Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

To answer your question, Leeds, Saints, Wigan and Warrington... Leeds alone turn over 8 figure sums and only dropped to just below 9 million with Covid.

Your point is valid for Wakefield, Salford, Castleford and Leigh. As clubs they are pretty much interchangeable with various Championship clubs like Halifax, Widnes, Fev, York, Bradford etc., though there are outliers at the top and bottom. Cas, Salford and Bradford have all appeared in Grand Finals and Cup Finals (the latter having won a fair few too). York, Salford, Leigh and Widnes all play in modern stadia (though they do not own their ground).

Well if they are that well off - why dont they "shoulder " the loss in revenue instead of making the poorest pay for it??

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think sometimes we are too harsh on SL clubs. Many clubs have had a chance at SL and fallen by the wayside over the last 25 years including some of those you name. 

If it was just so easy to take the central funding and crack on, then surely the likea of Bradford who once had some of the highest crowds in British Rugby would never have hit hard times. 

I know what you are saying and I agree tbh. My point was rather that qualitatively there isn't as much of a difference between say Wakefield and Halifax or Salford and Widnes than there is between St Helens and Fev.

The major failing of the past 10/15 years is the failure to drag these sides up to making such comparisons impossible. Jeapordy has a lot to say about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I know what you are saying and I agree tbh. My point was rather that qualitatively there isn't as much of a difference between say Wakefield and Halifax or Salford and Widnes than there is between St Helens and Fev.

The major failing of the past 10/15 years is the failure to drag these sides up to making such comparisons impossible. Jeapordy has a lot to say about that.

Yes I generally agree with that. But some clubs have done far better than others in this environment and I think at times it is too easy to group them all together, when they are not the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Framing the future has been mentioned a couple of times on here, does anybody have a link to the doc? I seem to recall it knocking about a few years back. 

The articles I could see referred to things like modernising, playing in summer, improving facilities, stopping overspend on players. The biggie that we haven't addressed is the tight geographical area RL is big in. 

What other things were in there? 

I have one somewhere , actual real paper 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

The teams calling themselves elite teams are only elite because of SKY money.

For example in an hypothetical situation - give all teams only 20k - but give West Wales 2 million every season [only used WW as example because currently bottom of tree]. In a few year who will be the elite??

Its the on and off field structures that makes them elite.

Its the talent a club produces/attracts.

You are right that money funds elitism but some of the recipients of Sky monies are far from elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fear is that any proposals wont improve the sport in the long run,those voting will always look to self interest, the top 5 or so dont want to lose that ranking and the rest want to keep their share to artificially keep them above those outside the super league ,nothing changes same teams playing each other over and over ,if super league wants to alienate the rest of the clubs it needs a radical change within itself 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I know what you are saying and I agree tbh. My point was rather that qualitatively there isn't as much of a difference between say Wakefield and Halifax or Salford and Widnes than there is between St Helens and Fev.

The major failing of the past 10/15 years is the failure to drag these sides up to making such comparisons impossible. Jeapordy has a lot to say about that.

You cant "DRAG CLUBS UP " to your level when you constantly get 1.8Miliion a year and they only get 75K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you may know a guy called Malcolm Gladwell who runs a series of pod casts called Revisionist History.

One of the podcasts looked at how different sports should invest in players. For example in basketball you could spend all your budget on 1 player because that 1 player can have a massive effect on the outcome of a game - effectively scoring all the points or hogging possession, so you only need a few brick walls to defend your own basket and then when you get the ball, give it to the best player.

Similarly a sport like football does the same, investing massive sums on galacticos and then filling the team with also rans.

Putting aside market conditions, statistically it was proven that team sports like football needed to invest at the weakest point, not the maximum because essentially you can't get any more out of Ronaldo than he can give (for example), whereas putting in more investment in those players with high potential was more beneficial, simply because the parts of the field where the ball goes is much bigger and no one player can influence all the pitch.

In my opinion you could apply this to a sport (as Malcolm Gladwell did for Universities), whereby there are clubs (and institutions) that attract high investment (because that's cool or has kudos) but this has little effect on improving standards. So Harvard University can't make Harvard students improve any more than a few percent, whereas some low level University could improve it's standards by a much higher degree with the same, or even less investment.

So in conclusion what RL could do is accept it cannot squeeze much more performance from the top clubs because they are maximising exposure in their community and have a team/product(s) to deliver on that. Whereas there are clubs in areas of huge potential that could benefit from the 1 million quid or so the top clubs don't really need. 

Would the top clubs buy that? No, because they make decisions based on feelings not facts. Better to play some dog rag pretending to be an equal than actually play an equal. By investing in the potential areas of RL we can improve the lot of all the clubs because the competition is far stronger. In fact the top clubs would be far better off letting the wealth do the work this way rather than trying to oversell rivalries that have little traction outside their geography or simply selling just their own brand.

There's more I could add but the above is statistically proven and if it is not part of the discussion at board level in RL then they could at least listen to the podcasts. Far better than 5Live or God forbid, talksport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

Some of you may know a guy called Malcolm Gladwell who runs a series of pod casts called Revisionist History.

One of the podcasts looked at how different sports should invest in players. For example in basketball you could spend all your budget on 1 player because that 1 player can have a massive effect on the outcome of a game - effectively scoring all the points or hogging possession, so you only need a few brick walls to defend your own basket and then when you get the ball, give it to the best player.

Similarly a sport like football does the same, investing massive sums on galacticos and then filling the team with also rans.

Putting aside market conditions, statistically it was proven that team sports like football needed to invest at the weakest point, not the maximum because essentially you can't get any more out of Ronaldo than he can give (for example), whereas putting in more investment in those players with high potential was more beneficial, simply because the parts of the field where the ball goes is much bigger and no one player can influence all the pitch.

In my opinion you could apply this to a sport (as Malcolm Gladwell did for Universities), whereby there are clubs (and institutions) that attract high investment (because that's cool or has kudos) but this has little effect on improving standards. So Harvard University can't make Harvard students improve any more than a few percent, whereas some low level University could improve it's standards by a much higher degree with the same, or even less investment.

So in conclusion what RL could do is accept it cannot squeeze much more performance from the top clubs because they are maximising exposure in their community and have a team/product(s) to deliver on that. Whereas there are clubs in areas of huge potential that could benefit from the 1 million quid or so the top clubs don't really need. 

Would the top clubs buy that? No, because they make decisions based on feelings not facts. Better to play some dog rag pretending to be an equal than actually play an equal. By investing in the potential areas of RL we can improve the lot of all the clubs because the competition is far stronger. In fact the top clubs would be far better off letting the wealth do the work this way rather than trying to oversell rivalries that have little traction outside their geography or simply selling just their own brand.

There's more I could add but the above is statistically proven and if it is not part of the discussion at board level in RL then they could at least listen to the podcasts. Far better than 5Live or God forbid, talksport.

Please, add more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

They don't need the money, so I'm not surprised. However what they do need (as an outsider) is to look at why their best players leave and don't come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

They don't need the money, so I'm not surprised. However what they do need (as an outsider) is to look at why their best players leave and don't come back.

I don't agree with the club taking these players back but that said your comment just doesn't hold true, the vast majority have come back - most I wish hadn't, the only one who hasn't who the club wanted is Williams. Sam Tomkins, Joel Tomkins, Tommy Leululai, Joe Burgess, Lee Mossop, Dan Sarginson and John Bateman all came back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super League and RFL set up Joint Working Groups to plan a way forward

Strategic interest from several credible parties must be PE.

Chimes with what Adam Pearson said the other month in his BBC interview. 

 

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Super League and RFL set up Joint Working Groups to plan a way forward

Strategic interest from several credible parties must be PE.

Chimes with what Adam Pearson said the other month in his BBC interview. 

 

The Peter principle in action. 

Which one of those on the working committee have proved competent at this level before?

Effin pointless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

The Peter principle in action. 

Which one of those on the working committee have proved competent at this level before?

Effin pointless

They all have decent CV's don't they? I don't know much about Paul Lakin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

They all have decent CV's don't they? I don't know much about Paul Lakin. 

I just hope they don't employ another Robert Elstone type person, but good to see Gary Heatherington involved. From Robins fans the majority of opinion is that Paul Lakin is doing a good job there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.