Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

1 hour 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. 

Its a bottleneck and a problem that will never be fixed until everyone gets equal central funding.

If a team gets a benefactor or are really good at generating income of their own then good for them - bur the RFL and sky should not be feeding some teams and starving others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

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?

If the only characteristic of my proposed structure were to have West Wales playing the Catalans, Hull FC playing Coventry or St Helens playing Workington, then clearly I wouldn't be promoting the idea.

But you are right to ask the question and there are several responses I could make.

But first of all, what do you think about the World Cup groups, that pits Scotland and Italy against Australia, or Greece against England, or Jamaica and Ireland against New Zealand?

And what do you make of the Rugby Union World Cup, where the difference in standards of teams in the same groups are even more stark?

But let me give you a practical example of how the disparities in standard eventually are ironed out.

In the 1995 World Cup, the All Blacks defeated Japan 145-17.

20 years later in the World Cup of 2015 Japan defeated South Africa 34-32.

In other words, current standards don't remain current forever.

Under my proposed structure, every club would be able to see a clear pathway to making that sort of improvement. West Wales would find it much easier to attract talented young Welsh players, for example, and investors who were prepared to inject the resources that would allow the club to improve. And that would be true of all the other clubs that currently play in League 1. But if that didn't happen they could be replaced by other more ambitious clubs, perhaps from France, for example.

Under my structure the first five fixtures would be intra-conference, and the bigger clubs would visit the home grounds of the smaller clubs to generate added interest at those venues.

In the competition as a whole, each club would play against 20 other clubs, with 15 of those fixtures against clubs in the rival Conferences, with the games being played against teams at the same levels.

For example, West Wales (assuming they were the bottom club in their Conference) would play against the three lowest-finishing clubs in each of the other Conferences, while the Catalans (assuming they were the top club in that Conference) would play 15 matches against the top three teams in each of the other Conferences.

I think that in a relatively short amount of time, the six Conferences would become much more competitive and there would be considerable scope for clubs moving up and down them and for shock results, which would surely add to the entertainment value of the competition as a whole.

It's also worth pointing out that if the competition were to be sold to one or more broadcasters, the fans of all the clubs, not just the top ten, would be incentivised to buy subscriptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If the only characteristic of my proposed structure were to have West Wales playing the Catalans, Hull FC playing Coventry or St Helens playing Workington, then clearly I wouldn't be promoting the idea.

But you are right to ask the question and there are several responses I could make.

But first of all, what do you think about the World Cup groups, that pits Scotland and Italy against Australia, or Greece against England, or Jamaica and Ireland against New Zealand?

And what do you make of the Rugby Union World Cup, where the difference in standards of teams in the same groups are even more stark?

But let me give you a practical example of how the disparities in standard eventually are ironed out.

In the 1995 World Cup, the All Blacks defeated Japan 145-17.

20 years later in the World Cup of 2015 Japan defeated South Africa 34-32.

In other words, current standards don't remain current forever.

Under my proposed structure, every club would be able to see a clear pathway to making that sort of improvement. West Wales would find it much easier to attract talented young Welsh players, for example, and investors who were prepared to inject the resources that would allow the club to improve. And that would be true of all the other clubs that currently play in League 1. But if that didn't happen they could be replaced by other more ambitious clubs, perhaps from France, for example.

Under my structure the first five fixtures would be intra-conference, and the bigger clubs would visit the home grounds of the smaller clubs to generate added interest at those venues.

In the competition as a whole, each club would play against 20 other clubs, with 15 of those fixtures against clubs in the rival Conferences, with the games being played against teams at the same levels.

For example, West Wales (assuming they were the bottom club in their Conference) would play against the three lowest-finishing clubs in each of the other Conferences, while the Catalans (assuming they were the top club in that Conference) would play 15 matches against the top three teams in each of the other Conferences.

I think that in a relatively short amount of time, the six Conferences would become much more competitive and there would be considerable scope for clubs moving up and down them and for shock results, which would surely add to the entertainment value of the competition as a whole.

Like your plan Martyn - but 90% of all replies on here knocking your plan are I assume from SL supporters who dont want anything to change and would ideally pull up the drawbridge if they could.

If the NFL [of which your plan mimics to a degree] - took over the RL their first plan would be to try and get all the teams on the same level - not make the gap wider.

This is what SL does not want - they want to be up there on a pedestal and get most the money and have no second thoughts about any other teams. They would happily take the 75/80k of each L1 team, even though it wouldn't make a dent in their coffers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

Well obviously the money they get goes up in SL

Goes up from what they get now, possibly. But SL has a habit of reducing funding to various clubs, remember that TW didn't get a share of the cake at all. And Leigh, when they were finally declared the 12th club, only got £1m  which, IIRC, what SL would have given to the (not TW) relegated club as a parachute payment. So, with essentially 3 extra sides next season, it'll be interesting to see how the cake is sliced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Like your plan Martyn - but 90% of all replies on here knocking your plan are I assume from SL supporters who dont want anything to change and would ideally pull up the drawbridge if they could.

If the NFL [of which your plan mimics to a degree] - took over the NFL their first plan would be to try and get all the teams on the same level - not make the gap wider.

This is what SL does not want - they want to be up there on a pedestal and get most the money and have no second thoughts about any other teams. They would happily take the 75/80k of each L1 team, even though it wouldn't make a dent in their coffers.

As a supporter of a SL club, I don’t think most supporters want the drawbridge pulled up; the owners might be most supporters don’t. That said, comparing RL to the NFL is like comparing apples and bananas. RL has no money; the NFL has lots. Spreading the RL pot thinner and thinner is a recipe for mediocrity, a part time sport and ultimately disaster. That’s why people have actively rubbished Martyn’s idea on here. We’ve seen over the last 20yrs what spreading the pot too thinly has done; as well as wasting it elsewhere through bad management and assurance practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If the only characteristic of my proposed structure were to have West Wales playing the Catalans, Hull FC playing Coventry or St Helens playing Workington, then clearly I wouldn't be promoting the idea.

But you are right to ask the question and there are several responses I could make.

But first of all, what do you think about the World Cup groups, that pits Scotland and Italy against Australia, or Greece against England, or Jamaica and Ireland against New Zealand?

And what do you make of the Rugby Union World Cup, where the difference in standards of teams in the same groups are even more stark?

But let me give you a practical example of how the disparities in standard eventually are ironed out.

In the 1995 World Cup, the All Blacks defeated Japan 145-17.

20 years later in the World Cup of 2015 Japan defeated South Africa 34-32.

In other words, current standards don't remain current forever.

Under my proposed structure, every club would be able to see a clear pathway to making that sort of improvement. West Wales would find it much easier to attract talented young Welsh players, for example, and investors who were prepared to inject the resources that would allow the club to improve. And that would be true of all the other clubs that currently play in League 1. But if that didn't happen they could be replaced by other more ambitious clubs, perhaps from France, for example.

Under my structure the first five fixtures would be intra-conference, and the bigger clubs would visit the home grounds of the smaller clubs to generate added interest at those venues.

In the competition as a whole, each club would play against 20 other clubs, with 15 of those fixtures against clubs in the rival Conferences, with the games being played against teams at the same levels.

For example, West Wales (assuming they were the bottom club in their Conference) would play against the three lowest-finishing clubs in each of the other Conferences, while the Catalans (assuming they were the top club in that Conference) would play 15 matches against the top three teams in each of the other Conferences.

I think that in a relatively short amount of time, the six Conferences would become much more competitive and there would be considerable scope for clubs moving up and down them and for shock results, which would surely add to the entertainment value of the competition as a whole.

It's also worth pointing out that if the competition were to be sold to one or more broadcasters, the fans of all the clubs, not just the top ten, would be incentivised to buy subscriptions.

Thanks for the response.

Am not really sure what to say TBH. 

Are you honestly using the 1995 rugby union world cup as an example?? It is nearly 30 years ago, and Some of the countries involved were completely amateur back then. 

We are talking about a domestic, club, League season. Not a world cup that comes round every 5 years (or less depending on the NRL's current position). 

Rugby League in England (plus France and Wales) is nowhere near big enough to sustain 30odd teams. I cannot think of any other sport who willingly mix amateur(or nearly amateur) and professional levels like your proposal. I think the fact that you have to cite the World Cup as an example, tells us all we need to know. 

The money in the game is so small right now, that I have to ask - do you see all 30odd teams splitting the broadcast revenue and regressing to a part time status? Or do you see the top teams keeping the TV revenue? (I presume not, as you allude to all these "fans" of West Wales and Workington buying TV subscriptions to watch their teams). 

If revenues are split between 30 teams, how many would you see remaining as professional in the short to mid term?

When you say that the conferences "would become more competitive" .... I tend to agree with you. Teams like Salford and Castleford would rapidly regress to becoming part time, and would therefore no longer be hammering the Swintons and Featherstones. The whole thing sounds like a race to the bottom.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

As a supporter of a SL club, I don’t think most supporters want the drawbridge pulled up; the owners might be most supporters don’t. That said, comparing RL to the NFL is like comparing apples and bananas. RL has no money; the NFL has lots. Spreading the RL pot thinner and thinner is a recipe for mediocrity, a part time sport and ultimately disaster. That’s why people have actively rubbished Martyn’s idea on here. We’ve seen over the last 20yrs what spreading the pot too thinly has done; as well as wasting it elsewhere through bad management and assurance practices.

When Pete Rozelle was voted the Commissioner of the NFL in January 1960 there were twelve teams playing a twelve-game schedule in frequently half-empty stadiums, and only a few teams had television contracts.

The NFL was a basket case and its popularity was dwarfed by College Football, as well as by other American sports.

When he retired in 1989 he had transformed the NFL into the world's major football competition in terms of attendances and income generated.

I think that you and my other critics on here are seriously mistaken about the prospects for the game's future if we establish the right structure.

If we don't do that, then I'm afraid that the declining income you predict will surely come to pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

The whole thing sounds like a race to the bottom.

If you think that, then I'm afraid you don't understand it.

 

7 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

Are you honestly using the 1995 rugby union world cup as an example?

I'm using it to illustrate a principle, which you also don't seem to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think Martyn’s romantic idea will work either sadly unless everyone on these pages started winning the lottery and could takeover their beloved clubs.

Would say the history of the NFL is worth studying, even if it’s not an exact blueprint for RL.

It wasn’t a cash rich sport from the beginning and the collective agreements didn’t happen straight away, but were critical to its success.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Football_League

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

Thanks for the response.

Am not really sure what to say TBH. 

Are you honestly using the 1995 rugby union world cup as an example?? It is nearly 30 years ago, and Some of the countries involved were completely amateur back then. 

We are talking about a domestic, club, League season. Not a world cup that comes round every 5 years (or less depending on the NRL's current position). 

Rugby League in England (plus France and Wales) is nowhere near big enough to sustain 30odd teams. I cannot think of any other sport who willingly mix amateur(or nearly amateur) and professional levels like your proposal. I think the fact that you have to cite the World Cup as an example, tells us all we need to know. 

The money in the game is so small right now, that I have to ask - do you see all 30odd teams splitting the broadcast revenue and regressing to a part time status? Or do you see the top teams keeping the TV revenue? (I presume not, as you allude to all these "fans" of West Wales and Workington buying TV subscriptions to watch their teams). 

If revenues are split between 30 teams, how many would you see remaining as professional in the short to mid term?

When you say that the conferences "would become more competitive" .... I tend to agree with you. Teams like Salford and Castleford would rapidly regress to becoming part time, and would therefore no longer be hammering the Swintons and Featherstones. The whole thing sounds like a race to the bottom.

 

 

Loads of football leagues combine pro and non-pro teams, the national leagues (all three), Scottish championship and league one, and other football leagues around the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Loads of football leagues combine pro and non-pro teams, the national leagues (all three), Scottish championship and league one, and other football leagues around the world. 

You are right, but the point about my proposal is that it would allow clubs with ambition to see a pathway to success far more effectively than what we have at the moment, so a part-time club wanting to grow would see a clear way to do that.

And not just that. 

If teams were not performing it would be possible to replace them in each Conference.

As I've suggested already, I would guess there might be other French clubs that might apply to join such a system once it became established.

Perhaps over time one of the Conferences may become a purely French affair.

This structure is flexible enough to allow for that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I don’t think Martyn’s romantic idea will work either sadly unless everyone on these pages started winning the lottery and could takeover their beloved clubs.

Would say the history of the NFL is worth studying, even if it’s not an exact blueprint for RL.

It wasn’t a cash rich sport from the beginning and the collective agreements didn’t happen straight away, but were critical to its success.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Football_League

It's not a romantic idea, although I suppose you can interpret it that way, but actually it's a realistic one, albeit one that will inevitably be too radical for many people in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having read this 3 times now (To get my head around it) the whole thing makes total sense for the long term health of the game.

There are going to be some serious decisions being made over the next few weeks sad though that we all know that this will not be one of them.

If this happened though I would be delighted as long term it would work.

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

If that was the case, then why are Sky wanting SL reduced to 10 teams?

We don't know that they do.  They might have said, "the game needs improving" and Superleague might have said "we'd better drop the division down to 10, then".   We just don't know.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, zorquif said:

So they don't know? I subscribe for rugby (both codes), football, and cricket. Where would I fall? 

 

What matters is what you watch.   

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

When Pete Rozelle was voted the Commissioner of the NFL in January 1960 there were twelve teams playing a twelve-game schedule in frequently half-empty stadiums, and only a few teams had television contracts.

The NFL was a basket case and its popularity was dwarfed by College Football, as well as by other American sports.

When he retired in 1989 he had transformed the NFL into the world's major football competition in terms of attendances and income generated.

I think that you and my other critics on here are seriously mistaken about the prospects for the game's future if we establish the right structure.

If we don't do that, then I'm afraid that the declining income you predict will surely come to pass.

   One thing transformed NFL being able to receive a sattelite signai.Once games could be beamed from state to state the TV companies were outbidding each other for the rights.And it took off,you are right the game was on it's Rs until the early 1960's.The book The Last Cowboy about Tom Landry's 3 decade stint as head coach reveals how it became big business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

When Pete Rozelle was voted the Commissioner of the NFL in January 1960 there were twelve teams playing a twelve-game schedule in frequently half-empty stadiums, and only a few teams had television contracts.

The NFL was a basket case and its popularity was dwarfed by College Football, as well as by other American sports.

When he retired in 1989 he had transformed the NFL into the world's major football competition in terms of attendances and income generated.

I think that you and my other critics on here are seriously mistaken about the prospects for the game's future if we establish the right structure.

If we don't do that, then I'm afraid that the declining income you predict will surely come to pass.

Did they base their NFL growth plans around small towns and villages scattered either side of a highway? Some with populations of 10-20k.

Or did they expand to big population cities in a country of 300 million people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Did they base their NFL growth plans around small towns and villages scattered either side of a highway? Some with populations of 10-20k.

Or did they expand to big population cities in a country of 300 million people.

And was American Football the main winter sport in the US at the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

When Pete Rozelle was voted the Commissioner of the NFL in January 1960 there were twelve teams playing a twelve-game schedule in frequently half-empty stadiums, and only a few teams had television contracts.

The NFL was a basket case and its popularity was dwarfed by College Football, as well as by other American sports.

When he retired in 1989 he had transformed the NFL into the world's major football competition in terms of attendances and income generated.

I think that you and my other critics on here are seriously mistaken about the prospects for the game's future if we establish the right structure.

If we don't do that, then I'm afraid that the declining income you predict will surely come to pass.

well said - but again SL supporters will reject this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

When Pete Rozelle was voted the Commissioner of the NFL in January 1960 there were twelve teams playing a twelve-game schedule in frequently half-empty stadiums, and only a few teams had television contracts.

The NFL was a basket case and its popularity was dwarfed by College Football, as well as by other American sports.

When he retired in 1989 he had transformed the NFL into the world's major football competition in terms of attendances and income generated.

I think that you and my other critics on here are seriously mistaken about the prospects for the game's future if we establish the right structure.

If we don't do that, then I'm afraid that the declining income you predict will surely come to pass.

That really doesn't give the full story. Throughout the NFL's existence it also fended off rival leagues and much of the growth in the 1960s was fuelled by the rival AFL who came on the scene in 1960.

The AFL established 10 additional teams, many in new markets and teams like the AFL's Denver Broncos and New York Jets, who drew record crowds. They also introduced rule innovations, improved the game day experience for fans and had bumper TV contracts. This in turned forced the NFL to expand and improve. Players were getting paid huge amounts and there was fierce competition for players.

The effect on the NFL was to the extent that the NFL were the ones to instigate merger talks and it is that merger that resulted in 26 teams by 1970. The merger requirements, like teams must play in 50,000 stadiums, also fuelled subsequent growth (Minimum standards for Super League anyone!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If the only characteristic of my proposed structure were to have West Wales playing the Catalans, Hull FC playing Coventry or St Helens playing Workington, then clearly I wouldn't be promoting the idea.

But you are right to ask the question and there are several responses I could make.

But first of all, what do you think about the World Cup groups, that pits Scotland and Italy against Australia, or Greece against England, or Jamaica and Ireland against New Zealand?

And what do you make of the Rugby Union World Cup, where the difference in standards of teams in the same groups are even more stark?

But let me give you a practical example of how the disparities in standard eventually are ironed out.

In the 1995 World Cup, the All Blacks defeated Japan 145-17.

20 years later in the World Cup of 2015 Japan defeated South Africa 34-32.

In other words, current standards don't remain current forever.

Under my proposed structure, every club would be able to see a clear pathway to making that sort of improvement. West Wales would find it much easier to attract talented young Welsh players, for example, and investors who were prepared to inject the resources that would allow the club to improve. And that would be true of all the other clubs that currently play in League 1. But if that didn't happen they could be replaced by other more ambitious clubs, perhaps from France, for example.

Under my structure the first five fixtures would be intra-conference, and the bigger clubs would visit the home grounds of the smaller clubs to generate added interest at those venues.

In the competition as a whole, each club would play against 20 other clubs, with 15 of those fixtures against clubs in the rival Conferences, with the games being played against teams at the same levels.

For example, West Wales (assuming they were the bottom club in their Conference) would play against the three lowest-finishing clubs in each of the other Conferences, while the Catalans (assuming they were the top club in that Conference) would play 15 matches against the top three teams in each of the other Conferences.

I think that in a relatively short amount of time, the six Conferences would become much more competitive and there would be considerable scope for clubs moving up and down them and for shock results, which would surely add to the entertainment value of the competition as a whole.

It's also worth pointing out that if the competition were to be sold to one or more broadcasters, the fans of all the clubs, not just the top ten, would be incentivised to buy subscriptions.

I quite like the conference idea but maybe start with 4 x 6 teams as I agree with some that may be too big a drop in standard towards to the bottom end.

The remaining 12 could be in a development league with the aim of them being added to the conferences when the time is right.

The development league would probably need some  support from the RFL to help them with junior development and building the club's to the required standard though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you think that, then I'm afraid you don't understand it.

 

I'm using it to illustrate a principle, which you also don't seem to understand.

Yeah - I obviously don't understand it.

To me, it sounds like something out of the 1950s, and probable suicide for the game in England as a fully professional entity. 

All the best with it anyway.... You obviously understand it much better than me. I await with interest the TV viewing figures for the first St Helens v Workington "match".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scubby said:

Did they base their NFL growth plans around small towns and villages scattered either side of a highway? Some with populations of 10-20k.

Or did they expand to big population cities in a country of 300 million people.

Many of the teams in the NFL at the time were located in what might be termed their own version of the M62 corridor.

And I would suggest that Green Bay was hardly a major population centre at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

Yeah - I obviously don't understand it.

To me, it sounds like something out of the 1950s, and probable suicide for the game in England as a fully professional entity. 

All the best with it anyway.... You obviously understand it much better than me. I await with interest the TV viewing figures for the first St Helens v Workington "match".

One of the problems we have at the moment is not that St Helens would beat Workington easily, but that they are likely to beat most of the other teams in Super League easily also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.