Jump to content

Toulouse imploding


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Scubby said:

Collectively over the last five years TO, Fev and Leigh have probably spent in the region of £10-20m and currently have zero security. Toulouse have spent millions on flights for part-time clubs - what a waste.

Leigh have a wonderful owner who has spent a fortune going round and round in circles - he must have been quietly seething that only 2-3k bother turning up for his newly assembled team.

Imagine if he could continue to invest and actually offer solid NRL players 2-3 years security rather than half-baked break-claused contracts. If Fev get away from Leigh this season, some of those players are probably busy lining up contracts elsewhere as opposed to fighting hard trying to win promotion. Players look after themselves first.

Same with Jacks and Leulia at Rovers. The more they find out about the English game the more they will want to go somewhere where they have security.

So you are saying Leigh should be given a guaranteed 3 yr SL .' licence ' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 555
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you are saying Leigh should be given a guaranteed 3 yr SL .' licence ' ?

I'm not sure about licences, but no relegation this year, promote the top 2 in 2022 and give them a year's grace from relegation in 2023. At least that would allow all 3 clubs to offer 2-3 year contracts to players and give them a shot to climb the table.

Currently there are no clubs other than Leigh/Fev who are remotely near ready for promotion from the Championship. So a year out of P&R is going to benefit York, Newcastle, Bradford, Widnes as they build towards being ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're one of the only sports where a club endeavouring to better itself and the sport are actually held back by rules created on the fly by the very institution tasked with helping clubs and the sport better themselves....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dkw said:

3 years is a long enough time to build a squad capable of competing in SL, its also a long enough time to build contingency in case you do get relegated. 

You can't build a squad , even with 3 years your best will be picked off , so even then you'll be starting from scratch again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I'm not sure about licences, but no relegation this year, promote the top 2 in 2022 and give them a year's grace from relegation in 2023. At least that would allow all 3 clubs to offer 2-3 year contracts to players and give them a shot to climb the table.

Currently there are no clubs other than Leigh/Fev who are remotely near ready for promotion from the Championship. So a year out of P&R is going to benefit York, Newcastle, Bradford, Widnes as they build towards being ready.

So in 3 years you relegate how many ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Come on there’s currently very few owners with genuine ambition or the money to reach Superleague,hence the reason I suggested promoting the 2 obvious ones,of the rest you maybe have York/Newcastle who still need time to develop,having 4 yr license’s will allow them to develop in a competitive league without the s##t or bust merchants massively outspending them & also gives Superleague clubs notice that continued pish poor performance on & off the field will result in them being replaced.

So you're setting off field criteria ? , Like stadia and crowds ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

And weighting them how ? , How about location ? 

Never mentioned either.if a club doesn’t meet the criteria after 2,3  or 4 yrs and a club applying for a place does,they get replaced,it won’t happen but it’s better than the yo-yo rubbish we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don’t have the infrastructure as a sport to support promotion and relegation if we want to grow the game significantly. We need strategy and planning to grow, not onfield results dictating who earns a place in the elite level of the game here. It’s going to upset some but you’re never going to have everyone onside and those disagreeing only do so through selfishness that their club might not make the cut. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dkw said:

In my opinion there's an easy fix around this whole thing, base the league on cycles of 3 years, each team promoted gets 2 seasons free from relegation, then must fight openly on the 3rd. They can build during those 3 off seasons, promote youth and allow players to get up to speed with SL rugby, rather than filling their squad with journeymen and overly expensive imports to boost their chances of staying up from 1% to 5%.

I've always believed a three year cycle for promotion and relegation is the best option for Rugby League. We're a sport suffering geographic, demographic and structural problems that don't hit most other sports.

However, I'd tweak your suggestion so that in the third year it's not simply the top and bottom that are promoted and relegated. Rather, I'd make it cumulative over the three years. Yes, in theory a team could finish bottom twice then win the GF in year three. It's highly unlikely, but you could apply conditions such as if a club has reached either the GF or CC final they are secure. Then it's the next worst. As for promotion, if a club comes up from L1 in year one, then tops the Championship in 2 and 3 but amasses sufficient points for promotion, then so be it. 

I think this will give clubs the opportunity to develop their own.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Number 16 said:

I've always believed a three year cycle for promotion and relegation is the best option for Rugby League. We're a sport suffering geographic, demographic and structural problems that don't hit most other sports.

However, I'd tweak your suggestion so that in the third year it's not simply the top and bottom that are promoted and relegated. Rather, I'd make it cumulative over the three years. Yes, in theory a team could finish bottom twice then win the GF in year three. It's highly unlikely, but you could apply conditions such as if a club has reached either the GF or CC final they are secure. Then it's the next worst. As for promotion, if a club comes up from L1 in year one, then tops the Championship in 2 and 3 but amasses sufficient points for promotion, then so be it. 

I think this will give clubs the opportunity to develop their own.

 

Conversely, I’ve always thought three years isn’t long at all and I’m not sure why three was the magic number for licensing previously or why it should return to be that number.

In three years can clubs really see the fruit of their hard work when in comes to pathways and player development, can they really plan for the future with relegation hanging over them so quickly into a licence, can they overhaul a side in that time, is it long enough to measure what success is commercially, can it be deemed enough time for clubs to plan and to purchase assets, is it enough time for some to plan (with planning permission etc) and break ground for new facilities?

Why is three the number of years to be judging clubs? Why not four or five? Or even ten years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

We don’t have the infrastructure as a sport to support promotion and relegation if we want to grow the game significantly. We need strategy and planning to grow, not onfield results dictating who earns a place in the elite level of the game here. It’s going to upset some but you’re never going to have everyone onside and those disagreeing only do so through selfishness that their club might not make the cut. 

I'm generally in agreement with this. Suppose in an ideal world we would have P&R, but as you know we don't like in a perfect world. I've always been in favour of a license or franchise system. Teams can still get chucked out. 

Cymru Am Byth/New South Wales

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Did Swiss football do an average over 2 seasons for relegation a few years back? Or I might be making it up.

Either way I think that it is a halfway house between P and R and licences but probably takes the worst of each as opposed to the best.

I think Swiss football had the Super 8s system. I know in Argentina relegation was decided over a three year points average but I’m not sure that still happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

I think Swiss football had the Super 8s system. I know in Argentina relegation was decided over a three year points average but I’m not sure that still happens.

Thanks. Now you say it, it is Argentina I'm thinking of. I don't think it went down well if my obviously very blurry memory is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

I think Swiss football had the Super 8s system. I know in Argentina relegation was decided over a three year points average but I’m not sure that still happens.

Yes, a team had to be proven to be consistently struggling over a few seasons to be considered for relegation. Finishing bottom for one season didn't bring the axe to fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the highlights of the Toulouse v. Wigan game yesterday. Five and a half thousand in and the crowd roared each time Toulouse scored and I`m sure I recall them being cheering off at half-time. There is a team who could easily go to 8 - 10 000 crowds ( I`m deliberately being conservative) if they could start to match it regularly with the big sides.

And then of course you have that invaluable promotional tool of a neighbouring team that is already doing well and grabbing plenty of headlines, the potential for that derby to promote the game over there can`t be underestimated..

This is an opportunity not to be missed, if the Super League authorities allow that team to slip back to the Championship after one year they need their heads read, I`d put it up there with the NRL sacrificing Perth. A strategic blunder. What I witnessed on that highlights reel revealed there is a very real appetite for a Rugby League team in Toulouse, grab it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What to do? 

One: P & r as it is now.

Two: Ditch p & r for licencing.

Three: Have the top team from the Championship play the bottom of SL to decide if P & r takes place. Some years an up and down shuffle, others not. 

Four: Exemption from relegation for any new team into SL for a period or make an exception for a new French based side. 

I also think when it comes to Toulouse, is this part of a plan to strengthen the game in France or simply a commercial decision to include them? It seems a bit of both but shouldn't it be one or the other? To improve the game in France, Toulouse being relegated after one season is a backward step. If it's about each side earning a place in SL with on field performance, then helping the game in France isn't the priority.  

The fact that RL grapples with this sort of issue reflects the financial situation the game is in. Continuity of any format or structure is all but impossible.

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Never mentioned either.if a club doesn’t meet the criteria after 2,3  or 4 yrs and a club applying for a place does,they get replaced,it won’t happen but it’s better than the yo-yo rubbish we have now.

So again you're giving clubs 3/4 years , been there , done that , didn't work 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Number 16 said:

I've always believed a three year cycle for promotion and relegation is the best option for Rugby League. We're a sport suffering geographic, demographic and structural problems that don't hit most other sports.

However, I'd tweak your suggestion so that in the third year it's not simply the top and bottom that are promoted and relegated. Rather, I'd make it cumulative over the three years. Yes, in theory a team could finish bottom twice then win the GF in year three. It's highly unlikely, but you could apply conditions such as if a club has reached either the GF or CC final they are secure. Then it's the next worst. As for promotion, if a club comes up from L1 in year one, then tops the Championship in 2 and 3 but amasses sufficient points for promotion, then so be it. 

I think this will give clubs the opportunity to develop their own.

 

And clubs with no fans ? , Crappy stadiums ? , No academies ? , Location ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LlanWests said:

I'm generally in agreement with this. Suppose in an ideal world we would have P&R, but as you know we don't like in a perfect world. I've always been in favour of a license or franchise system. Teams can still get chucked out. 

So why didn't any last time ?

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.