League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Spidey]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

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.

Relegation was removed so it was a false position

[Wellsy4HullFC]

32 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.

Judging by the level of funding drop off, I'd say there's far more jeopardy in Martyn's idea than in the S8s.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

35 minutes ago, Damien said:

 

Double post.

[Damien]

A couple of threads got me thinking of this from 1992. Still the same arguments, still the same debates 30 years on.

The Leeds CEO says progress was stalling and things were not going forward as quickly as we'd like and the game even facing the possibility of decline. I think we have certainly gone that way again, and indeed are already into the decline.

Its interesting to hear the Leeds CEO being very complementary towards Wigan and how they had driven RL forwards. That is a whole different mindset to what many now share. We again need to drive the game forward.

There were 3 things up for debate, the first two are certainly still applicable. The 3rd may not be a bad idea to try and collectively improve and grow the whole game:

The voting system

TV/Sponsorship money

The RL levy - This was a fund in which 8% of all top flight gate receipts were paid into a fund shared by all clubs

https://www.facebook.com/RugbyLeagueCares/videos/432189437832490/

[EagleEyePie]

9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

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.

I think one of the biggest issues with what you proposed was the funding structure though. In fairness, you did mention it was probably the trickiest issue, but the solution put in place would increase the jeopardy for teams rather than decrease it. While it would allow teams currently in the Championship or lower to really challenge with investment from a wealthy owner, the consequence would likely be financial problems for whichever team they usurped in their division.

For example, if the funding for finishing 1st in a division was set at £1.2m (I think that was the figure given) that's likely to be the wage budget of a club like Leeds and they would have to keep spending to that budget to be competitive. But one poor year and increased investment from other clubs in their division would likely lead to financial disaster and potentially see their money the following season cut in half.

While it's true that a situation like that currently exists it only exists for one club. With your proposal the possibility of their main source of income being dramatically cut exists for all but the weakest clubs.

Rugby league needs stability and I don't think the financial side of your proposal would ensure that. Clubs would either have to spend well to maintain their position (and their income) but potentially risk a lot if they have a poor season, or they would have to cut their spending but that also further increases the likelihood that they'd slip further down the division and decrease their income further.

We need a strong Super League and a key part of that is being able to ensure that clubs have stable finances which can allow them to build steadily. I feel like if your proposal was put in place it would lead to players only being able to gain short term contracts because signing top players for 3 years would be too much of a commitment. Players would be more inclined to go to the NRL.

[Martyn Sadler]

4 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I think one of the biggest issues with what you proposed was the funding structure though. In fairness, you did mention it was probably the trickiest issue, but the solution put in place would increase the jeopardy for teams rather than decrease it. While it would allow teams currently in the Championship or lower to really challenge with investment from a wealthy owner, the consequence would likely be financial problems for whichever team they usurped in their division.

For example, if the funding for finishing 1st in a division was set at £1.2m (I think that was the figure given) that's likely to be the wage budget of a club like Leeds and they would have to keep spending to that budget to be competitive. But one poor year and increased investment from other clubs in their division would likely lead to financial disaster and potentially see their money the following season cut in half.

While it's true that a situation like that currently exists it only exists for one club. With your proposal the possibility of their main source of income being dramatically cut exists for all but the weakest clubs.

Rugby league needs stability and I don't think the financial side of your proposal would ensure that. Clubs would either have to spend well to maintain their position (and their income) but potentially risk a lot if they have a poor season, or they would have to cut their spending but that also further increases the likelihood that they'd slip further down the division and decrease their income further.

We need a strong Super League and a key part of that is being able to ensure that clubs have stable finances which can allow them to build steadily. I feel like if your proposal was put in place it would lead to players only being able to gain short term contracts because signing top players for 3 years would be too much of a commitment. Players would be more inclined to go to the NRL.

Don't think that the funding proposal I set out was a fixed element of the overall proposal.

It was anything but.

If you were to read through this thread you'd find that I suggested that my proposal along with others should be bundled and taken to both the broadcasting market and the financial markets now for a start after the next TV contract expires, ie, for a competitive structure beginning in 2024.

If we could attract the right quality and quantity of investment for any competitive structure from that point, then the sport would be in a much better position.

Our problem is far too much short term planning.

 

[David Shepherd]

20 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

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.

Good point. 

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

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.

If you read through my proposal you'll see that any two teams could play in a Grand Final, even if they were in the same Conference, such as Warrington and St Helens, or Hull FC and Hull KR.

[EagleEyePie]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Don't think that the funding proposal I set out was a fixed element of the overall proposal.

It was anything but.

If you were to read through this thread you'd find that I suggested that my proposal along with others should be bundled and taken to both the broadcasting market and the financial markets now for a start after the next TV contract expires, ie, for a competitive structure beginning in 2024.

If we could attract the right quality and quantity of investment for any competitive structure from that point, then the sport would be in a much better position.

Our problem is far too much short term planning.

 

I agree that short term planning is a real problem in the sport, but I don't think the league structure is what's holding back the sport financially. We can float as many radical proposals as we like but unless we get competitive UK based teams outside the traditional boundaries and more people watching on TV then Super League or whatever combined league structure is presented will still be worth the same.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours 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. 

You will get your wrists slapped JM, with no more money coming into the sport for distribution you are obviously suggesting a levelling down for SL clubs in the funding share out, there would be some on here (shh say it slowly, is it mainly, no not mainly then majority, no not majority, got it all the fans of SL clubs) who would have you hung, drawn and quartered for using language like that.

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

You will get your wrists slapped JM, with no more money coming into the sport for distribution you are obviously suggesting a levelling down for SL clubs in the funding share out, there would be some on here (shh say it slowly, is it mainly, no not mainly then majority, no not majority, got it all the fans of SL clubs) who would have you hung, drawn and quartered for using language like that.

Harry, at regular occurrence over the past few months you have complained that the quality of Super League matches has been declining of late. 

This position seems rather at odds with the obvious solution to that problem however?

[Moove]

16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

You will get your wrists slapped JM, with no more money coming into the sport for distribution you are obviously suggesting a levelling down for SL clubs in the funding share out, there would be some on here (shh say it slowly, is it mainly, no not mainly then majority, no not majority, got it all the fans of SL clubs) who would have you hung, drawn and quartered for using language like that.

Not sure why you're being so childish about it with comments like this but the vast majority have challenged the desire to level funding by removing it from the top clubs rather than identifying ways to grow the pot for all clubs. Many (myself included) have questioned how that approach could ever make good business and commercial sense and literally all you've got is childish bitterness like this trying to twist it into 'typical SL fans wanting to screw everyone else'.

I mean you yourself keep telling everyone how great the existing product is below SL so why is there no interest in growing that further and building upwards? Why are there no thoughts or ideas about how to leverage the entertainment you and others say is offered below SL to provide something of commercial value to more broadcasters and sponsors? Achieving that lifts more clubs upwards and puts SL under pressure to do likewise, not to mention further increasing competitiveness.

Why is there only ever a desire to grow by taking from those who currently have more?

And I use the word 'grow' very loosely in that last sentence because that isn't growth, it's just shuffling the same money around into different pots.

[steve oates]

3 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

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.

It took a lot of the limelight off the top end of Superleague, and yes died in the wool enthusiasts loved the middle eights but not only were their less backsides on seats, the competing clubs swallowed a lot of the TV deal money.

So I would not count on "Superleague 2" being again showered with tens of thousands of ££££s as some want to suggest. Been there, done that, wasted so much money.

[Martyn Sadler]

41 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I agree that short term planning is a real problem in the sport, but I don't think the league structure is what's holding back the sport financially. We can float as many radical proposals as we like but unless we get competitive UK based teams outside the traditional boundaries and more people watching on TV then Super League or whatever combined league structure is presented will still be worth the same.

You're correct, and that's why we need a structure that facilitates what you are suggesting.

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Harry, at regular occurrence over the past few months you have complained that the quality of Super League matches has been declining of late. 

This position seems rather at odds with the obvious solution to that problem however?

Tommy you probably know as well as I do that any increase in the SC will mean an increase for the player's we already have (of which I would not decry them) unfortunately a drop in funding may result in some player's getting less, but I don't see unless the cap is doubled how it is going to attract better player's, then I doubt we would have enough money to entice other than "surplus to requirement" NRL players over.

Anyway if I may, I did ask you a pointed question the other day in reply to your post about attendances recovering, in that I would like to know your opinion as someone who's judgement and opinion I look at with great interest as to whether you consider the attendances will improve in '22.

My opinion is we may see it about the same as we see in the the latter months - restrictions lifted - of this season, I don't expect to see an increase in overall attendances and if I was a betting man I would wager on a decrease.

Reason :-

1. I think a lot of people may be losing faith with how the game is being perceived to be run and administered, it is like the blind leading the blind there is nothing forthright and no one saying "This is what we are going to do next" and make decisions, it is more like what do you think Mr Leneghan or Mr McManus want, or will Mr Hetherington not like it again, but Mr Rimmer also needs to have his say, it is like the school playground commitee deciding on playing tick 'n pass or football next.

2. Some people may have simply got out of the habit attending live sport.

3. And, I do not think that the quality of the product we are seeing in TV is selling it self to prospective newbies, or enticing enough to get lapsed fans back in the stadiums, it is all much of the same, and the gamesmanship every club is adopting alone is enough to put anyone off.

4. We have yet to be told what we are going to be doing in the next couple of seasons, will after next season there be 2 x 10's, will there be P&R, will Licencing again be thought as the saviour of the game?

Those are my reasons, please give me the benefit of reading your thoughts and perceptions, of an increase or decrease in attendances and why.

 

[steve oates]

23 hours ago, Big Picture said:

The kind of investors needed wouldn't know me from Adam so I'd need a partner known to them who could open the right doors first.

If the general approach to professional sport in North America is the Franchise model then it stands to reason that potential North American sports investors certainly do not need you to introduce them to it.

So when TWP were in Superleague 2020, and Ottawa and New York were pencilled in for 2021 and 2022 respectively the commercially very Savvy Eric Perez would inevitably have had his finger on the Franchise model and it's possibilities both In North America where it's known, and here.  He didn't push it??

You didn't invent it that's for sure, do you have any credentials in terms of running a Franchise business?? If Franchisoing clubs here is a way forward, Perez will gladly pop over I am sure???

[JM2010]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

You will get your wrists slapped JM, with no more money coming into the sport for distribution you are obviously suggesting a levelling down for SL clubs in the funding share out, there would be some on here (shh say it slowly, is it mainly, no not mainly then majority, no not majority, got it all the fans of SL clubs) who would have you hung, drawn and quartered for using language like that.

Sorry, what I meant to say was we should give all the money to the top 10 clubs

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Tommy you probably know as well as I do that any increase in the SC will mean an increase for the player's we already have (of which I would not decry them) unfortunately a drop in funding may result in some player's getting less, but I don't see unless the cap is doubled how it is going to attract better player's, then I doubt we would have enough money to entice other than "surplus to requirement" NRL players over.

Anyway if I may, I did ask you a pointed question the other day in reply to your post about attendances recovering, in that I would like to know your opinion as someone who's judgement and opinion I look at with great interest as to whether you consider the attendances will improve in '22.

My opinion is we may see it about the same as we see in the the latter months - restrictions lifted - of this season, I don't expect to see an increase in overall attendances and if I was a betting man I would wager on a decrease.

Reason :-

1. I think a lot of people may be losing faith with how the game is being perceived to be run and administered, it is like the blind leading the blind there is nothing forthright and no one saying "This is what we are going to do next" and make decisions, it is more like what do you think Mr Leneghan or Mr McManus want, or will Mr Hetherington not like it again, but Mr Rimmer also needs to have his say, it is like the school playground commitee deciding on playing tick 'n pass or football next.

2. Some people may have simply got out of the habit attending live sport.

3. And, I do not think that the quality of the product we are seeing in TV is selling it self to prospective newbies, or enticing enough to get lapsed fans back in the stadiums, it is all much of the same, and the gamesmanship every club is adopting alone is enough to put anyone off.

4. We have yet to be told what we are going to be doing in the next couple of seasons, will after next season there be 2 x 10's, will there be P&R, will Licencing again be thought as the saviour of the game?

Those are my reasons, please give me the benefit of reading your thoughts and perceptions, of an increase or decrease in attendances and why.

 

Apologies Harry I thought I had replied to your earlier question on attendances.

I think they will recover, but not to the extent we would like. The loss of the world cup feel good boost will not help. For example I expect my own club to be at 12k average early on next season. So a recovery from the c. 10k crowds we've seen this year, but not the recovery to 15k the club will be hoping for.

On the cap increase needing to be doubled to change the talent, I 100% agree that is the sort of radical change that is needed there. If only to make up for 15+ years of not keeping up with inflation and our rivals.

That said the on field product is much for a muchness in terms of the problems we face getting crowds in IMO. Far more influential are the consistent knocks in outlook of the sport.

If we see the pandemic in equivalent to a wartime period, and if you'll allow me to use a historian's term of the "audit of war", then I think that audit has been particularly brutal to RL. It has critically shown how we have failed to fix the roof whilst the sun was shining. 

The attitude of the sport is inward looking, self-serving and utterly rudderless. The debacles over Toronto (and their funding), Elstone, Private Equity, bringing Leigh up as a sacrificial lamb, the reduced Sky deal, the cut to 10, are all symptomatic of a sport that has no strategy and no will to get bigger; whilst forgetting that standing still is going backwards. And those are just in the past 12 months!

These impact current fans as it is demoralising to varying extents. They impact gaining potential new fans as they're now trying to do so from a weaker position. Arguably decline was already in place and the pandemic has been the (large) straw that broke the camel's back. What inherent to RL is keeping you engaged? For me currently there is little beyond my club loyalty.

I would want to expand on this but I'm currently on my way to Headingley from work!

[Padge]

7 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Then I would be genuinely interested to know what they were.

The one that I pointed out was in operation from 1960 to 1973 (apart from when we had two divisions in '63  and '64). because at the end of every season I used to work out which teams Wakefield would play in the following season based on that formula.

In 1954, when to balance up the Lancashire and Yorkshire League numbers to 15 each side of the Pennines a Yorkshire team would play in the Lancashire league, Bramley were given the option to pick their own opponents for two 'cross' Pennine fixtures.

In 1969 the clubs had voted for two divisions but subsequently got cold feet, they had to quickly come up with a fixture structure, initially the RFL wanted to just revert to the previous structure but the clubs were against that as they considered it a failed structure. They decided to go with a proposal that York had put forward two years earlier.

The idea from York was for the top 15 clubs from the previous season to play each other home and away and likewise for the bottom 15. The fixture formula allowed for clubs to arrange a further 6 matches against teams from the other section of the table to maintain some of the local rivalry, this resulted in 34 matches per season. 

The York proposal was eventually given the go ahead.

[Dave T]

On 18/08/2021 at 12:27, Tommygilf said:

This was the big lesson of Super League for the past 25 years.

In the first 15 years, Wigan, Leeds, Saints and particularly Bradford really took the concept on and pushed hard. Increasing crowds by significant amounts. Whilst Bradford's star faded, Warrington and to a certain extent Hull FC carried on in their place and we've had the addition of Catalans doing the same in France. 

I think this is a flawed reading of history. I don't think Wigan or Saints embraced the SL concept at all. 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this is a flawed reading of history. I don't think Wigan or Saints embraced the SL concept at all. 

Perhaps, I think that is harsh on St Helens. Embracing Super League didn't mean every club had to do Bullmania. Cut the difference and say Wigan less so?

Even then, that still leaves, Leeds, Saints and Bradford forging ahead followed by Warrington and Hull FC.

[Scubby]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this is a flawed reading of history. I don't think Wigan or Saints embraced the SL concept at all. 

What about the flashing Christmas lights on the popular stand at Knowsley Road? Inspired.

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Perhaps, I think that is harsh on St Helens. Embracing Super League didn't mean every club had to do Bullmania. Cut the difference and say Wigan less so?

Even then, that still leaves, Leeds, Saints and Bradford forging ahead followed by Warrington and Hull FC.

In year 3 Saints finished 4th with 7k averages. They never embraced much more than being a good Rugby team. 

You could argue that Wigan struggled to embrace the SL concept, and to an extent still do. 

The way to look at who has done well with SL is to look at who is now a bigger club than they were pre-SL.

[GeordieSaint]

27 minutes ago, Scubby said:

What about the flashing Christmas lights on the popular stand at Knowsley Road? Inspired.

I hint a trace of sarcasm in that post and I am not sure why’ve done so…

… Christmas lights on a building is the height of modernity in St Helens in 2021; never mind in the 90s/00s… 

[Damien]

55 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this is a flawed reading of history. I don't think Wigan or Saints embraced the SL concept at all. 

In all seriousness what was concept? The original concept didn't really happen which was big city teams and mergers between small teams. There was also meant to be 2 French teams. We got PSG for a while, Sheffield faded, as did London in time. The only mergers were in name only to save Hull and Huddersfield. 

The concept then seemed to revolve around summer rugby and giving monikers to existing clubs. Almost none really embraced this or particularly change. Certainly for almost all the existing big clubs I think little changed bar Bradford and maybe Leeds. Wigan certainly didn't embrace the moniker and this period coincided with the sale of Central Park. Warrington only came to life with the new stadium and Simon Moran some years later. Saints were pretty much the same but had success on the field. Hull Sharks was that disastrous they ended up merging with Gateshead. Practically everyone else thought let's add a moniker and maybe a new mascot and job done.