League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[LongbridgeH]

Personally I’m all for a top flight of 10, second tier of 10 and a bottom of 16. 
 

That allows a fixture list of 19 league fixtures including a magic event, Challenge Cup possibly 5 fixtures, mid season internationals possibly two, two weeks of playoffs including a relegation playoff and then at least three internationals for the end of the season. 
 

Refocus on being a summer sport rather than running the season for 10 months of the year. Less is more. 
 

Understand the issues that creates financially but player welfare is better and you’d have less chance of teams being decimated by injuries. 

[Man of Kent]

LE reporting Sky is the power behind the throne with the RFL’s proposed SL1, SL2 & 16-team third tier restructure from 2023 as they’re unhappy with the quality of SL games broadcast this season.

Seems it’s a case of shape up or Sky will ship off altogether. The proposals are said to have broad support among the clubs.

Also says the RFL is looking at creating a regular 9s comp with Super League and other clubs, as well as an independent commission involving people outside rugby league. 

https://www.totalrl.com/sky-driving-rfl-restructure/

[lucky 7]

14 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

LE reporting Sky is the power behind the throne with the RFL’s proposed SL1, SL2 & 16-team third tier restructure from 2023 as they’re unhappy with the quality of SL games broadcast this season.

Seems it’s a case of shape up or Sky will ship off altogether. The proposals are said to have broad support among the clubs.

Also says the RFL is looking at creating a regular 9s comp with Super League and other clubs, as well as an independent commission involving people outside rugby league. 

https://www.totalrl.com/sky-driving-rfl-restructure/

I know i will get berated for my opinion on this, but the decision to put Leigh into Super League has come back to haunt the game at that level.

I think the suggestion that the RFL is looking at creating a regular 9's competition as well as an independent commission involving people outside Rugby League are both good ideas, but most of us know they will never happen. Just more hot air from the RFL I'm afraid to say,

[DI Keith Fowler]

19 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

LE reporting Sky is the power behind the throne with the RFL’s proposed SL1, SL2 & 16-team third tier restructure from 2023 as they’re unhappy with the quality of SL games broadcast this season.

Seems it’s a case of shape up or Sky will ship off altogether. The proposals are said to have broad support among the clubs.

Also says the RFL is looking at creating a regular 9s comp with Super League and other clubs, as well as an independent commission involving people outside rugby league. 

https://www.totalrl.com/sky-driving-rfl-restructure/

It's no great surprise that Sky are driving it. I don't know if its as dire as made out here I think Sky know SL is a cheap but popular property, I don't see the game losing Sky's interest.

But in terms of wanting a bigger deal, or even the same level as last time, it's clear they're asking us to do 'something' to justify it. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

6 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

Toronto was an opportunity the NRL would have loved to have but instead of doing anything with it Super League took the first chance they got to throw them out while the NRL was bending over backwards to get the Warriors to fulfill their fixtures.

The NRL have dozens of expansion options, and have done for decades, and yet have only included one new side in 20 years.

Perth, Wellington, Brisbane 2, Central Coast, Christchurch, PNG. How much progress made on any of these?

 

If Toronto approached the NRL, they'd still be waiting in 2040.

[Damien]

30 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

LE reporting Sky is the power behind the throne with the RFL’s proposed SL1, SL2 & 16-team third tier restructure from 2023 as they’re unhappy with the quality of SL games broadcast this season.

Seems it’s a case of shape up or Sky will ship off altogether. The proposals are said to have broad support among the clubs.

Also says the RFL is looking at creating a regular 9s comp with Super League and other clubs, as well as an independent commission involving people outside rugby league. 

https://www.totalrl.com/sky-driving-rfl-restructure/

Well the quality certainly isn't going to get better just by dropping 2 teams and doing nothing else.

[Man of Kent]

7 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

It's no great surprise that Sky are driving it. I don't know if its as dire as made out here I think Sky know SL is a cheap but popular property, I don't see the game losing Sky's interest.

But in terms of wanting a bigger deal, or even the same level as last time, it's clear they're asking us to do 'something' to justify it. 

I like the proposals as they will raise standards in both Super League and the Championship - it’ll put competitive pressure on bare-minimum merchants like Wakefield and SL2 will be a cracking comp - while retaining the rest of the clubs with P&R. 

An independent commission might be beyond the RFL at this time but I don’t see why it wouldn’t have a stab at 9s. Maybe with the success of The Hundred it’s a short-form idea whose time has come?

[Man of Kent]

I should add I’m very much a TV punter who wants to see high-quality rugby league of an evening.

I realise speccies might be frustrated with a ten-team comp (or by having their dreams of Super League put more out of reach) but I’d imagine Sky would pick games judiciously so subscribers don’t get bored. 

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

I should add I’m very much a TV punter who wants to see high-quality rugby league of an evening.

I realise speccies might be frustrated with a ten-team comp (or by having their dreams of Super League put more out of reach) but I’d imagine Sky would pick games judiciously so subscribers don’t get bored. 

Quality does not get better just by dropping 2 teams just as it didn't going from 14 to 12.

[Tommygilf]

The 10 team Super League was advocated strongly by the current Super League chairman 7 years ago, so its unsurprising that it has come to the fore again.

A 10 team competition isn't something I am instinctively supportive of. It would have to create other IPs, such as 9s and more internationals, rather than loop fixtures, to be interesting. It would also be a self selecting sample of clubs too as the likes of Wakefield who cannot afford to have less than 13 home games will simply not be able to operate in a 10 team, 18 round league.

An 18 round comp (19 with Magic) creates opportunities for new events. 9s tournaments (as in festivals), more international games, or a rejig of the Challenge cup are all potential ways for the sport to benefit from the space created.

"Quality" being related to the number of clubs is somewhat of a misnomer. It is a threefold issue.

1. the salary cap doesn't work, as each club's pounds aren't equal. 

2. the reason some clubs don't have quality of others is because they simply do not invest enough into their squads relative to the rest of the league. This was exactly the scenario with Bradford and London in 2014. There are players of sufficient quality out there, but when, on top of having a salary cap not even half the size of the RU Premiership and the NRL, several clubs don't even spend 80% of that cap it is unsurprisingly going to impact quality. The lesson we haven't learnt from the Broncos and Bulls of 2014 is that we haven't brought in a minimum salary spend despite shrinking the number of top flight teams. You can't tell Sky they are paying for a premium product when some clubs aren't even spending 80% (roughly £1.5 Million) of the salary cap.

3. None of these things address the fundamentally small (and shrinking) player pool the game generally draws from. My personal belief is that the game needs to broaden its footprint rather than double down on already shrinking and over-fished markets. This has a huge impact on quality as was highlighted by the recent RFL academies review.

Obviously all these points are interlinked. Its no surprise that the clubs who generate the biggest revenues and spend the most money also invest more in recruiting from places not on their own doorstep both in their academies and their first teams for example. What really must be insisted on for quality to improve is raising minimum standards. 

Equally, what the sport absolutely has to be is strategic. A major restructure cannot be left to chance like musical chairs. If we are going to have a clear division between the Professional and Semi Professional game too, then this absolutely needs to be strategically thought through with a long term vision for where they want the sport to be in 20/30 plus years. For example, to me, given the attitude of the NRL, it would seem obvious that strengthening the game outside of England must paradoxically be a priority for the RFL and this therefore should be worked into the strategy going forwards.

If they are just cutting numbers to give a bigger slice of the pie to the current top table and would just add whoever happened to be the top 8 Championship clubs arbitrarily to "SL2" then this will fail.

[DimmestStar]

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

LE reporting Sky is the power behind the throne with the RFL’s proposed SL1, SL2 & 16-team third tier restructure from 2023 as they’re unhappy with the quality of SL games broadcast this season.

 

How SKY can be unhappy with the quality of Super League but drool over the abject dross that was South Africa v Lions...................I'm amazed.

[Man of Kent]

27 minutes ago, Damien said:

Quality does not get better just by dropping 2 teams just as it didn't going from 14 to 12.

I think it will, actually. With ten teams there’s no deadwood clubs content to cut their cloth to the Sky ‘dole money’ because it’ll require spending full salary cap - or as near as dammit - to stay in it. 

Won’t happen instantly, but the cream will rise to the top.

[Smudger06]

If there are only 18 or 19 League games then Clubs can commit to putting out their best sides in a 9s Comp, a series with several tournaments, I'm seriously coming round to the idea so long as they don't drop it after 1 or 2 seasons and they have less league games which would enable them to chuck out decent 9s matchday squads. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

How SKY can be unhappy with the quality of Super League but drool over the abject dross that was South Africa v Lions...................I'm amazed.

Short answer. Union is much bigger so they are willing to tolerate it. Same reason why they'll show a dull 0-0 draw between two Big 6 clubs and ignore an entertaining game between Leeds and Aston Villa.

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

I think it will, actually. With ten teams there’s no deadwood clubs content to cut their cloth to the Sky ‘dole money’ because it’ll require spending full salary cap - or as near as dammit - to stay in it. 

Won’t happen instantly, but the cream will rise to the top.

That doesn't improve quality. How does getting rid of Leigh and Wakefield, based on current standings, improve quality of the other 10?

[Ooh Ah Timmy Street]

13 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

If there are only 18 or 19 League games then Clubs can commit to putting out their best sides in a 9s Comp, a series with several tournaments, I'm seriously coming round to the idea so long as they don't drop it after 1 or 2 seasons and they have less league games which would enable them to chuck out decent 9s matchday squads. 

There’s no way they’ll drop to 19 games surely . 
It would be three rounds 9x H,  9 x A plus loops 4 home, 4 away and magic = 27 

would love to be wrong though !

[Man of Kent]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

That doesn't improve quality. How does getting rid of Leigh and Wakefield, based on current standings, improve quality of the other 10?

As I say, they’ll have to spend more money to stay in it so better players will play in it. 

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

As I say, they’ll have to spend more money to stay in it so better players will play in it. 

They won't have more money to spend though unless the salary cap increases.

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

It's no great surprise that Sky are driving it. I don't know if its as dire as made out here I think Sky know SL is a cheap but popular property, I don't see the game losing Sky's interest.

But in terms of wanting a bigger deal, or even the same level as last time, it's clear they're asking us to do 'something' to justify it. 

Of course they are.  If I recall correctly the 2-year deal they recently signed has a proviso that SL has to demonstrate its value to Sky during that time.

[Man of Kent]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

They won't have more money to spend though unless the salary cap increases.

Well, some SL clubs could spend full cap and sign two marquees if they aren’t already. 

But yes, the cap may have to rise in time and that wouldn’t be a necessarily undesirable outcome given the low starting point. 

[Damien]

22 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Well, some SL clubs could spend full cap and sign two marquees if they aren’t already. 

But yes, the cap may have to rise in time and that wouldn’t be a necessarily undesirable outcome given the low starting point. 

So cutting 2 teams makes no difference to quality. Clubs could already do that.

[Cake Tiger]

Isn't it about time we had a top division of 14, a middle division of 8 and then a bottom division of 14. 

One for the oldies out there 

[Man of Kent]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

So cutting 2 teams makes no difference to quality. Clubs could already do that.

Yet they don’t. That’s why Wakefield (sorry to pick on them but they don’t exactly put the Super in Super League) have been able to get away with spending under the cap for so long. If they were more clubs who could spend big they would have to follow suit or get relegated. 

With 10 clubs I believe you ratchet up the competitive pressure to a point where the clubs who can only afford to be in Super League by being in Super League (if you follow me) would make way for those who can spend full cap (or at least near it). 

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

3. None of these things address the fundamentally small (and shrinking) player pool the game generally draws from. My personal belief is that the game needs to broaden its footprint rather than double down on already shrinking and over-fished markets. This has a huge impact on quality as was highlighted by the recent RFL academies review.

It's this. We're literally running out of people in all areas of the game. At one extreme we have games cancelled in the top tier of the women's game because overstretched volunteers have no more time to give to be the medical cover and, at the other, an England team who cannot find genuine national opponents to play. In between, all manner of nonsense and increasing irrelevance.

I'm not convinced a ten team top division comprising names we already know, doing exactly what they do now but with a little bit more money, and with the added 'benefit' of exactly these same teams controlled by exactly the same people running a 9s tournament that'll last one season, is going to make any difference to the issues the whole game faces.

[LongbridgeH]

The player pool is an argument against it. You’d like to think though that 10 teams at the top tier would be required to be top academies. It would take a couple of years to rebalance 

I think player availability and welfare is forgotten here, the intense of the game has racked up (not necessarily for the better) and injuries are increasing. COVID has proven when teams are short of 5 or more players, the quality drops off considerably. Less fixtures can increase the available recovery time. 
 

Also talking of the women’s game, if there’s a reduction in the number of home fixtures due to a SL reformatting. All clubs should be looking hosting their women’s team at their home ground with the same presentation of their male team.