Please Remove Automatic Relegation

[tuutaisrambo]

"Please Remove Automatic Relegation"

Please Don't...

If you want to change things up and allow sides to 'grow' drop the salary cap completely and we could well soon have a SL of financially strong clubs including as many non heartland teams as can afford to be there.......... a new TWP or Toulouse with genuine wealth and prospects could just breeze past the likes of Wake or Salford then.

Maybe in a few years of no cap at all we'd end up with 10 or 12 genuinely wealthy strong clubs miles ahead of the rest (regardless of SL funding) and then a model similar to the NRL might be worth looking at.

Unfortunately 1/2 of SL are weak clubs and would never vote to remove the cap...... it's what is keeping them hanging on in there.

[corvusxiii]

From a Tolouse RU point of view they must find the P-R situation of SL very cheering.

[DimmestStar]

Nobody is automatically relegated.

You have to be the worst team and finish bottom.

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

Same old arguments being repeated every since uncle Mo first announced Super League back in 94 and its the same old teams who want to retain promotion and relegation despite the reality that its too big a gap to plug in 7 months of rugby as Leigh, London and Toronto have found out.

My own thoughts are that promotion should be scrapped, as previously said further up this thread, there isn't the player pool for promoted teams to pick up 6-7 players immediately to strengthen their side which invariably leads to all their good work in getting promoted being immediately undone.

I think the time has come to take a step back from the old arguments, take stock and look to the future with a realistic development plan to expand Super League and the Championship and jettison what's left of the professional clubs as they don't offer the game any value.

I would go a step farther and look to develop the top division of the NCL to replace the defunct League One and give them a higher profile and some funding (not on the same level as League One clubs were getting) to allow them to gradually improve their facilities and player pathways into the professional game with elite training and more representative games linking in with Superleague but not through Academies so that these players can develop with their own club.

If the likes of Leigh, Toulouse, Fev or whoever gets the additional 2 places in Superleague, they should not be worrying about relegation for 5 years to give them time to settle and build the club both on and off the field; BUT after 4 seasons, underperforming teams (both on and financially off the field)) could be put on notice that they could be replaced by championship teams waiting in the wings to take their place if they don't improve sufficiently.

That should hopefully even out the Championship into a more competitive league as clubs won't be spending more than their income by chasing the golden goose that Super League is perceived to be, while at the same time allowing the smaller clubs time to adjust to the Super League business model. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

Same old arguments being repeated every since uncle Mo first announced Super League back in 94 and its the same old teams who want to retain promotion and relegation despite the reality that its too big a gap to plug in 7 months of rugby as Leigh, Saints and Toronto have found out.

My own thoughts are that promotion should be scrapped, there isn't the player pool for promoted teams to pick up 6-7 players immediately to strengthen their side which invariably leads to all their good work in getting promoted being immediately undone.

I think the time has come to take a step back from the old arguments, take stock and look to the future with a realistic development plan to expand Super League and the Championship and jettison what's left of the professional clubs as they don't offer the game any value.

I would go a step farther and look to develop the top division of the NCL to replace the defunct League One and give them a higher profile and some funding (not on the same level as League One clubs were getting) to allow them to gradually improve their facilities and player pathways into the professional game with elite training and more representative games linking in with Superleague but not through Academies so that these players can develop with their own club.

If the likes of Leigh, Toulouse, Fev or whoever gets the additional 2 places in Superleague, they should not be worrying about relegation for 5 years to give them time to settle and build the club both on and off the field; BUT after 4 seasons, underperforming teams (both on and financially off the field)) could be put on notice that they could be replaced by championship teams waiting in the wings to take their place if they don't improve sufficiently.

That should hopefully even out the Championship into a more competitive league as clubs won't be spending more than their income by chasing the golden goose that Super League is perceived to be, while at the same time allowing the smaller clubs time to adjust to the Super League business model. 

Hi deathly one, just for the sake of discussion please tell me are you affiliated in any way to a Championship club?

I am and although I can see some merit in what you propose but having been in the Championship through the previous journey of licencing I wouldn't be going again knowing that my club would be in a one way street for the next 5 years if we were outside SL, and in discussions on these pages before with fans of other clubs who have ambition they have expressed the same, and what about the ambitious owners who invest for the opportunity to be promoted, would they stay, I doubt it. So yes I see your point about the Championship evening itself out, but I don't believe achieving it by this method is the correct way after all it is a levelling down, not a levelling up which should be the right way.

[David Dockhouse Host]

On 13/02/2022 at 07:08, devonhawk said:

Totally disagree. It is because Super Dooper League became closed shop, that so many clubs on the outside of it are struggling. 

I would even suggest going to 3 up, 3 down. It would kick the perennial strugglers up the backside and encourage more investment in Championship clubs.

 

You could give Toulouse a billion pounds if they can only sign players other SL clubs don't want due to the short period to build a SL team that it makes no difference.

The gap between leagues is the problem 

[David Dockhouse Host]

7 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

The salary cap favours certain clubs.

How?

[JT RL]

Division 1 conference, comprising of 10 teams (Big 10, if you like)

Division 2 conference, comprising of 8 teams.

Div 1 play each other H & A and Div 2 conference once (26 games)

Div 2 play each other H & A and Div 1 conference teams once (24 games)

Concentrates playing quality (needed to become competitive with Australia), creates massive crunch/ must win games (excitement), removes the “cliff edge trapdoor” that currently exists into/out off SL. 
 

If Toulouse were playing the top 10 just once this year - that would be far more beneficial for the Toulouse, the whole sport, all of the clubs in SL & Championship and the overall competition. 
Ditto; Leigh & London in previous years.

 

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

How?

Essentially the main problem with the salary cap is that it only works if every club's coin is worth the same. They aren't, so it doesn't. 

Lets look at various levels:

Big clubs: Wigan, Leeds, Saints etc.

They can pay good players less than they would be able to demand at Wakey or Salford because these clubs offer the best facilities, chances of silverware, and stability (unlikely to get relegated).

Clubs at the bottom of SL

The SC effectively protects them from Relegation now. Any upcoming side can't spend to overcome the adaptation from the Championship and have the same problem lower SL clubs have with recruiting quality by having to paying more to an even greater level. IMO DB at Leigh could absolutely afford to put Leigh ahead of Wakey, Salford, even KR, but he can't because of the cap. In the Premier League, promoted clubs often have to spend as much as those at the top to overcome their inherent disadvantage.

Expansion/non-heartland Clubs

Like lower super league clubs, expansion clubs often find that their money doesn't get them as much as the big boys. Not only are they a more risky bet for players given the history of new clubs in the sport, but often they aren't given enough recognition for the difference in cost of living. London Broncos did have a "London weighting" of 10% iirc which wasn't nearly enough to compensate for the difference between Castleford and Greater London. Toronto were given nothing. On top of that, given the density of the RL player base, you often have to pay players more to convince them to move from their homes and support networks.

Conclusion

So ultimately if you are a reasonably successful club in a relatively cheap to live location close to the RL heartlands - the cap is fantastic! If not, it presents significant issues and bakes them into the system.

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Essentially the main problem with the salary cap is that it only works if every club's coin is worth the same. They aren't, so it doesn't. 

Lets look at various levels:

Big clubs: Wigan, Leeds, Saints etc.

They can pay good players less than they would be able to demand at Wakey or Salford because these clubs offer the best facilities, chances of silverware, and stability (unlikely to get relegated).

Clubs at the bottom of SL

The SC effectively protects them from Relegation now. Any upcoming side can't spend to overcome the adaptation from the Championship and have the same problem lower SL clubs have with recruiting quality by having to paying more to an even greater level. IMO DB at Leigh could absolutely afford to put Leigh ahead of Wakey, Salford, even KR, but he can't because of the cap. In the Premier League, promoted clubs often have to spend as much as those at the top to overcome their inherent disadvantage.

Expansion/non-heartland Clubs

Like lower super league clubs, expansion clubs often find that their money doesn't get them as much as the big boys. Not only are they a more risky bet for players given the history of new clubs in the sport, but often they aren't given enough recognition for the difference in cost of living. London Broncos did have a "London weighting" of 10% iirc which wasn't nearly enough to compensate for the difference between Castleford and Greater London. Toronto were given nothing. On top of that, given the density of the RL player base, you often have to pay players more to convince them to move from their homes and support networks.

Conclusion

So ultimately if you are a reasonably successful club in a relatively cheap to live location close to the RL heartlands - the cap is fantastic! If not, it presents significant issues and bakes them into the system.

Excellent post.

I'd also add that those top clubs get the pick of youth. Who then develop and have reduced salary on terms of the cap, only so much of what they are paid counts on the cap

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Excellent post.

I'd also add that those top clubs get the pick of youth. Who then develop and have reduced salary on terms of the cap, only so much of what they are paid counts on the cap

Thank you

Oh yeah absolutely on junior players, I forgot that tbh but it is another example of the inherent biases in the system. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

I think it exposes how many of the key points in the game are effectively just compromises between self-interested parties rather than policies supporting a strategic aim.

[David Dockhouse Host]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Thank you

Oh yeah absolutely on junior players, I forgot that tbh but it is another example of the inherent biases in the system. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

I think it exposes how many of the key points in the game are effectively just compromises between self-interested parties rather than policies supporting a strategic aim.

I think initially it's a good system to encourage development within your own team. 

The problem is it's flawed and I imagine this was unintended.

Because top clubs get the pick off all the best 14 year olds, they are bound to develop the best athletes from each years cohort. The key for me is spreading the talent at 14 somehow, if recruitment was even at 14 and 16 I would have no issue with cap reduction for self developed players. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I think initially it's a good system to encourage development within your own team. 

The problem is it's flawed and I imagine this was unintended.

Because top clubs get the pick off all the best 14 year olds, they are bound to develop the best athletes from each years cohort. The key for me is spreading the talent at 14 somehow, if recruitment was even at 14 and 16 I would have no issue with cap reduction for self developed players. 

Arguably there are only 2 ways to do that.

Licensing to make every club guaranteed to be in Super League so that over time club offerings equal out to juniors (and that would take a while anyway).

Or remove/massively increase the cap so that clubs can spend in areas they want to compete in.

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Arguably there are only 2 ways to do that.

Licensing to make every club guaranteed to be in Super League so that over time club offerings equal out to juniors (and that would take a while anyway).

Or remove/massively increase the cap so that clubs can spend in areas they want to compete in.

Or apply service areas limiting recruitment at 14 to your own team.

Not sure this could be applied at 16 legally 

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

Same old arguments being repeated every since uncle Mo first announced Super League back in 94 and its the same old teams who want to retain promotion and relegation despite the reality that its too big a gap to plug in 7 months of rugby as Leigh, London and Toronto have found out.

My own thoughts are that promotion should be scrapped, as previously said further up this thread, there isn't the player pool for promoted teams to pick up 6-7 players immediately to strengthen their side which invariably leads to all their good work in getting promoted being immediately undone.

I think the time has come to take a step back from the old arguments, take stock and look to the future with a realistic development plan to expand Super League and the Championship and jettison what's left of the professional clubs as they don't offer the game any value.

I would go a step farther and look to develop the top division of the NCL to replace the defunct League One and give them a higher profile and some funding (not on the same level as League One clubs were getting) to allow them to gradually improve their facilities and player pathways into the professional game with elite training and more representative games linking in with Superleague but not through Academies so that these players can develop with their own club.

If the likes of Leigh, Toulouse, Fev or whoever gets the additional 2 places in Superleague, they should not be worrying about relegation for 5 years to give them time to settle and build the club both on and off the field; BUT after 4 seasons, underperforming teams (both on and financially off the field)) could be put on notice that they could be replaced by championship teams waiting in the wings to take their place if they don't improve sufficiently.

That should hopefully even out the Championship into a more competitive league as clubs won't be spending more than their income by chasing the golden goose that Super League is perceived to be, while at the same time allowing the smaller clubs time to adjust to the Super League business model. 

Without automatic yearly promotion there won't be any Championship clubs waiting in the wings , so SL will remain as it is 

[JT RL]

28 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Essentially the main problem with the salary cap is that it only works if every club's coin is worth the same. They aren't, so it doesn't. 

Lets look at various levels:

Big clubs: Wigan, Leeds, Saints etc.

They can pay good players less than they would be able to demand at Wakey or Salford because these clubs offer the best facilities, chances of silverware, and stability (unlikely to get relegated).

Clubs at the bottom of SL

The SC effectively protects them from Relegation now. Any upcoming side can't spend to overcome the adaptation from the Championship and have the same problem lower SL clubs have with recruiting quality by having to paying more to an even greater level. IMO DB at Leigh could absolutely afford to put Leigh ahead of Wakey, Salford, even KR, but he can't because of the cap. In the Premier League, promoted clubs often have to spend as much as those at the top to overcome their inherent disadvantage.

Expansion/non-heartland Clubs

Like lower super league clubs, expansion clubs often find that their money doesn't get them as much as the big boys. Not only are they a more risky bet for players given the history of new clubs in the sport, but often they aren't given enough recognition for the difference in cost of living. London Broncos did have a "London weighting" of 10% iirc which wasn't nearly enough to compensate for the difference between Castleford and Greater London. Toronto were given nothing. On top of that, given the density of the RL player base, you often have to pay players more to convince them to move from their homes and support networks.

Conclusion

So ultimately if you are a reasonably successful club in a relatively cheap to live location close to the RL heartlands - the cap is fantastic! If not, it presents significant issues and bakes them into the system.

Good post.

The Big Clubs pay higher wages, especially for the stars.

However, they can afford more because of larger gates and deeper commercial roots

[Scubby]

7 minutes ago, JT RL said:

Good post.

The Big Clubs pay higher wages, especially for the stars.

However, they can afford more because of larger gates and deeper commercial roots

They also have the strongest player pathways which delivers them first team ready youngsters at bargain prices.

[Tommygilf]

27 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Or apply service areas limiting recruitment at 14 to your own team.

Not sure this could be applied at 16 legally 

I don't think that could work tbh both legally and logistically. It would be chaos to divide up in any sort of "fair" way and players would just move to certain clubs as they already do now.

 

[David Dockhouse Host]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think that could work tbh both legally and logistically. It would be chaos to divide up in any sort of "fair" way and players would just move to certain clubs as they already do now.

 

It used to be done this way so shouldn't be too difficult

Service area teams 

[Tommygilf]

20 minutes ago, JT RL said:

Good post.

The Big Clubs pay higher wages, especially for the stars.

However, they can afford more because of larger gates and deeper commercial roots

And they can ask players to take less money so they can have more stars. 

If say Wakey and Leeds were offering a player a contract. Wakey would be having to offer more money to make it as attractive. Wakey's financial situation and the salary cap constraints mean that ultimately at some point they can't keep spending over the odds on players.

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

It used to be done this way so shouldn't be too difficult

Service area teams 

Hull Service area or East and West? 

Were players allowed to move?

[David Dockhouse Host]

29 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Hull Service area or East and West? 

Were players allowed to move?

Sorry I don't know the details but it worked, hopefully others remember it better than I do and can update us on its success or not.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Sorry I don't know the details but it worked, hopefully others remember it better than I do and can update us on its success or not.

Did it "work" though?

I know JP played Leeds Service Area but went to Bradford for example 

[AB90]

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Essentially the main problem with the salary cap is that it only works if every club's coin is worth the same. They aren't, so it doesn't. 

Lets look at various levels:

Big clubs: Wigan, Leeds, Saints etc.

They can pay good players less than they would be able to demand at Wakey or Salford because these clubs offer the best facilities, chances of silverware, and stability (unlikely to get relegated).

Clubs at the bottom of SL

The SC effectively protects them from Relegation now. Any upcoming side can't spend to overcome the adaptation from the Championship and have the same problem lower SL clubs have with recruiting quality by having to paying more to an even greater level. IMO DB at Leigh could absolutely afford to put Leigh ahead of Wakey, Salford, even KR, but he can't because of the cap. In the Premier League, promoted clubs often have to spend as much as those at the top to overcome their inherent disadvantage.

Expansion/non-heartland Clubs

Like lower super league clubs, expansion clubs often find that their money doesn't get them as much as the big boys. Not only are they a more risky bet for players given the history of new clubs in the sport, but often they aren't given enough recognition for the difference in cost of living. London Broncos did have a "London weighting" of 10% iirc which wasn't nearly enough to compensate for the difference between Castleford and Greater London. Toronto were given nothing. On top of that, given the density of the RL player base, you often have to pay players more to convince them to move from their homes and support networks.

Conclusion

So ultimately if you are a reasonably successful club in a relatively cheap to live location close to the RL heartlands - the cap is fantastic! If not, it presents significant issues and bakes them into the system.

Agreed and what’s frustrating is that it is so blatantly obvious that a salary only works if everyone actually spends the full cap (or very close to it). Otherwise there is no point in a salary cap if you still have team X spending 50% more money of player wages than team Y (i wonder which team will finish higher up the ladder????).

If they do go with this closed shop one of the requirements should be that every team spends the entire cap on players. 

In the NRL I believe they have salary cap floor spend of 95% in which clubs get fined and docked competition points if they fail to hit the spend threshold (no different to if they spend over the cap). And it clearly works.

And for those who complain that you shouldn’t be able to force owners/clubs to spend more than what they want….well fine, you don’t have to but then get out of Super League and let someone in who can. The current salary cap isn’t exactly large is it. 

[Harry Stottle]

16 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

The gap between leagues is the problem 

The amount of Pro player's we produce of top quality is the main problem David, it doesn't matter what format we use, until the authorities and club's collectively put a great deal of effort into increasing the numbers coming off the conveyor belt this problem will not go away, neither for any promoted team or the serial bottom dwellers of SL, the best we produce will always find their way to the top 5/6 club's trouble is there are to few of them to strengthen other teams.

PS I wrote this before scrolling down and saw You and @Tommygilfhave broached the subject.