League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Hela Wigmen]

12 minutes ago, thebrewxi said:

Assuming current positions that would give:

 

Super League Premier League:

Catalans Dragons; St Helens; Warrington Wolves; Wigan Warriors; Hull Kingston Rovers; Hull FC; Leeds Rhinos; Castleford Tigers; Huddersfield Giants, Toulouse

Super League Championship:

Salford; Wakefield; Leigh; Featherstone; Halifax; Bradford; Batley; London; Whitehaven; York.

 

Teams left out of any funding:

Sheffield - assume that would finish them; can't see them going into the NCL

Widnes - would they really join the NCL? I'm thinking they'll try and get it in court

Newcastle - 50/50 go under or join NCL

Dewsbury, Oldham, Swinton, Barrow, Workington, Keighley, Rochdale, Hunslet - they'd all have to go amateur and into the NCL?

I'd assume both the Welsh teams would fold instantly, and Cov and Skolars would have to move and reform as local clubs scaled back clubs.

Zero chance of any semi-pro expansion any time for the next generation: the drawbridge will be fully pulled up for any French, Canadian, American, Serbian, Spanish etc teams. Probably kills off Super League expansion for good.

 

Bit of a massive F^&*ing change to the British game isn't it! Is this really what is about to happen?

I don’t really know much on any proposals about what happens to the “other” clubs, what their competition entails, what funding they’d get (if any) and whether there would be promotion/relegation between the two. 

[Mumby Magic]

31 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

There's no doubt that constant change has sapped the will of even some of Rugby League's most ardent supporters.

With my proposal, I wanted to illustrate the point that there is a potential other way forward, even if it's unlikely to be taken up.

If a 12-team Super League were the answer, combined with promotion and relegation, I think we would have seen much more growth than we have over the years.

Given how difficult it is for a promoted team to be competitive, it pretty much becomes a closed shop for eleven teams, all of whom jealously guard their status.

However it's not just about a 12 team SL. It's about how we are run, having short, mid and long term plans. Having marketing strategies. We just have constant knee jerk reactions. An established figure, coach or ex player has an idea, 6 months later it's considered for implementation. We need a leader. Not until will we progress.

[Man of Kent]

31 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Salford need a proper home. Leigh when they are treated equally were pulling in 6k in SL so they are fine and Wakefield will be transformed by that 3g and stand redevelopement. 

I don´t want clubs like Wakey to be lost to the game but we´ve got to grow the pie. That´s why I think we have to split what we have 14 ways and grow the income that way. 

I don't see how 10+10 with P&R & central funding causes Wakefield to be lost to the game.

If they were to be relegated, tough titty. They'd have to cut their cloth accordingly and have a crack at promotion when ready.

[The Frying Scotsman]

4 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I didn't think for a minute that my proposal would be adopted, but I've had a strong response from some Rugby League club bosses.

Those who have understood the rationale, which ultimately is about unifying the game, have inevitably tended to be the most positive about it.

The RFL and Super League are committed to their 10 and 10 model, however.

Am glad to hear they are committed to 10, 10. 

My question to you @Martyn Sadler though, is that do you honestly think that the future for professional Rugby League is to have Catalans Dragons (one of the real success stories of SuperLeague) playing Home and Away against West Wales Raiders? West Wales Raiders (if we look at their history) will probably not exist by the time the reconstruction comes around. Or if they do, they will be playing in a different town, at a different rugby union club, with different players, and very possibly a different name. The same can be said for Hull FC.... Is the future of the game really forcing them to play Home/Away against Coventry?   What will be gained by St Helens running in 110 points against a hapless Workington before repeating the punishment a few weeks later?

Why this obsession with including Clubs who are able to put together a reasonable team of players who are not capable of playing professionally (or don't want to commit to that) but could absolutely not sustain a professional set up themselves? It seems an incredibly.old fashioned, and regressive approach. More in keeping with the old Lancashire Cups and Cumbrian Leagues or whatever.... That belong in the 1950s.

Surely to drive standards (and therefore revenues.... Customers/Subscribers will pay to watch Elite Vs Elite, and not Wigan giving Swinton yet another hiding. Do we not need to get the best playing the best as often as possible while maintaining quality?

Any chance you could share your logic in involving these tiny community clubs (some of whom are barely above amateur level) and suggesting they are placed in leagues on an equal footing with the professional teams?

 

 

[LeeF]

36 minutes ago, thebrewxi said:

Assuming current positions that would give:

 

Super League Premier League:

Catalans Dragons; St Helens; Warrington Wolves; Wigan Warriors; Hull Kingston Rovers; Hull FC; Leeds Rhinos; Castleford Tigers; Huddersfield Giants, Toulouse

Super League Championship:

Salford; Wakefield; Leigh; Featherstone; Halifax; Bradford; Batley; London; Whitehaven; York.

 

Teams left out of any funding:

Sheffield - assume that would finish them; can't see them going into the NCL

Widnes - would they really join the NCL? I'm thinking they'll try and get it in court

Newcastle - 50/50 go under or join NCL

Dewsbury, Oldham, Swinton, Barrow, Workington, Keighley, Rochdale, Hunslet - they'd all have to go amateur and into the NCL?

I'd assume both the Welsh teams would fold instantly, and Cov and Skolars would have to move and reform as local clubs scaled back clubs.

Zero chance of any semi-pro expansion any time for the next generation: the drawbridge will be fully pulled up for any French, Canadian, American, Serbian, Spanish etc teams. Probably kills off Super League expansion for good.

 

Bit of a massive F^&*ing change to the British game isn't it! Is this really what is about to happen?

None of those in bold would go the NCL, most wouldn’t meet the minimum criteria and would therefore fold 

[Martyn Sadler]

36 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

However it's not just about a 12 team SL. It's about how we are run, having short, mid and long term plans. Having marketing strategies. We just have constant knee jerk reactions. An established figure, coach or ex player has an idea, 6 months later it's considered for implementation. We need a leader. Not until will we progress.

Under the existing governmental structure of the game, that is impossible.

[Whippet13]

2 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I've created this in error.

Is that the new 2022 Super League promotional tagline?

[Man of Kent]

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

But what is there incentive to make the investment in a ground if we are going tro ten. 10X10 only works as 2 genuine conferences in 1 competition. Otherwise go to 14, and grow the pie. 

We don't know if Wakefield would bother even if they had a guaranteed SL place, to be fair. 

As for 14, I'd rather have a smaller yet tastier pie with good quality ingredients than a bigger, blander one with cheaper ingredients. 

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed I do, but like with the cutting of Super League to 10 teams, that has to be a long term vision not just who happens to be there at the right time. Given the relative scarcity of junior RL players too, there needs to be serious consideration of how many academies are drawing from specific areas and how.

If the 10 club SL includes 2 French teams that will be a bit sparse on fixtures, I see no reason why SL2 clubs if they desire and can afford an academy could not run them and have a conference like League system.

In regards your last statement, that does seem to be protectionist to existing academies, places like Halifax and Leigh produce players that are hoovered up by other clubs, why should they not be allowed to nurture their own and the same as the other clubs from anywhere else they can entice them from, as I say your suggestion seems to protect a few clubs.

[Damien]

The way that people are talking about clubs outside of 2 x 10s getting cast adrift horrifies me. No sport grows by contracting like that and there are too many good RL clubs and areas that will be destroyed. Reduce funding yes but don't just cut 16 clubs. Such a format also seems like a closed shop and makes it difficult for new clubs to join.

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Two wrongs?

What do you consider are the two wrongs, I spoke of 3 things, the DR System, not having reserves, or having to spend money that would have been utilised to supplement players saleries, or is it 3 wrongs?

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Maybe SL clubs should be penalised financially - i.e. hundreds of thousands docked from central funding - for not having an Academy?

How, if the RFL say they can't operate an academy?

[Eddie]

Ten team leagues will be dull as dishwater, assuming they’re not going to play 18 regular season games each and there’ll be loads of loop fixtures. 
 

But regardless of that wtf are the Championship and L1 clubs who don’t make the cut going to do, you’d have some great clubs go to the wall probably, a shameful situation. Six from the championship and all the great clubs currently in L1, such a tin pot idea it’s almost beyond belief. 

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How, if the RFL say they can't operate an academy?

Indeed. Hey Widnes, you can’t have an academy, but if you go up we’re going to fine you for not having one. 

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

But there´s already teams in Champ who can grow with exposure to top teams but certainly won´t in a comp that noone is going to pay to show and clubs cannot sell York vs Batley, but York vs Leeds. It´s also the worst of both worlds because it keeps loop fixtures, concentrates power more in weaker clubs and gives central funding to clubs who will never grow the pie. 

There´s Toulouse, Newcastle and York who would all add massively to the competition were we to go to 14, a top ten is a lid on growth. As tv money is split 14 ways the clubs that can grow their commercial income (Toulouse, York, Newcastle) will begin to edge out clubs who cannot. 

Sky would show SL2, as reported by Mr Sadler's organ (matron!). So there's that.

I hear what you say about 10 being a limit on growth but the clubs you mention aren't ready yet (nowhere near, actually). We don't have 12 strong clubs in SL so 14 would dilute the comp further.

What we would see with 10+10 is survival of the fittest. If you are right that clubs that can grow their commercial income - Toulouse, York, Newcastle - will begin to edge out clubs who cannot then they will be challenging for promotion.

Eventually there may well be calls for expansion above 10 in 'SL1', but that's another discussion for another day. 

[OriginalMrC]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

The way that people are talking about clubs outside of 2 x 10s getting cast adrift horrifies me. No sport grows by contracting like that and there are too many good RL clubs and areas that will be destroyed. Reduce funding yes but don't just cut 16 clubs. Such a format also seems like a closed shop and makes it difficult for new clubs to join.

While they are not cutting clubs directly what they are doing is cutting funding to such a level to effectively force decisions on clubs. The question is can you survive on your own? If the answer is no then you aren't a pro club. 

I find the whole thing ludicrous since all but the top 5 clubs couldn't survive, and be in any way competitive, without central distribution. 

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, OriginalMrC said:

While they are not cutting clubs directly what they are doing is cutting funding to such a level to effectively force decisions on clubs. The question is can you survive on your own? If the answer is no then you aren't a pro club. 

I find the whole thing ludicrous since all but the top 5 clubs couldn't survive, and be in any way competitive, without central distribution. 

Do you know what would happen to those not in the 20 Mr C? Would they have a semi pro comp arranged for them by the RFL or will you be left to do it yourselves (I’m assuming Cov don’t get promoted this year and then finish in the top 6 of the championship next year of course). And will there be P&R into/out of SL2? 

[wiganermike]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

The way that people are talking about clubs outside of 2 x 10s getting cast adrift horrifies me. No sport grows by contracting like that and there are too many good RL clubs and areas that will be destroyed. Reduce funding yes but don't just cut 16 clubs. Such a format also seems like a closed shop and makes it difficult for new clubs to join.

I haven't seen it said anywhere what the proposed funding levels would be other than stating that proposed SL2 funding was not as far below proposed SL1 funding as clubs had feared and that funding for the rest would be reduced. However if we are looking at a reality where SL2 clubs are getting many times (it could easily be 10 times the level of funding) what the 16 League 1 clubs get then P&R between SL2 and League 1 would be impossible as every club getting relegated would go bust instantly. They simply couldn't reconfigure their operations in such a short time frame. If this proposal goes through then I would expect the 2x10 divisions to become a closed shop with clubs only joining by application/invitation. If that is ultimately to be the case then I would expect some degree of selection of clubs to be brought into the process rather than trusting simply to which 20 clubs finish highest in 2022.

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

But this is chicken and egg. Newcastle and York aren´t strong enough . Why? Because they can´t promote games vs bigger teams to sponsors or regular tv coverage. When will they be strong enough? When they have those opportunities, which they´ll never get in your system because they are not strong enough. When will they be str.... 

They would have to become strong enough through their own efforts. If you are right that Newcastle and York are more commercially attractive off the field, we would see that filter down to on-field results, ie challenging for promotion to SL1.

[OriginalMrC]

18 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Do you know what would happen to those not in the 20 Mr C? Would they have a semi pro comp arranged for them by the RFL or will you be left to do it yourselves (I’m assuming Cov don’t get promoted this year and then finish in the top 6 of the championship next year of course). And will there be P&R into/out of SL2? 

I'm only basing what I know so far on rumours. As I understand it clubs still don't know what the structure will be or what they'll get in funding. There seems to be strong indications that clubs outside the 20 will have little or no funding. There will still be a comp but clubs will need to fund themselves. This will clearly suit some clubs better than others. As I understand it the proposal is there will be still P&R. The problem is that outside this new comp clubs may have nowhere to go. 

[Eddie]

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I just said their only more commercially attractive if they have the exposure to the big teams of SL to grow themselves. So we´re back to chicken and egg. It´s an absurd bottleneck I´m afraid. 

What makes you say Newcastle and York are more commercially attractive than anyone else, and what do you mean by it? 

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

I just said their only more commercially attractive if they have the exposure to the big teams of SL to grow themselves. So we´re back to chicken and egg. It´s an absurd bottleneck I´m afraid. 

So what's your proposal, chief? Shove York and Newcastle in a 14-club SL before they are ready? How commercially attractive would they be if they took a flogging each week and are relegated immediately?

[Man of Kent]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Well obviously the money they get goes up in SL, hence they would be full time. And the crowds they would attract as well as commercial income would make them as competitive as a Salford in the first few seasons. If they get relegated fine but if Salford and Newcastle are getting same central funding, I´m betting on Salford to finish lower. 

And you sign commercial deals before the start of a season, not whilst it´s ongoing...

Sorry but I'm not buying it. There's a lot of ifs there. Too many to just shove them in on a wing and a prayer.

I think the potential of York and to a lesser extent Newcastle is overblown, anyway. 

They are merely 'young, fresh, clean' (though not really in the case of York) who aren't tainted like, say, Bradford, and in reality are no more deserving of Super League than anyone else. I'd be delighted if they made SL, but they should have to earn it. 

[Man of Kent]

30 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I didn´t say anything about franchises. But by reducing to 10 you are creating an artificial bottleneck that protects the clubs already clinging on to tv money with little roi from challengers. Very similar to how the EFL kept (and keep)  an artifical bottleneck on non league football teams. 

What 10 does is set the bar higher for a Super League place. In my view, it is too low and should be raised. Not lowered further.

Just this weekend, Wakefield said they spend £1m less than other clubs. This is what I'm on about.  

[Derwent Parker]

59 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Ten team leagues will be dull as dishwater, assuming they’re not going to play 18 regular season games each and there’ll be loads of loop fixtures. 
 

But regardless of that wtf are the Championship and L1 clubs who don’t make the cut going to do, you’d have some great clubs go to the wall probably, a shameful situation. Six from the championship and all the great clubs currently in L1, such a tin pot idea it’s almost beyond belief. 

As said previously these ideas/plans put on here by SL supporters are all down to greed! SL wanting 10 teams is not for better matches - its down to more cash for Top 10 and they will make it so the second 10  are on less central funding and kick out all the rest by taking their central funding altogether.

Then in a few more year if sky money drops any more they will insist that only having a SL1 will improve the spectacle and dump SL2 and nobody will be able to do anything as SL1 will have double votes per SL team just like now over all the other teams.

Great isn't it - pure greed, whichever way you put it.

The only way to improve the game is to improve all the teams not just a select few and you dont do that by taking money from the poorest and giving it to the richest.