League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[theswanmcr]

5 hours 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.

Just to say that this hits the nail on every single point - brilliant (and sadly true) post.

[whatmichaelsays]

12 hours 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.

 

This is why we aren't solving the problem - because people don't understand what the problem is. 

The problem that RL has isn't "because it doesn't have enough money". Not having enough money is a symptom and a side effect of the actual problem, which is that not enough people are watching RL. 

When you portray this as a "not enough money" issue, you try to solve it with "not enough money' responses. It leads to a narrative that our TV deals are a failure of salesmanship, rather than it not being attractive enough to generate competitive rights auctions. It leads to short-term tactics to get cash in, such as cheap tickets and loop fixtures, and it leads to zero-growth mindset changes to preserve slices of a diminishing pie (such as structure changes). 

When the sport actually addresses the real problem - a lack of people watching and buying - it can focus on solutions that actually make this sport more appealing and more accessible for more people.

I've asked this further up the thread, but how does this proposed restructure - or any other that has been proposed - get someone who isn't currently watching RL to watch RL? So far the best someone seems to have to that question is "well, if we repackage something that people don't get enthused about as something else, then they might like it". I'm sorry, but "might" isn't enough. Where is the market research to say that any of this is what the sport's target growth audiences actually want?  

[Robthegasman]

Sometimes I wonder if we should completely scrap a full season and say something like,right we will not resume until we collectively as a game decide where we are going and how we are going to do it?

[Liverpool Rover]

2 hours ago, emesssea said:

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.

I never complained about it at the time but i remember that there was plenty of people that did gripe about it

[David Dockhouse Host]

20 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This is why we aren't solving the problem - because people don't understand what the problem is. 

The problem that RL has isn't "because it doesn't have enough money". Not having enough money is a symptom and a side effect of the actual problem, which is that not enough people are watching RL. 

When you portray this as a "not enough money" issue, you try to solve it with "not enough money' responses. It leads to a narrative that our TV deals are a failure of salesmanship, rather than it not being attractive enough to generate competitive rights auctions. It leads to short-term tactics to get cash in, such as cheap tickets and loop fixtures, and it leads to zero-growth mindset changes to preserve slices of a diminishing pie (such as structure changes). 

When the sport actually addresses the real problem - a lack of people watching and buying - it can focus on solutions that actually make this sport more appealing and more accessible for more people.

I've asked this further up the thread, but how does this proposed restructure - or any other that has been proposed - get someone who isn't currently watching RL to watch RL? So far the best someone seems to have to that question is "well, if we repackage something that people don't get enthused about as something else, then they might like it". I'm sorry, but "might" isn't enough. Where is the market research to say that any of this is what the sport's target growth audiences actually want?  

You make good points but I do believe people understand the problem. Lack of interest leads to lack of money, people get that IMO.

Therefore the suggestions to format I've made are to address the lack of interest rather than simply reduce the number of teams so less money is split with fewer clubs.

Those reasons are removal of loop fixtures, more teams, wider geographical attraction, greater mix of games for Sky TV (or other) more opportunity for investment with removal of automatic promotion , relegation, opportunity given to more clubs, etc.

One thing against 20 teams in the top flight/s is the spread of money, but it's chicken and egg, without increasing interest income will continue to drop so at some stage a brave decision needs to be made. But if you ask the teams who get 1/10th of the money to vote to only get 1/20th you can imagine they won't 

I fully agree that this needs due diligence and there may be many unforseen issues like the middle 8s brought. But without discussion, suggestions, thoughts shared we repeat the same issues of the past.

[idrewthehaggis]

55 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This is why we aren't solving the problem - because people don't understand what the problem is. 

The problem that RL has isn't "because it doesn't have enough money". Not having enough money is a symptom and a side effect of the actual problem, which is that not enough people are watching RL. 

When you portray this as a "not enough money" issue, you try to solve it with "not enough money' responses. It leads to a narrative that our TV deals are a failure of salesmanship, rather than it not being attractive enough to generate competitive rights auctions. It leads to short-term tactics to get cash in, such as cheap tickets and loop fixtures, and it leads to zero-growth mindset changes to preserve slices of a diminishing pie (such as structure changes). 

When the sport actually addresses the real problem - a lack of people watching and buying - it can focus on solutions that actually make this sport more appealing and more accessible for more people.

I've asked this further up the thread, but how does this proposed restructure - or any other that has been proposed - get someone who isn't currently watching RL to watch RL? So far the best someone seems to have to that question is "well, if we repackage something that people don't get enthused about as something else, then they might like it". I'm sorry, but "might" isn't enough. Where is the market research to say that any of this is what the sport's target growth audiences actually want?  

Gosh Michael that seems so much from the heart, that even though I don't wholly agree with you, I will "like" it to merit it's passion.

How is your question? Well as I have attempted to note, the RFL establishment seem to think that a Super Ten will mean higher quality. We as supporters fear that this kind of consolidation will mean fatigue, repetition and disinterest.

For me there is two streams. One is to increase revenue and the other is to reduce costs. 

Even a modest improvement could deliver substantial change. An 1k increase in attendance would reap an extra £3m pius,

A proper international programme - as distant as that seems in these days - would be another bonus. 

 

[kev p]

continually changing the system does not work. the product has to be good & competitive to work. the difference between SL, Championship & L! is too big. doing away with P/R does away with any ambition for any championship/league 1 team. clubs need to get fans into games & not keep doing, as on these forums about TV funding. IF toronto got back into SL & played catalans in Grand Final, it would be good for the game, but a disaster for the attendance! 

[Scubby]

12 minutes ago, kev p said:

continually changing the system does not work. the product has to be good & competitive to work. the difference between SL, Championship & L! is too big. doing away with P/R does away with any ambition for any championship/league 1 team. clubs need to get fans into games & not keep doing, as on these forums about TV funding. IF toronto got back into SL & played catalans in Grand Final, it would be good for the game, but a disaster for the attendance! 

Not if the GF was in Marseilles or Toronto

[whatmichaelsays]

10 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

You make good points but I do believe people understand the problem. Lack of interest leads to lack of money, people get that IMO.

Therefore the suggestions to format I've made are to address the lack of interest rather than simply reduce the number of teams so less money is split with fewer clubs.

Those reasons are removal of loop fixtures, more teams, wider geographical attraction, greater mix of games for Sky TV (or other) more opportunity for investment with removal of automatic promotion , relegation, opportunity given to more clubs, etc.

One thing against 20 teams in the top flight/s is the spread of money, but it's chicken and egg, without increasing interest income will continue to drop so at some stage a brave decision needs to be made. But if you ask the teams who get 1/10th of the money to vote to only get 1/20th you can imagine they won't 

I fully agree that this needs due diligence and there may be many unforseen issues like the middle 8s brought. But without discussion, suggestions, thoughts shared we repeat the same issues of the past.

But the crux of this issue is where is the evidence that a lack of interest is the result of, or can be remedied by, a change in structure? There doesn't seem to be any at all. How has the sport, and the people championing a new structure, come to that diagnosis? 

The discussion around structures have come about because the game is treating this as a "not enough money" problem, not because the game is treating this as a "not enough people" problem.

To me, the questions that need answering are pretty straightforward: 

• How does the sport get people who don't currently watch rugby league watching rugby league?
• Who is the target audience (or audiences) that the sport wants to reach? What are they crying out for? 
• How does the sport appeal to younger audiences to bring down our average supporter age? 
• How does the sport make watching, attending and playing RL more accessible for the people we want to attract to the sport - particularly those out of earshot of the M62? How does it make it easier for 'exiled' northerners who find it had to follow the sport after moving for work, study or family?  
• How does rugby league to market itself to more transient, aspirational audiences at a time when the "working class" identity that the sport has relied on is weaker than ever? 
• How does the sport grow its audience on digital and social media? 
• How does the sport create a more competitive TV rights auction? 
• How does the sport reduce its reliance on season tickets and increase the 'casual attendance' audience? 
• How does the sport increase the sense of excitement and "FOMO" around its key fixtures? 
• How does the sport enhance the matchday experience for a market that wants more from a family day out than uncomfortable terraces, boiled burgers and flat Carling? 

For me, those are the key issues facing the sport and I genuinely can't understand why anyone, whether they are involved in the running of the sport, the media or just as a spectator would look at those issues and thing "yeah, 2x10 seems like the answer". 

I can understand that for some, it may be a slightly disingenuous argument because it helps their particular club, but as an overall measure to address the sport's key issues? I have to agree with @Dave T that in three years time we're going to be talking about how it was a colossal waste of time and how all of those problems, which aren't solved, have suddenly become even more expensive to solve. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

But the crux of this issue is where is the evidence that a lack of interest is the result of, or can be remedied by, a change in structure? There doesn't seem to be any at all. How has the sport, and the people championing a new structure, come to that diagnosis? 

The discussion around structures have come about because the game is treating this as a "not enough money" problem, not because the game is treating this as a "not enough people" problem.

To me, the questions that need answering are pretty straightforward: 

• How does the sport get people who don't currently watch rugby league watching rugby league?
• Who is the target audience (or audiences) that the sport wants to reach? What are they crying out for? 
• How does the sport appeal to younger audiences to bring down our average supporter age? 
• How does the sport make watching, attending and playing RL more accessible for the people we want to attract to the sport - particularly those out of earshot of the M62? How does it make it easier for 'exiled' northerners who find it had to follow the sport after moving for work, study or family?  
• How does rugby league to market itself to more transient, aspirational audiences at a time when the "working class" identity that the sport has relied on is weaker than ever? 
• How does the sport grow its audience on digital and social media? 
• How does the sport create a more competitive TV rights auction? 
• How does the sport reduce its reliance on season tickets and increase the 'casual attendance' audience? 
• How does the sport increase the sense of excitement and "FOMO" around its key fixtures? 
• How does the sport enhance the matchday experience for a market that wants more from a family day out than uncomfortable terraces, boiled burgers and flat Carling? 

For me, those are the key issues facing the sport and I genuinely can't understand why anyone, whether they are involved in the running of the sport, the media or just as a spectator would look at those issues and thing "yeah, 2x10 seems like the answer". 

I can understand that for some, it may be a slightly disingenuous argument because it helps their particular club, but as an overall measure to address the sport's key issues? I have to agree with @Dave T that in three years time we're going to be talking about how it was a colossal waste of time and how all of those problems, which aren't solved, have suddenly become even more expensive to solve. 

Of course your right with these questions. They identify things that need improveing . Many of them run alongside the discussions around structure. 

It isn't that discussing structure is ignoring the questions you pose. They have to be addressed and the game has to work together to come up with solutions. No league structure will address all problems, suit all parties, be agreeable to all fans, there is no utopia league structure. But there can be a better structure than two leagues on 10, which can hopefully work alongside other initiatives to address the key questions you've brought up.

Unfortunately league structure is key and being discussed at the moment due to income. It's reacting to the reduction in money rather than working towards a more attractive product which will contribute to increased attendances, more media coverage, more potential investment and a stronger position to negotiate a TV deal. As I said before, chicken and egg.

All I see at the moment is a move towards a Scottish football model which I really don't like for all the reasons I've given before.

I think my previous posts have addressed to a degree why a change to 2 conferences would hopefully contribute to covering some of your very good questions. 

I've also pointed out it's only a suggestion and need due diligence, which would probably include much if what your asking.

[Bod]

The only time broadcasters are interested in the Grand Final is after a finish like last year or a Ben Flower incident. The fact Hull KR could be crowned Champions shows what's wrong with Rugby League.

[OriginalMrC]

20 hours 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.

Spot on. This thread is nearly 100 pages of fanciful ideas all missing one very important point. That the structure is not the problem!!! 

[Scubby]

29 minutes ago, Bod said:

The only time broadcasters are interested in the Grand Final is after a finish like last year or a Ben Flower incident. The fact Hull KR could be crowned Champions shows what's wrong with Rugby League.

You either have play offs or you don't. If you have play offs then you pick you top X clubs based on your cut off point. They have decided it is 6 so Hull KR have a shot at the title.

If you aren't going to give them a shot at the title then don't have play offs. The GF is around 25% of the RFL's annual income BTW so you are also harming the community game if you don't have play offs.

[M j M]

2 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

Spot on. This thread is nearly 100 pages of fanciful ideas all missing one very important point. That the structure is not the problem!!! 

Exactly. I just don't know what we as fans can do to stop this. The game's leadership has lost its mind because they seem destined to go for this insane proposal that I've not heard any support for from fans.

In my view fans - and indeed prospective fans - want a stable league format with a sensible number of teams and with none or as few as possible loop fixtures. They don't want Mickey Mouse formats of conferences or playing each other club three or four times.

We're presently at twelve for various reasons and ideally it would be 14 to lose the existing loops. That's not going to happen but there is no evidence at all that anybody wants a convoluted structure or yet more loop games.

I get that the lucky top ten will be able to slice their pie with nine rather than eleven others but the damage this proposal will do to the game, compounding the impact of the massive instability in formats of the past twelve years, is incalculable.

We need to just stop it, leave the format alone and focus on real problems like fan engagement, player numbers, standards of play, transparency and on and off-field excitement. This goes counter to most of those and doesn't address the rest.

I  just can't see who out there is saying, "this is madness, stop it!" Sadler is supposed to be the sport's most senior journalist and yet he's too busy coming up with his own versions of insanity.

In summary:

Nobody wants what they are proposing.

The massive number of changes in recent years have already fuelled disengagement

The suggested restructure does nothing at all to address the issues the sport faces.

Someone has to speak up before it's too late.

[sentoffagain2]

  If you went back to a closed shop SL as in the past.It would deny teams like KR who have moved between divisions with promotion the ambition to improve as they have done this season.They have been a breath of fresh air to SL.with their improved performances on and off the field.

[Scubby]

3 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  If you went back to a closed shop SL as in the past.It would deny teams like KR who have moved between divisions with promotion the ambition to improve as they have done this season.They have been a breath of fresh air to SL.with their improved performances on and off the field.

Since Hull KR moved divisions they have built a new stand, improved match day and other experiences and have had regular crowds between 7-10k over the last 15 years. Why would the shop be closed to them in the first phase of that? Who would have a stronger case?

They same goes for all those clubs in the 9-16 brackets, they are either improving their whole club with tangible results or not (and just ####ing away central funds on player salaries).

[DI Keith Fowler]

2 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Since Hull KR moved divisions they have built a new stand, improved match day and other experiences and have had regular crowds between 7-10k over the last 15 years. Why would the shop be closed to them in the first phase of that? Who would have a stronger case?

They same goes for all those clubs in the 9-16 brackets, they are either improving their whole club with tangible results or not (and just ####ing away central funds on player salaries).

Think he's saying it prevents the next club like Hull KR to do what they've done. 

[David Shepherd]

FWIW I think structure is part of the problem for two reasons:

1. The tedium of loop fixtures. It seriously devalues the "big" games like the Hull Derby, Saints/Wigan, Wigan/Leeds etc.

2. The present structure allows far too many clubs to just go through the motions, collecting the Sky money and not really doing anything to either promote the sport or improve their facilities. Much less get out there and win business to increase commercial revenue.  We all know who these clubs are. Would the product be any worse if they were replaced by any of the leading championship clubs? As it stands there's a huge bottle neck at one up, one down.  These zombie clubs can potentially hang around for years. New blood and new energy is vital imho. 

[M j M]

41 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

FWIW I think structure is part of the problem for two reasons:

1. The tedium of loop fixtures. It seriously devalues the "big" games like the Hull Derby, Saints/Wigan, Wigan/Leeds etc.

2. The present structure allows far too many clubs to just go through the motions, collecting the Sky money and not really doing anything to either promote the sport or improve their facilities. Much less get out there and win business to increase commercial revenue.  We all know who these clubs are. Would the product be any worse if they were replaced by any of the leading championship clubs? As it stands there's a huge bottle neck at one up, one down.  These zombie clubs can potentially hang around for years. New blood and new energy is vital imho. 

The ideal is 14 teams. We are where we are for now at twelve. But the proposal is for ten teams and even more loops. Nobody wants this but it's going to happen unless someone makes them stop!

I also think this stuff about "zombie clubs" and "going through the motions" and "hanging around" in Super League is just rubbish and further divides the game between supporters of clubs who for some reason (typically short-term luck or historical fortune or the largesse of one man) have struck it lucky, and The Rest. There is a tendency to literally wish death on unfashionable Rugby League clubs to suit myriad agendas. It's just so dumb and short-sighted and arrogant.

[David Dockhouse Host]

5 hours ago, Bod said:

The only time broadcasters are interested in the Grand Final is after a finish like last year or a Ben Flower incident. The fact Hull KR could be crowned Champions shows what's wrong with Rugby League.

Why does Hull KR show what's wrong, sorry I don't follow?

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, M j M said:

The ideal is 14 teams. We are where we are for now at twelve. But the proposal is for ten teams and even more loops. Nobody wants this but it's going to happen unless someone makes them stop!

I also think this stuff about "zombie clubs" and "going through the motions" and "hanging around" in Super League is just rubbish and further divides the game between supporters of clubs who for some reason (typically short-term luck or historical fortune or the largesse of one man) have struck it lucky, and The Rest. There is a tendency to literally wish death on unfashionable Rugby League clubs to suit myriad agendas. It's just so dumb and short-sighted and arrogant.

Couldn't agree more about the zombie clubs point. 

All leagues have stronger clubs and weaker clubs. It's hardly new news or a big issue. 

[Scubby]

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Couldn't agree more about the zombie clubs point. 

All leagues have stronger clubs and weaker clubs. It's hardly new news or a big issue. 

It is up to the competition whether to accept standards of those 'zombie clubs'. If they don't feel threatened there is no reason for them to change.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Scubby said:

It is up to the competition whether to accept standards of those 'zombie clubs'. If they don't feel threatened there is no reason for them to change.

Threat of relegation should be enough. Maybe it should be more than one club down. Especially if we went up to 14 teams

also a sliding scale of central funding should be more apparent and the lower down you finish should hit your money

[IanMac]

7 hours ago, Bod said:

The only time broadcasters are interested in the Grand Final is after a finish like last year or a Ben Flower incident. The fact Hull KR could be crowned Champions shows what's wrong with Rugby League.

To be honest I’m just a lowly league 1 supporter who enjoyed our dramatic win yesterday. I used to watch sky super league matches all the time, now the only ones I watch involve Hull KR. Tony Smith has got them playing an exciting brand of rugby that I enjoy watching, would love to see them crowned champions! 

[Wholly Trinity]

OK, so where am I with this malarkey?

It is clear that no structure can be panacea of all ills of RL in the northern hemisphere.

What it can do though is act as a mechanism to enable that growth.

The current system and the basic 2x10 have many problems which stunt development. There are simply not enough teams in the top flight to retain wider interest and loop fixtures are an absolute turn off.

A top 10 SL1 with loop fixtures would be a zero sum game with diminishing input and could be the beginning of the end of professional RL. SL2 would be no more than a reduced and rebranded championship.

It seems likely that there would be only 8 English teams in SL1, so a good proportion of the games would be played in France. Who would televise these?

The current cliff-edge threat of relegation is debilitating for 1/3 of the league every season.

Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself. I would support 2 conferences of 10, but I don't believe the current playing standards are close enough to make 2 equal groups.

So, I would have 2-tiered conferences with each playing home and away in their own conference and 5 home 5 away from the other conference. (18 + 10 =28 games).

The important thing is that this is one competition, so at least in theory, however unlikely, any team from the 20 could win it at the start of the season.

For the Play-offs, the top 4 could have a bye in the first round then 5-12 (i.e. including the top 2 of SL2 would play an elimination round (5v12, 6v11 etc). After that it would be highest placed at home against lowest place etc. straight knock-out. So, the top 4 would all be at home in the second round.

The bottom 2 of SL1 would be relegated and replaced by the top 2 of SL2. The bottom 2 clubs (19th & 20th) would undergo a review with recommendations of how to improve. If there are applications to join SL2 these would be considered on a franchising type basis in comparison with the clubs under review.

The money (assuming £20M) would be distributed on a sliding scale in 3 chunks, an in initial distribution of £500k to each team, a second tranche depending on finishing position and a third on play-off games won.

So, for the current league positions it would look like above.

If they finished in the same positions and play-offs all went to form each team would receive the total in the right column.

Assuming it finished in the same order, if Catalans were to win the league leaders' and GF they'd receive a total of £1,826,673, but the amounts are mix and match, so if St Helens were to beat Catalans in the GF they'd receive £1,796,669 and Catalans £1,660,001.

If Salford were to beat Hull KR in their play-off game they'd receive £1,026,689

It would be possible (unlikely that 9th or 10th could win the GF and get relegated in the same year, although this may a good publicity story, it could be removed with a stroke of a pen by having a rule that grand-finalists can't be relegated.

What it allows is the lower placed clubs to progress at their own pace and test themselves against the top teams. If someone wanted to invest heavily in one year, they could win the whole competition, or at least get well up the prize distribution.
It would also encourage a big investor to bring a new team into the competition with little risk.

Relegation from SL1 would not be a cliff edge, although potentially reduce income from playing more lower teams, although they would likely be a winning team.

Clearly, team budgeting would be difficult, but should be possible.