Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

This idea will at least keep most happy and in 1 season I think create the near perfect SL.

As for SKY showing SL 2 what not they used to show the championship and we used to have some very enjoyable matches on TV.

What is not being discussed on here is the fact that SKY have lost an awful lot of Rugby Union the Celtic League (Original name) which will now have extra clubs from SA is staying on Premier Sports and they do not seem interested in taking the Championship back (The contract race out last year) SL 2 (Championship) is the perfect fit for SKY to keep a decent amount of Rugby content on.

Paul

 

Its far from a near perfect Super League and is boring and repetitive. 14 to 12 saw none of these mythical improvements in standards. There are far more fundamental things wrong than thinking cutting numbers will increase standards. It's a very lazy argument.

Sky don't pay money for the Championship. No TV provider really has. Certainly no one has ever paid close to the funding that the Championship gets. As such spending large amounts is dead money that brings no additional value to the TV deal.

What Sky do pay for is Super League. Siphoning money from this to placate everyone else creates a poorer product and one less attractive to Sky. Sky are now paying less as a result. The game hasn't learned anything from its mistakes in the last TV deal.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

I must say I really can't wait for this new structure to happen, nothing makes me want to watch my team more than going from challenging for a spot in SL to being in a relegation battle to go in to an obscure tier 3. 

You may not, but I would as a TV punter 😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

What about when TWP played in Lg1??

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

 

45 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

For clarity, I'm not saying those things are not important I just don't see that they directly impact league structure at elite level, spending time considering those things rather than the main topic could become distracting. All of those things are important and need to be considered but not at the expense of concentrating on the main topic, which is league structure at the top of the game. That is what funds those other things you mention, so if that isn't right the other things will struggle anyway, get the elite right and the rest should be easier to improve.

My points stand over structure and I believe reducing teams is watering down IMO not improving, more teams, more opportunities for our academy players etc.

2 leagues of 10 as a Super League 1 and 2 I could see, if they had a way of removing loop fixtures which I believe are less attractive than a 13th and 14th team.

Your point about meaningless games leading to play offs is another point, I like the play offs but a reduction in overall teams in the league means top 6 is easier to achieve, fewer teams should be reflected in the amount of teams entering play offs.

I understood why they did the middle 8s, that was supposed to fix meaningless games but in reality it didn't work, wasn't attractive and I really didn't like it.

The premiership football league has one winner, if knowing your not going to win or go down they would have many many meaningless games but I just don't see it. People say there is money for every league position but that matter little to a player on the pitch, they work hard as this is their job, they need to answer to fans watching etc. Those are greater motivators 

It appears we won't see eye to eye on this, I respect your view, I'll continue to reflect on your points but for now I don't see it your way.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

You may not, but I would as a TV punter 😁

I totally agree that relegation really adds some drama and excitment to any tv deal but for me as a fan of a club that is not anywhere near involved involved in a relegation battle and stands currently as the 3rd best team outside of SL, I still have a dream that we could make SL in the next couple of seasons or so no matter how unrealistic that is. To suddenly turn that in to a possible relegation battle does nothing to make me want to pay my money on the gate, something I have done for the last 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Yep.  Dewsbury well run too with their 3g pitches so will strip them of their games vs Bradford.  

Awful decision for me.

As I said before the race to finish in the top 6 is not guaranteed for any club, may the best 6 get through to SL2 it will be on their own efforts with on field performances, all done with no influence from the suits sat around a table making a decision who should be in whichever division.

Assuming that Tolouse and Fev will be in SL next season, I will stick my neck out and say the 6 in no particular order will be:-

Halifax, Bradford, Widnes, Batley, Whitehaven and York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I must say I really can't wait for this new structure to happen, nothing makes me want to watch my team more than going from challenging for a spot in SL to being in a relegation battle to go in to an obscure tier 3. 

No disrespect but Halifax aren't an SL contender

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

No idea - that's why I was asking.

So we both don't know.

It was a rhetorical question, we know that is the case because the production company in Canada they were supposed to be paying to film the games came out publicly to state they were owed monies. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

No disrespect but Halifax aren't an SL contender

In what sense? Well run, nice stadium, competitive team, modern rebrand. Give us an extra 1m for the last 10 years and I don't think we are in any worse shape than any of the relegation candidates. Same could be said for Fev, Batley and maybe a couple of others. Yes we don't want teams that can simply swap in like for like but who is to say if we were given promotion in 2010 we would be in a worse position than some teams in SL now?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

I totally agree that relegation really adds some drama and excitment to any tv deal but for me as a fan of a club that is not anywhere near involved involved in a relegation battle and stands currently as the 3rd best team outside of SL, I still have a dream that we could make SL in the next couple of seasons or so no matter how unrealistic that is. To suddenly turn that in to a possible relegation battle does nothing to make me want to pay my money on the gate, something I have done for the last 30 years.

 But beating teams week in week out who you feel you should be easily beating is OK? Surely the challenge of staying in a SL 2 is the idea and if you are relegated then it's because the new tier 3 is probabiy your true level and therefore you build and fight to go up again? 

Edited by Johnny Ringo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As I said before the race to finish in the top 6 is not guaranteed for any club, may the best 6 get through to SL2 it will be on their own efforts with on field performances, all done with no influence from the suits sat around a table making a decision who should be in whichever division.

Assuming that Tolouse and Fev will be in SL next season, I will stick my neck out and say the 6 in no particular order will be:-

Halifax, Bradford, Widnes, Batley, Whitehaven and York.

No it isnt but its ###### regardless. Outside bottom two this year champ is fine.  Plus Barrow and whoever else comes up will be stronger.  

And next year no promotion? Awful. 

Top 6 next year if I had to guess is : Widnes, Bulls, York, Newcastle, Fax plus one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant as in promotion contenders.

I'm a Fax fan and would love to see us competing in SL. Are we well run because we're not in SL though? We get to SL and it all goes wrong usually 

Edited by JM2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

In what sense? Well run, nice stadium, competitive team, modern rebrand. Give us an extra 1m for the last 10 years and I don't think we are in any worse shape than any of the relegation candidates. Same could be said for Fev, Batley and maybe a couple of others. Yes we don't want teams that can simply swap in like for like but who is to say if we were given promotion in 2010 we would be in a worse position than some teams in SL now?

Yep thats why shrinking SL is crud.  Fax would be no worse than Salford. Expand the top and let clubs who can grow,  grow. 

Also are SL clubs going to vote to cut themselves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnny Ringo said:

 But beating teams week in week out who you feel you should be easily beating is OK? Surely the change of staying in a SL 2 is the idea and if you are relegated then it's because the new tier 3 is probabiy your true level and therefore you build and fight to go up again? 

Its ok if we have earnt it in the current structure which we have. As a club we are at a point where we should be in a position to challenge for a spot in SL over the next few years. A structure change sets our club back years and as a fan it makes it less appealing than it already is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

I meant as on promotion contenders.

I'm a Fax fan and would love to see us competing in SL. Are we well run because we're not in SL though. We get to SL and it all goes wrong usually 

Id agree that the top 2 on the field are some distance better than the rest but with the format as it is and us sat nicely in 3rd place Id say we are contenders. If they make it 2 up this year then I think we are in with a very serious chance of gaining promotion with some shrewd player decsions later in the season.

Thats where some important decisions come in for the RFL as well as they won't make it top 2 goes up. I think if Toulouse win this weekend they will make it top automatic and a 5 team playoff structure. If Fev win I expect them to keep the 6 team play off structure if they did decide to go down the 2 promoted route.

Edited by The Blues Ox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No it isnt but its ###### regardless. Outside bottom two this year champ is fine.  Plus Barrow and whoever else comes up will be stronger.  

And next year no promotion? Awful. 

Top 6 next year if I had to guess is : Widnes, Bulls, York, Newcastle, Fax plus one. 

Unfortunately I do not see Newcastle being in the top 6, Barrow could be a wild card and as I said Batley and Whitehaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Its ok if we have earnt it in the current structure which we have. As a club we are at a point where we should be in a position to challenge for a spot in SL over the next few years. A structure change sets our club back years and as a fan it makes it less appealing than it already is.

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Unfortunately I do not see Newcastle being in the top 6, Barrow could be a wild card and as I said Batley and Whitehaven.

Who are your top 6 Harry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Unfortunately I do not see Newcastle being in the top 6, Barrow could be a wild card and as I said Batley and Whitehaven.

Yeah as much as I don't think a team should be placed in a division I still think its a shame to stifle any progress a team could be making but I agree, Newcastle and York or maybe both theres a good chance one of them misses out on the top 6 if that change came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Unfortunately I do not see Newcastle being in the top 6, Barrow could be a wild card and as I said Batley and Whitehaven.

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. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • John Drake changed the title to League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...