League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Harry Stottle]

19 hours ago, nadera78 said:

We've spent the entire Nigel Wood / Ralph Rimmer era making decisions with the aim of getting on board the bigger Championship clubs. All that's happened is we've damaged our top end (SL - the bit that actually makes us money) so that those clubs can pretend they are professional and have a serious shot at competing with the big boys. 2x10s is just another marker down that road to nowhere. 

If we were being honest about where the sport is we'd be focussing our (diminishing) resources on SL and the community game.

Totally wrong, it is not any we that has damaged the top end it is SL themselves that has damaged the sport with a totally insular determination, many SL clubs have behaved like the the offspring of very wealthy parents who have given them an allowance to squander as they wish, and they have acheived that quite conclusively, knowing the next cheque is awaiting when they have spent the current one.

All they have done is look after Number 1 and to hell with the sport has a whole progressing, it was very interesting listening to Adam Pearson on the recent 5 Live podcast, he said "the way decisions about the game and how it proceeds forward is made up by a group - including myself - of Chairmen with only the welfare of their own clubs as their priority, if the sport is to survive decisions have to be taken out of their hands, and an independent controlling body appointed"

That just about tells us all we need to know, spoken by a guy who has been at the sharp end off what has transpired in the sport.

 

[Harry Stottle]

22 hours ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  If the two tens gets the go ahead surely the second ten should receive !.2m and the top ten 600k that would help bring a more even player distribution making a more equal competition.Any club relying on SKY money to stay in SL does not deserve to be in the top tier.Scrap the salary cap and clubs can only spend 70% of their total income on players wages.Surplus money to invest in academy or running a A team and ground roots including more youngsters playing in schools.

Yes if the reason for 2 x 10 is to create a more even playing field across 20 teams then award any future funding by a means test, those who have the most recieve the least, and those who have the least recieve the most, is there enough compassion for "The good of the game" from our wealthiest clubs supporters on these pages to agree to that, I wouldn't think so.

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes if the reason for 2 x 10 is to create a more even playing field across 20 teams then award any future funding by a means test, those who have the most recieve the least, and those who have the least recieve the most, is there enough compassion for "The good of the game" from our wealthiest clubs supporters on these pages to agree to that, I wouldn't think so.

That depends on whether you think dumbing down the top flight, the very thing that provides wealth and sustains the whole game, and doing the exact opposite that Sky seem to want is for the good of the game. You destroy the primary wealth generator at your peril because as we have seen you give Sky less and provide a worse standard and they will pay less for it. I'm very much if the opinion that a strong Super League is good for the whole game and can fund the whole professional game sustainably and that is what we have seen in recent years. Super League worsening simply means less for everyone else and an ever shrinking pie.

For years we have heard from fans of some Championship teams tell us of all the riches that lie in wait when they can sell their own TV deal. Now they can the first thing they want is not to do that but to continue to be subsidised by Super League. The 2nd tier competition is worth nothing, or very close to nothing, and as such it is crazy to fund something that is worthless and adds no value to levels to make it competitive with Super League. All the while diminishing the very competition that is worth something and funds the entire pyramid. 

Whether this is for " the good for the game" also depends on if you think cutting 16 clubs and turning off the taps to league 1 is for the good of the game. As usual those that spout equality only do so if they are on the right side of the drawbridge and if it means their club gets an equal share of higher funding. The same posters are the first to defend their club getting 4 times others in the Championship or 10 times those in league 1. It is plain double standards. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

That depends on whether you think dumbing down the top flight, the very thing that provides wealth and sustains the whole game, and doing the exact opposite that Sky seem to want is for the good of the game. You destroy the primary wealth generator at your peril because as we have seen you give Sky less and provide a worse standard and they will pay less for it. I'm very much if the opinion that a strong Super League is good for the whole game and can fund the whole professional game sustainably and that is what we have seen in recent years. Super League worsening simply means less for everyone else and an ever shrinking pie.

For years we have heard from fans of some Championship teams tell us of all the riches that lie in wait when they can sell their own TV deal. Now they can the first thing they want is not to do that but to continue to be subsidised by Super League. The 2nd tier competition is worth nothing, or very close to nothing, and as such it is crazy to fund something that is worthless and adds no value to levels to make it competitive with Super League. All the while diminishing the very competition that is worth something and funds the entire pyramid. 

Whether this is for " the good for the game" also depends on if you think cutting 16 clubs and turning off the taps to league 1 is for the good of the game. As usual those that spout equality only do so if they are on the right side of the drawbridge and if it means their club gets an equal share of higher funding. The same posters are the first to defend their club getting 4 times others in the Championship or 10 times those in league 1. It is plain double standards. 

My answer to that Damien is I am only putting forward a theory of how to control the suggested 2 x10's format which we are all aware where that initial concept has come from don't we, yes the meeting of the SL Chairmen and as late as this week the Chair of that body has been speaking of how the transition for any club of either being promoted or relegated from one to the other should be eased.

So back to my "means testing" funding, all that will happen will be the very same player's will be distributed amongst more clubs instead of 4 or so clubs having the monopoly of the best available talent, you know the original concept of the Salary Cap that never happened, 4 winners of the GF in 25 years is testament to that, and perhaps with the blessing of the RFL many more clubs can run academies with more available money to build from within, something that in the next 7 years only 10 British clubs will be allowed to do - in my opinion the worst decision the sport has ever made - how can that be right?

My alternative to this would be a complete opposite in that we bring back a licensing structure where we start with a blank sheet that every club can apply for a licence but it would be based on affordability, to include:-

1. Stadia would have to comply to 21st century standards, we as fans may not mind turning up at antiquated grounds but if we want to sell a story to the wider TV audience then they should not be allowed any where near a TV camera,

2.  Would be the abillity and commitment to spend to a minimum SC of say 3.0M with a ceiling of 4.0M maintaing the marquee additions but raising that to £300K contribution per player still with a maximum of 2 marquees,

3. A stipulated budget to spend on promoting the game within your confines to attract lapsed fans back and entice new ones,

4. Supporting the community game within your area,

5. Running an academy team but that should not be done as a criteria to be admitted to SL, but a mandatory requirement of any team in SL.

Central Funding of 2.5M awarded to the top flight clubs, but with the above requirements expenditure would be directed to help the game to grow, not just spending on player's.

I would also leave the door open for any other team(s) to join the elite division but they would have to be able to prove they can afford the finances to comply with the above, this may be a way of attracting investment into the game, any team defaulting on the spend suffers relegation.

Edit, central funding of 1.5M maximum central funding.

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes if the reason for 2 x 10 is to create a more even playing field across 20 teams then award any future funding by a means test, those who have the most recieve the least, and those who have the least recieve the most, is there enough compassion for "The good of the game" from our wealthiest clubs supporters on these pages to agree to that, I wouldn't think so.

You weren’t so keen on equal funding in the Championship when your club were getting hundreds of thousands more central funding than the teams in the bottom half of the division.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

You weren’t so keen on equal funding in the Championship when your club were getting hundreds of thousands more central funding than the teams in the bottom half of the division.

How do you know that? You can scour all these pages going back a long time and never have the abillity to quote me stating such.

[Davo5]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How do you know that? You can scour all these pages going back a long time and never have the abillity to quote me stating such.

I think you’ll find your wrong.

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Davo5 said:

I think you’ll find your wrong.

Go on then!

[redjonn]

21 hours ago, yanto said:

PS.

Don't ask me how it can be done.If I knew that I would be running the game

 

You do what any successful CEO would do... create the right organisation with the right type of people with the expertise... within the bounds of your available funding.

e,g, if the broadcast, media industry and corporate sponsorship arena is changing and you are reliant on the funding and awareness from those area's  you need an organisation fit for that arena. or in simple terms a good marketing organisation with the appropriate parts...

Not easy to build but RL has never had a good CEO... good lead administrators yes... 

The problem may now be we haven't the monies to invest when maybe previously we did... as it helps generate more monies that otherwise if we had it now. 

[Harry Stottle]

33 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

You weren’t so keen on equal funding in the Championship when your club were getting hundreds of thousands more central funding than the teams in the bottom half of the division.

There is a subtle difference between funding and prize money Dav, everone in the Championship has been on the same funding you whilst some have earned a bonus by trying to improve call it speculate to accumulate, if a club spends more money, or a single or group of people spend more on their squads when the rules dictate the higher up the division they finish the more they get rewarded they will do so.

Everyone wants to live in the best part of town Dav, but unless you put in the commitment you won't do so, of course it's all luck having the right man at the top with a lot spondulic's, a little like Leneghan at Wigan or to a lesser extent Beaumont at Leigh then further down the scale the consortium that has stepped into the breach at 'Haven vacated by Mr Todd and other Directors, there are some obvious exceptions to the rule but RL clubs over the years sit in a natural place in the order of merit, it won't ever change, my club will always be there are there abouts between 10th and 15th, York are showing signs of improving their status but I expect that won't last for ever and they will drop to their natural place in a few years, Warrington for a long time did not acheive their ranking but they have got back up there, Bradford had a great purple patch but J can go back to the 60's knowing of and seeing Bradford they are where they have been for the majority of that time, go through the league and you will come up with the same answers, with the exception of the new clubs where time will tell how they fare.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

There is a subtle difference between funding and prize money Dav, everone in the Championship has been on the same funding you whilst some have earned a bonus by trying to improve call it speculate to accumulate, if a club spends more money, or a single or group of people spend more on their squads when the rules dictate the higher up the division they finish the more they get rewarded they will do so.

That seems a very poor justification and of course the same argument could be made to Super League and League 1. What you are saying is akin to Saints getting £2.4 million and someone like Wakefield getting £600,000 due to league placings.

[Derwent Parker]

On 01/09/2021 at 07:18, fighting irish said:

It's cannibalism isn't it.

But then they would argue, ''if people ain't for eating, why're they made of meat?''

It's patently obvious that these people are unfit to steer the (whole) game into the future.

Their focus is so narrow (filling the circus tent) and so short term (survival of the lucky few, at the expense of anyone else) they (and Sky) are one of the major risk factors to the game as a whole.

All right minded RL people (the amateur league enthusiasts) should turn their attention to the promoting the continued growth of grass roots clubs (new and old) and leave the travelling circus to it's own devices.

We need a National Governing Body, that represents the majority of the games stakeholders, (the volunteers and the participants) to concentrate on the clear and unequivocal goal, of spreading the game far and wide.

Well said

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, Damien said:

That seems a very poor justification and of course the same argument could be made to Super League and League 1. What you are saying is akin to Saints getting £2.4 million and someone like Wakefield getting £600,000 due to league placings.

"When the rules of the competition dictate so" Damien, if they didn't some clubs most possibly wouldn't have speculated so much to earn a bonus.

Anyway what about my alternative structure based on finance?

[Derwent Parker]

On 01/09/2021 at 09:32, The storm said:

Ken davys proposal and outcome with funding 

Wigan 1.2 million per team 
St Helens 
Hull
Catalan 
Warrington 
Hull kr 
Leeds 
Castleford 
London
Newcastle  or Toulouse 

York £600,000 per team 
Huddersfield 
Widnes 
Toulouse 
Salford 
Wakefield 
Halifax
Bradford bulls
Featherstone Rovers
Leigh

Dewsbury£200,000 per team 
Workington
Barrow
Whitehaven
Oldham
Swinton
Crusaders
Coventry bears
Batley 
Rochdale hornets
London skolatrs
Keighley cougars 
Doncaster 
 West Wales 

 

Sorry if I missed any team out but for me it is essential that all teams are funded in some way so the reduction goes to super league clubs who themselves have created this over reliance on sky and potential equity deals. 

Super league does not speak for the whole sport 

Huddersfield will at best be in super league 2 I'm afraid Ken old boy 

 

That's much better than it is now - But nobody from Super Greed is going to agree

[Derwent Parker]

On 01/09/2021 at 09:38, ShropshireBull said:

In this model we are giving over 8 million away a year to teams who will contribute 0 to the TV deal.  That is insane.  You could build a new stadium every year with that money. 

The champ and league 1 is competitive. SL's problem is an absurd bottleneck that protects the weakest teams  (Salford Wakefield ) who are contributing far less to the sport than they should. 

Those teams who you say "will contribute 0 to the TV deal" are all the teams who are FREE FROM BLAME for the reason why SKY are disappointed with the quality of the game and therefore reducing tv deal.

[Mumby Magic]

This thread to me is almost like RL is. Everyone has an idea. What's best for the game. It actually riles me when #name established ex pro, current player, owner, etc# has a super dooper idea, THE IDEA, and everyone runs along with it. We can ridicule Oxley and Lindsay but at least the had an idea of where the game was heading. However when you read in the paper : "EX INTERNATIONAL SUGGESTS ONLY 36 DIVISIONS OF 1 CAN SAVE THE GAME" I feel like banging my head against a wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please note that no ex international was interviewed for my post and it was indeed a sarcastic over exaggeration of what drivel we read constantly.

[Derwent Parker]

On 01/09/2021 at 09:44, The storm said:

I sometimes look out of the window to see a lot of things that I initially think don't contribute to anything 

 

In your eyes the sky deal is everything 

In my eyes supporting clubs like Coventry, London skolars and Newcastle is essential 

 

I think I forgot Barrow off my list I will have to reedit 

Well said

You did list Barrow but missed North Wales And Sheffield

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

"When the rules of the competition dictate so" Damien, if they didn't some clubs most possibly wouldn't have speculated so much to earn a bonus.

Anyway what about my alternative structure based on finance?

That's just a lame excuse and very disingenuous, as is talk about funding v prize money. 

Of course its based on finance. The initial post that I replied to is all about finance. What Davy said and what he wants to achieve is based on finance. Indeed this entire restructure debate boils down to finance.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's just a lame excuse and very disingenuous, as is talk about funding v prize money. 

Of course its based on finance. The initial post that I replied to is all about finance. What Davy said and what he wants to achieve is based on finance. Indeed this entire restructure debate boils down to finance.

Yes but I restructured the way money HAS to be spent, hell of a lot different to SL clubs deciding what is the best course of action that just suits their needs.

[Griff]

22 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

 "EX INTERNATIONAL SUGGESTS ONLY 36 DIVISIONS OF 1 CAN SAVE THE GAME" 

 

I'd go for that. Everyone's a winner.

Two up, two down?

[sentoffagain2]

  If you went with the 2x10's it would be difficult on who misses out.Two from SL as it stands Leigh + another.Then my 8 would be Toulouse Fev Fax Bradford London Newcastle York and Widnes.However that would mean no side from Cumbria .Batley who have been a mid table Championship side consistently with a decent ground and good facilities.Sheffield who have never really pulled in the crowds in a city of 650 thousand.And Wales which should be an expansion area.

[OriginalMrC]

Heard a rumour that there will be no funding for league 1 clubs in the challenge Cup next season. As I understand it they get around £3k per round currently. So next year clubs will have a £50k funding reduction, no travel grant (£8k) and no CC money. People can talk about sustainability but clubs who work on a modest and tight budget will no doubt struggle to continue considering there is no transition period.

A cynic might say that 20 clubs is the magical figure and that the aim is to reduce the number of clubs 

[Griff]

22 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  If you went with the 2x10's it would be difficult on who misses out.Two from SL as it stands Leigh + another.Then my 8 would be Toulouse Fev Fax Bradford London Newcastle York and Widnes.However that would mean no side from Cumbria .Batley who have been a mid table Championship side consistently with a decent ground and good facilities.Sheffield who have never really pulled in the crowds in a city of 650 thousand.And Wales which should be an expansion area.

York again.

A very popular flavour of the month.

[Mumby Magic]

37 minutes ago, Griff said:

I'd go for that. Everyone's a winner.

Two up, two down?

No,  through by light terrace but thanks for asking.

[OriginalMrC]

The answer is yes, most people know that aside from the powers that be.