10-team Leagues

[Jughead]

36 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

No it wouldn’t - it is the logical way forward to support France and allow ambitious clubs a platform to grow with like minded clubs by providing increased competition and the move between SL1&2 not a disaster

The caveat to its success will be  mandatory FT, min spend of say £1.2m in SL2 and a French tv deal  with 3/4 clubs in the structure

Are you calling it SL2 because that’s how many teams will meet the mandatory rules you want in place?

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

None of what you say will happen. 2x10s is not even a prerequisite to do any of what you say. It will not be SL2, it will be a renamed Championship.

If its SL2 and 10 in SL1 play you once, won't bradford v Leeds get 10k extra for £20 = £200k 

Might be good way to boost the current championship clubs? 

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

If its SL2 and 10 in SL1 play you once, won't bradford v Leeds get 10k extra for £20 = £200k 

Might be good way to boost the current championship clubs? 

I see absolutely no advantages in doing that.

The Championship or SL2 if you wish to call it that is the league below Super League. I'm not sure why we should have Super League clubs playing Championship clubs.

It's odd how people argue against SL going to 14, citing a lack of money or some lack of quality argument, but yet want to instead prop up 20 clubs. We can't get 12 big competitive clubs so I don't see how 20 will work.

It's very Rugby League to look for obscure gimmicky solutions rather than just having a simple format.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

I see absolutely no advantages in doing that.

The Championship or SL2 if you wish to call it that is the league below Super League. I'm not sure why we should have Super League clubs playing Championship clubs.

It's odd how people argue against SL going to 14, citing a lack of money or some lack of quality argument, but yet want to instead prop up 20 clubs. We can't get 12 big competitive clubs so I don't see how 20 will work.

It's very Rugby League to look for obscure gimmicky solutions rather than just having a simple format.

I'm on the fence about the ideal structure, but above would tick boxes 

-18 top quality games for each SL1 club 

- 10 games where some juniors could be blooded- reduced burden on players

-Big pay days for the 10 SL2 clubs with 5 home matches versus SL1 

[Jughead]

Just now, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

I'm on the fence about the ideal structure, but above would tick boxes 

-18 top quality games for each SL1 club 

- 10 games where some juniors could be blooded- reduced burden on players

-Big pay days for the 10 SL2 clubs with 5 home matches versus SL1 

Is there any credible sports competition that has games between clubs from different levels for league points? 

It appears to me to be the sort of race to the bottom concept we’re doomed to stick with whilst being unduly gimmicky, suiting almost nobody within the game. 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

@Jugheadthat's a downside. 

American sports all have complex fixtures/ groups 

There are no easy solutions- in any structure the RFL comes up there will be problems 

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

I'm on the fence about the ideal structure, but above would tick boxes 

-18 top quality games for each SL1 club 

- 10 games where some juniors could be blooded- reduced burden on players

-Big pay days for the 10 SL2 clubs with 5 home matches versus SL1 

Going from 12 to 10 will not increase the quality of games, just as going from 14 to 12 didn't.

So much for an elite completion. More than a third of it being glorified reserve games.

There won't be big pay days to watch sides getting stuffed. 

How does a SL2 side compete on a £200k funding compared to a SL side getting £1.8 million? Simple answer is they can't. That is unless you are proposing taking funding away from SL and creating a worse competition with even worse standards and less star names. Sky want something better, not something far worse.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Damien

[Jughead]

Just now, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

@Jugheadthat's a downside. 

American sports all have complex fixtures/ groups 

There are no easy solutions- in any structure the RFL comes up there will be problems 

American sports, whilst convoluted and confusing to the outsider, have fixtures between clubs all at the same elite level, not games between clubs at the elite level and the second tier. 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Jughead said:

American sports, whilst convoluted and confusing to the outsider, have fixtures between clubs all at the same elite level, not games between clubs at the elite level and the second tier. 

Indeed, the suggestion is so laughable that in RL I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

The sooner the game realises that you can't placate everyone the better. There will always be haves and have nots, that's sport. The game certainly cannot afford to prop up 2 full time league, it couldn't even do that with much greater TV deal.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Damien

[Mumby Magic]

Had to look if someone had refreshed a thread from last year.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

No it wouldn’t - it is the logical way forward to support France and allow ambitious clubs a platform to grow with like minded clubs by providing increased competition and the move between SL1&2 not a disaster

The caveat to its success will be  mandatory FT, min spend of say £1.2m in SL2 and a French tv deal  with 3/4 clubs in the structure

Increased competition from where?

All that will happen is a reduction in funding from 2 elite clubs, 10 clubs that will struggle to fund full time squads on a tiny budget, still a huge division in class between top (safer) clubs and the rest as they cherry-pick the best future players from the league below. Clubs at the bottom of the new 2nd Division (which is just the Championship in all but name) will eventually fold or drop down to part time again when they can't make ends meet due to the not-so-big upturn in income and the next conversation about structure change will begin - most likely beginning with "go back to 12 teams."

 

Personally, I think the solutions that can be found to the most obvious problems are far simpler.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

5 hours ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

Fair one.

He must have got it from somewhere, like. 

A lot of stuff comes to him in dream form.....most Mondays mornings he'll neck a fistful of auyahuasca early doors...... Doesn't take long for the spirits to rise

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

 

Don't SL Get £1.5m this year? If Sky buy in and fund us £30m a year, you get: 

£1.5m for top 10 

£1m for next ten 

£5m to RFL

Now, you would probably give top few in SL2 more, others a bit less. 

Taking current table: wakefield, tolouse, leigh, featherstone, York could all go or stay full time and be competitive with each other, while not being a total mis match against SL1 teams resting a few? 

I appreciate these five would lose their better players, and have lesser players. 

Alternative is 12 or 14, but former means loop games and uncompetitive championship (2 clear better teams) and latter might spread talent too thin?

It's a tough call 

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

Don't SL Get £1.5m this year? If Sky buy in and fund us £30m a year, you get: 

£1.5m for top 10 

£1m for next ten 

£5m to RFL

Now, you would probably give top few in SL2 more, others a bit less. 

Taking current table: wakefield, tolouse, leigh, featherstone, York could all go or stay full time and be competitive with each other, while not being a total mis match against SL1 teams resting a few? 

I appreciate these five would lose their better players, and have lesser players. 

Alternative is 12 or 14, but former means loop games and uncompetitive championship (2 clear better teams) and latter might spread talent too thin?

It's a tough call 

So now you are looking at finding a unicorn. Sky have just cut funding and have never shown any real interest in paying for and showing 2nd rate lower league RL. I'm not sure why you would think they would give a big increase for this.

Unless Sky are funding the 2nd tier to the tune of £10 million a year any funding to make the 2nd tier full time is a waste of money. It does not increase the value of the elite competition and will not grow revenue for the game as a whole.

You also seem to not care about League 1 and seem to want to take away all funding there which I would oppose.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

Sky will decide to an extent. 

They funded game as a whole £40m with Qualifiers. If they think its a go er then they might pay more. Ultimately none of us know what they think. 

The league one funding is £75k a club which could come from the overall pot 

[Phil W]

I don't think there's a solution that would please everyone here. For me personally i like the idea of getting promoted through the leagues and making it to Super League and opening up relegation from League One but appreciate that's not realistic.

My question would be out of the twenty five teams in the Championship and League One who has Super League ambitions? If so could you have minimum criteria for Super League 1 and slightly less criteria for SL2. You could have a play off between bottom of SL2 and League One. Like i said no easy fix but think you might need more than two leagues of ten.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

@Phil WI'm not sure anyone suggests you can't go up into SL2 in some form 

[Jughead]

11 minutes ago, Phil W said:

I don't think there's a solution that would please everyone here. For me personally i like the idea of getting promoted through the leagues and making it to Super League and opening up relegation from League One but appreciate that's not realistic.

My question would be out of the twenty five teams in the Championship and League One who has Super League ambitions? If so could you have minimum criteria for Super League 1 and slightly less criteria for SL2. You could have a play off between bottom of SL2 and League One. Like i said no easy fix but think you might need more than two leagues of ten.

So pretty much the same as we have now but with some more or fewer teams than we have now otherwise known as moving deckchairs on the Titanic. You’re hired!

Edited May 2, 2022 by Jughead

[Griff]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

None of what you say will happen. 2x10s is not even a prerequisite to do any of what you say. It will not be SL2, it will be a renamed Championship.

The notion that two clubs will give up their Superleague status is ridiculous.

[David Shepherd]

This Mick Gledhill?

[JM2010]

It depends what the reason for going for 10 SL sides is. If it's to increase standards then I don't like the idea.

The best way to improve standards is to invest in juniors clubs and schools and for the RFL to help clubs implement the best junior pathway systems through academies. Increasing the player base is the only way standards will improve long term. The NRL is the better competition because they have many more kids playing the game and good junior pathways which results in better players coming through into the competition

More money for 10 clubs will just get spent on the same players so standards will be the same. 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by JM2010

[JM2010]

Just now, JM2010 said:

It depends what the reason for going for 10 SL sides is. If it's to increase standards then I don't like the idea.

The best way to improve standards is to invest in juniors clubs and schools and for the RFL to help clubs implement the best junior pathway systems through academies. Increasing the player base is the only way standards will improve long term. The NRL is the better competition because they have many more kids playing the game and good junior pathways which results in better players coming through into the competition

More money for 10 clubs will just get spent on the same players so standards will be the same. 

 

 

 

 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, JM2010 said:

It depends what the reason for going for 10 SL sides is. If it's to increase standards then I don't like the idea.

The best way to improve standards is to invest in juniors clubs and schools and for the RFL to help clubs implement the best junior pathway systems through academies. Increasing the player base is the only way standards will improve long term. The NRL is the better competition because they have many more kids playing the game and good junior pathways which results in better players coming through into the competition

More money for 10 clubs will just get spent on the same players so standards will be the same. 

Absolutely. There are a small number of "good" reasons for going for 2x10.

I guarantee none of them will be the reason the sport actually does go for 2x10 though.

[nadera78]

Whenever the 2x10s idea rears its head, annually it seems, the first notion that pops into my mind is that it is yet another format designed to help the clubs that dominate the Championship yet are too small to compete in SL. It seems this is the number one question we've been considering ever since licensing was removed - how to comfort the 6-8 clubs in that category - and I don't think it has served us very well at all.

[snoopdog]

15 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

Sky will decide to an extent. 

They funded game as a whole £40m with Qualifiers. If they think its a go er then they might pay more. Ultimately none of us know what they think. 

The league one funding is £75k a club which could come from the overall pot 

No way near £75k!!