This Promotion/Relegation is a Farce

[Scubby]

5 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Oh gawd, you've done it now!

It's true though, it's not knocking the 2 clubs at the top.

Leigh and Fev actually have decent facilities and loyal fan bases - but those top 2 could also have been Batley and Dewsbury with wealthy owners chucking the kitchen sink at endless imports and 30-man squads to try and get up. We have gone so far back it's a pretty sad sight to see. Infrastructure, facilities, youth pathways mean nothing anymore so why should clubs bother?  

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Scubby said:

It's true though, it's not knocking the 2 clubs at the top.

Leigh and Fev actually have decent facilities and loyal fan bases - but those top 2 could also have been Batley and Dewsbury with wealthy owners chucking the kitchen sink at endless imports and 30-man squads to try and get up. We have gone so far back it's a pretty sad sight to see. Infrastructure, facilities, youth pathways mean nothing anymore so why should clubs bother?  

Our facilities are better than ever. The vast majority of SL games are played in excellent grounds, which is a world of difference from pre-SL. 

[Scubby]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Our facilities are better than ever. The vast majority of SL games are played in excellent grounds, which is a world of difference from pre-SL. 

I understand you just need a 2000 seat stand and 5k capacity to get up to SL now though right? And there are no limits of imports so you could have an all non-UK team even if you were a heartlands club with 100 years of history? Plus no need for reserves or a youth set up.

Edited June 10, 2022 by Scubby
typo

[Oxford]

48 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

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

There's a point where you wonder if the sport is worth all the fuss when people's ideas are like  stroll through The FU Handbook of how to deal with everybody.

When everyone is focused on blame the idea becomes simple get rid of the dead wood and everything will be alright. Of course it isn't because there'll alway be a next layer of the dead wood. When you're only as good as your weakest component and your answer is just get rid you have the history of RL and the real reason it has such a small geographical footprint because it thinks and acts like an old fashioned Time and Motion study.

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I understand you just need a 2000 seat stand and 5k capacity to get up to SL now though right? And there are no limits of imports so you could have an all non-UK team even if you were a heartlands club with 100 years of history? Plus no need for reserves or a youth set up.

I'd be surprised if you even need that tbh. 2 sets of posts should do it. 

I understood there was a quota at play. 

 

[Scubby]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'd be surprised if you even need that tbh. 2 sets of posts should do it. 

I understood there was a quota at play. 

 

There is no overseas quota in the Championship to my knowledge.

[Oxford]

4 minutes ago, Oxford said:

you have the history of RL and the real reason it has such a small geographical footprint because it thinks and acts like an old fashioned Time and Motion study.

It's actually worse than this it's the OfTry inspection of RL clubs put them in special measures and leave them to do all the work or put them out of their misery .... the RL family

[GUBRATS]

9 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

The low hanging fruit is the international game (club/country). All the pieces exist, they just need to be put together. Organisation, in essence. 

It would be great to have 10k crowds but we get too hung up on crowds. TV rights are more important. Ask the Aussies. 

Paid for TV rights 

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

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. 

Then you have a SL of 6 clubs , best of luck selling that ?

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

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 ?

WOW , top SL team is based in the biggest traditional RL area ? Who'd have thunk it ? 

WOW , top SL team is very , very ,very fortunate to have owner with friends who help finance moving from dilapidated old sheeeite hole into nice new modern stadium with ###### beer ? , Who'd have thunk it ? 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

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.

And if it's only 5/6 ? 

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

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. 

No, I'm saying that a heartlands only policy will struggle reach greater levels of popularity within the heartlands itself. I believe the maximum heartlands only popularity was achieved a long time ago, and the world has changed since then.

I would also think that we need to remember this is a specific discussion on player pyramid.

[GUBRATS]

1 hour 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 worked for Toronto 

[Big Picture]

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

And if it's only 5/6 ? 

In truth it's 0, not 5 or 6.

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

I understand you just need a 2000 seat stand and 5k capacity to get up to SL now though right? And there are no limits of imports so you could have an all non-UK team even if you were a heartlands club with 100 years of history? Plus no need for reserves or a youth set up.

Yes , but if you aren't allowed to run a ' youth setup ' , what do you want these clubs to do ?

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

There is no overseas quota in the Championship to my knowledge.

Why is that ? , Maybe something to do with the various expansion clubs that have come through the lower tiers ? 

[gingerjon]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Why is that ? , Maybe something to do with the various expansion clubs that have come through the lower tiers ? 

Nope.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Nope.

Why then ?

[GUBRATS]

For Tommy 

Nobody said ' only '

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

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?

I think to do that it needs a broader appeal and base than currently. Positive and aspirational visibility is key, and I'm not sure the heartlands can do that from within tbh.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

For Tommy 

Nobody said ' only '

Yes they did, you didn't, but the post I replied to did.

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yes they did, you didn't, but the post I replied to did.

Which post , I've just looked ,no where stating only 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Which post , I've just looked ,no where stating only 

Mr Oates, in repeated posts, has said there was no point in developing the game "outside of East and West Yorkshire and South Lancashire" and that focus should therefore be directed at those areas. 

"Focus on the heartlands", except this that this and oh I didn't realise they'd been around for so long...

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Mr Oates, in repeated posts, has said there was no point in developing the game "outside of East and West Yorkshire and South Lancashire" and that focus should therefore be directed at those areas. 

"Focus on the heartlands", except this that this and oh I didn't realise they'd been around for so long...

Yes. It's worth making it clear that this also involves cutting Barrow adrift, as well as Workington and Whitehaven.

Not heartlands, you see.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Yes. It's worth making it clear that this also involves cutting Barrow adrift, as well as Workington and Whitehaven.

Not heartlands, you see.

Bloody post war interlopers, didn't even split in 1895!