League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Scubby]

Has there been any sort of noise around a parachute payment for Leigh (assuming it is them) if they have to go down? Regardless of what happens in SL - you would think it is the right thing to go to a club SL basically handicapped at short notice so they could fulfil the fixtures and obligations to Sky.

[fighting irish]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm not sure why you keep posting this and want people to repeat what they said dozens of pages back. It has been discussed and plenty had their say about the plan and the stumbling blocks. The very small minority/handful of people that seem to think it's a good idea just don't want to listen to those reasons.

I haven't seen any real arguments in favour of it and so I was trying to elicit those (if they exist). 

Also, most of the negative comments were superficial, mainly ridiculing the ideas without any real depth (to justify) their rapid dismissal. They were more typical of mindless trolling.

Comments like ''has Martin lost his mind?'' ''It'll never work'', ''What makes him think SKY want to broadcast Batley, West Wales et al?'' are not indicative of serious consideration of his plan.

Indeed the last comment, (something similar to which cropped up quite a few times) indicates a basic misunderstanding of Martin's proposal.

So I'm just urging anyone who will make the effort, to really argue/debate, for or against the proposal with some serious rational argument, after reading and understanding how Martin claims it would work.

This process, would help to further illuminate the idea and permit a genuine appraisal of the plan. I'd much rather that than see posters distance themselves from the argument and merely hurling poorly thought out and unsubstantiated insults. 

[sweaty craiq]

12 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

It wouldn't be Eric Perez would it?

Why?

[sweaty craiq]

10 hours ago, Big Picture said:

What "American SL" are you talking about?  A quick search for that term only finds some gridiron concepts and the Superliga Americana de Rugby.

My mistake then - Next years American RL comp.

[sweaty craiq]

13 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Both Batley and Fev have done very well , with next to nothing to spend , should CAS/Wakey have done ' something ' similar ? , Probably yes , in fact I do believe it would be in their own interests to do exactly that , if either was to end up in Leigh's position of no income from their facility , I do believe they will end up outside SL 

Leigh get some income

[Wellsy4HullFC]

On 15/08/2021 at 22:46, DOGFATHER said:

Did I dream the mergers of Huddersfield/Sheffield and Hull/Gateshead then?

Were these clubs due to be relegated?

I think you've completely misunderstood the circumstances of the mergers if you think it's because they thought Hull and Huddersfield were "too big".

[Martyn Sadler]

10 hours ago, redjonn said:

Often the problem with many grand ideas or suggestion is the practical or pragmatic getting from current to the all singing vision/idea without the whole edifice collapsing.

In all the responses critical of my proposal, you probably have made the most valid point.

To make radical changes in any organisational context is always difficult.

The Super League clubs will see themselves (wrongly in my view) as having a vested interest in the current structure.

So long as they have decision-making powers, no change will ensue.

That's why I made the point in one of my posts yesterday that Rugby League's governance structure itself needs to change.

 

[Damien]

37 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Has there been any sort of noise around a parachute payment for Leigh (assuming it is them) if they have to go down? Regardless of what happens in SL - you would think it is the right thing to go to a club SL basically handicapped at short notice so they could fulfil the fixtures and obligations to Sky.

I do recall Leigh getting a parachute payment at the last minute when they were relegated before.

I do think parachute payments give an unfair advantage to the relegated team in competing with the other Championship clubs. 

[Martyn Sadler]

12 hours ago, MattSantos said:

How does it make it easier to raise external finance? Genuinely interested. 

Let's assume we are talking about private equity finance models.

The reasons why my proposal would make such finance easier to generate would be:

1 The new competition structure would allow for a new ownership and investment structure, with the competition potentially moving towards a Major League Soccer type model, whereby the competition, not the individual clubs, is the financial model into which investment is made.

2 If all 36 clubs were included, there would be no conflicts between those that were and those that weren't included. Most investors don't want to invest in something that smacks of a civil war, particularly as far as the game's supporters are concerned.

3 Given that many wealthy venture capital organisations emanate from the United States, they would feel happy operating within a system based on Conferences.

4 Private equity investors want to invest in something with growth potential. A permanent ten or twelve team Super League doesn't offer much of that, whereas my proposed structure offers it in numerous ways, not least by making it easier for individual clubs to attract new investors.

5 The flexibility of the proposal means that clubs that are failing can be either replaced or bought out by potential investors in new venues targeted for growth. Weak clubs would have a massive incentive not to remain weak for long.

6 The Conference model ultimately allows for the creation of new Conferences to be bolted on to the structure, giving a clear pathway to expand. For example, under this system it would be desirable to ultimately aim for a six-team Conference in France, while giving the chance to establish a wider footprint in the British Isles.

[JohnM]

13 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Both Batley and Fev have done very well , with next to nothing to spend , should CAS/Wakey have done ' something ' similar ? , Probably yes , in fact I do believe it would be in their own interests to do exactly that , if either was to end up in Leigh's position of no income from their facility , I do believe they will end up outside SL 

Mythbuster #1 .

A club would have to sweat its assets a great deal to overcome the cost of owning, operating, maintaining and improving  its own stadium, compared with leasing an existing stadium. 

[Scubby]

48 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I haven't seen any real arguments in favour of it and so I was trying to elicit those (if they exist). 

Also, most of the negative comments were superficial, mainly ridiculing the ideas without any real depth (to justify) their rapid dismissal. They were more typical of mindless trolling.

Comments like ''has Martin lost his mind?'' ''It'll never work'', ''What makes him think SKY want to broadcast Batley, West Wales et al?'' are not indicative of serious consideration of his plan.

Indeed the last comment, (something similar to which cropped up quite a few times) indicates a basic misunderstanding of Martin's proposal.

So I'm just urging anyone who will make the effort, to really argue/debate, for or against the proposal with some serious rational argument, after reading and understanding how Martin claims it would work.

This process, would help to further illuminate the idea and permit a genuine appraisal of the plan. I'd much rather that than see posters distance themselves from the argument and merely hurling poorly thought out and unsubstantiated insults. 

Why are you patronising people who say they don't have a basic understanding of his proposal? I read academic literature every day as part of my work. It is too preposterous to give a detailed analysis - but of course we don't understand it.

The footprint of professional RL (and general interest levels) simply isn't strong enough (or wide enough) for this to provide any significant commercial income into the game. It is tiny in the scheme of things, largely in poorer working class areas and declining (both in participation and attendances).

The place where it does thrive needs to be identified, supported financially and fast-tracked. Do you think Toulouse have spent £10m+ over the last 5 years climbing the RFL pyramid to be awarded a place in the bloody half-assed nations Conference west? Simple, strong and with intent is what is required.

[Scubby]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

I do recall Leigh getting a parachute payment at the last minute when they were relegated before.

I do think parachute payments give an unfair advantage to the relegated team in competing with the other Championship clubs. 

You could stipulate exactly where the money should be spent if you wanted. A SL club is more than 17 players who take the field each week - lots of good people lose their jobs through relegation.

[Damien]

18 minutes ago, Scubby said:

You could stipulate exactly where the money should be spent if you wanted. A SL club is more than 17 players who take the field each week - lots of good people lose their jobs through relegation.

Yes I do understand that and completely understand the reasoning. However whatever way you slice and dice it those extra people add value and give an advantage, otherwise they wouldn't be employed. If we are to have P&R then I do not think parachute payments are fair to the other Championship clubs. This is the problem with having a Championship that tries to suit everyone and clubs of all sizes and ambition.

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Yes I do understand that and completely understand the reasoning. However whatever way you slice and dice it those extra people add value and give an advantage, otherwise they wouldn't be employed. If we are to have P&R then I do not think parachute payments are fair to the other Championship clubs. This is the problem with having a Championship that tries to suit everyone and clubs of all sizes and ambition.

What if they could only be paid only in decking, conservatories and awnings? 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

28 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Let's assume we are talking about private equity finance models.

The reasons why my proposal would make such finance easier to generate would be:

1 The new competition structure would allow for a new ownership and investment structure, with the competition potentially moving towards a Major League Soccer type model, whereby the competition, not the individual clubs, is the financial model into which investment is made.

2 If all 36 clubs were included, there would be no conflicts between those that were and those that weren't included. Most investors don't want to invest in something that smacks of a civil war, particularly as far as the game's supporters are concerned.

3 Given that many wealthy venture capital organisations emanate from the United States, they would feel happy operating within a system based on Conferences.

4 Private equity investors want to invest in something with growth potential. A permanent ten or twelve team Super League doesn't offer much of that, whereas my proposed structure offers it in numerous ways, not least by making it easier for individual clubs to attract new investors.

5 The flexibility of the proposal means that clubs that are failing can be either replaced or bought out by potential investors in new venues targeted for growth. Weak clubs would have a massive incentive not to remain weak for long.

6 The Conference model ultimately allows for the creation of new Conferences to be bolted on to the structure, giving a clear pathway to expand. For example, under this system it would be desirable to ultimately aim for a six-team Conference in France, while giving the chance to establish a wider footprint in the British Isles.

The premise of the idea is great: all clubs having an immediate pathway to the top, which is attractive to investors.

However, the reality of the starting situation is such that the gap between the bottom and even a few places higher is so vast that it would be preposterous to put them in the same group. Rugby League is a dangerous sport if the levels of the 2 teams are too wide apart. So my first criticism would be that you've included too many clubs.

I've often looked at the conference structure as a way forward for the reasons you state (albeit with less teams starting): expansion is easier as you just rejig the conferences were necessary and it's easier to create new conferences than new leagues. However, my mindset usually comes back to "what would the fixture list look like" and "how will group positions look". I can't imagine the competition for positions in a 6-team conference played over 20+ games would be close - by that I mean that the haves and have nots will be likely so clear come a few matches in that the rest of the competition would feel like a trek.

What sort of fixture list would you be proposing?

[fighting irish]

21 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Why are you patronising people who say they don't have a basic understanding of his proposal? I read academic literature every day as part of my work. It is too preposterous to give a detailed analysis - but of course we don't understand it.

The footprint of professional RL (and general interest levels) simply isn't strong enough (or wide enough) for this to provide any significant commercial income into the game. It is tiny in the scheme of things, largely in poorer working class areas and declining (both in participation and attendances).

The place where it does thrive needs to be identified, supported financially and fast-tracked. Do you think Toulouse have spent £10m+ over the last 5 years climbing the RFL pyramid to be awarded a place in the bloody half-assed nations Conference west? Simple, strong and with intent is what is required.

I don't think anyone has admitted they don't have a basic understanding of his proposal?? I don't understand what you mean by that, is it a typing error?

I'm not patronising anyone, I'm inviting people (who have read the document) to argue the case, for or against. No-one, other than you has so far, responded with anything more than a few words.

You say it's too preposterous to give a detailed analysis, well ok I accept that that is your opinion.

To answer your question, regarding Toulouse, I think they have spent the time and money with the intention of being able to vie for the title of European Super League Champions. (Or European RL Champions).

Martin's plan would allow them to do that. It certainly doesn't confine them to, (what did you call it?) the half assed nations Conference west! (Isn't that clear, from the document?)

Now you are under no obligations to continue this conversation. I'm asking if there is anyone else out there who has a considered opinion on the subject. I think its worthy of some debate with someone who doesn't think it's too preposterous to give it some detailed thought and I'm inviting them to engage with me.

By the way, given your recent tranche of posts on this subject I'd say, you were guilty of attempting to patronise, nay belittle, both Martin and myself and just insisting that his idea is too fluffy, preposterous or that the game is too small, isn't a very convincing, nor rational argument to support your conclusions.

Perhaps reading so many academic papers, has inflated your ego somewhat?

Anyway, please don't feel obliged to defend your position, I'm not trying to goad you into continuing if you'd rather not..

Please also, don't think me churlish, that's not my intention. I'm merely fishing for a broader base of opinion.

[fighting irish]

18 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

The premise of the idea is great: all clubs having an immediate pathway to the top, which is attractive to investors.

However, the reality of the starting situation is such that the gap between the bottom and even a few places higher is so vast that it would be preposterous to put them in the same group. Rugby League is a dangerous sport if the levels of the 2 teams are too wide apart. So my first criticism would be that you've included too many clubs.

I've often looked at the conference structure as a way forward for the reasons you state (albeit with less teams starting): expansion is easier as you just rejig the conferences were necessary and it's easier to create new conferences than new leagues. However, my mindset usually comes back to "what would the fixture list look like" and "how will group positions look". I can't imagine the competition for positions in a 6-team conference played over 20+ games would be close - by that I mean that the haves and have nots will be likely so clear come a few matches in that the rest of the competition would feel like a trek.

What sort of fixture list would you be proposing?

At last!

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, sweaty craiq said:

Leigh get some income

Which bit Sweaty ?

Some advertising I think , and corporate ( which isn't as good as HP ) 

Not sure where else , unless there's 10k in , then we do 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Mythbuster #1 .

A club would have to sweat its assets a great deal to overcome the cost of owning, operating, maintaining and improving  its own stadium, compared with leasing an existing stadium. 

So Saints and Wire are losing money on their stadiums ? 

[JohnM]

If a club owns it own stadium, where's the money come from? Directors loans? Commercial loans? There is a cost to all that. Years ago, the Inland Revenue sold all its offices and now leases them back. Same for many commercial organisations.  

 

 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

Has there been any sort of noise around a parachute payment for Leigh (assuming it is them) if they have to go down? Regardless of what happens in SL - you would think it is the right thing to go to a club SL basically handicapped at short notice so they could fulfil the fixtures and obligations to Sky.

I shouldn't think so Scubbs, if the SL and I take that to be the other 11 clubs who all must have voted to 'shaft' whichever club made the numbers up by being awarded reduced funding to suit Sky's contract at short notice, why would they even consider assisting a club when it is not in their division?

Can you just imagine the conversation in SL HQ when they realised that if a team replaced Toronto who having no funding they would have to hand some money over to the replacement club, I wonder which of the esteemed Chairman of the SL clubs came up with the suggestion of reduced funding of £1M and when he did all the others with the realisation that it would save them approx £50K apiece would be bleating and nodding in agreement as they old farts do in parliament!

Rugby League really is a little tin pot organisation, it considers itself to be well above its station, funding from Sky is dropping, attendances are diminishing, people are maybe getting out of the habit of going, It is no wonder to me because the game we are paying for is not as good as it used to be, I equate it to a favourite restaurant when they drop the standards or the quality diminishes we object with our absence, this is what will happen in Rugby League, the sports leaders and administrators need to wake up and realise what is happening and not sit smuggly hiding behind "Our followers say we are The Greatest Game", I have news for them it is nowhere near and lots of people are coming round to that mindset.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Why?

Just that he seems to be the self appointed Guru of Rugby League across the Atlantic.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Mythbuster #1 .

A club would have to sweat its assets a great deal to overcome the cost of owning, operating, maintaining and improving  its own stadium, compared with leasing an existing stadium. 

Not if the stadium is suitable for the club and fit for purpose. That is why Warrington have gone from strength to strength. That is why Fev and Batley have built and done so well at a lower level. Many RL clubs are hamstrung as a result of not owning their own stadiums. Hull FC and Wigan have both acknowledged that.

Plenty of clubs of all sizes and in all sports do very well owning their own stadiums. That is a real strength of RU and even middling RU semi professional clubs have great revenue streams as a result.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, JohnM said:

If a club owns it own stadium, where's the money come from? Directors loans? Commercial loans? There is a cost to all that. Years ago, the Inland Revenue sold all its offices and now leases them back. Same for many commercial organisations.  

 

 

If a club owns it's stadium , it can make income 365 days a year , my son is getting married at the LSV next Sunday , not cheap , they'd have preferred Saturday , not available , already in use , how much do you imagine Manchester United are paying the LSV to host their under 23 team ? , Or to have their women's team based there ? 

[Hela Wigmen]

Doubling down on the daftest idea many have heard in Rugby League (which takes some doing in itself) is commendable.