League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

All 36 should get equal funding

No they shouldn't. Even Martyns proposal doesn't say that. Sky pay what they pay for Super League. The Championship and League 1 add absolutely no value. That is a sad fact.

Your posts are very contradictory, one minute you cry for equal funding the next you want to break away and say the part time rugby is so much better. You can't have it both ways.

In what sports do 2nd and 3rd tier leagues get equal funding to the elite level that the broadcaster pays for?

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

 

 

I remember as a kid from West Yorks wanting Wigan to get bigger and bigger. To sign bigger stars and get bigger crowds so they could break all records and RL would be on TV more. It was exciting. When they played the club I followed being part of a huge crowd at Central Park was amazing and shaped my view of the game - even if they handed out a thrashing.

What has changed that so many people want the best and biggest parts of our game to fail or be held back, or to be humbled? Why don't we want Wigan and Leeds getting 20k+ crowds again and signing top stars? 

But do you want them to be so far in front that their games become foregone conclusions? 

In the time that you talk of it was most probably when Wigan were so far ahead of everyone else that in the vast majority of the games they would have been expected to win everytime they took to the field, to a lesser degree we have 6 teams who given more money or allowed to spend more on the cap would increase the gap between them and the rest. 

I think that after 25 years of only 4 teams winning the comp and of those 25 years only 3 teams have won it in the last 14 years that I will say YES it is time for a structure change, we can either level down the Big 6 which is the last thing those in their boardrooms would accept, or allow them more scope on the SC even abolish the cap altogether for these clubs and let them fight it out amongst themselves, for to long we have had 2 divisions if not 3 within SL. Simply that needs to change, it has got to be very stale.

So further to your 8  6, 4, 2 year licence suggestion, make it a licenced 6 team division set-up which those from outside can then apply to join if the can prove they have the finances to be competitive even if it comes down to registering a bond on acceptance to play in the league, so instead of some clubs merely going through motions and recieving funding just to tread water and keep their heads above the level in a 12 club SL, make it an exclusive club where only the most wealthy can survive.

Rich folk like to be exclusive just because they can afford to be so, that may entice those with some spare Spondulic's or even a consortium of 'local' wealthy individuals to invest In a club operating outside of the big 6 to join them, then SL can obtain organic growth by that method instead of starting with a 12 as you suggest Scubby and some just going through the motions again or even finding they can't keep up with the finances required  I can't  honestly see how things would change from the present 12 setup.

And the other plus factor would be the 15 strongest clubs outside of the SL could have one hell of an intriguing league. 

[fighting irish]

16 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

That's remarkably defeatist.

If it's true we may as well all pack up and stay in bed all day.

I disagree with you strongly, although I do accept that Rugby League has never been a fashionable sport for a considerable number of British people.

I think we should be far more aggressive in promoting what Rugby League has to offer.

Martin, I've made this point, with BP time and time again.

He has never made one single suggestion as to how the game might develop and prosper, not one.

In his opinion, we are doomed not matter what we do, because the teams are based where they are.

I don't know what his motivation is for coming in here.

As far as I'm concerned his ''contribution'' is tantamount to trolling. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

You’re clearly not interested in constructing anything of note and have completely missed the point here. 

See the 2nd post above for my construction input.

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

All 36 clubs have backers and revenue but they all dont get £1.8million from central funding 

Your point was how can a club spend the £1.9 million cap with only £1.8 million central funding.

The obvious answer is that they use their extra revenue sources. Those that pay for everything else bar the players wages at every club. 

This is all academic anyway as there is literally no scenario where the same money floating about now gets equally divided by every club.

[Derwent Parker]

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

Clubs don't have to spend that and if they do they have to create additional sources of income. TV money is not just a handout that clubs lazily spend on players without any additional effort. That mindset is a huge part of the problem and has to change. It is also why some clubs just do the bare minimum safe in the knowledge that the salary cap protects them.

If a team only gets 80k then in comparison they WILL only do the bare minimum

[Scubby]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But do you want them to be so far in front that their games become foregone conclusions? 

In the time that you talk of it was most probably when Wigan were so far ahead of everyone else that in the vast majority of the games they would have been expected to win everytime they took to the field, to a lesser degree we have 6 teams who given more money or allowed to spend more on the cap would increase the gap between them and the rest. 

I think that after 25 years of only 4 teams winning the comp and of those 25 years only 3 teams have won it in the last 14 years that I will say YES it is time for a structure change, we can either level down the Big 6 which is the last thing those in their boardrooms would accept, or allow them more scope on the SC even abolish the cap altogether for these clubs and let them fight it out amongst themselves, for to long we have had 2 divisions if not 3 within SL. Simply that needs to change, it has got to be very stale.

So further to your 8  6, 4, 2 year licence suggestion, make it a licenced 6 team division set-up which those from outside can then apply to join if the can prove they have the finances to be competitive even if it comes down to registering a bond on acceptance to play in the league, so instead of some clubs merely going through motions and recieving funding just to tread water and keep their heads above the level in a 12 club SL, make it an exclusive club where only the most wealthy can survive.

Rich folk like to be exclusive just because they can afford to be so, that may entice those with some spare Spondulic's or even a consortium of 'local' wealthy individuals to invest In a club operating outside of the big 6 to join them, then SL can obtain organic growth by that method instead of starting with a 12 as you suggest Scubby and some just going through the motions again or even finding they can't keep up with the finances required  I can't  honestly see how things would change from the present 12 setup.

And the other plus factor would be the 15 strongest clubs outside of the SL could have one hell of an intriguing league. 

It only starts at 6 clubs because if you set the bar properly they would be the only ones who wouldn't have to get their house in order straight away. That's why they get 8 years. They are 6/12 members not a cartel!

Hull KR would arguably qualify for a 4 year licence but Castleford and Wakefield only 2 for obvious reasons or maybe not at all. That is a target on their backs with a lot of clubs happy to knock them out if they don't improve.

Put it this way, if DB at Leigh and MK at Salford could have had their time again and plough resources into creating a proper infrastructure and bid that would guarantee them a 4 or 8 year licence in SL - where could those clubs be after that period of stability? It is the yo yo-ing that stifles clubs and keeps them where they are.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

If a team only gets 80k then in comparison they WILL only do the bare minimum

I'm not thinking of the clubs that get 80k.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

There is no "big 6" though, those clubs aren't big, they're just less small than the rest.  With their small town locations and small time ways such as depending on "away fans" they can never be the basis of a new league to lift the game's profile, stature and income.

But that is what we have got and what we are BP, your idealist Cosmopolitan Big City League will never happen, the reason is very simple not enough people outside of the area's that the game is entrenched in have enough interest in it, OK you may say Toronto did, but it wouldn't have happened but for one very rich man who happened to be au fait with the sport through his native country, you ain't going to find his type in strategic geographical locations throughout the UK or even Europe.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But do you want them to be so far in front that their games become foregone conclusions? 

In the time that you talk of it was most probably when Wigan were so far ahead of everyone else that in the vast majority of the games they would have been expected to win everytime they took to the field, to a lesser degree we have 6 teams who given more money or allowed to spend more on the cap would increase the gap between them and the rest. 

I think that after 25 years of only 4 teams winning the comp and of those 25 years only 3 teams have won it in the last 14 years that I will say YES it is time for a structure change, we can either level down the Big 6 which is the last thing those in their boardrooms would accept, or allow them more scope on the SC even abolish the cap altogether for these clubs and let them fight it out amongst themselves, for to long we have had 2 divisions if not 3 within SL. Simply that needs to change, it has got to be very stale.

So further to your 8  6, 4, 2 year licence suggestion, make it a licenced 6 team division set-up which those from outside can then apply to join if the can prove they have the finances to be competitive even if it comes down to registering a bond on acceptance to play in the league, so instead of some clubs merely going through motions and recieving funding just to tread water and keep their heads above the level in a 12 club SL, make it an exclusive club where only the most wealthy can survive.

Rich folk like to be exclusive just because they can afford to be so, that may entice those with some spare Spondulic's or even a consortium of 'local' wealthy individuals to invest In a club operating outside of the big 6 to join them, then SL can obtain organic growth by that method instead of starting with a 12 as you suggest Scubby and some just going through the motions again or even finding they can't keep up with the finances required  I can't  honestly see how things would change from the present 12 setup.

And the other plus factor would be the 15 strongest clubs outside of the SL could have one hell of an intriguing league. 

Warrington, Leigh, Huddersfield, Hull, Catalans, and (once upon a time) Salford and Toronto all have/had owners with capital to spend to overcome the inherent advantages to the big clubs, but are unable to do so because of the cap.

That is the restructure that is needed more than anything to shake up the competitiveness of the Sport. Release the shackles, within reason, and let clubs try their hand.

[Derwent Parker]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

No they shouldn't. Even Martyns proposal doesn't say that. Sky pay what they pay for Super League. The Championship and League 1 add absolutely no value. That is a sad fact.

Your posts are very contradictory, one minute you cry for equal funding the next you want to break away and say the part time rugby is so much better. You can't have it both ways.

In what sports do 2nd and 3rd tier leagues get equal funding to the elite level that the broadcaster pays for?

Did SKY say they only pay for SL??

I am not contradictory, i always say it should be equal funding.

I didn't say we want to break away - SL did actually break away a year or so ago its other way round - i know they come back but you can see they way its going

All you elitists claim every match outside the Top six is not good enough - so HS suggested and i agreed if the BIG 6 want all the CF and they claim they are the only quality games, and they are the only people that can generate TV income then they should break away properly - so we dont have to begging around looking for crumbs.

[Blind side johnny]

19 hours ago, Scubby said:

I went to a game Crown Flatt after the stand burnt down. How long ago was that?

Sept 13th 1988 was the date of the fire.

[Scubby]

3 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Did SKY say they only pay for SL??

I am not contradictory, i always say it should be equal funding.

I didn't say we want to break away - SL did actually break away a year or so ago its other way round - i know they come back but you can see they way its going

All you elitists claim every match outside the Top six is not good enough - so HS suggested and i agreed if the BIG 6 want all the CF and they claim they are the only quality games, and they are the only people that can generate TV income then they should break away properly - so we dont have to begging around looking for crumbs.

A fan like me wanting to watch Leigh v Wakefield or Workington and Crusaders and Sky wanting to pay tens of millions to show games they want to is not quite the same thing. Recognising the absolute need for the latter so we can carry on enjoying the former is not elitism. It is realism.

[Moove]

20 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

All 36 clubs have backers and revenue but they all dont get £1.8million from central funding 

Just to clarify the £1.8m you're referring to is not central funding. It's money from Sky Sports paid to SLE from the sale of their product.

SLE pay the RFL for services provided towards that (refereeing etc) plus a contribution towards funding lower divisions which the RFL and clubs choose how to split (equally in the case of L1, disproportionately in the case of the Championship which for some reason isn't a case of double standards).

There is no indication that anyone would purchase an alternative product involving all 36 teams all blended into some form of utopian equilibrium.

Ironically there are a lot of similarities between SL and Champ/L1 in that both have wasted numerous opportunities to increase the value of their own product to broadcasters over the years. Plenty of other sports have obtained valuable coverage of lower tiers in addition to the elite level. Despite the entertainment offered in the Champ/L1, for some reason we haven't been able to do that, nor does anyone appear to want to other than out of spite.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Martin, I've made this point, with BP time and time again.

He has never made one single suggestion as to how the game might develop and prosper, not one.

In his opinion, we are doomed not matter what we do, because the teams are based where they are.

I don't know what his motivation is for coming in here.

As far as I'm concerned his ''contribution'' is tantamount to trolling. 

I'm glad you mention this because I've actually thought previously that your reaction to Martyn's plan is completely at odds to your replies to @Big Picture.  Big Picture gets castigated for his big city league backed by billionaires’ vision but that is far more realistic than Martyn's plan. At least that would have some appeal to a backer/backers only funding teams in a dozen or so major cities as opposed to 36 teams, half of which play in places many haven't heard of and out of poor facilities. I know you see Big Picture's plan as being unrealistic, as do I without mysterious backers coming on board, but I genuinely find your difference in reaction interesting as to most they have the same fantasy basis. Neither are plans with a real how this can be achieved.

Even Martyn seems to acknowledge that this will initially be a dogs dinner and he is then relying on the likes of Private Equity forms and Venture Capitalists to improve teams and grow it. What happens if these failing clubs aren’t bought out or replaced? How will new venues targeted for growth be achieved? Who pays? What is the difference to all the other fantasy plans that have no backer? There is certainly no real difference to what @Big Picturesays.

Talk of failing clubs being replaced or bought out by potential investors in new venues targeted for growth is completely flawed. The whole premise starts off with half a league of failing clubs. The same kind of flaws that have held back Super League for two decades. If these mysterious backers don't come what happens to these failing clubs? Do we get no growth? Again there is no how or why people would flood in to invest money into this.

These PE and VC types are the same ones that only offered £60 million to buy into Super League. They are certainly not going to be somehow interested in giving enough for the likes of Swinton, Hunslet, Oldham et al to then fund 36 clubs. A VC could probably buy RL's bottom 18 clubs for £10 million and have change to spare, many have no assets and are worthless. Why would they even bother and not set up new clubs elsewhere, then you get more to Big Picture's thinking. Saying things like Americans love conferences is absolutely no more valid an argument than anything @Big Picture comes up with and his ideas about conferences. The lack of conferences didn’t stop people from investing in RU or wanting to set up the European Super League in Football. It’s a complete misnomer and conferences aren’t a magical answer.

As I say I find the difference in your thinking interesting because I think its evident that to the majority on here Martyn's plan is as flawed as anything Big Picture comes up and as crazy. Most importantly neither spells out on how this can be achieved, bar mysterious backers that don't exist. Big Picture's isn't a plan, but neither is Martyn's.

[Hela Wigmen]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Warrington, Leigh, Huddersfield, Hull, Catalans, and (once upon a time) Salford and Toronto all have/had owners with capital to spend to overcome the inherent advantages to the big clubs, but are unable to do so because of the cap.

That is the restructure that is needed more than anything to shake up the competitiveness of the Sport. Release the shackles, within reason, and let clubs try their hand.

Exactly this. 

Holding teams back is illogical and a bizarre stance to strangle clubs rather than growing clubs and subsequently, the sport. 

If Wakefield wanted to spend £1m on Cam Munster, I’m going to make a (more) conscious effort to watch Wakefield against Saints. Wakefield signing Liam Hood just makes me shrug my shoulders and is instantly forgettable. 

[Blind side johnny]

58 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Of course you don't need to justify it.

I was just inviting people to ''try the idea on for size'' like a new pair of shoes and tell me (and Martin) what it felt like.

Where it felt comfortable, where it was pinching a bit, and whether you wanted the brown ones or the black ones. 

Seems you don't want any of them and would rather stick with the threadbare, open toed sandals, we had last year?

Either that, or you've got your eye on something entirely different?

None of these.

I find it to be a fairly futile discussion that will have no impact whatsoever upon what actually happens. It reminds me of endless philosophising about "what should be done" in my very distant student days. If you enjoy a meandering discussion with little end point, then fine.

[Damien]

13 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Did SKY say they only pay for SL??

I am not contradictory, i always say it should be equal funding.

I didn't say we want to break away - SL did actually break away a year or so ago its other way round - i know they come back but you can see they way its going

All you elitists claim every match outside the Top six is not good enough - so HS suggested and i agreed if the BIG 6 want all the CF and they claim they are the only quality games, and they are the only people that can generate TV income then they should break away properly - so we dont have to begging around looking for crumbs.

With regards to the new TV deal Sky are only paying for Super League and Championship and League 1 clubs are free to source their own TV deal.

Again, in what sports do 2nd and 3rd tier leagues get equal funding to the elite level that the broadcaster pays for?

[Scubby]

13 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Sept 13th 1988 was the date of the fire.

Nearly 33 years ago - wow! We are all old beggars  

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, Scubby said:

It only starts at 6 clubs because if you set the bar properly they would be the only ones who wouldn't have to get their house in order straight away. That's why they get 8 years. They are 6/12 members not a cartel!

Hull KR would arguably qualify for a 4 year licence but Castleford and Wakefield only 2 for obvious reasons or maybe not at all. That is a target on their backs with a lot of clubs happy to knock them out if they don't improve.

Put it this way, if DB at Leigh and MK at Salford could have had their time again and plough resources into creating a proper infrastructure and bid that would guarantee them a 4 or 8 year licence in SL - where could those clubs be after that period of stability? It is the yo yo-ing that stifles clubs and keeps them where they are.

But I am suggesting to relieve that yo yo effect by means of being financially viable to compete by application with your 6/12ths initial licenced clubs, not being put in there on a 'provisional' shorter term licencing structure as you propose. 

As I stated rich folk like the exclusivity aspect and will pay for the privilege that is why you will find the waiting list for membership at the most expensive/exclusive golf clubs much longer than at more affordable one's, SL could be that Golf club in enticing those who can finance it, but not with the other 6 members hardly affording to stand their round at the bar!

[Harry Stottle]

26 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Warrington, Leigh, Huddersfield, Hull, Catalans, and (once upon a time) Salford and Toronto all have/had owners with capital to spend to overcome the inherent advantages to the big clubs, but are unable to do so because of the cap.

That is the restructure that is needed more than anything to shake up the competitiveness of the Sport. Release the shackles, within reason, and let clubs try their hand.

But don't you elaborate that the better-off clubs take delight in a lower cap?

[Scubby]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But I am suggesting to relieve that yo yo effect by means of being financially viable to compete by application with your 6/12ths initial licenced clubs, not being put in there on a 'provisional' shorter term licencing structure as you propose. 

As I stated rich folk like the exclusivity aspect and will pay for the privilege that is why you will find the waiting list for membership at the most expensive/exclusive golf clubs much longer than at more affordable one's, SL could be that Golf club in enticing those who can finance it, but not with the other 6 members hardly affording to stand their round at the bar!

I am saying that were Leigh able to put in a credible licence bid for 2023 or 2024 now - instead of trying to play against the odds (which they are obviously losing). On paper they are potentially as strong as Hull KR and could well achieve a 4 year licence. Leigh are currently one of the better 7-15 clubs - the problem is having to create short term fixes on the pitch.

Had they got a 4 year licence with a year's notice then they would be looking a signing some real quality players on 3 and 4 year contracts - not the dregs on a one year (get out clause option).

[Harry Stottle]

16 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Exactly this. 

Holding teams back is illogical and a bizarre stance to strangle clubs rather than growing clubs and subsequently, the sport. 

If Wakefield wanted to spend £1m on Cam Munster, I’m going to make a (more) conscious effort to watch Wakefield against Saints. Wakefield signing Liam Hood just makes me shrug my shoulders and is instantly forgettable. 

What I am suggesting is a way to perhap's entice individuals or groups of rich people to invest in Rugby League clubs,  I think all you wish for is to maintain Saints position at the very top of a sport where the financial standing is very low, you may have no desire for very wealthy to join the frame.

[Harry Stottle]

24 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

None of these.

I find it to be a fairly futile discussion that will have no impact whatsoever upon what actually happens. It reminds me of endless philosophising about "what should be done" in my very distant student days. If you enjoy a meandering discussion with little end point, then fine.

But that is the fun of joining a debating site such as this, it may be futile banter  but you can't resist in popping your head around the door.

[M j M]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Two huge turning points were the introduction of the salary cap and the RU going pro. Wigan went from spending over £3.2 million in wages (over £5.5 million in todays money) to £1.8 million in 2003 to comply with the new salary cap. Leeds were against it too.

Not sure what you mean but Leeds were neither against the salary cap nor up against it monetarily certainly in the Super League era.