Jump to content

Toulouse imploding


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

So the acceptance that TO are cannon fodder is OK other than another club being cannon fodder.

FWIW, in no way am I against any team whoever they are and wherever the come from being in SL, but I will say in a competitive league structure where P&R is employed firstly they need to prove their worth by winning the right to be there, and secondly by gaining enough points over the season to stay there.

How does allowing a part time club into a professional comp grow the game and even make business sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 minutes ago, Omott91 said:

How does allowing a part time club into a professional comp grow the game and even make business sense?

It doesn’t,currently you have Fev & Leigh if given time could develop into a solid mid table team,the rest of the Championship are nowhere near so either promote those 2 now & have a 14 team Superleague for the next 4/5 years under licensing with strict,enforceable guidelines or sacrifice them,stick to 12 & do it now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

It doesn’t,currently you have Fev & Leigh if given time could develop into a solid mid table team,the rest of the Championship are nowhere near so either promote those 2 now & have a 14 team Superleague for the next 4/5 years under licensing with strict,enforceable guidelines or sacrifice them,stick to 12 & do it now.

It's not even sacrificing them Davo it is pushing them back into oblivion. Once TO/Fev/Leigh have rotated around on yo yo for 2-3 years - all three will be fundamentally weaker and probably 1-2 of them will hit financial trouble and will go into administration (or just melt into a part-time also ran).

There's a reason the house always wins at the casino.

Edited by Scubby
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems a lot people were very supportive of Toulouse until they had the cheek to actually get promoted.

It must be so gutting for those hundreds of Wigan fans enjoying a week's holiday in the South of France while watching their club play two competitive games against French SL clubs. Is there a helpline available for them?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Scubby said:

It's not even sacrificing them Davo it is pushing them back into oblivion. Once TO/Fev/Leigh have rotated around on yo yo for 2-3 years - all three will be fundamentally weaker and probably 1-2 of them will hit financial trouble and will go into administration (or just melt into a part-time also ran).

There's a reason the house always wins at the casino.

Bang on, we have a couple of clubs chasing the dream, which in reality is an impossible to achieve one due to the set up and timings. Whoever gets promoted is immediately handicapped and going into the SL season behind every other club, both financially and timing wise. The best they can do is to pick up a couple of the decent players from the relegated club, and some expensive imports, maybe a gem or 2 from the championship. But the chances of them staying up is infinitesimal, its like promoting someone into Formula 1 racing and giving him a ford focus to race against the F1 cars, and in Toulouse's case he also has to pay for the other cars fuel. Its ridiculous and short sighted, which sums up RL and many of the fans. The sad thing is many of the players (especially the younger ones) in the promoted teams given time could flourish, but they and their clubs arent afforded that time. Its sink or swim.

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%.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davo5 said:

It doesn’t,currently you have Fev & Leigh if given time could develop into a solid mid table team,the rest of the Championship are nowhere near so either promote those 2 now & have a 14 team Superleague for the next 4/5 years under licensing with strict,enforceable guidelines or sacrifice them,stick to 12 & do it now.

I think there is more chance of Putin running bare bholloked with a bullseye on his back through the streets of Kyiv than SL clubs voting for a further reduced funding following on from the lower value TV contract by inviting in two more teams and sharing the pot out further.

Also if they take away the ambition of the reward of promotion from the Championship, I consider lots of fans and a few owners would walk away from the game, so your choice of word 'sacrifice' I think will be telling for more than just a couple of clubs, even saying that along with Toulouse removing Fev and Leigh for 4/5 years will decimate the division, I also doubt it will do any good in this expanded SL if there is no relegation to keep interest going after half the season is reached for a number of teams, when results will mean diddly squat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Toulouse is imploding, it is on the way to becoming SuperLeague's first  Supernova! Wow! That's great!

"Once a star's core surpasses a certain mass (called the Chandrasekhar limit), it begins to implode. For this reason, these Type-II supernovae are also known as core-collapse supernovae."

I'm interested in that drive, that rush to judgment, that is so prevalent in our society. We all know that pleasurable rush that comes from condemning, and in the short term it's quite a satisfying thing to do, isn't it?

J. K. Rowling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think there is more chance of Putin running bare bholloked with a bullseye on his back through the streets of Kyiv than SL clubs voting for a further reduced funding following on from the lower value TV contract by inviting in two more teams and sharing the pot out further.

Also if they take away the ambition of the reward of promotion from the Championship, I consider lots of fans and a few owners would walk away from the game, so your choice of word 'sacrifice' I think will be telling for more than just a couple of clubs, even saying that along with Toulouse removing Fev and Leigh for 4/5 years will decimate the division, I also doubt it will do any good in this expanded SL if there is no relegation to keep interest going after half the season is reached for a number of teams, when results will mean diddly squat.

Agree it would kill the champ, hence my compromise position. Plus C4 might just have a word and say we want a game a week (that isn´t meaningless) that´s not possible with 12 no relegation. 14 gives us that and some new narratives, stories and rivalries. Games on C4 have got good figures, next year 2 SL clubs will have better facilities and world cup. It´s a question of whether clubs and game feels confident enough to capitalise on that . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think there is more chance of Putin running bare bholloked with a bullseye on his back through the streets of Kyiv than SL clubs voting for a further reduced funding following on from the lower value TV contract by inviting in two more teams and sharing the pot out further.

Also if they take away the ambition of the reward of promotion from the Championship, I consider lots of fans and a few owners would walk away from the game, so your choice of word 'sacrifice' I think will be telling for more than just a couple of clubs, even saying that along with Toulouse removing Fev and Leigh for 4/5 years will decimate the division, I also doubt it will do any good in this expanded SL if there is no relegation to keep interest going after half the season is reached for a number of teams, when results will mean diddly squat.

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.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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%.

That sounds like licensing, albeit with short, 3-year terms. Unless I have misunderstood, these licences would be removed / renewed / given out based on on-field performance. I can imagine that losing your 3-year licence would be more damaging for a club than relegation as we currently have it.

If we're moving clubs between a top division and a second division - and we want some stability and an opportunity to invest - there doesn't seem to be a solution that doesn't involve bringing the two divisions closer together in terms of quality. 

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

21 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

That sounds like licensing, albeit with short, 3-year terms. Unless I have misunderstood, these licences would be removed / renewed / given out based on on-field performance. I can imagine that losing your 3-year licence would be more damaging for a club than relegation as we currently have it.

If we're moving clubs between a top division and a second division - and we want some stability and an opportunity to invest - there doesn't seem to be a solution that doesn't involve bringing the two divisions closer together in terms of quality. 

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

  • Like 2
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....

  • Like 6
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 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
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.

  • Like 3
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. 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
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.

 

  • Like 1
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?

  • Like 1
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. 

Kangaroos

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...