Jump to content

This Promotion/Relegation is a Farce


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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 by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by idrewthehaggis
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Man of Kent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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

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 by Scubby
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 😕 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Scubby
typo
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:

#CorbynwasrightandFordesaidso!  Trusscouldn'tcareless v Keith AWOL Tory vast majority in the making.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 🤣

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:

#CorbynwasrightandFordesaidso!  Trusscouldn'tcareless v Keith AWOL Tory vast majority in the making.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

  • Like 1
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...