Ralph Rimmer says

[M j M]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

Alas, for the reasons given by Sean McGuire in his interviews with Tony Collins no third way exists.

Ah, there it is.

[Jughead]

If twenty is the magic number and we are to whittle thirty-seven clubs into twenty, with a system where relegation isn’t “catastrophic”, why do we then even need relegation?

[DI Keith Fowler]

33 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If "bring back some derbies" is the best thing it has going for it, then I think you ought to rethink that one.

Gets rid of loop fixtures also. Provides ambitious clubs with the opportunity to test themselves against the best, and the top clubs a chance to blood youngsters. Gives bigger gates to lower league teams financially benefitting them, and means televised games involving the lower league teams have a bit more glamour about them. 

[gingerjon]

If teams in both divisions are playing each other anyway then they might as well be conferences rather than divisions with P&R.

I remain to be convinced that punting out 17 teams so 20 can split a pot thinly between them is in any way a step forward, mind.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

45 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Why? Everyone in SL1 would likely beat everyone in SL2, presumably the games would have no points associated with them because its a team from another competition and so would quite literally be "pointless".

Clubs want around 27 regular matches. 

You do 2x10 and play everyone three times 

You do 2 x 10 and play everyone twice and 9 games vs the other league 

You do 2x12 and have 5 loop games 

You do 2x14 and have 4 teams who get regularly beaten (at least initially) 

Frankly none of the above is ideal, merits in all of them. 

[Mumby Magic]

Any one else she the title of this thread and think Dexys Midnight Runners?

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Gets rid of loop fixtures also. Provides ambitious clubs with the opportunity to test themselves against the best, and the top clubs a chance to blood youngsters. Gives bigger gates to lower league teams financially benefitting them, and means televised games involving the lower league teams have a bit more glamour about them. 

A set of reserve games more like

[DI Keith Fowler]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

A set of reserve games more like

You appreciate the idea is to bring the level of competition in both divisions closer right? It might not work but it's very much priced into the assumptions made. 

[mrfranco]

How do you solve the problem of sides that win promotion being unready and ill-equipped to survive in SL? The obvious answer is to not allow them to be relegated in year 1. But how do you do that? It's patently not very fair on a team finishing 2nd bottom to have them relegated while a team below them survive.

So, one idea is this:
only have relegation every 2nd season. That means relegating two clubs, and therefore promoting two clubs, and it might be that it's the same 2 clubs that were promoted two years before, but I think it may be worth a try. Because what it does is allow promoted clubs a season to get used to SL and build for that vital second season. It allows them to offer longer than 1-year contracts and not necessarily only get the dregs of who's left because they've found out they are getting promoted only after all the existing SL clubs have sorted out recruitment.

Although there is no relegation "jeopardy" in Y1 of every two-year cycle, everybody knows that there certainly is in Y2, and that - along with the fact that those clubs who are busy contesting silverware carry on with the usual cut and thrust of the battle at the top of the table - should help guard against the kind of staleness that we had under licencing.

Finally, while relegation is 2 teams every second year, promotion carries on being earnt every season. The two promoted teams would be the two champions of the Championship over the two years, and for the team that wins that league in Y1 of any two-year cycle, they have a whole year to prepare for entering SL safe in the knowledge that they will be promoted at the end of Y2, whatever they do in that Y2 season. And with the no-relegation season the following year, by the time they face a potential relegation battle in their second year in SL, they've had two full years to prepare. It should at least make it a much fairer fight than we see at the moment.

 

 

[Jughead]

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

So if we were going 14 next year hypothetical it would be current 12 plus Fev and Leigh. 

Salford moving new ground and Wakey updating theirs should allow them to claw back the 200k loss from central funding. 

We still have all French derby and Fev get to go up against Wakey in their new ground and Cas.  Leigh get a proper fighting chance with games against Pies Saints and Salford. 

Champ would be fight between 3 teams all with infrastructure in place to add value  (Widnes,  Thunder and York) with two never in SL before.  

No loop fixtures, loads of marketable games and a genuine open relegation scrap.  Sounds good. 

Didn’t the clubs already turn down the proposal to go to 14 in Super League at the end of this year, relegating 4 in 2023 and then starting with 2x10’s in 2024? 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

You appreciate the idea is to bring the level of competition in both divisions closer right? It might not work but it's very much priced into the assumptions made. 

Its a false assumption altogether then.

The aim of the 2x10 is to reduce the financial hit from being relegated from the top flight, anything else is a by-product. The best players will all still play for top flight teams.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

If twenty is the magic number and we are to whittle thirty-seven clubs into twenty, with a system where relegation isn’t “catastrophic”, why do we then even need relegation?

I suspect Twenty is only the magic number because it amounts to enough clubs to form a majority.

[Marauder]

On 15/03/2022 at 15:08, Harry Stottle said:

Speaking on the BBC RL podcast, no change to the present structure till the end of the 2023 season, then P&R will be retained but the format will be tweaked - but didn't divulge how - to allow a promoted team to be sustainable in SL and it will not create an heart attack for the relegated one.

Some sense from the RL at last.

 

Makes you wonder why they can't get a system correct the first time.

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

So 2x10. 

Everyone plays each other twice 

Then everyone plays the other league once. 

So everyone in SL2 plays everyone in SL1. 

Adds variety, could boost crowds. 

That would only work if there was parity for all 20 clubs on the funding to be able to entice better player's to each club thus spreading the available talent, and also each club is allowed to bring through their own player's from an academy, I don't think some poster's realise how relevant that is.

[Marauder]

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its a false assumption altogether then.

The aim of the 2x10 is to reduce the financial hit from being relegated from the top flight, anything else is a by-product. The best players will all still play for top flight teams.

Top 3 or 4 teams.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Jughead said:

If twenty is the magic number and we are to whittle thirty-seven clubs into twenty, with a system where relegation isn’t “catastrophic”, why do we then even need relegation?

So turn back the clock and put them all in one division, equal funding and equal participation rules, that would work wouldn't it?

[Tommygilf]

23 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Top 3 or 4 teams.

Indeed, it exacerbates that concentration too.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, mrfranco said:

How do you solve the problem of sides that win promotion being unready and ill-equipped to survive in SL? The obvious answer is to not allow them to be relegated in year 1. But how do you do that? It's patently not very fair on a team finishing 2nd bottom to have them relegated while a team below them survive.

So, one idea is this:
only have relegation every 2nd season. That means relegating two clubs, and therefore promoting two clubs, and it might be that it's the same 2 clubs that were promoted two years before, but I think it may be worth a try. Because what it does is allow promoted clubs a season to get used to SL and build for that vital second season. It allows them to offer longer than 1-year contracts and not necessarily only get the dregs of who's left because they've found out they are getting promoted only after all the existing SL clubs have sorted out recruitment.

Although there is no relegation "jeopardy" in Y1 of every two-year cycle, everybody knows that there certainly is in Y2, and that - along with the fact that those clubs who are busy contesting silverware carry on with the usual cut and thrust of the battle at the top of the table - should help guard against the kind of staleness that we had under licencing.

Finally, while relegation is 2 teams every second year, promotion carries on being earnt every season. The two promoted teams would be the two champions of the Championship over the two years, and for the team that wins that league in Y1 of any two-year cycle, they have a whole year to prepare for entering SL safe in the knowledge that they will be promoted at the end of Y2, whatever they do in that Y2 season. And with the no-relegation season the following year, by the time they face a potential relegation battle in their second year in SL, they've had two full years to prepare. It should at least make it a much fairer fight than we see at the moment.

 

 

And what if in the Championship the second year winners are the same club as the first year winners, but both years the second placed team is a different one, you can't just promote the second year runner up, nor in SL if the same club finished bottom both years and had a different club in 11th place. It would be better in both divisions to give a number of points based on the finishing positions each year that accumulate to two teams being both promoted and relegated from each division.

[Jughead]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So turn back the clock and put them all in one division, equal funding and equal participation rules, that would work wouldn't it?

It’s not something I’ve given any thought to be interest but if twenty clubs is the magic number, I’m interested as to why, though I have my suspicions, and why relegation will be part of this if the new structure is going to manufactured in a way in which the financial hit of relegation is going to be minimal, based upon what has been said by Rimmer. 

Two tens don’t really work for us fans, I don’t know any who particularly like loop games, which a league of ten will certainly entail and relegation has been a divisive topic. 

[Harry Stottle]

52 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Didn’t the clubs already turn down the proposal to go to 14 in Super League at the end of this year, relegating 4 in 2023 and then starting with 2x10’s in 2024? 

Yes I recall them rejecting a 14 club SL, but can't say I remember them rubber stamping a 2 x 10's format.

[mrfranco]

34 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

And what if in the Championship the second winners are the same club as winners, but both the second placed team is a different one, you can't just promote the second year runner up, nor in SL if the same club finished both years and had a different club in 11th place. It would be better in both divisions to give a number of points based on the finishing positions each year that accumulate to two being both promoted and relegated from each division.

Obviously you would have to make rules for that in advance. There are various alternatives, but for me I'd view it as there's two promotion spots, and the first one is decided at the end of Y1, and everyone knows who it is. There's no relegation in Y1, and everybody knows that. So if the Y1 Championship winners win again in Y2, I'd have an MPG-style play-off between that season's runner-up and the second-bottom in that year's SL. In a sense it's a bonus for either club, because they would expect that by finishing where they did, they would not have a place in SL.
The important thing here though would be - as I said at the beginning - to make the rule for this clear in advance. A rugby league admin speciality as we know...

As for the points over the two seasons thing... I did consider that kind of thing, of course, but it works against the main point of this scheme, which is to give the newly promoted team a year of safety without relegating someone who potentially finishes above them. It also works against another positive feature of the scheme: i.e. I like the fact that if you are able to get your shirt together and win the Champ in Y1, you get a whole extra year to prepare. 
 

[Jughead]

If we are to have two tens and are to have relegation where the financial hit is not significant, we don’t need a gimmick or relegation only on years that end in an odd number, teams should go up and down each year. 

[mrfranco]

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

If we are to have two tens and are to have relegation where the hit is not significant, we don’t need a gimmick or relegation only on that end in an odd number, should go up and down each year. 

Each to their own, of course, but it's really not a gimmick.

We need a solution to the problem of the team that goes up being totally unprepared and coming straight back down (in recent years see Leigh, Toronto's 6 actual games and Toulouse so far...). This is an idea of how to do that.

[mrfranco]

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

If we are to have two tens and are to have relegation where the hit is not significant, we don’t need a gimmick or relegation only on that end in an odd number, should go up and down each year. 

Oh and I'm very much not in favour of 2 x 10.

[Jughead]

14 minutes ago, mrfranco said:

Each to their own, of course, but it's really not a gimmick.

We need a solution to the problem of the team that goes up being totally unprepared and coming straight back down (in recent years see Leigh, Toronto's 6 actual games and Toulouse so far...). This is an idea of how to do that.

It’s a gimmick. Rather than doing something to aide the promoted team (a larger share of the pie, season finishing much earlier), we give them a year’s grace, which is a needless gimmick and pulls down the standard of the elite level.