The Gap

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I had a teacher at school who always did a quiz at the end of term. No matter what happened in the quiz it was always whoever got the last question right who won. It is virtually impossible to have a league where every minute matters. Do players/fans not just want to win a game because it is good to win a game? Is that not successful and enjoyable itself?

The thing I find weird thing is a conventional league structure is the way it has been for 99.9% of people on this forum when they have played sport and amateur RL. It is perfectly normal, yet all of a sudden they want it to be completely different with a convoluted structure at professional level, mostly just to suit their team.

Edited April 8 by Damien

[redjonn]

14 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I had a teacher at school who always did a quiz at the end of term. No matter what happened in the quiz it was always whoever got the last question right who won. It is virtually impossible to have a league where every minute matters. Do players/fans not just want to win a game because it is good to win a game? Is that not successful and enjoyable itself?

Personally I always liked the last goal wins because yer Mam was dragging yer in for tea... it kept the focus until the end...

 

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I get personal enjoyment/sadness at all games whatever the outcome and the consequence of the game mattering.

Please answer my question.

Im not sure what you’re asking me. I enjoy most RL games I go to, even if the outcome doesn’t ‘matter’ there are plenty games in any system where the games do matter though, and vice versa.

The idea that you can’t enjoy a game of RL unless there is something riding on it or some kind of jeopardy seems odd to me. But each to their own and all that.

Don't you enjoy watching games as a neutral?

[phiggins]

10 hours ago, Ant said:

Super 8's

 

Are you people on drugs? Can you not remember what an unmitigated disaster it was? 

Return to P&R? We aren't even half a season in to the new model and folk want it changed.

 

I've seen just about every variation of how the league has been organised, messed about with, chopped and changed - and the only thing that brings competition AT THE TOP is scrapping P&R and not allowing 1 bad season to derail years of work 

It takes 3+ years to build a competative squad, It takes a generation to bring youth through an academy, it takes multiple generations to build a dynasty. None of that can be done with automatic P&R

That's why only 4 teams have won Super League, because no one else can recruit more than a year ahead 

I'm not sure the current system will really achieve what people hope it will do, as it is ultimately a fudge between keeping a closed shop and keeping P&R in some form. 

I can see that my club, Leigh, are in danger of being relegated again. But under this system, 1 bad season in 2021 will derail the work done in 2022, 23 and 24. Because of how skewed the system is in favour of teams in Super League, that one year in the Championship after relegation in '21 will see our score dragged down in a number of areas because of one season in the Championship during the qualifying period.

Whether clubs build well isn't down to the system and structure of the league. It is down to the investment and good decision making of that club. Bradford built up to world beaters while we had a P&R system, while they declined during the 6 years of licensing. They didn't decline because of licensing, but because of bad decisions. Hull KR have built themselves up to be challengers during a period of P&R, again, because of sound decisions and good investments.

I get the idea this IMG grading system is supposed to encourage more clubs to be more like Hull KR of recent years than Bradford of years prior, and I don't mind the concept, but I don't think that the system itself will achieve that. Cas have replaced short term investments in the playing squad for short term investments on padded seats. Will that improve the matchday experience for fans or sponsors? Will it make them more commercially attractive? I'm not so sure. The annual review will inevitably lead to clubs in danger of dropping out of the top 12 to seek 'quick wins' rather than longer term growth.

Straight P&R may be a flawed system, but I don't think the system we are replacing it with is any better, or even as good.

[glossop saint]

8 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Personally I always liked the last goal wins because yer Mam was dragging yer in for tea... it kept the focus until the end...

 

I liked it too as I was always about 20 goals behind at that point. 

[Roughyed Rats]

Fudge is exactly the right word. The powers that be (IMG / RFL) do not see P&R as a viable option. This, in addition to the continued disparity in central distributions, means nothing is going to change; barring some fiddling around the edges. As a result, why not accept the gap and embrace it. Let the 12 franchises stand alone and the rest return to a traditional set-up in winter. This may open up the potential of TV revenue and attracting SL fans in the franchise league's off season. 

[Damien]

27 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I'm not sure the current system will really achieve what people hope it will do, as it is ultimately a fudge between keeping a closed shop and keeping P&R in some form. 

I can see that my club, Leigh, are in danger of being relegated again. But under this system, 1 bad season in 2021 will derail the work done in 2022, 23 and 24. Because of how skewed the system is in favour of teams in Super League, that one year in the Championship after relegation in '21 will see our score dragged down in a number of areas because of one season in the Championship during the qualifying period.

Whether clubs build well isn't down to the system and structure of the league. It is down to the investment and good decision making of that club. Bradford built up to world beaters while we had a P&R system, while they declined during the 6 years of licensing. They didn't decline because of licensing, but because of bad decisions. Hull KR have built themselves up to be challengers during a period of P&R, again, because of sound decisions and good investments.

I get the idea this IMG grading system is supposed to encourage more clubs to be more like Hull KR of recent years than Bradford of years prior, and I don't mind the concept, but I don't think that the system itself will achieve that. Cas have replaced short term investments in the playing squad for short term investments on padded seats. Will that improve the matchday experience for fans or sponsors? Will it make them more commercially attractive? I'm not so sure. The annual review will inevitably lead to clubs in danger of dropping out of the top 12 to seek 'quick wins' rather than longer term growth.

Straight P&R may be a flawed system, but I don't think the system we are replacing it with is any better, or even as good.

I just wanted to pick up on a few of things because as usual you offer a well rounded perspective and I sort of agree with parts and have a different perspective than others.

I kind of agree it is a bit of a fudge, but that is largely to placate people who are in uproar when it comes to things like a closed shop or proper minimum standards that may exclude their club. It is a carrot and stick approach that will certainly suit some clubs more than others. With respect those that it really doesn't suit they haven't a chance of getting into SL even under P&R.

As for your second paragraph, isn't that the point of the 3 year average, in that one bad season doesn't destroy a clubs chances? Certainly clubs like Toulouse and London will be more affected by this than Leigh.

I think your third and fourth paragraphs are linked really. I certainly think clubs can build well with the right structure but that also takes the right club, in the right place and with the right investment. As an example I think this structure now suits a club like Wakefield to a tee to assist them in building and growing, hopefully akin to something like Hull KR have achieved. Ditto clubs like York. I do think the focus has to be improving the sport overall rather than the extremes of one particular club like Cas. That said I do hope Cas can progress with their ground, and the new stand in particular, as a club getting the crowds they do would be a loss to SL.

I think we can find flaws with any system. P&R is certainly flawed between full time and part time leagues that don't have much money, all of the yoyo clubs and recent fortunes of Fev show that. The alternatives such as a closed shop or franchises are unpalatable to fans of lower league clubs or fans of P&R. As you say the IMG approach is a fudge but it is one that is geared to RL and its own particular circumstances and I don't think it's a bad solution. Sure I would tweak parts of it but nothing is going to suit everyone.

Edited April 8 by Damien

[Roughyed Rats]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think we can find flaws with any system. P&R is certainly flawed between full time and part time leagues that don't have much money, all of the yoyo clubs and recent fortunes of Fev show that. The alternatives such as a closed shop or franchises are unpalatable to fans of lower league clubs or fans of P&R. As you say the IMG approach is a fudge but it is one that is geared to RL and its own particular circumstances and I don't think it's a bad solution. Sure I would tweak parts of it but nothing is going to suit everyone.

Completely agree that P&R of any sort is flawed when you have a massive funding disparity (as we know most clubs run at an operational loss). I'm not opposed to franchising but you have to properly separate the two parts of the game. Perhaps just choose your 12 or 10 and let the remainder move to a separate competition as per the Australian model. A halfway house, fudged compromise will never work, no matter how many times you fiddle with it.

Edited April 8 by Roughyed Rats

[phiggins]

48 minutes ago, Damien said:

I just wanted to pick up on a few of things because as usual you offer a well rounded perspective and I sort of agree with parts and have a different perspective than others.

I kind of agree it is a bit of a fudge, but that is largely to placate people who are in uproar when it comes to things like a closed shop or proper minimum standards that may exclude their club. It is a carrot and stick approach that will certainly suit some clubs more than others. With respect those that it really doesn't suit they haven't a chance of getting into SL even under P&R.

As for your second paragraph, isn't that the point of the 3 year average, in that one bad season doesn't destroy a clubs chances? Certainly clubs like Toulouse and London will be more affected by this than Leigh.

I think your third and fourth paragraphs are linked really. I certainly think clubs can build well with the right structure but that also takes the right club, in the right place and with the right investment. As an example I think this structure now suits a club like Wakefield to a tee to assist them in building and growing, hopefully akin to something like Hull KR have achieved. Ditto clubs like York. I do think the focus has to be improving the sport overall rather than the extremes of one particular club like Cas. That said I do hope Cas can progress with their ground, and the new stand in particular, as a club getting the crowds they do would be a loss to SL.

I think we can find flaws with any system. P&R is certainly flawed between full time and part time leagues that don't have much money, all of the yoyo clubs and recent fortunes of Fev show that. The alternatives such as a closed shop or franchises are unpalatable to fans of lower league clubs or fans of P&R. As you say the IMG approach is a fudge but it is one that is geared to RL and its own particular circumstances and I don't think it's a bad solution. Sure I would tweak parts of it but nothing is going to suit everyone.

Yeah, that's all fair. We'll all have our own perspective and it will naturally be skewed by the team we support, particularly if you support a team likely to be ranked between 10 - 14. For example, my issue with the three year average as a Leigh fan, is we have already taken the hit for that bad season, with relegation. Now we're in danger of taking another hit. This is down to a lack of transitional period (we've had indicative gradings but we still switch straight from P&R to IMG in one go) and no factoring of lower attendances and revenue you would get outside of SL.

My personal preference would be to have a scoring system, with a set minimum score being a requirement to be promoted, with a mechanism to demote teams that fall beneath that minimum. But my view is that a lot of the data analysis in this system is flawed, and flawed beyond what tolerance levels should allow. But time will tell.

I agree with the reasoning you give for us having a fudge of a system, and this has been signed off by clubs. But there is something peculiar about the fact that we need a system to make clubs improve, but that system needs to be voted in by those very same clubs.

[Archie Gordon]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

...

I get the idea this IMG grading system is supposed to encourage more clubs to be more like Hull KR of recent years than Bradford of years prior, and I don't mind the concept, but I don't think that the system itself will achieve that. Cas have replaced short term investments in the playing squad for short term investments on padded seats. Will that improve the matchday experience for fans or sponsors? Will it make them more commercially attractive? I'm not so sure. The annual review will inevitably lead to clubs in danger of dropping out of the top 12 to seek 'quick wins' rather than longer term growth.

...

And I think this is the main point for me. The B clubs at risk of dropping out of SL or looking to get into SL are just tinkering for the sake of .25 points. I can't see any progress at Huddersfield, Salford, Cas, TO, Bradford, London, etc., that is anything other than sticking plaster stuff. Wakefield and Leigh are different only insofar as they have a money man with ambition - but they would have been fine under any system (though there is an irony that I think Leigh are at real risk of displacement by TO).

I can appreciate the concept of rewarding the best run and biggest clubs by giving them the best opportunities for a shot at the top flight. However, I continue to believe that the RLC/IMG application of this concept is pretty amateurish.

[The Blues Ox]

12 hours ago, Ant said:

That's why only 4 teams have won Super League, because no one else can recruit more than a year ahead 

We had a closed shop for many years so that really does not explain the fact of why only 4 teams have won SL.

The fact is that people love to rubber neck and I do agree the focus should be at the top end of the tables but people just love car crash TV and some people could not accept that relegation battles, no matter how bad they were in terms of skill levels, are just far more entertaining than watching a couple of teams flirting with the playoffs play against each other.

Ive no idea what the answer is and Im pretty sure the IMG system as we know it will be gone in a few years just like everything else.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Yeah, that's all fair. We'll all have our own perspective and it will naturally be skewed by the team we support, particularly if you support a team likely to be ranked between 10 - 14. For example, my issue with the three year average as a Leigh fan, is we have already taken the hit for that bad season, with relegation. Now we're in danger of taking another hit. This is down to a lack of transitional period (we've had indicative gradings but we still switch straight from P&R to IMG in one go) and no factoring of lower attendances and revenue you would get outside of SL.

My personal preference would be to have a scoring system, with a set minimum score being a requirement to be promoted, with a mechanism to demote teams that fall beneath that minimum. But my view is that a lot of the data analysis in this system is flawed, and flawed beyond what tolerance levels should allow. But time will tell.

I agree with the reasoning you give for us having a fudge of a system, and this has been signed off by clubs. But there is something peculiar about the fact that we need a system to make clubs improve, but that system needs to be voted in by those very same clubs.

One aspect I am not too keen on is that I think it may make it difficult for some clubs to get into SL who haven't already been in or as you say have spent less time. As with other systems if you are already in the club it is easier to stay in.

As a result I have always said that I would prefer to see some kind of weighting were certain figures achieved in the Championship had an equivalence to SL, for example a Championship club getting an attendance of 3k was the same points as a SL club getting an attendance of 7.5k. I think that may balance things a little better and remove some of that measures that are overly skewed towards SL clubs. SL clubs are already rewarded by the performance measure and I think it would be fairer if the achievements of clubs in their respective divisions were better reflected when it comes to aspects of fandom and finance.

[Archie Gordon]

8 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

We had a closed shop for many years so that really does not explain the fact of why only 4 teams have won SL.

The fact is that people love to rubber neck and I do agree the focus should be at the top end of the tables but people just love car crash TV and some people could not accept that relegation battles, no matter how bad they were in terms of skill levels, are just far more entertaining than watching a couple of teams flirting with the playoffs play against each other.

Ive no idea what the answer is and Im pretty sure the IMG system as we know it will be gone in a few years just like everything else.

When it comes to the argument that we should be showcasing the top clubs rather than those battling P&R, I remember back to when the Championship final could draw 21k and one of the top 5 Sky audiences of the year. I think that prompted the RFL to bin it, of course.

[overtheborder]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Completely agree that P&R of any sort is flawed when you have a massive funding disparity (as we know most clubs run at an operational loss). I'm not opposed to franchising but you have to properly separate the two parts of the game. Perhaps just choose your 12 or 10 and let the remainder move to a separate competition as per the Australian model. A halfway house, fudged compromise will never work, no matter how many times you fiddle with it.

I'll just state at first that I'm a big fan of P and R, and that would be my preferred option, but completely get the point about the funding disparities between divisions. I'm not sure how you solve that barring voting to make funding more evenly spread across divisions (although even then there'll no doubt be disparity between leagues due to bigger crowds in SL, more merchandise sales etc for the most part).

I'm not big on franchising as for me you turn the possibility of an "unfashionable" club getting promotion off the back of a great season into that club needing to invest in infrastructure that it just can't afford at that time (of course you could then argue the club might not be able to afford an SL quality playing squad and shouldn't be in SL anyway but that's a different matter).

I suppose the game is separated as it currently is - between the pro/semi-pro leagues and the amateur game. The problem is it seems there's a secondary separation between SL and Champ/L1, rather than the top 3 divisions being treated as a whole product. I'm not sure what the answer is to that, but I'd imagine if the viewpoint was changed, that might do something about the disparity at least.

For what it's worth I'm not a fan of the spreadsheet model - fair play to IMG/the RFL for wanting to drive standards, but when we're in a scenario where it's basically pointless for London to invest and bust a gut to finish above bottom of the table as they'd be going down anyway, it doesn't feel like that's the way to do it to me.

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

One aspect I am not too keen on is that I think it may make it difficult for some clubs to get into SL who haven't already been in or as you say have spent less time. As with other systems if you are already in the club it is easier to stay in.

As a result I have always said that I would prefer to see some kind of weighting were certain figures achieved in the Championship had an equivalence to SL, for example a Championship club getting an attendance of 3k was the same points as a SL club getting an attendance of 7.5k. I think that may balance things a little better and remove some of that measures that are overly skewed towards SL clubs. SL clubs are already rewarded by the performance measure and I think it would be fairer if the achievements of clubs in their respective divisions were better reflected when it comes to aspects of fandom and finance.

Isn't there also within the system points awarded for appearing on TV? If so and it was written into the manifest before this new TV deal when now every SL club is on TV every week of the season then is that not another imbalance against Championship clubs?

[Archie Gordon]

31 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Isn't there also within the system points awarded for appearing on TV? If so and it was written into the manifest before this new TV deal when now every SL club is on TV every week of the season then is that not another imbalance against Championship clubs?

Yes. The score for TV viewership is now obviously a farce.

[Damien]

50 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Isn't there also within the system points awarded for appearing on TV? If so and it was written into the manifest before this new TV deal when now every SL club is on TV every week of the season then is that not another imbalance against Championship clubs?

That's one of things I thought of when I said aspects of fandom and finance.

[JT RL]

On 07/04/2024 at 18:04, N2022 said:

I get that's an ideal on one level, but those games come round every few years and sometimes come down to moments and mindset. I'm not sure building a whole domestic structure with that in mind is (a) advisable or (b) likely to be effective.

Because the optimal for nwating Aus might be to have a highly selective SL with just maybe 6 or even 4 teams and a hyperconcentration of talent in them, but this risks (1) generating too much gap for others to get into that elite (2) becoming repetitive for spectators and (3) damaging visibility of the wider game. To beat Aus you'd maybe say the elite don't have to spend time visiting schools, hospitals, signing shirts etc but what does that do for game image and future recruitment.

I'm going on now, but you see my thinking, it's complex.

Does that imply, the Aussies set the bar too high .. let’s not bother reaching for that .. how about London v Huddersfield 3 times a year .. in front of 3k … not reported in the press … etc etc … average game, came be bothered .. but at least there are 12 or 14 pretend professional clubs 

[JT RL]

11 hours ago, Damien said:

The thing I find weird thing is a conventional league structure is the way it has been for 99.9% of people on this forum when they have played sport and amateur RL. It is perfectly normal, yet all of a sudden they want it to be completely different with a convoluted structure at professional level, mostly just to suit their team.

That’s obvious … amateur structure doesn’t drain or require the resources of a pro league

[Damien]

13 hours ago, JT RL said:

That’s obvious … amateur structure doesn’t drain or require the resources of a pro league

Sorry I have no idea what your point is here.

Edited April 9 by Damien

[redjonn]

On 08/04/2024 at 09:51, glossop saint said:

I liked it too as I was always about 20 goals behind at that point. 

reminiscing... yep was often the case...

we used to have our street playing against the next street... game went on most of the day, all ages little and big uns, numbers playing varying depending on time of day but a lot of us...

score would be around 46 to 21... then when yer mams all came out shouting tea ready,  up went the call... next goal wins...

Edited April 9 by redjonn

[N2022]

22 hours ago, JT RL said:

Does that imply, the Aussies set the bar too high .. let’s not bother reaching for that .. how about London v Huddersfield 3 times a year .. in front of 3k … not reported in the press … etc etc … average game, came be bothered .. but at least there are 12 or 14 pretend professional clubs 

To you maybe, but that's not the intention. We could go all in with 'we've got the 4 best club sides in the world and we're ready for the Aussies', and then lose on a fine margin, half the squad go down with a bug, or they don't even bother running RLWC or the Ashes, deciding instead to take various NRL or Pacific fixtures in a circus somewhere lucrative.

And in the meantime, every SL club below that 4 club league has sacrificed it's beat players into the project, nobody wants TV rights, the fans are disillusioned because they don't get to see the stars come to their ground anymore.

You get the idea.

[Oh Sully Sully]

Middle 8s resulted in the first 23 rounds being the longest pre-season on record for most of the bottom-end clubs in Super League and all the main contenders in the Champ. It was a horrendous concept, and for all the marketing and drama, the Million Pound Game was a glorified way of allowing clubs to effectively sack their entire squad for losing a one-off match.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Oh Sully Sully said:

Middle 8s resulted in the first 23 rounds being the longest pre-season on record for most of the bottom-end clubs in Super League and all the main contenders in the Champ. It was a horrendous concept, and for all the marketing and drama, the Million Pound Game was a glorified way of allowing clubs to effectively sack their entire squad for losing a one-off match.

Your analysis of "the longest pre season" is totally wrong part of the league system leading up to the cut off for qualification to the play-offs or being consigned to the middle 8's for SL clubs and for Championship clubs attaining a top 4 position in their league system.

The next mini league the Middle 8's led to the MPG which was the decider contested by the clubs not good enough to finish top 3 for automatic qualification to SL or bad enough to finish in the bottom 3 and immediately consigned to the Championship.

As far as your last sentence is concerned you are obviously just relating to a SL club "losing a one-off match", for any SL at that time to lose out to a championship club either in the MPG or finishing below one in the mini league is quite extraordinary with the difference in funding and the level of competition they had been exposed to all season had no one to blame but themselves.

[sam4731]

When was the last time that 3 out of the 4 QF of the CC games look like foregone conclusions? (Of course nothing ever is). It just seems we're at a point that a ever shrinking amount of teams are competing at the top level.