life below super league

[The Phantom Horseman]

5 minutes ago, south yorkshire said:

I would personally love to see two leagues of 18 yes. 

Fair enough.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

42 minutes ago, south yorkshire said:

I am in favour with IMG  grading. If my team sheffield won the championship i know they wouldn't be promoted. Which is fair our stadium is miles off super league requirement as are many in the lower leagues. What i would suggest that if the team who wins the championship doesn't score a grade similar to the team who finishes bottom of super then that team should not be promoted. Instead that team so be given some kind of cash reward or grant to spend money on up grading facilities in order to help them improve and advance there prospects for next time.    

This is a brilliant idea. I'm behind that 100%. Genius.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

38 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

If you're in favour of incorporating 10 League 1 teams into the Championship, would you be in favour of incorporating 10 Championship teams into SL for the same reasons?

Nope. Because SL has a TV contract and so consistency of quality throughout the league, and uncertainty of result, is an important part of what we sell to media organisations. 

But like I said, a variant anyway. 

 

[The Phantom Horseman]

46 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Nope. Because SL has a TV contract and so consistency of quality throughout the league, and uncertainty of result, is an important part of what we sell to media organisations. 

 

Four individual winners in 26 years says otherwise.

It's well documented that there are a number of teams who have continued to be poor or average, some of them playing in delapidated stadia, but have clung on to their SL spot because of their precious Sky money.

Edited August 1, 2023 by The Phantom Horseman

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, south yorkshire said:

No teams in Championship are ever going to vote to make it smaller to much self interest that's why they went from 12 to 14 teams. Granted the quality of the league with all in it might not be as good at first but would clubs at top end have to pay so many players top wages to compete? With time to develop there own youth players this would give lower teams a chance to pick up other players on the way down from super ect. 

What do you suggest as a system for the teams to develop their own youth players? At the moment every player who plays for a decent community team is signed up by Super League clubs if they have so much as looked at a rugby ball then the rest of the teams get chance to pick up the ones which get disguarded by SL clubs and actually still want to give semi pro rugby a shot which is a very small percentage of players that originally get signed.

[south yorkshire]

20 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

What do you suggest as a system for the teams to develop their own youth players? At the moment every player who plays for a decent community team is signed up by Super League clubs if they have so much as looked at a rugby ball then the rest of the teams get chance to pick up the ones which get disguarded by SL clubs and actually still want to give semi pro rugby a shot which is a very small percentage of players that originally get signed.

I am sure they are plenty of kids out there that were over looked by super league that could go on too make a living out of playing rugby. Plus championship clubs would have more time to nurture them . There is also the fact that if your club put more into your local community kids grow up wanting to play for there home town team.  

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Four individual winners in 26 years says otherwise.

It's well documented that there are a number of teams who have continued to be poor or average, some of them playing in delapidated stadia, but have clung on to their SL spot because of their precious Sky money.

If you think adding more under-resourced teams into the 12 team league will make things better then you and I will have to agree to disagree.

I appreciate some people would like a larger league with the TV money shared more "equally", and maybe even we all run semi-pro squads with the budgets that leaves teams, but I don't... mainly because you'd pretty quickly have no TV contract at all for the product on offer, and so everybody loses. Lowest common denominator ideas rarely help people at the middle and the bottom in the end. Striving for excellence is what it should be about. That means some will lose out.  

[The Phantom Horseman]

4 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

If you think adding more under-resourced teams into the 12 team league will make things better then you and I will have to agree to disagree.

I appreciate some people would like a larger league with the TV money shared more "equally", and maybe even we all run semi-pro squads with the budgets that leaves teams, but I don't... mainly because you'd pretty quickly have no TV contract at all for the product on offer, and so everybody loses. Lowest common denominator ideas rarely help people at the middle and the bottom in the end. Striving for excellence is what it should be about. That means some will lose out.  

Don't disagree with most of that, but I'd hope we can agree that for too long it's been too easy for some teams to strive for mediocrity/status quo rather than excellence, and so-called minimum standards remained unenforced, with possession remaining nine-tenths of the law. Whether the IMG system will lead to an improvement in that respect, we'll have to see.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

10 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Don't disagree with most of that, but I'd hope we can agree that for too long it's been too easy for some teams to strive for mediocrity/status quo rather than excellence, and so-called minimum standards remained unenforced, with possession remaining nine-tenths of the law. Whether the IMG system will lead to an improvement in that respect, we'll have to see.

I agree, 100%. We need the system to be actively managed and with consequences this time. Trust me, I support a club who invested cold, hard cash in building a brand new 2,000 seat stand with hospitality facilities and corporate boxes, money which could have been spent on a better squad and marquee players. All in order to beat licensing criteria, and invest in the long term development of the club. We then got relegated by a Salford side that wasn't even paying its bills at the time, whilst Wakefield and Castleford also stayed up having done nothing to their grounds since the days of woodbines on the terraces. 

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, south yorkshire said:

I am sure they are plenty of kids out there that were over looked by super league that could go on too make a living out of playing rugby. Plus championship clubs would have more time to nurture them . There is also the fact that if your club put more into your local community kids grow up wanting to play for there home town team.  

They may have time but they won't have the money or resources and it will be a minority that would decide to go to a Championship team when they are sold the dream of SL. This isn't just a problem with your team its a fundamental problem of the game and why it is stagnating in my opinion.

[The Phantom Horseman]

6 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I agree, 100%. We need the system to be actively managed and with consequences this time. Trust me, I support a club who invested cold, hard cash in building a brand new 2,000 seat stand with hospitality facilities and corporate boxes, money which could have been spent on a better squad and marquee players. All in order to beat licensing criteria, and invest in the long term development of the club. We then got relegated by a Salford side that wasn't even paying its bills at the time, whilst Wakefield and Castleford also stayed up having done nothing to their grounds since the days of woodbines on the terraces. 

I hear you. Imagine how Mark Campbell has felt in recent years having gone to the lengths of dismantling the stands at Scarborough, transporting them bit by bit, reconstructing them with the help of a group of volunteer fans (many of them pensioners), transforming the ground, then putting loads of his own money into creating a consistently competitive team, building his own training centre (used by Wakefield for many years) whilst the likes of Wakefield and Castleford have continued to mop up the Sky money and (until very recently in Wakefield's case) done nothing about their crumbling stadia.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I hear you. Imagine how Mark Campbell has felt in recent years having gone to the lengths of dismantling the stands at Scarborough, transporting them bit by bit, reconstructing them with the help of a group of volunteer fans (many of them pensioners), transforming the ground, then putting loads of his own money into creating a consistently competitive team, building his own training centre (used by Wakefield for many years) whilst the likes of Wakefield and Castleford have continued to mop up the Sky money and (until very recently in Wakefield's case) done nothing about their crumbling stadia.

If I was a Fev fan, or owner, I'd be absolutely livid at the way the other two clubs in the area have cynically played the system since - only by accident of timing - getting into Superleague when Fev didn't. Totally empathise. The previous version of licencing should have had teeth, with consequences for not getting beyond a few CAD mock-ups. 

[Derwent Parker]

4 hours ago, south yorkshire said:

I would personally love to see two leagues of 18 yes. 

me to

[Derwent Parker]

3 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

What do you suggest as a system for the teams to develop their own youth players? At the moment every player who plays for a decent community team is signed up by Super League clubs if they have so much as looked at a rugby ball then the rest of the teams get chance to pick up the ones which get disguarded by SL clubs and actually still want to give semi pro rugby a shot which is a very small percentage of players that originally get signed.

Well you can start with scrapping Dual Reg

[south yorkshire]

2 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

If you think adding more under-resourced teams into the 12 team league will make things better then you and I will have to agree to disagree.

I appreciate some people would like a larger league with the TV money shared more "equally", and maybe even we all run semi-pro squads with the budgets that leaves teams, but I don't... mainly because you'd pretty quickly have no TV contract at all for the product on offer, and so everybody loses. Lowest common denominator ideas rarely help people at the middle and the bottom in the end. Striving for excellence is what it should be about. That means some will lose out.  

That what IMG are there for to help and encourage teams up to super league standards . Start with 12 teams once they all get upto grade A we can start adding other once they reach grade A . What I read about the proposals there's no limit in the end on how many team with have in super league if all grade A standard .

[overtheborder]

16 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Well you can start with scrapping Dual Reg

Apologies for my ignorance on this, but what's the difference between dual reg and SL clubs essentially loaning out up-and-coming youngsters? I can understand a bit of opposition to the concept of filling a Champ/L1 side with a load of Leeds youngsters for example, but isn't that what would happen anyway one way or another in a limited player pool? I'm almost certainly missing something so it's a genuine question.

[Derwent Parker]

10 minutes ago, south yorkshire said:

That what IMG are there for to help and encourage teams up to super league standards . Start with 12 teams once they all get upto grade A we can start adding other once they reach grade A . What I read about the proposals there's no limit in the end on how many team with have in super league if all grade A standard .

That is when the proverbial will hit the fan - When the CF divided by 12 is now divided by more than !2

[Wolford6]

I think two conferences would work ... Yorkshire and Lancashire ... with the others suitably allocated. Top three in each Conference going into the playoffs. A midweek cup for each Conference and a weekend cup where Yorkshire Conference teams play Lancashire Conference teams. Add the Challenge Cup and each team would play at least 24 games per season.

[overtheborder]

1 hour ago, Wolford6 said:

I think two conferences would work ... Yorkshire and Lancashire ... with the others suitably allocated. Top three in each Conference going into the playoffs. A midweek cup for each Conference and a weekend cup where Yorkshire Conference teams play Lancashire Conference teams. Add the Challenge Cup and each team would play at least 24 games per season.

I think that's all well and good except for me, thinking in terms of SL games (albeit there are more teams in this proposed system), I'd hate to lose regular season games that have historically been blockbusters (Wigan vs Leeds being an obvious one). I'm sure there'll be examples from the Champ and L1 that ring true here too.

Edited August 1, 2023 by overtheborder
Clarification

[Anita Bath]

10 hours ago, south yorkshire said:

Life below super league is so tough for clubs take the championship 14 teams about 8 spending money they probably haven't got to try and get to the promise land while the other six are spending money they haven't got trying to stay in the championship and avoid the nightmare that is league one. League one traditional are clubs are probably spending money they haven't got trying to get out of league one. When they do get out they hit another wall of having to spend more money just to try and avoid going back down to league one. Championship and league one is not working for any team. The answer is simple one league of 24 playing each other once and your nearest neighbours twice .24 game season 12 home 12 away top 8 make playoffs. Yes you still have clubs spending money trying to get into top 8 and super league but not a disaster if you don't make it. Teams would have more time to develop younger players as threat of relegation would be removed. Teams can build slowly. It would I think be more appealing for a tv deal with more games and derbies to chose from. The 1895 cup rebranded as the championship cup still play final at Wembley.8 groups of three with group games doubling up with championship games to reduce fixture list. Top team in each group of three make quarter finals with group games doubling as league games they would be no dead rubbers. So that's 24 league round plus 3 championship play off rounds and 3 championship cup round 30 games. Plus the challenge cup where most teams could expect to play at least two games. 1 st round proper I have 16 amateur teams join the 24 championship teams. The 20 winners would then be joined by the 12 super league sides in round 2 the last 32 . Then straight knock out from there.                

In the single division rugby league in the mid to late 60s teams played 34 league games (plus challenge cup and county cup games). Why are seasons now limited to far fewer games….how can you expect to run a professional sports club on as few as 9 home games (as in League 1 this season) or 12 as under your suggestion. 
 

Yes this proposal would lead to many blow outs week after week. The gap between top of championship and bottom of league 1 is vast. Should Oldham go up to the championship this season and newcastle and barrow come down to league 1 Rochdale will be the only Lancashire team in league 1. So much for the M62 corridor…at least west of the Pennines.

One myth that needs to put to bed is the idea that in the one league era of 60s there were the same number of blow outs. Yes the teams near the bottom would occasionally get a hammering but not on a regular basis.

Take a look at the average points per game conceded by teams at the bottom and compare that to current bottom feeders.

[Griff]

10 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

Some paragraphs would be nice.

 

Sorry, don't mean to be rude 

Hard to read though, isn't it? I gave up well before the end. It's yet another reorganisation thread.

[Barley Mow]

21 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

...Should Oldham go up to the championship this season and newcastle and barrow come down to league 1 Rochdale will be the only Lancashire team in league 1. So much for the M62 corridor…at least west of the Pennines...

Leaving aside Barrow being in Lancashire in exactly the same way as Rochdale (ie both are in the traditional county, but not the current local authority of the same name):

If two of Dewsbury/Hunslet/Doncaster get promoted and no Yorkshire team are relegated, then the remaining one of Dewsbury/Hunslet/Doncaster would be the only Yorkshire club in L1.

[Griff]

8 hours ago, south yorkshire said:

I myself pick and chose the games I go to. I might be more tempted to go to a few more games though if I thought I was not going to see my team play them at home again for another two years. Like wise with away games I would be more tempted to go to more away games. As my Sheffield have been in Championship a long time I get bored of going to Batley , Featherstone  and the like every year where as if its was every two years I would probably go to more. 

How will you go more if they play less often?

[The Masked Poster]

7 hours ago, south yorkshire said:

I would personally love to see two leagues of 18 yes. 

I've already raised this but it got deleted. The answer is 18 leagues of 2. 

[Griff]

7 hours ago, south yorkshire said:

I would personally love to see two leagues of 18 yes. 

So 34 league games, is that it? Plus cup ties and play-offs. Far too many. We're not going to go back to more than one game a week. The game's changed. We're more aware of player safety.

I don't understand why you say part-time clubs need to play more games to make ends meet. Few of them own their own ground. Less games means less wages, less rent, fewer buses - to mention just three costs - less losses, less cash to be chipped in by the club's backers.  Maybe 9 games is what League clubs want. Even before West Wales pulled out, they were only playing ten home games. They could have had loop fixtures and started in February but they chose not to.

So carry on with your fixture plans but don't expect any to be taken up by the RFL any time soon.  Apart from owt else, we'll be doing what IMG want for the next few years.