Loop fixtures to stay......

[Griff]

7 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Why would they universally gravitate to the bottom 2 ? 

Lady years finalist Leeds pulled Hooley out of part time Rugby last year and are developing him into a SL quality player ..

So basically, you're saying that the difference between top and bottom in a 14 team league wouldn't be any different to the difference between top and bottom in a 12 team league.

I suggest you're mistaken.

[EagleEyePie]

19 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Dave facts are great but in small bands they miss bigger pictures, I remember 20k at Wigan first game in the snow and it's was in Smiths reign. I agree there's other factors but that was the only time away we played Wigan and fans didn't want to miss it, but Wigan were better at promoting games in that period, they had target games other than saints,both Leeds and Warrington had crowds over 20k at Wigan, then loop fixtures sort of overkill the anticipation.

I'm not sure that logic holds up. You already seem to have identified the reason for crowds being better at that time. The marketing was very effective.

If it was purely down to loop fixtures our attendances against newly promoted teams would always be higher than the norm because that fixture won't have been played as often so loop fixtures can't have killed the anticipation.

Also, while our best attendances against Warrington came during a period of time where there were 14 teams in SL and no loop fixtures the decline in attendances happened before loop fixtures were introduced. 2014 was the season when attendances for Wire home games went from being 20,000 and above to around 15,000 and then declined further in line with average attendances from that point. The marketing (the 'Big One' games) stopped being effective and nothing seemed to replace it.

We all know loop fixtures aren't preferred, but I just don't see any logic in removing two home fixtures and reducing income at what is relatively short notice given clubs are already selling season tickets and in a tough economic climate with no suggestion of what would replace them. Clubs will have already budgeted and planned their squad around expected income for next season.

Pretty much every UK or European competition that has a small number of teams encounters this issue, and the need to play enough fixtures to be financially viable without damaging the product through repetitiveness. I believe the Scottish Premiership currently has 3 fixtures against the same team then 1 more against each top 6 or bottom 6 club depending on where they finish. Every competition has to play enough games to be financially viable while fitting it into the calendar.

Sometimes it seems the argument for everything is that clubs should just do more. If loop fixtures are removed then clubs should just do more to make that money back from the other home games. If it was really that simple it wouldn't be an issue. No one actively wants to lose money.

The IMG recommendations are designed to get the sport to where it needs to be but that doesn't mean everything they recommend has to be implemented immediately regardless of potential impact. It's a 12 year partnership. Also the headlines of 'SL ignoring key recommendation' probably don't reflect IMG's own understanding of the reasons why clubs voted not to ditch loop fixtures for next season. There will be open communication and discussions. The aim of the partnership is to get clubs into a position where loop fixtures aren't required.

Actively voting to lose income just doesn't make much sense and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest ditching loop fixtures is going to have a positive effect on finances. In the long term it would be beneficial in streamlining the competition but you have to balance it with the short term financial impact too.

[ELBOWSEYE]

9 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

I'm not sure that logic holds up. You already seem to have identified the reason for crowds being better at that time. The marketing was very effective.

If it was purely down to loop fixtures our attendances against newly promoted teams would always be higher than the norm because that fixture won't have been played as often so loop fixtures can't have killed the anticipation.

Also, while our best attendances against Warrington came during a period of time where there were 14 teams in SL and no loop fixtures the decline in attendances happened before loop fixtures were introduced. 2014 was the season when attendances for Wire home games went from being 20,000 and above to around 15,000 and then declined further in line with average attendances from that point. The marketing (the 'Big One' games) stopped being effective and nothing seemed to replace it.

We all know loop fixtures aren't preferred, but I just don't see any logic in removing two home fixtures and reducing income at what is relatively short notice given clubs are already selling season tickets and in a tough economic climate with no suggestion of what would replace them. Clubs will have already budgeted and planned their squad around expected income for next season.

Pretty much every UK or European competition that has a small number of teams encounters this issue, and the need to play enough fixtures to be financially viable without damaging the product through repetitiveness. I believe the Scottish Premiership currently has 3 fixtures against the same team then 1 more against each top 6 or bottom 6 club depending on where they finish. Every competition has to play enough games to be financially viable while fitting it into the calendar.

Sometimes it seems the argument for everything is that clubs should just do more. If loop fixtures are removed then clubs should just do more to make that money back from the other home games. If it was really that simple it wouldn't be an issue. No one actively wants to lose money.

The IMG recommendations are designed to get the sport to where it needs to be but that doesn't mean everything they recommend has to be implemented immediately regardless of potential impact. It's a 12 year partnership. Also the headlines of 'SL ignoring key recommendation' probably don't reflect IMG's own understanding of the reasons why clubs voted not to ditch loop fixtures for next season. There will be open communication and discussions. The aim of the partnership is to get clubs into a position where loop fixtures aren't required.

Actively voting to lose income just doesn't make much sense and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest ditching loop fixtures is going to have a positive effect on finances. In the long term it would be beneficial in streamlining the competition but you have to balance it with the short term financial impact too.

Quite a big read,

The reasons are never a single answer, but as I feel and many others that playing teams more lessens the feeling of big occasions. Now that will have an effect (on Warrington fans) in duplicate home games for non season ticket holder and fans for big away local derbies. 

Edited August 25, 2023 by ELBOWSEYE

[The 4 of Us]

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/challenge-cup-format-group-stages-27592339

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, The 4 of Us said:

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/challenge-cup-format-group-stages-27592339

I quite like it. Guarantee basically of some cross-league matches. Also feels a tad harder to win with the extra game. 

[Archie Gordon]

I did feel that we were going to get a new property/competition but it seems that we'll just tinker a bit with both SL and the CC. It feels like an opportunity missed.

[Toby Chopra]

39 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I did feel that we were going to get a new property/competition but it seems that we'll just tinker a bit with both SL and the CC. It feels like an opportunity missed.

As has always been the case, the tinkering with the structure does nothing on its own, unless it allows us to present the sport in a different way to new audiences.

Maybe IMG can find a way to do this, and if the group stage is part of the season ticket hopefully crowds will be decent, but I'm struggling to see how matching up 12 full time teams against mostly part time teams is a good sell.

Some of the old matchups might be attractive the first time round, but the results are likely to be predictable.

In the end, what's really new?

[sam4731]

3 hours ago, The 4 of Us said:

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/challenge-cup-format-group-stages-27592339

Would be difficult to seed the groups. Top 4 from previous year to be guaranteed to be in a group without another super league team surely.

So let's say:

Groups A-D 1 SL team from 1-4 and two lower tier qualifiers

Groups E-H 2 SL teams from 5-12 and 1 lower tier qualifier

?

 

[Treizistance]

Any reason why TV revenues are decreasing when the broadcasters are presented with Leigh-Huddersfield or Wakefield-Castleford for a 3rd time in the season. SL is reaping what it has sowed and has been well and truly left in the dust by the NRL. If 13 home games is really needed, expand to 14 teams and bin Magic. RL on these shores has been in terminal decline since Richard Lewis left. Playing teams 3 times in the regular season for a football code reeks of amateur.

[Anita Bath]

1 hour ago, sam4731 said:

Would be difficult to seed the groups. Top 4 from previous year to be guaranteed to be in a group without another super league team surely.

So let's say:

Groups A-D 1 SL team from 1-4 and two lower tier qualifiers

Groups E-H 2 SL teams from 5-12 and 1 lower tier qualifier

?

 

I suppose no one involved in this thought this one through.

 

More evidence that Mickey Mouse wears a RFL watch.

[Barley Mow]

I may well be an outlier, but I really dislike the idea of a group stage for the cup.

I think they're likely to lose my interest during the group stage and I hope it doesn't impact my interest in the knockout phases before and after it.

[sam4731]

10 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I may well be an outlier, but I really dislike the idea of a group stage for the cup.

I think they're likely to lose my interest during the group stage and I hope it doesn't impact my interest in the knockout phases before and after it.

I feel like most people, i.e the media, won't really consider the comp properly starting until the QF. Will be interesting to see which games the BBC will show.

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I may well be an outlier, but I really dislike the idea of a group stage for the cup.

I think they're likely to lose my interest during the group stage and I hope it doesn't impact my interest in the knockout phases before and after it.

Not an outlier at all, it's awful and does nothing to improve the competition. 

[Hopie]

Its not really a challenge cup with groups and guaranteed home games, along with seedings just feels like a way to help the big teams do well

[Fevrover]

22 minutes ago, Hopie said:

Its not really a challenge cup with groups and guaranteed home games, along with seedings just feels like a way to help the big teams do well

They shouldn't need any help.

[Gooleboy]

32 teams in the bag then it's the luck of the draw. The groups idea is ridiculous. 

[Big Picture]

It just goes to show just hiw little IMG has to work with here.

[Anita Bath]

Presume the league will have to shut down for the three weeks of group games….more empty weekends for clubs not making the groups.

currently SL teams play one round before QF, now they will play 2 over a three week period, effectively adding 2 extra weeks to the season.

[The Blues Ox]

So for the group stages we are basically throwing teams in to groups that they literally have no chance of winning because of a seeding system so we end up with the 8 teams that they want to see in the 1/4 finals. That's not the magic of the cup. Its like a poor mans version of the Champions league but without any real risk to many of the SL teams.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

This seems a typical half-arsed compromise that ends up the worst of all worlds. It's no longer a pure knockout competition, but it isn't a group stage competition as the public would typically understand either (e.g. champions League, FIFA world cups, etc). Instead it's a convoluted mish-mash. Why not just keep the knockout format and stick all the super league teams in the hat a round earlier? Plus it's going to take 3 weeks to play the round with one team sitting out a week. Doesn't make any sense at all.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

This seems a typical half-arsed compromise that ends up the worst of all worlds. It's no longer a pure knockout competition, but it isn't a group stage competition as the public would typically understand either (e.g. champions League, FIFA world cups, etc). Instead it's a convoluted mish-mash. Why not just keep the knockout format and stick all the super league teams in the hat a round earlier? Plus it's going to take 3 weeks to play the round with one team sitting out a week. Doesn't make any sense at all.

Just to say, the Champions League features five qualifying rounds (Premliminary, QR1-3, Play Off Round) before the group stage and three rounds after the group stage.

People cope just fine.

[Treizistance]

28 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

This seems a typical half-arsed compromise that ends up the worst of all worlds. It's no longer a pure knockout competition, but it isn't a group stage competition as the public would typically understand either (e.g. champions League, FIFA world cups, etc). Instead it's a convoluted mish-mash. Why not just keep the knockout format and stick all the super league teams in the hat a round earlier? Plus it's going to take 3 weeks to play the round with one team sitting out a week. Doesn't make any sense at all.

It's over-engineered nonsense to accommodate for a reduction of 3rd fixtures but looks like IMG do have their hands tied. The common sense approach would be leave the CC as it is and increase Superleague to 14+ teams but self interest from the smaller Superleague clubs will prevent this and the decline of TV revenues/wider interest in the sport will continue.

[JM2010]

Doesn’t seem like any RL fans on here like anything IMG are suggesting. Maybe just keep everything the same and continue to struggle along 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Just to say, the Champions League features five qualifying rounds (Premliminary, QR1-3, Play Off Round) before the group stage and three rounds after the group stage.

People cope just fine.

In my case, as somebody with only a passing interest in football, I'm aware of these preliminary rounds, but in my head, the Champions League 'proper' starts with those group stages. With this proposed Challenge Cup format, we're going to have knockouts up to a 'group stage' that actually only involves 2 games, and then back to knockouts. Just seems overly convoluted and unnecessary to me - either do one or the other, but this is just a weird mish-mash.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

6 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

Doesn’t seem like any RL fans on here like anything IMG are suggesting. Maybe just keep everything the same and continue to struggle along 

I don't believe that these are IMG's suggestions - my gut feeling is that this is a watered down version of the suggestion, as dictated by the clubs. It all feels like moving deckchairs on the Titanic sort of stuff.