Jump to content

10-team Leagues


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

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

Point taken, but I would argue others have more potential but are swimming against the tide whilst other keep collecting the big money.

The current system doesn't encourage growth, it works against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 minutes 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 and Bradford are not competitors to Wakefield, they are in different divisions. Wakefield have earned the right to be in Super League and deserve the SL money they get. Bradford were there too but they blew it, I'm not sure why you think they now deserve the same money and status.

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

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Damien said:

York and Bradford are not competitors to Wakefield, they are in different divisions. Wakefield have earned the right to be in Super League and deserve the SL money they get. Bradford were there too but they blew it, I'm not sure why you think they now deserve the same money and status.

I never said they deserve it?

They are competitors as they hold a position in a league others hope to take, they compete for a position in SL. They don't compete in the same league granted, but that's a different point.

Straight point relating to the self preservation, SL money and championship money, worlds apart, team who goes up goes back down, entirely due to the large gap in funding. There is no way to break this cycle, so the same teams will aim to avoid relegation and ensure the promoted side go back down. 

Repeat the year after and the year after without any genuine desire to break into the top 3 or 4 on a regular basis.

There's not a great deal of difference now compared to 10 years ago, and if we don't change it will remain as slowly rescued organisation, ten teams now, eight teams in 5 years etc. 

 

 

Edited by David Dockhouse Host
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Wakefield have earned the right to be in Super League and deserve the SL money they get.

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. 

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

York and Bradford are not competitors to Wakefield, they are in different divisions

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. 

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

2 minutes ago, 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. 

Did you miss the bit where in Super League and League One the central funding is evenly distributed to all but, uniquely, in the Championship it is not?

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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, I definitely agree with @gingerjonthat clubs shouldn´t get more for higher places finishes, that was an absolute joke in the champ and a waste of millions of pounds because it was a matthews effect. But doesn´t change case that York until Wakey get new ground are no worse if not better (I´d argue better) . 

Same goes for Salford. Which is why a SL 14 works with a small 100k to champ clubs. Gives chance for these emerging clubs to grow and we don´t waste money on champ clubs who don´t contribute to tv deal or have no infrastructure to be financially competitive. That ways, clubs that do come up will already be in a decent position . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by David Dockhouse Host
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!!

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...