If…….

[Griff]

11 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

SL would be a WAY more exciting, vibrant, economically promising comp with 14 or 16 teams.

Makes you wonder why we just don't promote another four teams.

[Gomersall]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

The structure has, as far as I remember, been agreed and all the circulated proposals are based on a top tier of 12 teams.

Yes that’s the way I read it too. I wonder if it would have been better to see what money was on offer from Sky first before settling on the structure of SL? Chickens and eggs.

[DI Keith Fowler]

15 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Yes that’s the way I read it too. I wonder if it would have been better to see what money was on offer from Sky first before settling on the structure of SL? Chickens and eggs.

I'd imagine IMG would be open to revising their plan if it works out better commercially. Clubs voted on the concept not on the strict number of teams in the top division. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by DI Keith Fowler

[Gooleboy]

Potentially move the goalposts this late in the season? Only in Rugby League.

[DI Keith Fowler]

In more news that can only be positive for the Bradford club, Mick's mum is doing fajitas for tea (Odel Paso smoky BBQ, naturally). 

Edited August 23, 2023 by DI Keith Fowler

[The Phantom Horseman]

16 hours ago, Ragingbull said:

Please dont pay any attention to anything from The Game Caller.  Hes clueless. Another 'journo' thats posts BS purely for likes

Indeed and fair play for saying this, but the trouble is that some people, both inside the Bradford club and also elsewhere, clearly do seem to talk to him, so he picks up snippets of truth and half-truths. He has no filters and puts his own interpretation on them and presents it all as facts, but the trouble is there is often a little bit of truth in the stuff he promulgates.

I'm amazed more Bulls fans don't publicly complain about him btw, he does your club no favours at all in the way he tries to portray himself as a "journalist" yet has blatant Bradford biases.

6 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

 

I suspect there will be a gulf between the top 14 teams which I think will include Fev and Toulouse and teams that TGC mentions. They will all likely be in a group with very little between a good number of teams.

 

In his commentary on the Bulls game at the weekend TGC claimed that Bradford's IMG points score was "very, very close to Wakefield and Castleford."...

Edited August 23, 2023 by The Phantom Horseman

[Daft old hooker]

33 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

 

In his commentary on the Bulls game at the weekend TGC claimed that Bradford's IMG points score was "very, very close to Wakefield and Castleford."...

If we are seeing Odsal as the type of ground SL should be looking for under IMG we really are in trouble.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Daft old hooker
Typo

[Barry Badrinath]

1 hour ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

In more news that can only be positive for the Bradford club, Mick's mum is doing fajitas for tea (Odel Paso smoky BBQ, naturally). 

You had the chance to say odsal el paso then

[sam4731]

I think the debate on the number of teams is irrelevant. Whether it's 12, 14 or 16 teams is not really important. The most important factor is that we have tiers which are either completely full time or completely part time. We can't have mismatches within divisions, on the whole we end up with teams that dominate and others destined to have dreams of some day making the big time. However many teams we have in super league, the most important factor they must be willing to undertake to go from the 2nd tier to the 1st is to go full time.

[The Phantom Horseman]

2 minutes ago, Daft old hooker said:

If we are seeing Odsal as the type of ground SL should be looking for under IMG we really are in trouble.

Lost count of the number of times I have said this on this forum, but under the IMG scoring system, Bradford or any other team aren't going to lose any points for the state of the ground. You either get 1.5 points for a bunch of facilities (mostly related to corporate/sponsors/usefulness to TV broadcasters), or you don't. Then there's the odd tiny bonus for having a big screen and/or LED advertising boards, for primacy of use, and for how much you fill your stadium ("Utilisation"). That's about it.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, Daft old hooker said:

If we are seeing Odsal as the type of ground SL should be looking for under IMG we really are in trouble.

 

22 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Lost count of the number of times I have said this on this forum, but under the IMG scoring system, Bradford or any other team aren't going to lose any points for the state of the ground. You either get 1.5 points for a bunch of facilities (mostly related to corporate/sponsors/usefulness to TV broadcasters), or you don't. Then there's the odd tiny bonus for having a big screen and/or LED advertising boards, for primacy of use, and for how much you fill your stadium ("Utilisation"). That's about it.

As I've posted before, at a recent Bulls' Fans' Forum it was stated by one of the Board that Odsal meets the IMG ground criteria for scoring max points (LEDs and big screen excepted)

[Gomersall]

21 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

 

As I've posted before, at a recent Bulls' Fans' Forum it was stated by one of the Board that Odsal meets the IMG ground criteria for scoring max points (LEDs and big screen excepted)

So not max points then.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 minute ago, Gomersall said:

So not max points then.

Max points for 'facilities' but not the bonus. If what was said is true it means Odsal will score higher than many other grounds

[StandOffHalf]

5 hours ago, Griff said:

Makes you wonder why we just don't promote another four teams.

Penny-pinching and self-concern; in Ireland we have a term mé-féinism.

[Toby Chopra]

17 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

SL would be a WAY more exciting, vibrant, economically promising comp with 14 or 16 teams.

It really wouldn't. You'd just have 4 more relegation-mired financial basket cases with substandard squads AND, by diluting their funding, you'd have undermined the ability of the middle-ground clubs like Salford and HKR to try and keep up with the big clubs. 

In fact it'll do the opposite, it'll just make Superleague more predictable with fewer clubs capable of winning. We don't need more clubs in Superleague, we need to make the bottom half more competitive, which we are actually slowly achieving at the moment.

I'd also add that people often propose this as if it'll bring back some sort of golden era when the top flight had 16 teams, but go back and look at the tables from the late 70s and early 80s and be reminded about how many teams went up and then went straight back down. Almost all of them. And that was when the gap to bridge was much smaller because almost every team was part time.           

[StandOffHalf]

4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

It really wouldn't. You'd just have 4 more relegation-mired financial basket cases with substandard squads AND, by diluting their funding, you'd have undermined the ability of the middle-ground clubs like Salford and HKR to try and keep up with the big clubs. 

In fact it'll do the opposite, it'll just make Superleague more predictable with fewer clubs capable of winning. We don't need more clubs in Superleague, we need to make the bottom half more competitive, which we are actually slowly achieving at the moment.

I'd also add that people often propose this as if it'll bring back some sort of golden era when the top flight had 16 teams, but go back and look at the tables from the late 70s and early 80s and be reminded about how many teams went up and then went straight back down. Almost all of them. And that was when the gap to bridge was much smaller because almost every team was part time.           

A 14-team comp with, say, a competitive Bradford and Toulouse would instantly add the spice of Leeds and Catalans 'derbies'.

SL at 12 teams is just about scraping through at the bare minimum. 

Growing the sport involves short-term pain for long-term gain. As a sport, it is too often a cut-and-burn mindset.

I'm not advocating a jump from 12 to 16 though, mind you. That would be dumb in the extreme and put the cart before the horse.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

Penny-pinching and self-concern; in Ireland we have a term mé-féinism.

Then let's go further - one division of 36.

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

A 14-team comp with, say, a competitive Bradford and Toulouse would instantly add the spice of Leeds and Catalans 'derbies'.

SL at 12 teams is just about scraping through at the bare minimum. 

Growing the sport involves short-term pain for long-term gain. As a sport, it is too often a cut-and-burn mindset.

I'm not advocating a jump from 12 to 16 though, mind you. That would be dumb in the extreme and put the cart before the horse.

I agree in principle with your first paragraph, but the key word is 'competitive'. They won't be, if all they're getting is a diluted share of the funds, they'll just lose most of their games, and then their fans, and go down. They won't grow into competitiveness and financial sustainability. We've seen before it how it'll go down.

Expansion would be great, but properly funded so the teams can be competitive and attractive, not struggling on and off the pitch from day one. The blueprint is Dolphins, or even DB's support for Leigh. It can work. But expansion with nothing else behind it would be a disaster.

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Then let's go further - one division of 36.

I would be open-minded towards any imaginative proposal that looked to expand and pull upwards rather than throwing an exclusionary net between teams.

You couldn't just jump straight back to one division - too many games for one thing!

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I would be open-minded towards any imaginative proposal that looked to expand and pull upwards rather than throwing an exclusionary net between teams.

You couldn't just jump straight back to one division - too many games for one thing!

You don't have to play everyone.

My point was that there's a balance.  Twelve clubs, 22 league games is the right balance imho.

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

I agree in principle with your first paragraph, but the key word is 'competitive'. They won't be, if all they're getting is a diluted share of the funds, they'll just lose most of their games, and then their fans, and go down. They won't grow into competitiveness and financial sustainability. We've seen before it how it'll go down.

Expansion would be great, but properly funded so the teams can be competitive and attractive, not struggling on and off the pitch from day one. The blueprint is Dolphins, or even DB's support for Leigh. It can work. But expansion with nothing else behind it would be a disaster.

Toulouse would have, if they were given the same 'fair shake' that Catalans were.

I agree about there needing to be sustainability and growth towards competitiveness for additions. I am willing to give the IMG Grading system a chance and hope that it pulls up rather that throwing a blanket over a select few.

Edited August 23, 2023 by StandOffHalf

[StandOffHalf]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

You don't have to play everyone.

My point was that there's a balance.  Twelve clubs, 22 league games is the right balance imho.

Of course. I find the loop fixtures annoying and repetitive, so that is one reason I would like a bigger, more varied competition.

But, I balance that by saying that I don't like a slog of a competition. I think that is one reason why the NRL sees such consistently good football. Fewer rounds keep players fresh, so your preference does look good on that front.

[Man of Kent]

SL vote against ending loop fixtures. They want their 13 home games…

[Padge]

22 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

What are the arguments against having 14 or even 16 teams.

We can barely create a 12 team competitive competition, if 12 were competitive expand, until then you are just creating drubbings.

Why not go back to one 32 team division and get rid of all this divisions nonsense.

Please tell me where all these SL quality players are going to come from, you could also tell Wakey and Cas at the same time as they don't seem to be able to find that many.

[Pulga]

18 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

It really wouldn't. You'd just have 4 more relegation-mired financial basket cases with substandard squads AND, by diluting their funding, you'd have undermined the ability of the middle-ground clubs like Salford and HKR to try and keep up with the big clubs. 

In fact it'll do the opposite, it'll just make Superleague more predictable with fewer clubs capable of winning. We don't need more clubs in Superleague, we need to make the bottom half more competitive, which we are actually slowly achieving at the moment.

I'd also add that people often propose this as if it'll bring back some sort of golden era when the top flight had 16 teams, but go back and look at the tables from the late 70s and early 80s and be reminded about how many teams went up and then went straight back down. Almost all of them. And that was when the gap to bridge was much smaller because almost every team was part time.           

P&R is the problem along with no minimum salary cap spend. 

We know the formula but the English game is anchored to the traditions of golden era that never was.