Jump to content

10-team Leagues


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't understand the obsession with closing the gap. The only way to close the gap between Super League and the Championship is to level down Super League even more, which would create a worse elite league and a worse product to sell to broadcasters. We have a 2 tier SL as is, it's crazy to expect even weaker clubs to compete with far bigger and richer clubs no matter how much tinkering you do.

You beat me to it with your opening line. 

If that is the objective, then these proposals have merit. But why is that the objective. 

I'm afraid real success would probably look like the top division stretching away from the rest of the clubs and becoming so much bigger that we don't even consider maintaining P&R. And that doesn't necessarily mean with the 12 that are in now. 

The biggest failing is that the bottom of SL clubs are no better than the top of the Championship really despite the opportunities they have had. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Damien said:

I don't understand the obsession with closing the gap. The only way to close the gap between Super League and the Championship is to level down Super League even more, which would create a worse elite league and a worse product to sell to broadcasters. We have a 2 tier SL as is, it's crazy to expect even weaker clubs to compete with far bigger and richer clubs no matter how much tinkering you do.

Indeed. If there's any gap that needs closing, it's the one between the "Big 6" and clubs 7-8-9-10.

If we constantly had up to 10 evenly matched clubs competing for the Superleague title deep into the season, we'd have a far more healthy and marketable elite competition. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Two separate conferences.

How do you close the gap if you don't extend the league?

I would prefer two leagues of 14 with 28 strong and economically sound clubs, but we don't have that option.

So my suggestion helps close the gap, eliminates loop fixtures, makes the plays offs more meaningful and increases the exposure through more clubs.

Granted there are draw back but there is with every system.

Two leagues of ten is a disaster, no organisation has ever scaled up and increased their brand by downsizing.

 

 

So two conferences but both can make a grand final right, just want to understand. Because if it´s two conferences but only one conference can win sl that´s two divisions and woeful . 

We definitely have 14 strong teams for SL and the 14 championship will be where clubs shape up to be ready with only minimal funding so we aren´t wasting money on a product that doesn´t generate the tv deal. , two tens of two leagues closes no gap because the money is simply given to the top 10 so it would be a joke. 

Edited by ShropshireBull
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

I don't disagree with much of that, but 13 home league games a year is hardly excessive, I don't think that is an issue, particularly if loop games are gone. 

I am absolutely an advocate of the variety, but in reality, the only way we could replicate football and Union models is by having a World Club Championship, which ain't happening. So we are in a tricky position of having to play enough games to fill a season without any kind of international club games. 

100% agree on internationals, that is the area we do have a solution. 

Well Qantas are now trailing a 20 hour long non stop flight service between Sydney and London now.

Fly, play and fly back all in three days!?!?!

The problem is whatever novel ideas that the game adopts will be duly dispatched within a couple of years and then resurrected within a decade all singing as it was never attempted in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

So two conferences but both can make a grand final right, just want to understand. Because if it´s two conferences but only one conference can win sl that´s two divisions and woeful . 

We definitely have 14 strong teams for SL and the 14 championship will be where clubs shape up to be ready with only minimal funding so we aren´t wasting money on a product that doesn´t generate the tv deal. , two tens of two leagues closes no gap because the money is simply given to the top 10 so it would be a joke. 

Correct, top two from each conference to play off.

Conference 1 and 2 play everyone in their own conference twice and everyone from the opposite conference once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Damien said:

I don't understand the obsession with closing the gap. The only way to close the gap between Super League and the Championship is to level down Super League even more, which would create a worse elite league and a worse product to sell to broadcasters. We have a 2 tier SL as is, it's crazy to expect even weaker clubs to compete with far bigger and richer clubs no matter how much tinkering you do.

We need to close the gap if we want growth.

It's fine to ignore this if we are happy with the same teams time after time. Smaller leagues are over familiar and lead to apathy from teams and supporters alike.

Some lower teams have the opportunity for growth but don't get SL money. What would happen if York, Newcastle, Rochdale, etc. Had SL money for 20 years, would they grow more than Wakefield, Castleford etc.?

Ten and twelve is too few, 14 I can live with but if it had to be ten I would want my conference idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

We need to close the gap if we want growth.

It's fine to ignore this if we are happy with the same teams time after time. Smaller leagues are over familiar and lead to apathy from teams and supporters alike.

Some lower teams have the opportunity for growth but don't get SL money. What would happen if York, Newcastle, Rochdale, etc. Had SL money for 20 years, would they grow more than Wakefield, Castleford etc.?

Ten and twelve is too few, 14 I can live with but if it had to be ten I would want my conference idea. 

We don’t need to close that gap, we possibly need to give opportunities to a small group of clubs to potentially grow but even then it’s a move fraught with risk and doesn’t really help much in the short or medium term. We’ve spent the best part of thirty years handing money over to community clubs masquerading as professional clubs and the vast majority of those clubs and the game itself has nothing to show for keeping the facade up that these teams could rise to the top table of the sport. The idea that we need to close the gap between the top clubs and a very small handful of current championship clubs whilst there are pretty large gaps within Super League is not really relevant, IMO. 

I think we’re too obsessed with the Championship and the idea of dragging that up to some sort of standard when the elite level is ultimately the most important and requires the most work. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

We need to close the gap if we want growth.

It's fine to ignore this if we are happy with the same teams time after time. Smaller leagues are over familiar and lead to apathy from teams and supporters alike.

Some lower teams have the opportunity for growth but don't get SL money. What would happen if York, Newcastle, Rochdale, etc. Had SL money for 20 years, would they grow more than Wakefield, Castleford etc.?

Ten and twelve is too few, 14 I can live with but if it had to be ten I would want my conference idea. 

We don't need to close the gap, again this obsession. Closing the gap results in the decline of Super League and a whole lot of money wasted for no benefit.

Giving another 8 Championship clubs considerably more money just goes into the pockets of average Championship players who aren't good enough for Super League. At at the very best this allows them to become full time so they can still lose by 60 when they play Saints or Wigan.

Giving the clubs you cite SL equivalent money means SL clubs get a whole lot less. This creates a worse, less attractive competition with less stars and which is less appealing to fans and broadcasters alike. Broadcasters pay less, like the latest TV deal, and everyone is worse off. Then after all that we are still in the same place with Wigan, Leeds, Saints et al much stronger than Batley, London and co.

We even see this in action now with the top clubs still much stronger than the likes of Wakefield and Salford, despite all SL clubs getting equal funding and considerably more money being split 12 ways than can ever be achieved trying to spread that 20. The evidence is there and stretching this to 20 will make it considerably worse than we even see now.

The sooner people in the game recognise there isn't the money there to prop up everyone the better. The lower leagues would actually be far better off with a clear distinction between a full time Super League and part time everyone else. Then we could see clubs like Rochdale, Oldham and London really grow more sustainability rather than coming across full time teams, receiving multiples the level of funding that they are, as we have seen for years in the Championship.

Indeed maybe if we are to close any gap that gap should be the one between the Championship and League 1. Strangely fans of Championship clubs never advocate for that though.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

We need to close the gap if we want growth.

It's fine to ignore this if we are happy with the same teams time after time. Smaller leagues are over familiar and lead to apathy from teams and supporters alike.

Some lower teams have the opportunity for growth but don't get SL money. What would happen if York, Newcastle, Rochdale, etc. Had SL money for 20 years, would they grow more than Wakefield, Castleford etc.?

Ten and twelve is too few, 14 I can live with but if it had to be ten I would want my conference idea. 

With due respect, if we are focusing on the likes of Rochdale for growth, we are making a big mistake. 

Of course we should be creating environments and comps that allow these clubs to be the best they can, but that is a different level to the top level clubs. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Damien said:

We don't need to close the gap, again this obsession. Closing the gap results in the decline of Super League and a whole lot of money wasted for no benefit.

Giving another 8 Championship clubs considerably more money just goes into the pockets of average Championship players who aren't good enough for Super League. At at the very best this allows them to become full time so they can still lose by 60 when they play Saints or Wigan.

Giving the clubs you cite SL equivalent money means SL clubs get a whole lot less. This creates a worse, less attractive competition with less stars and which is less appealing to fans and broadcasters alike. Broadcasters pay less, like the latest TV deal, and everyone is worse off. Then after all that we are still in the same place with Wigan, Leeds, Saints et al much stronger than Batley, London and co.

We even see this in action now with the top clubs still much stronger than the likes of Wakefield and Salford, despite all SL clubs getting equal funding and considerably more money being split 12 ways than can ever be achieved trying to spread that 20. The evidence is there and stretching this to 20 will make it considerably worse than we even see now.

The sooner people in the game recognise there isn't the money there to prop up everyone the better. The lower leagues would actually be far better off with a clear distinction between a full time Super League and part time everyone else. Then we could see clubs like Rochdale, Oldham and London really grow more sustainability rather than coming across full time teams, receiving multiples the level of funding that they are, as we have seen for years in the Championship.

Indeed maybe if we are to close any gap that gap should be the one between the Championship and League 1. Strangely fans of Championship clubs never advocate for that though.

Agreed, and that is before you add in the desperately low salary cap.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Correct, top two from each conference to play off.

Conference 1 and 2 play everyone in their own conference twice and everyone from the opposite conference once.

I'd go top 3 : 2ndvs3rd then winners are in conference final for GF. 

I dont think we have 20 teams at that level yet (unless you are franchising) but this should definitely be the long term plan .

An 'Eastern' conference would look allright mind  in franchising (Hull,Kr, Toulouse,Catalán, Leeds,Bradford,York,Newcastle,Sheffield and London)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I'd go top 3 : 2ndvs3rd then winners are in conference final for GF. 

I dont think we have 20 teams at that level yet (unless you are franchising) but this should definitely be the long term plan .

An 'Eastern' conference would look allright mind  in franchising (Hull,Kr, Toulouse,Catalán, Leeds,Bradford,York,Newcastle,Sheffield and London)

My favourite part of this is the inclusion of two sides located on the West of France playing in an Eastern Conference alongside three clubs with almost zero hope of playing in Super League, with one struggling to exist. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jughead said:

My favourite part of this is the inclusion of two sides located on the West of France playing in an Eastern Conference alongside three clubs with almost zero hope of playing in Super League, with one struggling to exist. 

I think this is one of the challenges with these kind of ideas, and we can all be guilty of this....

On paper that looks fine - but in reality we end up with a load of skint club, with London playing in front of 1.3k, Sheffield 1k, York, 3k, Newcastle, 1.5k - and it is rubbish. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jughead said:

We don’t need to close that gap, we possibly need to give opportunities to a small group of clubs to potentially grow but even then it’s a move fraught with risk and doesn’t really help much in the short or medium term. We’ve spent the best part of thirty years handing money over to community clubs masquerading as professional clubs and the vast majority of those clubs and the game itself has nothing to show for keeping the facade up that these teams could rise to the top table of the sport. The idea that we need to close the gap between the top clubs and a very small handful of current championship clubs whilst there are pretty large gaps within Super League is not really relevant, IMO. 

I think we’re too obsessed with the Championship and the idea of dragging that up to some sort of standard when the elite level is ultimately the most important and requires the most work. 

It's not a case of one or the other. You can have a plan that works towards both. Saying you can only do or have one is divisive.

Those lower clubs have not had super League money, so not fair to expect them to compete, I stand by the comments if those lower clubs had SL money instead of some SL clubs what would be the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

With due respect, if we are focusing on the likes of Rochdale for growth, we are making a big mistake. 

Of course we should be creating environments and comps that allow these clubs to be the best they can, but that is a different level to the top level clubs. 

I didn't suggest we concentrate solely on one club, but equally we shouldn't ignore or cast off those who have potential to grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

I'd go top 3 : 2ndvs3rd then winners are in conference final for GF. 

I dont think we have 20 teams at that level yet (unless you are franchising) but this should definitely be the long term plan .

An 'Eastern' conference would look allright mind  in franchising (Hull,Kr, Toulouse,Catalán, Leeds,Bradford,York,Newcastle,Sheffield and London)

Fully agree.

All the current talk of only helping those at the top will see us continue to shrink, we've gone 14 to 12 and now potentially 10. If we are happy with a dwindling pot and fewer teams then let's continue with what we are doing.

If we want potential of growth then we have to change.

I'll say again,. No business grows by reducing.

Also, obsession with standards is misleading, we should be concentrating on competitiveness and entertainment, which doesn't always go hand in hand with standards.

Spread the talent even across 29 teams in two conferences then you have something we can sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I didn't suggest we concentrate solely on one club, but equally we shouldn't ignore or cast off those who have potential to grow.

Of course, but you do that by creating a structure and environment that allows a club to play at its level and be the best it can. 

Not all clubs can be a SL club and we need to accept that. But if a club can grow to a level where they are strong, then there should be a process for progression under any system. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

It's not a case of one or the other. You can have a plan that works towards both. Saying you can only do or have one is divisive.

Those lower clubs have not had super League money, so not fair to expect them to compete, I stand by the comments if those lower clubs had SL money instead of some SL clubs what would be the difference?

There would likely be very little to no difference and that’s not a responsible or business minded driver for change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Of course, but you do that by creating a structure and environment that allows a club to play at its level and be the best it can. 

Not all clubs can be a SL club and we need to accept that. But if a club can grow to a level where they are strong, then there should be a process for progression under any system. 

What having normal leagues with teams in each league getting equal funding so they can play to their level against similar teams? Crazy talk and far too sensible by half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

What having normal leagues with teams in each league getting equal funding so they can play to their level against similar teams? Crazy talk and far too sensible by half.

Happens in Super League and League One but not the Championship, I believe?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Happens in Super League and League One but not the Championship, I believe?

Indeed and over the last few years we here all kinds of verbal gymnastics as to why some clubs should get 3 or 4 times the funding than others. Its always parity when it suits and if it means you are in the select club.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Indeed and over the last few years we here all kinds of verbal gymnastics as to why some clubs should get 3 or 4 times the funding than others. Its always parity when it suits and if it means you are in the select club.

Yup.

It absolutely stinks.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Of course, but you do that by creating a structure and environment that allows a club to play at its level and be the best it can. 

Not all clubs can be a SL club and we need to accept that. But if a club can grow to a level where they are strong, then there should be a process for progression under any system. 

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

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...