Jump to content

Two leagues of ten


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

I’m not sold on a fourteen team Super League and I think people will be bored with it within eighteen months, though people are whatever change we seem to make, and want to change it again. 

I don’t want to get all “every minute matters” but how do we have fourteen teams and keep it interesting for the most part for as many clubs as possible? We went with rewarding mediocrity and had eight team play-offs last time we had a fourteen team Super League and I never liked the idea of rewarding a team in the bottom half with an opportunity, however slim, to win the Grand Final.

You then have the promotion and relegation argument and whether you go ahead with that and if you do, how you implement it (one up, one down or one down and then second bottom plays in the Million Pound Game). 

14 is certainly more interesting to me than a 10 team league with teams playing each other 3 times or 12 teams and loop fixtures as we have now.

Only RL fans seem obsessed with needing to keep a league as interesting as possible for as many clubs as possible. It shows a real insecurity, just like many other complaints we here. We shouldn't have to use gimmicks and contrived fixture lists and formats just so that people want to attend RL games.

If people aren't attending due to poor quality games, poor fan experience, repetition, no stars etc (which are many of the complaints we hear of SL) then giving every team something to play for doesn't change that. If anything it just adds to the issues that some have whereby much of the season is just a procession towards the play offs.

I never hear this notion of every team needing something to play for in other sports. 14 teams and a top 5 play off with 2 up, 2 down and plenty of teams will have something to play for anyhow.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites


13 minutes ago, Damien said:

14 is certainly more interesting to me than a 10 team league with teams playing each other 3 times or 12 teams and loop fixtures as we have now.

Only RL fans seem obsessed with needing to keep a league as interesting as possible for as many clubs as possible. It shows a real insecurity, just like many other complaints we here. We shouldn't have to use gimmicks and contrived fixture lists and formats just so that people want to attend RL games.

If people aren't attending due to poor quality games, poor fan experience, repetition, no stars etc (which are many of the complaints we hear of SL) then giving every team something to play for doesn't change that. If anything it just adds to the issues that some have whereby much of the season is just a procession towards the play offs.

I never hear this notion of every team needing something to play for in other sports. 14 teams and a top 5 play off with 2 up, 2 down and plenty of teams will have something to play for anyhow.

It would, however, if we went with ten playing nineteen rounds or twelve playing twenty-three and more impetus on the Challenge Cup, maybe even with another competition or format and a proper international calendar, I’d be more interested in those, personally, than fourteen playing twenty-seven and just going as we are with everything else.

You’re right regarding RL fans but I guarantee it’s the argument used when people want change, as it was last time we had fourteen. It’s not as though we have qualification for anything, as in football where sixth or seventh is a metaphorical trophy and aspiration for an Everton or Aston Villa like in Football.

TV figures show people do watch and engage with the big games, so twenty-seven weekly rounds just feels a little like a waste of time when we could have more importance placed on the Challenge Cup or, more importantly for the sport, international games and series. I think with twenty-seven rounds, another three or four week play-off series and three or four Cup games (for the finalists), we’re continuing to do exactly as we are and expecting different results. I don’t think we get that necessarily with two more teams in Super League. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

It would, however, if we went with ten playing nineteen rounds or twelve playing twenty-three and more impetus on the Challenge Cup, maybe even with another competition or format and a proper international calendar, I’d be more interested in those, personally, than fourteen playing twenty-seven and just going as we are with everything else.

This just isn't going to happen and isn't what the 2 x 10 proposal was. The plan was playing each team 3 times. Clubs aren't going to play 10 regular season games less than now. Nor 6 less. 2 less is possible and is what they agreed to for next season with the World Cup.

Playing less SL games doesn't suddenly create more impetus for the Challenge Cup. I don't see why we would add more cups when the Challenge Cup is struggling as it is either. We should absolutely be looking to build the Challenge Cup back up but there are no easy answers there.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

This just isn't going to happen and isn't what the 2 x 10 proposal was. The plan was playing each team 3 times. Clubs aren't going to play 10 regular season games less than now. Nor 6 less. 2 less is possible and is what they agreed to for next season with the World Cup.

Playing less SL games doesn't suddenly create more impetus for the Challenge Cup. I don't see why we would add more cups when the Challenge Cup is struggling as it is either. We should absolutely be looking to build the Challenge Cup back up but there are no easy answers there.

Re-arranging deck chairs, then. Unless there’s proper evidential change, you might as well keep it as it is, as the proposed changes are going to provide the same results as what we already have now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

This just isn't going to happen and isn't what the 2 x 10 proposal was. The plan was playing each team 3 times. Clubs aren't going to play 10 regular season games less than now. Nor 6 less. 2 less is possible and is what they agreed to for next season with the World Cup.

Playing less SL games doesn't suddenly create more impetus for the Challenge Cup. I don't see why we would add more cups when the Challenge Cup is struggling as it is either. We should absolutely be looking to build the Challenge Cup back up but there are no easy answers there.

   2x10 would have meant teams playing each other home and away and then all teams in the other division once 5 matches at home 5 away giving 28 games .So no loop fixtures,over 3 or 4 years the aim would be for both divisions to be equal in player strength and performance.To achieve this the better players would not just be in 4 or 5 clubs but spread out over all 20.But it is quite obvious that 2x10's is a dead duck,an opportunity lost to expand the top tier.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   2x10 would have meant teams playing each other home and away and then all teams in the other division once 5 matches at home 5 away giving 28 games .So no loop fixtures,over 3 or 4 years the aim would be for both divisions to be equal in player strength and performance.To achieve this the better players would not just be in 4 or 5 clubs but spread out over all 20.But it is quite obvious that 2x10's is a dead duck,an opportunity lost to expand the top tier.

That wasn't the proposal. That was just the fantasy of a very small minority on here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess whatever league structure we can find holes in it...

I guess I don't want a 14 club SL if a good proportion are poor quality. This leading to top clubs able to field weaker teams as the goal is purely to make the play-off's which if you have  uneven playing strengths means that happens. 

Hated the 8 club play-offs which meant poor teams made play-offs and even in bottom portion of league.

If we had 10 strong teams and each game was of a vastly higher quality of most games nowadays then that would do me. Of course have to factor how the 10 clubs could compensate for less gate money. 

Maybe an investment of monies as in the so called Private Equity enables people to square the obvious holes with whatever league structure.

 

Edited by redjonn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I guess whatever league structure we can find holes in it...

I guess I don't want a 14 club SL if a good proportion are poor quality. This leading to top clubs able to field weaker teams as the goal is purely to make the play-off's which if you have  uneven playing strengths means that happens. 

Hated the 8 club play-offs which meant poor teams made play-offs and even in bottom portion of league.

If we had 10 strong teams and each game was of a vastly higher quality of most games nowadays then that would do me. Of course have to factor how the 10 clubs could compensate for less gate money. 

Maybe an investment of monies as in the so called Private Equity enables people to square the obvious holes with whatever league structure.

 

Would two clubs dramatically weaken the competition? Probably not. Of the three “worst” teams, historically, Halifax (2003), London (2014) and Leigh (2021); only the latter were newly promoted. The other two had financial issues which were factors in their demise. The issues I’d have remains as it does now, how can a newly promoted team compete for players when they’re only promoted in September and the sustainability of clubs going between full-time and part-time basis every year or two when they’re going between Super League and the Championship, if there is indeed promotion and relegation.

Ultimately, I don’t think the number of teams particularly matters to me, I think it’s the number of games played that matters more to me and is a bigger issue than the quantity of clubs. I think we need to be somewhere between 22-25 games in the regular season, with 2-3 international games (Combined Nations, France and/or a Home Nation) and then work out whether we need to dramatically change the Challenge Cup or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jughead said:

Would two clubs dramatically weaken the competition? Probably not. Of the three “worst” teams, historically, Halifax (2003), London (2014) and Leigh (2021); only the latter were newly promoted. The other two had financial issues which were factors in their demise. The issues I’d have remains as it does now, how can a newly promoted team compete for players when they’re only promoted in September and the sustainability of clubs going between full-time and part-time basis every year or two when they’re going between Super League and the Championship, if there is indeed promotion and relegation.

Ultimately, I don’t think the number of teams particularly matters to me, I think it’s the number of games played that matters more to me and is a bigger issue than the quantity of clubs. I think we need to be somewhere between 22-25 games in the regular season, with 2-3 international games (Combined Nations, France and/or a Home Nation) and then work out whether we need to dramatically change the Challenge Cup or not. 

Leigh were placed not promoted, simply because SL needed a team to meet its Sky obligations/Fixtures - so the team recruited for the championship had a few weeks to become a SL set up and recruit extra!

Moving on - people seem blind to what the goals of RL should be and how 10 +10 FT clubs ticks most boxes.

1. Generate sufficient income to build from within - done 2 ways via matchday incl sponsorship and TV income. TV income has fallen so we must reverse that within 2 years, that is unlikely to be done without change linked to vision for the TV companies to buy into eg they bought into the 8's. Clubs cannot afford to have 11 or 9 home gates, each lost gate will cost about £200k so £5m extra needed to do 12 clubs with 11 home gates, or £8m if 10 clubs and 9 home games no 3rd fixtures. Internationals will not generate that in the near future, an annual Autumn home series with Down under TV deal as well as UK would have a chance 4 teams and 12 games plus final but would mean the NRL falling in line with SL to make it happen - it wont so a reduced fixture list only is possible.

2. Expand FT player pool - SL clubs would probably have 11 GB players in the 17, so 132 FT players to select an Intl side from, surely in a few years having 220 min would be far better to win a WC or a series v Australia, at which point the game gets new opportunities to expand, and if we continue to grow our own that increases as the need for non feds decreases - plus it is a fair assumption that the non feds are not the lowest earners at clubs when all costs are taken into account

3.  Growth/Expansion - we have about 20 ambitious clubs incl France, that interest gets diluted over time and throwing a French club, or any,  into SL will be a hard gig in the first couple of years as we saw with Cats. Playing a Batley in Feb with 4'' of mud across the pitch is not attractive to fans, sponsors or TV - Widnes v Bradford in SL2 would be far more enticing of a fixture, 10 FT clubs playing each other in decent stadiums with the opportunity to be promoted retains interest and provides a platform for the next ambitious club to build towards -  wherever they are based

4. TV spectacle - Elite fixtures with bigger gates, relegation and promotion fights and story's will engage more people, will sell more subs and bring in more sponsorship/advertising income if done correctly

 

10 + 10 should not be the Championship renamed, it should be sold to the broadcaster with all its benefits to be gained at such a relatively low cost initially - whilst allowing clubs to find a competitive level they are comfortable at

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Damien said:

Only RL fans seem obsessed with needing to keep a league as interesting as possible for as many clubs as possible. It shows a real insecurity, just like many other complaints we here. We shouldn't have to use gimmicks and contrived fixture lists and formats just so that people want to attend RL games.

If people aren't attending due to poor quality games, poor fan experience, repetition, no stars etc (which are many of the complaints we hear of SL) then giving every team something to play for doesn't change that. If anything it just adds to the issues that some have whereby much of the season is just a procession towards the play offs.

I never hear this notion of every team needing something to play for in other sports. 14 teams and a top 5 play off with 2 up, 2 down and plenty of teams will have something to play for anyhow.

I agree . Even if you take a competition like the Premier League, for all but about five clubs, finishing anywhere between 6th and 17th is considered a successful season. That's the sum of the excitement for most of the clubs in there. 

I think the "you need something to play for" argument is an especially poor one when you consider how poorly the games that really do have something riding on it (cup and play-off games) are attended, because "tHeY aRn'T oN mY sEaSoN tIcKeT!". 

Our clubs are fine when it comes to selling year-long subscriptions to the same supporters year after year, but seem to be particularly poor at appealing to the more "casual" supporter and ticket buyer - the average bloke in the street looking for a way to amuse himself  and with a spare £25 burning a hole in his pocket. Making "every minute matter" doesn't really change the fact that clubs are poor at appealing to those sections of their communities. 

For me, the way to increase the quality of the competition is to have fewer games that are more intense, removing the number of "second chances" to pick up dropped points over the course of the season and to give an opportunity for the players to be better rested. You don't need some sort of contrived structure to achieve that. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Leigh were placed not promoted, simply because SL needed a team to meet its Sky obligations/Fixtures - so the team recruited for the championship had a few weeks to become a SL set up and recruit extra!

Moving on - people seem blind to what the goals of RL should be and how 10 +10 FT clubs ticks most boxes.

1. Generate sufficient income to build from within - done 2 ways via matchday incl sponsorship and TV income. TV income has fallen so we must reverse that within 2 years, that is unlikely to be done without change linked to vision for the TV companies to buy into eg they bought into the 8's. Clubs cannot afford to have 11 or 9 home gates, each lost gate will cost about £200k so £5m extra needed to do 12 clubs with 11 home gates, or £8m if 10 clubs and 9 home games no 3rd fixtures. Internationals will not generate that in the near future, an annual Autumn home series with Down under TV deal as well as UK would have a chance 4 teams and 12 games plus final but would mean the NRL falling in line with SL to make it happen - it wont so a reduced fixture list only is possible.

2. Expand FT player pool - SL clubs would probably have 11 GB players in the 17, so 132 FT players to select an Intl side from, surely in a few years having 220 min would be far better to win a WC or a series v Australia, at which point the game gets new opportunities to expand, and if we continue to grow our own that increases as the need for non feds decreases - plus it is a fair assumption that the non feds are not the lowest earners at clubs when all costs are taken into account

3.  Growth/Expansion - we have about 20 ambitious clubs incl France, that interest gets diluted over time and throwing a French club, or any,  into SL will be a hard gig in the first couple of years as we saw with Cats. Playing a Batley in Feb with 4'' of mud across the pitch is not attractive to fans, sponsors or TV - Widnes v Bradford in SL2 would be far more enticing of a fixture, 10 FT clubs playing each other in decent stadiums with the opportunity to be promoted retains interest and provides a platform for the next ambitious club to build towards -  wherever they are based

4. TV spectacle - Elite fixtures with bigger gates, relegation and promotion fights and story's will engage more people, will sell more subs and bring in more sponsorship/advertising income if done correctly

 

10 + 10 should not be the Championship renamed, it should be sold to the broadcaster with all its benefits to be gained at such a relatively low cost initially - whilst allowing clubs to find a competitive level they are comfortable at

It all sounds nice but where is the money coming from to add the extra full time teams and where are the players coming from? Id guess that most current part time players will not be willing to go full time because its not worth it so we suddenly need to find enough players good enough from an ever decreasing junior player pool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

It all sounds nice but where is the money coming from to add the extra full time teams and where are the players coming from? Id guess that most current part time players will not be willing to go full time because its not worth it so we suddenly need to find enough players good enough from an ever decreasing junior player pool.

Newcastle have the money.  The argument is that by increasing the spots teams with the potential to be successful enough to go full time could do so.

Leigh Newcastle York and maybe Widnes could all make it work atm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

It all sounds nice but where is the money coming from to add the extra full time teams and where are the players coming from? Id guess that most current part time players will not be willing to go full time because its not worth it so we suddenly need to find enough players good enough from an ever decreasing junior player pool.

tis one of the issue, the monies to sustain or enable.

I guess if PE does come in then part of the investment from the extra monies could be to achieve whatever approach for x2 of 10 to succeed.  Of course their may be other investments that provide better options for RL,  but if the monies to invest then two leagues of 10 is not a bad option as it may help to further stimulate more clubs able to sustain SL 1 presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Newcastle have the money.  The argument is that by increasing the spots teams with the potential to be successful enough to go full time could do so.

Leigh Newcastle York and maybe Widnes could all make it work atm. 

Even if they could afford to go full time without extra funding which I doubt York or Widnes could, where would the extra players come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, redjonn said:

tis one of the issue, the monies to sustain or enable.

I guess if PE does come in then part of the investment from the extra monies could be to achieve whatever approach for x2 of 10 to succeed.  Of course their may be other investments that provide better options for RL,  but if the monies to invest then two leagues of 10 is not a bad option as it may help to further stimulate more clubs able to sustain SL 1 presence.

I can't think of a worst way to waste the money. Then when it's all gone we are simply left with 20 propped up full time clubs and a 2nd tier that still can't fund itself as its not what any broadcaster is interested in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I can't think of a worst way to waste the money. Then when it's all gone we are simply left with 20 propped up full time clubs and a 2nd tier that still can't fund itself as its not what any broadcaster is interested in.

you may well be right and I did say their may be better things for RL to invest in...

Then again one assumes however we invested PE monies the goal is to grow the sport to sustain whatever we invest in - as in more full time clubs.   Of course if they don't build upon said investment it is wasted once the money dries up.

What you say applies to any area of investment... key of course is to strengthen the sport in key area's besides just say marketing.... although  marketing plus more strong clubs and a more entertaining and intensity games being a target. Otherwise we may end up with just have the same strong clubs spending more monies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Then again one assumes however we invested PE monies the goal is to grow the sport to sustain whatever we invest in - as in more full time clubs.   Of course if they don't build upon said investment it is wasted once the money dries up.

What you say applies to any area of investment... key of course is to strengthen the sport in key area's besides just say marketing.... although  marketing plus more strong clubs and a more entertaining and intensity games being a target. Otherwise we may end up with just have the same strong clubs spending more monies.

 

I completely disagree. The goal shouldn't be more full time clubs for the sake of it, which is what devotees of things like 2 x 10s and a full time 2nd tier wish to see. The goal should be to use any investment to create more grow the pie and create more big clubs and a more attractive, elite top flight that broadcasters will pay more to cover and which sponsors want to be a part of.

What I say also does not apply to any area of investment. Funding a 2nd tier completely unproportionate to any monies it brings in, or could hope to bring in, is completely different to investing and trying to make better the very thing that does bring in the money.

A strong Super League getting a big TV deal benefits all and the entire game is better off. As was the case in the last TV deal. Weakening it, making it less attractive and making the competition worse by pulling it down towards the 2nd tier only has a detrimental effect and broadcasters will pay less resulting in is less funding for the rest of the game. As will be the case in the next TV deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2021 at 13:35, sentoffagain2 said:

   2x10 would have meant teams playing each other home and away and then all teams in the other division once 5 matches at home 5 away giving 28 games .So no loop fixtures,over 3 or 4 years the aim would be for both divisions to be equal in player strength and performance.To achieve this the better players would not just be in 4 or 5 clubs but spread out over all 20.But it is quite obvious that 2x10's is a dead duck,an opportunity lost to expand the top tier.

Its only an 'opportunity lost' if its viable, which having 20 teams clearly isn't for multiple reasons already spelled out on this thread;

Where's the money coming from for 20 full time SL teams ?

Where are the players coming from for 20 competitive teams ? We don't even have enough good quality players for 12 competitive teams let alone 20 (maybe your suggesting the other 8 new teams be able to follow the Catalans model and just pack their team with non-homegrown players ?)

  • Like 1

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/12/2021 at 16:17, Eddie said:

Wakefield is considerably bigger than York, and a city, yet he’d boot Trinity out in favour of YCK to get more big cities involved. 

Well that's incorrect. York is considerably bigger than Wakefield. There's probably less than 100k living in Wakefield, whereas York has 200k+. The Wakefield area is bigger, but that includes other towns that aren't actually part of the Wakefield urban area. It's exactly the same with places like Doncaster and Leeds. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2021 at 13:35, sentoffagain2 said:

over 3 or 4 years the aim would be for both divisions to be equal in player strength and performance. To achieve this the better players would not just be in 4 or 5 clubs but spread out over all 20.

Without a salary floor, you're never going to get close to achieving this. If the smaller clubs can't afford the better players, then the better players either stay where they are (and have their earning potential damaged by the cap) or they leave to other competitions (making the competition weaker). 

We know that smaller clubs get poorer value from the salary cap. Because they can't offer the opportunities, the facilities and the standards that the better players receive and come to expect, they either can't attract better talent, or they have to pay more for it. No player in the current St Helens, Wigan, Warrington or Leeds first team is going to give up a realistic prospect of a Grand Final or CC Final opportunity and join Leigh without some serious financial incentive. 

Throwing money at a 2x10 system doesn't fix that - if anything, it entrenches the divide as we'll simply end up seeing more players who don't cut it at the top three academies to move down the league, or encouraging current P/T players to go F/T. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Without a salary floor, you're never going to get close to achieving this. If the smaller clubs can't afford the better players, then the better players either stay where they are (and have their earning potential damaged by the cap) or they leave to other competitions (making the competition weaker). 

We know that smaller clubs get poorer value from the salary cap. Because they can't offer the opportunities, the facilities and the standards that the better players receive and come to expect, they either can't attract better talent, or they have to pay more for it. No player in the current St Helens, Wigan, Warrington or Leeds first team is going to give up a realistic prospect of a Grand Final or CC Final opportunity and join Leigh without some serious financial incentive. 

Throwing money at a 2x10 system doesn't fix that - if anything, it entrenches the divide as we'll simply end up seeing more players who don't cut it at the top three academies to move down the league, or encouraging current P/T players to go F/T. 

It goes beyond the salary issue, the problems start at junior levels. There's a reason why Saints, Wigan & Leeds are the most successful SL teams, because they run the best academy set-ups in SL and arguable give the greatest opportunities to young players to progress and cement a place in their 1st team.

Before clubs start throwing money at their 1st team they should start sorting out their junior set-up's.

  • Like 2

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

It all sounds nice but where is the money coming from to add the extra full time teams and where are the players coming from? Id guess that most current part time players will not be willing to go full time because its not worth it so we suddenly need to find enough players good enough from an ever decreasing junior player pool.

Take a worst case ie what we have in 2022. 2 less in SL1 generates £3.6m, the next 8 will have about £1.4m. So clubs will get 500k to be in SL assuming French clubs still bring nothing in TV income which imo means they shouldnt get a full share as they do benefit from the local Mayor which UK clubs dont get, and I am asking for at least 1 other French club in the mix, hopefully 2.

Affordability will be driven by generated retained income, ie gates, sponsorship and Directors donations 4000 average gates at £20 a head generating £1m a season plus play offs and cups and friendlies, add in the 500k min from TV, 200k shirt and other sponsorship and a 25 man FT squad becomes very affordable before the ambitious clubs tip into savings of owners or interested Millionaires.

Lets get rid of the affordability lie as RL is cheap to enter by comparison.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

It goes beyond the salary issue, the problems start at junior levels. There's a reason why Saints, Wigan & Leeds are the most successful SL teams, because they run the best academy set-ups in SL and arguable give the greatest opportunities to young players to progress and cement a place in their 1st team.

Before clubs start throwing money at their 1st team they should start sorting out their junior set-up's.

Taylor Pemberton and Wingfield to name but 2 are great prospects from a town that was denied an Academy - should clubs work to designated post code areas to recruit from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

Academy?

Ideally yes but all it would do is water down the product with players that are not good enough to play at that level. Id be interested to find out what sort of percentage of players in academy systems in SL end up getting full time contracts in SL and also how many get part time contracts in the Championship.

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...