Championship and Championship 1.Where now

[Robthegasman]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Where in your logic does it allow for the funding of 28 clubs on a reduced pot?

I think if there is reduced funding then regrettably we are going to see less clubs.Certainly at professional and semi professional level at least.

[EssexRL]

14 hours ago, Rowan said:

In all the years I have followed Rugby League both as a supporter and a national pressman for more than thirty years - and that is far too many to think about - the game's authorities have never come up with a plan designed to last very long.  A fortnight is the their idea of long-term planning so no matter how they decide to divvy up the latest Sky money you can count on the scheme not lasting the planned distance.  It grieves me to say this but as somebody who was at the press conference the night Maurice Lindsey announced his Sky package I was not alone in thinking that the announcement of a Super League was the most divisive decision since 1895. Nothing seems to have changed  - except for the annual alterations to the laws of the game (TGG no less!) licensing, franchising, promotion and relegation, top four, top eight, top six. Maybe the time has come for the select few to go their own way and achieve what Mr. Lindsay suggested out the outset ("get rid of the dross")   Framing the Future they called it at the time.  What does that future hold now?

Spot on. If there was a plan and strategy, one that took account of scenarios (such as TV funding cuts) we wouldn’t have to be debating this. 

I’ve posted many times that I have no idea what the authorities think L1 is for. I can think of plenty of rationales for the league continuing and indeed growing but I don’t know what the RFL thinks (do they?)

The sport is certainly at a transitional point. The future could be bright and exciting but only if this moment is carefully managed  

 

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

I think if there is reduced funding then regrettably we are going to see less clubs.Certainly at professional and semi professional level at least.

This entirely depends on how it is presented by the RFL initially.

If they propose L1 clubs will go to 25k each and Championship to 90k (just as an example), then its entirely possible that the 10 League 1 clubs could get the bottom few championship clubs onside (who get circa 120k upwards on a sliding scale) to agree that through. The bigger (spending) championship clubs could be left somewhat isolated as the lower funded clubs who often either harbour less lofty ambitions than Super League or have been in League 1 recently agree to that funding arrangement.

The other way this could go is the RFL take the less clubs for more money each approach. Cut it down to 12 or 14 teams, no league 1, what money there is available is given out in bigger portions. I don't see how they could justify that given the only extra finance would be stuff marked for League 1 - which wouldn't be much! So I don't see how they will be able to do that tbh.

If you're say Swinton, Oldham, Whitehaven, Dewsbury or Batley, would you take 90k in the current structure or risk being cut out entirely so some clubs can get 120k?

For League 1's sake I hope they are resilient and act collectively here.

[EssexRL]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Where in your logic does it allow for the funding of 28 clubs on a reduced pot?

Not responding to your direct question Harry, but on the wider point - fewer clubs means fewer supporters and exposure. Doesn’t that just lead to further decline?

Skolars going is not just a tragedy for the 300 or so of us who watch them but also the families we link with through the juniors, and exposure of the sport in local media, links with local colleges and local businesses. Not to mention the annual game in the city (all developed by the club alone). 

[gittinsfan]

21 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This entirely depends on how it is presented by the RFL initially.

If they propose L1 clubs will go to 25k each and Championship to 90k (just as an example), then its entirely possible that the 10 League 1 clubs could get the bottom few championship clubs onside (who get circa 120k upwards on a sliding scale) to agree that through. The bigger (spending) championship clubs could be left somewhat isolated as the lower funded clubs who often either harbour less lofty ambitions than Super League or have been in League 1 recently agree to that funding arrangement.

The other way this could go is the RFL take the less clubs for more money each approach. Cut it down to 12 or 14 teams, no league 1, what money there is available is given out in bigger portions. I don't see how they could justify that given the only extra finance would be stuff marked for League 1 - which wouldn't be much! So I don't see how they will be able to do that tbh.

If you're say Swinton, Oldham, Whitehaven, Dewsbury or Batley, would you take 90k in the current structure or risk being cut out entirely so some clubs can get 120k?

For League 1's sake I hope they are resilient and act collectively here.

I think your last question is a no brainer.Those clubs would do what every club has done for years.They would vote for whatever benefits them.

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, EssexRL said:

Not responding to your direct question Harry, but on the wider point - fewer clubs means fewer supporters and exposure. Doesn’t that just lead to further decline?

Skolars going is not just a tragedy for the 300 or so of us who watch them but also the families we link with through the juniors, and exposure of the sport in local media, links with local colleges and local businesses. Not to mention the annual game in the city (all developed by the club alone). 

That won't just happen to the Skolars though Essex it will be repeated in the heartlands, if clubs cannot survive with little or no funding it will impact on the community game in time, every amatuer club that ceases to exist is another potential producer of pro player's that will be slammed shut at a time when the UK cannot produce enough "paid" player's as it is.

[Tommygilf]

33 minutes ago, gittinsfan said:

I think your last question is a no brainer.Those clubs would do what every club has done for years.They would vote for whatever benefits them.

The question is whether they would back themselves to be included or not, it would be a bold chairman of any of those clubs to assume that imo.

[Jeff Stein]

44 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That won't just happen to the Skolars though Essex it will be repeated in the heartlands, if clubs cannot survive with little or no funding it will impact on the community game in time, every amatuer club that ceases to exist is another potential producer of pro player's that will be slammed shut at a time when the UK cannot produce enough "paid" player's as it is.

I would certainly agree with the latter part of your post, but is the first part accurate? While it seems to me that the RFL expect expansion clubs to develop the game in their area with little or no assistance on top of running a club, while at the same time we are expected to compete against heartlands clubs whose idea of development is to check each off season which academy players are surplus to requirements at the top SL clubs. Are for instance NCL clubs so dependent on their local championship/league 1 club?

[EssexRL]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

That won't just happen to the Skolars though Essex it will be repeated in the heartlands, if clubs cannot survive with little or no funding it will impact on the community game in time, every amatuer club that ceases to exist is another potential producer of pro player's that will be slammed shut at a time when the UK cannot produce enough "paid" player's as it is.

You’re absolutely right but I guess the difference is RL would still have a presence in the heartlands. What little toehold we have in London would decline yet further. It’s viral that a way is found to sustain the current set up including L1. 

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, Jeff Stein said:

I would certainly agree with the latter part of your post, but is the first part accurate? While it seems to me that the RFL expect expansion clubs to develop the game in their area with little or no assistance on top of running a club, while at the same time we are expected to compete against heartlands clubs whose idea of development is to check each off season which academy players are surplus to requirements at the top SL clubs. Are for instance NCL clubs so dependent on their local championship/league 1 club?

Prior to player's getting to open age firstly they need to start to get interest in the game from a young age, whatever the standard of the pro club it still is the focal point of interest and influence to the local kids, my viewpoint is take the pro club away and it will in time effect the amatuer clubs.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

20 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

 

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?

I think this is a fair point. However, it also can be directed at a few other clubs in that division though.

19 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

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. 

To play devil's advocate, do they need to be in League 1 whilst they develop? Coventry and Newcastle are often mentioned in the same breath for the excellent work that both clubs are doing, but Newcastle are several years' further long the road than the Bears, and - as ShropshireBull points out above - the numbers don't lie. They have a lot more community clubs in the vicinity, and a much stronger player pathway than the Bears have just yet, and presumably a wealthier backer. That isn't a dig at the Bears - they're doing a great job on their limited resources. It's just the reality of the situation.

19 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

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. 

This is indeed very commendable, and Coventry are obviously making the most of their limited resources. But is this a similar issue to the likes of Wakefield spending below the salary cap in Super League and ultimately not being competitive on the field as a consequence?

I can see you're obviously a passionate Coventry supporter, which is fantastic, and I appreciate it can be difficult to discuss some of these topics objectively and take the emotion out of it. But from my perspective, there just doesn't seem to be the money in the game to provide much financial support to League 1 moving forward, so tough decisions are going to have to be made about where the limited money is spent. The likes of Coventry and no doubt quite a few other clubs in that division (and the Championship) are going to be dealing with a very uncertain few months ahead.

If the League 1 funding dried up, is there anything stopping Coventry from continuing their great development work, given that their recent satellite clubs initiative has been subsidised by the RFL and the World Cup legacy grants and not the League 1 funding? What's to stop the Bears becoming a Cramlington Rockets and focusing their limited resources on becoming a prosperous community club with multiple junior teams? For me, I think that would be a really positive development for the game, as it would help to grow the player base at the grass roots level.

20 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

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

There is a Southern Conference that runs without funding. Could the Bears play in this competition if League 1 was disbanded and funding disappeared? It would be a shame if there wasn't a suitable level for them to play at.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

19 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Clubs like London and Coventry have to either pay a premium on players from the heartlands to travel, or use what's available locally and accept the results that will produce

This is exactly right, and there doesn't seem to have been any plan is place to help these expansion areas become more competitive. When all the new expansion clubs joined League 1, the attitude from the RFL seemed to be to find out if they sink or swim, as opposed to having a proper plan for developing those areas.

19 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Now as I said a strategically minded RFL would look and see that giving London the same as Batley or Coventry the same as Hunslet and expecting equivalent outcome would be madness. That is before we see clubs effectively being outposts for the game, Broncos and Skolars in the capital and SE, Newcastle in the North East, Coventry in the midlands and formerly the All Golds in the Black Country and SW and not being strategically funded to support them in that basic mission that they occupy partly by default and partly by half-baked RFL design.

So in answer to your point, if anyone is not investing to give the club a chance to pull in enough crowds, its the RFL.

I completely agree with this. If the RFL didn't have the money, resources and planning to properly develop these new areas, then they should never have accepted these new teams in to League 1. The likes of All Golds, Hemel and Oxford all came and went, with quite a bit of money spent and nothing to show for it.

Same with Toronto and Toulouse - there just doesn't seem to be any long term planning whatsoever. What was the end game of accepting Toronto's application? There wasn't one, because SL nearly didn't allow them in. It seems, when it comes to expansion, the RFL's only strategy is to listen to enthusiasts who fancy starting a pro team in a new area, and then say "off you go" without doing any long term planning or giving them any proper support.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 hours ago, EssexRL said:

Spot on. If there was a plan and strategy, one that took account of scenarios (such as TV funding cuts) we wouldn’t have to be debating this. 

I’ve posted many times that I have no idea what the authorities think L1 is for. I can think of plenty of rationales for the league continuing and indeed growing but I don’t know what the RFL thinks (do they?)

The sport is certainly at a transitional point. The future could be bright and exciting but only if this moment is carefully managed  

Precisely. What is the plan? What is the aim of League 1 for? At one point it was a development league, and then they restructured the league above and completely changed it. How does L1 fit in with the community comps below? How does a new club get to be part of L1? The whole structure is a complete mess, and needs strong leadership to try and sort out a plan for the game from grass roots to elite level.

[EssexRL]

19 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I completely agree with this. If the RFL didn't have the money, resources and planning to properly develop these new areas, then they should never have accepted these new teams in to League 1. The likes of All Golds, Hemel and Oxford all came and went, with quite a bit of money spent and nothing to show for it.

This is a perfect example of a short-term ill thought out under resourced idea that was almost certainly doomed from the start (and I support expansion). The Skolar's pointed out the obvious problem at the time of - where will the players come from?

Going back to the OP, history doesn't bode well in terms of the ability of the game to deal with the challenges arising from the cuts in Sky money for SL, Championship or L1. I truly hope that I am wrong.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 minutes ago, EssexRL said:

The Skolar's pointed out the obvious problem at the time of - where will the players come from?

What's especially infuriating is the RFL are doing the same thing again and expecting different results. The same mistakes were made that had been made 30-40 years previously with the likes of Nottingham, Kent Invicta, Fulham etc etc. I.e. a lack of players of sufficient standard meant that clubs had to bus players down from the north to play for them. The final nail in Hemel's coffin was the decision to base their team in Dewsbury (or somewhere like that) and just play games down in Hemel. This strategy failed 30 years before with Nottingham/Mansfield. Why has the game not learnt??

With the lack of players in the Midlands, a significant proportion of Coventry's squad now has to come from up north, because player pathways appear to have nigh-on dried up (e.g. loss of the Midlands academy that has been mentioned on this forum previously). The development work being done by the clubs themselves is very admirable, but how long will it take to bear fruit, and what will the competition structure look like by the time it does?

[Tommygilf]

Probably worth posting here

[OriginalMrC]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I think this is a fair point. However, it also can be directed at a few other clubs in that division though.

To play devil's advocate, do they need to be in League 1 whilst they develop? Coventry and Newcastle are often mentioned in the same breath for the excellent work that both clubs are doing, but Newcastle are several years' further long the road than the Bears, and - as ShropshireBull points out above - the numbers don't lie. They have a lot more community clubs in the vicinity, and a much stronger player pathway than the Bears have just yet, and presumably a wealthier backer. That isn't a dig at the Bears - they're doing a great job on their limited resources. It's just the reality of the situation.

This is indeed very commendable, and Coventry are obviously making the most of their limited resources. But is this a similar issue to the likes of Wakefield spending below the salary cap in Super League and ultimately not being competitive on the field as a consequence?

I can see you're obviously a passionate Coventry supporter, which is fantastic, and I appreciate it can be difficult to discuss some of these topics objectively and take the emotion out of it. But from my perspective, there just doesn't seem to be the money in the game to provide much financial support to League 1 moving forward, so tough decisions are going to have to be made about where the limited money is spent. The likes of Coventry and no doubt quite a few other clubs in that division (and the Championship) are going to be dealing with a very uncertain few months ahead.

If the League 1 funding dried up, is there anything stopping Coventry from continuing their great development work, given that their recent satellite clubs initiative has been subsidised by the RFL and the World Cup legacy grants and not the League 1 funding? What's to stop the Bears becoming a Cramlington Rockets and focusing their limited resources on becoming a prosperous community club with multiple junior teams? For me, I think that would be a really positive development for the game, as it would help to grow the player base at the grass roots level.

There is a Southern Conference that runs without funding. Could the Bears play in this competition if League 1 was disbanded and funding disappeared? It would be a shame if there wasn't a suitable level for them to play at.

Well you've written in respectful thought out way but what it boils down to is that you think clubs like Coventry should be cut from the game. When the pyramid gets ever smaller and smaller and more and more clubs are cut what will we be left with? 

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, OriginalMrC said:

Well you've written in respectful thought out way but what it boils down to is that you think clubs like Coventry should be cut from the game. When the pyramid gets ever smaller and smaller and more and more clubs are cut what will we be left with? 

A local sport for local people. 

[EssexRL]

30 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Probably worth posting here

Cut the roots and it will die...

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Well you've written in respectful thought out way but what it boils down to is that you think clubs like Coventry should be cut from the game. When the pyramid gets ever smaller and smaller and more and more clubs are cut what will we be left with? 

Not at all - you're putting words in my mouth there. For me, it all comes back to the issue of a long term plan. If the RFL are identifying areas for development, then these areas need to be properly resourced, with strategies for player growth and development. If they aren't, then I think it's unfair and unrealistic for the RFL to essentially drop clubs in at the deep end to see if they can sink or swim, just so that they can claim they're developing the sport in new areas.

If the RFL thinks that Coventry/London/Llanelli (delete as appropriate) is strategically the right area to grow the game, then plan and resource it properly. But on the flip side, if the RFL is just going to treat these new areas exactly the same as heartlands teams, then they shouldn't be surprised if those new teams struggle to compete due to the lack of infrastructure (i.e. community clubs, player pool, etc) compared to the heartlands. I want to avoid situations like we saw with All Golds, Oxford and Hemel, where hundreds of thousands of pounds was spent over several seasons with ultimately nothing to show for it.

Also, I don't think that League 1 is the be all and end all in terms of the pyramid (plus I don't really agree with the term 'pyramid', as currently the 'pro' game is only a very shallow pyramid that doesn't include the vast majority of clubs from where the majority of players are actually produced). I think there should be a complete overhaul of the structure of the game from grassroots to elite level, in order to provide suitable playing levels and opportunities for progression. If League 1 had funding cut and Coventry were no longer able to compete at that level, what is to stop them playing at Southern Conference level and focusing their resources on developing juniors? I previously gave the example of Cramlington Rockets - a club in a development area who have obviously been extremely proactive in growing and developing their junior section. Is a club like Cramlington not just as, if not more valuable to the 'pyramid' as a League 1 club?

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 minute ago, EssexRL said:

Cut the roots and it will die...

What are the roots? Are they Championship and League 1, or are the roots further down starting with U7s at a community club? Or are they all roots that are part of the same structure? I honestly don't think the RFL knows what the purpose is of the various levels of competition they have, and how they all fit together as part of a bigger picture. I would include schools and universities in this as well. What is the player pathway from junior to international, and how does somebody get there? Is it the same in London as it is in Leeds?

[Angelic Cynic]

34 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

What are the roots? Are they Championship and League 1, or are the roots further down starting with U7s at a community club? Or are they all roots that are part of the same structure? I honestly don't think the RFL knows what the purpose is of the various levels of competition they have, and how they all fit together as part of a bigger picture. I would include schools and universities in this as well. What is the player pathway from junior to international, and how does somebody get there? Is it the same in London as it is in Leeds?

  The player pathway differs from Leeds,which is a Super League club and those outside of Super League. 

   It seems a lottery when it comes to which clubs have Academies,and which clubs can run reserve sides.

   Even those clubs where the funding was supplied by supporters lost their reserve side.

  It may be a money saving idea - and a fairer distribution of young talent,if the governing body controlled and ran Academies,regionally,and then clubs could select a youngster each to join their club - as an alternative to the rich clubs getting richer and continuing to advantage of all the monies they have had due to their position in the top league,over recent years.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

We've got what 25mil. 14 SL teams so  1.5 X 12 = 18 1mil for both french teams locked in. 20 mil  200k per Championship team. 2.8 mil.

So 22.8 million overall. 

BUT in your plan there isn't a SL and Championship there are 2 leagues of 14, which I should imagine there will be movement by P&R between them? So one lot get 7.5 times more funding than than the second 14, why go to the trouble just make it a SL closed shop.

But minus the French lot.

[OriginalMrC]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Not at all - you're putting words in my mouth there. For me, it all comes back to the issue of a long term plan. If the RFL are identifying areas for development, then these areas need to be properly resourced, with strategies for player growth and development. If they aren't, then I think it's unfair and unrealistic for the RFL to essentially drop clubs in at the deep end to see if they can sink or swim, just so that they can claim they're developing the sport in new areas.

If the RFL thinks that Coventry/London/Llanelli (delete as appropriate) is strategically the right area to grow the game, then plan and resource it properly. But on the flip side, if the RFL is just going to treat these new areas exactly the same as heartlands teams, then they shouldn't be surprised if those new teams struggle to compete due to the lack of infrastructure (i.e. community clubs, player pool, etc) compared to the heartlands. I want to avoid situations like we saw with All Golds, Oxford and Hemel, where hundreds of thousands of pounds was spent over several seasons with ultimately nothing to show for it.

Also, I don't think that League 1 is the be all and end all in terms of the pyramid (plus I don't really agree with the term 'pyramid', as currently the 'pro' game is only a very shallow pyramid that doesn't include the vast majority of clubs from where the majority of players are actually produced). I think there should be a complete overhaul of the structure of the game from grassroots to elite level, in order to provide suitable playing levels and opportunities for progression. If League 1 had funding cut and Coventry were no longer able to compete at that level, what is to stop them playing at Southern Conference level and focusing their resources on developing juniors? I previously gave the example of Cramlington Rockets - a club in a development area who have obviously been extremely proactive in growing and developing their junior section. Is a club like Cramlington not just as, if not more valuable to the 'pyramid' as a League 1 club?

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

To be honest I've given my thoughts already in this thread and tired trying to convince people like yourself who believe shrinking the footprint of RL in this country is the way to go. 

[EssexRL]

32 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

  The player pathway differs from Leeds,which is a Super League club and those outside of Super League. 

   It seems a lottery when it comes to which clubs have Academies,and which clubs can run reserve sides.

   Even those clubs where the funding was supplied by supporters lost their reserve side.

  It may be a money saving idea - and a fairer distribution of young talent,if the governing body controlled and ran Academies,regionally,and then clubs could select a youngster each to join their club - as an alternative to the rich clubs getting richer and continuing to advantage of all the monies they have had due to their position in the top league,over recent years.

All of it.