League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I think you need to re-read many of your own posts, in which you have constantly and presumably knowingly misrepresented me.

I don't mind that occasionally. On a forum like this it is inevitable.

But when it is constantly repeated I have to wonder about your agenda.

I’m happy to leave it John, who unfortunately will have to address it, not like he’s busy enough. 

I genuinely have no idea what you’re on about.  

[fighting irish]

31 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Your analogy, much like your doubling down despite many far better constructed, realistic and thought provoking posts from people here explaining how poor the idea actually, was beyond daft. 

You’ve really not come across very well here and now congratulating someone for violating the rules here whilst suggesting someone else suffered substance abuse and/or a learning difficultly is another low point for yourself in a week of many, many low points. 

There's an interesting inversion of a basic moral principle here.

It seems that someone makes a completely unsubstantiated, derogatory remark about another person with the sole intention of ridiculing the innocent victim and no-one objects!

Someone else points out the flagrant, dishonest, baseless, scurrilous attack and other (amoral, virtue signalling, wuses) rally round to support the initiator because in pointing out his immoral behaviour said watchman (me) used a naugthy word, like drugs or drink.

It's like rallying around a mugger and blaming the police for arresting him and bringing him to justice.

Well I contend that said virtue signallers, wouldn't know a real virtue, from a hole in the ground. 

[Scubby]

John for the last 3 days ...

[Scubby]

Who wants the Super 8s back? 

[Spidey]

Can you report Editors on this site? 

[DOGFATHER]

9 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

http://www.rlfans-hosting.co.uk/?p=2854&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-dentists-diary-684th

Read from about halfway down.

Then tell me which part I made up 

I'll await your apology.

You have my sincerest, unreserved apologies Wellsy.

As I said, I had no agenda, just putting the pieces together from what I had seen and read.

I guess it's true you really cannot trust what you read in the papers. I still find the situation so far fetched, it is still hard to believe.

I had seen no reference to the NFP voting to disallow Hull in, as a sort of vendetta against SL, in retaliation to them refusing Hunslet. 

 

 

[TboneFromTO]

19 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Who wants the Super 8s back? 

I still think that was the best system.  It's very much like NA style playoffs 

Personally I'd get rid of the mpg in the middle 8s(top 4 move up) and I'd like to see it between league 1 and champ as well.

Ive said it before. I loved the super/middle 8s and think it could be a USP business wise.  Fantastic format

[Harry Stottle]

43 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You are actually making the point for me.

Poor teams don't necessarily remain poor teams forever, if they operate within an environment that encourages them to get better.

But on that particular point of International Selection it is my pet hate, I would sooner play a NCL half back than Jackson Hastings for England.

[Harry Stottle]

29 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Who wants the Super 8s back? 

ME, Capitalised.

As a fan of a club involved in more than most, I loved every minute of  it, the victories and the losses, the jubilations and the disappointments.

[Harry Stottle]

52 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I haven't got time to respond fully atm. I'm currently on the Amazon customer forum where Jeff Bezos is hammering me telling me I don't simply understand space tourism and haven't fully watched and understood his Ted talk! He is quite persistent.

Name dropper

[Wellsy4HullFC]

14 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

You have my sincerest, unreserved apologies Wellsy.

As I said, I had no agenda, just putting the pieces together from what I had seen and read.

I guess it's true you really cannot trust what you read in the papers. I still find the situation so far fetched, it is still hard to believe.

I had seen no reference to the NFP voting to disallow Hull in, as a sort of vendetta against SL, in retaliation to them refusing Hunslet. 

 

 

It is an a bit unbelievable, but then this is rugby league.

Gateshead were not sacrificial for Hull, nor were Hunslet. It was pretty much the other way around until the Gateshead owners decided it was a better bet to run from Hull than from Gateshead following the merger.

I do believe the RFL desire the biggest clubs in the top league (why wouldn't they?) but I am not of the belief they would move the goalposts if one looks like they're being relegated. We've seen with Bradford and the desirable London that the RFL will follow through despite people saying they would never be relegated.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

ME, Capitalised.

As a fan of a club involved in more than most, I loved every minute of  it, the victories and the losses, the jubilations and the disappointments.

I live the Middle 8s.

The top 8s were too much of the same, and the bottom 8s were utterly pointless.

There were the makings of a good idea there but they didn't take the bits that worked after the experiment was over.

A playoff series featuring the bottom 2 and the top 6 could have been a big hit.

[Martyn Sadler]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But on that particular point of International Selection it is my pet hate, I would sooner play a NCL half back than Jackson Hastings for England.

That raises quite a separate point.

[OriginalMrC]

Some of you are going to have your minds blown when we actually find out what will happen

[Scubby]

7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

It is an a bit unbelievable, but then this is rugby league.

Gateshead were not sacrificial for Hull, nor were Hunslet. It was pretty much the other way around until the Gateshead owners decided it was a better bet to run from Hull than from Gateshead following the merger.

I do believe the RFL desire the biggest clubs in the top league (why wouldn't they?) but I am not of the belief they would move the goalposts if one looks like they're being relegated. We've seen with Bradford and the desirable London that the RFL will follow through despite people saying they would never be relegated.

You cannot underestimate the role of the Hetherington's in this hybrid solution/arrangement. I don't know the ins and outs but they may well have had more to lose than some might think had Gateshead been liquidated. All above board but survival tactics and prospering from despair rather than anything fishy (been waiting to get that in)  . 

[Scubby]

17 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I live the Middle 8s.

The top 8s were too much of the same, and the bottom 8s were utterly pointless.

There were the makings of a good idea there but they didn't take the bits that worked after the experiment was over.

A playoff series featuring the bottom 2 and the top 6 could have been a big hit.

I don't agree with P&R purely on the current wealth of the game and clubs yo-yo-ing.

However, I think if we were going to keep P&R and 12 clubs then there has to be a guarantee of a side from the Championship going up. But if there was one automatic spot and second bottom in SL went into the play offs with the next 4/5 - it would be fun to watch I would imagine.

[EagleEyePie]

23 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

I still think that was the best system.  It's very much like NA style playoffs 

Personally I'd get rid of the mpg in the middle 8s(top 4 move up) and I'd like to see it between league 1 and champ as well.

Ive said it before. I loved the super/middle 8s and think it could be a USP business wise.  Fantastic format

The problem with the middle 8's is there wasn't much value in it. Attendances and viewing figures decreased so what's the real benefit? It meant more teams faced the serious financial risk of dropping out of Super League and adding Championship teams into the mix at the later end of the season didn't put backsides on seats either in the grounds or in front of the TV. It wasn't improving the product it was weakening it.

Rugby League just doesn't have much value because pretty much all the teams involved bring exactly the same demographics to the table. The halcyon days of rugby league aren't going to be found by adding more small villages and towns in Yorkshire or Cumbria into the mix.

[Damien]

26 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Some of you are going to have your minds blown when we actually find out what will happen

What 2 x 10s like it is a panacea and absolutely no other changes 

[Scubby]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

What 2 x 10s like it is a panacea and absolutely no other changes 

Or a 48 team solution including the NCL?

[JM2010]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

ME, Capitalised.

As a fan of a club involved in more than most, I loved every minute of  it, the victories and the losses, the jubilations and the disappointments.

It's a sort of happy medium between Martyn's idea and the new proposal. It gives clubs in the Championship the chance to play some SL clubs and a real chance of promotion. I'd also carry it on further down the structure so that League 1 clubs had the chance to play the bottom Champs cub in the same format

The only sticking point for me would be the discrepancies in funding. If the gaps in funding between SL to Champs to League 1 were smaller then I believe it could be a successful structure. 

[17 stone giant]

2 hours ago, David Shepherd said:

both conference champions play the grand final to be champions of European Rugby League

Assuming I've understood it correctly, one thing I don't like about that system (and I don't like it with the NFL, where it is definitely the case) is that you are limited as to what matchups you can get in the final. Supposing Leeds and Bradford are in the same conference, they can never meet in the final. In the same way that you can never have a Superbowl between, say, Buffalo Bills and Miami Dolphins, because they're both in the AFC. I don't like that restriction - I much prefer the FA Cup where any two teams can make the final. Perhaps if the top 6 (3 from each conference) then went into a random draw, that might work. But there are downsides to that too.

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

It's a sort of happy medium between Martyn's idea and the new proposal. It gives clubs in the Championship the chance to play some SL clubs and a real chance of promotion. I'd also carry it on further down the structure so that League 1 clubs had the chance to play the bottom Champs cub in the same format

The only sticking point for me would be the discrepancies in funding. If the gaps in funding between SL to Champs to League 1 were smaller then I believe it could be a successful structure. 

I don't think it is. In some ways it is the polar opposite.

Martyn's idea, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is to get rid of relegation and jeapody and allow clubs to build and grow. The super 8s allow a ridiculous amount of jeapody and turmoil and offer no stability to allow clubs to grow.

[JM2010]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't think it is. In some ways it is the polar opposite.

Martyn's idea, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is to get rid of relegation and jeapody and allow clubs to build and grow. The super 8s allow a ridiculous amount of jeapody and turmoil and offer no stability to allow clubs to grow.

As far as jeapordy and P & R are concerned then you are right. 

The similarities I was talking about was allowing more clubs to be involved and giving smaller clubs the chance to play clubs from the league above. 

I suggested a more even spread of funding which would allow clubs to be more competitive against clubs in the league above and also stop them falling off a cliff if they end up getting relegated

 

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

Or a 48 team solution including the NCL?

Please, 85 teams, there were 49 teams in the NCL last time I looked.

Get your facts straight! 

[Martyn Sadler]

27 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't think it is. In some ways it is the polar opposite.

Martyn's idea, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is to get rid of relegation and jeapody and allow clubs to build and grow. The super 8s allow a ridiculous amount of jeapody and turmoil and offer no stability to allow clubs to grow.

My whole idea is premised on the belief that in Rugby League relegation (ie, jeopardy) frequently has a disastrous impact on the clubs it affects.

Hull KR finished bottom of Super League last year, admittedly in only an 11-team competition, but when you look at them now, relegation would have been such an enormous waste of the club's potential.