Jump to content

10-team Leagues


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Jughead said:

In the previous post I quoted. 

In a discussion about framing the future and the games problems, you’re bringing  up Jim McDonald and Ken Barlow as a resolution. It’s comical. 

No. I didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, dboy said:

If we don't discuss this, what will we discuss?

It's not like there is anything of not happening in the game in the next few days.

At least if there is, it hasn't been promoted by either the governing body (or a northern kitchen-sink soap).

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Storyline proposal:

Ken - "Hey Gary Windass, where are you going?"

Gary - "Just gonna bury another dead body, dodge a tram crash, push a wife-beater off a roof - then I'm off to Elland Road to watch the rugby".

Ken - "Prefer Sale me, Rah, rah Gary. Rah, rah."

Gary - " off ya posh !".

To answer first question Toronto? 😄😄

  • Haha 1

Like poor jokes? Thejoketeller@mullymessiah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

Christ how many times can this non-topical, not going to happen subject be discussed.

Whenever three or more Rugby League fans meet, they have to discuss the game and what changes need to be made. 

Thems the rules! 😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dboy said:

No. I didn't.

Course you didn’t. You just rambled on about a soap bizarrely on a thread about what the game does in the future, I get it. 

You should watch Emmerdale. Martin Offiah got an appearance in about 1994 and Sam Dingle decked Adam Fogerty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Course you didn’t. You just rambled on about a soap bizarrely on a thread about what the game does in the future, I get it. 

You should watch Emmerdale. Martin Offiah got an appearance in about 1994 and Sam Dingle decked Adam Fogerty. 

You literally said I posted words I never said, on a theme I never intimated!

It takes quite a leap to take what I ACTUALLY posted and interpret it how you did.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

So again. Comparing crowds that a club gets in the champ to what a club gets in SL is you missing the point. Or budget,  if I took Wakeys 1.5mil away would they have the same squad?  Of course not,  so its disengenous to pretend York would carry the same squad with 1.5 million extra. 

Unless you think yorks crowds are static and wouldnt grow the point being made is if York were in SL they would be bigger or at least equal to Wakefield. 

People on here seem to willfully miss the point or dont have the honestly to say 'I think York would be lower than Wakey if York were in SL'. 

I disagree as York is a thriving affluent city with 2 universities and can tap into the commercial income in the área. 

I hope that Wakey can capture a new market with updates but saying because York have an inferior squad in Champ is reason why it would be lower than Wakey in SL is a stupid arguement. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

100 % and I say that as someone now who thinks the champ is a quality comp but it is telling that none of the new stadiums or clubs tapping into commercial ops  (York,  Eagles, Barrow) are down to the money pumped in.  

Champ should be a proving ground.  If you can wash your own face and generate income with only 100k of central funding,  you will offer something to SL when you get there.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

So again. Comparing crowds that a club gets in the champ to what a club gets in SL is you missing the point. Or budget,  if I took Wakeys 1.5mil away would they have the same squad?  Of course not,  so its disengenous to pretend York would carry the same squad with 1.5 million extra. 

Unless you think yorks crowds are static and wouldnt grow the point being made is if York were in SL they would be bigger or at least equal to Wakefield. 

People on here seem to willfully miss the point or dont have the honestly to say 'I think York would be lower than Wakey if York were in SL'. 

I disagree as York is a thriving affluent city with 2 universities and can tap into the commercial income in the área. 

I hope that Wakey can capture a new market with updates but saying because York have an inferior squad in Champ is reason why it would be lower than Wakey in SL is a stupid arguement. 

York have never been a larger club than Wakefield. You can wish it were the case, you can imagine that maybe if they'd been in Super League for 20 years maybe they would have become larger but you can't state it as fact. The reality is the UK sport market is acutely mature and very entrenched and there is little reason to think York would start getting larger crowds than Wakefield if they were in SL.

But most of all remember that Rugby League is a sport and that it has fans. You can decide that achievement on the field is irrelevant. You can decide that Wakefield, who have won and repeatedly defended their position in Super League on the field, often against the odds, sometimes quite heroically, should surrender their place to another, smaller, club because the other club inhabits a "thriving, affluent city". But don't expect that there won't be a loss of fans and a loss of TV subscribers as you try to shoehorn clubs deemed to be more appealing into the league.

Rugby League and its fans largely inhabit the negative space away from the thriving and away from the affluent - and telling them this isn't the sport for them is so dumb and so counterproductive. This cultural cringe some fans have, and their desperation to disassociate the sport from its reality, from its embarrassing unfashionable, non-affluent fan base, is a constant theme. And you seem willing to kill off a couple of clubs and destroy the integrity of the sport to achieve it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, M j M said:

York have never been a larger club than Wakefield. You can wish it were the case, you can imagine that maybe if they'd been in Super League for 20 years maybe they would have become larger but you can't state it as fact. The reality is the UK sport market is acutely mature and very entrenched and there is little reason to think York would start getting larger crowds than Wakefield if they were in SL.

But most of all remember that Rugby League is a sport and that it has fans. You can decide that achievement on the field is irrelevant. You can decide that Wakefield, who have won and repeatedly defended their position in Super League on the field, often against the odds, sometimes quite heroically, should surrender their place to another, smaller, club because the other club inhabits a "thriving, affluent city". But don't expect that there won't be a loss of fans and a loss of TV subscribers as you try to shoehorn clubs deemed to be more appealing into the league.

Rugby League and its fans largely inhabit the negative space away from the thriving and away from the affluent - and telling them this isn't the sport for them is so dumb and so counterproductive. This cultural cringe some fans have, and their desperation to disassociate the sport from its reality, from its embarrassing unfashionable, non-affluent fan base, is a constant theme. And you seem willing to kill off a couple of clubs and destroy the integrity of the sport to achieve it.

Rugby League is a sport, Super League (and pro Rugby League more broadly) is a sports entertainment business. Businesses make decisions on target markets and investment areas all the time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, M j M said:

t. The reality is the UK sport market is acutely mature and very entrenched and there is little reason to think York would start getting larger crowds than Wakefield if they were in SL.

Right so 'I dont believe York will be bigger than a club getting 4k' .  Isnt that easier to say than pretending your refering to statistics. 

Of course its my opinion,  thats what makes your comment so fatuous.  We are debating hypotheticals when you are presenting an opinion  (wakefield will be a bigger team if both are at the same level) as fact.  

Which is obviously ###### because the owner of wakefield himself said club would go bankrupt outside sl and wasnt viable.  Which means it is the comp,  not the club,  propping them up.  

Little reason?  Wakefields crowd against Giants was 3186 , Yorks crowd against Fev was 3602. York being in SL for first time with Leeds Hull and new ground for SL fans to tick off would be more enticing.  

Last season before Covid York pulled in 2000 plus average.  They doubled their average in 3 years going up one division. Wakefield remain on 5k and this season have a sub 5k average this season.  

Both have no football league competition and one has massively underperformed. One has two Universities to tap into. The city of York is 250 k with one team.  Wakey district is 300k with 3. 

My opinion is based on statistical, economic and demographic trends.  Yours is based on 'its always been that way'. Which is a fast way to send a sport into oblivion.  

If you bothered to read anything I have not said Wakey should surrender their position in SL and am quite hopeful that the New dev can turn them from fodder to cap spenders.  But we should be 14 so clubs that York and Fev and Leigh and Newcastle get a proper shot and If Wakey cant keep up they can drop. 

Cultural cringe?  The only cultural cringe is people thinking attracting commercial income or not pis#ing up against a wall is somehow a betrayal of the sport.  

Theres nothing wrong with being a working class sport but then why are Wakey only getting 5k in a predominantly working class area with 100k population? Dont we want growth in other working class areas? 

 

 

Edited by ShropshireBull
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

10 minutes ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

What we thinking now then, ladies and gents? Seems to be gathering pace this one. 

A terrible idea,  seeming more stupid by the day as Wakefield improve ground Salford could own ground and Championship is now strengthening from top to bottom.

Same answer as last time 14 team SL.  

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

What we thinking now then, ladies and gents? Seems to be gathering pace this one. 

Is it? Where?

It remains, largely, an internet rumour, as the last news we had from a reputable journalist was club chairmen rejecting the ten team league proposal at the back end of last year. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Is it? Where?

It remains, largely, an internet rumour, as the last news we had from a reputable journalist was club chairmen rejecting the ten team league proposal at the back end of last year. 

Social media. Where else eh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

What we thinking now then, ladies and gents? 

That the league structure isn't the biggest problem the game faces.

  • 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

On 05/05/2022 at 19:26, dboy said:

Carter (and it's directly from his own mouth), says they do not bring money into the comp.

It costs UK clubs money having French teams in (and Toronto).

It's about cash.

Carter is a board member of Super League Europe - an entity set up to maximise the commercial potential of the competition from, amongst other things, TV rights and sponsorships. 

If having French clubs in Super League isn't bringing in revenue from those sources, then Carter (amongst others) is not doing his job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/05/2022 at 21:57, M j M said:

This cultural cringe some fans have, and their desperation to disassociate the sport from its reality, from its embarrassing unfashionable, non-affluent fan base, is a constant theme. And you seem willing to kill off a couple of clubs and destroy the integrity of the sport to achieve it.

I don't think that's entirely fair. 

I think there's only a very small fringe that would argue for artificially planting clubs in affluent or fashionable parts of the country. What I think most argue for RL should be doing more to appeal to more affulent audiences - many of which are on its doorstep and in its heartlands - as well as making it easier for people outside those heartlands to "buy" RL in one way, shape or form. To keep Wakefield as an example, there's plenty of money around its southern greenbelt, and many of our RL towns are now commuter areas for people working in well-paying tech, legal and finance sectors in Leeds and Manchester. 

There's no rule that RL supporters have to be from non-affluent backgrounds. There isn't something that triggers in your brain that means you find RL boring once you hit a certain salary band. But what we often see is people talking about how RL is only a sport for the skint, how trying to appeal to anyone outside the base is trying to attract people who "aren't proper RL fans" and that doing anything is a waste of time if people aren't going to go on and buy season tickets. If the sport wants to grow, and I would suggest most fans would want to see that, then it has to broaden it's appeal because there's enough evidence to show that the "core" base is one that is both shinking, and unable to really sustain that growth. That invariably means ensuring that RL is catering to the wants and expectations of different audiences, ensuring that it is better at speaking to those audiences and yes, dare I say it, making RL more fashionable. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

That invariably means ensuring that RL is catering to the wants and expectations of different audiences, ensuring that it is better at speaking to those audiences and yes, dare I say it, making RL more fashionable. 

On that point particularly, it really bugs me when people say RL is popular in the North. If it was genuinely at that level, it would be able to piggyback the cultural rise and fashion-ability of key northern cities like Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester that have broken out of that morbid representation of the North as the land of Kez. 

Jamie Peacock made a good point during the Challenge Cup coverage that so many people do not want to see the sport die, but they do not want it to grow either. Its natural I suppose, most people are inherently small c conservatives; a trait which increases as people get older and older people have more sway in major organisations. 

The most obvious example of that is from those who do not see the difference between a sport and a sports entertainment business.

The former at its heart is a Corinthian ideal, though even then as can be seen throughout the history of virtually every major sport in this country that survived over the past century, that Corinthian ideal would be discarded if protectionism was a far more convenient option.

The latter is what top level sport has become in the past 25 to 30 years. Cups aren't as important as they were, Clubs are fundamentally businesses with employees and loyal customers, TV and associated revenue has become the single most important factor for a sport. New terms like "legacy fans" have been publicly derided, but they come from a key recognition that the reasons many people will start watching a certain sport or sports club now are not necessarily the same reasons as they did 40 or 50 years ago, at least not to the same extent. People aren't tied to their local club in the same way, people can pick up clubs in other countries even if they so wish, people may grow up with an affinity for a big club and then move to something totally different as their priorities change - all this has happened previously, but nothing like to the same levels.

Lots of people do not like this change. Can RL adapt to it?

Another point made by a poster on this forum referenced how RL is the "5th Biggest Sport" in the country. Not only does that mask a myriad of problems, but it also ignores how ranking by "sport" is not how the industry works. Individual competitions and leagues are now in competition with eachother. RL as a sport might be "5th Biggest", but where is Super League and the Challenge Cup? The Broadcast deal for Super League would suggest somewhere in line with Scottish Football. Is that sustainable? The movements from the powers that be would suggest they do not think so.

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

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

The latter is what top level sport has become in the past 25 to 30 years. Cups aren't as important as they were, Clubs are fundamentally businesses with employees and loyal customers, TV and associated revenue has become the single most important factor for a sport. New terms like "legacy fans" have been publicly derided, but they come from a key recognition that the reasons many people will start watching a certain sport or sports club now are not necessarily the same reasons as they did 40 or 50 years ago, at least not to the same extent. People aren't tied to their local club in the same way, people can pick up clubs in other countries even if they so wish, people may grow up with an affinity for a big club and then move to something totally different as their priorities change - all this has happened previously, but nothing like to the same levels.

Lots of people do not like this change. Can RL adapt to it?

This isn't just a sports issue either. It happens across all of the business and entertainment world. 

I think I've used this comparison before, but Porsche has a dedicated following of enthusiasts - the sort of people who join owners clubs and buy the branded merchandise - who were absolutely outraged when the company started making SUVs. To these people, they "weren't proper Porsches", they wouldn't be bought by "proper Porsche drivers" and these products would "kill the brand". Yet the Cayenne SUV now outsells the 911, Boxter and Spyder models combined and Porsche is now (if I recall rightly) the most profitable car manufacturer in the world. 

You might roll your eyes at comparing RL to a premium sports car manufacturer, but the problems that the two entities faced is the same - there are only so many people willing or able to buy one product and, as consumer tastes shifted, that group of people was getting smaller, so you need to adapt. You can cater to new audiences and yes, whilst it might irk your "hardcore" or "legacy fans" who buy the club memberships and wear the merchandise, it doesn't mean you have to abandon them entirely. There is room for both to co-exist. 

There are other examples too. We have clubs taking money from Sky to play games in midweek, only to complain about having to play midweek because Thursday nights, and to some extent Fridays, aren't popular with match-going crowds. This was an issue the cinema industry had until it successfully turned Wednesday nights from the worst-performing night of the week to the second-most popular (after Saturday) by finding the sorts of audiences that were looking for something to do on Wednesday nights (students, young adults, DINKs, etc) and coming up with the right incentives. 

RL needs to get into that mindset of understanding what audiences are out there, which of those it wants to attract and what those audiences want. Whilst I know that suggestions of things like 9s splits the room here, what is to say that a 9s comp couldn't be RL's version of the Porsche Cayenne? Why can't Thursday nights be the night where RL succeeds in attracting that millennial crowd or DINK (dual income, no kids) couples who have plenty of spare time and don't have to worry about the following morning's school run? What is it that the RL clubs are so afraid of when it comes to trying to reach new people? 

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

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This isn't just a sports issue either. It happens across all of the business and entertainment world. 

I think I've used this comparison before, but Porsche has a dedicated following of enthusiasts - the sort of people who join owners clubs and buy the branded merchandise - who were absolutely outraged when the company started making SUVs. To these people, they "weren't proper Porsches", they wouldn't be bought by "proper Porsche drivers" and these products would "kill the brand". Yet the Cayenne SUV now outsells the 911, Boxter and Spyder models combined and Porsche is now (if I recall rightly) the most profitable car manufacturer in the world. 

You might roll your eyes at comparing RL to a premium sports car manufacturer, but the problems that the two entities faced is the same - there are only so many people willing or able to buy one product and, as consumer tastes shifted, that group of people was getting smaller, so you need to adapt. You can cater to new audiences and yes, whilst it might irk your "hardcore" or "legacy fans" who buy the club memberships and wear the merchandise, it doesn't mean you have to abandon them entirely. There is room for both to co-exist. 

There are other examples too. We have clubs taking money from Sky to play games in midweek, only to complain about having to play midweek because Thursday nights, and to some extent Fridays, aren't popular with match-going crowds. This was an issue the cinema industry had until it successfully turned Wednesday nights from the worst-performing night of the week to the second-most popular (after Saturday) by finding the sorts of audiences that were looking for something to do on Wednesday nights (students, young adults, DINKs, etc) and coming up with the right incentives. 

RL needs to get into that mindset of understanding what audiences are out there, which of those it wants to attract and what those audiences want. Whilst I know that suggestions of things like 9s splits the room here, what is to say that a 9s comp couldn't be RL's version of the Porsche Cayenne? Why can't Thursday nights be the night where RL succeeds in attracting that millennial crowd or DINK (dual income, no kids) couples who have plenty of spare time and don't have to worry about the following morning's school run? What is it that the RL clubs are so afraid of when it comes to trying to reach new people? 

I wish I was a DINK.

 

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I wish I was a DINK.

 

I'd retire but my wife won't go full time. 

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...