How many teams should SL have?

[The Blues Ox]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

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.

There is little point trying to answer a question about which individuals would get in other teams as that is all about our personal opinions of the value of players if you can't see that then you are been argumentitive for arguments sake.

I am clearly not talking about just 1 player but again you seem to be missing the point. If all players were given a grading(Just like IMG  ) then by adding just one player out of those 2 teams and replacing a worse player from the other teams it would raise the overall average for the league. I'm not talking about 1 or two players though Im talking more about 10 - 20 players from those teams. Now you might argue that most of those players would not get in the top teams, well that's even better because we are then raising the average squad score of the lower teams in the league which is getting them even closer to the top teams. 

I could be wrong though.

 

Ps. I'm not.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

There is little point trying to answer a question about which individuals would get in other teams as that is all about our personal opinions of the value of players if you can't see that then you are been argumentitive for arguments sake.

I am clearly not talking about just 1 player but again you seem to be missing the point. If all players were given a grading(Just like IMG  ) then by adding just one player out of those 2 teams and replacing a worse player from the other teams it would raise the overall average for the league. I'm not talking about 1 or two players though Im talking more about 10 - 20 players from those teams. Now you might argue that most of those players would not get in the top teams, well that's even better because we are then raising the average squad score of the lower teams in the league which is getting them even closer to the top teams. 

I could be wrong though.

 

Ps. I'm not.

I can see you point quite clearly. Its just very simplistic and one that I completely disagree with.

What drives up standards is clubs having much better off field setups, generating much greater revenue, having better coaching at all levels, having better youth setups, spending more money and signing better players. The kind of stuff that the IMG criteria encourages.

The kinds of players you are talking about do not drive up standards and are the sort that any club could currently recruit from the Championship, NRL or even NSW and Queensland Cups. In almost every case you would just be replacing one average player with another.

Leigh basically recruited a team that finished considerably higher than the 11th and 12th placed teams simply by investing in the squad and signing quality overseas and Championship players. It is the inability of clubs like Cas and Wakefield to do that which results in lower standards and simply spreading their players about achieves diddly squat.

[The Blues Ox]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

I can see you point quite clearly. Its just very simplistic and one that I completely disagree with.

What drives up standards is clubs having much better off field setups, generating much greater revenue, having better coaching at all levels, having better youth setups, spending more money and signing better players. The kind of stuff that the IMG criteria encourages.

The kinds of players you are talking about do not drive up standards and are the sort that any club could currently recruit from the Championship, NRL or even NSW and Queensland Cups. In almost every case you would just be replacing one average player with another.

Leigh basically recruited a team that finished considerably higher than the 11th and 12th placed teams simply by investing in the squad and signing quality overseas and Championship players. It is the inability of clubs like Cas and Wakefield to do that which results in lower standards and simply spreading their players about achieves diddly squat.

I'm not talking about driving up standards that is a completley different argument. My idea is simply to raise the overall standard of the competition on the field without any refference to what goes on off the field. By sacking off two teams, spreading that extra money about and by raising the average quality of players in the top division it would achieve that. I could also argue that with the extra money the teams had it could be used to raise standards around coaching and in theory similar to the players, the better coaches from the two excluded teams could find themselves in the top flight thereby improving the standards again. I don't want to go down that route though.

In my opinion moving to 14 teams would be a disaster and would weaken the top flight as the weaker talent gets spread around the lower teams even more thinly than currently. 12 Isn't working either and the product is stale and now without relegation we also lose the drama element near the end of the season making for a pretty boring product.

[Sports Prophet]

4 hours ago, Eddie said:

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

Well, we were speaking ideally right?

I reckon Cardiff, with maybe France 3, East Euro 1 and another non-English West Euro outfit would be a pretty good competition.

[owls]

The aim should be to have 16 with 3 non British clubs,  14 to start with  and after a couple of years add 2 more,

[Archie Gordon]

17 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I'm not talking about driving up standards that is a completley different argument. My idea is simply to raise the overall standard of the competition on the field without any refference to what goes on off the field. By sacking off two teams, spreading that extra money about and by raising the average quality of players in the top division it would achieve that. I could also argue that with the extra money the teams had it could be used to raise standards around coaching and in theory similar to the players, the better coaches from the two excluded teams could find themselves in the top flight thereby improving the standards again. I don't want to go down that route though.

In my opinion moving to 14 teams would be a disaster and would weaken the top flight as the weaker talent gets spread around the lower teams even more thinly than currently. 12 Isn't working either and the product is stale and now without relegation we also lose the drama element near the end of the season making for a pretty boring product.

Yep. 

The best 250 players in the UK system are, on average, better than the best 300 (by a little) and better than the best 350 (by a little more). 

[Damien]

32 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I'm not talking about driving up standards that is a completley different argument. My idea is simply to raise the overall standard of the competition on the field without any refference to what goes on off the field. By sacking off two teams, spreading that extra money about and by raising the average quality of players in the top division it would achieve that. I could also argue that with the extra money the teams had it could be used to raise standards around coaching and in theory similar to the players, the better coaches from the two excluded teams could find themselves in the top flight thereby improving the standards again. I don't want to go down that route though.

In my opinion moving to 14 teams would be a disaster and would weaken the top flight as the weaker talent gets spread around the lower teams even more thinly than currently. 12 Isn't working either and the product is stale and now without relegation we also lose the drama element near the end of the season making for a pretty boring product.

I know what you are talking about and I am explaining how standards are improved. We were discussing your assertion that somehow spreading average/poor players, that weren't good enough to keep a club in SL, 10 ways somehow improves the overall standard. It doesn't. Everything remains the same and the same problems exist. We have already seen this in practice when we went from 14 teams to 12. How much improvement do you think when we went from 14 to 12? There was absolutely none

The extra money does not make any meaningful difference, its probably £200k at most and still means clubs are getting considerably less than just a few years ago.

10 teams playing each other 3 times is as boring and stale as it gets and lacks variety. It does not improve the on field product either. If we were looking to do that we'd be dropping to 6 teams.

[Smudger06]

2 more than what's in the other codes top flight as a rough barometer.

[sam4731]

4 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

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.

But could teams outside SL use that money more efficiently? Could teams use that money not just to survive but to thrive, bettering the quality of the competition?

I hate this argument that just because you're in SL already, you deserve to be in SL. If you have SL quality operations, is that because you're doing the bare minimum and could another team do better if they had the money?

[JT RL]

9 hours ago, Fevrover said:

Why not  ?

Because they will get walloped week in week out.

Every game.

Meanwhile, they will spend money, that they don’t have, to try and compete.

And if they overspend, they’ll go bust - with no assets to sell, to keep them afloat.

 

[JT RL]

6 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Well, we were speaking ideally right?

I reckon Cardiff, with maybe France 3, East Euro 1 and another non-English West Euro outfit would be a pretty good competition.

Cardiff > no team. Little interest.

ditto East Euro.

[Fevrover]

3 minutes ago, JT RL said:

Because they will get walloped week in week out.

Every game.

Meanwhile, they will spend money, that they don’t have, to try and compete.

And if they overspend, they’ll go bust - with no assets to sell, to keep them afloat.

 

It's a good job we never went up then ,thanks for your reply.

[JT RL]

Yes. But that’s also true of London.

Its not a slight on either - just how it is.

 

[idrewthehaggis]

I'd like to know  what ways IMG will come up with to raise income first.

Edited October 27, 2023 by idrewthehaggis

[Angelic Cynic]

7 hours ago, Damien said:

 

What drives up standards is clubs having much better off field setups, generating much greater revenue, having better coaching at all levels, having better youth setups, spending more money and signing better players. The kind of stuff that the IMG criteria encourages.

I am fairly certain IMG have not done anything close to encouraging better coaching - better youth set ups - signing better players and spending more money.

They failed with the broadcast deal and want LED advertising boards:they also go public on a recently promoted club getting relegated almost immediately. 

They may have encouraged an author to write a follow up book - After the Thatcher Years The Most Successful Era Of Rugby League- With Wood And Rimmer!

Worrying - Is it not?

[Damien]

23 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

I am fairly certain IMG have not done anything close to encouraging better coaching - better youth set ups - signing better players and spending more money.

They failed with the broadcast deal and want LED advertising boards:they also go public on a recently promoted club getting relegated almost immediately. 

They may have encouraged an author to write a follow up book - After the Thatcher Years The Most Successful Era Of Rugby League- With Wood And Rimmer!

Worrying - Is it not?

I never said they had. What they are trying to do is make the game more attractive, increase revenue and improve standards at clubs across the board. That facilitates improved playing standards.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Damien said:

I never said they had. What they are trying to do is make the game more attractive, increase revenue and improve standards at clubs across the board. That facilitates improved playing standards.

Marginal. For a start - the top 7 grades are there, so no incentive.

Leigh, Huddersfield, Salford, Wakey not far off.

And when they are Grade A as well, the standards will be about 90% the same as before.

It's hardly as if they have taken Luton from non-league.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Leonard

[East Hull Robins]

14 within the next 3 years, 16 within the next 5-7. Give those teams not in the 12 next year something to aim for. 
 

i wouldn’t even be overly concerned if we incrementally increased it by 1 every 2/3 years. Give a bye week every once every 13 weeks to a team and that would help with injury management and quality it’s self. 
 

to even magic up Catalans miss a year and then the next year it goes out to France, and the lowest ticket sales from the previous year misses out to incentives clubs, alternate between France and Newcastle to help grow the game in key areas If it’s known 12 months in advance I’m fairly sure you’d get a fair few people going over from the UK. 
 

once in a position and another grade A/strong B add them to the league. Reviews every 3 years of league make up to hold clubs accountable and slowly ratchet up the criteria for an A. 

IMGs remit is to reverse the trend in TV money reduction and sell the idea for more money so we can support it
 

easy this, get me in touch with this IMG mob

[Eddie]

9 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

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.

Exactly, are premier league clubs basically insolvent because they rely on TV money

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Leonard said:

Marginal. For a start - the top 7 grades are there, so no incentive.

Leigh, Huddersfield, Salford, Wakey not far off.

And when they are Grade A as well, the standards will be about 90% the same as before.

It's hardly as if they have taken Luton from non-league.

Again I've not said they have so I'm not sure what the point of your reply is other than to moan about IMG and grading, which is discussed on the other thread. 

I said that is what they are trying to do and we are still way off getting there. 

[Mumby Magic]

On 27/10/2023 at 11:46, owls said:

The aim should be to have 16 with 3 non British clubs,  14 to start with  and after a couple of years add 2 more,

Why

[Hello]

I don't agree with the argument that some make that SL should not have more teams because they would be weaker than the teams that are already in the league.  All leagues in all sports have stronger and weaker teams - e.g. Fulham, Sheffield United, Burnley etc were never expected to challenge for the Premier League in football this season, and yet these teams get big crowds and pretty much no one suggests that the Premier league should be reduce from 20 teams. The very act of having these teams in the top league creates interest at these clubs and increases attendances and interest for their fans, investors, and players.  Also, the big teams would enjoy having more variety in the places that they visit as opposed to boring loop fixtures.  This, along with the three up three down PR system increases interest across the board.  The people running RL and many of the fans just don't seem to get it.  

Edited October 28, 2023 by Hello

[Smudger06]

42 minutes ago, Hello said:

I don't agree with the argument that some make that SL should not have more teams because they would be weaker than the teams that are already in the league.  All leagues in all sports have stronger and weaker teams - e.g. Fulham, Sheffield United, Burnley etc were never expected to challenge for the Premier League in football this season, and yet these teams get big crowds and pretty much no one suggests that the Premier league should be reduce from 20 teams. The very act of having these teams in the top league creates interest at these clubs and increases attendances and interest for their fans, investors, and players.  Also, the big teams would enjoy having more variety in the places that they visit as opposed to boring loop fixtures.  This, along with the three up three down PR system increases interest across the board.  The people running RL and many of the fans just don't seem to get it.  

Bang on

[Smudger06]

45 minutes ago, Hello said:

I don't agree with the argument that some make that SL should not have more teams because they would be weaker than the teams that are already in the league.  All leagues in all sports have stronger and weaker teams - e.g. Fulham, Sheffield United, Burnley etc were never expected to challenge for the Premier League in football this season, and yet these teams get big crowds and pretty much no one suggests that the Premier league should be reduce from 20 teams. The very act of having these teams in the top league creates interest at these clubs and increases attendances and interest for their fans, investors, and players.  Also, the big teams would enjoy having more variety in the places that they visit as opposed to boring loop fixtures.  This, along with the three up three down PR system increases interest across the board.  The people running RL and many of the fans just don't seem to get it.  

A very weak team full of poor players could be full of entertaining crack pots full of charisma and tons of social media followers.....might do better for the sports fortunes than a team full of boring robots that churns out reasonable results

[JT RL]

With the formation of the Premier League, the number of teams was reduced by 4 or 6 division 1. The revenues per team shot up. And subsequent TV deals have only added more riches.

None of which has any relevance for rugby league