Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

equal funding means clubs only getting around £600,000 each, and destroys any pretence of a full-time competition or having big clubs IS NOT TRUE -  there are a few teams outside of SL that are full time and dont get the 1.8 million?

Giving teams around £600,000 each - will simply destroy smaller clubs IS NOT TRUE - An extra £520,000 for each team outside SL will allow the smaller teams to bulk up their squad. - which will bring the quality up and close the gap.

The only reason to argue against Martyn's plan is the SL / Big teams dont want the gap closed and dont want to share the CF.

Whilst I would like to agree with you DP, where are you going to get the players from to 'bulk up the squads'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 minutes ago, Scubby said:

That is a return to a part time sport at the highest level you write of @sentoffagain2 . Some players training in the day and others in the evenings. This is how you think SL could go to help us grow and create more revenue from TV and commercial income? 

 

  Each team could have a maximum of 12 full time players.Now we don't competitive scrums the forwards would not have to practice scrum techniques.70/75% of total income should be spent on players wages.You don't need full time players for 5 drives and a kick with a very low skill level.I enjoy Championship Rugby better than S.L because it is more like our proper game and not as fenetic.Top clubs with money left over would be able to sign 2 marquee players on bigger contracts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Doubling down on the daftest idea many have heard in Rugby League (which takes some doing in itself) is commendable. 

With no reference to any earlier post, I'm struggling to understand this comment. What do you mean? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  Each team could have a maximum of 12 full time players.Now we don't competitive scrums the forwards would not have to practice scrum techniques.70/75% of total income should be spent on players wages.You don't need full time players for 5 drives and a kick with a very low skill level.I enjoy Championship Rugby better than S.L because it is more like our proper game and not as fenetic.Top clubs with money left over would be able to sign 2 marquee players on bigger contracts.

That's not a full time league. No where near. Therefore it's odd to dismiss things as bull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Let's assume we are talking about private equity finance models.

The reasons why my proposal would make such finance easier to generate would be:

1 The new competition structure would allow for a new ownership and investment structure, with the competition potentially moving towards a Major League Soccer type model, whereby the competition, not the individual clubs, is the financial model into which investment is made.

2 If all 36 clubs were included, there would be no conflicts between those that were and those that weren't included. Most investors don't want to invest in something that smacks of a civil war, particularly as far as the game's supporters are concerned.

3 Given that many wealthy venture capital organisations emanate from the United States, they would feel happy operating within a system based on Conferences.

4 Private equity investors want to invest in something with growth potential. A permanent ten or twelve team Super League doesn't offer much of that, whereas my proposed structure offers it in numerous ways, not least by making it easier for individual clubs to attract new investors.

5 The flexibility of the proposal means that clubs that are failing can be either replaced or bought out by potential investors in new venues targeted for growth. Weak clubs would have a massive incentive not to remain weak for long.

6 The Conference model ultimately allows for the creation of new Conferences to be bolted on to the structure, giving a clear pathway to expand. For example, under this system it would be desirable to ultimately aim for a six-team Conference in France, while giving the chance to establish a wider footprint in the British Isles.

Thanks. Interesting. Not a lot of *facts but of course, they dont exist yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

With no reference to any earlier post, I'm struggling to understand this comment. What do you mean? 

Despite Martyn Sadler’s original idea being called out by the majority of people here, who’s clubs play at differing levels, rather than move on from another terrible idea (remember the halcyon days of cross division games he said everyone wanted?), he has doubled down and persists to push this agenda and idea of his. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mumby Magic said:

I still can't believe Martyn, that you continuing to peddle out this "idea". It's hard enough for the die hard fan to understand let alone potential new fans. I'll make up a random idea the keep it going until everyone has ran out of steam. If you feel this is the way forward then our game is truly stuffed.

I think some here would blame me (partly) for keeping it going (until everyone has ran out of steam).

Why don't you make up a ''random idea'' that might be worth some discussion, that might have some merit?

You close by saying that if he feels his idea is the way forward, then our game is truly stuffed, but you don't offer any explanatory argument or supporting evidence. I'm inviting you to say, in as many words as you like, what's wrong with it? You seem to have a strong opinion, well I'm asking why have you come to that conclusion?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I think some here would blame me (partly) for keeping it going (until everyone has ran out of steam).

Why don't you make up a ''random idea'' that might be worth some discussion, that might have some merit?

You close by saying that if he feels his idea is the way forward, then our game is truly stuffed, but you don't offer any explanatory argument or supporting evidence. I'm inviting you to say, in as many words as you like, what's wrong with it? You seem to have a strong opinion, well I'm asking why have you come to that conclusion?

 

I normally respect your posts and views but it really does feel like you are trolling with this now. You are literally ignoring every post and argument against this and just asking for more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's not a full time league. No where near. Therefore it's odd to dismiss things as bull.

Is it working as it is?No Will it work with a closed shop 12 team SL.No.Will it work as now with promotion and relegation when the promoted team have 0nly a 15% chance of staying up.No All the better players already have contracts sewn up so with less money than established teams a Championship team would have very little chance.I felt sorry for London being relegated when they won 10 games that was just plain daft.I would have no objection to Toulouse getting promoted it might freshen things up.But whatever your views something needs to be done.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

Is it working as it is?No Will it work with a closed shop 12 team SL.No.Will it work as now with promotion and relegation when the promoted team have 0nly a 15% chance of staying up.No All the better players already have contracts sewn up so with less money than established teams a Championship team would have very little chance.I felt sorry for London being relegated when they won 10 games that was just plain daft.I would have no objection to Toulouse getting promoted it might freshen things up.But whatever your views something needs to be done.

That’s no justification to effectively render the game part time. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

So by that the RFL in deciding which club's can or cannot run an academy have decided who can have a franchise, you do talk a load of garbage.

What excuse have clubs that have been going for over 100 years got for not having academies? or perhaps they dispensed with them in the past as a cost cutting exercise.

Is your club one of those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I normally respect your posts and views but it really does feel like you are trolling with this now. You are literally ignoring every post and argument against this and just asking for more. 

I'm sorry you feel like that.

I do however see merit in his proposal and I'm happy to admit, that I haven't had enough time to think it through (to my satisfaction) and was hoping that arguments for and against would bring to the surface strengths and weaknesses, that hadn't yet occurred to me.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong (not yet anyway), I'm just trying to get an overview of the spectrum of opinion. I have to say (I've already said it) I'm unimpressed by strident, unsubstantiated statements like ''it'll never work'', and ''if we do this we're doomed''. It's easy to sense some strong feeling, in comments like that but what I was hoping for was some reasoned (fairly detailed) argument about why we'd be doomed. You know what I mean, .....if we did this, I feel that would happen and then, that and I believe, that would result in a decline is those things and .......

Scubby says its such a ludicrous idea, it's not worth a detailed analysis, and I suspect a lot of other people feel the same way. I just don't understand why.

I don't have any particular affinity for Martin, by the way. I don't think we've ever met, but I do think that we need some radical new ideas, because I'm afraid carrying on the way we are, might not be enough to sustain us. I'm also attracted to his plan because it inherently values the smaller clubs, their fans, their communities and their grass roots, (which is essential, in my opinion) rather than seeing them as gangrenous extremities to be amputated and cast aside, when the going gets tough.

I'm also aware, that almost all innovations are opposed in the early days, often ridiculed, sometimes vilified before eventually becoming accepted and finally acknowledged as game changers, so I'm not surprised by the onslaught Martin has had to endure. Poor chap. 

Thank you for your kind words at the outset. I'm really not trying to upset anyone but the game is very important to me.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

Is it working as it is?No Will it work with a closed shop 12 team SL.No.Will it work as now with promotion and relegation when the promoted team have 0nly a 15% chance of staying up.No All the better players already have contracts sewn up so with less money than established teams a Championship team would have very little chance.I felt sorry for London being relegated when they won 10 games that was just plain daft.I would have no objection to Toulouse getting promoted it might freshen things up.But whatever your views something needs to be done.

That's completely different to what you dismissed as bull. In your later posts you show yourself that you were wrong. 

Now as you have have moved the goalposts. Does a full time elite competition work? Absolutely. This has been proven for 25 years and is what Sky pay handsomely for.

Is the current model failing? Yes and we are in danger of repeating all the same mistakes with some evidently wanting to accelerate the race to the bottom and dumb down standards even more. Sky want something better, not worse.

Will anyone pay decent money for a part time competition? No, this again has been proven for decades. Therefore stop wasting money on it. Yes fund League 1 and the Championship, they are an important part of the game, but on a part time level that is fair for all. Certainly do not fund some Championship clubs 4 times the level of others.

Yes something does indeed need to be done. On that I think we all agree. However what needs to be done, and what Sky have said they want, is for the elite competition and what they pay for to be better. That is what needs to be improved and made the best it can be to benefit all of Rugby League. That means letting the leash off the ambitious clubs and letting the cream rise to the top. It is simply not feasible to bring 36 clubs along when we are struggling for 14 elite clubs as it is.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Scubby said:

This is 1991.

It’s amazing how fans of SL clubs get called selfish, yet fans from other clubs are being just that by asking for a larger slice of the pie they technically have not earned. Pretty ironic. 

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

1 minute ago, Damien said:

That's completely different to what you dismissed as bull. In your later posts you show yourself that you were wrong. 

Now as you have have moved the goalposts. Does a full time elite competition work? Absolutely. This has been proven for 25 years and is what Sky pay handsomely for.

Is the current model failing? Yes and we are in danger of repeating all the same mistakes with some evidently wanting to accelerate the race to the bottom and dumb down standards even more. Sky want something better, not worse.

Will anyone pay decent money for a part time competition? No, this again has been proven for decades. Therefore stop wasting money on it. Yes fund League 1 and the Championship, they are an important part of the game, but on a part time level that is fair for all. Certainly do not fund some Championship clubs 4 times the level of others.

Yes something does indeed need to be done. On that I think we all agree. However what needs to be done, and what Sky have said they want, is for the elite competition and what they pay for to be better. That is what needs to be improved and made the best it can be to benefit all of Rugby League. That means letting the leash off the ambitious clubs and letting the cream rise to the top.

Do you think paying full time money makes better players?.It makes them fitter and quicker but do you think they are better than some of our past part time players who played for £20/£30 quid a game Vollenhoven,Murphy,Boston,Millward,Neil Fox,Huddart,Bevan Lewis Jones,Eric Ashton,Johnny Whiteley,Ike Southward and Derek Turner need i go onNot many SL players today could come close to matching them and some of them they beat the Aussies.This is my last word on the subject for today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

It’s amazing how fans of SL clubs get called selfish, yet fans from other clubs are being just that by asking for a larger slice of the pie they technically have not earned. 

Despite being told I am unable to understand a very detailed and important proposal - it is why it's complete utopian fantasy. Anyone who is currently in one of the main driving seats doesn't give a #### about anyone else in the game. They have to be knocked off their pedestal by someone with more drive and ambition (and be allowed to).

What we can do is to ensure the most (selfish and) ambitious clubs can grow to be as big as they possibly can and earn as much revenue for the game as possible - and then create a levy on them that fuels the community and semi-professional game. It has worked this way in many sports for a long time. Doing the opposite, providing a ceiling for them, and stifling growth in some socialist experiment - simply drives the people away from the game that can earn the real wealth.

It is harsh but that is life.

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

Do you think paying full time money makes better players?.It makes them fitter and quicker but do you think they are better than some of our past part time players who played for £20/£30 quid a game Vollenhoven,Murphy,Boston,Millward,Neil Fox,Huddart,Bevan Lewis Jones,Eric Ashton,Johnny Whiteley,Ike Southward and Derek Turner need i go onNot many SL players today could come close to matching them and some of them they beat the Aussies.This is my last word on the subject for today.

We've seen this before, full time Wigan vs part time everyone else. Was it pretty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sentoffagain2 said:

Do you think paying full time money makes better players?.It makes them fitter and quicker but do you think they are better than some of our past part time players who played for £20/£30 quid a game Vollenhoven,Murphy,Boston,Millward,Neil Fox,Huddart,Bevan Lewis Jones,Eric Ashton,Johnny Whiteley,Ike Southward and Derek Turner need i go onNot many SL players today could come close to matching them and some of them they beat the Aussies.This is my last word on the subject for today.

Yes full time players are better than part time. That is an indisputable fact. Living in the past is certainly no way to improve things. The world has moved on and RL faces greater pressures and competition than it has ever faced before.

Full time professional sport is big business and is what Sky pay for. Don't expect the same money for a part time competition. RL fans are more than well catered for if they want to watch a part time competition. It's amazing how some fans seem to resent Super League, cue Super Greed childish remarks, but all want to be part of it and all certainly want the money from it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

My mistake then - Next years American RL comp.

If you mean the NARL, that league will certainly not have the sort of money to do the things you mentioned.  It's woefully underfunded, 300,000 US$ per franchise is literally nothing in a world where the value of minor league baseball franchises goes up to more than 30 million US$, it's hardly surprising that their launch achieved zero media cut through in the US.  They have no paying TV deal to speak of, let along one "to die for", they're hanging their hopes on online streaming subscriptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

I still can't believe Martyn, that you continuing to peddle out this "idea". It's hard enough for the die hard fan to understand let alone potential new fans. I'll make up a random idea the keep it going until everyone has ran out of steam. If you feel this is the way forward then our game is truly stuffed.

In fact Martyn's concept is quite understandable, but it's unworkable too because the ingredients for it to work don't exist in the game now.  A league of the sort which he's described would have to be full of Super clubs/franchises, and as we all know the game in Britain doesn't really have any clubs in that category.  The kind of investors he envisions coming in wouldn't touch that league any more than they'll come into the current league.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

The premise of the idea is great: all clubs having an immediate pathway to the top, which is attractive to investors.

However, the reality of the starting situation is such that the gap between the bottom and even a few places higher is so vast that it would be preposterous to put them in the same group. Rugby League is a dangerous sport if the levels of the 2 teams are too wide apart. So my first criticism would be that you've included too many clubs.

I've often looked at the conference structure as a way forward for the reasons you state (albeit with less teams starting): expansion is easier as you just rejig the conferences were necessary and it's easier to create new conferences than new leagues. However, my mindset usually comes back to "what would the fixture list look like" and "how will group positions look". I can't imagine the competition for positions in a 6-team conference played over 20+ games would be close - by that I mean that the haves and have nots will be likely so clear come a few matches in that the rest of the competition would feel like a trek.

What sort of fixture list would you be proposing?

Well, if the current positions in the league were the finishing positions, let's look at the fixtures for the clubs that are currently at the top and at the bottom of the league.

Catalans fixtures outside their own Conference would be: St Helens, Warrington, Wigan, Hull KR, Leeds, Hull FC, Castleford, Huddersfield, Salford, Wakefield, Leigh, Halifax, Bradford, Whitehaven, York

West Wales fixtures would be: Coventry, Hunslet, Keighley, Rochdale, Doncaster, Barrow, Workington, Swinton, Oldham, Dewsbury, Newcastle, Widnes, Sheffield, Batley, Featherstone

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

I still can't believe Martyn, that you continuing to peddle out this "idea". It's hard enough for the die hard fan to understand let alone potential new fans. I'll make up a random idea the keep it going until everyone has ran out of steam. If you feel this is the way forward then our game is truly stuffed.

To suggest that fans wouldn't understand Conferences in the modern age is surely ridiculous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scubby said:

Fair points MM. But no one understands it, or has read all 3000 words.

Well, at least you've admitted what I suspected.

The difference is that my proposal isn't a pitch to a potential investor.

It's a detailed statement of how a competition could be organised to its best advantage.

The pitch would be further down the line.

  • Haha 2
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...