IMG proposals

[Damien]

35 minutes ago, RP London said:

 

That was pretty much the answer I was going to give. 

Union used to have the Pilkington Cup which sold out Twickenham (other sponsors were available but its the one i remember) that no longer exists.. 

The FA Cup and League cup are such chores that they are always looking to cut out the extras either 2nd legs or replays are being cut left right and centre.. and neither are the festival or showcase that they used to be, especially the FA Cup. 

Dont get me wrong I love the knock out cups but I also realise that they are seen as a chore and the first things to be cut back when games need to go.

But the domestic RU cups were superceded by bigger and better cups in the form of European competitions. They certainly aren't seen as a chore. Same with Football with the advent of the Champions League and many more European fixtures and much more money. It wasn't a case if just scrapping the Cup and concentrating on the league and having no variety. That is before you get to the additional variety with 10+ internationals in a season.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Damien

[Tommygilf]

31 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Aye Tommy, but under this format of staging entry levels, going back to the old system may just reinvigorate interest.

I don't really see how much different it is frankly H. Yeah a few teams get a gig against a SL team (potentially ) but within 1 round you are basically back at the Round 6 situation we are at currently - with an extra drubbing of lower league opposition to add to the mix. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

But the domestic RU cups were superceded by bigger and better cups in the form of European competitions. They certainly aren't seen as a chore. Same with Football with the advent of the Champions League and many more European fixtures and much more money. It wasn't a case if just scrapping the Cup and concentrating on the league and having no variety. That is before you get to the additional variety with 10+ internationals in a season.

This is a good point I think.

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So the solution to ' loop ' games is to have ' loop ' games ?  

Bonkers 

If you are going to call them loop games, then the cup itself is just full of loop games surely?

They are not SL games, so they are not loop games.

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

But the domestic RU cups were superceded by bigger and better cups in the form of European competitions. They certainly aren't seen as a chore. Same with Football. It wasn't a case if just scrapping the Cup and concentrating on the league and having no variety. That is before you get to the additional variety with 10+ internationals in a season.

Critically though, those cups were bigger, better and faced often different opposition.

Perhaps a group stage could allow French and other sides into the UK pro games.

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Critically though, those cups were bigger, better and faced often different opposition.

Perhaps a group stage could allow French and other sides into the UK pro games.

The trouble for Rugby League is that it cannot do bigger and better within Europe as RU and Football did. There aren't fully professional teams from other countries with money to burn to play against. The 2 fully professional French clubs are in the English system as is and the French domestic clubs are way off. It is the same problem the game has at international level in that not enough European countries play the game to any meaningful degree and even those that do are way off England.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Damien

[RP London]

28 minutes ago, Damien said:

But the domestic RU cups were superceded by bigger and better cups in the form of European competitions. They certainly aren't seen as a chore. Same with Football with the advent of the Champions League and many more European fixtures and much more money. It wasn't a case if just scrapping the Cup and concentrating on the league and having no variety. That is before you get to the additional variety with 10+ internationals in a season.

Dont disagree that other things have came along  and arguably we have that with the play offs and grandfinal which has become a bigger occasion, and, to be fair, we arent talking about scrapping the cup, its just that its less than it was, can we bring it back and how?

I love the cup and try to get to the final no matter who is in it.. but I just wonder if it can really hold the attention of people when the league is the "best team" and the cup doesnt have the added "shock" side to it that football has. 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by RP London

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

Dont disagree that other things have came along  and arguably we have that with the play offs and grandfinal which has become a bigger occasion, and, to be fair, we arent talking about scrapping the cup, its just that its less than it was, can we bring it back and how?

I love the cup and try to get to the final no matter who is in it.. but I just wonder if it can really hold the attention of people when the league is the "best team" and the cup doesnt have the added "shock" side to it that football has. 

You were talking about cutting it back and comparing it to a competition that no longer exists. At the moment a SL club can win the Challenge Cup in 4 games, it can hardly be described as a chore and it cannot be cut back anymore than it currently is. It certainly isn't what causes a burden fixture wise.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

You were talking about cutting it back and comparing it to a competition that no longer exists. At the moment a SL club can win the Challenge Cup in 4 games, it can hardly be described as a chore and it cannot be cut back anymore than it currently is. It certainly isn't what causes a burden fixture wise.

I think you may need to go back and re-read some of my posts. 

I love the Challenge Cup, I dont want to see it go and I dont want to see it cut back. I would like Super League clubs to come in a round earlier and I am not sure these "reforms" are really going to solve any of the issues they want to. I also have always been the advocate for the burden being too many pointless league games. 

My point, that you have jumped on to, was in reply to Harry about domestic cups in general which have all become less than they were and are seen by both fans and the governing bodies as a chore and something that is expendable (backed up by attendances and the fact that when governing bodies need to cut games they are looking at cups first with replays and the extra legs).. and its not just an RL phenomenon. 

 

[Tommygilf]

32 minutes ago, Damien said:

The trouble for Rugby League is that it cannot do bigger and better within Europe as RU and Football did. There aren't fully professional teams from other countries with money to burn to play against. The 2 fully professional French clubs are in the English system as is and the French domestic clubs are way off. It is the same problem the game has at international level in that not enough European countries play the game to any meaningful degree and even those that do are way off England.

Agreed, but ultimately there isn't lots of examples of domestic knockout cups doing successfully, or not being in decline, in the 21st Century.

Radical reform or accept defeat?

[Barley Mow]

51 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't really see how much different it is frankly H. Yeah a few teams get a gig against a SL team (potentially ) but within 1 round you are basically back at the Round 6 situation we are at currently - with an extra drubbing of lower league opposition to add to the mix. 

As I said earlier in the thread, I would have the SL teams entering the cup 1 round earlier (rather than everyone entering at the very start as @Harry Stottle suggests).

You do get rare upsets (Bradford beating Leeds a few years ago for example). But even if higher placed teams always won matches, the fact that in the round of 32 (and subsequently 16, etc) a number of SL teams can get drawn against each other and knock each other out means that lower division teams do progress and (even if they are defeated by the first SL team the play) that in itself adds variety and interest.

Having 12 SL teams in the round of 32 rather than having 12 out of 16 (as now) means that there is more opportunity for those lower division teams to progress (even if it is against each other). Although not a silver bullet, I think that would boost interest amongst fans and media.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

As I said earlier in the thread, I would have the SL teams entering the cup 1 round earlier (rather than everyone entering at the very start as @Harry Stottle suggests).

You do get rare upsets (Bradford beating Leeds a few years ago for example). But even if higher placed teams always won matches, the fact that in the round of 32 (and subsequently 16, etc) a number of SL teams can get drawn against each other and knock each other out means that lower division teams do progress and (even if they are defeated by the first SL team the play) that in itself adds variety and interest.

Having 12 SL teams in the round of 32 rather than having 12 out of 16 (as now) means that there is more opportunity for those lower division teams to progress (even if it is against each other). Although not a silver bullet, I think that would boost interest amongst fans and media.

I still don't see how that actually increases interest in the competition that much tbh. 

It is an existential issue for the Cup really. I'm not sure there actually is a solution, but the cup deserves us to try.

[Oxford]

8 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I think that would boost interest amongst fans and media.

It could provoke more curiosity and involvement of fans but the media are a different proposition.

 

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

but the cup deserves us to try.

Couldn't be more spot on.

Predictability may be the key in all competitions, almost certain results, predictable outcomes and same old eventual winners and achievers.

[Oxford]

Just now, Oxford said:

It could provoke more curiosity and involvement of fans but the media are a different proposition.

 

Couldn't be more spot on.

Predictability may be the key in all competitions, almost certain results, predictable outcomes and same old eventual winners and achievers.

Meant to add that the answers to TGG's problems will never be found in K&C's lucrative, media favoured and well backed sport no matter how hard you look and however beguling their success may appear.

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

It could provoke more curiosity and involvement of fans but the media are a different proposition.

 

Couldn't be more spot on.

Predictability may be the key in all competitions, almost certain results, predictable outcomes and same old eventual winners and achievers.

More interest from media who currently don't report on us? I think that's unlikely.

A greater number of stories, interest and prestige from our existing media outlets?  Yes, I think so.

I agree with both you and @Tommygilfthat the Challenge Cup is something special and we should do what we can to preserve/rejuvenate it.

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Agreed, but ultimately there isn't lots of examples of domestic knockout cups doing successfully, or not being in decline, in the 21st Century.

Radical reform or accept defeat?

In Rugby League's case it purposely went down the road of devaluing the Challenge Cup to advance the play offs and Grand Final. It has reaped what it sowed on this. Even now the date for the final is still being shuffled around when it should be easy to have a set date and structure and have a showpiece final in June and further away from the Grand Final. Instead we have gone from May last year to August again this year (and completely ignored what the BBC has previously requested on this too). The RFL's attitude to the Challenge Cup really hasn't helped.

I don't think radical reform is possible with the parameters the game faces. It is simply not strong enough with enough fully professional teams to talk about foreign leagues. Group stages just become a mini SL and loop fixtures in another guise. In my opinion we just have to make what we have better. There is plenty of good things about the Challenge Cup and some of the early rounds are fantastic. Over 3k at an amateur game in St Pats v Rose Bridge is tremendous for the game and there are usually plenty of quality early round matches. 60k+ for a final with terrible presentation is not to be sniffed at or tossed aside either. The main issues are actually around the bigger SL teams, semi finals and what should be marquee fixtures. Improve those and the perception changes enormously. With a little effort what we currently have can be improved tremendously and if not then its still better than just a SL competition and nothing else.

[Oxford]

6 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I agree with both you and @Tommygilfthat the Challenge Cup is something special and we should do what we can to preserve/rejuvenate it.

It's as well to remember that the SL clubs insisted and worked towards not being included until there was very little work involved under some pretext or other and devalued it in one fell swoop.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't really see how much different it is frankly H. Yeah a few teams get a gig against a SL team (potentially ) but within 1 round you are basically back at the Round 6 situation we are at currently - with an extra drubbing of lower league opposition to add to the mix. 

There would also be the potential for SL club's to draw each other, and why not say a first round with Wigan v Saints, FC v KR and Leeds v Cas now that would set the cat amongst the pigeons, good eh!

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

There would also be the potential for SL club's to draw each other, and why not say a first round with Wigan v Saints, FC v KR and Leeds v Cas now that would set the cat amongst the pigeons, good eh!

Agreed, but then you end up with all your best teams knocked out early and 1 or 2 forgone conclusion teams to the final...

I think what lots of people on this thread are going around the edges of is that the Cup basically needs some outside convoluting to be interesting again. Whether that is groups, home advantage for lower league sides, or pitting SL sides against eachother to knock half out, the cup by itself just isn't interesting (which is reflected in other sports too).

[Tommygilf]

33 minutes ago, Damien said:

In Rugby League's case it purposely went down the road of devaluing the Challenge Cup to advance the play offs and Grand Final. It has reaped what it sowed on this. Even now the date for the final is still being shuffled around when it should be easy to have a set date and structure and have a showpiece final in June and further away from the Grand Final. Instead we have gone from May last year to August again this year (and completely ignored what the BBC has previously requested on this too). The RFL's attitude to the Challenge Cup really hasn't helped.

I don't think radical reform is possible with the parameters the game faces. It is simply not strong enough with enough fully professional teams to talk about foreign leagues. Group stages just become a mini SL and loop fixtures in another guise. In my opinion we just have to make what we have better. There is plenty of good things about the Challenge Cup and some of the early rounds are fantastic. Over 3k at an amateur game in St Pats v Rose Bridge is tremendous for the game and there are usually plenty of quality early round matches. 60k+ for a final with terrible presentation is not to be sniffed at or tossed aside either. The main issues are actually around the bigger SL teams, semi finals and what should be marquee fixtures. Improve those and the perception changes enormously. With a little effort what we currently have can be improved tremendously and if not then its still better than just a SL competition and nothing else.

I don't wholly disagree, and I don't want to be flippant, but that is a lot of words to come round to the point that the Cup just isn't very popular anymore.

That's not just the competition, but the way fans buy tickets, what the final offers, what each round offers. As a product, it isn't working and hasn't been for some time.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Agreed, but then you end up with all your best teams knocked out early and 1 or 2 forgone conclusion teams to the final...

I think what lots of people on this thread are going around the edges of is that the Cup basically needs some outside convoluting to be interesting again. Whether that is groups, home advantage for lower league sides, or pitting SL sides against eachother to knock half out, the cup by itself just isn't interesting (which is reflected in other sports too).

I think part of the challenge is if we don't acknowledge that the changes they have made so far may have caused harm on the comp. SL clubs going in so late has the impact of creating more all-SL games, and tbh, I don't think that is the attractive thing about the cup. I know at Wire we were terrible last year, but the 2k versus Wakey was a real low in the recent history of the cup.

I struggle to believe that Wire versus any lower division team wouldn't have brought in a bigger crowd. We also reduce the likelihood of games like Wire v Widnes etc. I know one of the better Cup games at Wire in recent years was when we played Leigh at home with over 10k in, Live on the BBC. 

I'm not saying that those games would be much better attended, but I think we have reached a point where the risk of making that change is low as we seem to have reached rock bottom.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Barley Mow said:

As I said earlier in the thread, I would have the SL teams entering the cup 1 round earlier (rather than everyone entering at the very start as @Harry Stottle suggests).

You do get rare upsets (Bradford beating Leeds a few years ago for example). But even if higher placed teams always won matches, the fact that in the round of 32 (and subsequently 16, etc) a number of SL teams can get drawn against each other and knock each other out means that lower division teams do progress and (even if they are defeated by the first SL team the play) that in itself adds variety and interest.

Having 12 SL teams in the round of 32 rather than having 12 out of 16 (as now) means that there is more opportunity for those lower division teams to progress (even if it is against each other). Although not a silver bullet, I think that would boost interest amongst fans and media.

With due respect Barley, what I suggest is not much different than your scheme, I do have all the 26 SL and Championship club's entering in the last 32 as it used to be, the pre curser is whittling down L1 and Amateurs to 6 club's to join them.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think part of the challenge is if we don't acknowledge that the changes they have made so far may have caused harm on the comp. SL clubs going in so late has the impact of creating more all-SL games, and tbh, I don't think that is the attractive thing about the cup. I know at Wire we were terrible last year, but the 2k versus Wakey was a real low in the recent history of the cup.

I struggle to believe that Wire versus any lower division team wouldn't have brought in a bigger crowd. We also reduce the likelihood of games like Wire v Widnes etc. I know one of the better Cup games at Wire in recent years was when we played Leigh at home with over 10k in, Live on the BBC. 

I'm not saying that those games would be much better attended, but I think we have reached a point where the risk of making that change is low as we seem to have reached rock bottom.

I agree that we are at a stage where there is little worse that could be done, so any option is viable.

I think a lot of what is failing about the cup, particularly attendances, is failing to adapt to both wider trends and trends in our own sport. For example, season tickets have become the bedrock of attendances now, yet we keep being shocked at bad cup attendances that don't include them. 

[Tommygilf]

A comment on the attendances thread is perhaps relevant here:

"£15 to watch our more or less full strength team destroy a part time League 1 side is never ever going to draw anything like a crowd."

Could be describing most middle rounds cup games

[Jughead]

The present format works in the sense that we’ve seen a fairly wide selection of teams in the final. We’ve had six different winners in as many years and nine different finalists since 2017, which is quite good, though has its own issues. That’s probably as far as it goes for the present format being particularly great, otherwise, it’s pretty ordinary. 

Once the novelty factor of a group stage wears off, where are we then?