If you split the lower leagues West/East...

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Sorry, I know it's another "structure" topic, but thought I'd try and visualise this as travel is often used as a criticism of expansion so the closer we can keep clubs, the less effect this has overall.

Going by government regions (i.e. NW, W Mid, SW, and anything west of it like Wales), you get this Western Division:

1. Widnes (Ch 9th) 

2. Swinton (Ch 10th)

3. Barrow (Ch 11th)

4. Whitehaven (Ch 12th)

5. Oldham (L1 4th)

6. Workington (L1 5th)

7. North Wales (L1 6th)

8. Rochdale (L1 7th)

9. Hurricanes (L1 8th)

10. Cornwall (L1 9th)

 

Eastern Division (based on NE, Yorks, East, E Mid, London, SE and anything east of it):

1. Wakefield (SL 12th)

2. Featherstone (Ch 1st)

3. Toulouse (Ch 2nd)

4. Bradford (Ch 3rd)

5. Sheffield (Ch 4th)

6. York (Ch 6th)

7. Batley (Ch 7th)

8. Halifax (Ch 8th)

9. Keighley (Ch 11th)

10. Newcastle (Ch 12th) *live in hope!

11. Dewsbury (L1 1st)

12. Hunslet (L1 2nd)

13. Doncaster (L1 3rd)

 

 

Would that be more manageable? Would it be competitive? Would it make any difference to growth opportunities (i.e. new teams being targeted in the South to open up a southern division in later years)?

 

Just riffing!

 

 

 

[Griff]

I'm not in favour of regionalisation.

[Barley Mow]

13 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Sorry, I know it's another "structure" topic, but thought I'd try and visualise this as travel is often used as a criticism of expansion so the closer we can keep clubs, the less effect this has overall.

Going by government regions (i.e. NW, W Mid, SW, and anything west of it like Wales), you get this Western Division:

1. Widnes (Ch 9th) 

2. Swinton (Ch 10th)

3. Barrow (Ch 11th)

4. Whitehaven (Ch 12th)

5. Oldham (L1 4th)

6. Workington (L1 5th)

7. North Wales (L1 6th)

8. Rochdale (L1 7th)

9. Hurricanes (L1 8th)

10. Cornwall (L1 9th)

 

Eastern Division (based on NE, Yorks, East, E Mid, London, SE and anything east of it):

1. Wakefield (SL 12th)

2. Featherstone (Ch 1st)

3. Toulouse (Ch 2nd)

4. Bradford (Ch 3rd)

5. Sheffield (Ch 4th)

6. York (Ch 6th)

7. Batley (Ch 7th)

8. Halifax (Ch 8th)

9. Keighley (Ch 11th)

10. Newcastle (Ch 12th) *live in hope!

11. Dewsbury (L1 1st)

12. Hunslet (L1 2nd)

13. Doncaster (L1 3rd)

 

 

Would that be more manageable? Would it be competitive? Would it make any difference to growth opportunities (i.e. new teams being targeted in the South to open up a southern division in later years)?

 

Just riffing!

 

 

 

I think we've had this exact discussion within the last month or so on other threads.

Why use the government regions? Why not have a more even split of teams (11-12) by transferring Keighley and/or Halifax into the west group? Surely we would want both groups to have a similar structure/number of fixtures.

Beyond that, the only issue that jumps out is disparity in travelling. With one London team being promoted to Super League and the other dropping into the amateur game, other than Toulouse, the only eastern group team outside of Yorkshire is Newcastle (and that is assuming they are able to continue) - that's only 1 hour 45 mins from the M62. The western group has a much larger geographic spread. Perhaps this wouldn't be a problem is travel was funded, but would that mean a further reduction in the standard element of central funding?

 

[Eddie]

It would be another contraction if the game imho, if semi professional clubs can’t travel from Lancashire to Yorkshire for a match they might as well go amateur. 

[Leyther_Matt]

I don’t want to be suggesting anything controversial or reinvent the wheel or anything but, if we’re going to have two groups of teams, has any suggested we group them together based on their on-field ability, maybe using results from the previous season as a barometer?

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Leyther_Matt said:

I don’t want to be suggesting anything controversial or reinvent the wheel or anything but, if we’re going to have two groups of teams, has any suggested we group them together based on their on-field ability, maybe using results from the previous season as a barometer?

This is IMG's suggestion. I am pleased to see people reacting positively to their thoughts.

[Griff]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

This is IMG's suggestion. I am pleased to see people reacting positively to their thoughts.

No, I think it's what we've done for the last fifty years.

If IMG's contribution is merely to say that we make no changes, I think there's money to be saved somewhere in the advice area.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

No, I think it's what we've done for the last fifty years.

We've had the lower tiers split into divisions with promotion and relegation between them based on on field performance?

I must tell that to the Northern Ford Premiership.

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

We've had the lower tiers split into divisions with promotion and relegation between them based on on field performance?

I must tell that to the Northern Ford Premiership.

The one that was unceremoniously dumped as unwieldy after a couple of seasons?  Good luck finding it.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

The one that was unceremoniously dumped as unwieldy after a couple of seasons?  Good luck finding it.

We changed the structure in response to changing circumstances?

[Griff]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

We changed the structure in response to changing circumstances?

Yes - we discovered it was a carp idea.

Without IMG's help.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

42 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Why use the government regions? Why not have a more even split of teams (11-12) by transferring Keighley and/or Halifax into the west group? Surely we would want both groups to have a similar structure/number of fixtures.

I did consider that, but at the same time I considered the impact it would have on those clubs in the centre having to flip flop divisions. Sometimes it's better to have a boundary and say "this is where you are" so they can build (on) rivalries.

The West having less clubs would also be an indicator for where expansion should possibly aim. There's a pretty large inland imbalance east of the Pennines!

47 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Beyond that, the only issue that jumps out is disparity in travelling. With one London team being promoted to Super League and the other dropping into the amateur game, other than Toulouse, the only eastern group team outside of Yorkshire is Newcastle (and that is assuming they are able to continue) - that's only 1 hour 45 mins from the M62. The western group has a much larger geographic spread.

That's why I put Toulouse in the East really (although inevitably they'll switch to SL with London).

2 outposts east (London/Toulouse, Newcastle), 2 west (Birmingham, Cornwall). The nucleus of the east is obviously a lot more concentrated than west though with Cumbrian clubs. 

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Griff said:

Yes - we discovered it was a carp idea.

Without IMG's help.

Good to know.

With such great minds, the game must be in a really good state right now.

Makes you wonder why a conversation about meeting basic travel costs needs to be had given that we've had to tell a team from Cornwall that they can't enter a Cup competition because the other clubs can't afford to travel.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

37 minutes ago, Eddie said:

It would be another contraction if the game imho, if semi professional clubs can’t travel from Lancashire to Yorkshire for a match they might as well go amateur. 

It's not about traveling across the north. It's about traveling FROM the north.

The East/West split also splits the outposts so you don't have L1 clubs traveling far and wide to every expansion club that newly enters.

Ideally there'd be a push at a southern division, but that would take direction, ambition and a lot of people willing to throw a lot of money away in the short term (which we've actually seen there are a few willing to over the years, but without a coordinated effort it's just a waste of everyone's time).

[Tommygilf]

The reason this keeps coming up is because the game is regionalised but then said "okay that's it"; so the structure isn't there.

We ask regional sized clubs to play in national competitions and then go indulge in further delusions.

[Eddie]

46 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

It's not about traveling across the north. It's about traveling FROM the north.

The East/West split also splits the outposts so you don't have L1 clubs traveling far and wide to every expansion club that newly enters.

Ideally there'd be a push at a southern division, but that would take direction, ambition and a lot of people willing to throw a lot of money away in the short term (which we've actually seen there are a few willing to over the years, but without a coordinated effort it's just a waste of everyone's time).

There is already a southern comp, the SCL, it would just be that but called a conference of the championship / L1, and it would be considerably weaker. Southern teams need to play northern teams. 

[Tommygilf]

15 minutes ago, Eddie said:

There is already a southern comp, the SCL, it would just be that but called a conference of the championship / L1, and it would be considerably weaker. Southern teams need to play northern teams. 

They do, but only when they are good enough to (and the Northern teams aren't just regional sized teams either).

Even in the might that is football splits regionally (I know that it covers a broad area) at level 6 with clubs in there that are larger than some of our Championship clubs...

Small Teams in the North and South shouldn't have to spend relatively huge proportions of their budgets on travel etc to compete in a competition that is far too big in scale for them. We should have regional leagues that are considered to be of the same level, funded and treated equally, till the appropriate level where national travel becomes affordable.

[Eddie]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They do, but only when they are good enough to (and the Northern teams aren't just regional sized teams either).

Even in the might that is football splits regionally (I know that it covers a broad area) at level 6 with clubs in there that are larger than some of our Championship clubs...

Small Teams in the North and South shouldn't have to spend relatively huge proportions of their budgets on travel etc to compete in a competition that is far too big in scale for them. We should have regional leagues that are considered to be of the same level, funded and treated equally, till the appropriate level where national travel becomes affordable.

I get what you’re saying but if any southern side ever wants to step up again they won’t be able to prepare for that by playing other southern teams, I’d wager that the NCL3 is a better standard than the SCL. 

[Barley Mow]

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I did consider that, but at the same time I considered the impact it would have on those clubs in the centre having to flip flop divisions. Sometimes it's better to have a boundary and say "this is where you are" so they can build (on) rivalries.

The West having less clubs would also be an indicator for where expansion should possibly aim. There's a pretty large inland imbalance east of the Pennines!

I'm not sure I agree about the split being an indicator for aiming expansion: Your western group covers 3 government regions with a population of about 19 million (plus 1 club in Wales), your eastern group covers 6 government regions with a population of about 37.5 million (plus 1 club in France). The ratio of clubs to people is higher in the west group.

If we look at the east of Pennine split, the imbalance is highlighted because of the strength of the clubs in south Lancashire - of the nine clubs there, five are in Super League. If we ignore where the Pennine watershed is and just use east to west - Leeds is pretty much central: There are five Yorkshire Champ/L1 clubs west of Leeds (plus Hunslet in Leeds) - If you looked at which clubs are closer to the east or west coast rather than using a government region (Yorks & the Humber) which comes within 10 miles of being coast to coast, then the imbalance would favour the west.

I can see the benefits of clubs being consistently in a fixed group, but think (more) equal numbers would be a more important consideration - especially when (if this were implemented under IMG's system) there is unlikely to be regular movement between SL and Champ in the coming years, so the groups would essentially become fixed anyway.

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

That's why I put Toulouse in the East really (although inevitably they'll switch to SL with London).

2 outposts east (London/Toulouse, Newcastle), 2 west (Birmingham, Cornwall). The nucleus of the east is obviously a lot more concentrated than west though with Cumbrian clubs. 

Whilst I firmly class Barrow and west Cumberland as 'heartland' areas, I think it is inconsistent to class them as being geographically within the 'nucleus' of the west group when you have Newcastle as an 'outpost' in the east.

 

Nonetheless, I wouldn't be opposed to two geographic groups in a single division below SL in theory.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Barley Mow

[Tommygilf]

20 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I get what you’re saying but if any southern side ever wants to step up again they won’t be able to prepare for that by playing other southern teams, I’d wager that the NCL3 is a better standard than the SCL. 

It very well might be a better "standard", but they aren't part of the professional pyramid.

Split at whatever level is appropriate for what clubs can reasonably afford, then establish two leagues that are equally ranked. Its up to promoted clubs to make up the difference on winning their respective leagues - perhaps the southern league would initially be smaller than the northern one. But equally it would be more accessible and realistic as a stepping stone.

We have such a confused system in this country it benefits nobody. If you want to establish a top tier fully professional side we insist you go through the lower divisions, if you want to establish a community level club the likes of which are dotted across the North in the championship and League 1 we insist you play in the most expensive and geographically diverse competitions and make those competitions more expensive for the clubs already in them.

[Midlands hobo]

3 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Sorry, I know it's another "structure" topic, but thought I'd try and visualise this as travel is often used as a criticism of expansion so the closer we can keep clubs, the less effect this has overall.

Going by government regions (i.e. NW, W Mid, SW, and anything west of it like Wales), you get this Western Division:

1. Widnes (Ch 9th) 

2. Swinton (Ch 10th)

3. Barrow (Ch 11th)

4. Whitehaven (Ch 12th)

5. Oldham (L1 4th)

6. Workington (L1 5th)

7. North Wales (L1 6th)

8. Rochdale (L1 7th)

9. Hurricanes (L1 8th)

10. Cornwall (L1 9th)

 

Eastern Division (based on NE, Yorks, East, E Mid, London, SE and anything east of it):

1. Wakefield (SL 12th)

2. Featherstone (Ch 1st)

3. Toulouse (Ch 2nd)

4. Bradford (Ch 3rd)

5. Sheffield (Ch 4th)

6. York (Ch 6th)

7. Batley (Ch 7th)

8. Halifax (Ch 8th)

9. Keighley (Ch 11th)

10. Newcastle (Ch 12th) *live in hope!

11. Dewsbury (L1 1st)

12. Hunslet (L1 2nd)

13. Doncaster (L1 3rd)

 

 

Would that be more manageable? Would it be competitive? Would it make any difference to growth opportunities (i.e. new teams being targeted in the South to open up a southern division in later years)?

 

Just riffing!

 

 

 

So yorkshire teams basically travel twice. (Tolouse and possibly fingers crossed Newcastle) where as Lancashire clubs go 3* to Cumbria and once to each of midlands Wales and Cornwall. Yea sounds fair.... 

 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

This is IMG's suggestion. I am pleased to see people reacting positively to their thoughts.

Have I missed something Ginge, Matt said:-

has any suggested we group them together based on their on-field ability.

[Griff]

12 minutes ago, Midlands hobo said:

So yorkshire teams basically travel twice. (Tolouse and possibly fingers crossed Newcastle) where as Lancashire clubs go 3* to Cumbria and once to each of midlands Wales and Cornwall. Yea sounds fair.... 

 

Do you want fair or regions?

The fairness of your split will inevitably depend on the distribution of the clubs. Wherever you draw the regionalisation line, Cornwall aren't going to get a lot of local derbies.

The fact is that half the teams are in Yorkshire and half the rest are in the southern part of Lancashire. That's just how it is. Live with it.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

The East/West split also splits the outposts so you don't have L1 clubs traveling far and wide to every expansion club that newly enters.

Err, Workington and Whitehaven even Barrow, travelling to Birmingham and Cornwall and Visa versa.

[sam4731]

3 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

I don’t want to be suggesting anything controversial or reinvent the wheel or anything but, if we’re going to have two groups of teams, has any suggested we group them together based on their on-field ability, maybe using results from the previous season as a barometer?

Burn the witch!