Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

If London Broncos are playing at Plough Lane and Toulouse go up then we actually have enough for a decent 14 team SL. It is only protectionism from weaker teams preventing this. 

St, Wig Leeds, Hud Hull, Kr Cat, Tou, Cas, Wak London, Wire 2 others out of a dozen (York, Newcastle, Leigh, Widnes, Fev, Salford, etc...) 

 

Leighs struggles this year tell us otherwise, they were and have remained a Championship level side, As would TO, and Broncos be if promoted. Nobody relegated means no SL players available from that source.

There's enough quality for a 10 clubs SL, not what people may want but it's a fact.

SKY won't want many of the games from the strugglers. 10 clubs means loop fixtures but SKY will take a third Wigan.v.Saints over a first London.v.Toulouse.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Leighs struggles this year tell us otherwise, they were and have remained a Championship level side, As would TO, and Broncos be if promoted. Nobody relegated means no SL players available from that source.

There's enough quality for a 10 clubs SL, not what people may want but it's a fact.

SKY won't want many of the games from the strugglers. 10 clubs means loop fixtures but SKY will take a third Wigan.v.Saints over a first London.v.Toulouse.

Sky don't want another Leigh. Who ever wins the Championship Grand Final will be better prepared for Super League than Leigh, and won't lose 15 Super League games on the trot.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Leighs struggles this year tell us otherwise, they were and have remained a Championship level side, As would TO, and Broncos be if promoted. Nobody relegated means no SL players available from that source.

There's enough quality for a 10 clubs SL, not what people may want but it's a fact.

SKY won't want many of the games from the strugglers. 10 clubs means loop fixtures but SKY will take a third Wigan.v.Saints over a first London.v.Toulouse.

They were given half the money and about two months notice. Has zero bearing on Toulouse with full funding and more time to prepare. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Griff said:

Ach - the final league tables have never been anything but a basis for negotiation in rugby league.

One of the main reasons Rugby League exists is because of a row about P&R in the 1890s.

  • Like 2

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

2 hours ago, Angelic Cynic said:

Snobbish elitism won't save the sport,either.

Well done Moran for having political support,and Tesco to help out a club with such a long history,and McManus can also thank Tesco - if they aren't too inferior.

The 3 clubs you mention,after Whataboutism,are relatively new and have offered opportunities to hundreds of young players.

They,like supporters,academy coaches,et al seem to be finding alternatives to the sport.

You elite followers will enjoy your ever decreasing sport.

Good luck with your life support,when an American owned television company also finds an alternative. 

Sentiment reigns supreme in rugby league? I reckon Elstone may think differently. 

It’s how the wheels of economy works, it’s not a big deal but because it’s sport, it’s emotive and deemed “different”. 

Those clubs I mention are clubs with a purpose. They’re more than seventeen blokes on a Sunday and a result in the small print of the few nationals that print them. They’re hugely important community outlets, they have pathways, they have multiple sides, they have Academies. But yeah, let’s keep giving clubs like Swinton £75,000 a year. They’ve had well over £1m in the summer era and have what to show for it? They’re Swinton in name only. They own nothing, they have no pathways, no community ties (how many different grounds have they played at?), no real purpose or right being in the “professional game”. I say that as someone whose had a relative play for Swinton in finals and someone who spent a year of their time at Uni watching Swinton play out of Salford Red Devils’ Willows stadium in front of an ageing and declining support base. Now, Swinton aren’t the only club in that boat, there’s plenty of others and we’ve wasted millions on these clubs in 25+ years of summer rugby. 

Good businesses evolve. Rugby League doesn’t. I dare say, look at the makeup of Rugby Unions “elite”.

Edited by Hela Wigmen
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, steve oates said:

Leighs struggles this year tell us otherwise, they were and have remained a Championship level side, As would TO, and Broncos be if promoted. Nobody relegated means no SL players available from that source.

There's enough quality for a 10 clubs SL, not what people may want but it's a fact.

SKY won't want many of the games from the strugglers. 10 clubs means loop fixtures but SKY will take a third Wigan.v.Saints over a first London.v.Toulouse.

There's enough quality for 14 teams, or 18 or what ever number.

The spread of ability is a different point, every good youngster wants to sign for the top clubs.

If reducing teams is the answer, then going from 14 to 12 would have seen an improvement, it's possibly had the opposite affect.

A team will finish bottom even with a ten team league, is that proof that they are not up to it and there's not enough quality, do we go to 8 teams because if quality ? 

I think the lack of quality argument is a fallacy, we mention it in the show.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

They were given half the money and about two months notice. Has zero bearing on Toulouse with full funding and more time to prepare. 

I imagine if TO go up the SL clubs (sorry independent SL board) will think of a reason not to give them any funding, like they did Toronto and (in part) Leigh. It’s pathetic really, sometimes I find it hard to rationalise why I still watch and love super league. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

There's enough quality for 14 teams, or 18 or what ever number.

The spread of ability is a different point, every good youngster wants to sign for the top clubs.

If reducing teams is the answer, then going from 14 to 12 would have seen an improvement, it's possibly had the opposite affect.

A team will finish bottom even with a ten team league, is that proof that they are not up to it and there's not enough quality, do we go to 8 teams because if quality ? 

I think the lack of quality argument is a fallacy, we mention it in the show.

 

 

What evidence is there that 12 is “worse” than 14? 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

What evidence is there that 12 is “worse” than 14? 

It was in reference to the same issue of "not enough talent" apparently existing but now we have fewer teams, hence the situation is 'worse'.

Previously there was only enough talent for 12 teams but we had 14.

Now we only have enough talent for 10, but we have 12.

I don't agree

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I imagine if TO go up the SL clubs (sorry independent SL board) will think of a reason not to give them any funding, like they did Toronto and (in part) Leigh. It’s pathetic really, sometimes I find it hard to rationalise why I still watch and love super league. 

They didn't think if a way not to give Toronto funding, they said when they entered the league they wouldn't take it, if I recall correctly it's because they wanted their own TV deal, but this didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I imagine if TO go up the SL clubs (sorry independent SL board) will think of a reason not to give them any funding, like they did Toronto and (in part) Leigh. It’s pathetic really, sometimes I find it hard to rationalise why I still watch and love super league. 

Love the product hate the company.  Last games I have caught have been great.  I think Sky will bury them if they try to remove the jeopardy vía relegation again. 

Esp since a second french team is likely to get french tv on board so Sky can get that french feed on the cheap. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

They didn't think if a way not to give Toronto funding, they said when they entered the league they wouldn't take it, if I recall correctly it's because they wanted their own TV deal, but this didn't happen.

Are you saying that when TWP got promoted they refused their 1/12th share of the Sky money? I can’t remember that but fair enough if they did. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

It was in reference to the same issue of "not enough talent" apparently existing but now we have fewer teams, hence the situation is 'worse'.

Previously there was only enough talent for 12 teams but we had 14.

Now we only have enough talent for 10, but we have 12.

I don't agree

We never had the quality for 14, IMO, and it was a long, long six years with utterly meaningless games and rewarding of mediocrity by extending the play-offs to flit between seven and eight sides. 

I think there argument for ten, certainly for me, goes beyond the quality of games. Ultimately, that’s the face of the sport and what we sell but we have plenty of clubs with ‘issues’ off the pitch (a lack of competent management, stadia issues, spending well below the cap, attendances, academies that are useless etc) and for me, widening the competition and watering down the competition just isn’t the answer and expanding the division only serves to lose loop fixtures and nothing else. The ‘issues’ I speak of at existing Super League clubs goes beyond Super League. For the positives the normal handful of golden geese clubs of the Championship have, there’s more issues to be added. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

It was in reference to the same issue of "not enough talent" apparently existing but now we have fewer teams, hence the situation is 'worse'.

Previously there was only enough talent for 12 teams but we had 14.

Now we only have enough talent for 10, but we have 12.

I don't agree

The situation isn't worse due to the number of teams per se, but to the lack of money in the game which means that players can be paid much more in RU or the NRL.  If all the players who have gone to those other leagues were playing in SL, the standard of play would be higher than it is with lesser players in their place.

30 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

They didn't think if a way not to give Toronto funding, they said when they entered the league they wouldn't take it, if I recall correctly it's because they wanted their own TV deal, but this didn't happen.

They only said they wouldn't take it because that was a condition of them being accepted into the league originally, with the understanding that it would be reconsidered if/when they got promoted into SL.  On account of that condition, Eric Pérez's original investors all walked away and we ended up with David Argyle instead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

We never had the quality for 14, IMO, and it was a long, long six years with utterly meaningless games and rewarding of mediocrity by extending the play-offs to flit between seven and eight sides. 

I think there argument for ten, certainly for me, goes beyond the quality of games. Ultimately, that’s the face of the sport and what we sell but we have plenty of clubs with ‘issues’ off the pitch (a lack of competent management, stadia issues, spending well below the cap, attendances, academies that are useless etc) and for me, widening the competition and watering down the competition just isn’t the answer and expanding the division only serves to lose loop fixtures and nothing else. The ‘issues’ I speak of at existing Super League clubs goes beyond Super League. For the positives the normal handful of golden geese clubs of the Championship have, there’s more issues to be added. 

 

I just don't see it that way. I've never watched a meaningless game of rugby, a player doesn't take the field not willing to give all, regardless of where they are in the league. 

Any league structure will have apparent meaningless games, only a knock out cup competition doesn't.

I also don't get the watering down, get more teams and players playing if you can, from that quality can I prove, fewer teams, fewer players, fewer options to develop players, it's a downward spiral and a poor business model.

At what point would you say we can increase teams from 10? What would you need to see for this apparent increase in talent if none of these teams or players play in the top league? 

Going to ten teams is a terrible idea IMO, it's decreasing our small talent pool further , and therefore co tributes to the player issue not solving it

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

The situation isn't worse due to the number of teams per se, but to the lack of money in the game which means that players can be paid much more in RU or the NRL.  If all the players who have gone to those other leagues were playing in SL, the standard of play would be higher than it is with lesser players in their place.

They only said they wouldn't take it because that was a condition of them being accepted into the league originally, with the understanding that it would be reconsidered if/when they got promoted into SL.  On account of that condition, Eric Pérez's original investors all walked away and we ended up with David Argyle instead.

I agree lack of. Obey argument, yes I get that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Are you saying that when TWP got promoted they refused their 1/12th share of the Sky money? I can’t remember that but fair enough if they did. 

I do remember them saying at the very start they won't be taking any sky money, I don't recall anyone saying they wouldn't get it, this was said even before they entered 

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

13 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

If London Broncos are playing at Plough Lane and Toulouse go up then we actually have enough for a decent 14 team SL. It is only protectionism from weaker teams preventing this. 

St, Wig

Leeds, Hud

Hull, Kr

Cat, Tou,

Cas, Wak

London, Wire

2 others out of a dozen (York, Newcastle, Leigh, Widnes, Fev, Salford, etc...) 

 

Seriously, give up on London. That club's a dead donkey.

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I just don't see it that way. I've never watched a meaningless game of rugby, a player doesn't take the field not willing to give all, regardless of where they are in the league. 

Any league structure will have apparent meaningless games, only a knock out cup competition doesn't.

I also don't get the watering down, get more teams and players playing if you can, from that quality can I prove, fewer teams, fewer players, fewer options to develop players, it's a downward spiral and a poor business model.

At what point would you say we can increase teams from 10? What would you need to see for this apparent increase in talent if none of these teams or players play in the top league? 

Going to ten teams is a terrible idea IMO, it's decreasing our small talent pool further , and therefore co tributes to the player issue not solving it

Meaningless games as in far too many rounds, for a start. 27-30 rounds, as we’ve flitted between in the past, is far too many and creates meaningless games. Lost a game? Never mind, there’s 29 rounds so it’ll be rendered meaningless because you’ve got so many games left. Watching Saints in 2019 become monotonous and dull. We were in the play-offs barring a minor disaster pretty early on into the year, the rest of the year was essentially training games, we went through the motions, invariably won, and rinse and repeat waiting for the proper rugby to start in September. Even our defeat to Cas on Friday, most people have just shrugged their shoulders as there’s little consequence to that defeat. We pad the season out with games, be it loop games, the 8’s or expanding the division to include sides way off being an elite level club on and off the pitch, it’s never worked regardless of 12 or 14 clubs in the competition. I’m a fan of the NFL (yeah, some people might not be, that’s irrelevant here), their short and snappy year of eighteen games is something I see plenty of positives in, for example. 

We had six years of fourteen and I really don’t think anyone improved that dramatically to use that as any kind of argument. The watering down comes from having a myriad of clubs at Super League and Championship level of pretty poor standards, I don’t see why you’d add to the issues you have by adding to it in the short-term (and most likely long-term, Wakefield’s ground looks like bomb damage from the war) just to lose loop fixtures. 

I would have no plans to increase from ten for at least ten years and even then, I wouldn’t necessarily do it, anyway. Rugby League has a succession of failed attempts at expansion and increasing league sizes and structures and most have failed. Having had no business plans and dropping clubs and formats into water and expecting them to swim, not sink only for the sport to have chucked them in ill-equipped. 

Going to two tens is the only way, for me. Minimum standards to be brought in alongside it requiring the twenty to have academies and possibly reserves too to bring in minimum standards we do desperately need, no more than twenty games in the league, do something with the cup to give that the lift it deserves, there’s space for internationals instead of Wakefield v Leigh three times a year and anything else they want to do whether that’s 9s, another tournament or whatever. Fourteen does all of the opposite of that, in my eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I just don't see it that way. I've never watched a meaningless game of rugby, a player doesn't take the field not willing to give all, regardless of where they are in the league. 

Any league structure will have apparent meaningless games, only a knock out cup competition doesn't.

I also don't get the watering down, get more teams and players playing if you can, from that quality can I prove, fewer teams, fewer players, fewer options to develop players, it's a downward spiral and a poor business model.

At what point would you say we can increase teams from 10? What would you need to see for this apparent increase in talent if none of these teams or players play in the top league? 

Going to ten teams is a terrible idea IMO, it's decreasing our small talent pool further , and therefore co tributes to the player issue not solving it

Quite correct.

10s is as dull as dishwater and no sport grows by contracting. People can try and dress up the Championship as SL2 all they wish but that's what the proposed format is, contraction.

Also arguments about the number of teams in the play off are quite distinct from the number of teams in the league. I hated the 8 team play off but that certainly isn't a fault of a 14 team league. It's the fault of a misguided notion that everyone has to have a chance for as long as possible or everyone loses interest. A 14 team league with a top 5 or even top 6 play off is perfectly fine.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s how the wheels of economy works, it’s not a big deal but because it’s sport, it’s emotive and deemed “different”. 

Those clubs I mention are clubs with a purpose. They’re more than seventeen blokes on a Sunday and a result in the small print of the few nationals that print them. They’re hugely important community outlets, they have pathways, they have multiple sides, they have Academies. But yeah, let’s keep giving clubs like Swinton £75,000 a year. They’ve had well over £1m in the summer era and have what to show for it? They’re Swinton in name only. They own nothing, they have no pathways, no community ties (how many different grounds have they played at?), no real purpose or right being in the “professional game”. I say that as someone whose had a relative play for Swinton in finals and someone who spent a year of their time at Uni watching Swinton play out of Salford Red Devils’ Willows stadium in front of an ageing and declining support base. Now, Swinton aren’t the only club in that boat, there’s plenty of others and we’ve wasted millions on these clubs in 25+ years of summer rugby. 

Good businesses evolve. Rugby League doesn’t. I dare say, look at the makeup of Rugby Unions “elite”.

It is the wheels of economy,now,as you seize the zeitgeist.

In decades gone by Swinton were ' good business' by being more successful than St Helens and Wigan,on the field.

There was a period of time when Wigan sold Central Park and weren't in the best of health to evolve.

Knowsley Road was suffering decrepitude.  

Some club owners have been unlucky,some have been negligent. 

That is not the fault of future,or current,coaches,players,staff and supporters.

The clubs with money,or,with a purpose,have,since 1895,peaked and troughed.

In soccer,a former Bank Of England club is now,for the 3rd season,in League 1.One of the oldest league clubs is in non-league soccer.It does go round.

The governing body need to give all clubs 'a purpose'.It is no good looking at a few nice flower heads if all the roots are withering away.

 

  • Like 4

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Quite correct.

10s is as dull as dishwater and no sport grows by contracting. People can try and dress up the Championship as SL2 all they wish but that's what the proposed format is, contraction.

Also arguments about the number of teams in the play off are quite distinct from the number of teams in the league. I hated the 8 team play off but that certainly isn't a fault of a 14 team league. It's the fault of a misguided notion that everyone has to have a chance for as long as possible or everyone loses interest. A 14 team league with a top 5 or even top 6 play off is perfectly fine.

Totally agree, reduction is a short term fix, for the good of the game, a longer term plan is required, this may mean some teams struggling for a while whilst we look forward 20 years not 2.

What does good look like for Super League and Rugby League? It's not 10 teams 

Edited by David Dockhouse Host
Typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

It is the wheels of economy,now,as you seize the zeitgeist.

In decades gone by Swinton were ' good business' by being more successful than St Helens and Wigan,on the field.

There was a period of time when Wigan sold Central Park and weren't in the best of health to evolve.

Knowsley Road was suffering decrepitude.  

Some club owners have been unlucky,some have been negligent. 

That is not the fault of future,or current,coaches,players,staff and supporters.

The clubs with money,or,with a purpose,have,since 1895,peaked and troughed.

In soccer,a former Bank Of England club is now,for the 3rd season,in League 1.One of the oldest league clubs is in non-league soccer.It does go round.

The governing body need to give all clubs 'a purpose'.It is no good looking at a few nice flower heads if all the roots are withering away.

 

Good post 👍

People often say,what does this club bring to RL?

I always say rugby, and rugby players and fans, even if it's just 1, they are part of the overall rugby family and important.  I understand issues with money and poor running if clubs have contributed and we cannot just give them handouts but we also cannot dismiss them

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toronto generated big crowds around the country (for lower league games) because they were new and exciting and a threat. So that going into SL creates a buzz. Featherstone got their biggest non derby home crowd for years because Toulouse were new and exciting and a threat.

Fans loved going to Perpignan and Toronto because it was new and exciting. Next year SL fans and players will like going to Toulouse because it is new and exciting.....

Sometimes it is new clubs that can bring a buzz, sometimes it is a star signing (Stacy Jones, SBW, Jamie Lyon), sometimes it is the intent of a club (Wigan 1980s/90s Bulls 1990s/2000) but excitement creates interest.

That is what any successful competition needs - to continually generate buzz and new experiences - not for old ##### like us but for future generations of fans. The game in the UK has seemingly put the cue on the rack and accepted its fate - much like Working Men's Clubs in the 2000s. It is perpetually fighting anything new (or a threat to the norm) or any kind of change which takes a collective effort.

Edited by Scubby
  • Like 5
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...