Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It was Chris Jones, for the paper Martyn is editor of. And the headline is misleading, the article supports my view that the 10 team proposal is from the sport in response to Sky's position.

 

https://www.totalrl.com/get-ready-for-another-reorganisation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=get-ready-for-another-reorganisation

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It was Chris Jones, for the paper Martyn is editor of. And the headline is misleading, the article supports my view that the 10 team proposal is from the sport in response to Sky's position.

 

Indeed. Sky are only driving he move to 10 in the sense that they've *already* cut the amount that they're paying for Superleague, and have told the RFL to improve the product or it could be even less/nothing in just 2 years time. 

RFL/SL are on the clock to preserve the English professional game, and with fewer resources to do it. This, it appears, is its response. Longer term issues remain, but in terms of signing a new contract in just 2 years or less, this makes sense to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this new structure comes to pass there's going to be some squeaky bums in the 2022 season. You'd think the 2 newly promoted teams (likely Featherstone & Toulouse) will end up in the bottom 4, along side Leigh, leaving 1 drop spot left. HKR seem to be building just at the right time so Wakey & Salford look most in danger.

For me Toulouse are the big unknown so it could be that 3 current SL teams end up going down ?

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

If this new structure comes to pass there's going to be some squeaky bums in the 2022 season. You'd think the 2 newly promoted teams (likely Featherstone & Toulouse) will end up in the bottom 4, along side Leigh, leaving 1 drop spot left. HKR seem to be building just at the right time so Wakey & Salford look most in danger.

For me Toulouse are the big unknown so it could be that 3 current SL teams end up going down ?

And they'll all be desperate to get back so they'll overspend. Only one goes up so two stay down, having stretched themselves to the limit. Maybe beyond the limit.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

They thought the same thing about quality going from 14 to 12. 

Its nonsense!

Too be honest I never understand that their isn't enough quality.... unless the SL academies are not doing a good enough job. Every year their is X new players coming through, so every year times that X is a number of players that can be further coached... that's a fair number after so many years... 

Seems to me the less SL clubs we have must mean more academy SL players are discarded from SL... or are just fillers in a large squad not getting paid much nor coached extensively until they can be swapped out with more low paid academy players...

Its all nuts to me...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Too be honest I never understand that their isn't enough quality.... unless the SL academies are not doing a good enough job. Every year their is X new players coming through, so every year times that X is a number of players that can be further coached... that's a fair number after so many years... 

Seems to me the less SL clubs we have must mean more academy SL players are discarded from SL... or are just fillers in a large squad not getting paid much nor coached extensively until they can be swapped out with more low paid academy players...

Its all nuts to me...

 

Quota's and academies is part of the overall quality problem for me. Clubs sign fairly average overseas players who have already reached their potential and will never be anything more than average. But with the threat of relegation for some and the over-riding desire to win trophies for others signing these kind of players is preferable for many clubs to bringing through their own academy players and giving them a chance to establish themselves in the 1st team. I'm sure given a decent chance more academy players would establish themselves and go on to improve to be something far better than the average overseas players (thus improving the overall quality of the competition). But there's little desire, or incentive for this to happen under the current rules.

If we want an improvement in quality the lower the quota number to say 3 or 4 and have a rule that says these players must have played at least 75-80 first team games in the NRL.

It should also have a rule on the number of your own academy players in your Top 25 squad (say 13 or 14) which would force clubs to invest in them more, and couple this with a greater SC dispensation for your home grown (say only 75% counts on the cap for every home grown player).

You'll still get some journeymen players coming to SL but they will be in far less numbers and it will weed out the low quality ones who weren't good enough to establish themselves in the NRL in the first place. Having the SC Home grown dispensation also means that rich clubs can't just buy up every good youngster, it gives each club a better chance of retaining them. while staying within the cap limit.

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fewer academies might actually help the game overall. The wastage rate of players is huge.

Junior teams lose their best players, which makes it harder to field junior teams. Some of the players are chosen to make up the numbers and have no real prospect of making it. And then age 18/19, most of them get released.

An alternative might be to have say 4 Academies (25 players each = 100), which is probably more than get signed pro each season anyway.

This would reduce the impact on junior teams losing players and the "wastage rate" of players joining academies only to be released atv18/19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Fewer academies might actually help the game overall. The wastage rate of players is huge.

Junior teams lose their best players, which makes it harder to field junior teams. Some of the players are chosen to make up the numbers and have no real prospect of making it. And then age 18/19, most of them get released.

An alternative might be to have say 4 Academies (25 players each = 100), which is probably more than get signed pro each season anyway.

This would reduce the impact on junior teams losing players and the "wastage rate" of players joining academies only to be released atv18/19.

The RFL tried to reduce the number of Academies recently, it resulted in a lot of complaints from those clubs losing their Academy licence. This was followed by an immediate backtracking of the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

The RFL tried to reduce the number of Academies recently, it resulted in a lot of complaints from those clubs losing their Academy licence. This was followed by an immediate backtracking of the decision.

For those missing out the return of the reserves may result in some of the 19 yo's deemed not good enough to get a second chance elsewhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I expect it would be the same as Magic currently is - the fans of the last 2 teams playing and some neutrals.

Personally, I'm not overly convinced by Magic as a concept, but if it has to stay in the calendar then I'd much rather it was a CC round. The lopsided SL fixture list it creates is problematic for the integrity of the comp in my opinion. But Magic is a big event in RL's calendar (and we don't have many) and a lot of fans seem to rave about it.

Problem you have is how long is the gap between the previous round and your magic cup ? 

Fans book travel and accommodation months before , what if their club doesn't make it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Problem you have is how long is the gap between the previous round and your magic cup ? 

Fans book travel and accommodation months before , what if their club doesn't make it ?

There is also the issue that the CC Final was recently reported as moving back to being in May. How many people would be keen to sit through multiple games in late March or early April?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Sky are driving this change, how are they doing that?

Are they saying "we want no more than 10 teams in Superleague"?

Or are they saying "we're giving you less money" and the clubs are thinking "we need to split this fewer ways"?

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

If Sky are driving this change, how are they doing that?

Are they saying "we want no more than 10 teams in Superleague"?

Or are they saying "we're giving you less money" and the clubs are thinking "we need to split this fewer ways"?

They're giving less money under the next 2 year deal and they put the sport on notice that it has those 2 years to demonstrate its value to them if it wants further deals after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

They're giving less money under the next 2 year deal and they put the sport on notice that it has those 2 years to demonstrate its value to them if it wants further deals after that.

It's not quite an answer to the question I asked.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

It's not quite an answer to the question I asked.

You asked how Sky is driving this change and I answered you.  The cut in the rights fee and the real possibility that they'll walk away after 2 more years is behind this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

You asked how Sky is driving this change and I answered you.  The cut in the rights fee and the real possibility that they'll walk away after 2 more years is behind this.

With all due respect, you haven't. I didn't expect a definitive answer, to be honest. I don't expect the answer to be made public. We'll never know.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wiganermike said:

There is also the issue that the CC Final was recently reported as moving back to being in May. How many people would be keen to sit through multiple games in late March or early April?

Or find a stadium willing to hold it ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So not read through all this but it seems that the top division will swell to 14 to accomodate Toulouse and Fev without throwing Leigh under the bus thwn shrink back to 10 which is madness.

The reduction is clearly linked to a reduced funding so no reduction to the few at the top and no need to cull any clubs.

What is worrying is how reliant we are on the TV deal to survive. 

The 10 that stay in the top division need to be picked on stratergy with a view to expand back to 12 at the next TV deal but i feel it will be a crazy season with 

Leigh

Fev

Cas

Salford 

Being relegated.

This would be devastating to leave the worst stadia in the wakey region in the top flight and also to loose any top representation in Manchester would be a blow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Fewer academies might actually help the game overall. The wastage rate of players is huge.

Junior teams lose their best players, which makes it harder to field junior teams. Some of the players are chosen to make up the numbers and have no real prospect of making it. And then age 18/19, most of them get released.

An alternative might be to have say 4 Academies (25 players each = 100), which is probably more than get signed pro each season anyway.

This would reduce the impact on junior teams losing players and the "wastage rate" of players joining academies only to be released atv18/19.

Yes, fewer players is the answer!

Jesus wept

Running the Rob Burrow marathon to raise money for the My Name'5 Doddie foundation:

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/ben-dyas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Fewer academies might actually help the game overall. The wastage rate of players is huge.

Junior teams lose their best players, which makes it harder to field junior teams. Some of the players are chosen to make up the numbers and have no real prospect of making it. And then age 18/19, most of them get released.

An alternative might be to have say 4 Academies (25 players each = 100), which is probably more than get signed pro each season anyway.

This would reduce the impact on junior teams losing players and the "wastage rate" of players joining academies only to be released atv18/19.

It’s a difficult situation as all Academies have huge attrition rates due to a) having to wait to see if the Player is good enough at an early age and b) very low ‘pass’ rates where the Player makes it a 1st team standards or not.

There is also the issue of having a big enough squad to fulfil fixtures.

Only 1, 2 or 3 make it, on a very good year, and that depends on the Clubs standard. (SL, Champs, L1)

The answer lies somewhere in between the Club and the Community Club.  IMO it would be more like an ongoing Centre of Excellence where the player, if he is borderline, still goes into the pro Club for testing, training, matches etc plus being monitored by the Pro club while he’s in the amateur game.

Obvs there are those who won’t make it or drop out of their own accord.  There are some that make it, but not at that Clubs level and end up at a Club in the lower leagues with still a chance of the big time late on.

It will be interesting to see how those lads go on today in the Roses game.  You have 2 selected, Hull have 4 and Leeds 6 or 7, from memory.

The answer, imo, isn’t to do away with pro clubs having Academies though, or even meld them in some cases.  More the fact that good coaches will develop kids better than career coaches doing it for a job and money alone.  There are very few of the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

It’s a difficult situation as all Academies have huge attrition rates due to a) having to wait to see if the Player is good enough at an early age and b) very low ‘pass’ rates where the Player makes it a 1st team standards or not.

There is also the issue of having a big enough squad to fulfil fixtures.

Only 1, 2 or 3 make it, on a very good year, and that depends on the Clubs standard. (SL, Champs, L1)

The answer lies somewhere in between the Club and the Community Club.  IMO it would be more like an ongoing Centre of Excellence where the player, if he is borderline, still goes into the pro Club for testing, training, matches etc plus being monitored by the Pro club while he’s in the amateur game.

Obvs there are those who won’t make it or drop out of their own accord.  There are some that make it, but not at that Clubs level and end up at a Club in the lower leagues with still a chance of the big time late on.

It will be interesting to see how those lads go on today in the Roses game.  You have 2 selected, Hull have 4 and Leeds 6 or 7, from memory.

The answer, imo, isn’t to do away with pro clubs having Academies though, or even meld them in some cases.  More the fact that good coaches will develop kids better than career coaches doing it for a job and money alone.  There are very few of the former.

I keep banging the same drum but nobody is listening!

All community clubs want to see their best players reach their full potential whether that's in the pro game or international amateurs, but these coaches/officials know the majority of the lads going to the academies won't make it as professionals as they aren't good enough and a lot of those rejected players don't go back to their original amateur club when their pro contract ends.

Put simply, we can't afford to lose players at that age year on year. 

Let's open discussions with the community clubs and get their take on things as opposed to the subservient relationship that's there now 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

It’s a difficult situation as all Academies have huge attrition rates due to a) having to wait to see if the Player is good enough at an early age and b) very low ‘pass’ rates where the Player makes it a 1st team standards or not.

There is also the issue of having a big enough squad to fulfil fixtures.

Only 1, 2 or 3 make it, on a very good year, and that depends on the Clubs standard. (SL, Champs, L1)

The answer lies somewhere in between the Club and the Community Club.  IMO it would be more like an ongoing Centre of Excellence where the player, if he is borderline, still goes into the pro Club for testing, training, matches etc plus being monitored by the Pro club while he’s in the amateur game.

Obvs there are those who won’t make it or drop out of their own accord.  There are some that make it, but not at that Clubs level and end up at a Club in the lower leagues with still a chance of the big time late on.

It will be interesting to see how those lads go on today in the Roses game.  You have 2 selected, Hull have 4 and Leeds 6 or 7, from memory.

The answer, imo, isn’t to do away with pro clubs having Academies though, or even meld them in some cases.  More the fact that good coaches will develop kids better than career coaches doing it for a job and money alone.  There are very few of the former.

Only 2 of the u17s at Leeds are being paid a penny this year to play. 1 has already played for the first team multiple times and the other can't be far behind.

The rest, including those in the academy origin clash, are playing for free. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.