Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

The best thing about this reorganisation which the Salop Bovine is totally against is that League positioning and selection will be based on ongoing on-field performance through P&R and non of this protected from relegation tripe he is so fond of.

If it does go through there is no guarantee of any club in next season's championship finishing in the top 6 and that includes Newcastle and York, should be a very exiting Championship next year.

 

 

If it does'nt suit the agenda,league positions won't come into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


19 minutes ago, Moove said:

Ah OK so your proposal was to keep all funding to SL only and cut off from the Championship with 14 in the top flight? The gap between the two divisions would be bigger than ever, to the point where P&R wouldn't be workable. And with a smaller pie anyway, the bottom feeders of a 14 team SL would continue to have no motivation or money to drive growth. And unless you're advocating licensing there would be no chance of the likes of York or Newcastle making SL any time soon, never mind competing near the top.

Not sure where the loop fixtures comes into it, from what's been reported the proposal for dropping to 10 doesn't include loop fixtures. I'm not particular convinced about the 10x2 approach (or indeed any structure change made in isolation) but it would create space to build new sellable products of some form.

I love what the likes of Toulouse, Newcastle and York have been doing, but they're miles away from being top six SL material. Newcastle and York are barely competitive in the current Championship and need to be allowed to grow organically.

Re Salford, by your own logic that they wouldn't survive relegation then the inference is they're just being kept on life support where they are. In that situation how can they possibly hope to contribute to growing the size of the pie? And regardless relegation wouldn't be forced on them, it would be by virtue of them not being competitive.

Re Wakefield, their 2023 plans were for what a 2500 seater stand? When would they be sorting the rest of the dump and with what money? They'll need a lot more than one shiny stand to be competing consistently.

Yes,  I am giving the money to the 14 clubs in SL and only giving funding to clubs that run academies.

Your point about Toulouse , Newcastle and York is backwards I am afraid.  They can only grow by being able to exploit the increased exposure that being in SL would give them vía commercial deals and higher attendances.  

They can only develope into a threat to the current big 6 by being in a league with them. There is no growth vs Batley. 

These are the clubs growing the pie but by expanding to 14 you give a chance for the likes of Salford and Huddersfield to survive by not cutting SL down. 

P and R would still be workable as the only clubs competiting at the top end of the champ would be clubs who generate rev,  not clubs doped on central funding for one good season when they generate no tv rev for the game. 

Wakefield are also getting a 3g pitch.  If we drop to 10 teams that is the kind of investment which makes no sense. A 14 team league is the way to go. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

The best thing about this reorganisation which the Salop Bovine is totally against is that League positioning and selection will be based on ongoing on-field performance through P&R and non of this protected from relegation tripe he is so fond of.

If it does go through there is no guarantee of any club in next season's championship finishing in the top 6 and that includes Newcastle and York, should be a very exiting Championship next year.

 

 

I am sorry you cant read but I am in favour of P and R.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

10 teams won't happen.

It needs 7 teams out of 12 to vote for it most of whom would be voting for potential self destruction. The other 5 might not want to play each other over and over and over either.

Next.

I think the RFL and SLE executive each have a vote on the SL, they'd presumably be in favour so that means they need 6 out of 12.

Hull, Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, St Helen's, Catalans would all be pretty much nailed on to make the top 10 next year so could be easily convinced. Sure one or two others too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So who do you want ? , And exactly what do you want them to do ?

I think it’s gone beyond having a meeting with clubs to dream up with yet another ‘restructure’.

I’m all for improving the game but can you name me another sport who has tinkered and changed rules/league structures etc. as much as the RFL have over the last 25 years?

there’s rule changes every bloody season !!

It’s an absolute joke. What constructive feedback do you expect to get from a room full of clubs who are fighting for their survival?

They will propose and vote for anything which will suit their own agenda on that particular day, rather than make decisions which may hurt in the short term but have long term prospects to improve the sport as a whole.

I’ve said on other topics on this forum that the game needs forensically broken down and examined from top to bottom and importantly,  all stakeholders need to be involved to try and get to the root of the problems which are destroying the game.

it isn’t just about the TV money, I personally know many die hard RL fans who have turned their back on the sport and rarely watch Super League or their local pro club as the quality of entertainment is woeful.

I watch a lot of amateur rugby and again the skill level and quality of player is nowhere near what is was 20 years ago.

we have fewer referees than we had 20 years ago, despite being told that we would have ‘referees coming out of our ears’ when we were being told to switch to summer, and now we want to charge amateur players ‘pay to play’ which in my option is yet another own goal.

Now I might be looking at things wearing my rose tinted spectacles, but if I am, then so are 100’s of other RL supporters across the UK and we can’t all be wrong!!

So coming back to the game as a whole, collating all this information is a mammoth task, but a lot of local engagement with the local amateur clubs/leagues could be done by a team of volunteers from that area.

Even formulating the initial structure to write the report will be  huge undertaking, but it would be time and money well spent, and would be of far more value than the current RFL development plans which are on the RFL website, as looking through it, to me its nothing but a glossy brochure with made up targets to satisfy Sport England funding objectives!

There are still lots of people who are extremely passionate about the sport, but they are getting more and more frustrated by the day, so if they can see the issues why can’t the RFL?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Yes,  I am giving the money to the 14 clubs in SL and only giving funding to clubs that run academies.

Your point about Toulouse , Newcastle and York is backwards I am afraid.  They can only grow by being able to exploit the increased exposure that being in SL would give them vía commercial deals and higher attendances.  

They can only develope into a threat to the current big 6 by being in a league with them. There is no growth vs Batley. 

These are the clubs growing the pie but by expanding to 14 you give a chance for the likes of Salford and Huddersfield to survive by not cutting SL down. 

P and R would still be workable as the only clubs competiting at the top end of the champ would be clubs who generate rev,  not clubs doped on central funding for one good season when they generate no tv rev for the game. 

Wakefield are also getting a 3g pitch.  If we drop to 10 teams that is the kind of investment which makes no sense. A 14 team league is the way to go. 

York are not even a threat to the top 6 in the Championship. If the bolded bit is true then naturally Newcastle and York would get their chance, by putting them in SL at the moment really all we would be doing is like you say doping them up on central funding when at the moment they are a little bit down the line when it comes to clubs who are competing for SL.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

I think it’s gone beyond having a meeting with clubs to dream up with yet another ‘restructure’.

I’m all for improving the game but can you name me another sport who has tinkered and changed rules/league structures etc. as much as the RFL have over the last 25 years?

there’s rule changes every bloody season !!

It’s an absolute joke. What constructive feedback do you expect to get from a room full of clubs who are fighting for their survival?

They will propose and vote for anything which will suit their own agenda on that particular day, rather than make decisions which may hurt in the short term but have long term prospects to improve the sport as a whole.

I’ve said on other topics on this forum that the game needs forensically broken down and examined from top to bottom and importantly,  all stakeholders need to be involved to try and get to the root of the problems which are destroying the game.

it isn’t just about the TV money, I personally know many die hard RL fans who have turned their back on the sport and rarely watch Super League or their local pro club as the quality of entertainment is woeful.

I watch a lot of amateur rugby and again the skill level and quality of player is nowhere near what is was 20 years ago.

we have fewer referees than we had 20 years ago, despite being told that we would have ‘referees coming out of our ears’ when we were being told to switch to summer, and now we want to charge amateur players ‘pay to play’ which in my option is yet another own goal.

Now I might be looking at things wearing my rose tinted spectacles, but if I am, then so are 100’s of other RL supporters across the UK and we can’t all be wrong!!

So coming back to the game as a whole, collating all this information is a mammoth task, but a lot of local engagement with the local amateur clubs/leagues could be done by a team of volunteers from that area.

Even formulating the initial structure to write the report will be  huge undertaking, but it would be time and money well spent, and would be of far more value than the current RFL development plans which are on the RFL website, as looking through it, to me its nothing but a glossy brochure with made up targets to satisfy Sport England funding objectives!

There are still lots of people who are extremely passionate about the sport, but they are getting more and more frustrated by the day, so if they can see the issues why can’t the RFL?

Long post , but who do you want ? , and what do you want them to do ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

York are not even a threat to the top 6 in the Championship. If the bolded bit is true then naturally Newcastle and York would get their chance, by putting them in SL at the moment really all we would be doing is like you say doping them up on central funding when at the moment they are a little bit down the line when it comes to clubs who are competing for SL.

I am not putting them in SL,  I am giving examples of how it would work.  I am in favour of P and R. 

If we go to 14 next year it looks like Toulouse and Fev go up.  Year after Champ playoffs are probably 5 from Leigh,York,Newcastle, Widnes, Bulls and Fax. 

Toulouse wont finish below Fev in SL so we will gradually move towards Toulouse Newcastle and York all being in a 14 team SL.

But a ten team SL is,  as I have explained,  the worst of all worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic.

The structure of the league is not the problem, it never has been.

The problem is money, re-structure the league all you want, but unless somebody comes along and says "WOW I like the look of that, here's £200m" it will change nothing, zero, zilch, not a sausage.

Edited by Padge
  • Like 3

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky backed the middle 8 concept, it was the T8 that failed, and the Million pound game became a BIG event - they backed it with an improved deal. Maybe Sky like the look of a better quality Elite and a season long scrap to avoid relegation or win promotion - maybe they have told the RFL that they will back it commercially?

Around 2011/2 the central funding outside SL was about £60k. Make that £100k from 2022 and you have £23m to fund 14 clubs at £1.7m, 2023 and Tier 3 gets £100k T1 retains the £1.7m and T2 get about £800k to run a competitive FT club - there must be a min salary spend of say £1.5m otherwise the concept fails, this forces clubs to sell themselves commercially and through the gate.

The gap between the bottom of T1 and the top of T2 will become very easy to breach - thats why 2 x10 has been the right way for 20 years

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Your point about Toulouse , Newcastle and York is backwards I am afraid.  They can only grow by being able to exploit the increased exposure that being in SL would give them vía commercial deals and higher attendances.  

Well the technical term for that suggestion is 'bhuggered' there is no mention of a selective franchise system, York and Newcastle are in the mix with teams who perform better than they do on the playing field, so considering the selection process is based on League places they had better improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well the technical term for that suggestion is 'bhuggered' there is no mention of a selective franchise system, York and Newcastle are in the mix with teams who perform better than they do on the playing field, so considering the selection process is based on League places they had better improve.

Ooh Harry, you are sooo masterful. When you talk like that my reversible throbatron begins to buzz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

I am sorry you cant read but I am in favour of P and R.  

Not for Toulouse your not, more than once you say they should be protected from relegation if they make SL, and do you also not want to fast track York and Newcastle to a 14 team SL, that is the only way they will ever make it if your suggested 14 team SL comes about and no funding given to clubs below - barring for monies directly for academies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Whippet13 said:

I think the RFL and SLE executive each have a vote on the SL, they'd presumably be in favour so that means they need 6 out of 12.

Hull, Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, St Helen's, Catalans would all be pretty much nailed on to make the top 10 next year so could be easily convinced. Sure one or two others too.

Never that straightforward in RL.

The RFL / SL agreement of 14/9/2018 provided that the RFL ( in effect the Council ) have to approve any changes to the structure of SL that result in less than 10 or more than 14 teams. Subject to those parameters SLE control the size, composition, format and calendar.

There followed detailed agreement on promotion and relegation numbers  from a 10 team to a 16 team competition as well as funding distributions. For instance if SLE went to 14 then it was to be one up one down automatically with a play of ( the million pound game ? ) between 13th and 2nd.

Talk of 2 x 10 divisions of SL would certainly need  Council approval , but as I have said before it will pass if most of SL clubs want it with at least 4 current Championship clubs for it as well.

Gubrats could well have that paperwork somewhere. And Padge hits the nail on the head - just like the NRL and the World Cup - in the end it's all about money.....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

If we go to 14 next year it looks like Toulouse and Fev go up.  Year after Champ playoffs are probably 5 from Leigh,York,Newcastle, Widnes, Bulls and Fax

I would take Leigh to be better than Toulouse and Fev next season, Leigh have money to spend and if the decision is made soon, they will be all out in the transfers market amassing a squad for next year, so I don't take them to be relegated next year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JM2010 said:

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?

Please remind me when has sensible sat at the same table as the  RFL and SL😀

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having got thoroughly bored watching the loop fixtures that SL play over the last couple of years, I think 2 x 10 is a bloody awful idea.  Neutrals like me will switch off in droves if they see the same teams playing each other as much as 5 times a year if we include cup and play-offs.

The only way 2 x 10 works is if it's conferences with cross-league fixtures.

Ideally I'd like 14 in SL, with 2 up, 2 down (1 automatic, 1 decided by the MPG).

Yes the funding has to be shared out more than it is now and yes, some of it still needs to go to the two divisions below.

Some clubs will struggle with a lower TV allocation, but let's be honest there are several clubs that just turn up, go through the motions and collect TV money, giving no real value for money. There has to be more of an incentive to grow each club as a business.  A cut in central funding provides just that.

As for the salary cap, it's a major limitation on the growth of the sport. I would tweak it so that clubs can spend 100% of their central distribution on salaries and then also a percentage of the commercial revenue they generate as a top up. This provides further incentive to increase each club's individual business activity.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Having got thoroughly bored watching the loop fixtures that SL play over the last couple of years, I think 2 x 10 is a bloody awful idea.  Neutrals like me will switch off in droves if they see the same teams playing each other as much as 5 times a year if we include cup and play-offs.

The only way 2 x 10 works is if it's conferences with cross-league fixtures.

Ideally I'd like 14 in SL, with 2 up, 2 down (1 automatic, 1 decided by the MPG).

Yes the funding has to be shared out more than it is now and yes, some of it still needs to go to the two divisions below.

Some clubs will struggle with a lower TV allocation, but let's be honest there are several clubs that just turn up, go through the motions and collect TV money, giving no real value for money. There has to be more of an incentive to grow each club as a business.  A cut in central funding provides just that.

As for the salary cap, it's a major limitation on the growth of the sport. I would tweak it so that clubs can spend 100% of their central distribution on salaries and then also a percentage of the commercial revenue they generate as a top up. This provides further incentive to increase each club's individual business activity.

 

How is the game going to earn more money than it does now in terms of corporate, TV and crowds if we have Saints beating Batley 50-0 to secure a SL play off place? The whole thing is a bloody mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I would take Leigh to be better than Toulouse and Fev next season, Leigh have money to spend and if the decision is made soon, they will be all out in the transfers market amassing a squad for next year, so I don't take them to be relegated next year.

 

Toulouse would not finish bottom of a 14 team SL next season.  Leigh with same TV money and more time could prepare.  Toulouse with bigger crowds and sponsors, plus easier to attract oceanic players to live in south of france.  

Presuming Tou and Fev go up bottom 4 is:

11) Leigh 

12) Tou

13) Salford 

14) Fev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Scubby said:

How is the game going to earn more money than it does now in terms of corporate, TV and crowds if we have Saints beating Batley 50-0 to secure a SL play off place? The whole thing is a bloody mess.

An extremely unlikely scenario. It's far more likely to be a Leigh/Salford/Wakefield playing a Fev/London/Halifax for that place.

Most of the clubs I refer to as providing no value (we all know who they are) are utterly invisible in their local areas. They need to seriously up their game and stop just taking the TV money and thinking all is well.

Edited by David Shepherd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not for Toulouse your not, more than once you say they should be protected from relegation if they make SL, and do you also not want to fast track York and Newcastle to a 14 team SL, that is the only way they will ever make it if your suggested 14 team SL comes about and no funding given to clubs below - barring for monies directly for academies.

Absolutely Toulouse  (if they play a certain amount of French players) should be protected because internationals are the real growth area for the sport. It doesnt stop a batley making SL and a 14 team SL would have more Eng clubs than current 12 team league. 

And no fast track. York and Newcastle would naturally be more financially powerful than most other clubs in Champ once the funding is removed.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

An extremely unlikely scenario. It's far more likely to be a Leigh/Salford/Wakefield playing a Fev/London/Halifax for that place.

Most of the clubs I refer to as providing no value (we all know who they are) are utterly invisible in their local areas. They need to seriously up their game and stopping just taking the TV money and thinking all is well.

I'm talking about the SL title. Saints (5th SL1) just outside the SL play offs and need to beat Batley (10th SL2 P24 W6 L18). That is what cross code fixtures give you lowering the quality and lowering the income.

How often has pile them high and sell them cheap led to big increases in profits, prestige and optics? This stupid idea is playing to the perception a lot of people outside the heartlands have of RL. 

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I'm talking about the SL title. Saints just outside the SL play offs and need to beat Batley. That is what cross code fixtures give you lowering the quality and lowering the income.

How often has pile them high and sell them cheap led to big increases in profits, prestige and optics? This stupid idea is playing to the perception a lot of people outside the heartlands have of RL. 

If the 2x10s were to be conferences with a set of cross conference games (though the article seems to suggest they are planned as two divisions in a ladder) then the hypothetical Saints v Batley would only be one game of 28 in the league. I doubt that most fans would care who the opponents were in a game that clinched a play off series place. Given the proliferation of angst towards loop fixtures in SL I am also sure most fans would welcome something that removed the need for yet another game against one of the same 9 teams each year. I would certainly rather see a format that saw us play games against Fev, Fax, Batley, Newcastle (or whoever made up the other group of 10) than a third game against Saints, Wire, Leeds, Hull and co. This would not be because I would view the first group as easier wins than the second but because I am sick to my stomach of seeing the same fixtures over and over ad nauseum. In a hypothetical two conference system allocation of funding would be equal across the board, so whilst some would be commercially stronger or weaker clubs than others the standards would be more equal than at present over time lessening the impact of the "it's only Batley, I won't bother" effect(to use your example).

  • Thanks 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...