A minor piece of history

[Martyn Sadler]

Super League Round 18 this weekend is the first round in which all three clubs that were elevated into Super League at the start of the season have each won their games.

And not one of them is now in the bottom three, despite two of them only being on half rations.

Good to see them rewarding the faith that we had in them last year.

I just wanted to mark it as a little bit of history.

[up the robins]

Well people have certainly been proven right, promoting the three teams to Super league would Leed to multiple blow outs!

Just don't think anyone thought it would be a promoted team dishing them out.

 

Edited July 12 by up the robins

[Archie Gordon]

I am now in favour of 3 up, 3 down.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

I am now in favour of 3 up, 3 down.

How about 14 up and 14 down?

[up the robins]

It's a good job we didn't give Toulouse and York full funding, just imagine how big the scorelines could of been these last couple of weeks with twice the spending power.

[Hopie]

History?
Cherry picking is a weak way of making an argument. Even if you don't do it explicitly. 

[Father Ted]

Does anyone know if and when Toulouse and York stay up they will get full funding next season?

[up the robins]

33 minutes ago, Father Ted said:

Does anyone know if and when Toulouse and York stay up they will get full funding next season?

I think this is what is most frustrating about our super league,  Nobody knows what's happening.

Are York and Toulouse safe?

Are London coming up?

Are we running on the img gradings?

Will all teams have equal funding?

The NRL have this sussed new teams are announced over a year in advance so have plenty of time to plan signings and get things ready.

Edited July 12 by up the robins

[Taffy Tiger]

2 hours ago, up the robins said:

I think this is what is most frustrating about our super league,  Nobody knows what's happening.

Are York and Toulouse safe?

Are London coming up?

Are we running on the img gradings?

Will all teams have equal funding?

The NRL have this sussed new teams are announced over a year in advance so have plenty of time to plan signings and get things ready.

Not sure what your issue is to be honest . It's as clear as day.

1. Maybe

2. Possibly

3. Think so

4. Potentially 

Happy to help

 

[JohnM]

Yes, it's worth noting and good for them. 

What is the significance,? Was it one of the RFLs ststed  criteria when justifying moving from 12 to 14 clubs. If it was, it shows the RFL had at least one measure of success. It's just that they never told us. Maybe they have other measures of success too. If so, why don't they list them so st the end of the season some sort of objective judgment can be made.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Just to put this into perspective, the Premier League promote 3 teams ever year into a much larger competition. Since the pandemic (because I couldn't be bothered looking further back than that), all 3 teams have won in the same round only once (Round 9 of the season just gone).

[YCKBob]

Obviously I'm biased  as a Knights fan, but to promote us on half funding then to relegate us the following season for IMG reasons (not league position) would simply be cruel. It would be like setting us up to fail.

[up the robins]

50 minutes ago, YCKBob said:

Obviously I'm biased  as a Knights fan, but to promote us on half funding then to relegate us the following season for IMG reasons (not league position) would simply be cruel. It would be like setting us up to fail.

Exactly what super league does best, look at London the other year relegated before the season had even started.

All three new  teams have earnt the right to go again next year

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, YCKBob said:

Obviously I'm biased  as a Knights fan, but to promote us on half funding then to relegate us the following season for IMG reasons (not league position) would simply be cruel. It would be like setting us up to fail.

I don't think York will be relegated on the gradings criteria.

Unfortunately I also think London Broncos won't be promoted to Super League on the basis of the same criteria.

There are some people at the RFL who seem to regard the gradings system as akin to the Holy Bible, while the clubs seem equally determined to stick to 14 participants in Super League next year.

The combination of those two factors is absolutely ludicrous.

[Archie Gordon]

31 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I don't think York will be relegated on the gradings criteria.

Unfortunately I also think London Broncos won't be promoted to Super League on the basis of the same criteria.

There are some people at the RFL who seem to regard the gradings system as akin to the Holy Bible, while the clubs seem equally determined to stick to 14 participants in Super League next year.

The combination of those two factors is absolutely ludicrous.

You do seem to hold your views very strongly. 

I am in favour of a SL of elite clubs, which maybe means 10 teams right now.

But the idea that next year's SL is 14 clubs based on IMG gradings - whilst not my choice - is definitely not absolutely ludicrous.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

You do seem to hold your views very strongly. 

I am in favour of a SL of elite clubs, which maybe means 10 teams right now.

But the idea that next year's SL is 14 clubs based on IMG gradings - whilst not my choice - is definitely not absolutely ludicrous.

What is ludicrous is the idea of keeping the Broncos in the Championship next year.

What purpose would it serve?

[gingerjon]

13 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

What is ludicrous is the idea of keeping the Broncos in the Championship next year.

What purpose would it serve?

I agree it would be ridiculous.

But, as far as we can tell, the investment in London etc was done in the hope of changing minds, not because there was an open route that has since been closed.

If no minds have been changed - and why would there be with the pie already so thinly sliced into 14 - then there is very much fault on both sides there.

[Archie Gordon]

57 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

What is ludicrous is the idea of keeping the Broncos in the Championship next year.

What purpose would it serve?

I have genuinely missed the bit where the Broncos have put together a persuasive case, never mind an unanswerable one.

But - by implication at least - we both seem to agree that the Championship is now a rubbish competition to belong to.

[fighting irish]

I'm struggling here. Can't we stick to 14 using the IMG grading to decide who the top 14 are?

If London are in the 14 then so be it, if not then on what basis are we ''forcing them in''. 

[Father Ted]

Perhaps an odd thing to come up with. But, if there are 15 clubs who meet the IMG gradings and the SL clubs insist on a 14 team league then why not relegate the bottom SL club and promote the Championship Grand Final winner?

[Hopie]

2 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

I have genuinely missed the bit where the Broncos have put together a persuasive case, never mind an unanswerable one.

But - by implication at least - we both seem to agree that the Championship is now a rubbish competition to belong to.

They got rid of League 1 because clubs were rightly concerned about playing in a league that was a bit of a mess, and we have been left with a disaster of a second tier.
The same logic now seems to produce this position that we can't leave poor old London behind, but sod the rest.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

I have genuinely missed the bit where the Broncos have put together a persuasive case, never mind an unanswerable one.

But - by implication at least - we both seem to agree that the Championship is now a rubbish competition to belong to.

The Championship is an excellent competition but the Broncos in their current guise don’t belong in it and have distorted it.

I would have thought that going through the season undefeated was at least mildly persuasive.

[Martyn Sadler]

44 minutes ago, Father Ted said:

Perhaps an odd thing to come up with. But, if there are 15 clubs who meet the IMG gradings and the SL clubs insist on a 14 team league then why not relegate the bottom SL club and promote the Championship Grand Final winner?

A novel idea, but far too simple!

[Tommygilf]

45 minutes ago, Father Ted said:

Perhaps an odd thing to come up with. But, if there are 15 clubs who meet the IMG gradings and the SL clubs insist on a 14 team league then why not relegate the bottom SL club and promote the Championship Grand Final winner?

That was how it was supposed to work.

The top division, of 12, were supposed to be comprised of all A Grade clubs plus the highest Grade Bs. That would then expand as and when there were only Grade A clubs in Super League, and thus the league had increased its commercial viability due to the indicated growth. The hope was that with the growth of the top league, clubs in the Championship would grow too and as we have seen with clubs like Bradford and previously Wakefield grow to Grading levels above SL Incumbents - the latter growing to a Grade A whilst competing outside of Super League.

In the meantime, clubs decided they didn't want to wait till there were 12 Grade A clubs or the commercial income to sustain a 14 team League, and brought it in early, changed the Grading Criteria, and introduced special extra measures to decide teams 13 and 14. 

[The Squirrel]

In every other sport without promotion and relegation, expansion teams are planned years in advance.  Look at NRL, NHL hockey or even NFL - where expansion is planned many years in advance, giving time to build things like marketing campaigns, sponsor interest, and grassroots initiatives to get bums on seats.

    In fact in NFL or NHL hockey expansion they even have "expansion drafts" where, essentially, existing teams are forced to give the expansion team the option to take some of the players on the existing team's roster (whether those teams like it or not) in order to make themselves competitive.

    Given that the 3 "new" teams to Superleague had exactly none of this planning time, or these structural aids, their performance has been exceptional, and beyond what was expected - even by those teams' own fans.

    Given this it would be an act of utter lunacy to remove any one of them from the competition.  When you're scrambling to just be functional and get something onto the pitch that can compete then your promotion and marketing will inevitably not be perfect - or even a particular priority, so why are we expecting them to all churn out attendances close to the biggest most established clubs I have no idea.  They're all still WAAAAAAAAY ahead of London's averages over its more recent Superleague seasons of course, but that's a different debate...

    Obviously the ideal for future expansion would be an early stage decision followed by plenty of building/marketing time, PNG style.  But if promotion is to continue to be such a last-minute affair (and whether we like it or not there are good reasons why it sometimes might need to be - for example if an existing SL club has a financial meltdown either late in the season or in the off season), it should come with a basic guarantee that you're going to stay in the Superleague for at least 3 years, or better yet 5 so long as you are solvent, in order to give clubs a chance to build and market from a position of stability.  [Actually the better solution is that, NFL style, there is no prospect of relegation at all ever - potentially just a franchise moving location if one really isn't working, but I suspect that's an Americanization too far for most people]

    If we're not going to do this and we stay in a position where the axe may fall in any given season, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOWHERE NEAR BOTTOM, then that's actually more destabilising that promotion and relegation, and to more clubs too, with likely 4-5 clubs in danger (in promo/rel there's generally really only two, or even one).  The current situation is effectively ditching promo/rel but in a way that doesn't give any of the stability benefits that absence of promo/rel gives you (of which there are actually several) - which is just idiotic.

Edited July 13 by The Squirrel