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

[Davo5]

9 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

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. 

If a club can’t commit they shouldn’t be in Superleague.

[Hela Wigmen]

8 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

If a club can’t commit they shouldn’t be in Superleague.

Yet here we are with clubs paying well below the cap, playing out of stadia that would look out of place in the lower echelons of professional football, training on public parks and without academies. 

[Griff]

14 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

If a club can’t commit they shouldn’t be in Superleague.

I wouldn't bother with these English clubs.  I'd set up new clubs in places like Barcelona, Milan, New York, Dublin, Belgrade, Tokyo and Kuala Lumpur.

I'm sure it'd be a success.

[Davo5]

4 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Yet here we are with clubs paying well below the cap, playing out of stadia that would look out of place in the lower echelons of professional football, training on public parks and without academies. 

Because they’ve been allowed to,if as I suggested they had 4 yrs to get their house in order or be demoted they might actually try and do something about it.

What’s your ideas/thoughts or are you more than happy to just find faults with posters who actually contribute to this thread.

[whatmichaelsays]

If the argument for 14 teams is to get rid of loop fixtures, then there are better ways to get rid of loop fixtures. How does replacing loop fixtures with a different tranche of (likely poor quality) games encourage people who don't currently watch this sport to watch it? 

[The Frying Scotsman]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Who talks it up? I think most on here are well aware of the issues with Super League and the standard of it. However people on here are RL fans, who strangely like Rugby League, so do enjoy it all the same.

"Most" are, as you say. There are the outliers though. The blind faith brigade, who were defending the crazy blowout scores in April, and trying to tell people that Tommy Makinson is the best winger in the world when he is running through the 'defences' of Hull KR, Wakey etc.

Naming them would be a bit.... "Risky" let's say. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

If the argument for 14 teams is to get rid of loop fixtures, then there are better ways to get rid of loop fixtures. How does replacing loop fixtures with a different tranche of (likely poor quality) games encourage people who don't currently watch this sport to watch it? 

Variety for a start. People are sick of the repetitive nature of the SL season and even the games between the big clubs have lost their sparkle.

[Davo5]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

I wouldn't bother with these English clubs.  I'd set up new clubs in places like Barcelona, Milan, New York, Dublin, Belgrade, Tokyo and Kuala Lumpur.

I'm sure it'd be a success.

I’m not bothered where the teams are located,it’s about making clubs accountable by giving them the chance to improve against an enforced criteria.

[Davo5]

3 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

"Most" are, as you say. There are the outliers though. The blind faith brigade, who were defending the crazy blowout scores in April, and trying to tell people that Tommy Makinson is the best winger in the world when he is running through the 'defences' of Hull KR, Wakey etc.

Naming them would be a bit.... "Risky" let's say. 

None of that has anything to do with this thread,but nice trolling.

[The Frying Scotsman]

2 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

None of that has anything to do with this thread,but nice trolling.

He asked me which posters talk up SuperLeague.

I replied.

That's all.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

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

Indeed.

To go off on a tangent, RU had exactly the same salary cap as RL at the beginning and they then took a completely different path to RL. The strong largely dictated and they strived to get to the top and improve the competition, not go for a race to the bottom. The cap grew to stay competitive with other leagues and the weak either fell by the wayside or built themselves up. Yes, there were casualties, through their own fault in spending too much, but there have also been successes. The Exeter and Worcester's of this world were nothing a decade or two again and weren't even on a par with the likes of Salford or Wakefield. Look at them now and the crowds they get.

We took a different approach, one that was completely at odds with what went on in RL in this country for 100 years, and it has backfired big time. We stopped competing, stopped spending and believed the only competition was between the SL clubs and not with other leagues, sports and the eyes of the average sports fan. As a result our weaker clubs are still as weak, still play in the same facilities and are still making the same excuses.

In the 90s and 2000s we were competitors to RU and the NRL. Wigan, Leeds, Saints at al competed with all of them for the best rugby talent in the world. Players were paid more in the 90s than they are now, not even allowing for inflation, with a fraction of the TV funding and English RL teams wanted to be the best in the world. Somehow, we are now happy to accept our lot and become subservient to them because it suits owners of the big clubs not to spend too much as they still win everything and mop up the best youngsters anyway and because a few smaller clubs can't get their act together. Meanwhile clubs and investors that want to upset and change the status quo can’t outspend them and overcome the inherent disadvantages they have and have every barrier placed in their way. Is it any wonder fans are losing interest?

[whatmichaelsays]

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

Variety for a start. People are sick of the repetitive nature of the SL season and even the games between the big clubs have lost their sparkle.

But variety isn't, in itself, a spectacle. 

As much as I'm bored of seeing Leeds play St Helens four times a year, am I really going to be more enthused about replacing one of those four games with one against London, Featherstone or whoever else gets pulled up from the Championship? A team that has to cobble together a competitive side based on off-contract players who the other teams didn't want (or want to pay for)? No. As boring as four games a year vs St Helens is, it's still more interesting than that. 

The "variety" of that isn't going to get someone who isn't currently watching rugby league to watch rugby league. As I said, it's entirely possible to replace loop fixtures with something that people actually want to buy, rather than something that they feel compelled to turn up to through the inertia of their season ticket. 

[Hela Wigmen]

10 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Because they’ve been allowed to,if as I suggested they had 4 yrs to get their house in order or be demoted they might actually try and do something about it.

What’s your ideas/thoughts or are you more than happy to just find faults with posters who actually contribute to this thread.

Corr, you’re touchy. I wasn’t arguing against your point, just asking some more questions about your thoughts behind your idea.

Personally, I think we’re heading for 10 or 12. I don’t necessarily disagree with that either. I’d like to remove loop fixtures but Super League chairmen aren’t going to agree to 9 or 11 home games, I imagine. I’d like more importance to be on the Challenge Cup and not just win a couple of games and you’re there at the big day, like we have now. How we do that, I’m not sure. I can see why some champion group stages as there’s guaranteed home games and you can offer a third shirt that can be a cup kit, for example but it does sort of feel like re-arranging deckchairs and dressing up Hull KR v Wakefield as a group game for the Cup over a third league game a year. 

Seeing as we’re being hypothetical, I’d love to see a Super League/NRL tournament of some kind every year or two, as well. 

[Hela Wigmen]

9 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

But variety isn't, in itself, a spectacle. 

As much as I'm bored of seeing Leeds play St Helens four times a year, am I really going to be more enthused about replacing one of those four games with one against London, Featherstone or whoever else gets pulled up from the Championship? A team that has to cobble together a competitive side based on off-contract players who the other teams didn't want (or want to pay for)? No. As boring as four games a year vs St Helens is, it's still more interesting than that. 

The "variety" of that isn't going to get someone who isn't currently watching rugby league to watch rugby league. As I said, it's entirely possible to replace loop fixtures with something that people actually want to buy, rather than something that they feel compelled to turn up to through the inertia of their season ticket. 

This. 100x this. 

 

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

59 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

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

mainly because as this moment in time the game isn't in a viable position to run academy teams.

I should point out I don't have any figures to back up my argument, my observations are purely speculative and observed from a distance, so please don't castigate me as this would need to be backed up with a full study and breakdown of numbers etc.

But here goes.....

• What percentage of players signed to academies go on to make the grade at A) superleague  B) championship / league 1  or C) return to their Community club once they are too old for the academy. Has anyone from the RFL every monitored the fall out from the game at this age from Academies?
   
• How many of these players would still make the grade at professional level if they had stayed at their community club until 18 and toured with the community (BARLA) sides at U18 ?
   
• For RL to flourish it needs a strong amateur game, and plucking the elite players most of whom won't make the grade professionally reduces both the player pool and quality of player at the community level as many of those released players don't return to the sport.
   
• A professional football coach at my local side once told me that out of their junior football sides, they identify 2, possibly 3 players in a particular age group who have potential, the rest are there to make up a team for the others to play - ie: shirt fillers, and I don't think our academies are any different. 
   
• My suggestion for inter-towns and elite training should be linked between the professional and community clubs, with community coaches learning from their professional counterparts as part of the deal. This would also give clubs/areas outside of Superleague a chance to showcase young talent, something which they cannot do at present. 
  This system gives young players something to aim for and doesn't fill them with false hope that they have made it in the professional game, I would argue that the opposite happens as these players in the Intertown retain their community club links. 
   
• Rather than having the same old Wigan, Warrington, Leeds and St Helen's etc. we could have an intertown or regional competition that had representation from Cumbria, North & South Wales, London, the North East, Midlands etc. Let's be honest, a good player will always stand out, and the professional clubs managed to sign the cream of local talent pre-Academy days, young players who had already tested themselves in the open age amateur game.
   
• we do not have the luxury of unlimited players like the Aussies, and we have to accept that will always be the case. Again in my opinion, we were producing players of a much higher calibre 20-30 years ago than we are now, this despite the introduction of academies which were supposed to improve standards, when in fact they seem to have gone backwards  

[Griff]

20 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

I’m not bothered where the teams are located,it’s about making clubs accountable by giving them the chance to improve against an enforced criteria.

I think the problem is that a lot of clubs won't meet your enforced criterion and you'll be left with a $uperleague of three or four clubs.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

14 should be the target sure to the fixture schedule we currently employ. It makes sense to avoid loop fixtures.

But at present, we have neither the money nor pool of players to dip into to justify increasing the league.

Both sides have valid reasons; there is no one side fits all model and it is also completely circumstantial. If you'd have asked this question pre-pandemic, I'd have been strongly for 14 teams. Now is not the time to expand anything.

The whole world will be going into major consolidation mode after what we've all just been through.

[Spidey]

Just now, Wellsy4HullFC said:

14 should be the target sure to the fixture schedule we currently employ. It makes sense to avoid loop fixtures.

But at present, we have neither the money nor pool of players to dip into to justify increasing the league.

Both sides have valid reasons; there is no one side fits all model and it is also completely circumstantial. If you'd have asked this question pre-pandemic, I'd have been strongly for 14 teams. Now is not the time to expand anything.

The whole world will be going into major consolidation mode after what we've all just been through.

Maybe we should consolidate down to 10 or 8 then?

[Damien]

18 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

But variety isn't, in itself, a spectacle. 

As much as I'm bored of seeing Leeds play St Helens four times a year, am I really going to be more enthused about replacing one of those four games with one against London, Featherstone or whoever else gets pulled up from the Championship? A team that has to cobble together a competitive side based on off-contract players who the other teams didn't want (or want to pay for)? No. As boring as four games a year vs St Helens is, it's still more interesting than that. 

The "variety" of that isn't going to get someone who isn't currently watching rugby league to watch rugby league. 

Well no but that's not just what people have been saying they want to happen the last 2 or 3 pages either. Its not being talked about in isolation, its one problem, and enough people complain about it to indicate that it is a problem, and something that needs to change.

[The Blues Ox]

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

mainly because as this moment in time the game isn't in a viable position to run academy teams.

I should point out I don't have any figures to back up my argument, my observations are purely speculative and observed from a distance, so please don't castigate me as this would need to be backed up with a full study and breakdown of numbers etc.

But here goes.....

• What percentage of players signed to academies go on to make the grade at A) superleague  B) championship / league 1  or C) return to their Community club once they are too old for the academy. Has anyone from the RFL every monitored the fall out from the game at this age from Academies?
   
• How many of these players would still make the grade at professional level if they had stayed at their community club until 18 and toured with the community (BARLA) sides at U18 ?
   
• For RL to flourish it needs a strong amateur game, and plucking the elite players most of whom won't make the grade professionally reduces both the player pool and quality of player at the community level as many of those released players don't return to the sport.
   
• A professional football coach at my local side once told me that out of their junior football sides, they identify 2, possibly 3 players in a particular age group who have potential, the rest are there to make up a team for the others to play - ie: shirt fillers, and I don't think our academies are any different. 
   
• My suggestion for inter-towns and elite training should be linked between the professional and community clubs, with community coaches learning from their professional counterparts as part of the deal. This would also give clubs/areas outside of Superleague a chance to showcase young talent, something which they cannot do at present. 
  This system gives young players something to aim for and doesn't fill them with false hope that they have made it in the professional game, I would argue that the opposite happens as these players in the Intertown retain their community club links. 
   
• Rather than having the same old Wigan, Warrington, Leeds and St Helen's etc. we could have an intertown or regional competition that had representation from Cumbria, North & South Wales, London, the North East, Midlands etc. Let's be honest, a good player will always stand out, and the professional clubs managed to sign the cream of local talent pre-Academy days, young players who had already tested themselves in the open age amateur game.
   
• we do not have the luxury of unlimited players like the Aussies, and we have to accept that will always be the case. Again in my opinion, we were producing players of a much higher calibre 20-30 years ago than we are now, this despite the introduction of academies which were supposed to improve standards, when in fact they seem to have gone backwards  

Excellent post.

[Saint Toppy]

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

mainly because as this moment in time the game isn't in a viable position to run academy teams.

 

And I think herein lies the problem. At the moment we only have a handful of clubs who seem to be able to run successful academies, provide these youngsters with the coaching, facilities and indeed pathway into the 1st team (I'll refrain from offering up a list of clubs as it will just derail the thread into another argument, but I think we all know who the really poor clubs are).

So rather than take away from what the successful clubs are doing, everyone else should be made to bring their academies up to the same standard along with rules and incentives that then promote these youngsters through the ranks and into the 1st team. I've long since argued that there should be a reduction in the number of overseas players coupled with greater dispensations for 'home grown' players on a clubs salary cap.

There's no reason why having successful academies shouldn't distract from also having a vibrant community game. Its incumbent on all the parties (community & professional clubs) to work together in order to provide the best for young players to come into (and indeed stay) in the game, whatever the level.  

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

There's no reason why having successful academies shouldn't distract from also having a vibrant community game. Its incumbent on all the parties (community & professional clubs) to work together in order to provide the best for young players to come into (and indeed stay) in the game, whatever the level.  

But at this moment in time we have neither, so what we have now obviously isn't working as has been covered on this thread and many other of a similar ilk.

I don't think the current management at RFL board level have the a) the foresight or b) are brave enough to make the necessary changes to secure the long term future of the sport. We need a fresh set of experienced eyes to assemble a team capable of reversing the decline of the sport. Who, what or where we can find the aforementioned team is another matter completely !

Minimum standards is a perfect example. The top clubs know the RFL would back down on stadiums, as they have on every other occasion, and the clubs know this. If the threat of relegation to the Championship was real, then these clubs would have been banging on the door of their local council for help in developing facilities, but as we have seen (without mentioning names) clubs are still allowed to continue on as they were 25 years after the Framing the Future document was originally published. If these clubs were given a realistic buffer of say 3-5 years (5 years being completion of improvements) or be relegated, then I'm sure we would see some progress.

The RL supporters across the game have no confidence in the RFL leadership and that lack of confidence extends itself across all media sector which in a nutshell is why the game had to sign a reduced Sky TV deal

The game is in a complete mess from top to bottom, and as such is suffering from lack of direction, sustainability and ambition 

[The Frying Scotsman]

2 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Because they’ve been allowed to,if as I suggested they had 4 yrs to get their house in order or be demoted they might actually try and do something about it.

I have to agree with this part.

Unfortunately there is probably a shortage of clubs to replace them with 

[Oxford]

Well that's truly depressing as a thread.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

I have to agree with this part.

Unfortunately there is probably a shortage of clubs to replace them with 

Quite.