League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[rlno1]

On 21/09/2021 at 00:50, Man of Kent said:

On the other hand, what happens if London are selected to be in Super League 2? Do they go back to FT? 

 

11 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

 

So how many and who?

Second how do you ensure Tier Two is adequately funded? Pointless if it isn't.

You go into partnership with News Corp/Broadcaster and do what they want. Then you get your cash.

[newbe]

Does any one know when the new structure is being announced, bearing in mind this RL, but teams starts in the later part of the year.

[DI Keith Fowler]

32 minutes ago, newbe said:

Does any one know when the new structure is being announced, bearing in mind this RL, but teams starts in the later part of the year.

It's frustrating. I appreciate it's a big change to agree but I don't really understand why this process has only started in earnest at the back end of the season.

My club Widnes have decided to recruit on the basis that finishing in the top 8 in the Championship is imperative to form part of the future structure. This may or may not be the case though, and other clubs will be in a state of limbo. Next season could be an existential threat or completely irrelevant depending on the direction chosen. 

[dead man inc]

On 23/09/2021 at 13:48, DI Keith Fowler said:

It's frustrating. I appreciate it's a big change to agree but I don't really understand why this process has only started in earnest at the back end of the season.

My club Widnes have decided to recruit on the basis that finishing in the top 8 in the Championship is imperative to form part of the future structure. This may or may not be the case though, and other clubs will be in a state of limbo. Next season could be an existential threat or completely irrelevant depending on the direction chosen. 

‘Next season could be an existential threat or completely irrelevant depending on the direction chosen.’

really does sum it up! It’s not just teams that will be making decisions without knowing what’s going on - players are going to be in the same boat! 

[Fevrover]

On 20/09/2021 at 22:36, Saint Toppy said:

And the silly season has started early even before this years over.

Nice of you to at least include the current back to back SL champions and most successful SL era club as the 6th most eligible club, neatly behind the bankrupt bulls, a French team who have never even competed at the top level, and a Wigan team with no stadium of their own, oh  and to also include the quaint yawkshire village of Featherstone in place of 4 current SL clubs, 3 of which are bigger and in the same geographical area

We aren't quaint or a village thank you.

[steve oates]

On 22/09/2021 at 14:06, idrewthehaggis said:

My question is how many clubs outside SL could operate in the theoretical SL 2?

Who completes an algorithm of facilities, development, history, support and finances, plus whatever qualities you wish to add- the David Shepherd S bend test or the Padge beer emporium measurements?

So how many and who?

Second how do you ensure Tier Two is adequately funded? Pointless if it isn't.

SL1 will contain the 10 biggest clubs, not too hard to imagine who..........

SL2 will contain the next 10 biggest clubs and I would imagine that "adequate funding" will be down to the club owners, those with the big wallets will be cordially invited to spend their cash and run professional, if after that there are still any spaces then semi pro clubs will get the invite.

Not sure how this is any different to the second tier now, the top clubs can run pro -remember Beaumont insisting he be able to spend as much on players as SL clubs, and being allowed to do so? So thats a mix.

Then after the money clubs have been allocated spaces why not (if 16 money clubs are in) pick the next four clubs in the tables as they stand at the end of this season. Then put the other clubs in an RFL run new "Championship".....

Two points......

1. Go back to earlier SKY deals. For years small clubs got nothing and survived. 

2. Haven't the small clubs being allocated some of the money.

I don't see anything to be outraged about here or any need to predict clubs outside the 20 will be slaughtered, all I see is a return to how the game was before this current contract which threw Millions at the Championships for no return.

The only relevant point here is 20 SL clubs and 16 Championship clubs enables the SL clubs to outvote the RL and for me this is what it really is all about. Power.......

 

 

 

 

[M j M]

So it's looking like the madness of a ten team top flight is going ahead? Do any fans really want that?

[idrewthehaggis]

3 hours ago, M j M said:

So it's looking like the madness of a ten team top flight is going ahead? Do any fans really want that?

No.

Match ticket revenue remains the biggest single stream.

That depends of how many games are played and how many turn up.

A league of ten means either a robin round of less games than now or further loop games to compensate.

Loop fixtures means the same teams playing each other. Add this may happen again in the Cup and Finals. 

Time and time again this repetition is loathed by fans and given as a reason for supporter fatigue and malaise.

To compensate Rimmer et all are suggesting Groups in the earlier stages of the Challenge Cup and an expanded World Club Championships. The former is a recipe for depressed attendances and apathy, more loop fixtures.

Whilst the latter will just compound the games structural imbalance in providing exclusive extra revenue for the leading clubs and none for any one else. 

Keep SL at 12 and the second tier at say 8 and expand it when extra monies are raised.

I would argue if this was a series of businesses, then you would be looking at consolidating costs and creating new revenue streams.

Consolidating would mean, central contracts, regional rather than club academies, joint merchandise, sponsorship, marketing and equipment deals. 

Streams would mean Levies of match game revenue, non federation wages, Nines, FTA TV deal and so on.

So no. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

Sorry for the bump, just for those who may not have seen it. Here Total Rugby's Martyn Sadler discusses his proposed League structures and why he feels it is a genuine opportunity to share finance, opportunities yet safeguard against over spending.

Also looking for feedback on our set up as we're thinking if getting a large table, but that's better for the Dockhouse Rugby thread 

 

[M j M]

Christ we did Sadler's madcap scheme to death a few weeks ago, don't bring it back up again now.

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

Christ we did Sadler's madcap scheme to death a few weeks ago, don't bring it back up again now.

Ha ha, mad cap or innovative?

[M j M]

10 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Ha ha, mad cap or innovative?

Madcap, crackpot, insane, fatally flawed, laughable. Lots of descriptions are appropriate (innovative isn't one of them) and we spent about a week on here being distracted from the actual bad decision being made by endlessly talking about something which was never going to happen.

So back on topic - is there anything that can be done to stop 2 x 10, which is utterly missing the point of the issues in the game, is not attractive, does not "free up time" for other things as claimed and is not backed up by any market research to suggest it in any way is wanted by fans or potential fans?

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, M j M said:

Madcap, crackpot, insane, fatally flawed, laughable. Lots of descriptions are appropriate (innovative isn't one of them) and we spent about a week on here being distracted from the actual bad decision being made by endlessly talking about something which was never going to happen.

So back on topic - is there anything that can be done to stop 2 x 10, which is utterly missing the point of the issues in the game, is not attractive, does not "free up time" for other things as claimed and is not backed up by any market research to suggest it in any way is wanted by fans or potential fans?

Ride it out, it'll be gone in 2 or 3 years guaranteed. 

Has a sporting comp ever lacked confidence in its product like Super League owners/RFL do? 

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Ride it out, it'll be gone in 2 or 3 years guaranteed. 

Has a sporting comp ever lacked confidence in its product like Super League owners/RFL do? 

My team and your team will be fine to ride out any irrational structure changes but there are weaker clubs who potentially can't. Why would we unilaterally chuck two teams out of the top flight simply to increase the number of loop games and make a less attractive league? It makes no sense at all.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, M j M said:

My team and your team will be fine to ride out any irrational structure changes but there are weaker clubs who potentially can't. Why would we unilaterally chuck two teams out of the top flight simply to increase the number of loop games and make a less attractive league? It makes no sense at all.

Indeed. Moving to 14 a decade ago was the right thing to do, and now we are looking at moving to 10.

I haven't heard a single compelling reason. At all. Not a single one. 

[idrewthehaggis]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

Indeed. Moving to 14 a decade ago was the right thing to do, and now we are looking at moving to 10.

I haven't heard a single compelling reason. At all. Not a single one. 

Its accountant led.

Rimmer and Johnson spoke about a consolidation of talent. That the two clubs demoted will release their "talent" to the lucky ten. 

If this is an ambition, then we might as well employ licensing and just one, not two elite divisions. 

Whilst a complete dilution of "talent" would be counter productive, if promotion/relegation is to occur, you really need the clubs being promoted to be near SL standard squads or else it will be a revolving door. 

Higher quality of games. Leeds playing Wigan for maybe the seventh time in the same season pits the best players against each other. In reality, tactical attrition born from over familiarity will arise for players, supporters and the media.

Crown the King of Dullarity is that ascends to the throne.

I am sure the Super Ten ticks off a number of KPIs which the RFL senior management can carry to their next yearly job evaluation and pay negotiation.

Take average attendances. Currently it is 8,500 for the SL. Take out the 11th and 12th and the average rises by a 1,000.

Take out all but Leeds and the SL has an average of 14-15,000.

"Guys does that mean we have doubled?"

Trebles all round chaps and bonuses aplenty.

Reality the League of Ten means more loop fixtures or just less games. Each in the long run will equal lower gates. For certain the two relegated will also see less at the turnstiles.

Whilst the stats say increase, the reality is the opposite.

And there is the money. Yup whatever the sums, this being RFL logic, then a league of ten will still receive the same as the league of the dozen received. It guarantees the Big Boys financial consistency and it means that everyone does not need to conjourn up any challenging innovative schemes to raise cash.

The reality is that we are edging towards crisis. The Big Boys need to share a little or a lot of the opposition will vanish. 

We need consolidation of costs and innovation of revenues than just a match ticket and a Sky subscription.

 

 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Ride it out, it'll be gone in 2 or 3 years guaranteed. 

Has a sporting comp ever lacked confidence in its product like Super League owners/RFL do? 

I don't know if its lack of confidence in the product vs lack of confidence to get a vote passed through.

[David Dockhouse Host]

5 hours ago, M j M said:

Madcap, crackpot, insane, fatally flawed, laughable. Lots of descriptions are appropriate (innovative isn't one of them) and we spent about a week on here being distracted from the actual bad decision being made by endlessly talking about something which was never going to happen.

So back on topic - is there anything that can be done to stop 2 x 10, which is utterly missing the point of the issues in the game, is not attractive, does not "free up time" for other things as claimed and is not backed up by any market research to suggest it in any way is wanted by fans or potential fans?

If you watched the show you would see my idea of two conferences of 10 rather than leagues, how about that as a hybrid of Martyns idea and the two leagues of 10 idea? 

[M j M]

8 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

If you watched the show you would see my idea of two conferences of 10 rather than leagues, how about that as a hybrid of Martyns idea and the two leagues of 10 idea? 

No, no, no.

Crazy, convoluted structures are simply unnecessary. ANY change to structure is in fact unnecessary.

The sport's credibility with its own fans has been seriously affected by the constant changes over the past twelve years, why is it even being suggested we do it again? The existing setup is perfectly fine, just leave it alone, don't deliver a further change that nobody is asking for.

The people in charge evidently know there are some issues facing the game and, unwilling or unable to deal with them properly, are just pulling the same levers they always do. Whether that's because they want to be seen to be doing something or because they haven't a clue what else to do I don't know but it's a huge distraction that is consuming energy and time and is further eroding fan loyalty to the sport.

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 hours ago, M j M said:

No, no, no.

Crazy, convoluted structures are simply unnecessary. ANY change to structure is in fact unnecessary.

The sport's credibility with its own fans has been seriously affected by the constant changes over the past twelve years, why is it even being suggested we do it again? The existing setup is perfectly fine, just leave it alone, don't deliver a further change that nobody is asking for.

The people in charge evidently know there are some issues facing the game and, unwilling or unable to deal with them properly, are just pulling the same levers they always do. Whether that's because they want to be seen to be doing something or because they haven't a clue what else to do I don't know but it's a huge distraction that is consuming energy and time and is further eroding fan loyalty to the sport.

I think everyone agrees that constant change is bad, but if change can improve what we have why wouldn't we do that?

There is a proposal to change anyway, to go to two leagues if 10. So proposals of alternatives are natural and shouldn't be dismissed.

The show discusses the challenges we have, funding, the clubs, loop fixtures etc. All of which are challenges which shouldn't be ignored, they should be discussed and corrected if possible, if not we should know the reasons why.

Burying your head in the ground and ignoring these challenges is more dangerous than discussing them.

[M j M]

6 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I think everyone agrees that constant change is bad, but if change can improve what we have why wouldn't we do that?

There is a proposal to change anyway, to go to two leagues if 10. So proposals of alternatives are natural and shouldn't be dismissed.

The show discusses the challenges we have, funding, the clubs, loop fixtures etc. All of which are challenges which shouldn't be ignored, they should be discussed and corrected if possible, if not we should know the reasons why.

Burying your head in the ground and ignoring these challenges is more dangerous than discussing them.

It's constantly obsessing about league structures and changing the sport's format which is ignoring the issues in the game. That's what's dangerous, that's what's vaguely terrifying. We're spending all this time changing something which isn't a problem, which is in fact a distraction from addressing the game's real problems and which will most likely compound fan disengagement.

It's insanity and nobody at all in the media is pushing back; they're too busy coming up with their own crazy alternative plans rather than stopping and asking, "why on earth are you doing this?"

[David Dockhouse Host]

12 minutes ago, M j M said:

It's constantly obsessing about league structures and changing the sport's format which is ignoring the issues in the game. That's what's dangerous, that's what's vaguely terrifying. We're spending all this time changing something which isn't a problem, which is in fact a distraction from addressing the game's real problems and which will most likely compound fan disengagement.

It's insanity and nobody at all in the media is pushing back; they're too busy coming up with their own crazy alternative plans rather than stopping and asking, "why on earth are you doing this?"

"Why on earth are we doing this" ?

Because we don't have enough money. Because we cannot sell it for enough money to TV channels. The clubs themselves are wanting ten teams so they have more money. It's a reaction to the problems, not the cause of. Ignoring the suggested change and letting clubs adapt so they have more money without considering all the contributing factors is what's dangerous, if we ignore they do this anyway so we must discuss

 

[Scubby]

18 minutes ago, M j M said:

It's constantly obsessing about league structures and changing the sport's format which is ignoring the issues in the game. That's what's dangerous, that's what's vaguely terrifying. We're spending all this time changing something which isn't a problem, which is in fact a distraction from addressing the game's real problems and which will most likely compound fan disengagement.

It's insanity and nobody at all in the media is pushing back; they're too busy coming up with their own crazy alternative plans rather than stopping and asking, "why on earth are you doing this?"

Yes, the problem is there is less money in the game than there was even 5+ years ago and our biggest clubs are far smaller and less powerful than they once were. How do we fix that? That is all. Money has to come from the top down the pyramid.

We can #### about all we like with what works for yo yo clubs and struggling Championship clubs but if there is no strength at the top of the pyramid - it is a race to the bottom.

The structure they play in is a only a skin, peel it back and the problem I mentioned is either fixed or still festering.

[GeordieSaint]

11 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

"Why on earth are we doing this" ?

Because we don't have enough money. Because we cannot sell it for enough money to TV channels. The clubs themselves are wanting ten teams so they have more money. It's a reaction to the problems, not the cause of. Ignoring the suggested change and letting clubs adapt so they have more money without considering all the contributing factors is what's dangerous, if we ignore they do this anyway so we must discuss

 

If we don’t have enough money, why are we trying to finance so many clubs in this new proposed structure?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

16 hours ago, Dave T said:

Indeed. Moving to 14 a decade ago was the right thing to do, and now we are looking at moving to 10.

I haven't heard a single compelling reason. At all. Not a single one. 

Moving to 14 was absolutely the right decision. Unfortunately that coincided with too many other quite major decisions at the time (licensing, a change in the quota).

The increase in clubs and decrease in the quota was too much too quick to fill the league with quality players, so the standards took a huge dip pretty quickly. The quota reduction should probably have come a bit later when the league has settled at 14 teams IMO.

I won't comment on the effect of licensing as it will detail the thread; the jury is still out.

I lot of decisions happened all at once and it put many people off SL over time IMO. They were all with good and positive intentions, but was too much at once.