League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Methven Hornet]

2 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Not necessarily.  How many kids are we losing to Kick & Clap because the earning potential just isn't there in RL?

I know of 3 from my lad's age group that turned down RL academies for this very reason and are now lost to the game, playing a game they didn't have much interest in, but are making a living from.

More spent on salaries in order to survive in the top flight means even less spent on academies and development. Unless British rugby League clubs, against all recent evidence, begin to generate other sources of income.

And, when top clubs start to go bust, the top talent will start leaving anyway.

[Man of Kent]

10 minutes ago, Methven Hornet said:

The glaring problem with what you suggest is that clubs will be spending money they haven't got, or can't generate, in a desperate attempt just to stay in the top flight. As we have seen in Scottish football, and in British rugby league, this doesn't lead to an increase in quality in the medium to long term.

And where are the better players coming from if no action is taken on improving development? More spent on players' wages means less available for nurturing talent.

The players would come from clubs not in the 10-team SL1, obviously. The jam is spread more thickly.

By reducing the fixed supply of Super League places you incentivise clubs to increase productivity, i.e. gain more competition points, and invest more in players. That is what we - Sky - want.

If some clubs spend in an unsustainable way, tough titty. Another club will take their place. 

[Methven Hornet]

Invest from where? Where are clubs getting the extra money from? That issue is not being addressed, other than in vague desires to develop new competitions/international programmes that sponsors and broadcasters may want to put money into.

And would culling the two weakest clubs really concentrate the talent amongst the remaining clubs to any discernable degree? How many of the players of the two weakest clubs would have the remaining clubs scrambling to appoint?

And clubs going bust in a desperate attempt to escape the drop does not increase quality. It just promotes those smaller, weaker clubs who run a tight ship.

[Man of Kent]

3 minutes ago, Methven Hornet said:

Invest from where? Where are clubs getting the extra money from? That issue is not being addressed, other than in vague desires to develop new competitions/international programmes that sponsors and broadcasters may want to put money into.

If underspending clubs can't afford to stay in a 10-team comp, tough.

They will be relegated, release players and rebuild their squads in SL2 to have another crack later down the line.

[Tommygilf]

57 minutes ago, Griff said:

Sky should just cut to the chase. Tell us which ten clubs they'd like in $uperleague and tell us what they'd like the results to be. Bit like the wrestling.

They want an entertaining and relevant product that generates enough interest for lots of people to watch.

[Hela Wigmen]

53 minutes ago, tiffers said:

An Aglo-French Cup is not a bad shout actually...

Provides that platform for the French to develop. Offers a totally new product to RL fans (both sides of the channel) and potentially generates a bit of TV income. Good shout @wiganermike.
 

Wasn’t it poorly attended the last time that was attempted (which memory serves was in the last ten years and involved Fev)? 

Is there actually much call for it to return? 

[Damien]

Going to 10 is being done for all the wrong reasons, not because it is the best thing to do or is best for the competition in the long term. This is being driven by a reduced TV deal that will see clubs get less TV revenue.

Increasing the quality of the competition can only be done by increasing the salary cap and increasing standards across the board. Sharing Leigh and Wakefield players across 10 other teams, and lets face it how many will be wanted anyway, achieves nothing and does not improve quality. Its not just games involving the bottom two that are poor to watch either, plenty of the other games are too, lets not forget that. If Toulouse were in Super League and allowed to spend £3 million would quality increase? Of course it would. If Leigh were allowed to spend £3 million, if we believe what Leigh fans say about Beaumont backing them, would quality increase and would they be more competitive? Of course they would. The same happens if the top 6 genuinely have to start competing for players. If every club had academies and reserves producing home grown players would more players come through? Certainly.

However yet again real change will not and does not happen because at the heart of it is always protecting the status quo. 

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Going to 10 is being done for all the wrong reasons, not because it is the best thing to do or is best for the competition in the long term. This is being driven by a reduced TV deal that will see clubs get less TV revenue.

Increasing the quality of the competition can only be done by increasing the salary cap and increasing standards across the board. Sharing Leigh and Wakefield players across 10 other teams, and lets face it how many will be wanted anyway, achieves nothing and does not improve quality. Its not just games involving the bottom two that are poor to watch either, plenty of the other games are too, lets not forget that. If Toulouse were in Super League and allowed to spend £3 million would quality increase? Of course it would. If Leigh were allowed to spend £3 million, if we believe what Leigh fans say about Beaumont backing them, would quality increase and would they be more competitive? Of course they would. The same happens if the top 6 genuinely have to start competing for players. If every club had academies and reserves producing home grown players would more players come through? Certainly.

However yet again real change will not and does not happen because at the heart of it is always protecting the status quo. 

Wakefield and Leigh players won’t be picked up - that’s an increase in quality straight off the bat as some of the poorest players in the current competition are then moved on to a level more befitting their ability. That’s the exact reward you get from reducing the competition and combined with other facets - salary cap increases, minimum standards in pathway and academies, stadia etc, that’s where the competition standard increases. 

Going to fourteen, for example, does all of the opposite of that but gets rid of loop fixtures so some old fella stop whinging for all of two minutes. 

[Man of Kent]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

Going to 10 is being done for all the wrong reasons, not because it is the best thing to do or is best for the competition in the long term. This is being driven by a reduced TV deal that will see clubs get less TV revenue.

Increasing the quality of the competition can only be done by increasing the salary cap and increasing standards across the board. Sharing Leigh and Wakefield players across 10 other teams, and lets face it how many will be wanted anyway, achieves nothing and does not improve quality. Its not just games involving the bottom two that are poor to watch either, plenty of the other games are too, lets not forget that. If Toulouse were in Super League and allowed to spend £3 million would quality increase? Of course it would. If Leigh were allowed to spend £3 million, if we believe what Leigh fans say about Beaumont backing them, would quality increase and would they be more competitive? Of course they would. The same happens if the top 6 genuinely have to start competing for players. If every club had academies and reserves producing home grown players would more players come through? Certainly.

However yet again real change will not and does not happen because at the heart of it is always protecting the status quo. 

Clubs who don't have youth development will always be at a disadvantage in a salary-capped sport so the ones without it will be less competitive in the long run. 

The reality is we currently have about 10 clubs who could spend something approaching full cap - Leeds, Saints, Wire, Wigan, Catalans, Huddersfield, Hull, Hull KR, Castleford and Toulouse as they seem to have backing. Leigh might be able too if Derek has a good year selling sundecks.

Cutting the number of clubs to 10 would therefore better reflect 'market conditions' and correct the ‘undersupply’ of 'Super' clubs because to stay in Super League would require full cap (or near) spend.  

This would have the happy knock-on result of higher quality players and more intense games in Super League. It would also put upward pressure on the salary cap to reflect the increased demand for playing talent. It's supply and demand, essentially.

[Griff]

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They want an entertaining and relevant product that generates enough interest for lots of people to watch.

I made that comment tongue in cheek but it seems that I was closer to the truth than I imagined.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Wakefield and Leigh players won’t be picked up - that’s an increase in quality straight off the bat as some of the poorest players in the current competition are then moved on to a level more befitting their ability. That’s the exact reward you get from reducing the competition and combined with other facets - salary cap increases, minimum standards in pathway and academies, stadia etc, that’s where the competition standard increases. 

Going to fourteen, for example, does all of the opposite of that but gets rid of loop fixtures so some old fella stop whinging for all of two minutes. 

You can have that without reducing to 10. Its a lazy solution.

[Hela Wigmen]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

You can have that without reducing to 10. Its a lazy solution.

You can’t. We’ve shown it before. Moving up to 14 was disastrous last time, it would be exactly the same and would mean even smaller slices of an ever decreasing pie, so standards won’t be addressed and increases almost certainly won’t happen. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

You can’t. We’ve shown it before. Moving up to 14 was disastrous last time, it would be exactly the same and would mean even smaller slices of an ever decreasing pie, so standards won’t be addressed and increases almost certainly won’t happen. 

It wasn't disastrous and we had higher average crowds than we have now. What destroyed it was the self interest of clubs as usual.

[Damien]

Remember all that increase in quality going from 14 to 12? No me neither and the league is undoubtedly a worse standard now. There is a lot more to it than just making the pool smaller and thinking it concentrates talent more. It doesn't. Games between our big clubs aren't even the same these days and standards are far lower with fewer star names. Declining standards in every area has led to the situation the game is now in. It is actually deeply worrying if this is all the people running the game are coming up with. More of the same repackaged is just more managed decline and ever diminishing circles.

[Griff]

You could argue that there aren't enough different GF winners - three in the last 17 years and only four ever - but you could make that point about soccer too.

It'd be nice to know exactly what they mean by lack of quality but I suppose that's commercially sensitive information.

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Leigh getting a pasting most weeks is a situation entirely of Super Leagues own making. 10 or 12 clubs has nothing to do with that.

 

This exactly. Leigh would not have even topped the Championship this season with the team they had, I would have expected them to be on a par with the likes of Halifax and Bradford about now but to expect them to take that team to SL, then cut the funding they should have got, and then expect them to sign the scraps of players left and hope they could win a game or two was madness.

[ATLANTISMAN]

39 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Wasn’t it poorly attended the last time that was attempted (which memory serves was in the last ten years and involved Fev)? 

Is there actually much call for it to return? 

The crowds in France were quite good, in the UK appalling and sadly our teams treated it as a ###### up which is why the one in 1998 ended up with Lancashire Lynx in the final as they were the only English team that took it seriously.

Crowd at Toulouse FC around 9500 

 

Paul

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

This exactly. Leigh would not have even topped the Championship this season with the team they had, I would have expected them to be on a par with the likes of Halifax and Bradford about now but to expect them to take that team to SL, then cut the funding they should have got, and then expect them to sign the scraps of players left and hope they could win a game or two was madness.

The worst thing is that practically every fan on here saw this and pointed it out. Even Leigh fans saw it was a poisoned chalice. However those running the game, for whatever reason, chose to do it anyway.

[sweaty craiq]

Why are so many RL fans so blind? RL has been told by its broadcaster it’s no longer the product it once was, it’s boring. They have been told referee standards are diabolical and are impacting on the spectacle. Fans are disengaging with the sport and once electric atmospheres are now dead.

Clubs will be told to fill grounds for TV, get as much away support in as possible to ignite atmosphere and to maximise ST sales

Referees will be told they are not the reason fans pay to watch a game, reminded about consistency and if need be we will ship a new bunch in from Australia. Compare our current rosta of refs with 15 years ago, the Mikalauskis of the world shouldn’t be helping to deliver multi million pound contracts to the sport, you can see players don’t respect them and they in turn can’t control games evenly

We have a salary cap that allows teams to spend £5m and others £1.2

We have a lot of work to do close season but it essential we stop levelling out at the lowest point

 

 

[Man of Kent]

5 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

We have a salary cap that allows teams to spend £5m and others £1.2

We have a lot of work to do close season but it essential we stop levelling out at the lowest point.

True and that's because the reality is 12 clubs is too many for a 'Super' Super League, let alone 14.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Why are so many RL fans so blind? RL has been told by its broadcaster it’s no longer the product it once was, it’s boring. They have been told referee standards are diabolical and are impacting on the spectacle. Fans are disengaging with the sport and once electric atmospheres are now dead.

Clubs will be told to fill grounds for TV, get as much away support in as possible to ignite atmosphere and to maximise ST sales

Referees will be told they are not the reason fans pay to watch a game, reminded about consistency and if need be we will ship a new bunch in from Australia. Compare our current rosta of refs with 15 years ago, the Mikalauskis of the world shouldn’t be helping to deliver multi million pound contracts to the sport, you can see players don’t respect them and they in turn can’t control games evenly

We have a salary cap that allows teams to spend £5m and others £1.2

We have a lot of work to do close season but it essential we stop levelling out at the lowest point

 

 

Fans aren't blind. They've been saying about these issues for years, long before our administrators and club owners have now, very belatedly, been forced to take action. Based on what we have heard so far that action is completely inadequate and shows absolutely no appreciation of the issues the game faces.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Why are so many RL fans so blind? RL has been told by its broadcaster it’s no longer the product it once was, it’s boring. They have been told referee standards are diabolical and are impacting on the spectacle. Fans are disengaging with the sport and once electric atmospheres are now dead.

Clubs will be told to fill grounds for TV, get as much away support in as possible to ignite atmosphere and to maximise ST sales

Referees will be told they are not the reason fans pay to watch a game, reminded about consistency and if need be we will ship a new bunch in from Australia. Compare our current rosta of refs with 15 years ago, the Mikalauskis of the world shouldn’t be helping to deliver multi million pound contracts to the sport, you can see players don’t respect them and they in turn can’t control games evenly

We have a salary cap that allows teams to spend £5m and others £1.2

We have a lot of work to do close season but it essential we stop levelling out at the lowest point

 

 

Sport is run in an amateur fashion. The NRL gets a lot of stick but Melbourne are heading for the second final in a row and the NRL has put serious effort into growing the game in Victoria which is AFL country. They also put a PNG team into the Queensland Cup which is really helping them.

The RFL on the other hand took the opposite approach. The game might as well not exist in large parts of the country but everyone in Aus knows what the NRL is.

[Griff]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

The worst thing is that practically every fan on here saw this and pointed it out. Even Leigh fans saw it was a poisoned chalice. However those running the game, for whatever reason, chose to do it anyway.

There was no shortage of applicants to drink from the poisoned chalice.

[Moove]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

Fans aren't blind. They've been saying about these issues for years, long before our administrators and club owners have now, very belatedly, been forced to take action. Based on what we have heard so far that action is completely inadequate and shows absolutely no appreciation of the issues the game faces.

In fairness on the bit in bold, the RFL/SL press release does call out that they weren't just looking at structure. So far though RL journalists only appear to have focussed on the structure element so I'm still hopeful that there's going to be more to it this time. It's the hope that kills you I guess...

[Wakefield Ram]

Shrinking the professional game further is the symptom. The cause is the game is shrinking from grass roots, junior, amateur to international. Having the same teams play each other even more often isn't going to solve anything nor is having no international calendar.

The arguments on here sound like the same ones from 25 years ago when SL was set up.

The product on the pitch needs to be more attractive. 5 drives and a kick, head tackles, grappling players round the neck/head, players openly disrespecting officials, joke scrums, forward passes being ignored and worst of all, the continuous holding down at the pay the ball. We must the only sport where the play has got slower.

And the answer of getting 20 teams to play each other more often isn't going to solve anything except temporarily pacify some clubs over the drop in TV income.