How many teams should SL have?

[Damien]

30 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

10 For me too, nowhere near enough talent or money to have 14 and even with 12 the product is pretty average at best. 10 Teams will give all the teams in the top division more money and should take the better players aways from the 2 discarded teams which would help level up the competition.

This just isn't the case though. Splitting average and poor players less ways does not improve the competition.

What players from Cas and Wakefield would have improved the other 10 teams this season and resulted in an improved competition? 

[GUBRATS]

17 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

The problem with what a lot of people are saying is that we should have 14 to avoid loop fixtures. This assumes that every club should have 13 home games. Why, just because that's what they want? This has become one of the big issues of the game, the clubs dictate everything. They should do what they're told, not the other way round.

So how many games do you think is realistic , in terms of having a stadium to pay for and maintain for 12 months ?

[The Blues Ox]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

This just isn't the case though. Splitting average and poor players less ways does not improve the competition.

What players from Cas and Wakefield would have improved the other 10 teams this season and resulted in an improved competition? 

Their better players are better than the worst players in other teams thereby lifting the overall standard.

[sam4731]

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So how many games do you think is realistic , in terms of having a stadium to pay for and maintain for 12 months ?

I'm not necessarily saying that 13 games is unreasonable, but the underlying point is that the SL chairmen seem to think they can do what they want. It's pretty rich to demand more games when some teams (my own included) can barely half fill the stadiums for most games.

Maybe they should focus a bit more on selling tickets rather than packing as many games in as possible to the players detriment.

Also we seem to pander to their every demand. Not only do we have to cater to their own ability to generate revenue but we also have to provide sufficient central funding to keep their operations going, god forbid we try and spread it to teams beyond SL.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Their better players are better than the worst players in other teams thereby lifting the overall standard.

What players?

Any difference to the standard of the other 10 is negligible at best.

[JT RL]

8 in division 1.

10 in division 2.

Division 1 play home and away, plus all 10 sides (once) from division 2.

= 24 games.

No play offs.

Top of Division 1 plays CC Winner in the Grand Final.

 

 

[17 stone giant]

52 minutes ago, JT RL said:

8 in division 1.

10 in division 2.

Division 1 play home and away, plus all 10 sides (once) from division 2.

= 24 games.

No play offs.

Top of Division 1 plays CC Winner in the Grand Final.

 

 

Not sure if you're serious, but that is at least amusingly different to most other suggestions.

[sam4731]

54 minutes ago, JT RL said:

8 in division 1.

10 in division 2.

Division 1 play home and away, plus all 10 sides (once) from division 2.

= 24 games.

No play offs.

Top of Division 1 plays CC Winner in the Grand Final.

 

 

So many questions:

Can division 1 teams play in the CC?

What if the division 1 leaders win the CC?

What's in it for division 2 teams?

Can division 2 winners play in the GF by winning the CC?

...or is this all 1 big joke?

[Mumby Magic]

12. No loops. Gaps in calendar for internationals. Many thanks.

[Sports Prophet]

14 teams immediately.

ideally, 20 teams, max 14 from England.

[my missus]

14 teams no loops or even 13 teams to start with.

[Leigh-On-Kiwi]

I really think it should be 14 teams with 2 up and 2 down every season... bottom of the table automatically down and then play offs for the other team going down... same format in the championship 1st automatically up and then play offs for the remaining space. 

[Gates1]

I'd go with 6.

-Leeds 

-France

-Salford (but change the name to Manchester and watch the 135k regular football fans in the city join the devilution).

-Lancashire

-Hull

-Toronto 

The catchment areas just aren't big enough to make other clubs sustainable.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Gates1

[Eddie]

11 hours ago, wasginger said:

8, and the teams would be Catalan, Cumbria, Leeds, London, Newcastle, Sheffield, Toulouse and Wigan.

Too right, kick Saints out and get Newcastle Thunder in. 

[Eddie]

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

14 teams immediately.

ideally, 20 teams, max 14 from England.

Where would the four come from, assuming Catalans and Toulouse are in?

[paul hicks]

28 teams.

the idea is you play each opponent once and rotate the home and away fixtures against each club each season. 

you don't get tired of seeing the same clubs all the time and you spread the game.

yes, you would need a lot of investment.

there would be blowout scores at times but don't we already have a lot of blowout scores in super league already.

the remaining clubs could be in a development league which could increase over time.

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by paul hicks

[Toby Chopra]

14 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Personally I think that too many teams are propped up by central funding. If you can afford to be in SL you should get a place and that means not being reliant on CF to stay afloat.

The investment through sponsors and broadcasting is meant to be an investment in the competition, not its constituent parts. After all, how many of us have complained about the marketing strategy of SL. Well if they had greater funds to accelerate it, would we have a better marketed competition?

We can debate how many teams should be in SL, and I can see merit in different numbers, but your analysis of what "central funding" is and what it's for, is completely wrong.

Even the phrase 'central funding' is a relic from a previous time and fails to reflect what 95% of it is - the money paid by a single broadcaster to fund a full-time professional rugby competition which it will then show. Paying for running full time clubs is exactly what the money is for and always has been. The money didn't exist before 1996. Superleague - and therefore the money itself - wouldn't exist without it.

No other sport tries to do without TV money, in fact the bigger the TV share of revenue the healthier the sport usually is.

Moving onto the number - I used to be open to 10, but I now realise there's very little talent to distribute from those bottom teams and the extra funds distributed won't move the dial in bringing in better quality players from the NRL.

14 - with existing money split 14 ways - will just add two more weak teams at the bottom and weaken the strugglers we already have, which is the opposite of what we've been trying to achieve. The competition would get worse 

So stick with 12, until we either have a better TV deal that allows non-dilutive expansion, or the new teams come in with substantial external funding to bridge the gap. (Like NRL Dolphins)

Edited October 27, 2023 by Toby Chopra

[JT RL]

9 hours ago, sam4731 said:

So many questions:

Can division 1 teams play in the CC?

What if the division 1 leaders win the CC?

What's in it for division 2 teams?

Can division 2 winners play in the GF by winning the CC?

...or is this all 1 big joke?

Reduces the number of games in a season (player welfare, might help us beat Australia in the longer term, higher jeopardy match ups, more events to promote)

Recognises that there is a limited (quality) player pool, a handful of big clubs (infrastructure/reach), a need to develop the next level

Grand Final would be the best week in week out team - Division 1 winners v best knock out team - CC winners.

All clubs enter the CC, like now.

CC runner up plays the winner of Division 1 (if Division 1 winner also wins CC)

A Division 2, 3 or 4 team could win the CC and would play (& could win) the GF. Unlikely that would happen though, isn’t it.

Division 2 teams get 26 league games. 18 against peers, so one would expect close competitive matches. Plus, 8 games against Div 1 clubs - stronger opposition, 4 big home matches with time in advance to promote, 4 big away matches for a day out, a chance to prove & test standards (without getting battered week in week out).

For example, take the last 4 in super league + leading 6 in championship = 10 team Division 2. All the teams in the division could give the teams in division 1 a good game as a one off. 
 

The arrangement would bring a host of interesting one of derbies … Bradford v Leeds, Feth v Leeds, Catalan v Toulouse, York vs etc. Sheffield get some bigger games to promote etc.

The arrangement would remove loop fixtures, remove play offs and re-classify the importance of the CC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JT RL]

5 minutes ago, JT RL said:

Reduces the number of games in a season (player welfare, might help us beat Australia in the longer term, higher jeopardy match ups, more events to promote)

Recognises that there is a limited (quality) player pool, a handful of big clubs (infrastructure/reach), a need to develop the next level

Grand Final would be the best week in week out team - Division 1 winners v best knock out team - CC winners.

All clubs enter the CC, like now.

CC runner up plays the winner of Division 1 (if Division 1 winner also wins CC)

A Division 2, 3 or 4 team could win the CC and would play (& could win) the GF. Unlikely that would happen though, isn’t it.

Division 2 teams get 26 league games. 18 against peers, so one would expect close competitive matches. Plus, 8 games against Div 1 clubs - stronger opposition, 4 big home matches with time in advance to promote, 4 big away matches for a day out, a chance to prove & test standards (without getting battered week in week out).

For example, take the last 4 in super league + leading 6 in championship = 10 team Division 2. All the teams in the division could give the teams in division 1 a good game as a one off. 
 

The arrangement would bring a host of interesting one of derbies … Bradford v Leeds, Feth v Leeds, Catalan v Toulouse, York vs etc. Sheffield get some bigger games to promote etc.

The arrangement would remove loop fixtures, remove play offs and re-classify the importance of the CC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had 2 great days out at Sheffield and Fetherstone , but with the best will in the game, neither of those 2 or London should be playing week in week out the likes of Wigan, Leeds or St Helens. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by JT RL

[Fevrover]

23 minutes ago, JT RL said:

I had 2 great days out at Sheffield and Fetherstone , but with the best will in the game, neither of those 2 or London should be playing week in week out the likes of Wigan, Leeds or St Helens. 

Why not  ?

[sam4731]

36 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

We can debate how many teams should be in SL, and I can see merit in different numbers, but your analysis of what "central funding" is and what it's for, is completely wrong.

Even the phrase 'central funding' is a relic from a previous time and fails to reflect what 95% of it is - the money paid by a single broadcaster to fund a full-time professional rugby competition which it will then show. Paying for running full time clubs is exactly what the money is for and always has been. The money didn't exist before 1996. Superleague - and therefore the money itself - wouldn't exist without it.

No other sport tries to do without TV money, in fact the bigger the TV share of revenue the healthier the sport usually is.

Moving onto the number - I used to be open to 10, but I now realise there's very little talent to distribute from those bottom teams and the extra funds distributed won't move the dial in bringing in better quality players from the NRL.

14 - with existing money split 14 ways - will just add two more weak teams at the bottom and weaken the strugglers we already have, which is the opposite of what we've been trying to achieve. The competition would get worse 

So stick with 12, until we either have a better TV deal that allows non-dilutive expansion, or the new teams come in with substantial external funding to bridge the gap. (Like NRL Dolphins)

To be fair, I'm not necessarily suggesting that we should withdraw any central funding, what I am saying is that there are far too many clubs that rely on that funding to continue with their operations, which is why we see clubs struggle when they are relegated and lose that funding.

The broadcasting money should enhance clubs in the top flight not prop them up. I'd suggest that it makes some clubs lazy when it comes to generating their own revenue streams because they know they can rely on that central funding.

[The Blues Ox]

13 hours ago, Damien said:

What players?

Any difference to the standard of the other 10 is negligible at best.

You don't think Cas or Wakey had any players at all that would be starters in other teams? If you do then even if its just 1 player you are proving my point.

[Toby Chopra]

2 hours ago, sam4731 said:

To be fair, I'm not necessarily suggesting that we should withdraw any central funding, what I am saying is that there are far too many clubs that rely on that funding to continue with their operations, which is why we see clubs struggle when they are relegated and lose that funding.

The broadcasting money should enhance clubs in the top flight not prop them up. I'd suggest that it makes some clubs lazy when it comes to generating their own revenue streams because they know they can rely on that central funding.

TV money isn't "propping them up" it's a legitimate part of their income and budget. 

Saying they shouldn't rely on it is like saying it's somehow wrong to count money you earn on a Tuesday as part of your family income. It makes no sense.

No other professional sport looks suspiciously at broadcast income in this way, it's as valid a part of income as tickets sold and shouldn't be treated any differently.

[Smudger06]

Clubs own the rights to their home games. What happened when SL formed is what happened when the Premier League formed, Clubs agreed to centralise selling the TV rights. So what's distributed is what they are owed.....

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

You don't think Cas or Wakey had any players at all that would be starters in other teams? If you do then even if its just 1 player you are proving my point.

It really doesn't. The fact that you have struggled to answer the question twice shows that.

If you think that one average/poor player going to one of the other 10 Super League teams materially improves the quality of SL then its a waste of time continuing this debate. I think that in almost every case that one player could just as easily be a NRL player or Championship player of the same standard. I mean Leigh kind of proved that last season.

Scratching around with simplistic solutions like this does nothing to improve the quality of Super League.