10-team Leagues

[Damien]

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

They were in on licensing based on a ground they didnt deliver and have been prioritised with sl cash despite not delivering, so wouldn´t say they earnt it. 

So unless you are deliberately disengenous, that´s david´s point isn´t it? His point is clearly that if York were in SL, they would be of equal or greater stasture to Wakey. Before Wakey´s new redevelopement, that´s hard to disagree with. 

Weird post. I'm commenting on the context of his proposal. York are not in SL. I dont see why we should take money off Wakefield, or any Super League club, to prop up Championship clubs and level down Super League.

[David Dockhouse Host]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Weird post. I'm commenting on the context of his proposal. York are not in SL. I dont see why we should take money off Wakefield, or any Super League club, to prop up Championship clubs and level down Super League.

But the money is propping up SL clubs which are if equal value to some championship clubs is my point.

You are happy to prop up continual mid table clubs in SL but not consider further support for growing progressive clubs in the championship. 

The only difference between many clubs is the central funding they get.

This restricts growth as those with greater potential don't get the same 'propping up'

I used York and Wakefield as examples, there may be better examples.

Two leagues of ten makes this gap greater unless finding is equal. And then you have the issue of repeat fixtures unless you consider a conference approach as I suggested.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

But the money is propping up SL clubs which are if equal value to some championship clubs is my point.

You are happy to prop up continual mid table clubs in SL but not consider further support for growing progressive clubs in the championship. 

The only difference between many clubs is the central funding they get.

This restricts growth as those with greater potential don't get the same 'propping up'

I used York and Wakefield as examples, there may be better examples.

Two leagues of ten makes this gap greater unless finding is equal. And then you have the issue of repeat fixtures unless you consider a conference approach as I suggested.

It's kind of hard to identify which are the genuinely progressive clubs in the Championship when the funding is so uneven.

Maybe a season or two of flat funding across the division first.

[Damien]

Just now, David Dockhouse Host said:

But the money is propping up SL clubs which are if equal value to some championship clubs is my point.

You are happy to prop up continual mid table clubs in SL but not consider further support for growing progressive clubs in the championship. 

The only difference between many clubs is the central funding they get.

This restricts growth as those with greater potential don't get the same 'propping up'

I used York and Wakefield as examples, there may be better examples.

Two leagues of ten makes this gap greater unless finding is equal. And then you have the issue of repeat fixtures unless you consider a conference approach as I suggested.

This proposal has been discussed on here plenty of times before and I already answered all of these points on the last page and said why its not the case.

The proposal that you seem to like levels down Super League to the Championship and ensures decline, not growth, for our top teams and the elite league. That is no good to anyone and the entire pyramid will be worse off. More funding to pay average Championship players a full time wage is not a wise investment, its a complete waste of money. It also brings zero additional revenue into the game to pay for that.

I have also heard barely anyone that wants two leagues of 10 full stop, I think there has been 1 person on this thread when it was discussed at the start. The only thing worse than that is the proposal you like of 2 leagues of 10 and propping up 20 clubs with cross conference nonsense.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Take SL money off Wakefield and five it to York or Bradford, what's the difference? 

We expect clubs to grow whilst giving their competitors more money

York likely would be no better and we saw what happened with Bradford, we font need to guess. 

[Spidey]

30 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's kind of hard to identify which are the genuinely progressive clubs in the Championship when the funding is so uneven.

Maybe a season or two of flat funding across the division first.

I dont mind a sliding scale of funding based on performance. However it should be a nominal amount not the differences we’ve seen in the championship

[Damien]

Just now, Spidey said:

I dont mind a sliding scale of funding based on performance. However it should be a nominal amount not the differences we’ve seen in the championship

Yes I dont mind some small performance prize bonus either but that should be minimal in my opinion with the bulk of the funding equal to give as much parity as possible. What we have seen in the Championship has been ridiculous.

[Tommygilf]

I think it is petty to argue that there is a significant difference between around 10 clubs across Super League and the Championship. 

I can understand the frustration some have that some clubs have been able to stay in Super League running on minimal owner/sponsor investment whilst other clubs have got backers willing to pump in 6 figure sums to support their clubs on far less central distribution. I can also understand why if SL TV money and Ticket income is the only regular source of investment at some clubs that some people believe that SL TV money should be invested more strategically in other clubs who on the face of it would do the same.

How to square that circle is difficult.

Right now I think relegation only exists because lower spending and standards at certain Super League clubs makes it possible for some Championship clubs to claim near equivalence. To stop that, ideally for the game you would want the Super League clubs to have improved beyond reach rather than the Championship to be decimated. However we have for several years created a false reality where the Championship has received relatively massive amounts of money to prop it up too. That is being normalised currently but it wasn't healthy and retrospectively appears to have been a real waste of money.

[dboy]

Bulls = bust 4 times in 5 years.

York = > Wakefield for the game??? Stupid comment.

When York produce a 10th of the players that Wakey do for the game, come and let me know.

Credit to York though, they ARE trying to develop and earn their progression on and off the pitch. Doing it right.

Bulls just keep crying about how good they used to be.

 

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

This proposal has been discussed on here plenty of times before and I already answered all of these points on the last page and said why its not the case.

The proposal that you seem to like levels down Super League to the Championship and ensures decline, not growth, for our top teams and the elite league. That is no good to anyone and the entire pyramid will be worse off. More funding to pay average Championship players a full time wage is not a wise investment, its a complete waste of money. It also brings zero additional revenue into the game to pay for that.

I have also heard barely anyone that wants two leagues of 10 full stop, I think there has been 1 person on this thread when it was discussed at the start. The only thing worse than that is the proposal you like of 2 leagues of 10 and propping up 20 clubs with cross conference nonsense.

I don't agree with your points I'm afraid, not sure I can add any more, we simply disagree on the way forward.

I dispute this is any dumbing down but sharing of wealth and talent to increase wider engagement and even competition.

I maintain no business grows by decreasing it's assets and limiting growth of others outside the elite.

[David Dockhouse Host]

45 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think it is petty to argue that there is a significant difference between around 10 clubs across Super League and the Championship. 

I can understand the frustration some have that some clubs have been able to stay in Super League running on minimal owner/sponsor investment whilst other clubs have got backers willing to pump in 6 figure sums to support their clubs on far less central distribution. I can also understand why if SL TV money and Ticket income is the only regular source of investment at some clubs that some people believe that SL TV money should be invested more strategically in other clubs who on the face of it would do the same.

How to square that circle is difficult.

Right now I think relegation only exists because lower spending and standards at certain Super League clubs makes it possible for some Championship clubs to claim near equivalence. To stop that, ideally for the game you would want the Super League clubs to have improved beyond reach rather than the Championship to be decimated. However we have for several years created a false reality where the Championship has received relatively massive amounts of money to prop it up too. That is being normalised currently but it wasn't healthy and retrospectively appears to have been a real waste of money.

Well put Tommy

[David Dockhouse Host]

39 minutes ago, dboy said:

Bulls = bust 4 times in 5 years.

York = > Wakefield for the game??? Stupid comment.

When York produce a 10th of the players that Wakey do for the game, come and let me know.

Credit to York though, they ARE trying to develop and earn their progression on and off the pitch. Doing it right.

Bulls just keep crying about how good they used to be.

 

Is that the measure for super League, the amount of players you produce? Is that from the academy?

The uneven academy ?

[M j M]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

His point is clearly that if York were in SL, they would be of equal or greater stasture to Wakey. Before Wakey´s new redevelopement, that´s hard to disagree with. 

Based on what could or would York be more valuable to the league than Wakefield? Crowds - no, junior player development - absolutely not, on field performance - no, incrementally larger TV viewing figures - doubtful.

Please don't tell us it's all about shiny, new stadia. Because an empty shiny new stadium is less use than a half-full, decrepit old one.

[David Dockhouse Host]

15 minutes ago, M j M said:

Based on what could or would York be more valuable to the league than Wakefield? Crowds - no, junior player development - absolutely not, on field performance - no, incrementally larger TV viewing figures - doubtful.

Please don't tell us it's all about shiny, new stadia. Because an empty shiny new stadium is less use than a half-full, decrepit old one.

But would they have all that had they got 20 years of SL funding is the point.

But could also consider Leigh, Feath, Oldham, etc. Etc.  

The point that some are missing is it's the SL money that ensures the position, a different club with the same money would be in the same position. 

Your old stadium argument isn't a strong one.

If anyone thinks keeping an also ran teams in SL with little opportunity to grow whilst belittling others will bring any change they are mistaken.

RL economy is shrinking, less TV money, fewer clubs proposed etc.

If we are happy to accept our lowly position and want to fund the same clubs and get the same winners each time then fine.

I do however accept these clubs should do more for themselves and cannot always blame RFL or SL or TV etc. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by David Dockhouse Host

[dboy]

30 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Is that the measure for super League, the amount of players you produce? Is that from the academy?

The uneven academy ?

You posted "Take SL money off Wakefield and five it to York - what's the difference?"

I gave you one simple, empirical example of the difference.

What is the measure of SL - how many times you can go bust in 5 years?

Bulls are Champions!

Why not take Salford's place and give it to Fev/York/Fax/Leigh etc?

Salford don't produce players, don't pay their bills (choosing to spend it players they otherwise can't afford), and have a diminishing fan base in a soccer mad city.

Leave Wakey out of this and target them.

[David Dockhouse Host]

Just now, dboy said:

You posted "Take SL money off Wakefield and five it to York - what's the difference?"

I gave you one simple, empirical example of the difference.

What is the measure of SL - how many times you can go bust in 5 years?

Bulls are Champions!

Why not take Salford's place and give it to Fev/York/Fax/Leigh etc?

Salford don't produce players, don't pay their bills (choosing to spend it players they otherwise can't afford), and have a diminishing fan base in a soccer mad city.

Leave Wakey out of this and target them.

I haven't targeted anyone specifically, I just chose a few clubs to make the point.

I never said they should take money off Wakefield and give it to York, you either misunderstanding the point I'm making or putting up a straw man.

My point would stand with any of those clubs mentioned, no point repeating myself I've made the point enough times and think it's quite simple 

[Tommygilf]

29 minutes ago, M j M said:

Based on what could or would York be more valuable to the league than Wakefield? Crowds - no, junior player development - absolutely not, on field performance - no, incrementally larger TV viewing figures - doubtful.

Please don't tell us it's all about shiny, new stadia. Because an empty shiny new stadium is less use than a half-full, decrepit old one.

The point is that the difference is so small it makes literally no difference, and that is despite £10s of millions going to Wakefield and other Super League clubs centrally over the past 20 odd years. Wakefield currently have elite academy status because they are granted the right to do so by the RFL and being a Super League club is a massive part of that. Only geographical outposts in London and Newcastle are able to do so from outside the elite level.

We have a not insignificant group of clubs for whom that reality of lacking difference is currently true. Hence why some think the money could be invested more wisely or with more external financial input at another club.

Ideally this wouldn't be the case, but to deny it is there, and is indeed the primary reason why we currently have P/R, is folly.

[jamescolin]

Go  back to one league that we used to have. Yorkshire clubs play each other and L:ancashire plus Cumberland play each other. Teams outside the two  to be equally distributed. Then the Yorkshire and Lancashier clubs play four teams from other county. Teams they play depending on their league position in previous engagement. Funds to be equally distrbuted between all teams that participatre. No promotion or relegation. Top 8 play off and Lancashire and Yorkshire cup competition. .All clubs in RL knock out competition. 

[dboy]

And while I'm at it...

Degsy ands Carter (my club's CEO), go on about how the French teams bring nothing to the game.

I'm sure they mean they aren't bringing an income stream to SL in the way they should.

But they bring a media presence that club's like Salford don't.

FFS, Coronation Street, the UKs #1 soap, is set in a fictional Salford suburb, and we can't even get a mention on there!

Instead they choose to big-up a fictional non-league soccer club!! Weatherfield bloody County!

I should point at that when RL did have a feature of note on Corry - it was a fictional WAKEFIELD player".

Go on Duggie Ferguson!!!

[dboy]

2 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Take SL money off Wakefield and five it to York or Bradford, what's the difference? 

 

They are your actual words.

Are you meaning it doesn't matter who is in, the status quo doesn't change?

[Damien]

1 minute ago, dboy said:

And while I'm at it...

Degsy ands Carter (my club's CEO), go on about how the French teams bring nothing to the game.

I'm sure they mean they aren't bringing an income stream to SL in the way they should.

But they bring a media presence that club's like Salford don't.

FFS, Coronation Street, the UKs #1 soap, is set in a fictional Salford suburb, and we can't even get a mention on there!

Instead they choose to big-up a fictional non-league soccer club!! Weatherfield bloody County!

I should point at that when RL did have a feature of note on Corry - it was a fictional WAKEFIELD player".

Go on Duggie Ferguson!!!

RL is actually mentioned quite a bit on Coronation Street and currently, or at least recently had a RL player in it (I cant say I see it much). The fabled Rugby League World even got a plug once.

[David Dockhouse Host]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

They are your actual words.

Are you meaning it doesn't matter who is in, the status quo doesn't change?

My actual words out of context.

If Leigh or York or (insert champ or L1 club) had 20 years of uninterrupted Super League funding instead of Salford (or insert name of mid/lower table SL club) what difference would there be? 

On the surface Salford look better than Leigh as they are a league above but what is the actual difference? 

If York had 20 years of SL funding could they have grown more than Salford, Wakefield etc. Etc?

 

[dboy]

It really isn't mentioned "quite a bit", but yes, there was ONCE a RLWC mention.

I don't know whether we blame the people running our game, or the blindness of the producers/writers of the programme for the ignorance of the games working class community roots, but the game's absence is shocking.

They can't even be bothered to take the ###### out of RL!

Edited May 5, 2022 by dboy

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

You posted "Take SL money off Wakefield and five it to York - what's the difference?"

I gave you one simple, empirical example of the difference.

What is the measure of SL - how many times you can go bust in 5 years?

Bulls are Champions!

Why not take Salford's place and give it to Fev/York/Fax/Leigh etc?

Salford don't produce players, don't pay their bills (choosing to spend it players they otherwise can't afford), and have a diminishing fan base in a soccer mad city.

Leave Wakey out of this and target them.

Wakey & Salford particularly, followed by Huddersfield, Castleford and Hull KR to varying extents depending on how the wind is blowing. Huddersfield are currently doing well thanks to attracting a benefactor, likewise KR have almost grown into making it the "big 7", Cas do consistently well with what they have too.

That said, Clubs like Leigh, Fev, Halifax, Bradford, Widnes, York etc quite reasonably think that they are capable of achieving the levels of many of those clubs; both in terms of spending and commercial viability. Its unsurprising that it is as if it has been made as difficult as possible for promoted clubs, because Super League clubs quite reasonably think the same as the above too.

[Tommygilf]

50 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Well put Tommy

I certainly understand the sentiment.

Indeed I believe it is the only reason we have P/R to and from Super League at the moment.