League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[David Dockhouse Host]

12 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

No.

Quote from the article:

"Crucially, the gulf in distribution money between the two competitions would be significantly reduced. It's hoped that will make promotion and relegation more sustainable for clubs moving between the two divisions, while also closing the funding gap for the part-time clubs that would be in the second-tier."

I guess that's inevitable not enough cash.

Still have a big issue with Pro Releg, and I imagine too many repeat games 

 

[wiganermike]

8 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

Coming into this thread late,I see that 2 division Super League of 10 clubs has been talked about rather as I thought.

My questions are what is the criteria going to be for which clubs go into which division?

 And if we are going down this route then what happens to the clubs that don’t make the final cut?

 

This year no relegation in SL, 2 promoted from Champ to give us 14 in SL, 12 in Champ, 10 in L1 in 2022. In 2022 4 relegated from SL, top 6 in Champ remain in second tier, bottom 6 in Champ relegated to L1. In 2023 we then have 10 in SL1, 10 in SL2 and 16 in L1. This is one proposal being discussed, there is a link to an article by Matthew Shaw explaining it early on in this thread, there are other proposals but this is the only one described with any detail in the article.

[JohnM]

https://www.superleague.co.uk/article/2152/statement-|-focused-on-the-future

[sweaty craiq]

Well it’s taken them too long to see sense, and Sky will love the 2 tens for the next tv deal. SL will have 2 games per week From each comp and we get an increased tv deal and a new knock out comp for extra income with the season kicking off with the CC. I would have preferred an extra french club or two in the mix though

[Harry Stottle]

5 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Calling the Championship "SL2" isn't going to make a difference.

All that we're doing is shrinking the SL.

This sport is going absolutely no where.

They would also be shrinking the Championship to a very competitive league, as it stands at the moment the Championship is two divisions in one to many easy games for some clubs, also the standard of SL should increase there would not be to many easy games in that division.

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, The Future is League said:

So they replaced Toronto

Toronto had already gone bust and a spot was vacant, so they filled the spot that was vacant as Toronto as an entity had gone

[The Future is League]

1 minute ago, sweaty craiq said:

Toronto had already gone bust and a spot was vacant, so they filled the spot that was vacant as Toronto as an entity had gone

And that's worked out well for expansion. Having a team from a suburb in Wigan in Super League

[Man of Kent]

So let’s say in 2023 we have:

Leeds
Saints
Wigan
Wire
Catalans
Hull
Hull KR
Cas
Huddersfield
Salford

and

Wakefield
Leigh
Toulouse
Fev
London
Bradford
Halifax
York
Newcastle
Widnes

Instantly, both comps are more competitive - ‘SL2’ considerably more so than the Champ.

The impact on ‘SL1’ *should* be a virtuous circle where more/all clubs have to spend full cap just to survive - which in turn should should mean better players in SL1, higher quality matches and more intensity. 

[Hela Wigmen]

46 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

My post was about the number of teams, not about stadiums and academy ect. Those are different topics and need addressing but not directly impacted by this, the academy process has just played out separately.

Watering down the product- we could go to 8 teams, wouldn't that be better? Better standard of games?

I enjoy watching RL at all levels and ages. I can enjoy championship games more than SL, I enjoy local amatuer games, these can be great to watch and engaging for the fans. The argument is standard is therefore a red herring for me, if I'm supporting a team I want them to win, I get emotionally involved in the game, I support the players I want them to do well, if they are not as good as NRL players it doesn't change any of that. 

By reducing teams to improve product your selling potential teams down the river with less hope of returning stronger. It's a business failure to do so.

Meaningless games - no game is meaningless, players don't know the difference when on the pitch, it's a game of rugby you cannot be half hearted you have to go for it. Fans want their team to win, the only true way to have games with full meaning is a knock out cup competition. Any league structure will always have some games with apparent 'less' meaning, 8,12,16,22 teams will all have some games like this, looking to eliminate than is another red herring as your wasting effort and time chasing something that is inherent in any league structure.

The product is simply a group of teams playing each other, many people overthink this assuming the structure is the reason we don't compete with NRL or premiership footy, not always helpful to compare.

If you can’t see that those other things I mention are an important part of any structure change then I really don’t know what to say. All of those issues exist, we must acknowledge these if we’re changing structure (again) but most likely we won’t (again) and the powers that be and clubs will stand around in 18 months wondering why so many issues exist (again).

To water down a product further by adding two more sides is just very Rugby League. It’s short sighted and it helps nobody at all and solves no issue with the game bar the removal of loop fixtures. It actually adds to the issues we have.

I regularly watch amateur games too and occasionally watch Widnes or even rarer watch Leigh, as they had Saints players on dual reg. I can still see and understand that the standard of Rugby League, especially that of Super League is not particularly high onfield.

As for meaningless games, we have plenty. Twenty-seven to thirty bloody rounds some years in Super League so it’s absolutely jam packed with nothing games, whether it’s three or four games against the same team, playing teams who are clearly out of their depth in an apparent “elite” level or just filler games waiting for the actual rugby to start again. There’s only so many meaningless games of an average quality (if you’re that lucky) that you can watch before it gets a bit boring, Saints’ 2019 season was very much like that. We were in the play-offs very early on in the year but we had easily 10+ games, largely, of going through the motions while we waited for the play-offs. Even as a Saints fan, it was a bit monotonous eventually and just felt like Friendlies in the build up to the play-offs. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

12 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

So let’s say in 2023 we have:

Leeds
Saints
Wigan
Wire
Catalans
Hull
Hull KR
Cas
Huddersfield
Salford

and

Wakefield
Leigh
Toulouse
Fev
London
Bradford
Halifax
York
Newcastle
Widnes

Instantly, both comps are more competitive - ‘SL2’ considerably more so than the Champ.

The impact on ‘SL1’ *should* be a virtuous circle where more/all clubs have to spend full cap just to survive - which in turn should should mean better players in SL1, higher quality matches and more intensity. 

How many times do they play each other?

[sweaty craiq]

It’s not watering down is Darwin’s approach to survival, IF this is implemented ASAP the clubs with cash will stack their squads with the best they can find and build from there, with luck this could see the salary cap raised massively in SL1 forcing clubs to secure income to compete and taking the game forward

[nadera78]

25 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Well it’s taken them too long to see sense, and Sky will love the 2 tens for the next tv deal. SL will have 2 games per week From each comp and we get an increased tv deal and a new knock out comp for extra income with the season kicking off with the CC. I would have preferred an extra french club or two in the mix though

Continually asserting that Sky are going to pay money for the second tier (whatever name you give it) just ignores 25 years of history. No-one, and I mean no-one, has ever paid for tier 2 RL broadcast rights. They're not worth a penny.

[Toby Chopra]

Too many unknowns to really make a judgement, and if course its just one option, probably leaked for strategic reason by one of the factions. 

The one thing that doesn't add up to me in the article, though, is the mention of significantly reducing the funding gap between tier one and two. The TV deal is worth millions less, so there's no more money to boost tier two payments. (Even if you assume tier 3 will now get next to nothing, it doesn't remotely make up the fall in TV revenue.) 

So the only way to close the funding gap between SL1 and SL2 is to significantly cut the top tier distribution. And I think we all know that ain't happening, nor should it because we don't want the weaker SL teams falling even further behind the salary cap. 

[Man of Kent]

7 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

It’s not watering down is Darwin’s approach to survival, IF this is implemented ASAP the clubs with cash will stack their squads with the best they can find and build from there, with luck this could see the salary cap raised massively in SL1 forcing clubs to secure income to compete and taking the game forward

Indeed. It would unleash competitive forces in ways fixed ‘East M62’ and ‘West M62’ conferences wouldn’t, in SL2 as well as SL1.

[Harry Stottle]

The best thing about this reorganisation which the Salop Bovine is totally against is that League positioning and selection will be based on ongoing on-field performance through P&R and non of this protected from relegation tripe he is so fond of.

If it does go through there is no guarantee of any club in next season's championship finishing in the top 6 and that includes Newcastle and York, should be a very exiting Championship next year.

 

 

[David Dockhouse Host]

9 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

If you can’t see that those other things I mention are an important part of any structure change then I really don’t know what to say. All of those issues exist, we must acknowledge these if we’re changing structure (again) but most likely we won’t (again) and the powers that be and clubs will stand around in 18 months wondering why so many issues exist (again).

To water down a product further by adding two more sides is just very Rugby League. It’s short sighted and it helps nobody at all and solves no issue with the game bar the removal of loop fixtures. It actually adds to the issues we have.

I regularly watch amateur games too and occasionally watch Widnes or even rarer watch Leigh, as they had Saints players on dual reg. I can still see and understand that the standard of Rugby League, especially that of Super League is not particularly high onfield.

As for meaningless games, we have plenty. Twenty-seven to thirty bloody rounds some years in Super League so it’s absolutely jam packed with nothing games, whether it’s three or four games against the same team, playing teams who are clearly out of their depth in an apparent “elite” level or just filler games waiting for the actual rugby to start again. There’s only so many meaningless games of an average quality (if you’re that lucky) that you can watch before it gets a bit boring, Saints’ 2019 season was very much like that. We were in the play-offs very early on in the year but we had easily 10+ games, largely, of going through the motions while we waited for the play-offs. Even as a Saints fan, it was a bit monotonous eventually and just felt like Friendlies in the build up to the play-offs. 

For clarity, I'm not saying those things are not important I just don't see that they directly impact league structure at elite level, spending time considering those things rather than the main topic could become distracting. All of those things are important and need to be considered but not at the expense of concentrating on the main topic, which is league structure at the top of the game. That is what funds those other things you mention, so if that isn't right the other things will struggle anyway, get the elite right and the rest should be easier to improve.

My points stand over structure and I believe reducing teams is watering down IMO not improving, more teams, more opportunities for our academy players etc.

2 leagues of 10 as a Super League 1 and 2 I could see, if they had a way of removing loop fixtures which I believe are less attractive than a 13th and 14th team.

Your point about meaningless games leading to play offs is another point, I like the play offs but a reduction in overall teams in the league means top 6 is easier to achieve, fewer teams should be reflected in the amount of teams entering play offs.

I understood why they did the middle 8s, that was supposed to fix meaningless games but in reality it didn't work, wasn't attractive and I really didn't like it.

The premiership football league has one winner, if knowing your not going to win or go down they would have many many meaningless games but I just don't see it. People say there is money for every league position but that matter little to a player on the pitch, they work hard as this is their job, they need to answer to fans watching etc. Those are greater motivators 

It appears we won't see eye to eye on this, I respect your view, I'll continue to reflect on your points but for now I don't see it your way.

[JM2010]

What happens between SL2 and League 1? Is there P&R or is it a closed shop?

[David Dockhouse Host]

20 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

Continually asserting that Sky are going to pay money for the second tier (whatever name you give it) just ignores 25 years of history. No-one, and I mean no-one, has ever paid for tier 2 RL broadcast rights. They're not worth a penny.

Harsh truth

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

Amazing how much hot air can be generated by one journalist's uncorroborated tweet!

[Mr Frisky]

44 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

Continually asserting that Sky are going to pay money for the second tier (whatever name you give it) just ignores 25 years of history. No-one, and I mean no-one, has ever paid for tier 2 RL broadcast rights. They're not worth a penny.

What about when TWP played in Lg1??

[gingerjon]

58 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

It’s not watering down is Darwin’s approach to survival

You do know that when Darwin talked of "survival of the fittest" he didn't mean the strongest?

[Hela Wigmen]

25 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

Amazing how much hot air can be generated by one journalist's uncorroborated tweet!

Johnny Davidson is hands down the best journalist we have in this country reporting on Rugby League. He’s no Shaw or Bower, he’s the real deal. 

[fighting irish]

On 30/07/2021 at 14:23, Harry Stottle said:

Give your crystal ball another rub, and personal message me tonights lottery numbers.

And, I don't have a scarecrow to put anywhere, ask Fighting Irish he thinks he is Dorothy from the Wiz.

My Ruby Slippers are all I've got left, my reversible throbatron is not what it was.

[Johnny Ringo]

1 hour ago, wiganermike said:

No clubs will be cut in order to get to the proposed structure. We currently have 12 in SL, 14 in Championship and 10 in League 1. Next season we will have 14 in SL, 12 in Championship and 10 in League 1 (no mention made of a change in P&R between Champ and L1 this year so I assume the number of teams in L1 will stay the same next year). The 16 teams in League 1 in 2023 will be the 10 that were there in 2022 plus the bottom 6 in the 2022 Championship.

There has been no recent mention of plans to introduce Ottawa into our leagues still progressing (other than Eric Perez answering a question about it prior to the collapse of the NARL project. He said it was still in their plans to enter League 1 in addition to NARL) and no mention at all of a return for TWP so I don't think either will figure in the RFL/SL system earlier than 2024 if they ever do at all. Given the reluctance and resistance to TWP being accepted as part of the UK system I think they (NA clubs) would be better off establishing a semi pro comp in Canada/USA and building up in that way. Either that or join the USARL.

Thank you for that. 

My main concern for the 16 league set up is that with no significant funding and extremely low attendances  then several teams will not last long. 

[dkw]

15 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You do know that when Darwin talked of "survival of the fittest" he didn't mean the strongest?

It's amazing how many people misinterpreted that quote. It was always about the species that could adapt and change to its environment. Quote apt at the moment really.