Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, wasginger said:

If the promoted team is part-time, that's 20 odd years catch up on other established teams in S/L to start with. 

 

This is a very scary thought, the idea that a lot of teams in SL have had 20 years worth of funding and are in a position where they could pretty easily be replaced by teams that have not even had a quarter of that. For me it just shows how well run some of the teams in the Championship have been run given the money constraints on them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


29 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

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.

 

If P&R is so attractive why have Sky slashed their money for broadcasting then ?

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

2 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

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.

 

I know and independent review of the sport recommended the 3x 8s and SL clubs got together to get rid of it (because it provided more of a risk of relegation for them)

I know SL clubs have put hurdles in the way of Toronto, Toulouse, and Leigh in recent times.

Based on that I think SL clubs would vote against giving promoted sides a years grace.

england_identity2.jpg1921_button.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 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.

Andy you think licencing is divisive but suggest protections for one club over everyone else !!!

Its these kind of stupid proposals that make RL a laughing stock.

Just have 1 system with 1 set of rules for everyone and clubs should quit whining that this isn't fair and that isn't fair

 

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

Just now, Saint Toppy said:

If P&R is so attractive why have Sky slashed their money for broadcasting then ?

Because RL holds little value to them and nobody else wanted the rights.

IMO licensing would make things worse and probably result in even less money from sky next time.

If you want the sport to grow allow open competition....keep P&R and get rid of the salary cap.

Licensing just protects the weak.

  • Like 1

england_identity2.jpg1921_button.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

I know and independent review of the sport recommended the 3x 8s and SL clubs got together to get rid of it (because it provided more of a risk of relegation for them)

I know SL clubs have put hurdles in the way of Toronto, Toulouse, and Leigh in recent times.

Based on that I think SL clubs would vote against giving promoted sides a years grace.

I don’t think your last line would be true but again imo a few years grace 4/5 whatever, would be better.

The bottom line to the OP is that the RFL tried to give the promoted team some time to plan for promotion.  Turns out that was just a token gesture as Teams don’t have enough time.  TO get additional funding from their Region, they are an exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Damien said:

Poor licensing, as seen previously, protects the weak. Proper strong licensing with strict requirements certainly doesn't.

Maybe so but who has the power in our game to enforce that?

RL is run by self interested clubs........ rules get bent........ clubs will get preferential treatment and others held back unfairly.

The fairest thing is survival of the fittest.

 

  • Like 1

england_identity2.jpg1921_button.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

based on a fixed set of criteria

Can't be done to suit the diversity of say the top 5 club's and then at least 10 club's below that. Last time was a complete shambles in allowing some teams 'grace' to get their house in order so to speak and even then now 10+ years on the very same problems still exist, Mr Elstone said that if Licencing did comeback their would be no favours to any club no matter who they are, I consider that to have been the reason he was eventually "pushed" out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it only Leigh who have found it hard to stay in SL, looking at the SL table - plenty have been promoted and stayed in, even those former SL teams in the Championship stayed in for a few years at least?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

Andy you think licencing is divisive but suggest protections for one club over everyone else !!!

Its these kind of stupid proposals that make RL a laughing stock.

Just have 1 system with 1 set of rules for everyone and clubs should quit whining that this isn't fair and that isn't fair

 

I assume the y at the end of first word is a typing error, don't know who Andy is if not. Licensing is divisive, start a thread proposing it be brought back if you don't believe me. We both know the sort of replies that would result.

I was merely suggesting two mechanisms by which the disadvantaged position the promoted club finds itself in currently could be overcome should the will to do so exist within the clubs whilst also maintaining the mechanism of annual P&R.

As I said the 1 year's grace plan was a proposal put forward at the time when the 3x8s system was voted in. The clubs voted against it. As it happens I agree with Tuutaisrambo that the SL clubs would vote down such a proposal if it was put forward again. Although there may be a desire amongst many fans to see promoted teams able to have a better chance at remaining in SL for a sustained period I suspect that the same sentiment will not apply to the incumbent SL clubs who will be looking to maintain the advantages they currently enjoy in maintaining their place in the top tier. As with any proposed restructuring put forward some will vote in favour but the majority will vote against as the status quo gives them a better chance of staying where they are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Poor licensing, as seen previously, protects the weak. Proper strong licensing with strict requirements certainly doesn't.

This is the frustrating part of how the debate around licensing tends to get framed. 

We tried licensing once. The version of licensing we tried had lots of flaws. That doesn't mean that we have to have that particular version of licensing again. 

It really isn't an easy answer because, as many have noted, it's a divisive issue. But I do think that the current models and structures we have encourage too much short-termism and "keep the lights on" mentality, and that has come at the expense of investment in some very important areas. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Licensing just protects the weak.

On the contrary if rules are set and properly administered it weeds out the weak and offers opportunity to stronger clubs currently outside the top flight.

You might end up with the first round of licencing having slightly less onerous criteria so you don't suddenly lose 4 or 5 clubs, but by the next round in say 4-5 year time you can have that criteria at a much higher level and then everyone knows where they have to be in 4-5 years time. If you don't make it, your out, and i'm sure given 4-5 years of preparation & planning time there will be a host of Championship clubs who will meet that criteria to replace them.

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

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This is the frustrating part of how the debate around licensing tends to get framed. 

We tried licensing once. The version of licensing we tried had lots of flaws. That doesn't mean that we have to have that particular version of licensing again. 

It really isn't an easy answer because, as many have noted, it's a divisive issue. But I do think that the current models and structures we have encourage too much short-termism and "keep the lights on" mentality, and that has come at the expense of investment in some very important areas. 

Yep not in favour of licensing (although I would be locking in the french teams) but RL has a tradition of doing things as half arsed as possible then saying it didnt work. Go to 14, reduce the SL central funding accordingly and those teams who arent able to grow their commercial streams will be weeded out for the clubs like York, Newcastle and Toulouse who can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Yep not in favour of licensing (although I would be locking in the french teams) 

That's a contradiction if ever there was one.

You don't want licencing for any British clubs but do want licencing for French clubs just because they're French 🤣

  • Haha 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

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

On the contrary if rules are set and properly administered it weeds out the weak and offers opportunity to stronger clubs currently outside the top flight.

You might end up with the first round of licencing having slightly less onerous criteria so you don't suddenly lose 4 or 5 clubs, but by the next round in say 4-5 year time you can have that criteria at a much higher level and then everyone knows where they have to be in 4-5 years time. If you don't make it, your out, and i'm sure given 4-5 years of preparation & planning time there will be a host of Championship clubs who will meet that criteria to replace them.

Yeah, but what happens if the Championship clubs spend their money wisely and meet all the criteria, but the SL clubs also meet the criteria? Surely then it's at the whim of the SL/RFL board as the SL clubs will close ranks as they nearly always seem to in case it's their club in the firing line next time. I'm sorry but Licencing just does not work for the Championship clubs.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

"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

6 minutes ago, roversspud said:

Yeah, but what happens if the Championship clubs spend their money wisely and meet all the criteria, but the SL clubs also meet the criteria? Surely then it's at the whim of the SL/RFL board as the SL clubs will close ranks as they nearly always seem to in case it's their club in the firing line next time. I'm sorry but Licencing just does not work for the Championship clubs.

You expand the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jughead said:

You expand the league. 

How will you incorporate " a host of Championship clubs" who meet the criteria if all the SL clubs meet the criteria as well?

"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

36 minutes ago, roversspud said:

How will you incorporate " a host of Championship clubs" who meet the criteria if all the SL clubs meet the criteria as well?

See above. You expand the league, providing you have the finances to do so. If you don’t, you have to look at other factors and potentially use truly independent people to judge. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jughead said:

See above. You expand the league, providing you have the finances to do so. If you don’t, you have to look at other factors and potentially use truly independent people to judge. 

I just can't see that happening. The SL clubs have history in not wanting to dilute their revenue by allowing extra teams in and they'll band together to stop that. And Sky won't want a massive league as it would make far more games meaningless. If your team is not in the top 6 or so , where's the interest ? Relegation battles are interesting for both TV fans and the attending fans. Promotion and relegation is the only way to go. 

  • Like 1

"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

19 hours ago, Leonard said:

Usually because the SL teams will pull every trick possible to shaft the new side. 

That's maybe unfair.

The issue of clubs being promoted after SL clubs have had time to sort themselves out for in advance the new season has been acknowledged by Superleague. I think it was Lenegan who said that one idea was that P&R should only be every other year thus a promoted club get's two years to build and get itself off the bottom of SL.

Not got much time so maybe others can kindly comment if that is fair or workable????    Comments??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DimmestStar said:

Of the 12 Super League clubs 7 have been promoted at one time or another. That doesn't include Catalans who were 'granted' a place.

So maybe it isn't as hard as has been suggested.

Like I posted above. I think this is a Leigh issue, they seem to be the only club who have the problem

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

Of the 12 Super League clubs 7 have been promoted at one time or another. That doesn't include Catalans who were 'granted' a place.

So maybe it isn't as hard as has been suggested.

Most of those were before licensing. Since licensing was scrapped only one  club has come up and stayed up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

Like I posted above. I think this is a Leigh issue, they seem to be the only club who have the problem

Wow, I am so shocked Sir Kev liked this post!

  • Haha 2
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...