League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[The Future is League]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Me neither re Rimmer, but you seem to overlook that Sky are the customer it is up to the sport to provide Sky with the quality that they are paying for, if the sport doesn't improve it's offering and quickly there will be no customers including Sky wanting to buy the product.

I am one of the long time converted and I am along with a lot of other people like me becoming disillusioned with the game, burying ones head in the sand and telling all and sundry we have The Greatest Game doesn't wash any more, either we improve or we implode.

Perhaps with some input from Sky something could be worked out, or to put it more bluntly, somethings needs to be worked out. We are just treading water at the moment. Rimmer shouldn't be within 100 miles of any plans to restructure the league

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Me neither re Rimmer, but you seem to overlook that Sky are the customer it is up to the sport to provide Sky with the quality that they are paying for, if the sport doesn't improve it's offering and quickly there will be no customers including Sky wanting to buy the product.

I am one of the long time converted and I am along with a lot of other people like me becoming disillusioned with the game, burying ones head in the sand and telling all and sundry we have The Greatest Game doesn't wash any more, either we improve or we implode.

You've hit the nail right on the head there Harry.

Instead of asking how to create something which can attract the audience Sky wants to justify them continuing to pay to televise the sport, the administrators are instead asking how to make do with the reduced amount of money they've been given.  I suspect that this is most likely because they (and the administrators who came before them in the sport) have accepted that RL is the poor cousin of other sports and therefore simply has to make to do with whatever it can get and cut its cloth to suit.

In view of that, I suggest that the end will come in two years when Sky pulls out because they don't have a clue how to attract the audience Sky wants.

[Ackroman]

For me there's too much compromise in SL. This is where we should allow for the least amount of wriggle room! Also with a 35% reduction in funding, why offer the same volume to sky at reduced quality?

I would be arguing that for 35% we will offer less games but of a higher standard and will be coming up with other products to attract SKY etc to buy them.

So I did a quick fag packet licencing test across about 10 criteria including strategic value and market penetration for all clubs.

There are 10 clubs that have the potential of being in a super league. 2 are French, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield (Hull/Hull KR) and Newcastle.

Then there are about 10 clubs knocking on that door, needing to improve community engagement, facilities or even a secure home. All 3 calder clubs, 2-3 strategically important teams such as the 2 London teams, Salford, Widnes, Barrow, Leigh and Hull/Hull KR.

There are 13 or so clubs that can't compete with the above due to an even worse level of funding availability, facilities and community engagement/potential. For example I was surprised to find York in this group but the club is only just getting back on it's feet.

And finally 3 clubs on the verge of extinction (IMO), all 3 in the heartlands.

I could make a decision on the game using my basic formula and it wouldn't be mixing up the teams with such varied potential. You can of course mess with your own criteria to make sure your club stays in SL but I would appoint an independent panel to apply the rules.

SL 1 clubs would have strict criteria and no club gets in if they don't match it. Those standards are diluted for SL 2 and the same applies until we get to community level where a lot more wriggle room is allowed.

The basis of the main product is standards driven. We now have the potential for more creative ideas to increase fixtures such as magic nines, an improved challenge cup format, AB sundecks inclusion of more community clubs, etc.  Some form of SL1, SL2 cross conference competition ??? Someone with more brains than me could come up with something.

[Adelaide Tiger]

8 hours ago, Big Picture said:

You've hit the nail right on the head there Harry.

Instead of asking how to create something which can attract the audience Sky wants to justify them continuing to pay to televise the sport, the administrators are instead asking how to make do with the reduced amount of money they've been given.  I suspect that this is most likely because they (and the administrators who came before them in the sport) have accepted that RL is the poor cousin of other sports and therefore simply has to make to do with whatever it can get and cut its cloth to suit.

In view of that, I suggest that the end will come in two years when Sky pulls out because they don't have a clue how to attract the audience Sky wants.

Totally agree that is now a case of clubs scrambling for the crumbs and are just too dumb, or too desperate, to realise that SKY will just keep offering smaller and smaller amounts.

IMHO I would rather see the sport be bold and take the initiative by going to SKY and saying for example:

’Rugby League understand that the sport needs to improve its offer to the supporters, the viewer and the broadcaster.  Therefore the sport has agreed to the following-

1. For the first year of a new TV a deal we will bring in a 2 x 10 Conference system with 20 full time clubs

2, We will announce this ASAP to give existing non full time clubs the maximum amount of time to consider if they want to put themselves forward for consideration and to also give them the maximum opportunity to build towards being full time

3. All clubs will receive the same amount of TV money to give an equal base to work from

3. However, we will abolish the salary cap to enable ALL clubs interested in being in the new system to seek out new investment opportunities 

4. A 27 game season.  With 18 Conference games plus 9 against other Conference teams with cross Conference play offs

5. create an independent body to lead the game forward 

But to deliver this we need X amount of money from the next TV deal’

Put the ball in SKY’s court to see what they are willing to pay for a new model.

P.S. As I stated the model above is just an example and clubs in a league lower than above should be provided with some income 

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

For me there's too much compromise in SL. This is where we should allow for the least amount of wriggle room! Also with a 35% reduction in funding, why offer the same volume to sky at reduced quality?

I would be arguing that for 35% we will offer less games but of a higher standard and will be coming up with other products to attract SKY etc to buy them.

So I did a quick fag packet licencing test across about 10 criteria including strategic value and market penetration for all clubs.

There are 10 clubs that have the potential of being in a super league. 2 are French, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield (Hull/Hull KR) and Newcastle.

Then there are about 10 clubs knocking on that door, needing to improve community engagement, facilities or even a secure home. All 3 calder clubs, 2-3 strategically important teams such as the 2 London teams, Salford, Widnes, Barrow, Leigh and Hull/Hull KR.

There are 13 or so clubs that can't compete with the above due to an even worse level of funding availability, facilities and community engagement/potential. For example I was surprised to find York in this group but the club is only just getting back on it's feet.

And finally 3 clubs on the verge of extinction (IMO), all 3 in the heartlands.

I could make a decision on the game using my basic formula and it wouldn't be mixing up the teams with such varied potential. You can of course mess with your own criteria to make sure your club stays in SL but I would appoint an independent panel to apply the rules.

SL 1 clubs would have strict criteria and no club gets in if they don't match it. Those standards are diluted for SL 2 and the same applies until we get to community level where a lot more wriggle room is allowed.

The basis of the main product is standards driven. We now have the potential for more creative ideas to increase fixtures such as magic nines, an improved challenge cup format, AB sundecks inclusion of more community clubs, etc.  Some form of SL1, SL2 cross conference competition ??? Someone with more brains than me could come up with something.

Thank you for that Ackorman, but could I please say firstly that I can neither congratulate nor contradict your selection process simply because you have not disclosed your "fag packet" criteria.

For example does your criterion include clubs who are already running an academy? This was brought up in earlier discussions and I suggested that the RFL with denying teams the opportunity to have an academy licence for the next 7 years are condemning some clubs from ever attaining SL1 status for that period no matter if they tick all the other boxes or not, I would not include having an academy in the criteria but would say any club that qualifies for SL1 status running an academy has to be a mandatory requirement, irrespective of location.

Also I would has 'Adelade Tiger' above suggests that a consideration should be observed in what any club will be willing to invest in promoting their club, and I will add that has to be in both on and off field activities, being able to spend up to a much increased salary cap, promoting and increasing spectatator numbers, and supporting community RL participation in their locality. For these requirements there should be a target level of investment stated in the criteria, if a club can submit a figure over the amount then that would qualify for SL1 status below the target figure then SL2, and to supplement it a financial commitment in the form of a fixed 'Bond' should be levied against the clubs in SL1, repayable annually over a 3 to five year period.

In your initial 10 you use the word 'potential' that indicates to me that you are giving leeway for some clubs to grow into the position of SL1 status I think that potential should be pursued in the division below, BUT if they can offer the financial package I suggest and can finance the 'Bond' then failure to maintain the requirements of SL1 would carry the forfiet of losing their financial commitment i.e. they would not receive back the 'Bond' they invested.

I would still want to retain a form of Promotion to the top division, that may not nessacarilly be by on-field performance but by financial commitment as outlined above whilst also adhering to the other criteria that must be obtained for entry e.g. if a ground is initially deemed substandard to requirement for SL1 it must be brought up to the accepted level even before the financial implications are taken into consideration, if promoting clubs to SL1 means it grows in the number of clubs in the division all the better.

This seem to be very strict/drastic entry to SL1 considerations I am suggesting but I believe we are in a drastic situation as far as the game is heading, will tgd measures have the right conditions to entice individuals or conglomerates of wealthy people in their communities to invest? I don't simply know.

I think we are in very grave danger of losing SKY, but if we can show such a  commitment from a number of clubs and Sky can buy into that commitment then I believe we can go a long way to securing a future for the sport.

Yes I have always been against a closed shop, but this in effect is not a closed shop, if a club who finds itself in SL2 has the ambition and committment to get to SL1 then they will do all they can to attain that level but it will take a lot of hard work, but as they say "where there is a will, there is a way".

[JM2010]

How many clubs could run a full time squad and an elite academy out of the 36 plus any from France?

Maybe these clubs could be involved in a SL1 and SL2 or SL conferences. The rest could be placed in a structure below with the more ambitious clubs being able to build and grow ready for the chance to step up. This could also be where any new ambitious clubs can be placed before they go on to the SL structure

[Dave T]

On 21/08/2021 at 09:43, Adelaide Tiger said:

Totally agree that is now a case of clubs scrambling for the crumbs and are just too dumb, or too desperate, to realise that SKY will just keep offering smaller and smaller amounts.

IMHO I would rather see the sport be bold and take the initiative by going to SKY and saying for example:

’Rugby League understand that the sport needs to improve its offer to the supporters, the viewer and the broadcaster.  Therefore the sport has agreed to the following-

1. For the first year of a new TV a deal we will bring in a 2 x 10 Conference system with 20 full time clubs

2, We will announce this ASAP to give existing non full time clubs the maximum amount of time to consider if they want to put themselves forward for consideration and to also give them the maximum opportunity to build towards being full time

3. All clubs will receive the same amount of TV money to give an equal base to work from

3. However, we will abolish the salary cap to enable ALL clubs interested in being in the new system to seek out new investment opportunities 

4. A 27 game season.  With 18 Conference games plus 9 against other Conference teams with cross Conference play offs

5. create an independent body to lead the game forward 

But to deliver this we need X amount of money from the next TV deal’

Put the ball in SKY’s court to see what they are willing to pay for a new model.

P.S. As I stated the model above is just an example and clubs in a league lower than above should be provided with some income 

We saw what Sky would pay for a new attractive model. It was the last TV deal that Nigel Wood sold to them £200m for 5 years. 

Fans, players and owners told everyone who would listen how rubbish it was and spent ages complaining about 'Every minute matters'. 

Now look at the response to The Hundred, fans have embraced it, enjoyed it, and celebrated the motto of 'Every Ball counts'. 

[Angelic Cynic]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

 

Fans, players and owners told everyone who would listen how rubbish it was and spent ages complaining about 'Every minute matters'. 

 

Erm,Lenagan whinged about the Super 8's - just before that structure ended

https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby-league/wigan-warriors-owner-lenagan-predicts-end-crazy-super-8s-701876

Fans,players,and owners of Championship clubs,probably didn't spend ages complaining.

The Aussie guy behind the idea sailed off to continue his good work - Lenagan took a loan,which he reckons will take 10 years to repay.( While he was part of the broadcast working group with Pearson )

https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/sport/19148340.wigan-warriors-owner-wants-see-super-league-changes/

Every balls up counts!

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

Erm,Lenagan whinged about the Super 8's - just before that structure ended

https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby-league/wigan-warriors-owner-lenagan-predicts-end-crazy-super-8s-701876

Fans,players,and owners of Championship clubs,probably didn't spend ages complaining.

The Aussie guy behind the idea sailed off to continue his good work - Lenagan took a loan,which he reckons will take 10 years to repay.( While he was part of the broadcast working group with Pearson )

https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/sport/19148340.wigan-warriors-owner-wants-see-super-league-changes/

Every balls up counts!

Lenegan is an owner. 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Now look at the response to The Hundred, fans have embraced it, enjoyed it, and celebrated the motto of 'Every Ball counts'. 

The difference is that The Hundred focuses on the best eight teams, rather than the eight teams below that.

[Dave T]

Just now, Griff said:

The difference is that The Hundred focuses on the best eight teams, rather than the eight teams below that.

Super 8s cut the poorer teams and left the top 8 to play each other. Why are you ignoring that? 

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Fans refused to focus on the top of the table, and moaned that everyone was focusing on the middle 8s. They were the ones doing it. 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Now look at the response to The Hundred, fans have embraced it, enjoyed it, and celebrated the motto of 'Every Ball counts'. 

TV audience fell by 25% from opening match to the not sold out final.

[EagleEyePie]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

We saw what Sky would pay for a new attractive model. It was the last TV deal that Nigel Wood sold to them £200m for 5 years. 

Fans, players and owners told everyone who would listen how rubbish it was and spent ages complaining about 'Every minute matters'. 

Now look at the response to The Hundred, fans have embraced it, enjoyed it, and celebrated the motto of 'Every Ball counts'. 

There's no correlation between The Hundred and Super 8's. Super 8's was a fine idea until people realised the sports audience wasn't interested. It matters not whether people say they liked it. What matters is TV audiences went down and attendances went down. Sky may have been attracted to it at first but they certainly weren't when they saw the reality.

The criticism of it came once people realised the mistake.

Ideally it wouldn't matter if Super League fans didn't attend because the game would be strong enough to just say 'deal with it'. But the game wasn't strong then and it isn't strong now and unfortunately how many people come through the doors of Super League clubs and how many people watch on TV really matters.

[Dave T]

57 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

There's no correlation between The Hundred and Super 8's. Super 8's was a fine idea until people realised the sports audience wasn't interested. It matters not whether people say they liked it. What matters is TV audiences went down and attendances went down. Sky may have been attracted to it at first but they certainly weren't when they saw the reality.

The criticism of it came once people realised the mistake.

Ideally it wouldn't matter if Super League fans didn't attend because the game would be strong enough to just say 'deal with it'. But the game wasn't strong then and it isn't strong now and unfortunately how many people come through the doors of Super League clubs and how many people watch on TV really matters.

That is simply not true and a rewriting of history. You can go and search the forums here. 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Super 8s cut the poorer teams and left the top 8 to play each other. Why are you ignoring that? 

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Fans refused to focus on the top of the table, and moaned that everyone was focusing on the middle 8s. They were the ones doing it. 

That's what the media focussed on.   Mainly because the top eight quickly became a foregone conclusion.   Now, if the top eight had started their final seven matches off a zero league table, maybe they would have had an interesting competition too.  That was the weakness of the system.

The more times teams play each other, the more likely they are to spread out in the table.

[Griff]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That is simply not true and a rewriting of history. You can go and search the forums here. 

Some people saw the reality from the outset.

[M j M]

4 minutes ago, Griff said:

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

 Fans refused to focus on the top of the table, and moaned that everyone was focusing on the middle 8s. They were the ones doing it. 

That's what the media focussed on.   Mainly because the top eight quickly became a foregone conclusion.

The first season of the top 8 literally went down to the last second of the last game.

[Scubby]

Just now, Griff said:

Some people saw the reality from the outset.

I was one of those from the outset saying it will last a couple of years. It was based on a Swiss football model which also lasted about 3 years.

The writing was on the wall based on the fact that it devalued season tickets and pitted clubs that have had a sht season so far (like Leeds and Wire) against minnows. They were never going to be in danger of going down and so there was no reason for those fans to get excited in the middle 8s. It was just seen as a demotion (playing part time clubs for a few weeks to end the season).

[EagleEyePie]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That is simply not true and a rewriting of history. You can go and search the forums here. 

I meant criticism from those directly involved. What people say on this forum or another forum doesn't matter.

[Scubby]

24 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I meant criticism from those directly involved. What people say on this forum or another forum doesn't matter.

I think the vote to implement it was won by something like a single vote. The RFL Blake Solly (remember him?) and Nigel Wood pushing it hard as a revolution for the game.

We spend a lot of time and money trying to appease and entertain long standing existing fans. They are long standing for a reason.... The whole strategy has to be to entice new fans to the game. New fans want to watch the best of the best that a sport can offer. 

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I meant criticism from those directly involved. What people say on this forum or another forum doesn't matter.

Yes apologies my post was blunt, was doing something else while typing. 

My point was that fans never gave it a chance, it was panned from the start. But crowds were broadly in line with summer games, plus better than the cup and playoffs 

[Dave T]

47 minutes ago, Griff said:

That's what the media focussed on.   Mainly because the top eight quickly became a foregone conclusion.   Now, if the top eight had started their final seven matches off a zero league table, maybe they would have had an interesting competition too.  That was the weakness of the system.

The more times teams play each other, the more likely they are to spread out in the table.

They didn't though. More games were shown from the top 8, and the games got bigger crowds, generally bigger TV audiences and led to the a grand Final. 

People seemed to resent the fact that Hull KR vs Leigh could get good coverage and interest. 

[steve oates]

On 21/08/2021 at 18:19, JM2010 said:

How many clubs could run a full time squad and an elite academy out of the 36 plus any from France?

Maybe these clubs could be involved in a SL1 and SL2 or SL conferences. The rest could be placed in a structure below with the more ambitious clubs being able to build and grow ready for the chance to step up. This could also be where any new ambitious clubs can be placed before they go on to the SL structure

I'd be careful about a "structure below" and "more ambitious clubs". 

The money to keep Superleague "one" a vibrant competition is likely to take most of the current deal, and all championship clubs are feeling the pinch very hard. I think they will all get a cut of the deal and survive albeit Craig LIngard hasn't heard of anything decided on that. P&R need the second tier to have funding

Lingard notes the total silence on what will be below the 20. He fears many clubs calling it a day................. 

[M j M]

10 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I think the vote to implement it was won by something like a single vote. The RFL Blake Solly (remember him?) and Nigel Wood pushing it hard as a revolution for the game.

The structure IIRC was recommended by the RFL because it was based on a report into the future of the sport produced by some no doubt well remunerated consultants. Who said the sport needed more jeopardy.

Having seen on the inside how that sort of report gets produced I shudder to think that we would reset our entire sport based on such a thing, although in itself it did actually have some merits, the renaissance of crowds, standards and interest at the top level of the Championship being the obvious one.

[Dave T]

44 minutes ago, M j M said:

The first season of the top 8 literally went down to the last second of the last game.

If The Hundred was 'supported' by RL fans all we'd hear would be about the final balls in the final when the losers couldn't win, mocking the 'every ball counts' tagline. 

I don't know why we revel in peeing on people's chips.