Jump to content

Promotion & Relegation/Licencing hybrid system


Recommended Posts

They do this in football in Argentina, and some other South American countries, the plan was to prevent any of the big 5 going down, but then River Plate did go down so they merged the top two divisions to keep them up. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I can see its merits but while we are trying to get more people onboard to follow the sport I think we need a simple and recognisable format.

It seems obvious but we need something that people can quickly look at and understand.

I also think it’s continuity in sport that breeds tradition and prestige rather than too much tinkering.

Thank you. It wouldn't change the day to day running of the sport, it's beauty is it doesn't restructure the leagues at all. It can be implemented next year without a fuss. It just judges form over 4 seasons instead of 1 and we promote/relegate teams from that evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Eddie said:

They do this in football in Argentina, and some other South American countries, the plan was to prevent any of the big 5 going down, but then River Plate did go down so they merged the top two divisions to keep them up. 

I didn't know that so maybe I'm reinventing the wheel. But in a sport such as RL in this country that needs mobility of teams with ambition while making those clubs more stable and sustainable it's the way to go for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting idea.

I was thinking about the clubs in Australia, who are ''bidding'' for a place in the NRL, and those clubs are really solid, well supported (numerically and financially) in the area they operate and on that basis their bid for NRL status is built on robust foundations.

The idea that someone like Derek Beaumont can fund a club for only one season and buy a place in SuperLeague is part of the problem over here.

It's the SuperLeague or bust approach which anchors us to the short term mentality which has been so harmful to the game.

In contrast, building the prestige, of becoming Championship (and League One) winners, while the clubs develop financial sustainability and slowly grow, to become worthy SuperLeague contenders is surely the way to go?

Our own supporters are so contemptuous of the Championship and League 1 we contribute to undermining a long term growth mentality. We should be congratulating and celebrating our Championship and League One, champions achievements with genuine pride. 

Steady, season upon season growth would build the whole game, from top to bottom. 

Edited by fighting irish
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

This is an interesting idea.

I was thinking about the clubs in Australia, who are ''bidding'' for a place in the NRL, and those clubs are really solid, well supported (numerically and financially) in the area they operate and on that basis their bid for NRL status is on built robust foundations.

The idea that someone like Derek Beaumont can fund a club for only one season and buy a place in SuperLeague is part of the problem over here.

It's the SuperLeague or bust approach which anchors us to the short term mentality which has been so harmful to the game.

In contrast, building the prestige, of becoming Championship (and League One) winners, while the clubs develop financial sustainability and slowly grow, to become worthy SuperLeague contenders is surely the way to go?

Our own supporters are so contemptuous of the Championship and League 1 we contribute to undermining a long term growth mentality. We should be congratulating and celebrating our Championship and League One, champions achievements with genuine pride. 

Steady, season upon season growth would build the whole game, from top to bottom. 

Fighting Irish totally gets it. Thank you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be competitive in the top division you need to have the basis of your squad in place, that means a salary spend circa £1.2-1.5m and playing at a strong level.

Championship funding will only allow you to get to that spend for 1 or 2 seasons max - and probably lose £700k pa min in doing so plus 70-80% of your games will be uncompetitive - that was the beauty of the middle 8's you knew who could make it and who wasnt up to it.

Two full time tens engage all ambitious clubs able to support FT structures, makes the move into SL1 or the drop to SL2 less daunting, creates a true elite, creates a highly watchable 2nd tier and the focus should be on growing it ie 2 x12 etc with a particular focus on French teams - it would be great to have 6 FT French clubs in a 2x12 FT structure that eventually accepts Serbian, Ukranian Greek Turkish teams etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, JAG said:

Thank you. It wouldn't change the day to day running of the sport, it's beauty is it doesn't restructure the leagues at all. It can be implemented next year without a fuss. It just judges form over 4 seasons instead of 1 and we promote/relegate teams from that evidence.

Sorry, I see some of it’s merit but I don’t support it though as a proposal.

I think we too often overlook the basics which is that in order to follow a support you need to be able look at a table and calculate pretty quickly what is happening.  Similarly a playoff system.

I believe as a sport we forget this as we import or concoct designs to create a Grand Final - and then endlessly tinker with them!  Constant change smacks of a lack of direction.

As I said before, continuity in sport is to me how you build tradition and prestige.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

To be competitive in the top division you need to have the basis of your squad in place, that means a salary spend circa £1.2-1.5m and playing at a strong level.

Championship funding will only allow you to get to that spend for 1 or 2 seasons max - and probably lose £700k pa min in doing so plus 70-80% of your games will be uncompetitive - that was the beauty of the middle 8's you knew who could make it and who wasnt up to it.

Two full time tens engage all ambitious clubs able to support FT structures, makes the move into SL1 or the drop to SL2 less daunting, creates a true elite, creates a highly watchable 2nd tier and the focus should be on growing it ie 2 x12 etc with a particular focus on French teams - it would be great to have 6 FT French clubs in a 2x12 FT structure that eventually accepts Serbian, Ukranian Greek Turkish teams etc

The beauty of the eights placed SL under pressure. Hence binned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sweaty craiq said:

To be competitive in the top division you need to have the basis of your squad in place, that means a salary spend circa £1.2-1.5m and playing at a strong level.

Championship funding will only allow you to get to that spend for 1 or 2 seasons max - and probably lose £700k pa min in doing so plus 70-80% of your games will be uncompetitive - that was the beauty of the middle 8's you knew who could make it and who wasnt up to it.

Two full time tens engage all ambitious clubs able to support FT structures, makes the move into SL1 or the drop to SL2 less daunting, creates a true elite, creates a highly watchable 2nd tier and the focus should be on growing it ie 2 x12 etc with a particular focus on French teams - it would be great to have 6 FT French clubs in a 2x12 FT structure that eventually accepts Serbian, Ukranian Greek Turkish teams etc

We can't at the minute just magic up an extra 8 full time teams. I hear this proposal of two tiers of ten a lot but that sounds to me just a rehash of a first and second division structure, it not much different to what we have now. Unless I'm mistaken. Could all 20 teams win Super League in that structure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tabby said:

The beauty of the eights placed SL under pressure. Hence binned.

It created the MPG which was too much of a financial shock to the team going down. Teams going up would have to concentrate on survival over actually flourishing. This hybrid system doesn't eliminate those things altogether but is fairer on everyone going up or down.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Sorry, I see some of it’s merit but I don’t support it though as a proposal.

I think we too often overlook the basics which is that in order to follow a support you need to be able look at a table and calculate pretty quickly what is happening.  Similarly a playoff system.

I believe as a sport we forget this as we import or concoct designs to create a Grand Final - and then endlessly tinker with them!  Constant change smacks of a lack of direction.

As I said before, continuity in sport is to me how you build tradition and prestige.

Again this wouldn't change anything to the way a Super League season is run currently. The only continuity we have at the moment is some teams in SL are only concerned with not finishing last and maintaining their SL status. Meanwhile Championship clubs given that same exposure and funding would flourish but they lose a final or play-off game and miss out. Or they get promoted only to come straight back down because the gulf between the leagues can't be bridged in one season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, JAG said:

It created the MPG which was too much of a financial shock to the team going down. Teams going up would have to concentrate on survival over actually flourishing. This hybrid system doesn't eliminate those things altogether but is fairer on everyone going up or down.

It created a pathway to SL. Nothing more. Championship clubs were paying over the odds to compete.Then the bubble was burst, and to close for SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fighting irish said:

This is an interesting idea.

I was thinking about the clubs in Australia, who are ''bidding'' for a place in the NRL, and those clubs are really solid, well supported (numerically and financially) in the area they operate and on that basis their bid for NRL status is on built robust foundations.

The idea that someone like Derek Beaumont can fund a club for only one season and buy a place in SuperLeague is part of the problem over here.

It's the SuperLeague or bust approach which anchors us to the short term mentality which has been so harmful to the game.

In contrast, building the prestige, of becoming Championship (and League One) winners, while the clubs develop financial sustainability and slowly grow, to become worthy SuperLeague contenders is surely the way to go?

Our own supporters are so contemptuous of the Championship and League 1 we contribute to undermining a long term growth mentality. We should be congratulating and celebrating our Championship and League One, champions achievements with genuine pride. 

Steady, season upon season growth would build the whole game, from top to bottom. 

 

2 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

To be competitive in the top division you need to have the basis of your squad in place, that means a salary spend circa £1.2-1.5m and playing at a strong level.

Championship funding will only allow you to get to that spend for 1 or 2 seasons max - and probably lose £700k pa min in doing so plus 70-80% of your games will be uncompetitive - that was the beauty of the middle 8's you knew who could make it and who wasnt up to it.

Two full time tens engage all ambitious clubs able to support FT structures, makes the move into SL1 or the drop to SL2 less daunting, creates a true elite, creates a highly watchable 2nd tier and the focus should be on growing it ie 2 x12 etc with a particular focus on French teams - it would be great to have 6 FT French clubs in a 2x12 FT structure that eventually accepts Serbian, Ukranian Greek Turkish teams etc

I've been wondering what you found so funny about the top-most post? I certainly wasn't trying to be funny, yet you found it very amusing (apparently), so would you care to elaborate?

In the meantime, I don't understand what you are trying to say in your first two paragraphs above.

Are you saying that a Championship club couldn't sustain a squad capable of competing at SuperLeague level for the 4 years duration of JAG's Era? Well if that's what you are implying, why would they need to?

The club's could settle into the competition with a 4 year plan to grow to a suitable standard, rather than gamble everything they have (DB style) in one sh*t or bust season.

What do you mean the ''beauty'' of the middle eights was that you knew who could make it and who wasn't up to it? Up to what? Do you really believe that qualifying through the middle eights was any guarantee (or even a strong indication) that the club could survive the next SuperLeague season? 

With regard to your last paragraph, what makes you think the move into SL1, or the drop to SL2 will be less daunting than it is now? You need to know the funding split, to have any confidence in that assumption.

Furthermore, usurping all the available cash and thereby sending some of the League One clubs into bankruptcy would/could undermine the games feeder system while alienating huge swathes of the games supporter base (and not just the supporters of the clubs abandoned).

I think, more than ever, we need a whole game solution.

Many former full blooded supporters (including many posters here) are disillusioned and have become disenchanted by previous self centred, short term, cut-throat decisions made by the faux-elite clubs in the not-to-distant past.

Allowing teams more time, to adjust to the rigours of a different level of competition is a sensible idea.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tabby said:

It created a pathway to SL. Nothing more. Championship clubs were paying over the odds to compete.Then the bubble was burst, and to close for SL.

This system creates a pathway to Super League and gives teams the opportunity to prepare a full blooded more stable approach to life in Super League or The Championship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, fighting irish said:

 

I've been wondering what you found so funny about the top-most post? I certainly wasn't trying to be funny, yet you found it very amusing (apparently), so would you care to elaborate?

In the meantime, I don't understand what you are trying to say in your first two paragraphs above.

Are you saying that a Championship club couldn't sustain a squad capable of competing at SuperLeague level for the 4 years duration of JAG's Era? Well if that's what you are implying, why would they need to?

The club's could settle into the competition with a 4 year plan to grow to a suitable standard, rather than gamble everything they have (DB style) in one sh*t or bust season.

What do you mean the ''beauty'' of the middle eights was that you knew who could make it and who wasn't up to it? Up to what? Do you really believe that qualifying through the middle eights was any guarantee (or even a strong indication) that the club could survive the next SuperLeague season?  2 clubs won promotion via the 8's and played a full season, Leigh were very competitive and should not have gone down (Inexperienced coach) and London won 10

With regard to your last paragraph, what makes you think the move into SL1, or the drop to SL2 will be less daunting than it is now? You need to know the funding split, to have any confidence in that assumption. - my caveat has always been 2 FT divisions, that assumes enough funding in SL2 to remain FT - 600k should do it

Furthermore, usurping all the available cash and thereby sending some of the League One clubs into bankruptcy would/could undermine the games feeder system while alienating huge swathes of the games supporter base (and not just the supporters of the clubs abandoned). - in 2012 the central funding for the Championship was 60k per season, it must have been less for tier3, so established clubs will find a way - there will be little pressure on contracts

I think, more than ever, we need a whole game solution. - we need a restructure to embrace all the ambitious clubs and a good look at how the amateur game and tier 3 are developed. Can you name any tier 3 RU teams?

Many former full blooded supporters (including many posters here) are disillusioned and have become disenchanted by previous self centred, short term, cut-throat decisions made by the faux-elite clubs in the not-to-distant past.

Allowing teams more time, to adjust to the rigours of a different level of competition is a sensible idea. - its called licencing and almost killed the lower leagues, two tens does this whilst keeping the door open for clubs to join when ready - minimum salary spends and FT must be prerequisites 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Not the worst suggestion I've seen , it focusses on long term 

It sounds nice in theory but in reality this way you end up with a load of teams that are playing for nothing for what could be a number of years rather than a number of months. From a Fax point of view at the moment we have a glimmer of hope that we could challenge for promotion and that hope will go on for at least 1 playoff game. The same can be said for the top 7 teams in the division. Under this proposal this year we have a bit to catch up on the top 2 and then a 4th or 5th place finish the following year and its unlikely we have a chance of promotion or relegation and I have little motivaation to watch my team for the next couple of years knowing nothing is at stake. I do however like the idea of protecting a promoted team to at least give them a fair chance.

With the sport being such a shambles at the moment for me the easiest thing to do would be keep everything as it is and just give any promoted team exemption from relegation for 1 season. Tough luck if some of the weaker SL teams don't like it but it would give forward thinking clubs the chance to progress which is impossible at the moment due to the lack of money in the sport and the make up of the current structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

It sounds nice in theory but in reality this way you end up with a load of teams that are playing for nothing for what could be a number of years rather than a number of months. From a Fax point of view at the moment we have a glimmer of hope that we could challenge for promotion and that hope will go on for at least 1 playoff game. The same can be said for the top 7 teams in the division. Under this proposal this year we have a bit to catch up on the top 2 and then a 4th or 5th place finish the following year and its unlikely we have a chance of promotion or relegation and I have little motivaation to watch my team for the next couple of years knowing nothing is at stake. I do however like the idea of protecting a promoted team to at least give them a fair chance.

With the sport being such a shambles at the moment for me the easiest thing to do would be keep everything as it is and just give any promoted team exemption from relegation for 1 season. Tough luck if some of the weaker SL teams don't like it but it would give forward thinking clubs the chance to progress which is impossible at the moment due to the lack of money in the sport and the make up of the current structures.

I think this very honest statement is all too typical but it makes me very sad indeed. 

We seem to have a sizeable proportion of our fanbase who feel this way and I'm wondering why and how we have come to this sad state of affairs?

What's the matter with shouting for your town team, come hell or high water?

Why is it only interesting or satisfying if you have a realistic chance of promotion at the end of this particular season?

I'm haunted by the idea that we are (somehow) guilty of engendering and encouraging this mentality amongst our supporters, (without even realising it). I think it's time to acknowledge just how damaging this attitude is (if widespread), to the clubs and the games income.

It's time that we started celebrating the simple pleasure, of watching this great game, well played.

Just because we are not in a promotion race (this year) ought not mar our enjoyment of this weekends game.

Why would you judge your club and it's players (extremely hard working, highly skilled professionals, all) as rubbish, just because their not table toppers?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

It sounds nice in theory but in reality this way you end up with a load of teams that are playing for nothing for what could be a number of years rather than a number of months. From a Fax point of view at the moment we have a glimmer of hope that we could challenge for promotion and that hope will go on for at least 1 playoff game. The same can be said for the top 7 teams in the division. Under this proposal this year we have a bit to catch up on the top 2 and then a 4th or 5th place finish the following year and its unlikely we have a chance of promotion or relegation and I have little motivaation to watch my team for the next couple of years knowing nothing is at stake. I do however like the idea of protecting a promoted team to at least give them a fair chance.

With the sport being such a shambles at the moment for me the easiest thing to do would be keep everything as it is and just give any promoted team exemption from relegation for 1 season. Tough luck if some of the weaker SL teams don't like it but it would give forward thinking clubs the chance to progress which is impossible at the moment due to the lack of money in the sport and the make up of the current structures.

Everyone would have something to play for that's the beauty of it.

If you have a bad year you can't write it off and give up but you're not totally out of the running. If you have a great year brilliant but you have to keep it up, you can't be fast tracked by impatient owners who just want a successful team but not a sustainable club.

Take Halifax for example. Halifax haven't really had a chance of promotion as for the last three/four seasons (Ignoring last year) becasue Toronto Wolfpack and Toulouse Olympique have been head and shoulders the best teams in The Championship besides the London Broncos upset in the MPG in 2018, which only resulted in London coming back down the very next season. Halifax have been very consistent in The Championship but always miss out becasue promotion is a fight to be the best team for one season. This system judges the best 4 teams over 4 years. A team could run away with the league one year but the other teams are playing to be the most consistent over 4, every game matters and counts to an overall league position. They have everything to play for even if the league is almost a forgone conclusion much like this season with Toulouse.

I'm a Bulls fan I've resigned myself the fact promotion this year is extremely remote as Toulouse and Featherstone are miles ahead of everyone else. If this system was in place I would be so much more invested in every single result as they are part of a much bigger better prize.

Giving newly promoted teams an exemption for the first year is a nice idea but then everyone in the Championship would be playing a dead rubber season as there would be no promotion, they'd only be interested in the year promotion is a possibility. Also over the same period of time, 4 years, only two teams could possibly get promoted so it makes getting into Super League even harder than it is now.

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

18 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

We seem to have a sizeable proportion of our fanbase who feel this way and I'm wondering why and how we have come to this sad state of affairs?

What's the matter with shouting for your town team, come hell or high water?

 

I think a very common answer will be money. Does the product offer value for money? Ticket prices have gone up but in my opinion standards on the pitch have slowly declined(I don't think skill levels have more just changes to the game but thats a different argument) and a lot of people can watch their local amateur team for a fraction of the price and the standard, especially for me locally, is not that far removed from the Championship. 

Also at amateur level theres more likely to be a bit of biff, I know its a minor thing but pretty much the total removal of any rough stuff will also be putting some people off. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JAG said:

Everyone would have something to play for that's the beauty of it.

If you have a bad year you can't write it off and give up but you're not totally out of the running. If you have a great year brilliant but you have to keep it up, you can't be fast tracked by impatient owners who just want a successful team but not a sustainable club.

Take Halifax for example. Halifax haven't really had a chance of promotion as for the last three/four seasons (Ignoring last year) becasue Toronto Wolfpack and Toulouse Olympique have been head and shoulders the best teams in The Championship besides the London Broncos upset in the MPG in 2018, which only resulted in London coming back down the very next season. Halifax have been very consistent in The Championship but always miss out becasue promotion is a fight to be the best team for one season. This system judges the best 4 teams over 4 years. A team could run away with the league one year but the other teams are playing to be the most consistent over 4, every game matters and counts to an overall league position. They have everything to play for even if the league is almost a forgone conclusion much like this season with Toulouse.

I'm a Bulls fan I've resigned myself the fact promotion this year is extremely remote as Toulouse and Featherstone are miles ahead of everyone else. If this system was in place I would be so much more invested in every single result as they are part of a much bigger better prize.

Giving newly promoted teams an exemption for the first year is a nice idea but then everyone in the Championship would be playing a dead rubber season as there would be no promotion, they'd only be interested in the year promotion is a possibility. Also over the same period of time, 4 years, only two teams could possibly get promoted so it makes getting into Super League even harder than it is now.

I should probably have added I would still have relegation but it would be the lowest ranked team excluding the promoted team. Its a really simple solution that does not require too much tinkering with the structure but it can never happen because of current SL teams running the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

I should probably have added I would still have relegation but it would be the lowest ranked team excluding the promoted team. Its a really simple solution that does not require too much tinkering with the structure but it can never happen because of current SL teams running the game.

Ah right okay. My reservation on that concept is the relegated team could get promoted again a season later and the bottom club of SL might be exempt than you take the next lowest places team who possibly never finished bottom ever, but they get relegated. For example Toulouse get promoted and are exempt, Leigh are relegated. Next season Toulouse finish bottom of SL, Leigh finish top of The Championship. Leigh get promoted but Toulouse stay up and Salford are relegated even though they didn't finish bottom in either season.

If you think that's a bit convoluted and paranoid way of seeing things a very similar thing happen to Bradford. We never finished at the bottom if SL the traditional relegation spot but got relegated becasue of a league restructure meanwhile clubs who had previously finished bottom in consecutive seasons and continued to do so after the restructure escaped relegation becasue it wasn't in place.

Too many clubs have short lived success and failure, I think a longer time frame to judge whether teams needs or deserve SL status is the way to go.

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

37 minutes ago, JAG said:

Too many clubs have short lived success and failure, I think a longer time frame to judge whether teams needs or deserve SL status is the way to go.

The more I think about it, the more I like it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JAG said:

 

Giving newly promoted teams an exemption for the first year is a nice idea but then everyone in the Championship would be playing a dead rubber season as there would be no promotion, they'd only be interested in the year promotion is a possibility. Also over the same period of time, 4 years, only two teams could possibly get promoted so it makes getting into Super League even harder than it is now.

Not quite.

This season would have seen Leigh (as the promoted side) spared from relegation and the 11th team (Salford) relegated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Not quite.

This season would have seen Leigh (as the promoted side) spared from relegation and the 11th team (Salford) relegated.

Leigh getting promoted to super league was a one-off licence for Toronto wolfpack being ejected from the league, not the same as a earned promotion.

But to use the system the Blues Ox proposed and follow it through, this would mean Hull KR would have been relegated last season, Leigh would have been promoted and exempt from relegation thus meaning Salford would be relegated this year.

I'm not advocating this system. Salford would be relegated this season even though they never finished bottom in either this or last season and played not better or worse than Wakefield Trinity have over the same period of time, but Salford would get relegated.

To me it's not satisfying that you would keep a worse performing team in a competition over a better one, even if that team was newly promoted. That's why the system I propose all teams have a long enough time frame to establish themselves and are not in danger of relegation for one bad season.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • JAG changed the title to Promotion & Relegation/Licencing hybrid system

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...