Promotion & Relegation/Licencing hybrid system

[Oxford]

6 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

I struggle to see how a sport that is concerned with expansion at the professional level can achieve this by abandoning 17 locations, apparently in one go.

If you go through the history of RL abandoning locations would seem to be their primary goal.

[David Dockhouse Host]

9 hours ago, Jughead said:

I’ll be completely honest, I think that’s fantasy land stuff. 

Are these a better alternative to loop fixtures? I’d confidently say no. From a credibility standpoint, I don’t know any sporting competition that pits elite teams against second tier clubs for points in their domestic season. It’s convoluted, it’s unnecessary and I don’t see what it does for anybody but seek to lose playing a few teams for a third time in a season. I’m not sure commercially it’s wanted, either. I can’t see this being received any better than loop games, if anything, probably far worse. 

If standards aren’t improved by cutting 37 down to 20, I’m not sure what the point of doing such a controversial action would be. 

The cut isn't due to standards, it's due to money

[David Dockhouse Host]

9 hours ago, Oxford said:

 

And there you have it the system brilliantly summed up.

The nature of why there's inequality in stark contrast to the theories that place all the blame, onus and responsibility on the lower clubs. You would imagine that the RFL's role would be to help but they ensure it continues by denying some clubs academies.

Many clubs don't want academies as they are a waste of money if you only get what the top clubs don't want 

It would be worth it if 14 year olds were recruited due to service area.

Salford, Halifax etc. Could put millions into the academy but if same top teams hoover the best 14 year olds it will do nothing. Or I should say very little for their investment 

[Toby Chopra]

3 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

The cut isn't due to standards, it's due to money

But teams 21-37 already hardly receiving any money, so it can't be that. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

9 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

So what is the problem then? Is it teams hording players(that is my suspicion given the hoovering up of any youngster that touches a rugby ball)? Or simply comes back to players dropping out of the game becuase there is not enough money to keep them in it?

Another question asked earlier was about how many part time players could be decent full time players if there was the money in the game. In my opinion there is likely 1/4 maybe up to 1/2 of the players playing part time in the championship could be at least as good, if not better, than the worst group of full time players. Again though I use Brandon Moore as an example of a part time player better than many full time players but no clubs willing to pay him upwards of 50k a year that would compete with his part time salary along with his day job.

Your right, many very good PT players. I talk from experience that many FT contracts for 18+ year olds is less money than a 40 unskilled job, so it's really the opportunity your buying into. Some will progress and some won't. 

No easy solution but I believe evening out talent at youth level will help.

Pro/Releg doesn't help as it creates risk, teams then overpay proven players on short term contracts at the expense of youth.

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

But teams 21-37 already hardly receiving any money, so it can't be that. 

Only this year it's been dropped to a very low level. It's barely nothing now and there's a will to create a two tier 10 league SL system and the others will have to fend for themselves.

Some good players in L1

[The Blues Ox]

9 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

No easy solution but I believe evening out talent at youth level will help.

 

The good thing about doing that would be over time it would create a much better and more exciting competition with the hope that more teams would actually have a chance of winning the competition. The sad fact though is that the very teams who at the moment have a realistic chance of winning the competition will be the very ones who would not allow such a thing to happen.

[Jughead]

I’ve always thought it was parochial, small time and very Rugby League that people want kids to play for teams based upon birthplace and/or geographical location. I find it a race to the bottom scenario that surrounds the sport already. 

Ripping up the current system to enforce a system on clubs with little central funding with inadequate facilities and coaching for youth development seems like a recipe for stunting the growth of players and disillusionment, to me. 

[Toby Chopra]

10 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Only this year it's been dropped to a very low level. It's barely nothing now and there's a will to create a two tier 10 league SL system and the others will have to fend for themselves.

Some good players in L1

I hope not. 

There's absolutely no value in shutting the door to teams 21-37 - it doesn't save any money, it doesn't encourage investment, it doesn't improve the image of Superleague. 

There are pros and cons to a closed shop top tier - we debate them endlessly on here - but a closed shop top two tiers arbitrarily set at 20 is pointless. 

[steve oates]

21 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

But surely the sport can maintain 14 full time teams? 

In what exact form? Everyone play each other twice and bottom club goes down to be replaced?? Everyone get one fourteenth of the reducing SKY money each?? This is all very neat and tidy and fair and inclusive

But we are a made for TV game now, SKY want big club clashes, not small club disasters, and they want some level of quality play. Putting more teams in the Superleague means paying a lot more players full time money when SKY money is reducing.   

But just who will the SKY TV Audience want to watch?  Will Featherstone.v.Toulouse, or Salford.v.Wakefield pull a bigger TV audience for SKY than a third derby between Saints and Wigan or a third game between Leeds and Warrington? A third Hull Derby??

What do we do as regards the Salary cap? With less TV money guaranteed, and 14 clubs to fund  do we ask clubs to take a second financial hit and drop players wages 14 ways? All clubs have to run academies do we open more at a cost for no return from a shrinking junior game? Each year what is it? one academy kid makes it out of each 100 playing?

It's looking like 2x10 and that's that, that's where the SKY money goes, to the the 10 who provide the entertainment, and under that 10 clubs fight for the right to replace "the bottom club"..........

Like it or not that's the cold hard right decision to maintain a TV contract. Are we a sport or are we a made for TV game? We have to be both and we have to go with what financially works.

[The Blues Ox]

16 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I’ve always thought it was parochial, small time and very Rugby League that people want kids to play for teams based upon birthplace and/or geographical location. I find it a race to the bottom scenario that surrounds the sport already. 

Ripping up the current system to enforce a system on clubs with little central funding with inadequate facilities and coaching for youth development seems like a recipe for stunting the growth of players and disillusionment, to me. 

As opposed to the current system that has us talking about dropping to 10 teams in the top tier and where only a select few teams win everything year over year?

[Damien]

10 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

The cut isn't due to standards, it's due to money

We went from 14 to 12 and standards still fell. To think standards increase by cutting teams is pie in the sky stuff.

As you rightly say this is money, pure and simple. Just as going from 14 to 12 was money.

[gingerjon]

35 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

As opposed to the current system that has us talking about dropping to 10 teams in the top tier and where only a select few teams win everything year over year?

Setting up an even worse system isn't an improvement.

[Jughead]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

As opposed to the current system that has us talking about dropping to 10 teams in the top tier and where only a select few teams win everything year over year?

Which is financially motivated rather than standards driven, so not really a comparison to ripping an academy set up to pieces to replace it with something that sees kids forced to play for clubs based upon their geographical location or birthplace. 

[Scubby]

Any system has to start with a simple question such as how do we create a competition where the strongest clubs with the most potential can thrive to be the best they can be? 

This is a design task not retro fit.

[Jughead]

59 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I know we are made for tv thanks which is why loop fixtures dont work.  Plus far from being inclusive reducing tv money of teams who cant generate their own rev will be weeded out for the new teams that can. 

2 tens does nothing to provide entertainment nor is it actually a ruthless effective decision.  It is once again to protect the worst SL teams who can keep spounging cash of a tv deal they have done little to deserve whilst reducing the chances of emerging clubs to show their potential. 

Two tens isnt franchising nor is it growth.  Its the worst of all worlds.

Surely loop fixtures are made for TV, even a third game of Hull v KR or Saints v Wigan is going to rank quite well, comparatively, on TV, even if it’s not exactly well received by fans of the sport? I don’t know if this is true but I think our ratings remain pretty good for loop games. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

12 hours ago, Damien said:

We went from 14 to 12 and standards still fell. To think standards increase by cutting teams is pie in the sky stuff.

As you rightly say this is money, pure and simple. Just as going from 14 to 12 was money.

Fully agree. If you want more players you increase opportunities not decrease them, it's flawed logic 

[Oxford]

On 13/06/2022 at 22:35, David Dockhouse Host said:

Many clubs don't want academies as they are a waste of money if you only get what the top clubs don't want 

It would be worth it if 14 year olds were recruited due to service area.

Salford, Halifax etc. Could put millions into the academy but if same top teams hoover the best 14 year olds it will do nothing. Or I should say very little for their investment 

Yes Dave and until you put a system in place that prevents that from being the case it will stay that way, but at the moment you get the RFL saying Salford can't have one and then see three or four local youngsters going to the Wolves.

There should never be a case where the academy is not a worthwhile investment and it should never be the case that clubs are prevented from having one if they want one.

Unless one of your criteria for inclusion in the top flight will be "Must have an academy team" then it's a brilliant pretext.

[Oxford]

On 14/06/2022 at 08:59, steve oates said:

Each year what is it? one academy kid makes it out of each 100 playing?

If this is the case then that's what we should be discussing not the salary cap, not franchising or even IMG but why there's such a poor return on this investment.

And also if it's true why are teams like Saints among others always being credited and lauded for there wonderful production lines?

It wouldn be as well to ask is it the pool of players, is it that the players chosen were not the right ones, or the attraction of other sports or simply some very poor quality coaching, that means we have so few players making the grade?

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

If this is the case then that's what we should be discussing not the salary cap, not franchising or even IMG but why there's such a poor return on this investment.

And also if it's true why are teams like Saints among others always being credited and lauded for there wonderful production lines?

It wouldn be as well to ask is it the pool of players, is it that the players chosen were not the right ones, or the attraction of other sports or simply some very poor quality coaching, that means we have so few players making the grade?

What is "making it" too?

[Mumby Magic]

With regards to loop fixtures am I right in saying that attendances drop off when it comes to playing them?

[Oxford]

33 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

What is "making it" too?

I don't understand what you're asking, Tommy.

[Jughead]

31 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

With regards to loop fixtures am I right in saying that attendances drop off when it comes to playing them?

I don’t know about across the board but I do know Saints’ second home game against Wigan in 2019 saw an increased attendance whereas London’s second home game against Saints in the same year saw drop of around 800. 

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I don't understand what you're asking, Tommy.

The post you replied to suggested 1 in 100 players "make it". Putting aside those numbers as I believe they are way out, what does "making it" actually mean?

For example, Luke Gale didn't "make it" at Leeds Rhinos (initially), but has played for England, won a Challenge Cup and played in a Grand Final too. 

Plenty of players go on to have fulfilling careers at clubs other than the academy they came through, in Super League and the Lower Leagues. 

[sweaty craiq]

14 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Fully agree. If you want more players you increase opportunities not decrease them, it's flawed logic 

Thats exactly what a 2 x10 does - caveats being FT, min salary spend and Academies