League One - What is the Future?

[Chris22]

I have no idea what the answer to the problem is. But what we cannot do is toss the likes of Rochdale, Oldham and Hunslet on the scrapheap. 

[Derwent Parker]

59 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I have no idea what the answer to the problem is. But what we cannot do is toss the likes of Rochdale, Oldham and Hunslet on the scrapheap. 

 Martyn Sadler [RL Express] came up with a plan = See link at bottom. Which fixes most of the problems?

Please read the link below in full as it is the best structure I have heard out of all the proposed ideas. It would remove P& R and the associated stress/bankruptcy worries of relegation.

it would get rid of the SL,Championship and L1 it would be simply the RFL similar to NFL with conferences.

No P and R

More Derbies

Share money out better [light blue touch paper etc] Sorry Super Greed - if they take a little bit off you you wont die?

a round robin for every conference first 10 weeks

then play matches against all the other conferences at similar level

6 league champions

Options for 6 league sponsors

Even the bottom teams would get 5 home and 5 away matches against better quality opposition

Bigger gate money = nice start to season

As part of a discussion on a previous restructuring post - Martyn Sadler [RL Express] came up with a plan of a conference set up of 6 leagues with 2 SL, 2 conf and 2 L1 teams in each conference similar to NFL setup match wise not moneywise obviously  - fully explained that it would have a few big scores at first putting SL against L1 - but also explained that L1 would get bigger crowds for SL matches etc and that in turn would be financially better and over time the gap should close - but when he mentioned splitting the money a bit more fairly that is when the proverbial hit the fan 

All the SL members attacked him and gave every possible excuse against it and MS gave a polite good answer to everyone, - but was wasting his time they are not bothered about Rugby League in general just themselves.

The thing is none of the Super Greed teams will settle for anything less than them getting their 1.8M each - that is the only reason they are wanting 10 teams - Sky Money divided by 10 is better than Sky Money divided by 12.

Some people on the listing even said they didn't care about L1 teams and that only the ELITE mattered - if i remember correctly when it was mentioned that L1 would be worst hit one said "if any team cant survive without Sky money then they should fold" - Easy to say when you are getting 1.8 million per season!

When Sky money drops again they will end up with 8 - at one point after being constantly told only the ELITE matter and the fact that in the 25/now 26 years of Super Greed only 4 teams have ever won, then I said "those ELITE 4 team plus the French should F*** O** and have a 6 team SLEurope and take all the Sky money [which is what they want ] and leave us to have 2 leagues of 15"

We have just left a league of 10 and on our way back 11 teams now and although all the teams in there are good to watch and try their best a league of 10 /11 is ######, At least if they go to 2 x 10 they will have the ###### leagues and it will leave a 16 team league for the rest if they all survive on the scraps?

 A future structure for Rugby League competitions – TotalRL.com | Rugby League Express | Rugby League World

 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

 Martyn Sadler [RL Express] came up with a plan = See link at bottom. Which fixes most of the problems?

Please read the link below in full as it is the best structure I have heard out of all the proposed ideas. It would remove P& R and the associated stress/bankruptcy worries of relegation.

it would get rid of the SL,Championship and L1 it would be simply the RFL similar to NFL with conferences.

No P and R

More Derbies

Share money out better [light blue touch paper etc] Sorry Super Greed - if they take a little bit off you you wont die?

a round robin for every conference first 10 weeks

then play matches against all the other conferences at similar level

6 league champions

Options for 6 league sponsors

Even the bottom teams would get 5 home and 5 away matches against better quality opposition

Bigger gate money = nice start to season

As part of a discussion on a previous restructuring post - Martyn Sadler [RL Express] came up with a plan of a conference set up of 6 leagues with 2 SL, 2 conf and 2 L1 teams in each conference similar to NFL setup match wise not moneywise obviously  - fully explained that it would have a few big scores at first putting SL against L1 - but also explained that L1 would get bigger crowds for SL matches etc and that in turn would be financially better and over time the gap should close - but when he mentioned splitting the money a bit more fairly that is when the proverbial hit the fan 

All the SL members attacked him and gave every possible excuse against it and MS gave a polite good answer to everyone, - but was wasting his time they are not bothered about Rugby League in general just themselves.

The thing is none of the Super Greed teams will settle for anything less than them getting their 1.8M each - that is the only reason they are wanting 10 teams - Sky Money divided by 10 is better than Sky Money divided by 12.

Some people on the listing even said they didn't care about L1 teams and that only the ELITE mattered - if i remember correctly when it was mentioned that L1 would be worst hit one said "if any team cant survive without Sky money then they should fold" - Easy to say when you are getting 1.8 million per season!

When Sky money drops again they will end up with 8 - at one point after being constantly told only the ELITE matter and the fact that in the 25/now 26 years of Super Greed only 4 teams have ever won, then I said "those ELITE 4 team plus the French should F*** O** and have a 6 team SLEurope and take all the Sky money [which is what they want ] and leave us to have 2 leagues of 15"

We have just left a league of 10 and on our way back 11 teams now and although all the teams in there are good to watch and try their best a league of 10 /11 is ######, At least if they go to 2 x 10 they will have the ###### leagues and it will leave a 16 team league for the rest if they all survive on the scraps?

 A future structure for Rugby League competitions – TotalRL.com | Rugby League Express | Rugby League World

 

There isn't enough money or interest to sustain a format where all clubs take part in the same league. There is nothing wrong with having a small number of clubs in the top tier. And calling for the French to ###### off just sums up the attitude of a lot of the fans (including on here) and why this sport is screwed.

[Derwent Parker]

4 minutes ago, NW10LDN said:

There isn't enough money or interest to sustain a format where all clubs take part in the same league. There is nothing wrong with having a small number of clubs in the top tier. And calling for the French to ###### off just sums up the attitude of a lot of the fans (including on here) and why this sport is screwed.

Take it you are a SL fan then because you automatically went against it simply because of money.

Did you read it as I asked or just cancel it out because SL would get less per team?

Martyn S gave an example of the finances.

Its still not a level playing field but better than what L1 is getting now and a rise of 250K per position is a goal worth aiming at - AND THIS IS THE SAME MONEY IN TOTAL AS WE HAVE NOW. So saying there isnt enough money is wrong

Just needs shared out better

If the distribution were to be allocated in accordance with finishing positions in the previous season, the following is just one potential example:

Team 1: £1.28 million (32%)

Team 2: £1.04 million (26%)

Team 3: £800,000 (20%)

Team 4: £560,000 (14%)

Team 5: £320,000 (8%)

Team 6: £80,000 (2%).

 

In this case, each rise of one position in the table would be worth £240,000 and the distribution would give each club a major incentive to climb its own Conference table, but doesn’t put pressure on it to overspend in order to attain an old-fashioned promotion.

But I would emphasise that this distribution model is potentially just one of many.

And it will also evolve over time, hopefully with all clubs seeing their distribution rise as income from sponsorship and broadcasting rose.

[FearNothing]

I don't think staggered funding (as in Championship now) in one division is fair, the lower teams could never catch the higher (and so better funded) teams, as there'll always be someone in your division who could pay more for the same player. You see it in our middle division, and it's always the wealthiest teams vying for the big SL promotion, with the poorer (and therefore weaker) teams making up the numbers....

 

At least in L1 we all get the same, and at least half the teams are capable of getting promoted/competing and not just being whipping boys.....

[Jughead]

I think as the league looks, it’s pretty good. It has a decent mix of sides from some big hitters, relatively speaking, to clubs rebuilding from financial issues or new strategises and an eclectic mix of names with a decent geographical spread in it.

For the expansion sides, it can be tough at times and there can be some big scores but that’s the same across all divisions, but for Midlands, London, Cornwall and West Wales, they now have six games a season against each other a season whilst also having tests against your Keighley’s, Oldham’s and Swinton’s, which, I think, are important as they’re never going to improve without those kind of fixtures. For the top sides at the level, they have the carrot of promotion whilst being able to rebuild and go again, which I think is important for them. 

It’s like all of our leagues, where there are mini leagues within a league, some probably want something to be done about that to make things more level but that’s sport and it’s not always about close games and even leagues. 

As for the finance off the pitch, the cuts aren’t good, it’s a real loss for the clubs, especially the newer sides. It would be nice if that could be increased. 

[Jughead]

2 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

 Martyn Sadler [RL Express] came up with a plan = See link at bottom. Which fixes most of the problems?

Please read the link below in full as it is the best structure I have heard out of all the proposed ideas. It would remove P& R and the associated stress/bankruptcy worries of relegation.

it would get rid of the SL,Championship and L1 it would be simply the RFL similar to NFL with conferences.

No P and R

More Derbies

Share money out better [light blue touch paper etc] Sorry Super Greed - if they take a little bit off you you wont die?

a round robin for every conference first 10 weeks

then play matches against all the other conferences at similar level

6 league champions

Options for 6 league sponsors

Even the bottom teams would get 5 home and 5 away matches against better quality opposition

Bigger gate money = nice start to season

As part of a discussion on a previous restructuring post - Martyn Sadler [RL Express] came up with a plan of a conference set up of 6 leagues with 2 SL, 2 conf and 2 L1 teams in each conference similar to NFL setup match wise not moneywise obviously  - fully explained that it would have a few big scores at first putting SL against L1 - but also explained that L1 would get bigger crowds for SL matches etc and that in turn would be financially better and over time the gap should close - but when he mentioned splitting the money a bit more fairly that is when the proverbial hit the fan 

All the SL members attacked him and gave every possible excuse against it and MS gave a polite good answer to everyone, - but was wasting his time they are not bothered about Rugby League in general just themselves.

The thing is none of the Super Greed teams will settle for anything less than them getting their 1.8M each - that is the only reason they are wanting 10 teams - Sky Money divided by 10 is better than Sky Money divided by 12.

Some people on the listing even said they didn't care about L1 teams and that only the ELITE mattered - if i remember correctly when it was mentioned that L1 would be worst hit one said "if any team cant survive without Sky money then they should fold" - Easy to say when you are getting 1.8 million per season!

When Sky money drops again they will end up with 8 - at one point after being constantly told only the ELITE matter and the fact that in the 25/now 26 years of Super Greed only 4 teams have ever won, then I said "those ELITE 4 team plus the French should F*** O** and have a 6 team SLEurope and take all the Sky money [which is what they want ] and leave us to have 2 leagues of 15"

We have just left a league of 10 and on our way back 11 teams now and although all the teams in there are good to watch and try their best a league of 10 /11 is ######, At least if they go to 2 x 10 they will have the ###### leagues and it will leave a 16 team league for the rest if they all survive on the scraps?

 A future structure for Rugby League competitions – TotalRL.com | Rugby League Express | Rugby League World

 

That’s a great plan for part-time rugby league. I don’t think anyone wants the game to go back to those days. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Derwent Parker said:

Take it you are a SL fan then because you automatically went against it simply because of money.

Did you read it as I asked or just cancel it out because SL would get less per team?

Martyn S gave an example of the finances.

Its still not a level playing field but better than what L1 is getting now and a rise of 250K per position is a goal worth aiming at - AND THIS IS THE SAME MONEY IN TOTAL AS WE HAVE NOW. So saying there isnt enough money is wrong

Just needs shared out better

If the distribution were to be allocated in accordance with finishing positions in the previous season, the following is just one potential example:

Team 1: £1.28 million (32%)

Team 2: £1.04 million (26%)

Team 3: £800,000 (20%)

Team 4: £560,000 (14%)

Team 5: £320,000 (8%)

Team 6: £80,000 (2%).

 

In this case, each rise of one position in the table would be worth £240,000 and the distribution would give each club a major incentive to climb its own Conference table, but doesn’t put pressure on it to overspend in order to attain an old-fashioned promotion.

But I would emphasise that this distribution model is potentially just one of many.

And it will also evolve over time, hopefully with all clubs seeing their distribution rise as income from sponsorship and broadcasting rose.

This distribution model would just lead to blow outs every week. Every sports splits the income equally with some having merit payments on top of that.

[JM2010]

2 hours ago, NW10LDN said:

There isn't enough money or interest to sustain a format where all clubs take part in the same league. There is nothing wrong with having a small number of clubs in the top tier. And calling for the French to ###### off just sums up the attitude of a lot of the fans (including on here) and why this sport is screwed.

Maybe it could work underneath SL. A 14 team SL then the remaining 23 divided into 3 conferences, could do with one more for 24, then would be 3 x 8. Could even have a French conference as well 

[sentoffagain2]

17 minutes ago, NW10LDN said:

This distribution model would just lead to blow outs every week. Every sports splits the income equally with some having merit payments on top of that.

  Would be better bottom club getting more funding  and the top the least that may even things up more.Think there would be some funny results though with teams playing to lose.Bit like cas v Wakey and Saints lack of effort against a revitalised Salford.The distribution of players is wrong with the top half a dozen sides having more of the best.A way of  top players being spread out more between all SL clubs may level things up more.

[idrewthehaggis]

Couple of short pints.

a. Unequal TV distribution would just enhance an internal inequalities between clubs. 

b. Mr Sadler's plan is I will say creative and innovative. I question how practical it would be. Albeit JM2010 has a smart variation of it.

c. If any club falls, then I would hope all of RL would feel its pain. Given some of our clubs are over 100 years old, possibly some of the oldest clubs in the world in any sport.

No club should fold. 

d.

1 hour ago, sentoffagain2 said:

 The distribution of players is wrong with the top half a dozen sides having more of the best.A way of  top players being spread out more between all SL clubs may level things up more.

Good idea. 

e. RL is skint in comparison with soccer, but not other team sports, who'd love our level of money and publicity.

We need to 

i Increase existing revenue streams (attendances)

ii. Increase new streams (E sports)

iii Reduce overall costs collectively.(regional academies)

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by idrewthehaggis

[Hemi4561]

Increase revenue streams by eradicating all L1 teams and some second tier teams so that all their attendees transfer their allegiance to the elite 10

Increase revenues via e streams etc, any increased revenue to be distributed to the elite 10 

Reduce costs anyway possible, savings to be distributed to the elite 10

15 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Couple of short pints.

a. Unequal TV distribution would just enhance an internal inequalities between clubs. 

b. Mr Sadler's plan is I will say creative and innovative. I question how practical it would be. Albeit JM2010 has a smart variation of it.

c. If any club falls, then I would hope all of RL would feel its pain. Given some of our clubs are over 100 years old, possibly some of the oldest clubs in the world in any sport.

No club should fold. 

d.

Good idea. 

e. RL is skint in comparison with soccer, but not other team sports, who'd love our level of money and publicity.

We need to 

i Increase existing revenue streams (attendances)

ii. Increase new streams (E sports)

iii Reduce overall costs collectively.(regional academies)

 

 

[Oxford]

League One - What is the Future?

Bleak, sadly.

[steve oates]

28 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Couple of short pints.

a. Unequal TV distribution would just enhance an internal inequalities between clubs. 

b. Mr Sadler's plan is I will say creative and innovative. I question how practical it would be. 

c. If any club falls, then I would hope all of RL would feel its pain. Given some of our clubs are over 100 years old, possibly some of the oldest clubs in the world in any sport.

No club should fold. 

 

a. The reality is this is a great plan for a whole game approach

b. Mr. Sadlers plan would however lose us the SKY contract.

c. I detect Mr. Sadler deliberately refuses to bow to the requirement of SKY for the elite big club owners to provide the TV content.

You yourself doubt the practicality of it I trust on the basis that SKY want the top division only and want to see the top clubs on numerous times which Mr. Sadler will know in his heart of hearts.

Good for Martyn for his whole game approach. An approach that would probably prevent most clubs folding. But it wouldn't prevent most clubs if not all returning to semi professional, and the game unable to find a TV contract of much value. Plus we could lose our top players to Australia

[paul hicks]

7 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

When these once significant clubs slide off the semi-pro coil into the ether, will anyone care?

yes a few hundred supporters will

[gingerjon]

15 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

 Martyn Sadler [RL Express] came up with a plan = See link at bottom. Which fixes most of the problems?

Please read the link below in full as it is the best structure I have heard out of all the proposed ideas. It would remove P& R and the associated stress/bankruptcy worries of relegation.

it would get rid of the SL,Championship and L1 it would be simply the RFL similar to NFL with conferences.

No P and R

More Derbies

Share money out better [light blue touch paper etc] Sorry Super Greed - if they take a little bit off you you wont die?

a round robin for every conference first 10 weeks

then play matches against all the other conferences at similar level

6 league champions

Options for 6 league sponsors

Even the bottom teams would get 5 home and 5 away matches against better quality opposition

Bigger gate money = nice start to season

As part of a discussion on a previous restructuring post - Martyn Sadler [RL Express] came up with a plan of a conference set up of 6 leagues with 2 SL, 2 conf and 2 L1 teams in each conference similar to NFL setup match wise not moneywise obviously  - fully explained that it would have a few big scores at first putting SL against L1 - but also explained that L1 would get bigger crowds for SL matches etc and that in turn would be financially better and over time the gap should close - but when he mentioned splitting the money a bit more fairly that is when the proverbial hit the fan 

All the SL members attacked him and gave every possible excuse against it and MS gave a polite good answer to everyone, - but was wasting his time they are not bothered about Rugby League in general just themselves.

The thing is none of the Super Greed teams will settle for anything less than them getting their 1.8M each - that is the only reason they are wanting 10 teams - Sky Money divided by 10 is better than Sky Money divided by 12.

Some people on the listing even said they didn't care about L1 teams and that only the ELITE mattered - if i remember correctly when it was mentioned that L1 would be worst hit one said "if any team cant survive without Sky money then they should fold" - Easy to say when you are getting 1.8 million per season!

When Sky money drops again they will end up with 8 - at one point after being constantly told only the ELITE matter and the fact that in the 25/now 26 years of Super Greed only 4 teams have ever won, then I said "those ELITE 4 team plus the French should F*** O** and have a 6 team SLEurope and take all the Sky money [which is what they want ] and leave us to have 2 leagues of 15"

We have just left a league of 10 and on our way back 11 teams now and although all the teams in there are good to watch and try their best a league of 10 /11 is ######, At least if they go to 2 x 10 they will have the ###### leagues and it will leave a 16 team league for the rest if they all survive on the scraps?

 A future structure for Rugby League competitions – TotalRL.com | Rugby League Express | Rugby League World

 

Martyn's plan is the best if you want to drag all teams to the standards of the lowest club in double quick time. It's the opposite of the NFL where there is an arms race in all aspects of the game as the obscene riches generate fuel more obscene riches etc.

[Tommygilf]

10 hours ago, steve oates said:

a. The reality is this is a great plan for a whole game approach

b. Mr. Sadlers plan would however lose us the SKY contract.

c. I detect Mr. Sadler deliberately refuses to bow to the requirement of SKY for the elite big club owners to provide the TV content.

You yourself doubt the practicality of it I trust on the basis that SKY want the top division only and want to see the top clubs on numerous times which Mr. Sadler will know in his heart of hearts.

Good for Martyn for his whole game approach. An approach that would probably prevent most clubs folding. But it wouldn't prevent most clubs if not all returning to semi professional, and the game unable to find a TV contract of much value. Plus we could lose our top players to Australia

So it destroys the part of the game that draws in the lions share of the funding that is the lifeblood of the sport, and therefore destroys most of if not all of the rest of the sport in due course...

[steve oates]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

So it destroys the part of the game that draws in the lions share of the funding that is the lifeblood of the sport, and therefore destroys most of if not all of the rest of the sport in due course...

Mr. Sadler has clearly written his "plan" from the heart. He dedicates his Rugby Leaguer & League express to the whole game, but I don't think we can take it seriously as a plan, it's more of a protest....But he can speak for himself.

I of course wish the game had made greater strides by becoming professional  in 1996, something they had to do as Rugby Union had gone professional in 1995 and they wanted our best players, a few of which they did get.

The question is "what is the future for League one" and on a heavily reduced TV contract it is of course no future, and that may also be the case for a couple of lower Championship clubs. Fact is we were paid an enormous sum for the rights to the game, and as we come to the end of that contract we have added no real value. However as a realist I am happy that the game survives and I believe we have successfully survived against the odds for 126 years, and that is quite an achievement in my book.

We will see in the near future who may withdraw, and who may fight on, and whether League one goes. It may give us a break from the constant talks, hopes and dreams about "expansion", and introduce some welcome realism.

Now how about a team on the Isle of Man, surely that wilI pull in the punters, close to the heartlands, no pro-soccer or union clubs there

[JM2010]

I think all clubs outside SL that have a city or region to themselves should run an academy backed up with development in the community. So Midlands, WWR, Cornwall, Skolars/ Broncos, Sheffield/ Doncaster, Newcastle, Crusaders, Bradford and York. All of the others should at least have a tier 3 academy and a pathway to the 1st team.

[steve oates]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Two 14's gives us a highly competitive sl with space for challenger teams to have a shot at SL and see if they can grow,  whilst not cutting too many clubs off and including clubs in future markets  (Wales, Cornwall).  

A northern league can probably sit below that. 

Two x 14 "with a northern league" say 10 clubs = 38 clubs!!!!!   That's more than we have now....

Don't you get it that the heavy cuts and full withdrawal in funding will cut clubs.

Who are these "Challenger teams"  and how are Wales and Cornwall "Future Markets"

These places are Rugby Union Markets.......

[steve oates]

1 hour ago, JM2010 said:

I think all clubs outside SL that have a city or region to themselves should run an academy backed up with development in the community. So Midlands, WWR, Cornwall, Skolars/ Broncos, Sheffield/ Doncaster, Newcastle, Crusaders.....,

How do you find the money to pay development officers?

How do you persuade the kids that want to play Rugby, and play union in these places, to change codes.

How do you find the thousands of kids to play you would need  to be able to find the one in a hundred that could possibly make it in league?

[steve oates]

5 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

So it destroys the part of the game that draws in the lions share of the funding that is the lifeblood of the sport, and therefore destroys most of if not all of the rest of the sport in due course...

If it was serious Tommy, but it's surely tongue in cheek..........    

[JM2010]

2 hours ago, steve oates said:

How do you find the money to pay development officers?

How do you persuade the kids that want to play Rugby, and play union in these places, to change codes.

How do you find the thousands of kids to play you would need  to be able to find the one in a hundred that could possibly make it in league?

Well if there's no chance of any of that happening then what's the point in adding any pro clubs from outside the heartlands to the structure?

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, steve oates said:

If it was serious Tommy, but it's surely tongue in cheek..........    

Not at all. Martyn spent more than a few pages on here defending it

[The Lad]

The trouble with League 1 is that it has no identity I don't think anyone knows what it is. One of the reasons for this is because there are two leagues in one, the heartland clubs and the expansion ones. The expansion experiment has for the most part failed  Hemel, Gloucestershire and Oxford have all left the league, Coventry and West Wales have gone through name changes. No expansion club has had consistent years in the top half of the league only managing to win one or two games against the Heartland clubs between them. It's easy to dismiss league 1 because its the bottom of the pile, it seems like the powers that be always view it as an after thought rather than something that should be pushed and have a market for.

I think that in the end there will be two leagues. Leigh Centurions, Featherstone Rovers, Bradford Bulls, London Broncos and Newcastle Thunder will go into Super league along with all the clubs that are there now. All other clubs will be in a bigger second league.