League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi Griff, I was just answering the suggestion that the cap should be raised nothing to do with player performance, there has been loads of threads on these pages that say for the job they do our players do not get paid enough and quite right to, so if the cap is raised the clubs who employ player's will have to raise their salary or they move to someone who will offer more. 

OK - but I'm not convinced that all that logic follows.

[Lowdesert]

41 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Is it April Fools Day?

Could be.  Time stands still in Norfolk, Eddie.

[Tommygilf]

The money coming in should be invested into clubs too. How much money, literally millions, has been wasted by Cas and Wakey over the past 10 years to not get relegated? Likewise how many millions have been pumped into the championship to give clubs who could play on 75k handouts 6 figure salary ego boosts? How much has the sport got to show for this investment?

I'd be glad if the RFL actually used some of the money to invest in the game as a fund. Help Wakefield build/redevelop a Stadium. Build an elite training centre in X for two clubs plus England to share.

Instead, that money has been ###### up the wall to see a handful of teams get slightly bigger crowds whilst the rest of the game has shrunken massively. Now we're being told "prove why you're worth it" for a smaller contract with not a lot we're proud leading us to cut off 2 clubs! 

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Exactly. That's why I like the 10 idea.

The 10 has the flaw of risking being a commercial flop however.

We need to build 4 more clubs to be at the level of the 10.

[Scubby]

34 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Agree, and that's why I'm sympathetic to the RFL's proposals because we currently don't have 12 'Super' clubs, let alone 14.

Going to 10, I believe, would spur some Darwinian evolution that creates a highly competitive elite comp with no deadweight.

Sometimes you need to take a step backwards to move forwards.

Also if that means 18 round regular fixtures then so be it. Make the Wigan v Saints and Hull v Hull KR derbies special. Give time off to properly manage the Challenge Cup and mid-season internationals. The repeat fixtures are not the key to earning money. If Sky want a maximum number of games then split the odd round across 2 weeks so all 6 games can be televised. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

Classy Cas propose ...

Lightning Rugby is an eight-a-side game, with 12 men in each club's squad for every game. A minimum of four of those players must be under 21, which enables youngsters to get much-needed development and game-time. By using reserve, academy and first-team players, that would eliminate the risk of clubs going into the community game to fill squads.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/lightning-rugby-castleford-tigers-hundred-21228033

Why would we do 8 when 9 a side has been chosen as the short form of the game? It is nonsensical to create another form of the game for little reason.

[Guest]

Does anyone have a list of the current full time clubs in Champ/League 1. I would agree with having a split between full time and part time clubs.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, NW10LDN said:

Does anyone have a list of the current full time clubs in Champ/League 1. I would agree with having a split between full time and part time clubs.

London & Toulouse

[paulwalker71]

5 minutes ago, NW10LDN said:

Does anyone have a list of the current full time clubs in Champ/League 1. I would agree with having a split between full time and part time clubs.

 

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

London & Toulouse

Also there are a few 'hybrid' teams i.e some FT players in amongst a largely PT squad

[Toby Chopra]

8 minutes ago, Spidey said:

London & Toulouse

So quite likely none in 2022 then, as London are going part time and Toulouse will probably be promoted. 

[M j M]

27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

How much money, literally millions, has been wasted by Cas and Wakey over the past 10 years to not get relegated? 

What grotesque BS. Coming up with a false dichotomy where a couple of unfavoured clubs apparently "waste" their money on paying their players. What do all the other clubs do with their share of the proceeds from the sale of their TV rights?

[Toby Chopra]

5 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

 

Also there are a few 'hybrid' teams i.e some FT players in amongst a largely PT squad

Genuine question: how many of those full timers are dual reg/loan and how many are primarily contracted to the 'hybrid' club? What do the latter group do when their part time team mates are at work? 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Spidey said:

London & Toulouse

Right. Just chuck them into the SL then if that's it.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm afraid though that is still just a bit of waffle (with due respect).

The reason we talk about those other clubs is because they are a real thing and they need to fit into the structure somewhere. 

I mean if you have the answer on how to get 10-12 clubs with £10m+ turnovers, 10k average crowds and strong commercials, then you really need to share it.

But why 10k? It's plucked out of thin air. Why not demand £50m turnovers, 25k crowds? Aren't your numbers lacking ambition?

I do understand the point you are making, but tbh it sounds like aggressive crypto-marketing talk - a lot of bold statements, but with no substance. 

Ultimately your challenge is "we need a plan to be dead good".

As I've said before, some on here should be offering their services and advice to the RFL for a small cut of future revenue.

"This time next year Dave, we'll be millionaires....."

[Tommygilf]

26 minutes ago, M j M said:

What grotesque BS. Coming up with a false dichotomy where a couple of unfavoured clubs apparently "waste" their money on paying their players. What do all the other clubs do with their share of the proceeds from the sale of their TV rights?

I'm saying that some money should have been spent to build them a stadium??

Quoting part of a post is a great way to make a point against something not being said btw, well done.

[Mumby Magic]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

I agree with all of that except the last bit, unless you want a centralised American competition (I don’t). I’d rather see the salary cap scrapped to encourage investment. 

I agree. Must be some type of counter balance. 

[Padge]

Clubs can't produce enough pro players, so the answer one of them comes up with is lets use less players, how about you pull your finger out and invest in generating more players of a suitable standard.

[del capo]

The fact that a restructure is at all being considered tells me that the clubs and powers that be are not satisfied that the current offering can drive the game forward to the wider audience so obviously needed. 

Most on this forum clearly agree but few have  actually considered thinking totally  ( and perhaps insanely )outside the box.

Forget the NFL and certainly the disreputable NRL.

  But the Major league Soccer and Major League Rugby models in the USA have one thing in common - they are growing exponentially. The Union guys have moved from half a dozen amateurs to a pro / semi pro activity with a $100 million  turnover in 4 years....whilst at soccer Toronto bought in for $10 million a few years ago and the going rate is now £150 million. Unlike the NRL if you have a business plan and the money to splash you can get in........ It's all driven by central ownership of the product and its major asset - the players. But how many of our beleaguered debt ridden  clubs owners would not swap that for shares in a new venture ( and check out what they keep to themselves anyway under that model ).

Or even more radically , as a prior thread once  proposed , is it time to 'make the peace ' with the Dark Side ? Could some form of closer affiliation / recognition release to us their business acumen , sponsorship connections and tellingly their player pool ?

Apart from anything else we could then virtually overnight be able to fixture a credible  RL 6 Nations Competition for the NH and chose to ignore or otherwise our  ANZAC  'friends '......

[MattSantos]

7 minutes ago, del capo said:

The fact that a restructure is at all being considered tells me that the clubs and powers that be are not satisfied that the current offering can drive the game forward to the wider audience so obviously needed. 

Most on this forum clearly agree but few have  actually considered thinking totally  ( and perhaps insanely )outside the box.

Forget the NFL and certainly the disreputable NRL.

  But the Major league Soccer and Major League Rugby models in the USA have one thing in common - they are growing exponentially. The Union guys have moved from half a dozen amateurs to a pro / semi pro activity with a $100 million  turnover in 4 years....whilst at soccer Toronto bought in for $10 million a few years ago and the going rate is now £150 million. Unlike the NRL if you have a business plan and the money to splash you can get in........ It's all driven by central ownership of the product and its major asset - the players. But how many of our beleaguered debt ridden  clubs owners would not swap that for shares in a new venture ( and check out what they keep to themselves anyway under that model ).

Or even more radically , as a prior thread once  proposed , is it time to 'make the peace ' with the Dark Side ? Could some form of closer affiliation / recognition release to us their business acumen , sponsorship connections and tellingly their player pool ?

Apart from anything else we could then virtually overnight be able to fixture a credible  RL 6 Nations Competition for the NH and chose to ignore or otherwise our  ANZAC  'friends '......

So how does that centralised model work and how would it be transferable?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, del capo said:

The fact that a restructure is at all being considered tells me that the clubs and powers that be are not satisfied that the current offering can drive the game forward to the wider audience so obviously needed. 

Most on this forum clearly agree but few have  actually considered thinking totally  ( and perhaps insanely )outside the box.

Forget the NFL and certainly the disreputable NRL.

  But the Major league Soccer and Major League Rugby models in the USA have one thing in common - they are growing exponentially. The Union guys have moved from half a dozen amateurs to a pro / semi pro activity with a $100 million  turnover in 4 years....whilst at soccer Toronto bought in for $10 million a few years ago and the going rate is now £150 million. Unlike the NRL if you have a business plan and the money to splash you can get in........ It's all driven by central ownership of the product and its major asset - the players. But how many of our beleaguered debt ridden  clubs owners would not swap that for shares in a new venture ( and check out what they keep to themselves anyway under that model ).

Or even more radically , as a prior thread once  proposed , is it time to 'make the peace ' with the Dark Side ? Could some form of closer affiliation / recognition release to us their business acumen , sponsorship connections and tellingly their player pool ?

Apart from anything else we could then virtually overnight be able to fixture a credible  RL 6 Nations Competition for the NH and chose to ignore or otherwise our  ANZAC  'friends '......

Well David Hughes had spent a lot of money on the Broncos but they still have an attendance of around 500. 10,000 people turned up to their first game as Fulham. London Irish moved back to London and are already reaching an average of 3000.

I do think we need close off the SL for a few years and let's clubs apply to join when they are ready. Pro/Rel offers no stability for Leigh or Toulouse.

[del capo]

6 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

So how does that centralised model work and how would it be transferable?

You basically transfer your interest to a central body and receive a franchise back. Plenty of guidance on google but otherwise Martyn over to you to explain...... new comers then introduce capital ( a joining fee ) to increase the footprint of the game and  share in the profits...

[Moove]

9 minutes ago, del capo said:

You basically transfer your interest to a central body and receive a franchise back. Plenty of guidance on google but otherwise Martyn over to you to explain...... new comers then introduce capital ( a joining fee ) to increase the footprint of the game and  share in the profits...

Where do we get these mythical multi-millionaire newcomers from?

[GUBRATS]

55 minutes ago, NW10LDN said:

Well David Hughes had spent a lot of money on the Broncos but they still have an attendance of around 500. 10,000 people turned up to their first game as Fulham. London Irish moved back to London and are already reaching an average of 3000.

I do think we need close off the SL for a few years and let's clubs apply to join when they are ready. Pro/Rel offers no stability for Leigh or Toulouse.

No heartland club would ever be ' ready ' 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

Clubs can't produce enough pro players, so the answer one of them comes up with is lets use less players, how about you pull your finger out and invest in generating more players of a suitable standard.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but how do you achieve that in practice?

In the limited number of areas it is played in, RL competes with RU, Cricket, Soccer and all the other sports for athletes. Only a limited number of those athletes take up RL and naturally only a handful of them will ever be good enough for the elite. Simple evolutionary theory suggests the bigger your talent pool the better quality you end up with?

The small English RL player pool has punched above its weight for years. However, due to our extremely narrow source of talent, declining player numbers (due to a whole myriad of reasons) acutely affect our sport. So how do you increase that talent pool?

You can either keep mining the same ever thinning seam whilst the walls are caving in, hoping it will eventually get better, or you can spread your search.

We don't just need more kids playing RL we need more kids in more areas playing RL. And this gets to the crux of how we spend the little money we have. The two areas central resources should be prioritised for are the very top, where exposure, profile and popularity is driven from; and the very bottom junior grassroots which sustains the whole game. The middle, the part of the game with neither the profile of the top or the value to player production as the bottom, is where any pinch has to be felt before the other two.

[Padge]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but how do you achieve that in practice?

In the limited number of areas it is played in, RL competes with RU, Cricket, Soccer and all the other sports for athletes. Only a limited number of those athletes take up RL and naturally only a handful of them will ever be good enough for the elite. Simple evolutionary theory suggests the bigger your talent pool the better quality you end up with?

The small English RL player pool has punched above its weight for years. However, due to our extremely narrow source of talent, declining player numbers (due to a whole myriad of reasons) acutely affect our sport. So how do you increase that talent pool?

You can either keep mining the same ever thinning seam whilst the walls are caving in, hoping it will eventually get better, or you can spread your search.

We don't just need more kids playing RL we need more kids in more areas playing RL. And this gets to the crux of how we spend the little money we have. The two areas central resources should be prioritised for are the very top, where exposure, profile and popularity is driven from; and the very bottom junior grassroots which sustains the whole game. The middle, the part of the game with neither the profile of the top or the value to player production as the bottom, is where any pinch has to be felt before the other two.

You answered your own question.