Jump to content

Championship and Championship 1.Where now


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, OriginalMrC said:

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

Ok so now this is more reasonable. Last point first, it's a regional League so the aim is to reduce travel whilst still providing clubs a pathway to SL should they wish. I admit Coventry being in the middle might be buggered either division but maybe not. 

On attendances, Coventry had two 500 plus attendances in League 1 in 2019. Also figures here https://rugbyl.blogspot.com/2019/05/uk-league-one-attendances-2019-progress.html show that actually Bears are way down. In 2018, the 1000+ attendance was vs Bradford which you could say is either distorting or shows what Cov could do if they played bigger teams in a RFL Champ regularly.

On the field, the club is not and has never been competitive. The criteria I'm using is the same for everyone which is why I'd bin a Welsh team in this hypothetical model and Hunslet and Swinton and Oldham. If you were to put the bears in the RFL Champ, it would definitely be a 'prove it' season. 

The club does live within it's means which as a Bradford fan is a huge plus and yep Widnes, Keighley, Bulls, Leigh. There's a long list of stories but again, if the money is never going to be invested to give the club a chance to pull in enough crowds to be sustainable at a higher level then there's no reason for the RFL to subsidize it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have been watching L1 for nearly a decade and I love it. I love the range of clubs from all over the country and aboard I get to see. I love how authentic it is. I have seen some great games of

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 goi

Mr Shaw Wright hitting the nail on the head here. League 1 clubs and particularly expansion clubs are always the target of these magical cost cutting exercises 

1 hour ago, Smudger06 said:

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. 

Sounds all very Project Big Picture stuff for me, though it is heartening to see fans of the big championship clubs (who of course would be small super league clubs if they ever got promoted) saying the same logic they would rail against if it was Saints, Wire and Wigan

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Ok so now this is more reasonable. Last point first, it's a regional League so the aim is to reduce travel whilst still providing clubs a pathway to SL should they wish. I admit Coventry being in the middle might be buggered either division but maybe not. 

On attendances, Coventry had two 500 plus attendances in League 1 in 2019. Also figures here https://rugbyl.blogspot.com/2019/05/uk-league-one-attendances-2019-progress.html show that actually Bears are way down. In 2018, the 1000+ attendance was vs Bradford which you could say is either distorting or shows what Cov could do if they played bigger teams in a RFL Champ regularly.

On the field, the club is not and has never been competitive. The criteria I'm using is the same for everyone which is why I'd bin a Welsh team in this hypothetical model and Hunslet and Swinton and Oldham. If you were to put the bears in the RFL Champ, it would definitely be a 'prove it' season. 

The club does live within it's means which as a Bradford fan is a huge plus and yep Widnes, Keighley, Bulls, Leigh. There's a long list of stories but again, if the money is never going to be invested to give the club a chance to pull in enough crowds to be sustainable at a higher level then there's no reason for the RFL to subsidize it. 

But this is the point right there in bold - a strategically minded RFL would work out that clubs with a 125 years of history of amateur RL on their doorstep don't need as much of a funding boost compared to non-heartland clubs because capable players are literally right there on the doorstep, they fall out of nearby SL academies every year. 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; Newcastle have been fortunate to have a link up with a University that is immensely popular with prospective students from RL areas.

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to take a deep breath

The SL /RFL agreement 2 years ago said that if the TV deal fell below 35 m then all those funds would belong to SL but they promised to discuss re distribution with the RFL.

I am totally confident ?  that those conversations are now ongoing.

The Community game are as I post re-structuring their income streams.; I am assured that the lost Try Sky moneys will not fall upon them to pay.

As for the bottom of League 1  ( or maybe even much higher given the Grim Reaper ,)  taking out their 75 k annual support will make the RFL  I believe  yet again ask Tier 4 to help them  with struggling Tier 3  by softening the falls or even might I suggest move all of the NCL and its Southern Equivalents back to Tier 3

Tough negotiating  times perhaps ahead at all levels

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

But this is the point right there in bold - a strategically minded RFL would work out that clubs with a 125 years of history of amateur RL on their doorstep don't need as much of a funding boost compared to non-heartland clubs because capable players are literally right there on the doorstep, they fall out of nearby SL academies every year. 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; Newcastle have been fortunate to have a link up with a University that is immensely popular with prospective students from RL areas.

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.

Look, it can't just be the RFL and no club in the heartlands is ever going to accept more money at Coventry than them, especially when they aren't putting much cash in themselves. Plus, in the RFL were picking winners, it wouldn't be in Coventry. London and Cardiff would be much higher up the agenda for that. That's why a criteria that is the same for everyone (Attendance, Competitiveness, Commercial Potential, Infrastructure) is clear for everyone to hit or miss whilst keeping the door open for anyone to climb the leagues. 

As I said, wouldn't just be Coventry that wouldn't pass the test. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Ok so now this is more reasonable. Last point first, it's a regional League so the aim is to reduce travel whilst still providing clubs a pathway to SL should they wish. I admit Coventry being in the middle might be buggered either division but maybe not. 

On attendances, Coventry had two 500 plus attendances in League 1 in 2019. Also figures here https://rugbyl.blogspot.com/2019/05/uk-league-one-attendances-2019-progress.html show that actually Bears are way down. In 2018, the 1000+ attendance was vs Bradford which you could say is either distorting or shows what Cov could do if they played bigger teams in a RFL Champ regularly.

On the field, the club is not and has never been competitive. The criteria I'm using is the same for everyone which is why I'd bin a Welsh team in this hypothetical model and Hunslet and Swinton and Oldham. If you were to put the bears in the RFL Champ, it would definitely be a 'prove it' season. 

The club does live within it's means which as a Bradford fan is a huge plus and yep Widnes, Keighley, Bulls, Leigh. There's a long list of stories but again, if the money is never going to be invested to give the club a chance to pull in enough crowds to be sustainable at a higher level then there's no reason for the RFL to subsidize it. 

Sorry but the fact you used the word subsidised again shows your lack of understanding of expansion. Millions has been spent 'subsidising' heartlands clubs who've gone bankrupt numerous times, who play in decrepid grounds, and who are happy to ask their long suffering fans to put their hands in their pockets over and over again to bail them oit. If you are talking about value for money then I know which clubs offer more in light of the very small amount they recieve. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, OriginalMrC said:

Sorry but the fact you used the word subsidised again shows your lack of understanding of expansion. Millions has been spent 'subsidising' heartlands clubs who've gone bankrupt numerous times, who play in decrepid grounds, and who are happy to ask their long suffering fans to put their hands in their pockets over and over again to bail them oit. If you are talking about value for money then I know which clubs offer more in light of the very small amount they recieve. 

Haven't I said that the same criteria would apply to everyone? Again, ShropshireBull, clue is in the name so I already know about poorly run clubs. And yes, giving money with no potential of return is a subsidy. I'd rather the RFL start saving cash to put into infrastructure than subsidising playing budgets. 

I think you have a point about clubs getting money for ###### grounds or who have no chance of getting a home one but as mentioned, they'd get a reduced amount or booted entirely. For example, there's no way I'd give Bulls a full funding quota until that ground is fixed. They'd score well on some of the other criteria though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Mr Shaw Wright hitting the nail on the head here. League 1 clubs and particularly expansion clubs are always the target of these magical cost cutting exercises 

Exactly, some for example Fev fans are now being so hypocritical - big fish small ponds and all that

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Mr Shaw Wright hitting the nail on the head here. League 1 clubs and particularly expansion clubs are always the target of these magical cost cutting exercises 

Yup. A fair number of people whose 'whole game solutions' stop once their side gets fixed. Big overlap with people who thought the Middle 8s were the best thing to ever happen to rugby league.

  • Like 3

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 post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Two leagues of 14 with two french sides means cutting the 34 down to 26 UK based clubs. 

I think we need to keep a Welsh team so which 8 teams do you drop into regional league.  

For now Swinton, Oldham, one Welsh team, London Skolars, Hunslet, Cov and two others. 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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). 

Edited by EssexRL
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

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

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...