League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Scubby]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

I do completely agree with you there. The sport should have been investing money from the last bumper TV deal in this area, in a similar way to what the NRL did with their whole digital and media division, though obviously on a much smaller scale. 

It's a travesty that the current deal was largely wasted with no investment and no real improvement on how the game went about things. We wasted the opportunity to fix the roof while the sun was shining.

Now some people want to renovate the whole estate with the last few coppers.

[The Future is League]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

My club dispensed with an academy because there was no one to play, and they could not apply till this season to enter a team in the academy league, £400K was put aside for its formation and running costs but it was refused by the RFL from the list of applicants, that also along with some clubs who were running academies until the about turn.

Now you tell me, do you think it has anything to do with being 6 miles from Wigan, 10 miles from Warrington and 13 miles from St Helen's?

So if any criteria went along with your stipulation that only clubs with an academy can be granted a licence, then effectively the RFL are saying who can or cannot apply for a licence. It would have nothing to do with affordability it was done on a geographical basis, that is why HKR's licence was at first rescinded as Hull FC had one, as was Castleford's being in close proximity to Wakefield and Leeds. 

The only thing is the RFL did not have the bottle to tell one of Wigan, Saints or Wire they would have to step down.

So when did your club start up it's academy again?

Was London already running an academy before your started up your academy again?

In your defense i think you should be granted an academy as should all Super League teams and Championship sides who aspire to play in Super League.

[The Future is League]

34 minutes ago, Damien said:

I do completely agree with you there. The sport should have been investing money from the last bumper TV deal in this area, in a similar way to what the NRL did with their whole digital and media division, though obviously on a much smaller scale. 

It's a travesty that the current deal was largely wasted with no investment and no real improvement on how the game went about things. We wasted the opportunity to fix the roof while the sun was shining.

I think that we all agree that marketing has always been one of the games weak point in this country and that goes for the RFL and the clubs, alongside certain clubs only paying lip service to junior development. It's no coincidence that the most successful clubs have the best junior development. That for me says it all

[The Future is League]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Dr Koukash wanted to take Salford to the title with his millions but was refused to do so!

He wanted to buy Bradford Bulls for his wife as well i seem to remember. That for me would have been a better investment than the Red Devils, but no doubt others will disagree.

[fighting irish]

Well Martin, at least we've generated a bit of a debate, albeit a bit one-eyed.

Any more opinions out there? Who thinks the idea is a good one and why? Who (other than those already committed) thinks its not a good idea and why?

I like it. 

[DOGFATHER]

10 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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".

Maybe you can enlighten me to the contrary, but my understanding is:-

Hull were on the verge of bankruptcy. Therefore, would no longer have existed had the "merger" with Gateshead not taken place. The £1.25M they received over the following 2 years was enough to satisfy the creditors that were moving to shut them down, from pulling the plug. 

The merger involved Gateshead moving to Hull, playing from the Boulevard,  being called Hull and playing in Hull's traditional colours. 

Hull should have been out of business, probably reforming and starting in the the bottom division. However, they didn't do that, because all of the SL member club's decided it was in the best interests of the game to keep Hull in SL, because they were too well supported to go to the wall. You might say it was because they were deemed to be too big to go down. A bit like what happened at Bradford more recently, prior to the last administration.

 

 

[Padge]

The plan, read it and get it, is a throwback to a time when we had one divisions with all the clubs in it. Clubs organized fixtures based on local Derby's and funding other local clubs by having the big boys in town once a year. All clubs didn't play each other and there were Lancashire and Yorkshire Championships and play-offs for the Championship winners.

Although the proposal isn't, obviously, exactly that, it is borne of the same fundamental idea. That structure was ditched, eventually, for a system of P&R because it was felt that the structure was stifling the game by hamstringing the clubs that were capable of generating the big bucks. You have to take into account that at this time the way funds were distributed was by operating a gate levy that was taken by the RFL and distributed to the clubs. With the advent of P&R the levy eventually only applied to the first division clubs.

I don't know why Martyn just doesn't come out with it and say basically he wants to return to the 1950s model, a bizarre fixture model with clubs picking and choosing opponents and charging a levy on the big clubs to feed the minnows.

 

 

[The Future is League]

13 minutes ago, Padge said:

The plan, read it and get it, is a throwback to a time when we had one divisions with all the clubs in it. Clubs organized fixtures based on local Derby's and funding other local clubs by having the big boys in town once a year. All clubs didn't play each other and there were Lancashire and Yorkshire Championships and play-offs for the Championship winners.

Although the proposal isn't, obviously, exactly that, it is borne of the same fundamental idea. That structure was ditched, eventually, for a system of P&R because it was felt that the structure was stifling the game by hamstringing the clubs that were capable of generating the big bucks. You have to take into account that at this time the way funds were distributed was by operating a gate levy that was taken by the RFL and distributed to the clubs. With the advent of P&R the levy eventually only applied to the first division clubs.

I don't know why Martyn just doesn't come out with it and say basically he wants to return to the 1950s model, a bizarre fixture model with clubs picking and choosing opponents and charging a levy on the big clubs to feed the minnows.

 

 

I thought Martyn favoured a 14 team franchised/licensed Super League, where teams could build for the future with no fear of relegation and no loop fixtures, but I'm probably wrong like i appear to be most matters. or that's what some fellow posters tell me.

[Scubby]

What is the likelihood of the Leigh rule (i.e. only £1m distribution) being retained for the newly promoted club in 2022? 

Gateshead were only give half the distribution in 1999 and I think Wakefield were given less in 1998. And obviously Toronto zilch.

[JonM]

10 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Well Martin, at least we've generated a bit of a debate, albeit a bit one-eyed.

Any more opinions out there? Who thinks the idea is a good one and why? Who (other than those already committed) thinks its not a good idea and why?

I like it. 

I think it's an interesting idea, and certainly wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I think there are some good features - the 'whole game' aspect, the removal of the cliff-edge between full-time superleague and part-time championship, the varied fixture list and so on. I think plenty of similar sports to us operate with a conference or pool system, really don't see any issue with people understanding how it works. I like that it gives more clubs the chance to win something, and with suitable scheduling, a big tv game every week (it's not just two random SL clubs playing, it's first vs second in the Billy Boston conference or whatever). I think it needs a system where the conferences can be of unequal sizes -  the 'three countries' conference is pretty unconvincing, and I would tend towards not using geographic names. The conference make-up needs more thought too - why would you split up Saints & Wigan, or Leeds & Bradford? 

French RU operated with something not entirely different, before the advent of the Top14 and the Pro D2 - at one point, there were 64 clubs in the top league, organised in 8 pools of 8. Their Federale system is still in regional pools, and is complicated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fédérale_1

The drawbacks are obvious. One of the problems of modern RL is that results are too predictable. Saints can play Whitehaven, Workington, Barrow & Widnes 8 times and there will pretty much never be a surprise result, unlike football where an occasional upset is possible. I don't see those games as being particularly attractive to fans, tv or sponsors. Nor do I see any 'levelling up' happening very quickly. Not convinced that having our top players play approx a third of their games against a significantly lower standard of opposition helps the England team.

Martyn - how do you envisage academies and the loan/dual reg system working with this setup? Dual reg only to clubs in other conferences? 

[Padge]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

As we've seen with the Hundred, the ultimate arbiter of how valuable a sport is tends to be the effectiveness of its marketing strategy.

There's little point in having a game played at a very high standard if we don't know how to market it.

Basically what you are saying is stop messing with the structure when ultimately it is the marketing that is the problem.

Then you decide to shuffle the deckchairs on the Titanic, which is a typical RFL response to everything.

[The Future is League]

12 minutes ago, Scubby said:

What is the likelihood of the Leigh rule (i.e. only £1m distribution) being retained for the newly promoted club in 2022? 

Gateshead were only give half the distribution in 1999 and I think Wakefield were given less in 1998. And obviously Toronto zilch.

I wouldn't dismiss anything

[Blind side johnny]

4 hours ago, Scubby said:

I think I a tripping out on this thread. Is this really the chief of said publication interacting with customers? 

I know best, no one understands?

Ah, so you admit it at last?

[Blind side johnny]

3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Not much ' work ' been done this afternoon is there ? 

I think it's a cracking idea 

We are all old gimmers now, no doubt retired - Scubby said so about 40 pages back.

[JM2010]

48 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Well Martin, at least we've generated a bit of a debate, albeit a bit one-eyed.

Any more opinions out there? Who thinks the idea is a good one and why? Who (other than those already committed) thinks its not a good idea and why?

I like it. 

I agree but think it should be less teams involved. Maybe 24 as a starting point then League 1 and Elite 1 can be used to develop any clubs that want to step up but aren't ready, new clubs who might need time to develop or clubs that are happy staying as semi pro clubs

[Blind side johnny]

52 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Well Martin, at least we've generated a bit of a debate, albeit a bit one-eyed.

Any more opinions out there? Who thinks the idea is a good one and why? Who (other than those already committed) thinks its not a good idea and why?

I like it. 

It doesn't inspire me and I don't feel the need to justify my opinion.

[Scubby]

7 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

We are all old gimmers now, no doubt retired - Scubby said so about 40 pages back.

I went to a game Crown Flatt after the stand burnt down. How long ago was that?

[JonM]

20 minutes ago, Padge said:

Basically what you are saying is stop messing with the structure when ultimately it is the marketing that is the problem.

Then you decide to shuffle the deckchairs on the Titanic, which is a typical RFL response to everything.

Very much agree that focusing on the structure, fixtures etc. is the wrong thing, but there needs to be a strategy for all aspects of the sport. It's not only a problem of marketing.

[DOGFATHER]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Actually, you can. Thought experiment, which team has the potential to bring in more sponsors and commercial income. Toulouse or Dewsbury? You already know the answer.

There is that "potential" word again. 

Of the club's with "potential" that have joined the RFL family in the last 30 years or so, how many have been successful in turning that "potential" into reality?

Sheffield, London, Gateshead, Paris, Toronto, Celtic Crusaders, Scarborough, Mansfield, Coventry, Hemel, Gloucester, Bridgend, Kent all spring to mind as having unfulfilled potential. 

I'm sure you will have an excuse as to why each tried, and subsequently failed. Whatever the reason, is immaterial. The fact is none of them have made it.

FYI, York have existed in various guises for around 100 years, but somehow, now you seem to think they will be another Wigan or Leeds, even though during the 100 years they have been around, they haven't been. Just 5 short years ago they were on the verge of bankruptcy. Would you have still been advocating a SL place back then?

(YORK FANS:- This is not a pop at your club, I happen to like them as a club).

I'm just trying to point out, there needs to be more than potential alone.  

The only club I can think of, as fulfilling any sort of the potential they promised, is Catalan. That is pretty overwhelming evidence that potential is infrequently realised. 

The fact is, nobody knows what the future is. 

Backing the future of the game on potential alone, seems a far bigger gamble than Martyn's proposal.

Almost all of the club's outside SL have survived, despite knowing the majority of the last 25 years we have had absolutely no prospect of ever getting in to the top division, regardless of how successful we have been, or how badly the club's above have been run.

The game needs to remove the glass ceiling and let all teams reach their potential. If we don't, and we follow this misguided belief that the game needs to be ruthless, there won't be a game at all in 5 years. That approach has only one outcome, extinction. Less participants, talent, quality and ultimately less money in the game, until even the last 10 remaining will be out of business. How do you know the rest of the club's you are advocating just be cast aside are not tomorrow's York, Toulouse or Newcastle?

Bring the credibility back!

 

[Liverpool Rover]

On 15/08/2021 at 23:22, GUBRATS said:

So you're saying the biggest clubs , with the most money don't have the best players ? 

The example I have had plenty of the best players in the league, until they all started to retire and then ended up in the middle 8s twice.

[Padge]

9 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

The game needs to remove the glass ceiling and let all teams reach their potential. 

Many of the clubs are at it and will struggle to move further on.

Why anyone believes a club that has never averaged anywhere near a 10k attendance figure in 125 years suddenly can is beyond me.

It is the clubs that need to be realistic and honest about what they are capable of and stop chasing the bankruptcy dream.

 

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Actually, you can. Thought experiment, which team has the potential to bring in more sponsors and commercial income. Toulouse or Dewsbury? You already know the answer. 

But potential is potential, not actuality.

At the moment Toulouse is potentially a big club, but it isn't yet, and whether it will achieve that potential we are yet to find out. I certainly hope it does, and that we can ultimately draw other French clubs with similar potential into a workable Rugby League structure.

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

That´s exactly what the NFL do when they pick growth markets. Second, your model still has the matthews effect whilst in the nfl the only reason that model works is all revenue is shared equally. Also, the worse teams in the nfl get the best players, that´s not going to happen in your system so your comparisons to the nfl show that , well, you don´t seem to understand why that model works.

I know exactly how that model works, but we have to get there by taking one step at a time.

 

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

We´re never going to have 36 elite RL teams in Europe, let alone UK. If it´s two conf of 10 it has a chance , otherwise just expand sl to 14 so teams like Toulouse, York and Newcastle can grow the commercial pie. 

The way we are going at the moment, you're obviously correct.

That's why we need to change.

Two tiers of ten clubs isn't the way forward.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

I don't know why Martyn just doesn't come out with it and say basically he wants to return to the 1950s model, a bizarre fixture model with clubs picking and choosing opponents and charging a levy on the big clubs to feed the minnows.

That would be bizarre!

In fact the clubs didn't pick and choose their opponents. I'm not sure why you think they did.

[DOGFATHER]

Just now, Padge said:

Many of the clubs are at it and will struggle to move further on.

Why anyone believes a club that has never averaged anywhere near a 10k attendance figure in 125 years suddenly can is beyond me.

It is the clubs that need to be realistic and honest about what they are capable of and stop chasing the bankruptcy dream.

 

How many were anywhere near a 10k avg. pre-SL?

You are basing your assumptions on recent history in a closed shop environment, with no possibility of progression. Pre SL Keighley's were higher than many club's in Div 1. Who is to say what they are capable of? 

How many Liverpool fans live in the city? How many Leeds fans have a LS postcode, believe it or not people travel. 

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Scubby said:

Have you even read it? Do you understand it?

@Dave T has been off the board today, we are avoiding work in his honour!

I'm on annual leave, so I don't really bother on here and spend time with my family (people I like) instead