League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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.

Indeed, I would also add that too many sides couldn't afford anything like the cap either, so quality declined further.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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.

I always think 'quality' is an abstract thing. We should be looking for a quality comp, that doesn't always equate to on-field standards, let's be honest some of the standards of other comps around the world (5/6N I'm looking at you) have seen substantial growth despite the standard being poorer than SL has ever delivered. 

The first year of 14 teams had a poor Crusaders team with only 3 wins, but Hull finished 12th and were only 3 wins away from the playoffs. We had a competitive division with Hull KR, Hudds and Wakefield all finishing in the top 5, with Wigan in 6th and Wire 10th.

The next year Catalans finished rock bottom after making the semis the year earlier. This kind of thing would be celebrated in the NRL. 

During the period we had 14 teams we saw a a lot of variety and movement at both the top and bottom of the tables. 

I think as a sport we spend too long looking at the bottom teams and worry about them. Whether it is Salford's crowds, or Wakefield and Cas' grounds. We should just crack on and let them fall or rise. If Wakefield can do well in their tip of a ground, outperforming other clubs with better facilities and more money, then good luck to them. 

I don't much care of the bottom team is decided half way through the year, just like I don't really care about the bottom teams in the Premier League. It's sport, there are winners and losers, to make a credible comp, there HAS to be losers. 

The main issue with the 14 team comp was the move to the 8 team playoff, which for me was the point when the playoffs really started to lose value. The SL fans did not take to games where you could lose and still play next week. 

14 team comp, 6 team playoff, let's crack on. 

[Live after death]

14 teams home away 26 rounds, nobody wants loop fixtures or 2 leagues of 10.

but the powers that be will plough on with it, fans will vote with their feet and reject it, sky will lower the deal even more or worse pull it. The game will then panic and come up with another knee jerk restructuring.
 

14 teams Franchising and gave the bottle to show under performing clubs the door. 

[Liverpool Rover]

21 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

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. 

I would imagine that everyone would play each other three times so that would be 26 H&A games plus the magic weekend but it shows a complete lack of desire to grow the commercial side of the league. I can only think the reason loop fixtures are persisted with are that the money from Sky for the repeat fixtures between the top clubs would be more than for a standard H&A season.

Centralising merchandise is something I have thought is a good idea for a while. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, GeordieSaint said:

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

We discussed this in the show. Keep doing what we are doing our league just gets smaller and smaller. To grow and increase income we have to offer better value, one way is to not repeat the same fixtures time and again.  Fans lose interest and the pot gets smaller, increase the exposure, reduce loop fixtures increase interest and the income will hopefully follow. If not we are no worse off and have more teams involved

[Liverpool Rover]

49 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The main issue with the 14 team comp was the move to the 8 team playoff, which for me was the point when the playoffs really started to lose value. The SL fans did not take to games where you could lose and still play next week. 

14 team comp, 6 team playoff, let's crack on. 

I think the big issue people had with the 8 team playoff was that it wasn’t weighted in favour of the top team as much as the previous systems, which had teams losing and still playing the next week but the top team was as close to being handed a place in the Grand Final as you could get.

In the top 8 system the top team could have won in week one, lose in week three and be out without a second bite at the cherry while the fourth team could lose in week one and still be in it.

[Scubby]

21 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

We discussed this in the show. Keep doing what we are doing our league just gets smaller and smaller. To grow and increase income we have to offer better value, one way is to not repeat the same fixtures time and again.  Fans lose interest and the pot gets smaller, increase the exposure, reduce loop fixtures increase interest and the income will hopefully follow. If not we are no worse off and have more teams involved

Can you explain how St Helens beating Deswbury 76-0 in a cross conference fixture at the TW Stadium will provide more match day and corporate income than a repeat fixture with Warrington?

I don't agree with repeat fixtures but this is never the solution. Saints fans would be giving these games the swerve within 2 years (possibly in the first).

[sentoffagain2]

50 minutes ago, Live after death said:

14 teams home away 26 rounds, nobody wants loop fixtures or 2 leagues of 10.

but the powers that be will plough on with it, fans will vote with their feet and reject it, sky will lower the deal even more or worse pull it. The game will then panic and come up with another knee jerk restructuring.
 

14 teams Franchising and gave the bottle to show under performing clubs the door. 

  They have not had the bottle to do that so far to underperforming teams.Have they changed their milkman?,

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  They have not had the bottle to do that so far to underperforming teams.Have they changed their milkman?,

And herein lies the problem.

Clubs below during franchising like Fev and Leigh should have replaced the likes of Wakefield. It had to be ruthless Wakefield was a basket case in 2011. Then it was up to Fev and Leigh to grow their club to maintain their spot against other applications from outside for 2014. It really wasn't that difficult.

[David Dockhouse Host]

52 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Can you explain how St Helens beating Deswbury 76-0 in a cross conference fixture at the TW Stadium will provide more match day and corporate income than a repeat fixture with Warrington?

I don't agree with repeat fixtures but this is never the solution. Saints fans would be giving these games the swerve within 2 years (possibly in the first).

Rugby League doesn't revolve around St Helens, the structure isn't created just to keep one team happy.

Dewsbury I doubt would make the top 20 teams so your point wouldn't stand.

You've also been selective, identifying one match against another, when my point was clearly longer term attraction.

The issue with over familiarity is short term gain (larger gate) longer term disinterest. If you continue to do what you've always done you will continue to get the same results, which is a decreasing economy and attraction in the sport. So Saints can play Warrington 5 times a year and we can pat ourselves on the back that this is better than playing a lesser team whilst contributing to the longer term demise. 

When we go down to ten teams and they cut the money again are we going to go to 8 because playing the same top teams gives us a better gate? 

[Scubby]

21 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Rugby League doesn't revolve around St Helens, the structure isn't created just to keep one team happy.

Dewsbury I doubt would make the top 20 teams so your point wouldn't stand.

You've also been selective, identifying one match against another, when my point was clearly longer term attraction.

The issue with over familiarity is short term gain (larger gate) longer term disinterest. If you continue to do what you've always done you will continue to get the same results, which is a decreasing economy and attraction in the sport. So Saints can play Warrington 5 times a year and we can pat ourselves on the back that this is better than playing a lesser team whilst contributing to the longer term demise. 

When we go down to ten teams and they cut the money again are we going to go to 8 because playing the same top teams gives us a better gate? 

I couldn't  disagree more. It is completely around St Helens, Leeds, Hull, Wigan, Catalans etc. and finding 6-7 more clubs that can generate large turnover, pay the full salary cap plus marquee signings.

I am now old enough to realise pretty much the same teams can do this and many more do not have the potential to do this - ever! Salford, Halifax, Leigh, Featherstone, Batley, Wakefield (add a few more) etc. have been poverty stricken yo yo clubs my entire life with modest crowds and limited turnover. No amount of juggling formulas will make them anything other than what they are.

Their job if they have ambition is to spend the full cap, sell out their stadium and climb to those elite clubs. If they can't it is not elite RL it is semi professional RL aka 1982.

It is not to put those elite clubs into a downward spiral race to the bottom with stupid cross fixtures and diluted central revenues.

[David Dockhouse Host]

14 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I couldn't  disagree more. It is completely around St Helens, Leeds, Hull, Wigan, Catalans etc. and finding 6-7 more clubs that can generate large turnover, pay the full salary cap plus marquee signings.

I am now old enough to realise pretty much the same teams can do this and many more do not have the potential to do this - ever! Salford, Halifax, Leigh, Featherstone, Batley, Wakefield (add a few more) etc. have been poverty stricken yo yo clubs my entire life with modest crowds and limited turnover. No amount of juggling formulas will make them anything other than what they are.

Their job if they have ambition is to spend the full cap, sell out their stadium and climb to those elite clubs. If they can't it is not elite RL it is semi professional RL aka 1982.

It is not to put those elite clubs into a downward spiral race to the bottom with stupid cross fixtures and diluted central revenues.

The whole sport is the product. Creating something the 5 clubs you mention is a spiral downwards. No business increases by reducing, it's counter productive and short sighted not to say selfish.

You seem to think it's one or the other, either look after the top 5 clubs or all clubs. It's not one or the other, both aspects are important.

Those 5 clubs cannot survive without other teams to play, unless they want their own league of 5.

All these same reasons were given when going from 14 to 12, so the question remains, what happens when the money drops again because Sky viewers are bored of watching the same 10 teams? Go to 8 or your top 5?

We are doing it your way now and the money has dropped, fans perception is at an all time low in my lifetime, sky paying less, crowds down, NRL lack interest in SL and World Cups yet you wish to retract further? Just looking after the top 5 won't help the other teams improve, and for the good of the game other teams have to have that opportunity, Tolouse, Bradford, York some others all have potential to be a bigger club, close the door and they never will.

Any structure has to be attractive to Sky and/or other TV stations to have the chance of increased revenue.

We have to attract investment and advertising, St Helens v Warrington numerous times a year isn't attractive to investment. I work all over the UK and you'd be surprised how many people say where's that when I tell them I'm from St Helens.

If we continue to do it your way we will be back to semi pro quite soon, it's an ever decreasing product.

Is that what fans want? If so fine, if not one league of 10 isn't the long term attraction anyone other than the same clubs think it is, IMO.

[M j M]

You can come up with alternatives as much as you want but it keeps missing the point. The game's problems are nothing to do with the current league structure.

[David Dockhouse Host]

6 minutes ago, M j M said:

You can come up with alternatives as much as you want but it keeps missing the point. The game's problems are nothing to do with the current league structure.

But it does impact on it, so cannot be ignored 

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

But it does impact on it, so cannot be ignored 

I don't think the game can be accused of ignoring the structure. 

 

[Scubby]

33 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think the game can be accused of ignoring the structure. 

 

It also shouldn't be ignoring the fact that it has failed to gain any tangible monetary value for any product that sits below SL level in 25 years.

The only things that have generated any significant money are SL, CC and internationals.

[David Dockhouse Host]

35 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think the game can be accused of ignoring the structure. 

 

I agree the game isn't ignoring it, my post was in response to another poster not the 'game' itself 

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 minutes ago, Scubby said:

It also shouldn't be ignoring the fact that it has failed to gain any tangible monetary value for any product that sits below SL level in 25 years.

I agree and this hasn't been ignored, in fact discussing alternatives are to consider how to raise the lower levels so they contribute to the overall attraction. 

I also don't believe one league if ten would be that attractive either. Or 8 which will happen next time the overall value decreases 

[Scubby]

Just now, David Dockhouse Host said:

I agree and this hasn't been ignored, in fact discussing alternatives are to consider how to raise the lower levels so they contribute to the overall attraction. 

I also don't believe one league if ten would be that attractive either. Or 8 which will happen next time the overall value decreases 

There is no way any broadcaster is going to generate any tangible revenue for Championship and League 1 - ever! Our best hope is in-house via Our League and then that is limited potential and revenue. It is a tiny league structure filled with a number of tiny towns in the north of England and a few development clubs on tiny budgets.

Using some of those tiny towns to try and up the value of the SL competition is just as silly and completely fanciful. We had a Canadian club looking to spend millions and we ###### about making them climb a semi-pro league structure in stead of giving them a place at the top table and a 3-5 year lead in (and exemption from relegation)

Toulouse may get through the system to the top but they have wasted millions touring the likes of Keighley, Swinton and Rochdale and tonking them by 50-60+ Imagine if they were allowed to spend those millions to prepare for a 2022 entry into SL rather than scrapping around for a few #### players in October/November 2021 trying to avoid relegation in 2022. We may well have seen a couple of superstar signings that the competition craves.

Toulouse and Catalans should be exempt from all relegation completely. In fact P&R is a proven failure in a penniless sport like RL. Remember we nearly relegated Catalans via the stupid Super 8 formula in 2017. Had that happened they may well have gone the way of Toronoto. Now they turn over more money than any club in SL.

RL is the biggest self harmer in UK sport.

[David Dockhouse Host]

6 minutes ago, Scubby said:

There is no way any broadcaster is going to generate any tangible revenue for Championship and League 1 - ever! Our best hope is in-house via Our League and then that is limited potential and revenue. It is a tiny league structure filled with a number of tiny towns in the north of England and a few development clubs on tiny budgets.

Using some of those tiny towns to try and up the value of the SL competition is just as silly and completely fanciful. We had a Canadian club looking to spend millions and we ###### about making them climb a semi-pro league structure in stead of giving them a place at the top table and a 3-5 year lead in (and exemption from relegation)

Toulouse may get through the system to the top but they have wasted millions touring the likes of Keighley, Swinton and Rochdale and tonking them by 50-60+ Imagine if they were allowed to spend those millions to prepare for a 2022 entry into SL rather than scrapping around for a few #### players in October/November 2021 trying to avoid relegation in 2022. We may well have seen a couple of superstar signings that the competition craves.

Toulouse and Catalans should be exempt from all relegation completely. In fact P&R is a proven failure in a penniless sport like RL. Remember we nearly relegated Catalans via the stupid Super 8 formula in 2017. Had that happened they may well have gone the way of Toronoto. Now they turn over more money than any club in SL.

RL is the biggest self harmer in UK sport.

The current structure has promotion and relegation. Something I'm against and my suggestion (as a talking point) would remove this.

The point I was debating was a reply to a poster suggesting it remains the same. So I'm not sure if you think I was proposing we maintain Pro/Releg? 

I also never claimed there's lots of imminently potential cash for the lower leagues? Not sure if you thought I was arguing there was? 

The problem with these threads is people don't always read back precious posts, we all usually only read the most recent and can mistakenly believe a point is being made which isn't. 

So back to my suggestion, rather than two leagues of ten, two conferences of 10, East and West. 

Play each other twice in same conference, and one game with each team in the alternate conference, therefore removing loop fixtures. This would be 28 games.

Top three of each conference would play off for a GF with no relegation. 

East and West winners straight into semi final with week one off 

2nd placed East plays 3rd placed West for semi final spot and Vice Versa.  

This would be current SL clubs plus top 8 in championship. 

Second tier would have its own league with potentially an application to be in the top 20 every few years.

Yes there are issues with this suggestion, I'm aware the money being spread around 20 is not attractive to the top 10/12, you lose some of the big games across conferences from 3 games to 1 potentially but I think overall this has merit for all the reasons I've stated before such as reducing over familiarity, same team fatigue, more spread geographically, more attractive to investors, more options for TV games, no relegation etc. 

[GeordieSaint]

6 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Yes there are issues with this suggestion, I'm aware the money being spread around 20 is not attractive to the top 10/12, you lose some of the big games across conferences from 3 games to 1 potentially but I think overall this has merit for all the reasons I've stated before such as reducing over familiarity, same team fatigue, more spread geographically, more attractive to investors, more options for TV games, no relegation etc. 

Crux of the issue in this part of your post. Spreading a finite resource further in order to ‘try’ increase value…. We’ve tried this in recent years. It hasn’t worked. Why do we think doing the same thing with a different format is going to have different results? 

[David Dockhouse Host]

13 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Crux of the issue in this part of your post. Spreading a finite resource further in order to ‘try’ increase value…. We’ve tried this in recent years. It hasn’t worked. Why do we think doing the same thing with a different format is going to have different results? 

We haven't tried it in this way before though. I'd argue that the situation is now more desperate with reduction in TV funding, so we don't have the same luxury as we did before. 

We reduced from 14 to 12 to spread the resource with fewer clubs yet a few years later we are going from 12 to 10. 

Moving from 14 to 12 solved the issue immediately by increasing the slice from 1/14th to 1/12th, until the resource for smaller again, so now our plan is to go to 1/10th. Our product is contracting which doesn't make it more appealing to Sky, investors etc.  

So I could ask you the same question, why would you want to do the same when it has proved not to work long term? 

[emesssea]

7 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

I think the big issue people had with the 8 team playoff was that it wasn’t weighted in favour of the top team as much as the previous systems, which had teams losing and still playing the next week but the top team was as close to being handed a place in the Grand Final as you could get.

In the top 8 system the top team could have won in week one, lose in week three and be out without a second bite at the cherry while the fourth team could lose in week one and still be in it.

Im confused on how you think 4th place has a better hand here?

Under this scenario 1st host 4th and beats them, they then get a bye to week 3 and are one home win away from the grand final. Meanwhile, 4th has to play week 2 then play away on week 3 to get to the grand final. Finishing 1st is the much better hand here.

[David Shepherd]

3 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

The current structure has promotion and relegation. Something I'm against and my suggestion (as a talking point) would remove this.

The point I was debating was a reply to a poster suggesting it remains the same. So I'm not sure if you think I was proposing we maintain Pro/Releg? 

I also never claimed there's lots of imminently potential cash for the lower leagues? Not sure if you thought I was arguing there was? 

The problem with these threads is people don't always read back precious posts, we all usually only read the most recent and can mistakenly believe a point is being made which isn't. 

So back to my suggestion, rather than two leagues of ten, two conferences of 10, East and West. 

Play each other twice in same conference, and one game with each team in the alternate conference, therefore removing loop fixtures. This would be 28 games.

Top three of each conference would play off for a GF with no relegation. 

East and West winners straight into semi final with week one off 

2nd placed East plays 3rd placed West for semi final spot and Vice Versa.  

This would be current SL clubs plus top 8 in championship. 

Second tier would have its own league with potentially an application to be in the top 20 every few years.

Yes there are issues with this suggestion, I'm aware the money being spread around 20 is not attractive to the top 10/12, you lose some of the big games across conferences from 3 games to 1 potentially but I think overall this has merit for all the reasons I've stated before such as reducing over familiarity, same team fatigue, more spread geographically, more attractive to investors, more options for TV games, no relegation etc. 

I like this idea and I believe a suggested something similar about 80 pages ago.

The only thing I don't like here is no relegation. I guess it's just the way I'm wired.  I would have the bottom team in each conference play a death game to decided who drops, with the winner of the second tier being promoted. You could even have the UK winners of the 2nd tier play off against the winners of the French domestic competition for promotion, although I recognise that the French season would need aligning with ours.

A closed system with elevation by a box ticking exercise just doesn't get my juices flowing.

[David Dockhouse Host]

50 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

I like this idea and I believe a suggested something similar about 80 pages ago.

The only thing I don't like here is no relegation. I guess it's just the way I'm wired.  I would have the bottom team in each conference play a death game to decided who drops, with the winner of the second tier being promoted. You could even have the UK winners of the 2nd tier play off against the winners of the French domestic competition for promotion, although I recognise that the French season would need aligning with ours.

A closed system with elevation by a box ticking exercise just doesn't get my juices flowing.

I would be all for relegation if we didn't have the issue of the gap being so big.

If the gap from bottom of the top league/s to top of the one below fine but it isn't the case.

I understand not closing the door but a sensible methods required