League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Did Sky pay for them? I thought they were on Premier Sports when they were in Leahue 

 

Building your structure based on sand (ie, clubs with no infrastructure, academy, terrible stadium) is a direct link to any structure, IMO. 

We have so few clubs with competent academies (no matter how much some clubs stamp their feet and tweet “elite”) and subsequent pathways, awful stadia, semi-professional status whether they’re professional in name only, underspending and poor squads that adding two more teams, for me, is pointless. The proverbial pint of Carling (I use Carling because of its qualities as a rubbish lager) is then combined with water to weaken its standing further, IMO. For me, a fourteen team league only serves to remove loop games and doesn’t strengthen the competition and will end up within a year of its introduction of people complaining of blow outs, average teams and far greater disparity in league tables than we currently see, much like we got during the fourteen team Super League era ten or so years ago. 

For me, ten is the perfect number at the minute. Ideally, I’d like to see it grow to twelve and fourteen and beyond but I won’t get ahead of myself of proclaim anyone in particular are this era’s golden goose but I think a reset, especially given a pandemic, a reduced TV deal and the general apathy in the game, is key and stepping back is the way to move forward. Thirty six clubs is phenomenal really but some tough decisions need to be made and I say that as someone who’s watched a decent amount of lower league rugby and spent many an afternoon at Uni watching Swinton or Oldham and tradition is great but it doesn’t keep the sport alive. 

The next step is our or necessity not some misguided messing about for the sake of it and it needs to be pretty radical given the state of the game and the state of the world right now.

Ten, for me, is perfect for that providing we don’t insist on loop fixtures. I’d go for twenty regular season games maximum, based on playing nine at home one year that alternates to ten the following year, with Magic Weekend included. That leaves ample space for international games, which we must now realise is up to us to push, promote and grow and we’d have plenty of windows to play France, Combined Nations, Wales etc. It also leaves plenty of space for other things. The Challenge Cup can have a bit more of a focus on it, if someone wants to make group stages for it and push merchandise on “cup kits” then so be it, if they want to keep it as a knockout then so be it. If 9s is the new thing, there’s space for that. If another tournament is the plan, so be it. 

Nothing wrong with Carling.

[The Blues Ox]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Ringo said:

So you want to go up but fear going back down as you have done so much to go up?

Isn't that how it's meant to be? 

Im not sure how you read that as fearing going back down? If we earnt our chance to play in SL then I am totally fine if we got relegated the following year because it is what we deserve in a structure where we have earnt our position. 

[bowes]

15 hours ago, del capo said:

I read it that way as well.

It seems that the top 20 will share the pot more evenly than as now.

League 1 ( still Tier 3 ) is likely to get nothing. But they've known about that for at least 2 years and have hopefully been planning their futures.

16 clubs will have to rely on their own resources to fund  a 34 game league season ( unless they adopt a ladder system ) pay wages where they can and travel the length of the country. Tough ask for some.

The Community game has thus far not been consulted on helping out despite those comments about a 'whole game approach '.

The NCL  club requirements are alien  to  and frankly beyond most of Tier 3. However  I expect that the Southern Conference like the NCL  also Tier 4 but crucially owned by the RFL and more in tune with those League 1 clubs likely to struggle, could accommodate.....and become stronger for it.

My glass is still just about half full rather than half empty......

I'm not sure the Southern Conference in its current form would be suitable for teams dropping out of League 1, except possibly West Wales Raiders. 

It's a couple of regional leagues that don't cover every part of the country south of Sheffield. Much more like the old RLC Premier Division than the old National League 3. The best two midlands amateur clubs play in the Yorkshire Men's League instead.

[Johnny Ringo]

13 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Im not sure how you read that as fearing going back down? If we earnt our chance to play in SL then I am totally fine if we got relegated the following year because it is what we deserve in a structure where we have earnt our position. 

But doesn't going up to SL 2 next season not mean that you earned it? 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Nothing wrong with Carling.

It is a poor lager though but drink whatever you want.

[The Blues Ox]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Ringo said:

But doesn't going up to SL 2 next season not mean that you earned it? 

Eh?

[Johnny Ringo]

11 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Eh?

By finishing in the top 6 

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, Gooleboy said:

Nothing wrong with Carling.

Depends what you use it for.

[Lowdesert]

19 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

Good post. 

I am actually a little less bothered on the growing crowds element than I am with the bits in bold, which I think are more important. Obviously it's not one or the other and everything is intertwined, so crowds are important too.

But TV viewership, broadening the sport's appeal (club rugby isn't going to achieve that) and club standards are really key as well. 

We are at a crossroads; our 'friends' in the SH are not going to help. We need to deliver change for the long term future of the game in England and the NH.

Agree mate.

I don’t care being shot down for this but Gould said a throw away comment along the lines of ‘we’ll look after this end and you look after yours’.  

It’s the truth in plain view.  We don’t have the brass to send scouts out into all areas of Europe read PNG/Tonga/Samoa/Fiji) or have good enough institutions to offer housing and coaching to aspiring athletes (Keebra Park as an example) but we have to do more than we are now.  

 

 

 

[Angelic Cynic]

2 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Did Sky pay for them? I thought they were on Premier Sports when they were in Leahue 

 

Building your structure based on sand (ie, clubs with no infrastructure, academy, terrible stadium) is a direct link to any structure, IMO. 

We have so few clubs with competent academies (no matter how much some clubs stamp their feet and tweet “elite”) and subsequent pathways, awful stadia, semi-professional status whether they’re professional in name only, underspending and poor squads that adding two more teams, for me, is pointless. The proverbial pint of Carling (I use Carling because of its qualities as a rubbish lager) is then combined with water to weaken its standing further, IMO. For me, a fourteen team league only serves to remove loop games and doesn’t strengthen the competition and will end up within a year of its introduction of people complaining of blow outs, average teams and far greater disparity in league tables than we currently see, much like we got during the fourteen team Super League era ten or so years ago. 

For me, ten is the perfect number at the minute. Ideally, I’d like to see it grow to twelve and fourteen and beyond but I won’t get ahead of myself of proclaim anyone in particular are this era’s golden goose but I think a reset, especially given a pandemic, a reduced TV deal and the general apathy in the game, is key and stepping back is the way to move forward. Thirty six clubs is phenomenal really but some tough decisions need to be made and I say that as someone who’s watched a decent amount of lower league rugby and spent many an afternoon at Uni watching Swinton or Oldham and tradition is great but it doesn’t keep the sport alive. 

The next step is our or necessity not some misguided messing about for the sake of it and it needs to be pretty radical given the state of the game and the state of the world right now.

Ten, for me, is perfect for that providing we don’t insist on loop fixtures. I’d go for twenty regular season games maximum, based on playing nine at home one year that alternates to ten the following year, with Magic Weekend included. That leaves ample space for international games, which we must now realise is up to us to push, promote and grow and we’d have plenty of windows to play France, Combined Nations, Wales etc. It also leaves plenty of space for other things. The Challenge Cup can have a bit more of a focus on it, if someone wants to make group stages for it and push merchandise on “cup kits” then so be it, if they want to keep it as a knockout then so be it. If 9s is the new thing, there’s space for that. If another tournament is the plan, so be it. 

You went to Uni? Good O.

Not every club has been,or is allowed an infrastructure by the governing body.Just those elite clubs who have managed to be in Super League and benefit from the RFL negotiated broadcast deal.

Some clubs have benefited from jumping into bed,and stadium,with other sports.

Will Mr McManus be content with only 9 home Super League games? Does the stadium for St Helens cater for all year round use?

Is there a return on investment for holding a Magic Weekend in an area where the local club is now full time with an elite academy? What are the benefits for holding it in Newcastle? 

The highly salaried chap brought to Super League changed it to an event in Liverpool which doesn't have such a wonderful club,promoted up a division,on application. 

Will a larger Super League still enable the ' new competitions to grow the game commercially ' alongside the putative new international calendar? 

[fighting irish]

3 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Although I applaud some different thinking I do not see how 2 leagues of 10 with P&R can work financially. What sense is there in teams accepting an equal or smaller slice of the pie than at the moment but losing 4 home games?  Also the option of playing each other 3 times to compensate is not attractive at all.

So IMHO a 2 x 10 Conference system is a more attractive option with a 27 game season (home and away in their league then play each tram in the other league once) with the possibility of 2 Magic Weekends with 10 teams at each event so hold these events in areas identified for growth.

But this option would require a heck of a lot of goodwill and compromise from SL clubs as ALL 20 clubs will have an equal share of the TV money.  No doubt some of the bigger clubs may be able to absorb the reduction in TV money but some SL clubs would have to release players to teams that will have increased their turnover from a greater share of TV money than they get at present. One positive consequence is that this should initially produce a closer competition.

One way to let ALL clubs generate greater income would be to scrap the Salary Cap and let teams spend an agreed percentage of turnover. Some clubs would be at a disadvantage but we have seen that the tail wagging the dog has not worked.  BUT, if this approach is adopted it makes ALL clubs more attractive for an investor as their money can be invested in building a stronger team as well off field infrastructure.  We saw with Koucash how frustrated he was that his millions made diddly squat in what Salford could spend on players and IMHO that restrictiveness is keeping investors out of the sport.

 

I like this argument.

[tms]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

Oh theres always one 'big' team missing out.  I completely forgot about Broncos too.  It's why I hate gutting the champ.  Just expand SL to 14 and lower the money to SL and Champ clubs.  Those who can generate rev will be more successful. 

 

[fighting irish]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

 No Toto, what's happened to Toto?

After a very dubious (highly-commended at Crufts) she signed professional forms down under for the Witches of Oz in the NRLW. I should have realised she was a w(b)itch all along!  

[tms]

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/restructure-ten-team-super-league-21190713

[Hela Wigmen]

14 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

You went to Uni? Good O.

Not every club has been,or is allowed an infrastructure by the governing body.Just those elite clubs who have managed to be in Super League and benefit from the RFL negotiated broadcast deal.

Some clubs have benefited from jumping into bed,and stadium,with other sports.

Will Mr McManus be content with only 9 home Super League games? Does the stadium for St Helens cater for all year round use?

Is there a return on investment for holding a Magic Weekend in an area where the local club is now full time with an elite academy? What are the benefits for holding it in Newcastle? 

The highly salaried chap brought to Super League changed it to an event in Liverpool which doesn't have such a wonderful club,promoted up a division,on application. 

Will a larger Super League still enable the ' new competitions to grow the game commercially ' alongside the putative new international calendar? 

There’s scope for more than nine home games per year. 

Yes, Saints’ ground offers possible income streams 365 days a year. Getting married anytime soon? Get married at the Church of E-Cigs. 

Newcastle and the North East is a growth area, still, IMO, so I’d leave it there for now. It’s also a very good city for fans and the stadium is very central. Few are as good (Cardiff being one exception). 

[David Dockhouse Host]

3 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Did Sky pay for them? I thought they were on Premier Sports when they were in Leahue 

 

Building your structure based on sand (ie, clubs with no infrastructure, academy, terrible stadium) is a direct link to any structure, IMO. 

We have so few clubs with competent academies (no matter how much some clubs stamp their feet and tweet “elite”) and subsequent pathways, awful stadia, semi-professional status whether they’re professional in name only, underspending and poor squads that adding two more teams, for me, is pointless. The proverbial pint of Carling (I use Carling because of its qualities as a rubbish lager) is then combined with water to weaken its standing further, IMO. For me, a fourteen team league only serves to remove loop games and doesn’t strengthen the competition and will end up within a year of its introduction of people complaining of blow outs, average teams and far greater disparity in league tables than we currently see, much like we got during the fourteen team Super League era ten or so years ago. 

For me, ten is the perfect number at the minute. Ideally, I’d like to see it grow to twelve and fourteen and beyond but I won’t get ahead of myself of proclaim anyone in particular are this era’s golden goose but I think a reset, especially given a pandemic, a reduced TV deal and the general apathy in the game, is key and stepping back is the way to move forward. Thirty six clubs is phenomenal really but some tough decisions need to be made and I say that as someone who’s watched a decent amount of lower league rugby and spent many an afternoon at Uni watching Swinton or Oldham and tradition is great but it doesn’t keep the sport alive. 

The next step is our or necessity not some misguided messing about for the sake of it and it needs to be pretty radical given the state of the game and the state of the world right now.

Ten, for me, is perfect for that providing we don’t insist on loop fixtures. I’d go for twenty regular season games maximum, based on playing nine at home one year that alternates to ten the following year, with Magic Weekend included. That leaves ample space for international games, which we must now realise is up to us to push, promote and grow and we’d have plenty of windows to play France, Combined Nations, Wales etc. It also leaves plenty of space for other things. The Challenge Cup can have a bit more of a focus on it, if someone wants to make group stages for it and push merchandise on “cup kits” then so be it, if they want to keep it as a knockout then so be it. If 9s is the new thing, there’s space for that. If another tournament is the plan, so be it. 

I like space for internationals.

I like space for a 9s, although I don't like 9s I accept it may be a good advert for the game and attract different audience like crickets 20/20.

I don't like loop fixtures.

I don't believe clubs will accept fewer games as that relates to less money 

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

So it's settled then: less clubs means better standards.

In that case, I've heard the other proposal is to have our top 6 join an expanded NRL in 2023 to create 3 conferences. The other 30 clubs can be in the desired 10-club division set up.

Clearly everyone will be happy then.

[gingerjon]

13 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

So it's settled then: less clubs means better standards.

In that case, I've heard the other proposal is to have our top 6 join an expanded NRL in 2023 to create 3 conferences. The other 30 clubs can be in the desired 10-club division set up.

Clearly everyone will be happy then.

One club playing their reserves.

That way perfection lies.

[David Dockhouse Host]

What will moving from 12 teams to 10 solve that moving from 14 to 12 didn't?

Same reasoning being given for the reduction 

[Liverpool Rover]

I cannot get my head around the idea of relegating four teams. It’s hard enough for promoted teams when it is one team going down and clubs will just go for broke spending money they don’t have to avoid finishing in the bottom four. I hope this doesn’t get past the proposal stage.

[owls]

On 30/07/2021 at 13:21, ShropshireBull said:

Please say we are going 14 teams in SL and that loop fixtures are done. I can start saving for my Toulouse vs Catalan ticket... 

Apparently clubs below SL aren´t being told the central funding situation for next year thus making the meetings a complete waste of time. 

probably  looking for a way of blocking Toulouse again, 

[The Blues Ox]

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

I cannot get my head around the idea of relegating four teams. It’s hard enough for promoted teams when it is one team going down and clubs will just go for broke spending money they don’t have to avoid finishing in the bottom four. I hope this doesn’t get past the proposal stage.

Great init. Toulouse and Fev have been working on getting to SL for a number of years now and for at least one of them it looks like a great chance of promotion only to face the possible news that they may have to finish 5th from bottom to stand a chance of staying in SL. Only in RL.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

46 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Great init. Toulouse and Fev have been working on getting to SL for a number of years now and for at least one of them it looks like a great chance of promotion only to face the possible news that they may have to finish 5th from bottom to stand a chance of staying in SL. Only in RL.

Exactly this.

There are just sooooo many issues with this system, the very small perceived benefits (ones I don't agree would even happen anyway) wouldn't even get a look in. It's such a negative approach to the issue.

[redjonn]

5 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Oh theres always one 'big' team missing out.  I completely forgot about Broncos too.  It's why I hate gutting the champ.  Just expand SL to 14 and lower the money to SL and Champ clubs.  Those who can generate rev will be more successful. 

I agree with increasing SL to 14, I guess the key is getting their given the impact of Covid on finances.   I don't know the economic impact but assume its massive relative to the sport and a hence need to look at how to consolidate.   If the finance impact has been minimal then of course go straight to 14.   This is what non of us know and hence we all pontificate in absence of knowledge and our own ideal world.

What's the incentive to improve your generation of revenue if you can't use it to make the club more successful.  That is with a salary cap so low you can't keep or attract higher standard players,  have to move on your academy players to other clubs that don't invest in academy or pathways as well as you, leading to an inferior product on the field.

 

[JM2010]

10 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Exactly this.

There are just sooooo many issues with this system, the very small perceived benefits (ones I don't agree would even happen anyway) wouldn't even get a look in. It's such a negative approach to the issue.

I'm not sure why they're going to 14 first then 10. 

Why don't they just stick with 1 up 1 down this year then relegate 2 the year after?