Jump to content

Why is it so hard for promoted teams to stay in Super League


Recommended Posts


7 minutes ago, Fevrover said:

Why would we have gone bust ? It's been clearly stated on here where our money is coming from.

It was tongue in cheek that the poster I was quoting had completely written Fev off. 

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

Let’s just hope this season is uninterrupted and everyone attends in droves. 
 

some healthy numbers in the Championship and similar improvement needed for SL for which attendances have been poor now for years. 
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

The obvious solution is to start the Championship season earlier and finish it earlier. If their GF is before the end of the regular season of SL, they'll have s fairer shot at the player market.

The last time they did this was 2001. Widnes were promoted and finished 6th the following year.

Is shifting the problem from one set of clubs to another actually solving the problem, then? To me, it’s not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wellsy4HullFC said:

"The problem" being what, in this instance?

Clubs recruitment plans for the following year being left to the last minute as they don’t know what league they’re going to be in. It’s been the problem for the likes of Toulouse, Toronto, Leigh, London etc in the past and the alternative you’re proposing is moving that problem to the likes of Salford, Wakefield, Huddersfield etc who would then be waiting for very late for confirmation as to what division they’ll be in for the following year.

I’m not disagreeing that it’s something, albeit very minor in the grand scheme of things, that needs to be looked at but I really don’t know how we get to a position that suits all rather than some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jughead said:

Clubs recruitment plans for the following year being left to the last minute as they don’t know what league they’re going to be in. It’s been the problem for the likes of Toulouse, Toronto, Leigh, London etc in the past and the alternative you’re proposing is moving that problem to the likes of Salford, Wakefield, Huddersfield etc who would then be waiting for very late for confirmation as to what division they’ll be in for the following year.

I’m not disagreeing that it’s something, albeit very minor in the grand scheme of things, that needs to be looked at but I really don’t know how we get to a position that suits all rather than some. 

Well no. 1, they already have a SL squad, and 2, if there are a number of teams choose to relegation then it will dilute the issue across those teams rather than concentrate it on one.

  • Like 1
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a players point of view, signing for near relegation certainties means a year in a struggling side which won't do your market value much good. You won't get many win bonuses and you'll be out of contract in 12 months, looking for another contract.

You'd only sign for a promoted team out of necessity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few factors for me:

  1. RL isn't a sport where you get many "in-contract' moves. You just don't have clubs paying transfer fees for players because the cash just isn't there.
     
  2. The market for off-contract players opens up too early. Players coming off contract can, if I remember correctly, talk to other clubs from late June. If you're a Leigh or Featherstone, you have no idea which league you will be playing in at that point so it's not only a hard sell to the players you're speaking to, but also a hard sell to the finance director.
     
  3. Because promoted clubs are favourites to go straight back down, they aren't appealing to players. In the most part, they can only offer one year contracts, or two years with a break clause. Most players have better options and it's well established that smaller clubs get poorer value from the salary cap. 
     
  4. Geography comes into it. Most of our players are in the M62 corridor but in three of the last four years, promoted teams have been "out post" clubs. London finds it hard to attract Northern based players due to the high cost of living, Toronto would have cost of living/family implications for players, and Toulouse would also rely on York's/Lancs players uprooting - something that might not be financially viable given the low pay RL players earn. Hell, we even have players being reluctant to go to Hull because of the commute / moving implications. 
Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jughead said:

but I really don’t know how we get to a position that suits all rather than some. 

There is a solution, its called Licencing, with a licence renewal period say every 4 years, based on a fixed set of criteria that covers both on field performance of the team, development and off field financial stability.

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

12 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

There is a solution, its called Licencing, with a licence renewal period say every 4 years, based on a fixed set of criteria that covers both on field performance of the team, development and off field financial stability.

We've had that before and look what happened. Cas and Wakey are still promising their new shiny stadiums that they promised 25 years ago!

"Out of the way,son. Where's my medal?" Alex Murphy's immortal words as David Hobbs scores his 2nd try in the '83 Cup Final!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Eddie said:

The lack of players to draw on as well, in the absence of a thriving transfer market. Promoted football clubs can buy players from other English clubs or abroad, realistically neither of those options are available to promoted RL teams, even rich ones. 

There`s 172 current NRL players unsigned for 2023, I assume the figure was similar for 2022 and probably every year, many of those probably won`t get picked up.

I find it difficult to believe with a bit of forward planning tentative contracts could not be signed with the 5 or 6 key players a likely Super League bound club would need to be competitive if they are promoted.

NRL 2022: Every club’s roster state of play, Dylan Brown, Eels, Kalyn Ponga, Knights, Jake Turpin, Broncos, off-contract (foxsports.com.au)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, roversspud said:

We've had that before and look what happened. Cas and Wakey are still promising their new shiny stadiums that they promised 25 years ago!

And that wasn't the fault of licencing as a system, that was purely down to the useless muppets in Red Hall who failed to set criteria such as stadia in the licencing agreement, and then the things that were set just got moved if it looked like one or more of the clubs weren't going to meet that criteria.

Licencing is a good system it was just badly administered last time.

Thats why I said in my earlier post you need fixed criteria, which includes things like the state of your stadium.

  • 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

45 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

There is a solution, its called Licencing, with a licence renewal period say every 4 years, based on a fixed set of criteria that covers both on field performance of the team, development and off field financial stability.

Sky don't want licensing........it won't come back...........Unless you watched a side capable of winning SL the licensing era was pretty boring.

There are positives to licensing but I don't think SL are capably of applying a system that is fair and transparent anyway....... there's just too much self interest

england_identity2.jpg1921_button.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Sky don't want licensing........it won't come back...........Unless you watched a side capable of winning SL the licensing era was pretty boring.

There are positives to licensing but I don't think SL are capably of applying a system that is fair and transparent anyway....... there's just too much self interest

And there aren't enough clubs that would meet all necessary criteria.  Unless the standards were set so low as to be meaningless.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Sky don't want licensing........it won't come back...........Unless you watched a side capable of winning SL the licensing era was pretty boring.

There are positives to licensing but I don't think SL are capably of applying a system that is fair and transparent anyway....... there's just too much self interest

Have you a link to that because I have never seen Sky say that?

What Sky have said is that they aren't concerned about structures and that they are a matter for the RFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

Have you a link to that because I have never seen Sky say that?

What Sky have said is that they aren't concerned about structures and that they are a matter for the RFL.

I heard Simon Johnson talking about it on a podcast a few months back...........Something about Sky won't interfere with Structures but they said they want games that grab interest. They've stated in the past relegation clashes draw good viewing figures.

 

england_identity2.jpg1921_button.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Licensing is very divisive, and as has been shown before selections of which clubs are in can be contentious. During the licensing period some clubs appeared to be required to meet requirements that other clubs were not and that caused ill-feeling. I doubt there is much confidence that the governing body could do a better job of managing the process than they did last time if it was to return.

The best two options for improving promoted clubs chances would be 1) as suggested having the seasons slightly out of sync with the Championship GF in August and the date on which off-contract players could discuss a move being switched until after the Championship GF. Though that would require the Aussies to follow suit and switch their date for players to speak to other clubs and I'm not sure that they would. Or 2) that the relegation mechanism was altered so that the promoted club could not be relegated in their first season in the SL, the lowest finisher of the other 11 clubs would be relegated instead. That way the promoted club would be able to use their first season to work out where they needed to strengthen and could sign players along with the rest of SL ahead of their second season (when they would be eligible for relegation). I believe that this was a proposal put forward during the restructure that saw the 3x8s system brought in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

In what way did they deserve to stay in Super League? They were relegated on the field. On that note Leigh did not deserve to be in Super League in 2022, but they are reaping the reward of a Super League parachute payment after they were gifted “promotion.”

I agree, as a life long Leigh fan I will say we most definitely knew what the rules were and the system that was in place, firstly there were two different competitions the first being the regular season where the objective was to finish outside the bottom 4 and so avoid the 8's, being unable to do that we entered the second competition playing each other team to gain enough points to finish higher than 4th place again we failed to do that so we went into an extra game the MPG at home to again win to qualify to stay in SL again we failed to do that.

If we were unlucky it was throughout the regular season when we were devastated by injuries actually using 37 player's that season, but that is not something that is taken into consideration by the 'experts' on TV, the scribes in publications or even some contributers on these pages, that 'injury' kind of 'bad luck' is strictly reserved for teams competing for the trophies who may be missing a star or two, and lastly - the real bad luck - Leigh were under the influence of Keiran Cunningham for the last 3rd of the season, after Saints and then Leigh a fate no team should ever suffer again.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

Licensing is very divisive, and as has been shown before selections of which clubs are in can be contentious. During the licensing period some clubs appeared to be required to meet requirements that other clubs were not and that caused ill-feeling. I doubt there is much confidence that the governing body could do a better job of managing the process than they did last time if it was to return.

The best two options for improving promoted clubs chances would be 1) as suggested having the seasons slightly out of sync with the Championship GF in August and the date on which off-contract players could discuss a move being switched until after the Championship GF. Though that would require the Aussies to follow suit and switch their date for players to speak to other clubs and I'm not sure that they would. Or 2) that the relegation mechanism was altered so that the promoted club could not be relegated in their first season in the SL, the lowest finisher of the other 11 clubs would be relegated instead. That way the promoted club would be able to use their first season to work out where they needed to strengthen and could sign players along with the rest of SL ahead of their second season (when they would be eligible for relegation). I believe that this was a proposal put forward during the restructure that saw the 3x8s system brought in.

Unfortunately nobody in SL would vote for this.......and the sport doesn't have a governing body with any power to force it through....... so on it goes.

england_identity2.jpg1921_button.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

You can try and use Covid as a justification as much as you like, it still doesn’t make it true. Catalans were able to play in Super League in 2021, Toulouse were able to play in the Championship in 2021, the argument Covid stopped Toulouse going up to Super League in 2021 is ridiculous. To be fair the amount the Leigh fans would have kicked off on here if Toulouse had of been gifted promotion the way their club were probably wouldn’t have made it worth it. Both clubs are now in the league they deserve to be in thanks to results on the field.

You never read my comments on these pages then Kev, I was totally against Leigh being 'gifted' the poison chalice, I nominated Toulouse for that present and was really piffed off that Leigh got it and Toulouse escaped it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Unfortunately nobody in SL would vote for this.......and the sport doesn't have a governing body with any power to force it through....... so on it goes.

With respect mate, you don’t know how any vote would go.  SL voted to split with the RFL, now they have voted to go back and that saga remains ongoing to this day.  This is SL owners, who still remain.  Just like a bunch of chimpanzees, put in a room full of flour, milk and eggs and asked to mix a cake.

Licencing, if it was strictly administered would be better than we have now imo and it would appeal more to potential sponsors.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Tubby said:

And there aren't enough clubs that would meet all necessary criteria.  Unless the standards were set so low as to be meaningless.

That was half the problem originally which is why it were such a shambles. Having half the teams in the top division that didn't meet criteria just made a complete farce. It would be the same now, Ive said many times on here that if you give a lot of Championship teams 2m in funding you could easily interchange them with half of the SL teams. Its not what we want but its true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

You never read my comments on these pages then Kev, I was totally against Leigh being 'gifted' the poison chalice, I nominated Toulouse for that present and was really piffed off that Leigh got it and Toulouse escaped it.

Iirc, Toulouse’s bid came in first and very quickly.  I think they applied, putting in a token bid, but knowing it wouldn’t have a chance.  It wouldn’t surprise me if that was under advice either.

  • Like 1
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...