This Promotion/Relegation is a Farce

[Toby Chopra]

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

yet it appears they are thinking bigger and more strategically than the usual Sky TV negotiations

I'd hope they are, that's what we've got them on board for. But that could mean a lot of things and this flurry of talk about some sort of imminent Celtic expansion seems down to a couple of rather unreliable sources and people rushing to fill the gap.

In the cold light of day it doesn't seem the obvious move to me. If we're talking trying to get more European internationals played, fine. I'd watch them. (Probably) But given the structure and location of the player pools we'd have to realistic about what that could achieve. We'll see.

But promoting and selling what we already have in a more effective way is a still going to be the major part of what IMG do. Indeed it's two of the three areas that IMG said they'd be looking at - see Martyn's interview with the IMG guy Matt Dwyer. His quotes remain a good guide of what to expect: 

“There are three elements of our business. IMG Media, where I sit, this is the part where we will look at the competition structure. We have our digital agency called Seven League, who will be doing the digital transformation of the league. Then we have the brand and marketing agency 160over90, which will be doing a lot of the re-imagining of the sport." 

 "If we can get to a position where we can significantly grow the revenue with clubs that are strong financially and high levels of interest and awareness of the sport across the country, as well as looking at where we are in Europe, then we will have made progress.”

“There are some clear strengths that Rugby League has in the market already and you want to play to your strengths. I’m not looking at the regionality as a weakness but as a positive base from which we can move forward. It’s finding that balance between expansion and the existing strengths. The clear strength is its popularity in significant parts of the north of England.”

 

[Man of Kent]

7 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

But promoting and selling what we already have in a more effective way is a still going to be the major part of what IMG do. Indeed it's two of the three areas that IMG said they'd be looking at - see Martyn's interview with the IMG guy Matt Dwyer. His quotes remain a good guide of what to expect: 

“There are three elements of our business. IMG Media, where I sit, this is the part where we will look at the competition structure. We have our digital agency called Seven League, who will be doing the digital transformation of the league. Then we have the brand and marketing agency 160over90, which will be doing a lot of the re-imagining of the sport." 

 "If we can get to a position where we can significantly grow the revenue with clubs that are strong financially and high levels of interest and awareness of the sport across the country, as well as looking at where we are in Europe, then we will have made progress.”

“There are some clear strengths that Rugby League has in the market already and you want to play to your strengths. I’m not looking at the regionality as a weakness but as a positive base from which we can move forward. It’s finding that balance between expansion and the existing strengths. The clear strength is its popularity in significant parts of the north of England.”

 

I don't disagree with you and nobody is suggesting they will, or should, rip up what we've got. I see it as more augmentation; taking what we've got and making it bigger and better. 

Your IMG quotes allude to that, ie "looking at where we are in Europe" and "finding that balance between expansion and the existing strengths". 

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

So what you actually saying you want the whole league to 'level down' to the worst teams so they have an equal chance of winning the title.

I'm afraid this is one of those illogical argument wheeled out more often the soft mick, and only marginally less than why don't they improve?

The old ones never tire do they? Like farting in the lift.

A) It wasn't what I was actually saying actually!

B) Like most debates, these two ideas signal how pointless discussing things is.

Is there any evidence on here of someone chaging their mind on anything? The fact that I don't recall it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

The issue of improvement like any other discussion seems to bring out the ideologically disposed which is good for the start of debate and useless for it going anywhere. One thing that never happens is that we discuss how quality is improved and what might be preventing standards from rising. Whilst the onus is all on individual clubs rather than a game wide set of processes and programmes for those we think might find it hardest to bring improvement on all we have is the delusion that it's their fault they can't manage.

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Oxford

[Saint Toppy]

36 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I'm afraid this is one of those illogical argument wheeled out more often the soft mick, and only marginally less than why don't they improve?

The old ones never tire do they? Like farting in the lift.

A) It wasn't what I was actually saying actually!

B) Like most debates, these two ideas signal how pointless discussing things is.

Is there any evidence on here of someone chaging their mind on anything? The fact that I don't recall it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

The issue of improvement like any other discussion seems to bring out the ideologically disposed which is good for the start of debate and useless for it going anywhere. One thing that never happens is that we discuss how quality is improved and what might be preventing standards from rising. Whilst the onus is all on individual clubs rather than a game wide set of processes and programmes for those we think might find it hardest to bring improvement on all we have is the delusion that it's their fault they can't manage.

 

Jeeze you waffle worse than a politician - lots of words with no real substance, answers or ideas !!

The truth is the clubs who consistently languish near the bottom of the league are poorly run compared to the top clubs. They tend to lurch from one financial crisis to the next and having to penny pinch and only able to pick up players the top clubs generally don't want. 

They can't invest to the same level in the stadium, their junior development, backroom staff & facilities etc. So as an overall package they're just not as attractive to the next generation of young players coming through so they tend to go the better clubs, again leaving these other clubs with the ones the top clubs don't want.

Its not for the governing body to interfere in the running of individual clubs, however it is for them to set minimum standards to which all clubs must adhere to. Those that can't should then be cut from the top tier.

You'll only get a league where every club has an equal chance of winning the title every year when every club in that league can match each other in all aspects both on & off the field.

The top, title winning clubs set the benchmark and every other club should be aiming to match & better them. Only then will you get an improvement across the whole league.

This isn't some amateur school team competition where 'every kid should get a chance', this is professional sport. 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Saint Toppy

[Oxford]

21 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

The truth is the clubs who consistently languish near the bottom of the league are poorly run compared to the top clubs.

That's part of the myth yes. It's based on hearsay and the relative amount of success but very little else.

and you avoid discussion like a politician.

There is substance in they get the same sum of money from Sky so the argument would be some use well some don't. I find it intriguing that mostly this kind of argument comes from people/clubs who have.

Even if it was wholly true that one club is better run than another for no other reason than they're fantastic has this become a model for others to follow, are there courses and resources availablefor those considered not so well run? Have coaches, board members and admin staff all been urged or even made to visit these well run places?

And has there ever been any research done to look at why successful sides are successful because when we say well run that's what we're really talking about?

Edited June 10, 2022 by Oxford

[idrewthehaggis]

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

I find this the hardest thing to achieve of them all.

The quality of a league should be that at any given season any team can win the comp. This used to said of the NRL. It certainly isn't true of SL. If we can only argue for inequality on the basis that lower teams have to try harder there is little point in bothering cos that is simply the case for keeping things as they are which is great for some.

Calling on those middle range senior RL clubs to "man up" and "up their game"  is a bit like Etonians saying the same to Mr and Miss Average Student from average school.

The system is rigged. Man up as much you can do, but.......

Anyway better standards.

I would argue - as a matter of commonsense not politics - that collective actions would help our RL. Not a race to the bottom, but using the skills of the successful to improve actions together. Good practice not just as words, but actions.

The standards KPIs being revenue production, developing talent/participation, facilities and attendances.

But we all know this anyway.

 

[steve oates]

15 hours ago, Dave T said:

1. I suppose the question that needs answering is would there be any real commercial value in having a Scottish, Irish and Welsh team in the league? Even if we got a relatively decent presence in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Dublin, I wonder whether that would really move the dial on commercial value. 

2. I think maybe the objective is how we get 12+ strong teams.........

1. Dublin etc is Laughable. Anyone actually Remember Cardiff City? The Aussies didn't stray too far from the Heartlands when they landed in Gateshead to show us how expansion works, and landed their team a creditable mid-table finish in the first season Then their accountants produced the year end financial report and the Aussies shut shop and went straight home. Thing is it's the Aussies that know a bit about expansion. 

2. "Strong teams" is a good aim, but it appears things are going the other way. The player pyramid is shrinking and the recent results between Wigan and Castleford's first and second teams appear to conform this.

3. "Even teams" could be the answer. The top clubs were awarded the Marquee player deal, and quality players have at times refused bigger offers to go play for a trophy winning club. This means a top few clubs have advantages over the rest.  That is another serious problem as regards staying at 12 let alone go to 14. 

Will the powerful Chairman of the top clubs wave through  IMG's plans, if that waives away their dominance?

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

That's part of the myth yes. It's based on hearsay and the relative amount of success but very little else.

and you avoid discussion like a politician.

There is substance in they get the same sum of money from Sky so the argument would be some use well some don't. I find it intriguing that mostly this kind of argument comes from people/clubs who have.

Even if it was wholly true that one club is better run than another for no other reason than they're fantastic has this become a model for others to follow, are there courses and resources availablefor those considered not so well run? Have coaches, board members and admin staff all been urged or even made to visit these well run places?

And has there ever been any research done to look at why successful sides are successful because when we say well run that's what we're really talking about?

Exactly how is it a myth when the facts are there for all to see.

These clubs 1st teams generally languish at or near the bottom of the SL table most years. Their junior teams usually languish at or near the bottom of their respective leagues most years as well. Their stadia & off field facilities are generally pretty poor compared to most of the top clubs. Their ability to generate revenue falls a long way short of most of the top clubs. Their ability to attract good crowds is poor despite some of these clubs have much wider catchment areas than some of the top clubs.

Do you really think its a coincidence that the 3 most successful clubs in SL just happen to be the 3 with the best structures & investment in youth development and in then bringing through those youngsters into the first team consistently year after year. It really doesn't take a genius to see what these clubs are doing and the success it brings them. Surely the penny must have dropped by now that this is the kind of structure they should be following if they too want to be up there challenging year after year ?

[Tommygilf]

27 minutes ago, steve oates said:

1. Dublin etc is Laughable. Anyone actually Remember Cardiff City? The Aussies didn't stray too far from the Heartlands when they landed in Gateshead to show us how expansion works, and landed their team a creditable mid-table finish in the first season Then their accountants produced the year end financial report and the Aussies shut shop and went straight home. Thing is it's the Aussies that know a bit about expansion. 

2. "Strong teams" is a good aim, but it appears things are going the other way. The player pyramid is shrinking and the recent results between Wigan and Castleford's first and second teams appear to conform this.

3. "Even teams" could be the answer. The top clubs were awarded the Marquee player deal, and quality players have at times refused bigger offers to go play for a trophy winning club. This means a top few clubs have advantages over the rest.  That is another serious problem as regards staying at 12 let alone go to 14. 

Will the powerful Chairman of the top clubs wave through  IMG's plans, if that waives away their dominance?

Maybe the player pool is shrinking because increasingly fewer young men want to play a game with minimal exposure in a small time league, a small financial reward, and a hell of a lot of pain...

Standing still, which "invest in the heartlands" amounts to, is going backwards. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Maybe the player pool is shrinking because increasingly fewer young men want to play a game with minimal exposure in a small time league, a small financial reward, and a hell of a lot of pain...

Standing still, which "invest in the heartlands" amounts to, is going backwards. 

Invest in heartlands absolutely does not equal going backwards. It might not be the best use of funds, but it is just factually wrong to state that its going backwards. 

Unless of course you think we are as big as we ever can be in those areas. 

[Oxford]

3 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Exactly how is it a myth when the facts are there for all to see.

There are facts there but they are open to interpretaion which forms opinion.

I said it was mostly based on success levels and you've just asserted a few point which are good ones but they're all based on the success you mention in almost every phrase.

Facts are certainly some clubs are more successful than others.

You didn't respond to any of the points I made which were all about how we might approach this issue as a game.

It seems to me if the penny hasn't dropped as you put it there must be a reason or a number of reasons for this.

I suppose that this means there's no point in these clubs continuing as they can't manage and will never be successful or well run or all three. And I think while that's the case a League of the top six to eight would be all we can manage, hope for or deserve.

[Dave T]

44 minutes ago, steve oates said:

1. Dublin etc is Laughable. Anyone actually Remember Cardiff City? The Aussies didn't stray too far from the Heartlands when they landed in Gateshead to show us how expansion works, and landed their team a creditable mid-table finish in the first season Then their accountants produced the year end financial report and the Aussies shut shop and went straight home. Thing is it's the Aussies that know a bit about expansion. 

2. "Strong teams" is a good aim, but it appears things are going the other way. The player pyramid is shrinking and the recent results between Wigan and Castleford's first and second teams appear to conform this.

3. "Even teams" could be the answer. The top clubs were awarded the Marquee player deal, and quality players have at times refused bigger offers to go play for a trophy winning club. This means a top few clubs have advantages over the rest.  That is another serious problem as regards staying at 12 let alone go to 14. 

Will the powerful Chairman of the top clubs wave through  IMG's plans, if that waives away their dominance?

On point 2, the fact things are going the other way is surely the point this needs to be a focus. 

Focusing on being even is a poor strategy. It'd be vert easy to deliver 12 even poor clubs. The aim absolutely has to be bigger clubs. 

[Big Picture]

47 minutes ago, Dave T said:

53 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Maybe the player pool is shrinking because increasingly fewer young men want to play a game with minimal exposure in a small time league, a small financial reward, and a hell of a lot of pain...

Standing still, which "invest in the heartlands" amounts to, is going backwards. 

Invest in heartlands absolutely does not equal going backwards. It might not be the best use of funds, but it is just factually wrong to state that its going backwards. 

Unless of course you think we are as big as we ever can be in those areas. 

Investing in the heartlands = doing more of what the game has always offered the public. If @Tommygilfand I are correct that the part of his post which I highlighted is the true reason why the player pool is shrinking, how exactly would you expect doing more of the same to make the game bigger?

[Tommygilf]

46 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Invest in heartlands absolutely does not equal going backwards. It might not be the best use of funds, but it is just factually wrong to state that its going backwards. 

Unless of course you think we are as big as we ever can be in those areas. 

It does mean that to people who do not think we can have professional teams anywhere else.

FWIW, I do think there is a saturation point in the heartlands where growth and popularity of the sport in the rest of the country etc is needed to grow more in those areas. Especially when these areas aren't cultural leaders on the national, regional or local levels.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Investing in the heartlands = doing more of what the game has always offered the public. If @Tommygilfand I are correct that the part of his post which I highlighted is the true reason why the player pool is shrinking, how exactly would you expect doing more of the same to make the game bigger?

 

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It does mean that to people who do not think we can have professional teams anywhere else.

FWIW, I do think there is a saturation point in the heartlands where growth and popularity of the sport in the rest of the country etc is needed to grow more in those areas. Especially when these areas aren't cultural leaders on the national, regional or local levels.

Investing in the existing areas doesn't have to mean doing the same things, you are putting your additional slant on that. 

@Tommygilf - of course there is a saturation point, I think we are miles away. 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

Investing in the existing areas doesn't have to mean doing the same things, you are putting your additional slant on that. 

@Tommygilf - of course there is a saturation point, I think we are miles away. 

I think we reached it decades ago when we had pub and works teams and amateur clubs that don't exist anymore Dave. Since then the world has been opened up and the sport is struggling for attention and popularity within that.

[Scubby]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Invest in heartlands absolutely does not equal going backwards. It might not be the best use of funds, but it is just factually wrong to state that its going backwards. 

Unless of course you think we are as big as we ever can be in those areas. 

When I played my first open age RL at 16 there were 7 clubs all with 6-8 miles of each other. Only 2 of those clubs exist anymore. Of those 7, 5 of them were named after a WMC or Pub - there lies the problem. Those organic social communities in the heartlands have died. It makes it so tough to create open age RL

Edited June 10, 2022 by Scubby

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think we reached it decades ago when we had pub and works teams and amateur clubs that don't exist anymore Dave. Since then the world has been opened up and the sport is struggling for attention and popularity within that.

Are you saying the game is as big as it can be where it currently exists? 

Because tbh you spend most days telling us how we are underachieving. 

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

There are facts there but they are open to interpretaion which forms opinion.

I said it was mostly based on success levels and you've just asserted a few point which are good ones but they're all based on the success you mention in almost every phrase.

Facts are certainly some clubs are more successful than others.

You didn't respond to any of the points I made which were all about how we might approach this issue as a game.

It seems to me if the penny hasn't dropped as you put it there must be a reason or a number of reasons for this.

I suppose that this means there's no point in these clubs continuing as they can't manage and will never be successful or well run or all three. And I think while that's the case a League of the top six to eight would be all we can manage, hope for or deserve.

I've made my position pretty clear on this issue many times on this board. I believe Franchising / Licencing (call it what you will) is the best way forward. That the criteria should be pretty much 'set in stone' (unlike last times licencing fiasco), with criteria that cover both on-field & off-field performance with Annual KPI's.

I'd have the KPI's split into several broad groups such as On-field performance (1st team), Commercial position (which includes turnover, debt etc), Facilities (including stadium, training facilities etc.), Development (including success of junior teams in their respective competitions, levels of investment etc.). Each of these groups could then be 'weighted' depending on which set of criteria the RFL see as being the most important in creating a stable & indeed thriving game. 

Along side these i'd also set minimum requirements that are mandatory for every club such as having an Academy, minimum number of home grown players in your Top 25 1st team squad, minimum level of turnover etc.

Every club must meet the minimum otherwise you lose your licence with the KPI's being assessed on a rolling 3yr period. And if a club doesn't manage to meet the minimum number of points across the KPI's in that 3 Yr period then they lose their licence.

The RFL should determine how many licences are initially available (say 12) and if there are more than 12 that meet a set initial criteria then they award them to the best 12. If there are only 10 meet it to start with then so be it, we just have a 10 team league and then 2 more can join if they meet the minimum initial criteria.

In years to come if it financially viable (through increased TV or sponsorship deals) the RFL can then increase the number of licences available to 14 or 16.

This kind of system continually forces clubs to be at the top of their game and improve to ensure they never end up not achieving the number of points to retain a licence.

[idrewthehaggis]

4 hours ago, Oxford said:

I'm afraid this is one of those illogical argument wheeled out more often the soft mick, and only marginally less than why don't they improve?

The old ones never tire do they? Like farting in the lift.

A) It wasn't what I was actually saying actually!

B) Like most debates, these two ideas signal how pointless discussing things is.

Is there any evidence on here of someone chaging their mind on anything? The fact that I don't recall it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

The issue of improvement like any other discussion seems to bring out the ideologically disposed which is good for the start of debate and useless for it going anywhere. One thing that never happens is that we discuss how quality is improved and what might be preventing standards from rising. Whilst the onus is all on individual clubs rather than a game wide set of processes and programmes for those we think might find it hardest to bring improvement on all we have is the delusion that it's their fault they can't manage.

 

No it is perfectly logic. Logical if you are defending structural inequalities that near guarantees your own success and undermines your opponents.

Logical that you are more concerned to preserve the self over the wider good of the whole.  Irrespective if that leads to quickening decay of the Game.

Oxford you know that some people will argue freak Malthusian theories demonstrate that the poor/unsuccessful are solely responsible for their poverty and failure. 

I doubt IMG will re-imagine a structure without some inequalities. For Gawd sakes this is a competitive sport, not designing a health provision. It needs inequalities, but not to the extent that the result is known before a pass is made. 

The advocates also maintain that standards-usually written/defined by them- can force the rest to be like them, without the insight that their success has been built on structural inequalities and weaknesses.

Or maybe the insight is there, but they just don't want to admit it or see self-diminishment if they do.

Standards need to be here, but so more importantly is the means to attain them. 

If we look at KPIs (management speak alert!!) as we should, I am sure I am not the only one who in working for a very large state organization where these KPIs are regularly altered or manipulated by our bosses to ensure they look great. Usually off the back of the hard working successful footsoldiers.  

Change or die. 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by idrewthehaggis

[Man of Kent]

The sport hasn't grown as big as it could be in the North - Super League, in particular - but after 127 years I think we have a very good idea of which Northern clubs can be big Super League clubs (not as many as we'd like) and those which have hit a glass ceiling.

At some point we'll have to admit this and draw a line in the sand to achieve that growth potential.

Edited June 10, 2022 by Man of Kent

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

It does mean that to people who do not think we can have professional teams anywhere else.

FWIW, I do think there is a saturation point in the heartlands where growth and popularity of the sport in the rest of the country etc is needed to grow more in those areas. Especially when these areas aren't cultural leaders on the national, regional or local levels.

But are we at saturation point in the heartlands? There game doesn't even seem to be as popular there as it was 10 years ago. There's lots of reasons for that, so I don't want to cherry pick an over-simplified answer, but in the same vein I don't think the reason Wigan are pulling lower crowds is just because we don't have teams in London, Dublin and Glasgow. 

We absolutely need to generate more revenues, but I think there's a decent argument that, given the limited funds we have to invest in that process, we'll achieve more incrementally with IMG's help, than some sort of big bang external expansion (most likely done on the cheap). 

You are one that quite rightly has argued that rugby league hasn't kept up with the social and cultural changes in the North of England, and is ignoring revenue groups that it doesnt know how to talk to.

Imagine if it did?

[Scubby]

7 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

The sport hasn't grown as it could be in the North - Super League, in particular - but after 127 years I think we have a very good idea of which Northern clubs can be big Super League clubs (not as many as we'd like) and those which have hit a glass ceiling.

At some point we'll have to admit this and draw a line in the sand to achieve that growth potential.

Yeah, we really have to think seriously about how we got to the situation where 2 small northern towns with 100 years of history are basically buying their way to promotion by loading their squads with imports. Not knocking those clubs as the rules are the rules but it's like going back in time to the #### or bust 1980s. 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Scubby

[Toby Chopra]

3 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Yeah, we really have to think seriously about how we got to the situation where 2 small northern towns with 100 years of history are basically buying their way to promotion by loading their squads with imports. Not knocking those clubs as the rules are the rules but it's like going back in time to the #### or bust 1980s. 

Oh gawd, you've done it now!

[Man of Kent]

4 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Yeah, we really have to think seriously about how we got to the situation where 2 small northern towns with 100 years of history are basically buying their way to promotion by loading their squads with imports. Not knocking those clubs as the rules are the rules but it's like going back in time to the #### or bust 1980s. 

It's because we have a football-style pyramid (with football-style names) and, like football, the door to the top flight is open to those with a big enough chequebook. Even if it's a blink-and-you-miss-it place like Featherstone.

Some may say that's the way it should be. Leigh and Fev fans, in particular. But is it of long-term benefit for the game, or a drag anchor?