League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Scubby said:

There are also Venture Capitalists who would invest in something, immediately realise there is dead wood and rationalise to try and make the biggest return on investment.

Some of the pieces in your proposed structures are towns of 10-20,000 people (essentially large villages).

I reckon an investment firm could do a better job at marketing their team than a ageing oil trader.

[yipyee]

So one sided games = Leigh in SL over Tolouse or Toronto, Fev or even London

Leigh to be kept in SL even though they are the worst team to ever play in SL

This gets better and better,

Questions on here of no millionaires wanting to fund RL but we turned away one in Canada and ignore Hughes at London (even though his side was the best relegated team in SL history AND produced home grown players)

Ultimatley its a few pit villages and bigger clubs wanting to remain at the top thats ruining what could be a great sport.

[Toby Chopra]

53 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

His response (and he originates from a town that is now in the Championship) was that the only sensible way to invest in Rugby League would be to invest in the whole professional/semi-professional game,  because to invest only in a 12- or 10-team Super League would in all probability alienate a significant part of the Rugby League community. Those companies would want to steer clear of controversy.

Honestly, this is a bluff that needs to be called. The idea that you couldn't invest in a new competition with our 12 biggest teams because you'd hurt the feelings of a tiny number of people who preferred the sport in the 1970s should be entirely dismissed.

I agree that we could do with some more teams actively challenging do the title - but that means lifting it from 3 or 4 to 8 or 9 - but whoever that 8-9 it has nothing to do with the Swintons and Hunslets of this world. Those clubs do have a place in the sport, but it's not as prospective members of a flagship VC backed competition. Anyone who's willing to look at things rationally can see that and so would your VC mate once he actually looked at the facts. 

I'm sorry if this upsets people but frankly people need to get real if they want the game to be around in anything like the current state in 10-15 years time. Although I suspect there's a fair few who don't really care about the long term, they just want to see their clubs have one last dance through the old songs before they shuffle off.

                

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Honestly, this is a bluff that needs to be called. The idea that you couldn't invest in a new competition with our 12 biggest teams because you'd hurt the feelings of a tiny number of people who preferred the sport in the 1970s should be entirely dismissed.

I agree that we could do with some more teams actively challenging do the title - but that means lifting it from 3 or 4 to 8 or 9 - but whoever that 8-9 it has nothing to do with the Swintons and Hunslets of this world. Those clubs do have a place in the sport, but it's not as prospective members of a flagship VC backed competition. Anyone who's willing to look at things rationally can see that and so would your VC mate once he actually looked at the facts. 

I'm sorry if this upsets people but frankly people need to get real if they want the game to be around in anything like the current state in 10-15 years time. Although I suspect there's a fair few who don't really care about the long term, they just want to see their clubs have one last dance through the old songs before they shuffle off.

                

You can dismiss it if you like, and after all it was only one man's opinion (although someone who had a foot in both the financial and the Rugby League camps, although admittedly some years ago in the latter case).

But if the sport is going to be unified under the control of the RFL, essentially because SLE failed as a separate organisation, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think someone will come along wanting to invest in something that was clearly a commercial failure and that created conflict with the governing body.

And you're making the mistake of many people on here, which is thinking statically rather than dynamically.

Things don't stay the same forever.

Swinton and Hunslet in ten years' time could either be much bigger than they are now, but still based in Manchester and Leeds respectively, or they could be playing elsewhere, having been taken over by new investors and relocated. Or they may no longer exist.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

 

Swinton and Hunslet in ten years' time could either be much bigger than they are now, but still based in Manchester and Leeds respectively, or they could be playing elsewhere, having been taken over by new investors and relocated. Or they may no longer exist.

Given that neither has any assets or a large latent fanbase or a unsaturated market (both for sport generally and rugby league), the latter is quite clearly the most likely of those 3 options.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Given that neither has any assets or a large latent fanbase or a unsaturated market (both for sport generally and rugby league), the latter is quite clearly the most likely of those 3 options.

That's certainly possible, but don't underestimate the capacity of Rugby League, and Rugby League clubs, to survive against the odds.

And what's quite important to bear in mind is that if there was a significant investment by a venture capitalist into the game, it would alert others to the potential that is inherent within it.

In other words, money attracts money.

[jamescolin]

Lets have 4 leagues made up of the 36 clubs. 9 clubs in each league. 3 SL teams times 4 leagues = 12 teams. Same for the first twelve teams in the Championship. 3 teams in 4 leagues. The bottom 2 teams join up with the League one making twelve teams again. So 3 teams in each league making 12. That would thern be 9 teams in each league made up from the existing three leagues. So the distribution is fair then a selection bag for the SL the Championship and League one with twelve selection balls in each bag. Out of the the SL bag selct three teams for the first League of four and then contrinue the selection through the four leagues so 12 SL clubs are distributed between the four leagues. Then do exactly the same for the Championship Bag and the League one bag. We then have four leagues each with nine clubs. That would make a top four from each league into a 16 team play off.  The leagues would have 16 games each from the nine team members, 8 at home and 8 away giving the time for cup competitions. That would let all clubs survive with and equal distribution of funding money.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You can dismiss it if you like, and after all it was only one man's opinion (although someone who had a foot in both the financial and the Rugby League camps, although admittedly some years ago in the latter case).

But if the sport is going to be unified under the control of the RFL, essentially because SLE failed as a separate organisation, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think someone will come along wanting to invest in something that was clearly a commercial failure and that created conflict with the governing body.

And you're making the mistake of many people on here, which is thinking statically rather than dynamically.

Things don't stay the same forever.

Swinton and Hunslet in ten years' time could either be much bigger than they are now, but still based in Manchester and Leeds respectively, or they could be playing elsewhere, having been taken over by new investors and relocated. Or they may no longer exist.

Swinton could be bigger but I don't think there's enough interest in Salford to warrant 2 teams. Relocating or renaming doesn't seem likely.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, jamescolin said:

Lets have 4 leagues made up of the 36 clubs. 9 clubs in each league. 3 SL teams times 4 leagues = 12 teams. Same for the first twelve teams in the Championship. 3 teams in 4 leagues. The bottom 2 teams join up with the League one making twelve teams again. So 3 teams in each league making 12. That would thern be 9 teams in each league made up from the existing three leagues. So the distribution is fair then a selection bag for the SL the Championship and League one with twelve selection balls in each bag. Out of the the SL bag selct three teams for the first League of four and then contrinue the selection through the four leagues so 12 SL clubs are distributed between the four leagues. Then do exactly the same for the Championship Bag and the League one bag. We then have four leagues each with nine clubs. That would make a top four from each league into a 16 team play off.  The leagues would have 16 games each from the nine team members, 8 at home and 8 away giving the time for cup competitions. That would let all clubs survive with and equal distribution of funding money.

4 is too much. 3 with 12 each is better. That's a 23 week season with Magic.

[Chris Taylor]

A suggestion to the re-structure might be that we don't need to re-structure at all. 

We have had many changes to the structure of the game since 2008? The question is then asked why fans, commercial & tv revenue is down - well it's staring them in the face. 

If RL wants to see more money,  headlines, facilities, players the answer lies in the international game.

 

[Tommygilf]

31 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

That's certainly possible, but don't underestimate the capacity of Rugby League, and Rugby League clubs, to survive against the odds.

And what's quite important to bear in mind is that if there was a significant investment by a venture capitalist into the game, it would alert others to the potential that is inherent within it.

In other words, money attracts money.

I don't underestimate them surviving at all, but I think there's better examples than Swinton and Hunslet for clubs that could change positions with investment, especially the level of investment we see in RL. They are currently 2 of the weakest heartland clubs along with Oldham.

The Salary cap is a major problem for the sort of investment you are talking about attracting. Its affected Warrington and Huddersfield in Super League let alone clubs further down the divisions. It doesn't matter how wealthy you are there is a ceiling to how far you can get in a short period of time by spending money - lower mid table Super League is it at absolute best. Football style investment this is not.

The potential is of course there. But it is stunted by self interest masquerading as a legitimate concern at every opportunity. Marwan Koukash was not allowed to invest in Salford to turn them around. Leigh (x2) and Toronto have found out how difficult the transfer system and lack of salary cap allowance severely handicaps any club coming up - and by extension further protects existing clubs from the risk of relegation. Toulouse and Catalans are expected to produce a French National side capable of competing with England, but they aren't given any dispensation to account for the fact they want them to do that and avoid relegation. Warrington and Huddersfield clearly could have invested more in their squads over the years to compete with the inherent advantages of Leeds, Wigan and Saints, but instead that would have been seen as too much of an advantage to a competitor.

RL isn't static then of course, but like with professionalism (and the subsequent transition to sports being seen as businesses) in all sports there's a hell of a lot of forces and interests pushing it in that direction.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Chris Taylor said:

A suggestion to the re-structure might be that we don't need to re-structure at all. 

We have had many changes to the structure of the game since 2008? The question is then asked why fans, commercial & tv revenue is down - well it's staring them in the face. 

If RL wants to see more money,  headlines, facilities, players the answer lies in the international game.

 

What international game? Aussies don't care. They'd be happy just to play NZ and Tonga every year and leave it there. No other country in Europe comes near our standard.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, NW10LDN said:

What international game? Aussies don't care. They'd be happy just to play NZ and Tonga every year and leave it there. No other country in Europe comes near our standard.

This is why raising those standards is essential for England. The pacific can drop us and not notice. We need more international competition.

[northamptoncougar]

Martyn lost me at “USA” - I deal with the states on a daily basis and I’m genuinely surprised that 90% of the population know how to put their socks on, they are literally that dumb and as insular as the Aussies.

[Toby Chopra]

46 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You can dismiss it if you like, and after all it was only one man's opinion (although someone who had a foot in both the financial and the Rugby League camps, although admittedly some years ago in the latter case).

But if the sport is going to be unified under the control of the RFL, essentially because SLE failed as a separate organisation, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think someone will come along wanting to invest in something that was clearly a commercial failure and that created conflict with the governing body.

And you're making the mistake of many people on here, which is thinking statically rather than dynamically.

Things don't stay the same forever.

Swinton and Hunslet in ten years' time could either be much bigger than they are now, but still based in Manchester and Leeds respectively, or they could be playing elsewhere, having been taken over by new investors and relocated. Or they may no longer exist.

I have no theological objection to your plan. If the RFL can deliver a VC style investment to the tune of tens of millions of pounds in return for merging all our clubs into one competition, then we should snap it up. Why wouldn't we?

But my view is there's more chance of the Australian team turning up for the world cup than an investor thinking this was the best way forward. It flies in the face of how every sports league everywhere is moving forward. Special rules don't apply to rugby league, we live in the same world as every one else and the same sporting and commercial realities apply. 

I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But I won't be. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This is why raising those standards is essential for England. The pacific can drop us and not notice. We need more international competition.

How though? France are in there. Serbia have a decent domestic set up and so do Greece. Forget about Italy. They are reliant on Australian players, although their union side obviously prefers League based on how they play.

[sweaty craiq]

In general if you go down the VC direction they want at least 51% of the business so they control exit.

what’s difficult is how to value SL, and what was crazy was the deal put forward last time which almost guaranteed their money back in a relative short time

if someone offered 100m for 20% then it’s worth a serious look

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I have no theological objection to your plan. If the RFL can deliver a VC style investment to the tune of tens of millions of pounds in return for merging all our clubs into one competition, then we should snap it up. Why wouldn't we?

But my view is there's more chance of the Australian team turning up for the world cup than an investor thinking this was the best way forward. It flies in the face of how every sports league everywhere is moving forward. Special rules don't apply to rugby league, we live in the same world as every one else and the same sporting and commercial realities apply. 

I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But I won't be. 

Yes it makes absolutely no sense and is not the way that VC has worked in any other sport. These guys aren't philanthropists and its certainly not the way they operate. The ideas coming this weak are getting more bizarre by the day.

[Chris Taylor]

11 minutes ago, NW10LDN said:

What international game? Aussies don't care. They'd be happy just to play NZ and Tonga every year and leave it there. No other country in Europe comes near our standard.

Does Italy come close to England in RU? No, but they happilly allow them into the 6 nations as they can see £££.

The more times these countries play one another, the more interest it will generate and the closer it will get. it will never be instant. 

 

[Griff]

I like the use of the word "investors" in this connection. "Donor" would be more accurate.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Chris Taylor said:

Does Italy come close to England in RU? No, but they happilly allow them into the 6 nations as they can see £££.

The more times these countries play one another, the more interest it will generate and the closer it will get. it will never be instant. 

 

Difference is that union has history in Italy and 2 clubs competing in pro competition. Italy's League side are all NRL players.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, NW10LDN said:

How though? France are in there. Serbia have a decent domestic set up and so do Greece. Forget about Italy. They are reliant on Australian players, although their union side obviously prefers League based on how they play.

I know I've said strategy a lot recently, but its critical. Here are some ideas:

Salary cap dispensations for non-English European/North American players. Critical aspect to encourage the development across the league rather than just Catalans being responsible for France for example.

Guaranteed spots in a televised league for clubs from each target area. Ideally 2 from each to create at least 2 headline fixtures in that country. Might not be popular in some quarters but because we've not achieved it any other way we've not got much of a choice if we want to develop the international game now the Aussies can drop us.

Prioritising a regular slot each year for England to play these countries. England bring the televised BBC coverage making them far more high profile affairs than the current euro cup for example. At least in the initial stages I would play these games in the other countries or in non heartland locations in England or in the 2 places we consistently see good support for international RL, Leeds and London. No more Tuesday nights in Leigh or Wednesday nights in Wakefield for internationals.

Rogue potential but Quadrennial GB and Ireland Tours. Stop players flitting between England and Scotland, Wales and Ireland by offering those players who qualify on heritage the potential for a Lions call up. Principle being that you commit to Wales, Scotland or Ireland but can also play in big ashes series' or Pacific tours for GB&I, rather than just declaring for England when you get above a certain age. Along with regular test matches v England I think this would help give some consistency to these national teams.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

After 34 pages I'm even more convinced that too many folk on here believe the sport is bigger and more popular in the UK (England) than it actually is. 

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

After 34 pages I'm even more convinced that too many folk on here believe the sport is bigger and more popular in the UK (England) than it actually is. 

On Twitter as well. I've seen so many tweets from folks wondering why the Lions tour is getting more promotion on Sky. Well, that tends to happen when a sport has a much bigger geographical footprint.

[Mr Frisky]

5 minutes ago, NW10LDN said:

On Twitter as well. I've seen so many tweets from folks wondering why the Lions tour is getting more promotion on Sky. Well, that tends to happen when a sport has a much bigger geographical footprint.

Lions tour??

Not a clue mate??