League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Derwent Parker]

On 04/08/2021 at 11:51, Damien said:

Its common sense. You don't need to be Nostradamus to see its a terrible idea that is flawed beyond belief.

And as I've said whatever funding model you choose it wont work. Going to the other extreme splitting diminishing TV revenue evenly 32 ways results in only a few full time clubs. This means poor games and terrible standards. Even at that you still have vast inequalities due to the size of clubs and we will still have very one sided games. We see that now in Super League with 12 clubs getting the same and running full time clubs. All of those issues are compounded many times over when 32 teams get only something like £600,000 each.

With your structure clubs still have to gamble to compete or they are perennial whipping boys. Nothing changes that. Its fantasy stuff.

Splitting revenue will mean teams having to drop an overseas or "marquis player" etc and cut their costs.

This will allow other teams the ability to improve their teams.

It does not mean poor games and terrible standards.

[Martyn Sadler]

18 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Madness, isn't it.

Imagine if football abandoned P&R and divisions, and split clubs and funding into local conferences, perhaps with a Manchester conference of Manchester United, Manchester City, Salford, Oldham, Rochdale, Wigan, Bolton, Stockport and Macclesfield. 

We'd quickly see attendances, ratings and TV money drop off a cliff. You could hardly design a better way to ruin it.

As you suggest, the top of the game needs to grow its cake to fund (in part) the game beneath - as the Premier League does with the EFL - not Sadler's completely wrong-headed approach that would see the bottom feed off the top and shrink the cake overall.

It's difficult to imagine a more wrong-headed post than this one.

Football is a different sport with different pressures, but it doesn't need to reform.

What we need to do is widen the pool of clubs that can actually win something, while allowing clubs to grow bigger over time.

Our current structure doesn't allow them to do this.

My proposal, because of the way fixtures would be structured, would go a significant way towards achieving that aim.

[Derwent Parker]

23 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

We have a hard division between amateur and Semi Professional clubs and players, why wouldn't we have one between Semi-Pro and Full Time Professionals?

typical SL answer 

Pull up the drawbridge keep off my money and let everyone else fight over scraps

[Martyn Sadler]

9 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

typical SL answer 

Pull up the drawbridge keep off my money and let everyone else fight over scraps

It simply illustrates the point that clubs drive the administration of the game, rather than the other way round.

Unfortunately the World Cup postponement is another illustration of this unfortunate fact.

[Derwent Parker]

18 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree.

The reason our biggest clubs are getting smaller is because the competition as a whole is getting small time and the good momentum built up over the previous 15 years has slowed significantly over the past decade.

I don't think that is unconnected to how the other clubs have not grown to come close to matching them in ambition and size and that we have had maybe 3 clubs capable of short term getting more than 6/7k crowds in Super League be involved in the Championship in that time. (Only one of whom, Toronto, have actually played in Super League and they didn't get the chance to play at home in that time).

Saying the solution to Wigan and Leeds struggling to enthuse crowds in the numbers they did a decade ago is to say "here! Play Swinton, Batley and Coventry Bears!" does seem as though it rather misunderstands the problem quite fundamentally.

People want to be part of something getting bigger, not shrinking. Likewise, I'm sure fans of Batley, Leigh, Doncaster, West Wales etc want to play the big clubs because they deserve to be there playing them, not because of some misplaced (and lop-sided) charity.

The gulf between Wigan and Leeds and Swinton, Batley and Coventry Bears!" is because the latter have not been given the £1.8 million a year each as the SL teams have had that luxury. People outside SL do understand the problem and it is quite fundamental.

Yes People want to be part of something getting bigger, not shrinking. Likewise, I'm sure fans of Batley, Leigh, Doncaster, West Wales etc want to play the big clubs because they deserve to be there playing them, GIVING ALL TEAMS A FAIR SHARE IS NOT CHARITY.

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Splitting revenue will mean teams having to drop an overseas or "marquis player" etc and cut their costs.

This will allow other teams the ability to improve their teams.

It does not mean poor games and terrible standards.

Of course it means terrible standards. You can't cut £600,000 from 12 SL teams and not expect standards to worsen. That's absurd.

At the other end of the spectrum for true parity amongst the 32 teams you are cutting over £1 million from 12 SL teams. Teams would be spending less than half what they do now. Of course standards worsen.

Poor games are a given when the discrepancies between teams are far more extreme than we currently see between the top and bottom of Super League. You know the very poor games that are supposedly driving this.

Whatever way you split it standards and games worsen.

[Derwent Parker]

16 hours 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.

Share the central funding equally and they can all be the same. In 99% of cases its only the £1.8m that SL gets that makes them full time.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

12 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

We already have Major leagues and Minor leagues.

In our case each pro/semi pro team has its own minor league via our local amateur league system.

The only reason it is being brought up on here now is by the SL teams followers who dont want to give an equal share of central funding [greed]

Actually I'm a NW Crusaders supporter and this is something that I've floated before. Properly managed (which is, of course, the glaring big hole in my argument) it would enable the game to target potential major league teams and have them learn the ropes from their senior side (new clubs would be additions, not replacements, to the major league). Have to say that I do wonder how many lower division sides boards in private really want to be in the top flight, but that's another topic (please!).

[Man of Kent]

20 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

It's difficult to imagine a more wrong-headed post than this one.

Football is a different sport with different pressures, but it doesn't need to reform.

What we need to do is widen the pool of clubs that can actually win something, while allowing clubs to grow bigger over time.

Our current structure doesn't allow them to do this.

My proposal, because of the way fixtures would be structured, would go a significant way towards achieving that aim.

No, Martyn, it is you who is wrong-headed because you seemingly fail to understand the very nature of professional sport.

It's about winning and losing. Winners and losers. Not your 'everyone can have a prize' mentality.

[Moove]

2 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

The gulf between Wigan and Leeds and Swinton, Batley and Coventry Bears!" is because the latter have not been given the £1.8 million a year each as the SL teams have had that luxury. People outside SL do understand the problem and it is quite fundamental.

Yes People want to be part of something getting bigger, not shrinking. Likewise, I'm sure fans of Batley, Leigh, Doncaster, West Wales etc want to play the big clubs because they deserve to be there playing them, GIVING ALL TEAMS A FAIR SHARE IS NOT CHARITY.

So if we look at the practicalities of this. Let's say next season all SL generated income (broadcast deal, sponsorship) is distributed equally across all 36 clubs.

For example Saints have players contracted with total salaries committed to say just over £2m. But their revenue is reducing by say £1m or whatever due to a massive chunk of that being given to say West Wales.

So is the expectation that Saints owners void contracts with players transferring to West Wales who now have an extra six figure sum to spend? Or do Saints stop investing in developing players through their academy?

What do West Wales do with all this new money? Increase salaries of their existing part-time players? Sign someone like Mark Percival with it to play alongside their existing part-time players? Invest in facilities and marketing while still playing their low quality part-time players?

None of those options do anything to improve the overall quality of the product offered, instead they water it down to the point where the sports elite players are spread over 36 clubs. It doesn't create us any additional elite players, it just drags everyone down to a level of equilibrium somewhere between the likes of Saints, Wigan, Wire and West Wales, Coventry etc.

[Tommygilf]

15 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

The gulf between Wigan and Leeds and Swinton, Batley and Coventry Bears!" is because the latter have not been given the £1.8 million a year each as the SL teams have had that luxury. People outside SL do understand the problem and it is quite fundamental.

Yes People want to be part of something getting bigger, not shrinking. Likewise, I'm sure fans of Batley, Leigh, Doncaster, West Wales etc want to play the big clubs because they deserve to be there playing them, GIVING ALL TEAMS A FAIR SHARE IS NOT CHARITY.

Aside from what you write being simply a joke, Leeds and Wigan have turnovers 4 or 5 times the Super League TV money they earn.

[Man of Kent]

4 minutes ago, Moove said:

So if we look at the practicalities of this. Let's say next season all SL generated income (broadcast deal, sponsorship) is distributed equally across all 36 clubs.

For example Saints have players contracted with total salaries committed to say just over £2m. But their revenue is reducing by say £1m or whatever due to a massive chunk of that being given to say West Wales.

So is the expectation that Saints owners void contracts with players transferring to West Wales who now have an extra six figure sum to spend? Or do Saints stop investing in developing players through their academy?

What do West Wales do with all this new money? Increase salaries of their existing part-time players? Sign someone like Mark Percival with it to play alongside their existing part-time players? Invest in facilities and marketing while still playing their low quality part-time players?

None of those options do anything to improve the overall quality of the product offered, instead they water it down to the point where the sports elite players are spread over 36 clubs. It doesn't create us any additional elite players, it just drags everyone down to a level of equilibrium somewhere between the likes of Saints, Wigan, Wire and West Wales, Coventry etc.

Precisely.

Sadler's proposals are a kind of RL communism that would reduce the sport’s income and weaken strong clubs in a misguided attempt to strengthen the weak ones.

We need a stronger elite comp first, then we can dole out the cash.

[Gerrumonside ref]

38 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

It's difficult to imagine a more wrong-headed post than this one.

Football is a different sport with different pressures, but it doesn't need to reform.

What we need to do is widen the pool of clubs that can actually win something, while allowing clubs to grow bigger over time.

Our current structure doesn't allow them to do this.

My proposal, because of the way fixtures would be structured, would go a significant way towards achieving that aim.

Martyn,

Is this a proposal that you have discussed with unnamed sources within the sport such as SL, Championship and League One club representatives in your capacity as a respected journalist within the game?

Or are you just floating this?

[Damien]

26 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

The gulf between Wigan and Leeds and Swinton, Batley and Coventry Bears!" is because the latter have not been given the £1.8 million a year each as the SL teams have had that luxury. People outside SL do understand the problem and it is quite fundamental.

Yes People want to be part of something getting bigger, not shrinking. Likewise, I'm sure fans of Batley, Leigh, Doncaster, West Wales etc want to play the big clubs because they deserve to be there playing them, GIVING ALL TEAMS A FAIR SHARE IS NOT CHARITY.

This is complete nonsense. Why was there still a gulf before the early 90s when clubs got essentially no TV funding? Some teams are big, some are small and that's always been the case.

[Moove]

1 minute ago, Man of Kent said:

Precisely.

Sadler's proposals are a kind of RL communism that would reduce the sport’s income and weaken strong clubs in a misguided attempt to strengthen the weak ones.

We need a stronger elite comp first, then we can dole out the cash.

It did make me think of communism but I thought mentioning it might get me bumped over to politics 

I just can't wrap my head around how watering down the only sellable product we have could ever be a sensible way to grow the sport as a whole.

You don't grow a business by making your top selling product worse, you create new sellable products and grow existing ones and reinvest back into other areas which have further growth potential.

[DI Keith Fowler]

Just now, Damien said:

This is complete nonsense. Why was there still a gulf before the early 90s when clubs got essentially no TV funding? Some teams are big, some are small and that's always been the case.

Wigan and Leeds aren't gifted millions each year, they're paid their share of what Sky value their games at less what is in effect a solidarity payment to Swinton, Batley and Coventry.

The simple fact is Sky won't pay millions to show Swinton, Batley and Coventry. They want to show the big teams and whether by luck, decision making or private investment some clubs are bigger than others which is true of any sport. 

 

[gingerjon]

19 minutes ago, Moove said:

You don't grow a business by making your top selling product worse

I wish more people had understood this when we entirely rejigged the structure so that the *relegation* end of Super League would be more exciting than the championship play offs.

[Derwent Parker]

40 minutes ago, Damien said:

Of course it means terrible standards. You can't cut £600,000 from 12 SL teams and not expect standards to worsen. That's absurd.

At the other end of the spectrum for true parity amongst the 32 teams you are cutting over £1 million from 12 SL teams. Teams would be spending less than half what they do now. Of course standards worsen.

Poor games are a given when the discrepancies between teams are far more extreme than we currently see between the top and bottom of Super League. You know the very poor games that are supposedly driving this.

Whatever way you split it standards and games worsen.

No it does not mean terrible standards - You are exaggerating [again probably scared of losing your £1.8mill]

for example Warrington signed the Great Greg Austin .

When he was playing it was better but when they lost him to injury/retirement it did not mean standards became terrible.

 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

No it does not mean terrible standards - You are exaggerating [again probably scared of losing your £1.8mill]

for example Warrington signed the Great Greg Austin .

When he was playing it was better but when they lost him to injury/retirement it did not mean standards became terrible.

 

I mean I have read some nonsense on here but you surely must be a parody account?

[Derwent Parker]

39 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Precisely.

Sadler's proposals are a kind of RL communism that would reduce the sport’s income and weaken strong clubs in a misguided attempt to strengthen the weak ones.

We need a stronger elite comp first, then we can dole out the cash.

Your last line is where it all went wrong in the first place.

Giving the richest teams more money and the poorer teams less just makes the gap wider.

Yet another SL answer

[Scubby]

37 minutes ago, Damien said:

This is complete nonsense. Why was there still a gulf before the early 90s when clubs got essentially no TV funding? Some teams are big, some are small and that's always been the case.

So many clubs bankrupted themselves trying to be big also.

[Derwent Parker]

49 minutes ago, Moove said:

So if we look at the practicalities of this. Let's say next season all SL generated income (broadcast deal, sponsorship) is distributed equally across all 36 clubs.

For example Saints have players contracted with total salaries committed to say just over £2m. But their revenue is reducing by say £1m or whatever due to a massive chunk of that being given to say West Wales.

So is the expectation that Saints owners void contracts with players transferring to West Wales who now have an extra six figure sum to spend? Or do Saints stop investing in developing players through their academy?

What do West Wales do with all this new money? Increase salaries of their existing part-time players? Sign someone like Mark Percival with it to play alongside their existing part-time players? Invest in facilities and marketing while still playing their low quality part-time players?

None of those options do anything to improve the overall quality of the product offered, instead they water it down to the point where the sports elite players are spread over 36 clubs. It doesn't create us any additional elite players, it just drags everyone down to a level of equilibrium somewhere between the likes of Saints, Wigan, Wire and West Wales, Coventry etc.

Dont have to level it in one go

But needs to be more than a token gesture

Whereas SL teams would really like to take the 80K of all the others so they can have even more.

[Derwent Parker]

52 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Aside from what you write being simply a joke, Leeds and Wigan have turnovers 4 or 5 times the Super League TV money they earn.

Yet another SL answer

[Scubby]

2 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Your last line is where it all went wrong in the first place.

Giving the richest teams more money and the poorer teams less just makes the gap wider.

Yet another SL answer

We don't need to close the gap, we need to grow.

Canterbury Bulldogs are bottom of the NRL table. There doesn't need to be a narrow gap between them and NSW Cup teams. It is why it's called elite sport.

Leeds do not need to figure out how to close the gap with Hunslet. They are oceans apart in their operations and ambitions.

[Moove]

Just now, Derwent Parker said:

Dont have to level it in one go

But needs to be more than a token gesture

Whereas SL teams would really like to take the 80K of all the others so they can have even more.

Whether you do it in one go or over a number of years it's still levelling down. Which by definition is reducing the quality of the product which is currently generating the money you want to redistribute.

The money generated is only going to decrease as a result and then all 36 clubs will see their equal share become less and less.

Nothing in your suggested approach does anything to grow the whole pot, it only spreads it thinner and ensure it's only ever going to reduce further over time.