League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Cerulean]

8 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

OK.... I'll bite. 

I have posted on here before about how I would see the game moving forward, and I should caveat that I am certainly not an expert in marketing.

Essentially, I would divide the TV money across 10 SuperLeague clubs, not 12.

The two relegated teams would join SuperLeague 2. SL2 would be a feeder league for SuperLeague, and would be aiming to be full time. Work would have to be done to find a broadcaster, but SL2 would probably be a small league to start with.... Possibly only 8 teams. If for example in season 1, SL2 comprised Hull KR, Leigh, Bradford, London, Toulouse, and 3 other clubs who fulfilled the criteria (budget, stadium, ability to operate full time....) Say, Newcastle, Widnes, York.

If only those 8 met the criteria in season 1 , then I would propose that a SuperLeague cup competition could be engineered to equalise the number of fixtures.... So SL2.clubs play 3 group games initially, (for example) then 4 of them progress to round 2.with the lower ranked SuperLeague teams with the higher ranked clubs joining at quarter finals (or whatever). The Cup would run in the initial seasons mainly to help the SL2 teams if that League was too small initially. A pro 9s circuit involving all SL and SL2 teams could be another tool used to support the SL2 clubs.

Clubs would be able to apply to join SL2 if they met the criteria to operate at a full time level, had the appropriate stadium etc etc. The early years might be difficult, as the league could be very small, so opportunities to play cup ties against SuperLeague teams would be important to keep supporting the SL2 clubs.  If expansion teams like Toronto or Ottawa ever came along again, SL2 would be the perfect "nursery" for them to be admitted to the professional game, and therefore growing the league. This would avoid the farce that was forcing Toronto Wolfpack to play a season running over students painters and call centre workers from Gloucestershire or  Oxford or whoever. This was a nonsense, and wasted resources that the game could ill afford to waste. 

The small clubs, who could never operate in a professional environment, could all play in the National League. It would sit below SL2, there would be no automatic promotion immediately, but as SL2 filled up, then the concept of relegation COULD be considered, and it would be subject to the champions of the national League meeting the criteria for admission to SL2.

The National League would be a kind of apex of the pyramid for the village teams, traditional clubs like Featherstone and Whitehaven who are.capable of getting decent results but miles off being able to operate in a full time professional environment, and ambitious clubs who have previously operated in an amateur environment.... But want to go further. (Manchester Rangers who operated a few years ago.... One example).

it would be the top of a pyramid stretching all the way down to the lowest tiers of the community game. 

The reduction of SuperLeague to 10 would help avoid the dilution of talent and hopefully both raise playing standards and prevent blow out scores - which are ridiculously prevalent in our so-called elite division.

If French clubs shared the ambition of Les Dracs or TO XIII then they could (once they met the pre determined standard) be admitted to SL2. They would not have to waste a year running about against West Wales Raiders etc, as these clubs would be in either National League or further down the community pyramid.

Essentially, my model would split the professional game away from the community level - and it would stop teams like Workington or Hunslet having a say in how Leeds Rhinos or Warrington have to operate. Teams like that who want to pay plasterers or students a.few quid to run about on a Sunday, would still be welcome to do so. However, their doing so would not be mixed up with the professional teams who (even if numbers were limited) would have to adhere to a minimum standard in terms of stadia, full time squad, academy commitment (level of investment here may vary with a few elite academies, and other SL/SL2 clubs operating a more limited academy project).

I reckon within a few years, the game could operate two (smallish) professional divisions. The target initially would be 20 professional teams across UK and France.  This pathway would (backed up by an appropriate development process of course) allow young athletes to progress into Rugby League as a genuine career opportunity, in enough numbers to raise the standard of the England team. That would then allow England to move forward and compete on a more even basis with the big 3 (Aus Tonga and NZ) as currently they are languishing down with 3rd world countries like PNG.

Obviously my plan is not foolproof, and would require a huge amount of work to sell the SL2 concept to a broadcaster,but given the lack of "rugby' on SkySports these days, the clubs would have a product/content that would be marketable to both Sky and other platforms. In years 1 and 2, visibility would be almost as important as cash, especially given that SL2 may initially operate with a small (or odd) number of teams.

 

 

Thank you for a fully considered and comprehensive answer. It would be good to think that those who will make the decisions, whoever they are, are already considering many of the elements you propose. I’ve no doubt that a carefully and well presented strong top division, (not to be called Super League, please: a confusing designation which suggests it is a different sport from Rugby League) is essential for strengthening the profile of the game, and then a sound and carefully thought out structure below the top division will help provide opportunities for progressing the spread of the game.

Intent is important here. If the intent is to provide a satisfactory fixture list for Leeds, Wigan, St Helens, Warrington and Hull (and mostly it is, and will become more so as these clubs take more control), then the introverted game so produced will stagnate  quickly. If the intent is to maximise every strength, every quality, every fragment of interest and enthusiasm which already exists and which can be uncovered, then the game has a chance.

A major and enormously important issue: the focus on structure, the shuffling the teams into a hopeful arrangement, detracts from the real problem, in that it does little to address the attractiveness of the sport. I’m afraid Super League has encouraged the game to become one of high speed battering - to casual and potential new observers, a contest of impact, wrestling, pulling, pushing, battering; played out by robotic giants. It has become tedious, often unpleasant, occasionally ugly. The qualities of movement, passing, catching, evading, free running, reading the field, have been hidden. There is little to attract new players, new watchers, new families and individuals who want to become part of the game.

Forget structure - other than make the best of what exists - and look carefully at what will bring in new enthusiasts.

[GUBRATS]

20 hours ago, Cerulean said:

Your extreme contempt for a number of folk who perceive the game in a different light from you, appears to blind you to the true nature of the difficulties. The game does not in any way cling to the particular fan base you describe. There are those fans who cling to the memories of a sport that has been a major part of their lives, supporting, playing, encouraging, coaching, financing, for decades. They certainly now have no influence on the sport, are not pandered to, have no say, and it is hard to see how they can have blame attributed to them, or how the sport can be blamed for their existence. That they have no influence is clearly shown (clear to anyone with an unclouded judgement) by the extent to which the game has already moved on. 

Perhaps to move towards a more useful contribution, you could provide a definition of the new fan base you crave, and suggest initiatives on how they may be persuaded to invest emotionally and financially into the sport.

It truly makes me laugh at times , this wierd misconception that lower tier grounds are only inhabited by old blokes in flat caps accompanied by a whippet , perpetuated I'd suggest by RL ' fans ' who've not actually visited these stadiums 

[GUBRATS]

9 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

OK.... I'll bite. 

I have posted on here before about how I would see the game moving forward, and I should caveat that I am certainly not an expert in marketing.

Essentially, I would divide the TV money across 10 SuperLeague clubs, not 12.

The two relegated teams would join SuperLeague 2. SL2 would be a feeder league for SuperLeague, and would be aiming to be full time. Work would have to be done to find a broadcaster, but SL2 would probably be a small league to start with.... Possibly only 8 teams. If for example in season 1, SL2 comprised Hull KR, Leigh, Bradford, London, Toulouse, and 3 other clubs who fulfilled the criteria (budget, stadium, ability to operate full time....) Say, Newcastle, Widnes, York.

If only those 8 met the criteria in season 1 , then I would propose that a SuperLeague cup competition could be engineered to equalise the number of fixtures.... So SL2.clubs play 3 group games initially, (for example) then 4 of them progress to round 2.with the lower ranked SuperLeague teams with the higher ranked clubs joining at quarter finals (or whatever). The Cup would run in the initial seasons mainly to help the SL2 teams if that League was too small initially. A pro 9s circuit involving all SL and SL2 teams could be another tool used to support the SL2 clubs.

Clubs would be able to apply to join SL2 if they met the criteria to operate at a full time level, had the appropriate stadium etc etc. The early years might be difficult, as the league could be very small, so opportunities to play cup ties against SuperLeague teams would be important to keep supporting the SL2 clubs.  If expansion teams like Toronto or Ottawa ever came along again, SL2 would be the perfect "nursery" for them to be admitted to the professional game, and therefore growing the league. This would avoid the farce that was forcing Toronto Wolfpack to play a season running over students painters and call centre workers from Gloucestershire or  Oxford or whoever. This was a nonsense, and wasted resources that the game could ill afford to waste. 

The small clubs, who could never operate in a professional environment, could all play in the National League. It would sit below SL2, there would be no automatic promotion immediately, but as SL2 filled up, then the concept of relegation COULD be considered, and it would be subject to the champions of the national League meeting the criteria for admission to SL2.

The National League would be a kind of apex of the pyramid for the village teams, traditional clubs like Featherstone and Whitehaven who are.capable of getting decent results but miles off being able to operate in a full time professional environment, and ambitious clubs who have previously operated in an amateur environment.... But want to go further. (Manchester Rangers who operated a few years ago.... One example).

it would be the top of a pyramid stretching all the way down to the lowest tiers of the community game. 

The reduction of SuperLeague to 10 would help avoid the dilution of talent and hopefully both raise playing standards and prevent blow out scores - which are ridiculously prevalent in our so-called elite division.

If French clubs shared the ambition of Les Dracs or TO XIII then they could (once they met the pre determined standard) be admitted to SL2. They would not have to waste a year running about against West Wales Raiders etc, as these clubs would be in either National League or further down the community pyramid.

Essentially, my model would split the professional game away from the community level - and it would stop teams like Workington or Hunslet having a say in how Leeds Rhinos or Warrington have to operate. Teams like that who want to pay plasterers or students a.few quid to run about on a Sunday, would still be welcome to do so. However, their doing so would not be mixed up with the professional teams who (even if numbers were limited) would have to adhere to a minimum standard in terms of stadia, full time squad, academy commitment (level of investment here may vary with a few elite academies, and other SL/SL2 clubs operating a more limited academy project).

I reckon within a few years, the game could operate two (smallish) professional divisions. The target initially would be 20 professional teams across UK and France.  This pathway would (backed up by an appropriate development process of course) allow young athletes to progress into Rugby League as a genuine career opportunity, in enough numbers to raise the standard of the England team. That would then allow England to move forward and compete on a more even basis with the big 3 (Aus Tonga and NZ) as currently they are languishing down with 3rd world countries like PNG.

Obviously my plan is not foolproof, and would require a huge amount of work to sell the SL2 concept to a broadcaster,but given the lack of "rugby' on SkySports these days, the clubs would have a product/content that would be marketable to both Sky and other platforms. In years 1 and 2, visibility would be almost as important as cash, especially given that SL2 may initially operate with a small (or odd) number of teams.

 

 

In that case I'm out , that'd be me done with it 

 

[Harry Stottle]

On 05/08/2021 at 22:03, yipyee said:

Its not its the SL clubs that chose you as cannon fodder..

Short sited and now the hens come home to roost

Don't be silly Yipyee it was not short sighted at all, the stratergy worked for the SL incumbents knowing Leigh would not threaten any other club with relegation, and for that matter under the same conditions of naming any team to enter SL as late as Dec 14th, under funding and no players to sign to strengthen a squad assembled for the Championship, no other team including Toulouse would have staved off relegation.

As a Leigh fan, I said when we were 'promoted' we would not win a game all season that did not deter me from buying a season ticket as I accepted the situation, but next season is completely different whether we get relegated or we get a reprieve from relegation if we are not competitive again I will strongly consider divorce proceedings.

[Scubby]

50 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

It truly makes me laugh at times , this wierd misconception that lower tier grounds are only inhabited by old blokes in flat caps accompanied by a whippet , perpetuated I'd suggest by RL ' fans ' who've not actually visited these stadiums 

Is there a ban on taking your dogs to the game now?

[Harry Stottle]

On 06/08/2021 at 15:55, Martyn Sadler said:

You make an interesting point.

The problem is that by moving down to 10 clubs from 12, it's logical to assume that many of the Sky subscribers who support the two banished clubs will pull their subscriptions.

Additionally, if, say, two of the ten clubs are Catalans and Toulouse, that leaves only eight GB clubs driving Sky Rugby League subscriptions.

Some people may believe that the quality will be so high that it will drive more neutral subscriptions, but I find that a very optimistic viewpoint. The opposite point of view is that subscribers could get bored from seeing so little variation in the teams covered by Sky.

I would be very worried about that if I ran Super League and I certainly wouldn't be rushing to reduce the competition to 10 clubs.

I would be far more inclined to go in the opposite direction.

Anyone who supported a 2nd Division team when they reduced the league to 8 teams will be totally against a reduction to 10 teams if they are of my mindset, it was awful. OK it is an increase of 2 clubs to 10 but the system will be the same of multiple fixtures between the same teams, any league structure worth it's salt should be home and away fixtures only throughout a season, 14 teams is the perfect optimum number to deliver that.

[Harry Stottle]

On 06/08/2021 at 19:00, whatmichaelsays said:

If we're basing decisions around how we add value to broadcasters on projections of how many people in Leigh or Salford might, maybe, possibly cancel their Sky subscriptions, then not only are the game's stakeholders showing a massive lack of confidence in the product itself, but also in their own ability to actually enhance the product so that it adds value to broadcasters. 

The world has moved on. Geography is not the game's handicap here. 

It is as far as Sky selling subscriptions are concerned, those supporters of teams beyond the broadcast boundaries are of no use at all to Sky.

[Griff]

38 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Is there a ban on taking your dogs to the game now?

I can remember when dogs regularly used to take part.

[whatmichaelsays]

16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It is as far as Sky selling subscriptions are concerned, those supporters of teams beyond the broadcast boundaries are of no use at all to Sky.

Which is only relevant if you feel that the appeal of rugby league content can only ever be confined to areas where teams are based which, respectfully, I would say is an outdated view. 

[Harry Stottle]

23 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

100%. Am so glad someone has said it. 

The existing fanbase is dramatically aging, and tends to cling to some kind of bygone era pre-professionalism where players worked down pits then ran about on a Sunday.

That part-time environment is light years away from what will attract potential new fans to the game, bring in money, and help it grow. 

If the game simply clings to this aging, inflexible, "traditionalist" fanbase, it will die out as a professional entity in Europe. Simple.

I am probably the stereotype 'owd timer' you describe, but those like me are not the problem it is attracting a new audience that is the problem. I would welcome any diversity from what we have as a 'normal' matchday expierence, bring on the entertainment and the bands who play music for the hard of thinking but I would not join in, I would still go for a pint - of site - and turn up 10 mins before kick off then back to the pub on the final whistle as a lot of my contemporaries would most probably also do, the game is the most important part of us older ones matchday expierience and is probably a good job we keep going.

I agree that something needs to be done in readiness for when my generation curls our toes up, so the sport needs to carry on and make it quick or suffer the consequences.

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

Is there a ban on taking your dogs to the game now?

No but they have to be a whippet 

[Liverpool Rover]

55 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Anyone who supported a 2nd Division team when they reduced the league to 8 teams will be totally against a reduction to 10 teams if they are of my mindset, it was awful. OK it is an increase of 2 clubs to 10 but the system will be the same of multiple fixtures between the same teams, any league structure worth it's salt should be home and away fixtures only throughout a season, 14 teams is the perfect optimum number to deliver that.

It is annoying that we have loop fixtures but until the gap closes between the big 5 clubs and the rest the loop fixtures are probably needed to get as much money from the TV deal as possible, like in Scotland where the fans hate playing each other 4 times a season but the SPL insist on it to maximise the amount of Old Firm games for TV because they are the only games that broadcasters are really interested in.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Which is only relevant if you feel that the appeal of rugby league content can only ever be confined to areas where teams are based which, respectfully, I would say is an outdated view. 

We are talking of what is important to Sky in selling subscriptions, if the time comes when Sky considers that Rugby League no longer delivers a profit then it will be bye bye.

[yipyee]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Don't be silly Yipyee it was not short sighted at all, the stratergy worked for the SL incumbents knowing Leigh would not threaten any other club with relegation, and for that matter under the same conditions of naming any team to enter SL as late as Dec 14th, under funding and no players to sign to strengthen a squad assembled for the Championship, no other team including Toulouse would have staved off relegation.

As a Leigh fan, I said when we were 'promoted' we would not win a game all season that did not deter me from buying a season ticket as I accepted the situation, but next season is completely different whether we get relegated or we get a reprieve from relegation if we are not competitive again I will strongly consider divorce proceedings.

Agree that Leigh were set up to fail, they were not the best team in the championship and had no time to do anything about it.

I think Fev would have won a few games and Toulouse would have been in the mix at the bottom.

TBF Leigh beat saints pre season and should have got over the line against Wigan

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

In that case I'm out , that'd be me done with it 

 

And your whippet?

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Anyone who supported a 2nd Division team when they reduced the league to 8 teams will be totally against a reduction to 10 teams if they are of my mindset, it was awful. OK it is an increase of 2 clubs to 10 but the system will be the same of multiple fixtures between the same teams, any league structure worth it's salt should be home and away fixtures only throughout a season, 14 teams is the perfect optimum number to deliver that.

I completely agree. Sometimes you need to take a step backwards to go forwards and for me going to 14 teams grows the pie long-term while teams take a slight hit in the short term.

I'd even be quite happy with 2 up and 2 down and for the salary cap to be increased too. If Toulouse come up and want to spend £3 million and attract stars then let them. Similarly if Beaumont wants to do likewise. Goodness knows we need the stars and quality in Super League. Anything else just protects the status quo. This will allow teams to rise to the fore and stop teams coasting at the bottom of Super League.

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

And your whippet?

Dont have a whippet , got a ' fat ' Jack Russell

[Harry Stottle]

21 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Agree that Leigh were set up to fail, they were not the best team in the championship and had no time to do anything about it.

I think Fev would have won a few games and Toulouse would have been in the mix at the bottom.

TBF Leigh beat saints pre season and should have got over the line against Wigan

I don't think you can say who was the best team in the Championship to be elevated to SL, even the early games pre-lockdown had 3 unbeaten teams in March but 9 months on from the last game being played in the Championship Leigh, Fev and Toulouse changed their playing roster considerably, one thing I would say is that the Championship would have been a more intriguing competition this year with Leigh included.

[Harry Stottle]

On 06/08/2021 at 17:29, sweaty craiq said:

they also want characters and Derek is certainly one of those as his the new multi millionaire new guy.

Carry on more information Sweaty, not seen this announced anywhere.

[Davo5]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Carry on more information Sweaty, not seen this announced anywhere.

Not you then

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

We are talking of what is important to Sky in selling subscriptions, if the time comes when Sky considers that Rugby League no longer delivers a profit then it will be bye bye.

I agree, and I was specifically taking exception to @Martyn Sadler's comment that it's "people like him who really matter". I think that attitude is dated, insular, unaspiring and, frankly, a bit arrogant. 

The people who "really matter" in this are the people who, on paper, could be engaged by RL but, for whatever reason, aren't. People who maybe have access to Sky Sports, or may be within easy reach of RL in person but, for one reason or another, decide to watch or do something else. 

Those are the people who "really matter" because, above all else, they outnumber us quite significantly and honestly, I think the number of households in RL towns who would either take out or cancel a Sky subscription based on whether their team is in SL or not is so small and insignificant that it would barely register as a rounding error. What Sky are really looking at here is the volume and quality of the audience we provide.

Getting people sitting on sofas to watch RL is not contingent on where our teams are based. It's contingent on how good that content is. If the argument against a non-UK team is "Sky doesn't sell dishes there", we're really showing a lack of confidence in what is supposedly "TTG". 

[Harry Stottle]

35 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Not you then

Definatley not Dav, the missus has all our money, she still gives me pocket money each week.

[Harry Stottle]

There is something else in this purported threat that Sky has made which I took as "Improve the product within the next 2 year contract, or else" if I am correct.

Now I know many people who are "The converted" as far as Rugby League is concerned and would have religiously tuned into every match broadcast, but their enthusiasm is waning and to be perfectly honest mine is also.

The game today is for me is in the most dull, the rules are strangling the game, the officials are terrified of making mistakes and every move they make is scrutinised time and again in televised matches and we are lacking stars and personalities I can't  think of one modern day player (in this country) who would get people to go out of there way to see and would put bums on seats. 

I think that not only a structural change is required but it needs a good dose of looking at in the spectacle it is producing on the field, if people like me are being put off, what chance of gaining new customers is there?

[steve oates]

On 07/08/2021 at 10:37, Martyn Sadler said:

I don't disagree with you that a lot of people do watch more than one sport and have various motivations for subscribing to Sky, but I think you're missing the point, which is the valuation of the rights for individual sports.

If Sky pulled out of football, for example, it would lose so many subscribers that the game would be up for it. It couldn't survive without football, which gives football a tremendously strong negotiating position.

No other sport is in that position and ultimately it could probably pull out of all of them and still survive just on football. At at one time most viewers were happy to watch Rugby League, there seems to be a discernible trend towards wanting to watch only your own club.

I'm not highlighting your comment to win some sort of badge, with a few "likes" for putting the Editor of League Express down, I would genuinely like to know Martin, if in your professional position you have access to people who are able to privately comment on the mix of TV fans and reasons for watching RL on SKY.

If indeed an analysis of why fans subscribe to SKY to watch Rugby League is in the main (which is clearly very feasible) to watch their own clubs  home games as it's easier and cheaper to do so, and maybe avoid the horrible M62 experience for the away games etc, that sounds more than plausible "concrete evidence" or not.

I can also see how so many people around the country will buy SKY and follow their proxy clubs like Man City, Liverpool and Man Utd. I can't see many people from the heavily Rugby Union areas of the south and Midlands adopting RL teams and following them on SKY in any number.

So I'm happy to accept your analysis anyway, thank you for it and as a result it seems to me that that Superleague 2023 could actually be picked now using the factors of past crowd numbers allied to rich owners.

It kind of starts with Leeds and Caddick, then Moran and Warrington, Then Lenegan and Wigan, McManus and Saints, Gausch and Catalans, Hull and Pearson as certainties with their crowds and owners...... Then somewhat less fans or money at Davey and Huddersfield. Beaumont and Leigh, Fulton and Castleford  and Hudgell and HKR.

That makes ten.................All of whom generally have the crowds and where they don't like Huddersfield they have a heavily rich owner.......

I am  grateful for and happy to accept your analysis 100% that most SKY subscribers "tend to follow their own clubs" and conclude that SL1 certainly picks itself notwithstanding the plan to let "Results" actually decide. But who would bet against anyone in the ten above and why??

[steve oates]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think that not only a structural change is required but it needs a good dose of looking at in the spectacle it is producing on the field, if people like me are being put off........

The rule of six again stops defences slowing the game down and archaic non contested scrums are gone. They have already "looked at the spectacle" and made significant and to my mind successful changes "on the field"? 

I didn't like scrums, I didn't like the Wigan style laying on, these are gone??