Super League to start with.

Coventry I've brutally cut in my hypothetical 14/14 split. Yes, it would be great to have a successful team in the midlands and the ground they play at is ok. The negatives though are clear, they've been at same level for 5 years and they've finished 12th, 11th, 14th, 11th and 9th (out of 11). They've never been close to playoffs and they barely average 400 fans. 

Could Coventry at higher levels be sustainable and competitive? Maybe but with now 3 sports teams (Wasps, Coventry City and Cov RU) against and no serious money to make that happen I'd say it's time for a RFL North/South for them. 

It's attitudes like this that very much annoy me. Who are you decide a clubs worth based on stuff you know nothing about. Why is the solution to cut clubs from the game? Is cutting £60-70k funding going to save rugby league. No its not 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Considering all but Hull KR of the recently promoted clubs have gone down or gone bust or both within one season when they were able to basically operate as Super League clubs in the championship would suggest that for a transition from part time to full time clubs (as its not just the playing squad of course) needs a decent amount of time.

That's before you get into the problems of recruitment of players on more than 1 year contracts, recruiting better players assured of your super league place etc

I get that but is three years enough time? Why not 5 years or 10?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

We're never going to make everyone happy but tbh I think an expanded SL will see an evolution of the league as teams like Newcastle York and London start to push out the Salfords and Leighs. I'm betting the commercial ops that the more affluent or populated areas have will allow them to be competitive with the lower half immediately and expose the bottom half of SL's lack of commercial income. 

I can see that argument. I would agree that it makes little sense to have clubs that are seen as commercially strategic for the long term health of the game outside of the visible (or indeed only) aspect of the professional structure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I get that but is three years enough time? Why not 5 years or 10?

Its enough time to have a good go, any more and you start getting to the stage where finishing 7th in a 12 team league will get you automatically relegated which the game simply cannot afford. 3 seems enough for me to get house in order, guarantee longer contracts to (presumably better) players, find feet in the league whilst not taking up half the division with sides who can't be relegated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, OriginalMrC said:

It's attitudes like this that very much annoy me. Who are you decide a clubs worth based on stuff you know nothing about. Why is the solution to cut clubs from the game? Is cutting £60-70k funding going to save rugby league. No its not 

Well one it's hypothetical. Two, I've already said that I'd have an RFL North and South sit under Championship for teams who want to climb the pyramid. But yes, in this scenario I'm taking the money off them. We are going to be losing teams and money is finite so we have to make judgement calls. The criteria I used were : Attendance , Competitiveness, Infrastructure and Commercial potential. As mentioned, the ground is good and if money was put in could Coventry compete in RFL Champ and get crowds up to 1000-1500? Sure, look at York. 

Also, Coventry have started some community clubs and as someone from the West Midlands I'd more biased in their favour but the numbers don't lie. Plus, we can reverse the money question to : If Coventry only survive because of a 75k handout then what value have they created in 5 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its enough time to have a good go, any more and you start getting to the stage where finishing 7th in a 12 team league will get you automatically relegated which the game simply cannot afford. 3 seems enough for me to get house in order, guarantee longer contracts to (presumably better) players, find feet in the league whilst not taking up half the division with sides who can't be relegated.

Clubs just starting to find their feet to then be removed seems to me, to serve little purpose. 

P&R is ultimately a flawed concept in the sport and we’re pandering to a couple of second tier clubs, a couple with genuine potential and a handful of others, who yearn for the halcyon days of 25-30 years ago, who are miles away from Super League. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

 

Well one it's hypothetical. Two, I've already said that I'd have an RFL North and South sit under Championship for teams who want to climb the pyramid. But yes, in this scenario I'm taking the money off them. We are going to be losing teams and money is finite so we have to make judgement calls. The criteria I used were : Attendance , Competitiveness, Infrastructure and Commercial potential. As mentioned, the ground is good and if money was put in could Coventry compete in RFL Champ and get crowds up to 1000-1500? Sure, look at York. 

Also, Coventry have started some community clubs and as someone from the West Midlands I'd more biased in their favour but the numbers don't lie. Plus, we can reverse the money question to : If Coventry only survive because of a 75k handout then what value have they created in 5 years?

Sorry but you are talking nonsense. You've stuck a finger in the air and made a decision. In reality you have no idea about the criteria you've used. 

And yes I believe the Bears could survive without the funding but what you have suggested is they are cut from the pyramid which is a completely different thing. Honestly it is attitudes like this within the sport that really annoy me. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OriginalMrC said:

Sorry but you are talking nonsense. You've stuck a finger in the air and made a decision. In reality you have no idea about the criteria you've used. 

And yes I believe the Bears could survive without the funding but what you have suggested is they are cut from the pyramid which is a completely different thing. Honestly it is attitudes like this within the sport that really annoy me. 

I know what I used which is why I mentioned Coventry's consistently sub 500 attendances and inability to compete for even the play-offs at League 1. Again, I didn't say they'd be cut from the pyramid (RFL North and South) so why don't you read what I actually put first. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Clubs just starting to find their feet to then be removed seems to me, to serve little purpose. 

P&R is ultimately a flawed concept in the sport and we’re pandering to a couple of second tier clubs, a couple with genuine potential and a handful of others, who yearn for the halcyon days of 25-30 years ago, who are miles away from Super League. 

Well it is sport at the end of the day, the hope would be that clubs would be able to demonstrate clearly not needing the safety net by the end of the grace period - and hopefully beforehand.

Whilstsoever Super League contains the likes of Wakey, Cas, Salford, Hull KR and Leigh, its unfair to deny the likes of Halifax, Fev, Bradford etc and say they are miles away. By the fact that Leigh are in that Super League group specifically this year and were in the championship one last year proves they aren't miles away. Indeed, all of those Super League clubs (and a couple more besides) have been second division clubs in the Super League era.

Either we create an environment that recognises that outside the big 5 (or 6 plus huddersfield and putting the French clubs to one side for a moment), we have around 10-14 clubs who are basically at a similar level and caters to that. Or we say no, we're going to have a restricted number of teams and grow those select few that we choose from the second group into clubs like those at the top. I see the flaws in both, I see the problem with the latter being yet another case of musical chairs rather than genuine strategic thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Well it is sport at the end of the day, the hope would be that clubs would be able to demonstrate clearly not needing the safety net by the end of the grace period - and hopefully beforehand.

Whilstsoever Super League contains the likes of Wakey, Cas, Salford, Hull KR and Leigh, its unfair to deny the likes of Halifax, Fev, Bradford etc and say they are miles away. By the fact that Leigh are in that Super League group specifically this year and were in the championship one last year proves they aren't miles away. Indeed, all of those Super League clubs (and a couple more besides) have been second division clubs in the Super League era.

Either we create an environment that recognises that outside the big 5 (or 6 plus huddersfield and putting the French clubs to one side for a moment), we have around 10-14 clubs who are basically at a similar level and caters to that. Or we say no, we're going to have a restricted number of teams and grow those select few that we choose from the second group into clubs like those at the top. I see the flaws in both, I see the problem with the latter being yet another case of musical chairs rather than genuine strategic thinking.

Leigh are some way clear ahead of where Bradford and Halifax are. It’s an unfair stick to beat Leigh with comparing them to the homeless and perennial admin stricken Bradford and Halifax. 

The latter would need to be part of a strategy, though it would be unlikely in rugby league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I know what I used which is why I mentioned Coventry's consistently sub 500 attendances and inability to compete for even the play-offs at League 1. Again, I didn't say they'd be cut from the pyramid (RFL North and South) so why don't you read what I actually put first. 

 

Bears attendances are comparable with other league 1 clubs and pretty decent for a club outside the heartlands. 1000+ attendances show the potential is there. On the pitch the Bears are still a new club from outside the heartlands. It will take time but wins against heartlands teams show they can be competitive in time. 

The club is run well financially and the small amount of money they get is worth it when compared to the huge sums of money put into other clubs who've gone to the wall several times and asked their fans for bail outs. 

And also who is going to pay for your magical North South league and what teams will play in it. It's not a solution at all

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Leigh are some way clear ahead of where Bradford and Halifax are. It’s an unfair stick to beat Leigh with comparing them to the homeless and perennial admin stricken Bradford and Halifax. 

The latter would need to be part of a strategy, though it would be unlikely in rugby league. 

Leigh are however a pointless addition from a purely strategic POV (no offence intended), which is as much of a weakness as Bradford's financial woes and in any case they are just one example of the 5 Super League teams I highlighted. They all average out across the board at about the same if given Super League money - probably lower mid table but capable of getting more from less with a good coach a la Salford under Watson or Cas under Powell. Its being frank to acknowledge that what separated Leigh from Cas or York from Salford was having the Super League money.

I'm glad you appreciate how unlikely that is!

  • 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...