Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Maybe SL clubs should be penalised financially - i.e. hundreds of thousands docked from central funding - for not having an Academy?

Its certainly one way to do it. Have a base level then give additional funding based on meeting certain requirements, more for reserves, more for academy, more for numbers of development officers, more for creating and engaging with amateur clubs etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, wilsontown said:

The ultimate logic of this approach leaves us with no teams at all.

It doesn't because there's no teams!

10 seems to me a good fit right now for Super League because we only have 10 clubs that are Super or near-Super.

Personally, I wouldn't miss Salford, Leigh or Wakefield in SL.

Take them away - adding Toulouse, assuming they go up - and you've got 10 clubs who can spend at or very close to full salary cap with marquees. 

We'd then have a super-competitive elite comp at both ends - to get in the presumably top 5 play-offs and to avoid the drop. There ought not to be any easy games against a bottom feeder like Leigh or Wakefield. Every minute matters etc.

We'd also have a more competitive second tier as the bigger teams spend to get in/return to Super League. It'll also be more competitive at the bottom end to avoid the drop to League 1 (which will also be more competitive at the top, if not the bottom). 

I'm not saying 10+10 is a perfect, silver bullet but I can see how it would spur some Darwinian evolution that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I didn't think for a minute that my proposal would be adopted, but I've had a strong response from some Rugby League club bosses.

Those who have understood the rationale, which ultimately is about unifying the game, have inevitably tended to be the most positive about it.

The RFL and Super League are committed to their 10 and 10 model, however.

I'm not surprised Martin. 

Short term, self interest seems to win out every time.

Existential threats sharply focus the mind it's true, but they happen so often in RL, (in their estimation) that there's no will to choose long term gain at the price of even mildly inconvenient, short term pain. 

Creating a fortunate majority (20/36) guarantees, you'll get the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Apparently all clubs have been asked to put forward their proposals on what the structure should look like. So, we have 36 proposals, and 36 clubs that need to agree on which one to adopt.

What could possibly go wrong?

I have absolutely no issue with this. Of course you should seek the opinions of the members; it makes them feel more valued.

You can't please everyone, but someone might have an idea that others haven't thought of. 

Ultimately, most will probably suggest a system that best benefits their club, but that's their right of opinion.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I have absolutely no issue with this. Of course you should seek the opinions of the members; it makes them feel more valued.

You can't please everyone, but someone might have an idea that others haven't thought of. 

Ultimately, most will probably suggest a system that best benefits their club, but that's their right of opinion.

It feels like the wrong way round to the process though. Sort of like Henry Ford's "they'd have said they needed a stronger horse" line.

A more effective method would be to have a selection of options, properly explained and with rationale, and to ask for constructive feedback on all of them, from which you then move forward to one (or two) properly thought through approaches that you develop based on that feedback.

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It feels like the wrong way round to the process though. Sort of like Henry Ford's "they'd have said they needed a stronger horse" line.

A more effective method would be to have a selection of options, properly explained and with rationale, and to ask for constructive feedback on all of them, from which you then move forward to one (or two) properly thought through approaches that you develop based on that feedback.

I agree. Decide on if we are having a closed shops, licensing etc then work from there. There are a only a few main core options ranging from some sort of communist utopia to a elitist, capitalist dog eat dog model a with a couple of milder variations in between. These can then be tweaked to suit and to form a consensus but there is nothing radically, different going to come out of the woodwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I didn't think for a minute that my proposal would be adopted, but I've had a strong response from some Rugby League club bosses.

Those who have understood the rationale, which ultimately is about unifying the game, have inevitably tended to be the most positive about it.

The RFL and Super League are committed to their 10 and 10 model, however.

However you never replied to my comment on this thread. You mentioned constant changing in your piece yet you are proposing yet another change. Do you think our sponsors, potential sponsors fans, potential fans and TV companies take our sport seriously when we are constantly changing. There is nothing wrong with a 12 team SL. Nothing it all plus the product is fine. Another change and now a possible change of structure laughingly mid season shows sheer amateurism. The irony is I'm an optimist but the game is sapping every drain of my optimism.

Like poor jokes? Thejoketeller@mullymessiah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I have absolutely no issue with this. Of course you should seek the opinions of the members; it makes them feel more valued.

You can't please everyone, but someone might have an idea that others haven't thought of. 

Ultimately, most will probably suggest a system that best benefits their club, but that's their right of opinion.

I've created this in error.

Edited by fighting irish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It feels like the wrong way round to the process though. Sort of like Henry Ford's "they'd have said they needed a stronger horse" line.

A more effective method would be to have a selection of options, properly explained and with rationale, and to ask for constructive feedback on all of them, from which you then move forward to one (or two) properly thought through approaches that you develop based on that feedback.

It's not the most efficient method, but I don't have an issue with gathering thoughts from all stakeholders. If you have time to do it, and then the expertise to spend the time facilitating it, there could be some absolute nuggets to come out of it. 

It is pretty standard to engage a wide range of stakeholders in these kind of things. It then does need the strong leadership and expertise to filter through the guff, but no issues with this at all. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is pretty standard to engage a wide range of stakeholders in these kind of things. 

They asking anybody other than the clubs?

  • Haha 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

They asking anybody other than the clubs?

You want yet another RFL fan survey? They went a bit crazy with them over the last few years!

But I expect they are talking to broadcasters and other partners. Be interesting to know whether they ask players, because I'd be all for not doing so, but accept that is probably unfair when it would affect their jobs. They should have a voice through Unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You want yet another RFL fan survey?

Not especially.

But I also don't want some sort of mushy compromise based on stitching together 36 separate ideas.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's not the most efficient method, but I don't have an issue with gathering thoughts from all stakeholders. If you have time to do it, and then the expertise to spend the time facilitating it, there could be some absolute nuggets to come out of it. 

It is pretty standard to engage a wide range of stakeholders in these kind of things. It then does need the strong leadership and expertise to filter through the guff, but no issues with this at all. 

The trouble is (aside from whether the strong leadership is there or not), it becomes a design by committee, which never works. By all means ask for clubs' input on where they feel the priorities lie and what problems they feel they need should be solved. Then any proposals should take that into consideration. 

Would be interesting to know if any clubs consulted the players before submitting proposals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Not especially.

But I also don't want some sort of mushy compromise based on stitching together 36 separate ideas.

But that isn't how these things work. Asking 36 people for their opinion is not the same as amalgamating 36 ideas. 

It can be very useful for spotting themes, which could be useful for then being able to push through approval for some of the ideas. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, phiggins said:

The trouble is (aside from whether the strong leadership is there or not), it becomes a design by committee, which never works. By all means ask for clubs' input on where they feel the priorities lie and what problems they feel they need should be solved. Then any proposals should take that into consideration. 

Would be interesting to know if any clubs consulted the players before submitting proposals.

It really doesn't. 

Asking people's ideas is perfectly normal, fine and useful.

The skill is what you do with that feedback.

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

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It really doesn't. 

Asking people's ideas is perfectly normal, fine and useful.

The skill is what you do with that feedback.

I guess it depends on what was meant by clubs being asked for their proposals. If it's just asking for ideas and input, fine. If it's fully formed, structured proposals for how they think the structure should look in it's entirety, then the process is doomed. Hopefully it's more towards the former. 

Question is, who is facilitating it all and pushing back on certain parties when it is needed?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I guess it depends on what was meant by clubs being asked for their proposals. If it's just asking for ideas and input, fine. If it's fully formed, structured proposals for how they think the structure should look in it's entirety, then the process is doomed. Hopefully it's more towards the former. 

Question is, who is facilitating it all and pushing back on certain parties when it is needed?

The last bit is the crucial question. That, and who will make the recommendations/decisions is the important bit. That's the leadership. 

But listening to people isn't a bad thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mumby Magic said:

However you never replied to my comment on this thread. You mentioned constant changing in your piece yet you are proposing yet another change. Do you think our sponsors, potential sponsors fans, potential fans and TV companies take our sport seriously when we are constantly changing. There is nothing wrong with a 12 team SL. Nothing it all plus the product is fine. Another change and now a possible change of structure laughingly mid season shows sheer amateurism. The irony is I'm an optimist but the game is sapping every drain of my optimism.

There's no doubt that constant change has sapped the will of even some of Rugby League's most ardent supporters.

With my proposal, I wanted to illustrate the point that there is a potential other way forward, even if it's unlikely to be taken up.

If a 12-team Super League were the answer, combined with promotion and relegation, I think we would have seen much more growth than we have over the years.

Given how difficult it is for a promoted team to be competitive, it pretty much becomes a closed shop for eleven teams, all of whom jealously guard their status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

It doesn't because there's no teams!

10 seems to me a good fit right now for Super League because we only have 10 clubs that are Super or near-Super.

Personally, I wouldn't miss Salford, Leigh or Wakefield in SL.

Take them away - adding Toulouse, assuming they go up - and you've got 10 clubs who can spend at or very close to full salary cap with marquees. 

We'd then have a super-competitive elite comp at both ends - to get in the presumably top 5 play-offs and to avoid the drop. There ought not to be any easy games against a bottom feeder like Leigh or Wakefield. Every minute matters etc.

We'd also have a more competitive second tier as the bigger teams spend to get in/return to Super League. It'll also be more competitive at the bottom end to avoid the drop to League 1 (which will also be more competitive at the top, if not the bottom). 

I'm not saying 10+10 is a perfect, silver bullet but I can see how it would spur some Darwinian evolution that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

 

Salford need a proper home. Leigh when they are treated equally were pulling in 6k in SL so they are fine and Wakefield will be transformed by that 3g and stand redevelopement. 

I don´t want clubs like Wakey to be lost to the game but we´ve got to grow the pie. That´s why I think we have to split what we have 14 ways and grow the income that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I have absolutely no issue with this. Of course you should seek the opinions of the members; it makes them feel more valued.

You can't please everyone, but someone might have an idea that others haven't thought of. 

Ultimately, most will probably suggest a system that best benefits their club, but that's their right of opinion.

As long as those opinions are read and properly considered, and it isn’t a tick box exercise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

The proposal says they’ll work out the two divisions by moving up to a 14 team Super League and then relegating the bottom four and lumping them with the top six of the Championship in 2022. Outside of the current top eight in the Championship is Sheffield, Widnes and Newcastle, so you’d ‘lose’ an alleged “golden goose” in Newcastle from your new structure, for example. 

Assuming current positions that would give:

 

Super League Premier League:

Catalans Dragons; St Helens; Warrington Wolves; Wigan Warriors; Hull Kingston Rovers; Hull FC; Leeds Rhinos; Castleford Tigers; Huddersfield Giants, Toulouse

Super League Championship:

Salford; Wakefield; Leigh; Featherstone; Halifax; Bradford; Batley; London; Whitehaven; York.

 

Teams left out of any funding:

Sheffield - assume that would finish them; can't see them going into the NCL

Widnes - would they really join the NCL? I'm thinking they'll try and get it in court

Newcastle - 50/50 go under or join NCL

Dewsbury, Oldham, Swinton, Barrow, Workington, Keighley, Rochdale, Hunslet - they'd all have to go amateur and into the NCL?

I'd assume both the Welsh teams would fold instantly, and Cov and Skolars would have to move and reform as local clubs scaled back clubs.

Zero chance of any semi-pro expansion any time for the next generation: the drawbridge will be fully pulled up for any French, Canadian, American, Serbian, Spanish etc teams. Probably kills off Super League expansion for good.

 

Bit of a massive F^&*ing change to the British game isn't it! Is this really what is about to happen?

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...