Jump to content

‘A £100m offer could be made next month’


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 307
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Just seems like its dumbing things down

It would give a mechanism for expanding the game.

As I've mentioned on one of the other threads, after the regular and cross-conference rounds. 2 up 2 down. 

Playoffs would involve SL1 + top 2 SL2. A bye in round 1 for the top 4. Teams 5-12 highest v lowest knock-out. Round 2 continue highest v lowest knockout with 8 remaining teams. 

To get to the final the 12th team would have to beat 5th away, 1st away + probably 2nd away in consecutive weeks... not going to happen in RL, but what a story if it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

A great plan for continual contraction of the sport.

It's not my plan but if it is 2 x 10 then unless it's conferences there shouldn't be cross divisional games.

The top 20 clubs could be placed into groups in the CC along with the qualifiers from the previous round which could then allow inter divisional fixtures with qualification into the quarter finals.

Maybe the the CC could be filtered down to a remaining 6 qualifiers from SL 2 and below then add the 10 SL 1 cubs to give 4 groups of 4 with the top 2 qualifying for the quarters.

Sorry if this is a confusing post I just typed as I was thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  It would be pointless having 2x10 without fixtures against the other division.You would end up with SL 1 playing each other 3 times and the same with the other group SL2  or Championship+playing each other 3 times what would be the point of that?.One would hope that after 3 years competition the divisions would even  out more with players playing to a higher standard.Top team from each divisions League Champions.Then a top four play off each division 1st v4th 2nd v3rd  the two division play off winners meet to decide the Champions as the play off Final does at Old Trafford.Bottom team in each division play off and the loser has to play the highest team in the Championship to retain their place.Due to better funding they would probably win that 85% of the time.But if a new owner wanted promotion he could invest into a Championship side and if they prove stronger than the present SL team then the top tier will be better for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  It would be pointless having 2x10 without fixtures against the other division.You would end up with SL 1 playing each other 3 times and the same with the other group SL2  or Championship+playing each other 3 times what would be the point of that?

Because they are 2 different divisions. They are not 2 conferences in the same division.

And yes it is pointless, boring and repetitive and that's why many are against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Because they are 2 different divisions. They are not 2 conferences in the same division.

And yes it is pointless, boring and repetitive and that's why many are against it.

But if they were playing for the same potential prize at the start of the season then it would be the same competition whether the conferences were tiered or equal. 

Amateur teams enter the challenge cup but none of them are going to win it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

But if they were playing for the same potential prize at the start of the season then it would be the same competition whether the conferences were tiered or equal. 

Amateur teams enter the challenge cup but none of them are going to win it.

But they aren't.

Even if they were it's stupid and dumbing things down even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

But if they were playing for the same potential prize at the start of the season then it would be the same competition whether the conferences were tiered or equal. 

Amateur teams enter the challenge cup but none of them are going to win it.

   He dosn't get it the more teams we have playing to a higher standard the more the game will progress.But it may take three or four years before it becomes apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

But they aren't.

Even if they were it's stupid and dumbing things down even more.

 So you want 10 or 12 teams same old and sod the rest.The top teams may have to come down at first but at least they will be living within their means and not spending 90% of income on players wages.Good players will be spread out over more teams as it used to be before the Bosman rule which favoured players contracts and wages over the clubs financial stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

But they aren't.

Even if they were it's stupid and dumbing things down even more.

Not sure what you mean by dumbing down.

The top team would still be league leaders. The top 4 would get the advantage of a week off and a home draw against a lower team. 

As stated above, more teams playing to a higher standard promotes growth.

It's the only thing that worked from the midd58s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   He dosn't get it the more teams we have playing to a higher standard the more the game will progress.But it may take three or four years before it becomes apparent.

Nonsense. Just playing at a higher level achieves nothing if nothing else changes.

To have 20 competitive teams you need to give every team the same amount of funding. That is not happening. There will be huge differences in funding between SL1 and SL2, as there is now. SL2 is just going to be the Championship by a different name.

Even if it funding was the same there are huge differences between the top clubs in SL and clubs like Batley. There are huge differences as is in SL with all clubs getting equal funding.

20 clubs getting equal funding leads to a massive reduction in quality and a huge dumbing down of standards. Sky aren't paying for the 2nd tier and want an elite competition. It is madness to talk about propping up 20 full time professional clubs when the TV deal is being reduced and the 2nd tier provides nothing in TV income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

 So you want 10 or 12 teams same old and sod the rest.The top teams may have to come down at first but at least they will be living within their means and not spending 90% of income on players wages.Good players will be spread out over more teams as it used to be before the Bosman rule which favoured players contracts and wages over the clubs financial stability.

I didn't say that so don't put words in my mouth. I want a 14 team SL and growth. If we are to have P&R I actually wouldn't mind seeing 2 up and 2 down. I don't want contraction and loop fixtures which 2 x 10's is.

I can't say I find it surprising that Wakefield fans are arguing for an epic dumbing down of SL and the Championship to be propped up with games against SL sides when Wakefield would very likely be one of those most under threat with the introduction of 2 x 10s. It's the same dumbing down that clubs towards the bottom of SL have been fighting for, and getting away with, for 2 decades. Now, when their place in SL is under threat, they now want that dumbed down even further to Championship level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Nonsense. Just playing at a higher level achieves nothing if nothing else changes.

To have 20 competitive teams you need to give every team the same amount of funding. That is not happening. There will be huge differences in funding between SL1 and SL2, as there is now. SL2 is just going to be the Championship by a different name.

Even if it funding was the same there are huge differences between the top clubs in SL and clubs like Batley. There are huge differences as is in SL with all clubs getting equal funding.

20 clubs getting equal funding leads to a massive reduction in quality and a huge dumbing down of standards. Sky aren't paying for the 2nd tier and want an elite competition. It is madness to talk about propping up 20 full time professional clubs when the TV deal is being reduced and the 2nd tier provides nothing in TV income.

   Same players but spread out over more teams If they have to Grade players before each season A B C with a maximum contract for each.And grades spread over the entire 20 teams .a bit like NFL where the lower teams get the first pick of the best college players irespective of salary.Sticking with just 10 or 12 SL teams is the road to boredom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I didn't say that so don't put words in my mouth. I want a 14 team SL and growth. If we are to have P&R I actually wouldn't mind seeing 2 up and 2 down. I don't want contraction and loop fixtures which 2 x 10's is.

I can't say I find it surprising that Wakefield fans are arguing for an epic dumbing down of SL and the Championship to be propped up with games against SL sides when Wakefield would very likely be one of those most under threat with the introduction of 2 x 10s. It's the same dumbing down that clubs towards the bottom of SL have been fighting for, and getting away with, for 2 decades. Now, when their place in SL is under threat, they now want that dumbed down even further to Championship level.

Wakey won the right to be in SL by beating my team Fev in a play off.Since they have struggled but in every decisive match to keep in SL they have won.That is how our game should be results by performance on the field.I live in Sheffield support Fev and played all my schoolboy and amateur rugby in Wakefield i love the game but it has become too predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

I didn't say that so don't put words in my mouth. I want a 14 team SL and growth. If we are to have P&R I actually wouldn't mind seeing 2 up and 2 down. I don't want contraction and loop fixtures which 2 x 10's is.

I can't say I find it surprising that Wakefield fans are arguing for an epic dumbing down of SL and the Championship to be propped up with games against SL sides when Wakefield would very likely be one of those most under threat with the introduction of 2 x 10s. It's the same dumbing down that clubs towards the bottom of SL have been fighting for, and getting away with, for 2 decades. Now, when their place in SL is under threat, they now want that dumbed down even further to Championship level.

You seem to be limiting choices. 2x10 doesn't have to be endless loop fixtures. It isn't a choice between all equal funding or top 10 get most and SL2 get little. 

None of these solutions promote growth. 

Tiered conferences would allow graduated funding, with money awarded depending on finishing position and progress in the playoffs on top of a basic grant for all teams.

The top teams would still get similar to what they do now. It's up to the lower teams to generate more income to compete.

The issue, as ever, is funding it so that difference between top and bottom isn't too massive.

Personally, I would prefer 2x9 to reduce fixtures a bit.

It's cliff-edge relegation that is the real existential threat to 'teams like Wakefield' . In your 14 team status quo competition, how would the funding of top teams not reduce? It's already taken a big cut with 12 teams.

Also what makes you think 'teams like Wakefield' wouldn't be in your 14 team competition? They finished 10th this year and if just one of their narrow defeats was a win, they'd have finished 8th. 

At least we're agreed 2x10 separate leagues with 3x fixtures would be a disaster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 2x10 playing each other three times would be ridiculous, but think a messy 'super 8s' style integration would be equally so. What might work to create more games is a separate comp for the 20 teams. 4 pools of 5, QF, SF, final. This would create an extra tv product to sell, extra events, and extra home and away games against teams for the different level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ghost crayfish said:

I think 2x10 playing each other three times would be ridiculous, but think a messy 'super 8s' style integration would be equally so. What might work to create more games is a separate comp for the 20 teams. 4 pools of 5, QF, SF, final. This would create an extra tv product to sell, extra events, and extra home and away games against teams for the different level. 

How would the pools be split?

Is this for the playoffs or the whole season? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wholly Trinity said:

How would the pools be split?

Is this for the playoffs or the whole season? 

 

It'd be an extra cup. The other details can be ironed out by greater minds... just an idea for more games that aren't too meaningless or repetitive. Play it sometime in the season - whenever suits, I dunno. Pools would be a mix of the two divisions, either done at random or deliberately to maximise crowds (eg. Leeds and Bradford together). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

You seem to be limiting choices. 2x10 doesn't have to be endless loop fixtures. It isn't a choice between all equal funding or top 10 get most and SL2 get little. 

None of these solutions promote growth. 

Tiered conferences would allow graduated funding, with money awarded depending on finishing position and progress in the playoffs on top of a basic grant for all teams.

The top teams would still get similar to what they do now. It's up to the lower teams to generate more income to compete.

The issue, as ever, is funding it so that difference between top and bottom isn't too massive.

Personally, I would prefer 2x9 to reduce fixtures a bit.

It's cliff-edge relegation that is the real existential threat to 'teams like Wakefield' . In your 14 team status quo competition, how would the funding of top teams not reduce? It's already taken a big cut with 12 teams.

Also what makes you think 'teams like Wakefield' wouldn't be in your 14 team competition? They finished 10th this year and if just one of their narrow defeats was a win, they'd have finished 8th. 

At least we're agreed 2x10 separate leagues with 3x fixtures would be a disaster. 

This really makes no sense. It seems like loads of random sentences. 2x9s just beggars belief.

Please tell me how you would fund these 20 teams to not dumb down standards of the elite divison, not destroy SL and make it less attractive to broadcasters and fans but yet somehow keep the teams in the Championship, which is what the nonsensical SL2 really is, competitive. You've around £20 million to divvy up.

I also never said that Wakefield wouldn't be in a 14 team SL. Of course funding will reduce slightly compared to now but its growing the top flight and the pie and gets rid of loop fixtures. It is certainly better than fantasy nonsense of trying to split the funding 20 ways, which is what is needed for any sort of fantasy SL1 and SL2 cross competition nonsense to work. Even at that it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sentoffagain2 said:

Wakey won the right to be in SL by beating my team Fev in a play off.Since they have struggled but in every decisive match to keep in SL they have won.That is how our game should be results by performance on the field.I live in Sheffield support Fev and played all my schoolboy and amateur rugby in Wakefield i love the game but it has become too predictable.

So you'll be quite happy to forget about your SL1 and SL2 conference nonsense then because teams like Fev and the others in the Championship certainly haven't earned the right to play against SL1 teams. They have so far earned the right to be a Championship club.

Odd that you want things decided by performance on the field only when it suits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Damien said:

This really makes no sense. It seems like loads of random sentences. 2x9s just beggars belief.

Please tell me how you would fund these 20 teams to not dumb down standards of the elite divison, not destroy SL and make it less attractive to broadcasters and fans but yet somehow keep the teams in the Championship, which is what the nonsensical SL2 really is, competitive. You've around £20 million to divvy up.

I also never said that Wakefield wouldn't be in a 14 team SL. Of course funding will reduce slightly compared to now but its growing the top flight and the pie and gets rid of loop fixtures. It is certainly better than fantasy nonsense of trying to split the funding 20 ways, which is what is needed for any sort of fantasy SL1 and SL2 cross competition nonsense to work. Even at that it doesn't.

I'm not sure what it is you don't understand. 

Graduated funding?

The central payments are split into 3 chunks. 

1. An upfront blanket payment to all clubs.

2. A payment for finishing position in the regular season graded from 1st to 20th, the higher you finish the more you get

3. A final payment dependent on how many playoff games you win. 

Tiered conferences?

Top 10 teams in SL1, next 10 in SL2. Play your own conference home and away and one game against each team in the other conference, 5 home 5 away. Total 28 rounds with cross-conference games spread through the season.

2x9?

just means 18 teams split in two. Which just means an odd number of cross conference games each week instead of an even number. The regular fixtures for each club would reduce from 28 to 25 allowing more time for internationals etc.

81 cross conference games in 25 rounds (3 per week for 22 rounds and 5 per week for 3 rounds) instead of 100 in 28 rounds (2 per week for 6 rounds and 4 per week for 22 rounds)

A single division of 14 teams would continue the current problems of cliff-edge relegation with 4 to 6 teams every year focused on avoiding potentially terminal relegation. This threat is debilitating to growth.

It's been suggested that funding is already down £450k with 12 teams. 14 teams of equal funding would reduce the pie even further. (to £1.3M?) Is that not dumbing down?

I don't think the changes will happen in 2023 but will be brought in with a new TV deal in 2024. This can be renegotiated to reflect an increase in teams from 12 to 20 (or 18). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

I'm not sure what it is you don't understand. 

Graduated funding?

The central payments are split into 3 chunks. 

1. An upfront blanket payment to all clubs.

2. A payment for finishing position in the regular season graded from 1st to 20th, the higher you finish the more you get

3. A final payment dependent on how many playoff games you win. 

Tiered conferences?

Top 10 teams in SL1, next 10 in SL2. Play your own conference home and away and one game against each team in the other conference, 5 home 5 away. Total 28 rounds with cross-conference games spread through the season.

2x9?

just means 18 teams split in two. Which just means an odd number of cross conference games each week instead of an even number. The regular fixtures for each club would reduce from 28 to 25 allowing more time for internationals etc.

81 cross conference games in 25 rounds (3 per week for 22 rounds and 5 per week for 3 rounds) instead of 100 in 28 rounds (2 per week for 6 rounds and 4 per week for 22 rounds)

A single division of 14 teams would continue the current problems of cliff-edge relegation with 4 to 6 teams every year focused on avoiding potentially terminal relegation. This threat is debilitating to growth.

It's been suggested that funding is already down £450k with 12 teams. 14 teams of equal funding would reduce the pie even further. (to £1.3M?) Is that not dumbing down?

I don't think the changes will happen in 2023 but will be brought in with a new TV deal in 2024. This can be renegotiated to reflect an increase in teams from 12 to 20 (or 18). 

You seem awfully reluctant to give any answers to the questions I posed and any examples when it comes to the financials. This is because it is unworkable. You are just rehashing arguments that were discredited on the league restructure thread.

12 to 14 elite clubs is certainly more workable than trying to prop up 20 full time mediocre clubs and wasting vast amounts on a 2nd tier that generates absolutely no TV revenue. Anything below SL should be funded to a part time level only because it contributes nothing to the overall pot and only serves to divert money away from the top flight and the very thing that Sky pay handsomely for. As we have seen by making the top flight worse then the game overall suffers and there is less for everyone. A strong SL and the entire game benefits, as per the last TV deal.

If we are to have one huge division with 2 conferences then that should be the Championship and League 1 were all teams are funded equally on a part time basis. This obviously does not preclude clubs from being full time if they desire but they should not be funded to be so, as happens now with a select group of Championship clubs. There is certainly a far stronger argument to do that at that level and at that level of funding with a clear demarcation between the full time and part time professional game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

12 to 14 elite clubs is certainly more workable than trying to prop up 20 full time mediocre clubs and wasting vast amounts on a 2nd tier that generates absolutely no TV revenue. Anything below SL should be funded to a part time level only because it contributes nothing to the overall pot and only serves to divert money away from the top flight and the very thing that Sky pay handsomely for. As we have seen by making the top flight worse then the game overall suffers and there is less for everyone. A strong SL and the entire game benefits, as per the last TV deal.

I think the argument would be that the 2nd tier folds into the TV contract in the next negotiations rather than being sold separately and there'd be increased value there. If they're going to do this the funding for the 2nd tier in the short term would come from the title of the thread with the intention of growing the overall SL competition so the next TV deals (I think we should remember we are currently negotiating a second TV deal) are large enough to cover both divisions going forward. 

I've not formed a firm view on whether that's a smart thing to do but I think looking at it through the lens of we only have X amount so how can we pay for 20 clubs doesn't really come into it, it's sounds very likely there is going to be outside investment to get this plan off the ground. 

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I think the argument would be that the 2nd tier folds into the TV contract in the next negotiations rather than being sold separately and there'd be increased value there. If they're going to do this the funding for the 2nd tier in the short term would come from the title of the thread with the intention of growing the overall SL competition so the next TV deals (I think we should remember we are currently negotiating a second TV deal) are large enough to cover both divisions going forward. 

I've not formed a firm view on whether that's a smart thing to do but I think looking at it through the lens of we only have X amount so how can we pay for 20 clubs doesn't really come into it, it's sounds very likely there is going to be outside investment to get this plan off the ground. 

What plan? If you are being taken in by the fanciful notion that we are going to go from 12 elite clubs to 20 then £100 million isn't going to go very far. It would be a colossal waste of money of a vanity project.

If we do get outside investment, and I am far from convinced that is the right thing to do, then the last thing that outside investment will want to do is prop up 20 clubs and waste all of that outside investment on clubs that add nothing to the bottom line. They is no market for outside investment to grow by simply giving small heartland teams a load of money to blow in a few seasons to then still be playing in front of small crowds and small stadiums.

Going from a position where clubs have fought having a 14 team Super League due to money to them all of a sudden welcoming Batley, Dewsbury and co just isn't going to happen, nor should it. Even the NRL don't have 20 clubs with far more money, players and corporate sponsorship than the game in the UK can dream of.

Also Sky aren't interested in paying and showing any more Rugby League than they currently do. They will not pay for the Championship and have never shown any inclination to pay for more SL games than they currently do. If they aren't interested in paying more to show 4 or 5 SL games a week at the moment they sure aren't going to be interested in paying more to show more because we rebrand the Championship to SL2. We've been there and done that when it comes to propping up the Championship to fold into the TV contract and it contributed nothing and its value after is still nothing. Lets stop wasting money on that mythical unicorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I've said it before but how many times do we have to go round with people promoting their favoured Mickey Mouse formats and ridiculous systems.

1. The divisional system with a twelve team Super League is not the root of the game's problems.  Leave it alone.

2. People are fed up of constant change. It's a sign of drift and desperation. Another change, to a ludicrous ten team league with myriad loops or to some contrived system pitting part timers against full time pros will only reinforce that. It will make things worse not better.

Deal with the real issues the game faces, not just ones which seem easy to change. It's madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.