Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

It was in reference to the same issue of "not enough talent" apparently existing but now we have fewer teams, hence the situation is 'worse'.

Previously there was only enough talent for 12 teams but we had 14.

Now we only have enough talent for 10, but we have 12.

I don't agree

We never had the quality for 14, IMO, and it was a long, long six years with utterly meaningless games and rewarding of mediocrity by extending the play-offs to flit between seven and eight sides. 

I think there argument for ten, certainly for me, goes beyond the quality of games. Ultimately, that’s the face of the sport and what we sell but we have plenty of clubs with ‘issues’ off the pitch (a lack of competent management, stadia issues, spending well below the cap, attendances, academies that are useless etc) and for me, widening the competition and watering down the competition just isn’t the answer and expanding the division only serves to lose loop fixtures and nothing else. The ‘issues’ I speak of at existing Super League clubs goes beyond Super League. For the positives the normal handful of golden geese clubs of the Championship have, there’s more issues to be added. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
29 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

It was in reference to the same issue of "not enough talent" apparently existing but now we have fewer teams, hence the situation is 'worse'.

Previously there was only enough talent for 12 teams but we had 14.

Now we only have enough talent for 10, but we have 12.

I don't agree

The situation isn't worse due to the number of teams per se, but to the lack of money in the game which means that players can be paid much more in RU or the NRL.  If all the players who have gone to those other leagues were playing in SL, the standard of play would be higher than it is with lesser players in their place.

30 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

They didn't think if a way not to give Toronto funding, they said when they entered the league they wouldn't take it, if I recall correctly it's because they wanted their own TV deal, but this didn't happen.

They only said they wouldn't take it because that was a condition of them being accepted into the league originally, with the understanding that it would be reconsidered if/when they got promoted into SL.  On account of that condition, Eric Pérez's original investors all walked away and we ended up with David Argyle instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

We never had the quality for 14, IMO, and it was a long, long six years with utterly meaningless games and rewarding of mediocrity by extending the play-offs to flit between seven and eight sides. 

I think there argument for ten, certainly for me, goes beyond the quality of games. Ultimately, that’s the face of the sport and what we sell but we have plenty of clubs with ‘issues’ off the pitch (a lack of competent management, stadia issues, spending well below the cap, attendances, academies that are useless etc) and for me, widening the competition and watering down the competition just isn’t the answer and expanding the division only serves to lose loop fixtures and nothing else. The ‘issues’ I speak of at existing Super League clubs goes beyond Super League. For the positives the normal handful of golden geese clubs of the Championship have, there’s more issues to be added. 

 

I just don't see it that way. I've never watched a meaningless game of rugby, a player doesn't take the field not willing to give all, regardless of where they are in the league. 

Any league structure will have apparent meaningless games, only a knock out cup competition doesn't.

I also don't get the watering down, get more teams and players playing if you can, from that quality can I prove, fewer teams, fewer players, fewer options to develop players, it's a downward spiral and a poor business model.

At what point would you say we can increase teams from 10? What would you need to see for this apparent increase in talent if none of these teams or players play in the top league? 

Going to ten teams is a terrible idea IMO, it's decreasing our small talent pool further , and therefore co tributes to the player issue not solving it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

The situation isn't worse due to the number of teams per se, but to the lack of money in the game which means that players can be paid much more in RU or the NRL.  If all the players who have gone to those other leagues were playing in SL, the standard of play would be higher than it is with lesser players in their place.

They only said they wouldn't take it because that was a condition of them being accepted into the league originally, with the understanding that it would be reconsidered if/when they got promoted into SL.  On account of that condition, Eric Pérez's original investors all walked away and we ended up with David Argyle instead.

I agree lack of. Obey argument, yes I get that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Are you saying that when TWP got promoted they refused their 1/12th share of the Sky money? I can’t remember that but fair enough if they did. 

I do remember them saying at the very start they won't be taking any sky money, I don't recall anyone saying they wouldn't get it, this was said even before they entered 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

If London Broncos are playing at Plough Lane and Toulouse go up then we actually have enough for a decent 14 team SL. It is only protectionism from weaker teams preventing this. 

St, Wig

Leeds, Hud

Hull, Kr

Cat, Tou,

Cas, Wak

London, Wire

2 others out of a dozen (York, Newcastle, Leigh, Widnes, Fev, Salford, etc...) 

 

Seriously, give up on London. That club's a dead donkey.

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I just don't see it that way. I've never watched a meaningless game of rugby, a player doesn't take the field not willing to give all, regardless of where they are in the league. 

Any league structure will have apparent meaningless games, only a knock out cup competition doesn't.

I also don't get the watering down, get more teams and players playing if you can, from that quality can I prove, fewer teams, fewer players, fewer options to develop players, it's a downward spiral and a poor business model.

At what point would you say we can increase teams from 10? What would you need to see for this apparent increase in talent if none of these teams or players play in the top league? 

Going to ten teams is a terrible idea IMO, it's decreasing our small talent pool further , and therefore co tributes to the player issue not solving it

Meaningless games as in far too many rounds, for a start. 27-30 rounds, as we’ve flitted between in the past, is far too many and creates meaningless games. Lost a game? Never mind, there’s 29 rounds so it’ll be rendered meaningless because you’ve got so many games left. Watching Saints in 2019 become monotonous and dull. We were in the play-offs barring a minor disaster pretty early on into the year, the rest of the year was essentially training games, we went through the motions, invariably won, and rinse and repeat waiting for the proper rugby to start in September. Even our defeat to Cas on Friday, most people have just shrugged their shoulders as there’s little consequence to that defeat. We pad the season out with games, be it loop games, the 8’s or expanding the division to include sides way off being an elite level club on and off the pitch, it’s never worked regardless of 12 or 14 clubs in the competition. I’m a fan of the NFL (yeah, some people might not be, that’s irrelevant here), their short and snappy year of eighteen games is something I see plenty of positives in, for example. 

We had six years of fourteen and I really don’t think anyone improved that dramatically to use that as any kind of argument. The watering down comes from having a myriad of clubs at Super League and Championship level of pretty poor standards, I don’t see why you’d add to the issues you have by adding to it in the short-term (and most likely long-term, Wakefield’s ground looks like bomb damage from the war) just to lose loop fixtures. 

I would have no plans to increase from ten for at least ten years and even then, I wouldn’t necessarily do it, anyway. Rugby League has a succession of failed attempts at expansion and increasing league sizes and structures and most have failed. Having had no business plans and dropping clubs and formats into water and expecting them to swim, not sink only for the sport to have chucked them in ill-equipped. 

Going to two tens is the only way, for me. Minimum standards to be brought in alongside it requiring the twenty to have academies and possibly reserves too to bring in minimum standards we do desperately need, no more than twenty games in the league, do something with the cup to give that the lift it deserves, there’s space for internationals instead of Wakefield v Leigh three times a year and anything else they want to do whether that’s 9s, another tournament or whatever. Fourteen does all of the opposite of that, in my eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I just don't see it that way. I've never watched a meaningless game of rugby, a player doesn't take the field not willing to give all, regardless of where they are in the league. 

Any league structure will have apparent meaningless games, only a knock out cup competition doesn't.

I also don't get the watering down, get more teams and players playing if you can, from that quality can I prove, fewer teams, fewer players, fewer options to develop players, it's a downward spiral and a poor business model.

At what point would you say we can increase teams from 10? What would you need to see for this apparent increase in talent if none of these teams or players play in the top league? 

Going to ten teams is a terrible idea IMO, it's decreasing our small talent pool further , and therefore co tributes to the player issue not solving it

Quite correct.

10s is as dull as dishwater and no sport grows by contracting. People can try and dress up the Championship as SL2 all they wish but that's what the proposed format is, contraction.

Also arguments about the number of teams in the play off are quite distinct from the number of teams in the league. I hated the 8 team play off but that certainly isn't a fault of a 14 team league. It's the fault of a misguided notion that everyone has to have a chance for as long as possible or everyone loses interest. A 14 team league with a top 5 or even top 6 play off is perfectly fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s how the wheels of economy works, it’s not a big deal but because it’s sport, it’s emotive and deemed “different”. 

Those clubs I mention are clubs with a purpose. They’re more than seventeen blokes on a Sunday and a result in the small print of the few nationals that print them. They’re hugely important community outlets, they have pathways, they have multiple sides, they have Academies. But yeah, let’s keep giving clubs like Swinton £75,000 a year. They’ve had well over £1m in the summer era and have what to show for it? They’re Swinton in name only. They own nothing, they have no pathways, no community ties (how many different grounds have they played at?), no real purpose or right being in the “professional game”. I say that as someone whose had a relative play for Swinton in finals and someone who spent a year of their time at Uni watching Swinton play out of Salford Red Devils’ Willows stadium in front of an ageing and declining support base. Now, Swinton aren’t the only club in that boat, there’s plenty of others and we’ve wasted millions on these clubs in 25+ years of summer rugby. 

Good businesses evolve. Rugby League doesn’t. I dare say, look at the makeup of Rugby Unions “elite”.

It is the wheels of economy,now,as you seize the zeitgeist.

In decades gone by Swinton were ' good business' by being more successful than St Helens and Wigan,on the field.

There was a period of time when Wigan sold Central Park and weren't in the best of health to evolve.

Knowsley Road was suffering decrepitude.  

Some club owners have been unlucky,some have been negligent. 

That is not the fault of future,or current,coaches,players,staff and supporters.

The clubs with money,or,with a purpose,have,since 1895,peaked and troughed.

In soccer,a former Bank Of England club is now,for the 3rd season,in League 1.One of the oldest league clubs is in non-league soccer.It does go round.

The governing body need to give all clubs 'a purpose'.It is no good looking at a few nice flower heads if all the roots are withering away.

 

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Quite correct.

10s is as dull as dishwater and no sport grows by contracting. People can try and dress up the Championship as SL2 all they wish but that's what the proposed format is, contraction.

Also arguments about the number of teams in the play off are quite distinct from the number of teams in the league. I hated the 8 team play off but that certainly isn't a fault of a 14 team league. It's the fault of a misguided notion that everyone has to have a chance for as long as possible or everyone loses interest. A 14 team league with a top 5 or even top 6 play off is perfectly fine.

Totally agree, reduction is a short term fix, for the good of the game, a longer term plan is required, this may mean some teams struggling for a while whilst we look forward 20 years not 2.

What does good look like for Super League and Rugby League? It's not 10 teams 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

It is the wheels of economy,now,as you seize the zeitgeist.

In decades gone by Swinton were ' good business' by being more successful than St Helens and Wigan,on the field.

There was a period of time when Wigan sold Central Park and weren't in the best of health to evolve.

Knowsley Road was suffering decrepitude.  

Some club owners have been unlucky,some have been negligent. 

That is not the fault of future,or current,coaches,players,staff and supporters.

The clubs with money,or,with a purpose,have,since 1895,peaked and troughed.

In soccer,a former Bank Of England club is now,for the 3rd season,in League 1.One of the oldest league clubs is in non-league soccer.It does go round.

The governing body need to give all clubs 'a purpose'.It is no good looking at a few nice flower heads if all the roots are withering away.

 

Good post 👍

People often say,what does this club bring to RL?

I always say rugby, and rugby players and fans, even if it's just 1, they are part of the overall rugby family and important.  I understand issues with money and poor running if clubs have contributed and we cannot just give them handouts but we also cannot dismiss them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toronto generated big crowds around the country (for lower league games) because they were new and exciting and a threat. So that going into SL creates a buzz. Featherstone got their biggest non derby home crowd for years because Toulouse were new and exciting and a threat.

Fans loved going to Perpignan and Toronto because it was new and exciting. Next year SL fans and players will like going to Toulouse because it is new and exciting.....

Sometimes it is new clubs that can bring a buzz, sometimes it is a star signing (Stacy Jones, SBW, Jamie Lyon), sometimes it is the intent of a club (Wigan 1980s/90s Bulls 1990s/2000) but excitement creates interest.

That is what any successful competition needs - to continually generate buzz and new experiences - not for old ##### like us but for future generations of fans. The game in the UK has seemingly put the cue on the rack and accepted its fate - much like Working Men's Clubs in the 2000s. It is perpetually fighting anything new (or a threat to the norm) or any kind of change which takes a collective effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Meaningless games as in far too many rounds, for a start. 27-30 rounds, as we’ve flitted between in the past, is far too many and creates meaningless games. Lost a game? Never mind, there’s 29 rounds so it’ll be rendered meaningless because you’ve got so many games left. Watching Saints in 2019 become monotonous and dull. We were in the play-offs barring a minor disaster pretty early on into the year, the rest of the year was essentially training games, we went through the motions, invariably won, and rinse and repeat waiting for the proper rugby to start in September. Even our defeat to Cas on Friday, most people have just shrugged their shoulders as there’s little consequence to that defeat. We pad the season out with games, be it loop games, the 8’s or expanding the division to include sides way off being an elite level club on and off the pitch, it’s never worked regardless of 12 or 14 clubs in the competition. I’m a fan of the NFL (yeah, some people might not be, that’s irrelevant here), their short and snappy year of eighteen games is something I see plenty of positives in, for example. 

We had six years of fourteen and I really don’t think anyone improved that dramatically to use that as any kind of argument. The watering down comes from having a myriad of clubs at Super League and Championship level of pretty poor standards, I don’t see why you’d add to the issues you have by adding to it in the short-term (and most likely long-term, Wakefield’s ground looks like bomb damage from the war) just to lose loop fixtures. 

I would have no plans to increase from ten for at least ten years and even then, I wouldn’t necessarily do it, anyway. Rugby League has a succession of failed attempts at expansion and increasing league sizes and structures and most have failed. Having had no business plans and dropping clubs and formats into water and expecting them to swim, not sink only for the sport to have chucked them in ill-equipped. 

Going to two tens is the only way, for me. Minimum standards to be brought in alongside it requiring the twenty to have academies and possibly reserves too to bring in minimum standards we do desperately need, no more than twenty games in the league, do something with the cup to give that the lift it deserves, there’s space for internationals instead of Wakefield v Leigh three times a year and anything else they want to do whether that’s 9s, another tournament or whatever. Fourteen does all of the opposite of that, in my eyes. 

So not enough games to make enough money to pay the bills ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Toronto generated big crowds around the country (for lower league games) because they were new and exciting and a threat. So that going into SL creates a buzz. Featherstone got their biggest non derby home crowd for years because Toulouse were new and exciting and a threat.

Toulouse aren't new.  That game generated a big crowd because it was, in effect, a single match play-off for league leadership.   Or, if it wasn't strictly that in reality, it was seen as such.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Toronto generated big crowds around the country (for lower league games) because they were new and exciting and a threat. So that going into SL creates a buzz. Featherstone got their biggest non derby home crowd for years because Toulouse were new and exciting and a threat.

Fans loved going to Perpignan and Toronto because it was new and exciting. Next year SL fans and players will like going to Toulouse because it is new and exciting.....

Sometimes it is new clubs that can bring a buzz, sometimes it is a star signing (Stacy Jones, SBW, Jamie Lyon), sometimes it is the intent of a club (Wigan 1980s/90s Bulls 1990s/2000) but excitement creates interest.

That is what any successful competition needs - to continually generate buzz and new experiences - not for old ##### like us but for future generations of fans. The game in the UK has seemingly put the cue on the rack and accepted its fate - much like Working Men's Clubs in the 2000s.

I completely agree and the worst for me is the last line. Since RU went pro there has been a defeatist approach taken by people. We stopped competing for players, thought it was inevitable that players would leave when they started to and the game seemed to just give up.

Their salary cap was exactly the same as ours at the start. Clubs like Bradford, Leeds and Wigan were as big as any RU club. There were a number of stars in Super League and we could attract good NRL players. We were in every position to fight but seemed to choose not to.

Two decades on their salary cap has increased fourfold while ours has decreased in real terms. Benefactors have been welcomed in RU and developed and cultivated new clubs (or to be precise cultivated tiny, mediocre existing clubs) to challenge the status quo. We discourage serious investment and apply restrictive rules. The status quo is much the same bar Catalans for Bradford. Our best players now go to Australia and we get vastly inferior NRL players compared to 20 years ago. The NRL has gone to a different level completely. 

Now we don't even try to compete with the NRL or RU and think that switching to 2 x 10s will magically fix everything. If Super League doesn't even try to improve the offering to compete then they can't blame fans for declining interest and attendances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Griff said:

Toulouse aren't new.  That game generated a big crowd because it was, in effect, a single match play-off for league leadership.   Or, if it wasn't strictly that in reality, it was seen as such.

Neither are York, but they have been creating a lot of buzz in the last couple of years because or their intent and new experiences they can offer. Toulouse in SL will be completely new - we may even get UK fans wanting to experience a 'new' French derby atmosphere - or fans a little tired of going to Perpignan choosing Toulouse as their big away day. New doesn't always mean shiny it can be the new buzz that is created. There was nothing new about Odsal under the Bulls of 2000 (15k average) and Odsal when I went as a kid in the early 1980s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Neither are York, but they have been creating a lot of buzz in the last couple of years because or their intent and new experiences they can offer. Toulouse in SL will be completely new - we may even get UK fans wanting to experience a 'new' French derby atmosphere - or fans a little tired of going to Perpignan choosing Toulouse as their big away day. New doesn't always mean shiny it can be the new buzz that is created.

York ? Seriously 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Toronto generated big crowds around the country (for lower league games) because they were new and exciting and a threat. So that going into SL creates a buzz. Featherstone got their biggest non derby home crowd for years because Toulouse were new and exciting and a threat.

Fans loved going to Perpignan and Toronto because it was new and exciting. Next year SL fans and players will like going to Toulouse because it is new and exciting.....

Sometimes it is new clubs that can bring a buzz, sometimes it is a star signing (Stacy Jones, SBW, Jamie Lyon), sometimes it is the intent of a club (Wigan 1980s/90s Bulls 1990s/2000) but excitement creates interest.

That is what any successful competition needs - to continually generate buzz and new experiences - not for old ##### like us but for future generations of fans. The game in the UK has seemingly put the cue on the rack and accepted its fate - much like Working Men's Clubs in the 2000s. It is perpetually fighting anything new (or a threat to the norm) or any kind of change which takes a collective effort.

I understand why Swinton fans didn't want to merge at the start of Super League and why they didn't want to become Manchester a few years ago, but sadly these clubs just get smaller and smaller.

I may be reluctant to accept the eneviatable, but these clubs do need to refresh their image, attract a new fan base, evolve and grow, without it they just slowly decrease in size whilst keeping a very small fanbase happy.

It's a shame they didn't become Manchester, I would have liked to see how successful it could have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

York ? Seriously 

Yes York. They are struggling now (for other reasons) but during the last 2-3 years have got record crowds for Challenge Cup games (over 3000 v Catalans) and League fixtures (even playing at a falling down football stadium). Covid killed its momentum with the new stadium which was pretty sad, but there was momentum and a huge buzz at the club going into 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think people are over complicating the proposed switch to 10: it's not about available talent, it's simply that our TV deal has been substantially cut and we can't afford to fund 12 full time clubs any more. 

Yes I agree, it's a sad position, and do we continue to cut assets until we are so small we are not attractive to any TV deal ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think people are over complicating the proposed switch to 10: it's not about available talent, it's simply that our TV deal has been substantially cut and we can't afford to fund 12 full time clubs any more. 

Yes we can afford 12 full time clubs. Clubs would have to take less but it would certainly be possible. Same with 14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Is the idea that Sky play games from SL1 and 2? Therefore being able to show 20 different teams not 10? 

Sky could have literally done this for years anyhow. How is this proposal any more appealing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm keen to continue discussing (and thinking about) Martin's idea, the relative merits (and problems) of such a system. 

I'd hinted (a long time ago) at the idea of the Super League clubs visiting league one and championship clubs as novel, highlights in an otherwise dour league programme but Martin has given it a great deal more detailed thought and may have come up with a workable (and attractive) system.

Some of the comments here have been scathing, which (in the age of Facebook, Twitter etc.) is not surprising but, as Martin pointed out, I think they were mostly spontaneous emotional reactions delivered without much consideration for the actual content of his proposal.

Is there anyone, out there who'd care to comment on the merit of his idea? Are there any supporters for it (other than me)? 

I like the idea that a visit from a Senior club would brighten up the whole season for the lower clubs (and may generate bumper home crowds) and that it would also give the Senior club coaches the opportunity to rest players and try out younger lads to measure their progress. His plan also has the virtue of a ''whole game view''. 

The games that really matter, which decide end of season play off positions etc. would be just as important as ever (and fodder for SKY) and with healthier (rested) players would be more evenly matched, very keenly contested and provide great entertainment for fans.

Given his lifelong experience in the game and his wide knowledge of sports in general, I'm unwilling to just write off his carefully considered opinion as the ravings of a crackpot. 

 

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.