Super League to 14 clubs?Championship and League 1 to merge?Good idea or not?

[Henson Park Old Firm]

4 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

There was a couple of articles suggesting they were and I think Sky News even reported it but it never seemed to go any further than that. Shane Richardson has said he wants to get the two working together but that’s easier said than done. 

or I have a feeling that V'Landys is working behind the scenes (watch this space)

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

Is promotion the answer at this moment in time??

I was always dead against franchise rugby, but London, Leigh etc. have shown that you can't build a competitive side within one season as there just isn't a sufficient number of available quality players in the UK

the sad fact is that looking back maybe Uncle Mo's vision of the original Super League  concept of teams spread across the UK from Cumbria down to London and France was the right way to go. Football have lead the way across all divisions including non-league sides with nice modern stadia that are used on non-match days bringing in much needed income.

Despite years of promises, we have too many clubs who cannot generate enough non-matchday income to be able to sustain full time professional rugby without RL handouts and TV money.

The game is in an extremely vulnerable position and what's happens in the next 12-24 months could shape the game for the foreseeable future.

Dare I say the unthinkable could even happen with our top sides turning their backs on rugby league to join the union ranks, as the union rules move closer to league I could see clubs making the business decision to move codes if there was enough money on the table as it would enable the RU to establish the professional game in the north of England

 

 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, EastLondonMike said:

Would be good to know the rationale behind going to 14 teams, if this was being discussed. I too don't believe we have the quality currently, and haven't had for some time IMO, and adding an additional two teams wont improve anything other than riding us of the loop fixtures.

The administration of the game really do need to get a grip on things. We really do need to reset and work out what we want to be and where we want to go with our sport.

The low quality is a direct consequence of a ridiculously low salary cap. 10 teams isn't going to magically improve quality, just as going from 14 teams to 12 made absolutely no difference. If anything quality since then has declined even further. That is because the game has stood still, stagnated and the salary cap has declined in real terms. Even worse its declined substantially against every one of SL's competitors.

Increase the cap to £2.5 million, add 2 extra teams that commit to spending up to the cap and watch quality improve. I suspect Toulouse could easily do it and then some. If people are complaining about lack of quality then lets get the teams that can add that quality into Super League and lets do something about it.

[Cumbrian Mackem]

19 minutes ago, Henson Park Old Firm said:

weren't the NRL going to buy up the league?

They’ve obviously got more sense.

[steve oates]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Because of the money and how the game is run theres more chance of going to 10 teams rather than 14. Now I know Leigh didn't have the best team in the championship when they were chosen but it still highlights the gulf in class and the lack of quality available that they are comfotably the worst team in SL. As has been mentioned moving to 14 teams to further waters down the product with nowhere near enough money to go around to make the best part time players even consider going full time.

I'd concur with that entirely, so for me a very good post.

The desire to go to 10 has been illustrated by top SL chairmen openly talking about it, and it going to a vote across all clubs who rejected it.

10 means kicking two out and stifling ambition below SL, 14 means spreading a smaller money pot more thinly and increasing the "also rans".

Yes all sorts of structures will be bandied about  but it's just a matter of months to the 2022 season so much too late to make major changes..... 

Looks like business as usual for my money!!

[steve oates]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Because of the money and how the game is run theres more chance of going to 10 teams rather than 14. Now I know Leigh didn't have the best team in the championship when they were chosen but it still highlights the gulf in class and the lack of quality available that they are comfotably the worst team in SL. As has been mentioned moving to 14 teams to further waters down the product with nowhere near enough money to go around to make the best part time players even consider going full time.

I'd concur with that entirely, so for me a very good post.

The desire to go to 10 has been illustrated by top SL chairmen openly talking about it, and it going to a vote across all clubs who rejected it.

10 means kicking two out and stifling ambition below SL, 14 means spreading a smaller money pot more thinly and increasing the "also rans".

Yes all sorts of structures will be bandied about  but it's just a matter of months to the 2022 season so much too late to make major changes..... 

Looks like business as usual for my money!!

[steve oates]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Because of the money and how the game is run theres more chance of going to 10 teams rather than 14. Now I know Leigh didn't have the best team in the championship when they were chosen but it still highlights the gulf in class and the lack of quality available that they are comfotably the worst team in SL. As has been mentioned moving to 14 teams to further waters down the product with nowhere near enough money to go around to make the best part time players even consider going full time.

I'd concur with that entirely, so for me a very good post.

The desire to go to 10 has been illustrated by top SL chairmen openly talking about it, and it going to a vote across all clubs who rejected it.

10 means kicking two out and stifling ambition below SL, 14 means spreading a smaller money pot more thinly and increasing the "also rans".

Yes all sorts of structures will be bandied about  but it's just a matter of months to the 2022 season so much too late to make major changes..... 

Looks like business as usual for my money!!

[Hela Wigmen]

14 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

Would be good to know the rationale behind going to 14 teams, if this was being discussed. I too don't believe we have the quality currently, and haven't had for some time IMO, and adding an additional two teams wont improve anything other than riding us of the loop fixtures.

The administration of the game really do need to get a grip on things. We really do need to reset and work out what we want to be and where we want to go with our sport.

The rationale is to lose loop fixtures, nothing more. 

Fourteen waters down the quality heavily on the pitch and we’re stuck with a plethora of meaningless games, much like now but against weaker opposition than the eleven opponents we have now. The standards off the pitch aren’t addressed. We still have no/rubbish academies, we still have games played in stadia that would look out of place in the fifth tier of English Football, we still have clubs not close to spending the full cap, we still have poor crowds, the product is poorer and therefore more difficult to change the perception of the sport, it’s burying our collective head in the sand to remove loop fixtures but not address the actual concerns and issues within the game. 

 

[Eddie]

21 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

Would be good to know the rationale behind going to 14 teams, if this was being discussed. I too don't believe we have the quality currently, and haven't had for some time IMO, and adding an additional two teams wont improve anything other than riding us of the loop fixtures.

The administration of the game really do need to get a grip on things. We really do need to reset and work out what we want to be and where we want to go with our sport.

I think it would make it more interesting, a 12 team league is too repetitive, and with an equal share of TV money the two new teams would be more competitive if done properly. 

[Eddie]

14 minutes ago, Damien said:

The low quality is a direct consequence of a ridiculously low salary cap. 10 teams isn't going to magically improve quality, just as going from 14 teams to 12 made absolutely no difference. If anything quality since then has declined even further. That is because the game has stood still, stagnated and the salary cap has declined in real terms. Even worse its declined substantially against every one of SL's competitors.

Increase the cap to £2.5 million, add 2 extra teams that commit to spending up to the cap and watch quality improve. I suspect Toulouse could easily do it and then some. If people are complaining about lack of quality then lets get the teams that can add that quality into Super League and lets do something about it.

People might be prepared to invest in clubs if the cap was higher too. 

[Robthegasman]

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Suggested by who ?

Either I imagined it or I thought it had already been announced that there would be no change from a 12 team SL at least for 2022, especially with the reduced TV deal coming into play as well.

I saw it on a Facebook group.Personally I am neither in favour or against it.But I have no doubt that things are one way or another going to change in this sport,especially with the reduced funding where I think we all know that clubs outside of Super League will get nothing,or very little at best....and considerably less than now.

[Pigeon Lofter]

17 minutes ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

Dare I say the unthinkable could even happen with our top sides turning their backs on rugby league to join the union ranks, as the union rules move closer to league I could see clubs making the business decision to move codes if there was enough money on the table as it would enable the RU to establish the professional game in the north of England

That's my take on it too, Warrington v Harlequins, St. Helens v Saracens, Leeds v Exeter Chiefs, Union takeover of northern clubs in the not too distant future unless the games administrators act swiftly and purposefully to keep League viable in the many ways where it is currently struggling. 

 

 

[EastLondonMike]

21 minutes ago, Damien said:

The low quality is a direct consequence of a ridiculously low salary cap. 10 teams isn't going to magically improve quality, just as going from 14 teams to 12 made absolutely no difference. If anything quality since then has declined even further. That is because the game has stood still, stagnated and the salary cap has declined in real terms. Even worse its declined substantially against every one of SL's competitors.

Increase the cap to £2.5 million, add 2 extra teams that commit to spending up to the cap and watch quality improve. I suspect Toulouse could easily do it and then some. If people are complaining about lack of quality then lets get the teams that can add that quality into Super League and lets do something about it.

I'm not convinced spending more money on the playing talent available will improve the comp. If the teams have that extra money to spend I think really should be spending it on improving the players coming through their systems (among other things).

[EastLondonMike]

10 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I think it would make it more interesting, a 12 team league is too repetitive, and with an equal share of TV money the two new teams would be more competitive if done properly. 

I'd honestly be interested to know how you think those new teams from the championship would become competitive with that additional money. How and where would you spend it to make them be able to compete with the top sides? Genuine question, not trying to dig you out.

And does an additional 4 extra games for a side really make it that much more interesting?

[DavidM]

from my perspective I wouldn’t be averse to looking into this but the devil is in the detail 

[Davo5]

I’d go to 14,pause promotion/relegation for 4 yrs,to give the clubs the opportunity to comply with a stringently enforced minimum standards criteria which must include stadia/youth development and spending up to a meaningfully increased salary cap.

Wont happen though we’ll just go to 10 clubs with more loop fixtures and with the same 4 or 5 clubs dominating,we’ll just have different  2 or 3 strugglers at the bottom.

[Hela Wigmen]

4 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

I’d go to 14,pause promotion/relegation for 4 yrs,to give the clubs the opportunity to comply with a stringently enforced minimum standards criteria which must include stadia/youth development and spending up to a meaningfully increased salary cap.

Wont happen though we’ll just go to 10 clubs with more loop fixtures and with the same 4 or 5 clubs dominating,we’ll just have different  2 or 3 strugglers at the bottom.

Do you think there’s 14 who would/could commit to that level of spending both in terms of what’s on the pitch and what’s off it?

[bar red]

The team that is promoted should be given a seasons grace from relegation to be able to establish themselves fairly.

[Saint Toppy]

21 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

I saw it on a Facebook group.Personally I am neither in favour or against it.But I have no doubt that things are one way or another going to change in this sport,especially with the reduced funding where I think we all know that clubs outside of Super League will get nothing,or very little at best....and considerably less than now.

So its not a suggestion then from anyone actually connected within the sport just the personal wishes of an individual, a bit like rumours & dreams on this message board.

Its not happening, at least not for 2022 and probably not 2023 either while the reduced Sky contract is in place and any change for 2024 onward will be very much dependent on the ability of the RFL to negotiate a better broadcasting deal (which to be honest I have little faith in the likes of Rimmer to be able to achieve).

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

For the professional game to survive some very important decisions and difficult decisions will have to be made which really involves a new 'Framing the Future' and needs representation from all sides of the game, including the professionals, spectators, community, as well as TV and other media outlets.

Maybe its time to really think outside of the box, for example:

• The game needs major outside investment, the reality is that nobody will invest in a lower half super league club as the financial implications of relegation make that investment unsustainable.
   
• I would propose that all professional clubs are put on notice that they have to apply to be part of a new 14 team Super League with no relegation for 5 years (minimum), to include a minimum 2 or 3 French clubs. This will allow clubs to build and invest in infrastructures without the financial fear of relegation. A full and comprehensive business plan with financial projections to show they are viable for a minimum 7 year period based on an agreed set of targets, which would include projected attendances, non-matchday income, community development plan etc. 
   
• Minimum standards for stadiums - and no exceptions unless planning permission and schedule of works has been agreed, the game can't afford another never ending cycle of broken promises by clubs in regards to new or improved stadia, and this may encourage local authorities to help by offering land or partnerships as part of wider improvement programmes. No professional organisation can survive operating on 14 match days a year!
   
• International programme ....where to start - well by taking the success of the Tri-Nations and expanding it to include emerging nations such as Western Samoa, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, maybe even try and get the State of Origin winners to travel instead of the Aussies to mix things up and make it an interesting spectacle for TV and spectators alike.
  As concept  the Tri-Nations worked in the UK, but I totally understand that the Aussies and New Zealanders wouldn't want to travel to the UK every year, hence the need to mix it up.  
   
• Academies - I think these should be abandoned and professional teams revert to Alliance team rugby with a ban on signing players on professional terms below 18 years, but with a caveat that 'Elite junior players' can play an agreed number of games as a trialist. 
   
• Academy aged players should stay with their community clubs, there should however be local weekly 'Elite Training Camps' and these players should form the backbone of Inter-Town' or District sides who could play games once a month for example and bring back representative tours such as the ones ran by BARLA  very successfully for years!
  
  Those tours put a whole host of future RL superstars in the shop window and there was no prouder moment for amateur clubs to have a player(s) selected and the subsequent fund raising that went alongside their selection.
   
• Invest in coaches at Community level - I'm not an advocate of the RFL coaching courses and never have been. I've seen too many good coaches turn their backs on the game as their ticket has lapsed and they are expected to sit through a 4 days course basically being told how to suck eggs. This part of the game more than any other needs a total overhaul, with more on-line coaching tools for novice coaches as well as regular assessments at training nights from appointed mentors to help bring on the next generation of coaches which will in turn improve the core skills of our younger players  

[Davo5]

18 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Do you think there’s 14 who would/could commit to that level of spending both in terms of what’s on the pitch and what’s off it?

I don’t know,do you,? but they would have 4 yrs to work towards it or face losing their Superleague status whilst giving any remaining championship club with ambition the chance to replace them,jbut this is simply me throwing an idea out there.

[Saint Toppy]

2 minutes ago, bar red said:

The team that is promoted should be given a seasons grace from relegation to be able to establish themselves fairly.

But that doesn't work, all it does is punish the team who finished 11th in the hope that the team who finished bottom (most likely the promoted team) can actually get their act together and survive the following year.

Look what happened to Widnes, they got relegated by finishing 11th and they never recovered.

Artificially changing the playing field to protect 1 team over another just fundamentally doesn't work. Either everyone plays under the same rules & restrictions (such as SC) or you scrap them all together and just let the strong progress and the weak fail. Or you go to licencing and only admit the strong in the first place and scrap P&R so you don't have a weak team entering the competition every year.

There's an even greater disparity between the have's and the have-not's in football but the PL doesn't have any sort of protection for the promoted team, they stand or fail on their own.

I've made my feeling known many times on this message board that I believe licencing works as a concept. It only failed last time because of the incompetence of the administrators implementing it who kept moving the goalposts year after year.

Licencing isn't a 'closed shop', it just means entry into SL would be based on more than just results on the pitch, it would mean they would have to be commercially viable as well. Plus with continued membership in SL being based on clubs continually meeting fixed KPI's every year, those that don't would just get replaced by the strongest Championship clubs who have proved that they can. Stronger Championship clubs would go up into SL and weaker SL clubs would drop out.

[Saint Toppy]

5 minutes ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

For the professional game to survive some very important decisions and difficult decisions will have to be made which really involves a new 'Framing the Future' and needs representation from all sides of the game, including the professionals, spectators, community, as well as TV and other media outlets.

Maybe its time to really think outside of the box, for example:

• The game needs major outside investment, the reality is that nobody will invest in a lower half super league club as the financial implications of relegation make that investment unworkable.
   
• I would propose that all professional clubs are put on notice that they have to apply to be part of a new 14 team Super League with no relegation for 5 years (minimum), to include a minimum 2 or 3 French clubs. This will allow clubs to build and invest in infrastructures without the financial fear of relegation. A full and comprehensive business plan with financial projections to show they are viable for a minimum 7 year period based on an agreed set of targets.
   
• Minimum standards for stadiums - and no exceptions unless planning permission and schedule of works has been agreed, the game can't afford another never ending cycle of broken promises by clubs in regards to new or improved stadia, and this may encourage local authorities to help by offering land or partnerships as part of wider improvement programmes
   
• International programme ....where to start - well by taking the success of the Tri-Nations and expanding it to include emerging nations such as Western Samoa, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, maybe even try and get the State of Origin winners to travel instead of the Aussies to mix things up and make it an interesting spectacle for TV and spectators alike.
  As concept  the Tri-Nations worked in the UK, but I totally understand that the Aussies and New Zealanders wouldn't want to travel to the UK every year, hence the need to mix it up.  
   
• Academies - I think these should be abandoned and professional teams revert to Alliance team rugby.
   
• Academy aged players should stay with their community clubs, there should however be local weekly 'Elite Training Camps' and these players should form the backbone of Inter-Town' or District sides who could play games once a month for example and bring back representative tours such as the ones ran by BARLA  very successfully for years!
  
  Those tours put a whole host of future RL superstars in the shop window and there was no prouder moment for amateur clubs to have a player(s) selected and the subsequent fund raising that went alongside their selection.
   
• Invest in coaches at Community level - I'm not an advocate of the RFL coaching courses and never have been. I've seen too many good coaches turn their backs on the game as their ticket has lapsed and they are expected to sit through a 4 days course basically being told how to suck eggs. This part of the game more than any other needs a total overhaul, with more on-line coaching tools for novice coaches as well as regular assessments at training nights from appointed mentors to help bring on the next generation of coaches which will in turn improve the core skills of our younger players  

Don't disagree with many of your points but I don't see how scrapping the Academies helps at all.

First off - who is going to run these 'Elite Training Camps' ? The professional clubs wont invest in doing this if they don't get the benefit of then having those players come through into their own team. Scrapping Academies is effectively penalising the clubs that currently do have successful academies and rewarding those that over the years quite frankly just couldn't be bothered to put in the time, effort or money.

For me a better solution is to make fully funded and well run academies a mandatory requirement for entry into SL. Using Saints as an example, they run Academy tours to Australia every 2 years to play against their NRL counterparts, and its one of the reasons given by youngsters why they choose to sign for Saints as opposed to say Warrington. Youngsters are attracted to having professional coaching every week, training in the same facilities as the 1st team players and rubbing shoulders with the players and then trips to Aus thrown in as well just makes their experience of the game that much better. They get a glimpse every week of where they can get to.

In terms of coaching, I do believe that the professional clubs do need to be doing more to help the community game. Many professional players actually do choose to still be involved with their amateur club but it would help massively if the professional clubs also helped with the coaching, either by paying for community coaches to keep their coaching up to date, or by providing coaches from within their own ranks to visit community clubs to provide coaching directly or mentoring as you suggested.

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, Davo5 said:

I don’t know,do you,? but they would have 4 yrs to work towards it or face losing their Superleague status whilst giving any remaining championship club with ambition the chance to replace them,jbut this is simply me throwing an idea out there.

I’d hazard a guess at probably not, if I was pushed. It’s a lot to commit to when the game is notoriously poor and clubs are too even over 4 years. 

[paulwalker71]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

 it's just a matter of months to the 2022 season so much too late to make major changes..... 

History shows that nothing is quite that certain in Rugby League. We've had structural changes FAR closer to the start of a new season...