Jump to content

Sylvain Houles says Toulouse should be exempt from relegation


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, DEANO said:

If you really believe that there would be no end of season play off. The whole point of the play offs is to keep the season alive for half the league. Same should apply at the bottom regarding relegation 

I haven't said anything about play offs.

Making relegation essentially more of a lottery.

The season is always "alive" except in peoples' heads.

 

  • Like 2

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I haven't said anything about play offs.

Making relegation essentially more of a lottery.

The season is always "alive" except in peoples' heads.

 

So why have play offs in any sport

sometimes you have to take a step backwards to move forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, DEANO said:

So why have play offs in any sport

So people can be charged again for the same item. A bit like fixtures being over repetitive.

I don't believe you wanted an answer to this Deano.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Oxford said:

So people can be charged again for the same item. A bit like fixtures being over repetitive.

I don't believe you wanted an answer to this Deano.

Lol not the answer I was expecting. Point is , with no relegation, the season is over for half the sl clubs before a ball is kicked

  • Confused 1

sometimes you have to take a step backwards to move forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DEANO said:

Lol not the answer I was expecting. Point is , with no relegation, the season is over for half the sl clubs before a ball is kicked

I always find this argument a negative spin on things when every current Super League club (barring Toulouse obviously) have appeared in the top six between 2011-21 and nine of eleven sides have appeared in the last nine cup finals (with it possibly being ten this weekend depending on results) with the last five winners all being different clubs (again, this could six consecutive this year with a Wigan win). 

There’s Wigan fans on here speaking of Wigan’s challenge for the Super League Grand Final most likely being more serious from 2024 and talking of the development of the squad as they grow towards that, I think that’s the right attitude and approach to things. I think there’s also a case that the end of this current cycle of Saints dominance could be nearly over with the losses of Coote, Naiqama and Fages last year with Grace, Roby, LMS, Amor, Hurrell, Matautia and Lees off contract this year with Makinson, Lomax and Walmsley the wrong side of 30 and with the implications of a salary capped sport where players will want more money. For Saints, it could put them back into a “rebuilding phase” like Wigan are currently experiencing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my suggestion :- Promoting one team without relegation for two seasons bringing the SL up to 14 would be a good idea. This would bring (say) Leigh and Fev into the SL whilst preserving everyone else.

This would eliminate the dreaded loop fixtures that exists today and gives two full years for the league administration to increase the amount of money coming into the game.

Then I'd introduce a two year exemption from relegation, for newly promoted teams. This would give them (newly promoted teams) two/three full seasons to gear up for life in the Super League.

In the event that a Championship winning club, doesn't feel ready, no promotion or relegation would take place, so it's not automatic, but Championship winning clubs could apply and declare themselves ready.

If say London, or Newcastle, or York, or Widnes (or any other) are bristling and ready for promotion, then they would displace the lowest team in the league, not protected by an exemption.  

So at the end of this season, say Fev are promoted and we have a 13 team SL.

Then at the end of 2023 Leigh come up.

At the end of 2024, Fev and Leigh would be safe, (Leigh for 2 years and Fev for one), whereas one of Toulouse, Wakefield, Salford, Hull KR, (say) would be for the drop, say its Wakey. 

Then say Newcastle or Widnes or London get promoted their two year exemption begins.

At the end of 2025, Salford, Hull KR, Cas'  and Fev might be fighting it out to stay up, but Leigh and Newcastle are safe.

Say Hull KR are relegated. Wakey may get promoted straight back up, or alternatively London get promoted and their two year exemption begins.

At the end of 2026, it could be Salford, Cas and Leigh fighting it out for survival and Newcastle and London are still exempt as their clock ticks down.

Of course,(and this is a very important point, and the whole reason for exemption in the first place, is that) if a club is promoted and during it's exemption period it exceeds all expectations and ends up finishing above the relegations zone (in the top 6 playoffs, perhaps) they would be out of the relegation zone anyway, so their exemption isn't needed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Here's my suggestion :- Promoting one team without relegation for two seasons bringing the SL up to 14 would be a good idea. This would bring (say) Leigh and Fev into the SL whilst preserving everyone else.

This would eliminate the dreaded loop fixtures that exists today and gives two full years for the league administration to increase the amount of money coming into the game.

Then I'd introduce a two year exemption from relegation, for newly promoted teams. This would give them (newly promoted teams) two/three full seasons to gear up for life in the Super League.

In the event that a Championship winning club, doesn't feel ready, no promotion or relegation would take place, so it's not automatic, but Championship winning clubs could apply and declare themselves ready.

If say London, or Newcastle, or York, or Widnes (or any other) are bristling and ready for promotion, then they would displace the lowest team in the league, not protected by an exemption.  

So at the end of this season, say Fev are promoted and we have a 13 team SL.

Then at the end of 2023 Leigh come up.

At the end of 2024, Fev and Leigh would be safe, (Leigh for 2 years and Fev for one), whereas one of Toulouse, Wakefield, Salford, Hull KR, (say) would be for the drop, say its Wakey. 

Then say Newcastle or Widnes or London get promoted their two year exemption begins.

At the end of 2025, Salford, Hull KR, Cas'  and Fev might be fighting it out to stay up, but Leigh and Newcastle are safe.

Say Hull KR are relegated. Wakey may get promoted straight back up, or alternatively London get promoted and their two year exemption begins.

At the end of 2026, it could be Salford, Cas and Leigh fighting it out for survival and Newcastle and London are still exempt as their clock ticks down.

Of course,(and this is a very important point, and the whole reason for exemption in the first place, is that) if a club is promoted and during it's exemption period it exceeds all expectations and ends up finishing above the relegations zone (in the top 6 playoffs, perhaps) they would be out of the relegation zone anyway, so their exemption isn't needed. 

Where will any of this generate any new interest in the sport or create more income for the sport? To me, it looks an overly complicated race to the bottom scenario, keeping exactly the same amount of weekly rounds and expecting a different outcome from what we have now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jughead said:

Where will any of this generate any new interest in the sport or create more income for the sport? To me, it looks an overly complicated race to the bottom scenario, keeping exactly the same amount of weekly rounds and expecting a different outcome from what we have now. 

Well its not a fool proof cure-all, that's for sure.

It would though I believe, remove loop fixtures, which dull the appetite for those games.

It would also allow newly promoted clubs a little time to adjust to life in the fast lane, which is what Toulouse were asking for.

I think all promoted teams are disadvantaged by being thrown in the deep end with hardly any time to recruit players and prepare them pre-season for the onslaught to come. My proposal would ease that situation for them.

I don't really understand your ''race to the bottom'' comment? Is that something you read in a self-help book?

Nor do I understand your reference to ''exactly the same amount of weekly rounds''? You know surely, that the clubs are against reducing the number of weekly rounds? That's why the loop fixtures exist today.

Lastly, I've explained explicitly why I think the outcome would be different, twice (here and above) so your last line seems like another cliche from your ''idiots guide to self help'' ?

Edited by fighting irish
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jughead said:

Where will any of this generate any new interest in the sport or create more income for the sport? To me, it looks an overly complicated race to the bottom scenario, keeping exactly the same amount of weekly rounds and expecting a different outcome from what we have now. 

From a growth perspective, the argument is that if you give promoted teams one year's protection, it gives them time to find their feet and assemble a squad in the open market, not just the leftovers. This allows them a chance to show what their true potential is, and become a competitive SL club, not just a bottom feeder. This would enhance the product overall. 

I have some sympathy with this argument, but it's certainly not a guarantee that it creates a new "strong" club. Other factors would need to be considered too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you remember how upset Widnes fans were when they didn't finish bottom and were relegated.

Under your system the 3rd from bottom side would be relegated, so a side maybe just missing out on the play off by an odd point would go down?

There are no fair solutions to promotion and relegation when the financial gap between the leagues is so vast

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Well its not a fool proof cure-all, that's for sure.

It would though I believe, remove loop fixtures, which dull the appetite for those games.

It would also allow newly promoted clubs a little time to adjust to life in the fast lane, which is what Toulouse were asking for.

I think all promoted teams are disadvantaged by being thrown in the deep end with hardly any time to recruit players and prepare them pre-season for the onslaught to come. My proposal would ease that situation for them.

I don't really understand your ''race to the bottom'' comment? Is that something you read in a self-help book?

Nor do I understand your reference to ''exactly the same amount of weekly rounds''? You know surely, that the clubs are against reducing the number of weekly rounds? That's why the loop fixtures exist today.

Lastly, I've explained explicitly why I think the outcome would be different, twice (here and above) so your last line seems like another cliche from your ''idiots guide to self help'' ?

It dulls the appetite for existing fans, I’m not sure anyone outside the sport is bothered either way regarding loop games. 

Not sure why you’ve resorted to throwing odd insults around but that’s up to you, I suppose. 

I personally find any plan for growth that is largely based around lower league clubs being elevated and protected in an overly complicated and needless structure a race to the bottom scenario, that doesn’t really appear to be of any use to the majority, just a very small minority of existing second tier clubs of which some are way off from Super League and another couple throwing money at the league at present. 

We currently play twenty-seven weekly rounds in Super League (of which, many are pretty tepid and not really that interesting to existing fans let alone new fans) and I think the majority acknowledge that some form change is required. The vast majority of proposals posted here appear to be a continuation of that, with many somehow thinking that changing from twenty-seven games to…er, twenty seven games with two teams fewer or two more teams would result in massive change and that there would be a huge influx of interest, money, new participants and spectators to the game. I find it hard to follow that trail of thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DEANO said:

Lol not the answer I was expecting. Point is , with no relegation, the season is over for half the sl clubs before a ball is kicked

Part of the problem in too many SL game and not enough trophies.

At the moment we could end up playing the same side about 456 times.

Basically, even though the same sides  end up in finals, the basic inequalities are never seen as the issue and the rules and regulations do little but ensure that continues.

When you see  the bigger sides an their support as the crucial element their continued success and even lack of failure become the decision making reasoning rather than good of the game as a whole or even growth of the fan base.

This is reflected as much in the powers that be as it is in pundits and fans attitudes.

Some clubs have injuries some have dramas; Leeds might go down catastrophe lower club might go down "Oh, well" Lower club beats Leeds but all the stories are about Leeds and their problems.

Then there's the myth of lower clubs holding the game back which is as hilarious as it is ridiculous. And things like this are common reference point for many of the statements and arguments put forward on here.

I would also argue that relegation can be decided so early on that those season over games happen anyway. RL being the game that it is, it is far more likely that the demotion of a club is more likely to be decided by injuries than abilities. And of course the top clubs love relegation because they can recruit from a side that goes down.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Oxford
  • Like 2

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we say that clubs have little to play for, that isn't true. And even when we do have dead rubbers, we see teams still playing to win - it's a little bit of a myth really saying there is nothing to play for. I accept fans may struggle to get up for it, but in reality, clubs losing will see lower crowds anyway, it isn't a phenomenen that happens if P&R is not there. 

We should also look at clubs over the years. 

Wigan, Saints and Leeds have won loads. 

Wire, Hull and Catalans have won cups and played in Grand Finals. 

Hudds have won LLS, played in Cup finals and have graced playoffs. 

Cas and Salford have made Cup and Grand Finals. 

Hull KR have competed in playoffs, making semi final and are pushing this year, as well as appearing in a cup final. 

Wakefield - probably the weakest on field team, have appeared in sporadic playoffs. 

Toulouse - new to SL. 

So pretty much every team have contributed to the on-field comps we have, we haven't got teams who have done nothing, the hope and success has been there for all teams, even if it has been quite up and down for some. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

When we say that clubs have little to play for, that isn't true. And even when we do have dead rubbers, we see teams still playing to win - it's a little bit of a myth really saying there is nothing to play for. I accept fans may struggle to get up for it, but in reality, clubs losing will see lower crowds anyway, it isn't a phenomenen that happens if P&R is not there. 

We should also look at clubs over the years. 

Wigan, Saints and Leeds have won loads. 

Wire, Hull and Catalans have won cups and played in Grand Finals. 

Hudds have won LLS, played in Cup finals and have graced playoffs. 

Cas and Salford have made Cup and Grand Finals. 

Hull KR have competed in playoffs, making semi final and are pushing this year, as well as appearing in a cup final. 

Wakefield - probably the weakest on field team, have appeared in sporadic playoffs. 

Toulouse - new to SL. 

So pretty much every team have contributed to the on-field comps we have, we haven't got teams who have done nothing, the hope and success has been there for all teams, even if it has been quite up and down for some. 

 

The myth that clubs stop bothering and don't turn up blasted away with evidence, great stuff, Dave.

  • Like 1

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

would result in massive change and that there would be a huge influx of interest, money, new participants and spectators to the game. I find it hard to follow that trail of thought. 

I think the arguments have been about more competitiveness than spectator or footprint growth.

That needs other things that require game wide and world wide organisation both of which seem far beyond the game's culture to achieve!

  • Like 3

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me say first of all, that I appreciate you taking the time to explain in more detail what you really mean.

One-line, (unsubstantiated) statements of ''fact'' without any supporting or explanatory commentary can be tiresome and (appear arrogant) and even seem insulting, especially if they are laced with innuendo, or implication.

 I'm tired of cliche so please forgive me for pointing them out.

I'm happy to engage with opposing views, as long as there's enough information for me to understand your arguments.

I have to say that I'm still unsure exactly what you claim, dulls the appetite, for existing fans?

Now to my suggestion -  

Sylvain Houles is drawing attention to the fact that they are struggling to adjust to the pace and pressure of Super League.

My suggestion was an attempt to provide a solution to that problem only, (acknowledging that the existing system makes it very difficult for newly promoted teams to settle in).

The idea also leaves the door open for aspiring teams to enter (when ready) and so removes the anathema ''closed shop'' that Harry is so opposed to, keeping alive the hopes of all fans throughout the game.

By moving to 14 teams, the loop fixtures would be eliminated.

I said earlier that this suggestion alone, will not solve all the games ills, but (I think) will ease the situation for newly promoted ambitious teams, struggling to make the transition to Super League.

I can see that my long-winded post may have made it seem more complicated than it really is but it's actually very simple. In a nutshell, I'm suggesting that a newly promoted team can play for 2 seasons without fear of relegation but then must compete with all the others in their third season.

One final point, it's my personal view, that expanding into France (Europe) will eventually reap rewards for the game, improving France's uptake (and World Cup chances) whereas shrinking back to the M62 shows a complete lack of ambition for the game and some real short term anxieties, which may put off potential sponsors.

  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

When we say that clubs have little to play for, that isn't true. And even when we do have dead rubbers, we see teams still playing to win - it's a little bit of a myth really saying there is nothing to play for. I accept fans may struggle to get up for it, but in reality, clubs losing will see lower crowds anyway, it isn't a phenomenen that happens if P&R is not there. 

We should also look at clubs over the years. 

Wigan, Saints and Leeds have won loads. 

Wire, Hull and Catalans have won cups and played in Grand Finals. 

Hudds have won LLS, played in Cup finals and have graced playoffs. 

Cas and Salford have made Cup and Grand Finals. 

Hull KR have competed in playoffs, making semi final and are pushing this year, as well as appearing in a cup final. 

Wakefield - probably the weakest on field team, have appeared in sporadic playoffs. 

Toulouse - new to SL. 

So pretty much every team have contributed to the on-field comps we have, we haven't got teams who have done nothing, the hope and success has been there for all teams, even if it has been quite up and down for some. 

 

Dave I`ve noticed the same thing about League over here forever, there just doesn`t ever seem to be a game, even so-called exhibition matches or where both teams no hope in making the eight, where teams don`t genuinely seem to be trying to win.

I`ve often wondered whether it is the combative nature of League, testosterone levels go up and next thing you know everyone is playing like their playing for a finals spot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

When we say that clubs have little to play for, that isn't true. And even when we do have dead rubbers, we see teams still playing to win - it's a little bit of a myth really saying there is nothing to play for. I accept fans may struggle to get up for it, but in reality, clubs losing will see lower crowds anyway, it isn't a phenomenen that happens if P&R is not there. 

We should also look at clubs over the years. 

Wigan, Saints and Leeds have won loads. 

Wire, Hull and Catalans have won cups and played in Grand Finals. 

Hudds have won LLS, played in Cup finals and have graced playoffs. 

Cas and Salford have made Cup and Grand Finals. 

Hull KR have competed in playoffs, making semi final and are pushing this year, as well as appearing in a cup final. 

Wakefield - probably the weakest on field team, have appeared in sporadic playoffs. 

Toulouse - new to SL. 

So pretty much every team have contributed to the on-field comps we have, we haven't got teams who have done nothing, the hope and success has been there for all teams, even if it has been quite up and down for some. 

 

That’s not necessarily the problem and is in fact something that seems to be forgotten by some. The question I have, and I don’t know if there’s even a right answer to it is do we need to drag out the regular season over twenty-seven rounds though and is changing from twenty-seven rounds with five loop games to twenty-six or twenty-seven rounds (depending on where you sit on this argument) with potentially up to nine loop games actually much different to what we already do and is it going to change the game’s fortunes? 

I wonder if we’re just planning on doing what we are already doing, with some slight cosmetic changes, and thinking that will be enough. It may well be, I don’t know and I’m speculating as much as anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Red Willow said:

There are no fair solutions to promotion and relegation when the financial gap between the leagues is so vast

So there it is.

There are no fair solutions to an unfair system.

The financial gap is not just between but also within the league.

Until Leeds, St Helens, Wigan and Hull are all in the mix for P&R solutions won't even be considered, fairer or otherwise,

Mind you, if they were, their solution would be to make things even more unequal. To use a political analogy the Party that keeps power in the right hands, ensures their victory in a free and fair election. This is only a parallel idea by way of explanation and other metaphors, similes and pictures are available.

Edited by Oxford

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jughead said:

The biggest shock is that it took Uncle Degsy so many days to have a pop back. 

That's probably a recognition of the fact it might be being considered as worthy of late.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jughead said:

That’s not necessarily the problem and is in fact something that seems to be forgotten by some. The question I have, and I don’t know if there’s even a right answer to it is do we need to drag out the regular season over twenty-seven rounds though and is changing from twenty-seven rounds with five loop games to twenty-six or twenty-seven rounds (depending on where you sit on this argument) with potentially up to nine loop games actually much different to what we already do and is it going to change the game’s fortunes? 

I wonder if we’re just planning on doing what we are already doing, with some slight cosmetic changes, and thinking that will be enough. It may well be, I don’t know and I’m speculating as much as anyone. 

Ultimately we are in the business of putting on RL games, so giving teams a guaranteed 28 game season is hardly excessive, with a maximum of around 34 (if my maths is correct). It's important that we stay relevant and we don't create a 'blink and you miss it' season. I have seen little evidence that if we shorten our season games feel more like events and we get substantial increases - which is what would be needed to offset a reduction. 

There are rightly questions about what those 34 games are made up of, and for me in an ideal world we would have more variety in World Club games and Cup games. I agree with you that a move to more loop games is a bad idea, and in reality we should be looking to reduce the number of loop games. People don't like them, although I do feel the issue is somewhat overstated as the loop fixtures can return higher crowds than replacement games against teams further down the ladder. If Wire v Wigan for a 3rd time is replaced with Wire v Featherstone, we will see a lower crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Davo5 said:

No,which will be of great relief to most of the clubs fans & directors.

Those without ambition Dave?

16 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

But without it Harry said it would introduce terminal decline to the clubs?

Yes we have had this conversation before Tommy, and when the closed shop was mentioned a lot of supporters - those of Championship clubs with ambition, not the ones who are just happy to make up the numbers - concurred and said they would lose interest if the dangling carrot of promotion was taken away, but in my opinion P&R won't go away if it did it would deprive the TV companies of much needed variety to air, SL on it's own and the race for Old Trafford is not enough, they will be insistent of it remaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I don't really understand your ''race to the bottom'' comment? Is that something you read in a self-help book?

Nor do I understand your reference to ''exactly the same amount of weekly rounds''? You know surely, that the clubs are against reducing the number of weekly rounds? That's why the loop fixtures exist today.

Lastly, I've explained explicitly why I think the outcome would be different, twice (here and above) so your last line seems like another cliche from your ''idiots guide to self help'' ?

Nail, head, hammer fairly and squarely hit.

  • Haha 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.