League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[LeytherRob]

33 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

What about when TWP played in Lg1??

Didn't TWP pay for all the broadcasting costs and basically give it to Sky etc? Didn't they still owe thousands in unpaid costs to the production company they hired to do so when they went pop?

[Griff]

7 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Didn't TWP pay for all the broadcasting costs and basically give it to Sky etc? Didn't they still owe thousands in unpaid costs to the production company they hired to do so when they went pop?

I vote yes.

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour 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.

Yet this pie in the sky thinking still continually reasonates within the corridors of power. The sport lacks leadership; or at least talking truth to power. I simply cannot fathom how so many supposed clever people cannot the structures are not the issue in the sport; that changing them is some form of magical cure for the game's ills in the NH. Staggering.

[Mr Frisky]

11 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Didn't TWP pay for all the broadcasting costs and basically give it to Sky etc? Didn't they still owe thousands in unpaid costs to the production company they hired to do so when they went pop?

No idea - that's why I was asking.

So we both don't know.

[Adelaide Tiger]

Although I applaud some different thinking I do not see how 2 leagues of 10 with P&R can work financially. What sense is there in teams accepting an equal or smaller slice of the pie than at the moment but losing 4 home games?  Also the option of playing each other 3 times to compensate is not attractive at all.

So IMHO a 2 x 10 Conference system is a more attractive option with a 27 game season (home and away in their league then play each tram in the other league once) with the possibility of 2 Magic Weekends with 10 teams at each event so hold these events in areas identified for growth.

But this option would require a heck of a lot of goodwill and compromise from SL clubs as ALL 20 clubs will have an equal share of the TV money.  No doubt some of the bigger clubs may be able to absorb the reduction in TV money but some SL clubs would have to release players to teams that will have increased their turnover from a greater share of TV money than they get at present. One positive consequence is that this should initially produce a closer competition.

One way to let ALL clubs generate greater income would be to scrap the Salary Cap and let teams spend an agreed percentage of turnover. Some clubs would be at a disadvantage but we have seen that the tail wagging the dog has not worked.  BUT, if this approach is adopted it makes ALL clubs more attractive for an investor as their money can be invested in building a stronger team as well off field infrastructure.  We saw with Koucash how frustrated he was that his millions made diddly squat in what Salford could spend on players and IMHO that restrictiveness is keeping investors out of the sport.

 

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

 

What happens next year then if Toulouse go up,  have 3 big games against Catalan and then we bin them off to play Batley again?

At least that way teams like York Toulouse and Newcastle can grow organically with exposure to bigger teams as a draw and Sky get plenty of rivalry games back.

They might not be binned off to play Batley again because the new structure risks sending one of the best run teams in RL in Batley in to the third tier. Although because its not fashionable to have a well run team without a big money backer in RL and rather be self sustainable, will anyone care?

As for the 2nd part 2 of those 3 teams run a very real risk of not even making the 2nd tier.

 

 

[ATLANTISMAN]

This idea will at least keep most happy and in 1 season I think create the near perfect SL.

As for SKY showing SL 2 when they used to show the championship we had some very enjoyable matches on TV.

What is not being discussed on here is the fact that SKY have lost an awful lot of Rugby Union the Celtic League (Original name) which will now have extra clubs from SA is staying on Premier Sports and they do not seem interested in taking the Championship back (The contract ran out last year) SL 2 (Championship) is the perfect fit for SKY to keep a decent amount of Rugby content on.

Paul

 

[Harry Stottle]

42 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

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

 No Toto, what's happened to Toto?

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours 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. 

I must say I really can't wait for this new structure to happen, nothing makes me want to watch my team more than going from challenging for a spot in SL to being in a relegation battle to go in to an obscure tier 3. 

[Damien]

35 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

This idea will at least keep most happy and in 1 season I think create the near perfect SL.

As for SKY showing SL 2 what not they used to show the championship and we used to have some very enjoyable matches on TV.

What is not being discussed on here is the fact that SKY have lost an awful lot of Rugby Union the Celtic League (Original name) which will now have extra clubs from SA is staying on Premier Sports and they do not seem interested in taking the Championship back (The contract race out last year) SL 2 (Championship) is the perfect fit for SKY to keep a decent amount of Rugby content on.

Paul

 

Its far from a near perfect Super League and is boring and repetitive. 14 to 12 saw none of these mythical improvements in standards. There are far more fundamental things wrong than thinking cutting numbers will increase standards. It's a very lazy argument.

Sky don't pay money for the Championship. No TV provider really has. Certainly no one has ever paid close to the funding that the Championship gets. As such spending large amounts is dead money that brings no additional value to the TV deal.

What Sky do pay for is Super League. Siphoning money from this to placate everyone else creates a poorer product and one less attractive to Sky. Sky are now paying less as a result. The game hasn't learned anything from its mistakes in the last TV deal.

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

I must say I really can't wait for this new structure to happen, nothing makes me want to watch my team more than going from challenging for a spot in SL to being in a relegation battle to go in to an obscure tier 3. 

You may not, but I would as a TV punter

[Hela Wigmen]

17 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

What about when TWP played in Lg1??

Did Sky pay for them? I thought they were on Premier Sports when they were in Leahue 

 

45 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

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.

Building your structure based on sand (ie, clubs with no infrastructure, academy, terrible stadium) is a direct link to any structure, IMO. 

We have so few clubs with competent academies (no matter how much some clubs stamp their feet and tweet “elite”) and subsequent pathways, awful stadia, semi-professional status whether they’re professional in name only, underspending and poor squads that adding two more teams, for me, is pointless. The proverbial pint of Carling (I use Carling because of its qualities as a rubbish lager) is then combined with water to weaken its standing further, IMO. For me, a fourteen team league only serves to remove loop games and doesn’t strengthen the competition and will end up within a year of its introduction of people complaining of blow outs, average teams and far greater disparity in league tables than we currently see, much like we got during the fourteen team Super League era ten or so years ago. 

For me, ten is the perfect number at the minute. Ideally, I’d like to see it grow to twelve and fourteen and beyond but I won’t get ahead of myself of proclaim anyone in particular are this era’s golden goose but I think a reset, especially given a pandemic, a reduced TV deal and the general apathy in the game, is key and stepping back is the way to move forward. Thirty six clubs is phenomenal really but some tough decisions need to be made and I say that as someone who’s watched a decent amount of lower league rugby and spent many an afternoon at Uni watching Swinton or Oldham and tradition is great but it doesn’t keep the sport alive. 

The next step is our or necessity not some misguided messing about for the sake of it and it needs to be pretty radical given the state of the game and the state of the world right now.

Ten, for me, is perfect for that providing we don’t insist on loop fixtures. I’d go for twenty regular season games maximum, based on playing nine at home one year that alternates to ten the following year, with Magic Weekend included. That leaves ample space for international games, which we must now realise is up to us to push, promote and grow and we’d have plenty of windows to play France, Combined Nations, Wales etc. It also leaves plenty of space for other things. The Challenge Cup can have a bit more of a focus on it, if someone wants to make group stages for it and push merchandise on “cup kits” then so be it, if they want to keep it as a knockout then so be it. If 9s is the new thing, there’s space for that. If another tournament is the plan, so be it. 

[The Blues Ox]

3 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

You may not, but I would as a TV punter

I totally agree that relegation really adds some drama and excitment to any tv deal but for me as a fan of a club that is not anywhere near involved involved in a relegation battle and stands currently as the 3rd best team outside of SL, I still have a dream that we could make SL in the next couple of seasons or so no matter how unrealistic that is. To suddenly turn that in to a possible relegation battle does nothing to make me want to pay my money on the gate, something I have done for the last 30 years.

[Harry Stottle]

15 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Yep.  Dewsbury well run too with their 3g pitches so will strip them of their games vs Bradford.  

Awful decision for me.

As I said before the race to finish in the top 6 is not guaranteed for any club, may the best 6 get through to SL2 it will be on their own efforts with on field performances, all done with no influence from the suits sat around a table making a decision who should be in whichever division.

Assuming that Tolouse and Fev will be in SL next season, I will stick my neck out and say the 6 in no particular order will be:-

Halifax, Bradford, Widnes, Batley, Whitehaven and York.

[JM2010]

33 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I must say I really can't wait for this new structure to happen, nothing makes me want to watch my team more than going from challenging for a spot in SL to being in a relegation battle to go in to an obscure tier 3. 

No disrespect but Halifax aren't an SL contender

[LeytherRob]

54 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

No idea - that's why I was asking.

So we both don't know.

It was a rhetorical question, we know that is the case because the production company in Canada they were supposed to be paying to film the games came out publicly to state they were owed monies. 

[The Blues Ox]

38 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

No disrespect but Halifax aren't an SL contender

In what sense? Well run, nice stadium, competitive team, modern rebrand. Give us an extra 1m for the last 10 years and I don't think we are in any worse shape than any of the relegation candidates. Same could be said for Fev, Batley and maybe a couple of others. Yes we don't want teams that can simply swap in like for like but who is to say if we were given promotion in 2010 we would be in a worse position than some teams in SL now?

[Johnny Ringo]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

I totally agree that relegation really adds some drama and excitment to any tv deal but for me as a fan of a club that is not anywhere near involved involved in a relegation battle and stands currently as the 3rd best team outside of SL, I still have a dream that we could make SL in the next couple of seasons or so no matter how unrealistic that is. To suddenly turn that in to a possible relegation battle does nothing to make me want to pay my money on the gate, something I have done for the last 30 years.

 But beating teams week in week out who you feel you should be easily beating is OK? Surely the challenge of staying in a SL 2 is the idea and if you are relegated then it's because the new tier 3 is probabiy your true level and therefore you build and fight to go up again? 

[JM2010]

I meant as in promotion contenders.

I'm a Fax fan and would love to see us competing in SL. Are we well run because we're not in SL though? We get to SL and it all goes wrong usually 

[The Blues Ox]

1 minute ago, Johnny Ringo said:

 But beating teams week in week out who you feel you should be easily beating is OK? Surely the change of staying in a SL 2 is the idea and if you are relegated then it's because the new tier 3 is probabiy your true level and therefore you build and fight to go up again? 

Its ok if we have earnt it in the current structure which we have. As a club we are at a point where we should be in a position to challenge for a spot in SL over the next few years. A structure change sets our club back years and as a fan it makes it less appealing than it already is.

[The Blues Ox]

9 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

I meant as on promotion contenders.

I'm a Fax fan and would love to see us competing in SL. Are we well run because we're not in SL though. We get to SL and it all goes wrong usually 

Id agree that the top 2 on the field are some distance better than the rest but with the format as it is and us sat nicely in 3rd place Id say we are contenders. If they make it 2 up this year then I think we are in with a very serious chance of gaining promotion with some shrewd player decsions later in the season.

Thats where some important decisions come in for the RFL as well as they won't make it top 2 goes up. I think if Toulouse win this weekend they will make it top automatic and a 5 team playoff structure. If Fev win I expect them to keep the 6 team play off structure if they did decide to go down the 2 promoted route.

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No it isnt but its ###### regardless. Outside bottom two this year champ is fine.  Plus Barrow and whoever else comes up will be stronger.  

And next year no promotion? Awful. 

Top 6 next year if I had to guess is : Widnes, Bulls, York, Newcastle, Fax plus one. 

Unfortunately I do not see Newcastle being in the top 6, Barrow could be a wild card and as I said Batley and Whitehaven.

[Johnny Ringo]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Its ok if we have earnt it in the current structure which we have. As a club we are at a point where we should be in a position to challenge for a spot in SL over the next few years. A structure change sets our club back years and as a fan it makes it less appealing than it already is.

So you want to go up but fear going back down as you have done so much to go up?

Isn't that how it's meant to be? 

[JM2010]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Unfortunately I do not see Newcastle being in the top 6, Barrow could be a wild card and as I said Batley and Whitehaven.

Who are your top 6 Harry?

[The Blues Ox]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Unfortunately I do not see Newcastle being in the top 6, Barrow could be a wild card and as I said Batley and Whitehaven.

Yeah as much as I don't think a team should be placed in a division I still think its a shame to stifle any progress a team could be making but I agree, Newcastle and York or maybe both theres a good chance one of them misses out on the top 6 if that change came.