Jump to content

League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts


5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sorry I'm still lost what FTF means!

Framing the Future

  • Thanks 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

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Framing the Future

Of course, cheers!

Framing the future does show how long the sport has been wrestling with these kind of issues with little progress really.

Edited by Damien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ackroman said:

You can't just oil the big cogs for many, many reasons.

Elite is elite by comparison to those who are not elite, used to be elite, aspire to be elite and maybe never will be elite.

Too many SL clubs are far from Elite. That is fact.

IMHO after listening to many, many podcasts in the last few weeks, I think there is a growing opinion that only the vision of the 90's (FTF) will work but to try and implement that when clubs in Non-Elite Super League can veto changes is nigh on impossible.

 

The teams calling themselves elite teams are only elite because of SKY money.

For example in an hypothetical situation - give all teams only 20k - but give West Wales 2 million every season [only used WW as example because currently bottom of tree]. In a few year who will be the elite??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/09/2021 at 09:13, steve oates said:

Well I wasn't too far off, but I suppose the original point still is that Championship clubs have in the past survived without the SKY money so if they don't get much of it in Superleague two they will still manage.

So we may be going 2x12 with the lions share of the money to Superleague One. The other possibility is something Lenegan has said many times i.e. promotion & relegation every two years?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard - so a team finished top possibly unbeaten one year and doesn't get promoted but the following year someone else can get promoted???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

That's the stupidest thing I've heard - so a team finished top possibly unbeaten one year and doesn't get promoted but the following year someone else can get promoted???

Yes that's why I don't agree with it and why I think its unworkable in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/09/2021 at 16:36, Damien said:

Of course, cheers!

Framing the future does show how long the sport has been wrestling with these kind of issues with little progress really.

Mostly with Wakefield and Castleford TBF 😄 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

That's the stupidest thing I've heard - so a team finished top possibly unbeaten one year and doesn't get promoted but the following year someone else can get promoted???

IIRC what Ian Lenegan suggested was that promoted teams were given a year's grace from relegation but that promotion would happen each year. So if the promoted team finish bottom in year 1 then the team one place above them would go down. He suggested it during the restructure discussions that ended with the 3 8s system being brought in. It was a suggested way of overcoming the issue that promoted clubs face when recruiting only after the season is done with no players left on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

IIRC what Ian Lenegan suggested was that promoted teams were given a year's grace from relegation but that promotion would happen each year. So if the promoted team finish bottom in year 1 then the team one place above them would go down. He suggested it during the restructure discussions that ended with the 3 8s system being brought in. It was a suggested way of overcoming the issue that promoted clubs face when recruiting only after the season is done with no players left on the market.

That'll work 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

The teams calling themselves elite teams are only elite because of SKY money.

For example in an hypothetical situation - give all teams only 20k - but give West Wales 2 million every season [only used WW as example because currently bottom of tree]. In a few year who will be the elite??

To answer your question, Leeds, Saints, Wigan and Warrington... Leeds alone turn over 8 figure sums and only dropped to just below 9 million with Covid.

Your point is valid for Wakefield, Salford, Castleford and Leigh. As clubs they are pretty much interchangeable with various Championship clubs like Halifax, Widnes, Fev, York, Bradford etc., though there are outliers at the top and bottom. Cas, Salford and Bradford have all appeared in Grand Finals and Cup Finals (the latter having won a fair few too). York, Salford, Leigh and Widnes all play in modern stadia (though they do not own their ground).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

To answer your question, Leeds, Saints, Wigan and Warrington... Leeds alone turn over 8 figure sums and only dropped to just below 9 million with Covid.

Your point is valid for Wakefield, Salford, Castleford and Leigh. As clubs they are pretty much interchangeable with various Championship clubs like Halifax, Widnes, Fev, York, Bradford etc., though there are outliers at the top and bottom. Cas, Salford and Bradford have all appeared in Grand Finals and Cup Finals (the latter having won a fair few too). York, Salford, Leigh and Widnes all play in modern stadia (though they do not own their ground).

I think sometimes we are too harsh on SL clubs. Many clubs have had a chance at SL and fallen by the wayside over the last 25 years including some of those you name. 

If it was just so easy to take the central funding and crack on, then surely the likea of Bradford who once had some of the highest crowds in British Rugby would never have hit hard times. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Framing the future has been mentioned a couple of times on here, does anybody have a link to the doc? I seem to recall it knocking about a few years back. 

The articles I could see referred to things like modernising, playing in summer, improving facilities, stopping overspend on players. The biggie that we haven't addressed is the tight geographical area RL is big in. 

What other things were in there? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

To answer your question, Leeds, Saints, Wigan and Warrington... Leeds alone turn over 8 figure sums and only dropped to just below 9 million with Covid.

Your point is valid for Wakefield, Salford, Castleford and Leigh. As clubs they are pretty much interchangeable with various Championship clubs like Halifax, Widnes, Fev, York, Bradford etc., though there are outliers at the top and bottom. Cas, Salford and Bradford have all appeared in Grand Finals and Cup Finals (the latter having won a fair few too). York, Salford, Leigh and Widnes all play in modern stadia (though they do not own their ground).

Well if they are that well off - why dont they "shoulder " the loss in revenue instead of making the poorest pay for it??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think sometimes we are too harsh on SL clubs. Many clubs have had a chance at SL and fallen by the wayside over the last 25 years including some of those you name. 

If it was just so easy to take the central funding and crack on, then surely the likea of Bradford who once had some of the highest crowds in British Rugby would never have hit hard times. 

I know what you are saying and I agree tbh. My point was rather that qualitatively there isn't as much of a difference between say Wakefield and Halifax or Salford and Widnes than there is between St Helens and Fev.

The major failing of the past 10/15 years is the failure to drag these sides up to making such comparisons impossible. Jeapordy has a lot to say about that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Well if they are that well off - why dont they "shoulder " the loss in revenue instead of making the poorest pay for it??

If you're good at something, never do it for free.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I know what you are saying and I agree tbh. My point was rather that qualitatively there isn't as much of a difference between say Wakefield and Halifax or Salford and Widnes than there is between St Helens and Fev.

The major failing of the past 10/15 years is the failure to drag these sides up to making such comparisons impossible. Jeapordy has a lot to say about that.

Yes I generally agree with that. But some clubs have done far better than others in this environment and I think at times it is too easy to group them all together, when they are not the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Framing the future has been mentioned a couple of times on here, does anybody have a link to the doc? I seem to recall it knocking about a few years back. 

The articles I could see referred to things like modernising, playing in summer, improving facilities, stopping overspend on players. The biggie that we haven't addressed is the tight geographical area RL is big in. 

What other things were in there? 

I have one somewhere , actual real paper 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

The teams calling themselves elite teams are only elite because of SKY money.

For example in an hypothetical situation - give all teams only 20k - but give West Wales 2 million every season [only used WW as example because currently bottom of tree]. In a few year who will be the elite??

Its the on and off field structures that makes them elite.

Its the talent a club produces/attracts.

You are right that money funds elitism but some of the recipients of Sky monies are far from elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fear is that any proposals wont improve the sport in the long run,those voting will always look to self interest, the top 5 or so dont want to lose that ranking and the rest want to keep their share to artificially keep them above those outside the super league ,nothing changes same teams playing each other over and over ,if super league wants to alienate the rest of the clubs it needs a radical change within itself 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I know what you are saying and I agree tbh. My point was rather that qualitatively there isn't as much of a difference between say Wakefield and Halifax or Salford and Widnes than there is between St Helens and Fev.

The major failing of the past 10/15 years is the failure to drag these sides up to making such comparisons impossible. Jeapordy has a lot to say about that.

You cant "DRAG CLUBS UP " to your level when you constantly get 1.8Miliion a year and they only get 75K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

You cant "DRAG CLUBS UP " to your level when you constantly get 1.8Miliion a year and they only get 75K

Read the post, it would make any debate far more rewarding. Drag up the bottom Super League clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you may know a guy called Malcolm Gladwell who runs a series of pod casts called Revisionist History.

One of the podcasts looked at how different sports should invest in players. For example in basketball you could spend all your budget on 1 player because that 1 player can have a massive effect on the outcome of a game - effectively scoring all the points or hogging possession, so you only need a few brick walls to defend your own basket and then when you get the ball, give it to the best player.

Similarly a sport like football does the same, investing massive sums on galacticos and then filling the team with also rans.

Putting aside market conditions, statistically it was proven that team sports like football needed to invest at the weakest point, not the maximum because essentially you can't get any more out of Ronaldo than he can give (for example), whereas putting in more investment in those players with high potential was more beneficial, simply because the parts of the field where the ball goes is much bigger and no one player can influence all the pitch.

In my opinion you could apply this to a sport (as Malcolm Gladwell did for Universities), whereby there are clubs (and institutions) that attract high investment (because that's cool or has kudos) but this has little effect on improving standards. So Harvard University can't make Harvard students improve any more than a few percent, whereas some low level University could improve it's standards by a much higher degree with the same, or even less investment.

So in conclusion what RL could do is accept it cannot squeeze much more performance from the top clubs because they are maximising exposure in their community and have a team/product(s) to deliver on that. Whereas there are clubs in areas of huge potential that could benefit from the 1 million quid or so the top clubs don't really need. 

Would the top clubs buy that? No, because they make decisions based on feelings not facts. Better to play some dog rag pretending to be an equal than actually play an equal. By investing in the potential areas of RL we can improve the lot of all the clubs because the competition is far stronger. In fact the top clubs would be far better off letting the wealth do the work this way rather than trying to oversell rivalries that have little traction outside their geography or simply selling just their own brand.

There's more I could add but the above is statistically proven and if it is not part of the discussion at board level in RL then they could at least listen to the podcasts. Far better than 5Live or God forbid, talksport.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

Some of you may know a guy called Malcolm Gladwell who runs a series of pod casts called Revisionist History.

One of the podcasts looked at how different sports should invest in players. For example in basketball you could spend all your budget on 1 player because that 1 player can have a massive effect on the outcome of a game - effectively scoring all the points or hogging possession, so you only need a few brick walls to defend your own basket and then when you get the ball, give it to the best player.

Similarly a sport like football does the same, investing massive sums on galacticos and then filling the team with also rans.

Putting aside market conditions, statistically it was proven that team sports like football needed to invest at the weakest point, not the maximum because essentially you can't get any more out of Ronaldo than he can give (for example), whereas putting in more investment in those players with high potential was more beneficial, simply because the parts of the field where the ball goes is much bigger and no one player can influence all the pitch.

In my opinion you could apply this to a sport (as Malcolm Gladwell did for Universities), whereby there are clubs (and institutions) that attract high investment (because that's cool or has kudos) but this has little effect on improving standards. So Harvard University can't make Harvard students improve any more than a few percent, whereas some low level University could improve it's standards by a much higher degree with the same, or even less investment.

So in conclusion what RL could do is accept it cannot squeeze much more performance from the top clubs because they are maximising exposure in their community and have a team/product(s) to deliver on that. Whereas there are clubs in areas of huge potential that could benefit from the 1 million quid or so the top clubs don't really need. 

Would the top clubs buy that? No, because they make decisions based on feelings not facts. Better to play some dog rag pretending to be an equal than actually play an equal. By investing in the potential areas of RL we can improve the lot of all the clubs because the competition is far stronger. In fact the top clubs would be far better off letting the wealth do the work this way rather than trying to oversell rivalries that have little traction outside their geography or simply selling just their own brand.

There's more I could add but the above is statistically proven and if it is not part of the discussion at board level in RL then they could at least listen to the podcasts. Far better than 5Live or God forbid, talksport.

Please, add more?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...