Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 197

Thread: Relegation

  1. #51
    In The South Stand Nickles Forearm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    St Helens
    Posts
    2,582
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    I’m not sure if this has been covered but what really do the likes of Wakefield bring to super league?

    Their ground is dismal bordering on condemned with a small and limited fan base.

    After the full time hooter last night and hearing the ground announcer requesting fans don’t come onto the playing field, what do the Wakefield fans do? Then the state of some of the ‘chip & eggers’ Behind that sky advertising board whilst the interviews are ongoing just about sums it up. Shouting down the sky broadcasting microphone why Chris Chester is interviewed.

    People outside our sport call us a small time northern amateur sport? For me, like it or not, teams like this just add fuel and credibility to that claim. Wakefield & Huddersfield would not be a loss to super league, I fear London for region and player development alone are.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickles Forearm View Post
    I’m not sure if this has been covered but what really do the likes of Wakefield bring to super league?

    Their ground is dismal bordering on condemned with a small and limited fan base.

    After the full time hooter last night and hearing the ground announcer requesting fans don’t come onto the playing field, what do the Wakefield fans do? Then the state of some of the ‘chip & eggers’ Behind that sky advertising board whilst the interviews are ongoing just about sums it up. Shouting down the sky broadcasting microphone why Chris Chester is interviewed.

    People outside our sport call us a small time northern amateur sport? For me, like it or not, teams like this just add fuel and credibility to that claim. Wakefield & Huddersfield would not be a loss to super league, I fear London for region and player development alone are.
    Nothing, but they're not on their own. Huddersfield, Salford, Hull KR and London can be added to that list, Castleford too at a push. It was embarrassing seeing those clowns celebrating like they'd won something last night although that's probably about the most excitement they've had since they last beat a decent side. The thing is, who replaces them with anymore credibility, crowds or potential? Bradford don't even have a ground, Leigh and Widnes are skint, Toulouse? It doesn't really leave much else which I find really quite depressing.

  3. #53
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,672
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    For me

    Saints
    Wigan
    Wire
    Hull
    Hull KR
    Cas
    Leeds
    London
    Toulouse
    Toronto
    Salford (ideally rebranded as Manchester)
    Catalans

    should be our elite competition. The strongest traditional clubs and the ones that bring credibility and a bit of appeal to sponsors and broadcasters.

    PS agree with the above, some of these are not ideal, but you’re right, who else is there?
    Last edited by Sean Day; 14th September 2019 at 10:20.

  4. #54
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,426
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    I'm going to go against the consensus here and say that I don't care who gets relegated, and I think it says alot about the problems in our sport that people give reasons for why club x is better than club y for reasons other than their quality as a team. If the structure of the comp was better, and if we didn't have a restrictive salary cap that handcuffs the biggest clubs we wouldn't really be giving thought to whether London, Hull KR, Huddersfield or Wakefield 'offer more' to Super League, because the league would be stronger and more exciting at the top end, and the clubs at the bottom end would simply be less important.

    Do football fans talk about whether Bournemouth 'offer more' to the Premier League than the likes of big clubs outside of it like Leeds United or Sheffield Wednesday? No, the strength of the league means that they can happily cope with a club with a ground that only holds 11,000. Huddersfield won 3 of their 38 games last season in the Premier League, they were an absolute joke, but nobody was calling it a great day when they went down because they weren't 'offering anything to the league' because the league is defined by its best teams and not by its worst.

    Rugby Union journos make the case that having Newcastle or Leeds Carnegie in the Premiership would be better in terms of having another Northern club, but at the end of the day if they're not hardly anyone gets themselves worked up over it because the league is defined by its best teams and not the ones at the bottom. Anyone tuning into a game at Sale would think RU was a game played in front of crap crowds, but you don't hear people saying Sale 'offer nothing' to the league because they aren't that important in a comp which is defined by the clubs at the top and not the ones making up the numbers.

    But, in RL we continually try to manufacture Super League to make sure club x is in and club y is out, because our comp isn't good enough or strong enough to cope with a few clubs making up the numbers. In a salary capped sport if you finish bottom, tough, you're down. That should be the only consideration. There is nothing unfair about it. If Wigan, Wire, Hull, Leeds and co were punching their weight, getting crowds and challenging us at the top, and if the league actually enabled the weekly rounds to be more important we'd not worry too much about the geographical positions or ground quality of teams at the bottom. The fact that we are shows that the comp and the game are not achieving their potential where it needs to, namely at the top end of Super League.

  5. #55
    In The West Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    I'm going to go against the consensus here and say that I don't care who gets relegated, and I think it says alot about the problems in our sport that people give reasons for why club x is better than club y for reasons other than their quality as a team. If the structure of the comp was better, and if we didn't have a restrictive salary cap that handcuffs the biggest clubs we wouldn't really be giving thought to whether London, Hull KR, Huddersfield or Wakefield 'offer more' to Super League, because the league would be stronger and more exciting at the top end, and the clubs at the bottom end would simply be less important.

    Do football fans talk about whether Bournemouth 'offer more' to the Premier League than the likes of big clubs outside of it like Leeds United or Sheffield Wednesday? No, the strength of the league means that they can happily cope with a club with a ground that only holds 11,000. Huddersfield won 3 of their 38 games last season in the Premier League, they were an absolute joke, but nobody was calling it a great day when they went down because they weren't 'offering anything to the league' because the league is defined by its best teams and not by its worst.

    Rugby Union journos make the case that having Newcastle or Leeds Carnegie in the Premiership would be better in terms of having another Northern club, but at the end of the day if they're not hardly anyone gets themselves worked up over it because the league is defined by its best teams and not the ones at the bottom. Anyone tuning into a game at Sale would think RU was a game played in front of crap crowds, but you don't hear people saying Sale 'offer nothing' to the league because they aren't that important in a comp which is defined by the clubs at the top and not the ones making up the numbers.

    But, in RL we continually try to manufacture Super League to make sure club x is in and club y is out, because our comp isn't good enough or strong enough to cope with a few clubs making up the numbers. In a salary capped sport if you finish bottom, tough, you're down. That should be the only consideration. There is nothing unfair about it. If Wigan, Wire, Hull, Leeds and co were punching their weight, getting crowds and challenging us at the top, and if the league actually enabled the weekly rounds to be more important we'd not worry too much about the geographical positions or ground quality of teams at the bottom. The fact that we are shows that the comp and the game are not achieving their potential where it needs to, namely at the top end of Super League.
    Amen. My thoughts exactly.

  6. #56
    In The South Stand Nickles Forearm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    St Helens
    Posts
    2,582
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    I'm going to go against the consensus here and say that I don't care who gets relegated, and I think it says alot about the problems in our sport that people give reasons for why club x is better than club y for reasons other than their quality as a team. If the structure of the comp was better, and if we didn't have a restrictive salary cap that handcuffs the biggest clubs we wouldn't really be giving thought to whether London, Hull KR, Huddersfield or Wakefield 'offer more' to Super League, because the league would be stronger and more exciting at the top end, and the clubs at the bottom end would simply be less important.

    Do football fans talk about whether Bournemouth 'offer more' to the Premier League than the likes of big clubs outside of it like Leeds United or Sheffield Wednesday? No, the strength of the league means that they can happily cope with a club with a ground that only holds 11,000. Huddersfield won 3 of their 38 games last season in the Premier League, they were an absolute joke, but nobody was calling it a great day when they went down because they weren't 'offering anything to the league' because the league is defined by its best teams and not by its worst.

    Rugby Union journos make the case that having Newcastle or Leeds Carnegie in the Premiership would be better in terms of having another Northern club, but at the end of the day if they're not hardly anyone gets themselves worked up over it because the league is defined by its best teams and not the ones at the bottom. Anyone tuning into a game at Sale would think RU was a game played in front of crap crowds, but you don't hear people saying Sale 'offer nothing' to the league because they aren't that important in a comp which is defined by the clubs at the top and not the ones making up the numbers.

    But, in RL we continually try to manufacture Super League to make sure club x is in and club y is out, because our comp isn't good enough or strong enough to cope with a few clubs making up the numbers. In a salary capped sport if you finish bottom, tough, you're down. That should be the only consideration. There is nothing unfair about it. If Wigan, Wire, Hull, Leeds and co were punching their weight, getting crowds and challenging us at the top, and if the league actually enabled the weekly rounds to be more important we'd not worry too much about the geographical positions or ground quality of teams at the bottom. The fact that we are shows that the comp and the game are not achieving their potential where it needs to, namely at the top end of Super League.
    That being said, if the lower table clubs performed at a better standard the higher table clubs would need to perform at a higher level week in week out (NRL). Thus, making the competition stronger.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    I'm going to go against the consensus here and say that I don't care who gets relegated, and I think it says alot about the problems in our sport that people give reasons for why club x is better than club y for reasons other than their quality as a team. If the structure of the comp was better, and if we didn't have a restrictive salary cap that handcuffs the biggest clubs we wouldn't really be giving thought to whether London, Hull KR, Huddersfield or Wakefield 'offer more' to Super League, because the league would be stronger and more exciting at the top end, and the clubs at the bottom end would simply be less important.

    Do football fans talk about whether Bournemouth 'offer more' to the Premier League than the likes of big clubs outside of it like Leeds United or Sheffield Wednesday? No, the strength of the league means that they can happily cope with a club with a ground that only holds 11,000. Huddersfield won 3 of their 38 games last season in the Premier League, they were an absolute joke, but nobody was calling it a great day when they went down because they weren't 'offering anything to the league' because the league is defined by its best teams and not by its worst.

    Rugby Union journos make the case that having Newcastle or Leeds Carnegie in the Premiership would be better in terms of having another Northern club, but at the end of the day if they're not hardly anyone gets themselves worked up over it because the league is defined by its best teams and not the ones at the bottom. Anyone tuning into a game at Sale would think RU was a game played in front of crap crowds, but you don't hear people saying Sale 'offer nothing' to the league because they aren't that important in a comp which is defined by the clubs at the top and not the ones making up the numbers.

    But, in RL we continually try to manufacture Super League to make sure club x is in and club y is out, because our comp isn't good enough or strong enough to cope with a few clubs making up the numbers. In a salary capped sport if you finish bottom, tough, you're down. That should be the only consideration. There is nothing unfair about it. If Wigan, Wire, Hull, Leeds and co were punching their weight, getting crowds and challenging us at the top, and if the league actually enabled the weekly rounds to be more important we'd not worry too much about the geographical positions or ground quality of teams at the bottom. The fact that we are shows that the comp and the game are not achieving their potential where it needs to, namely at the top end of Super League.
    Great post.

  8. #58
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,130
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasty View Post
    Time to go to a 14 team Super League. 26 weekly rounds plus magic weekend. Top seven playoff. Bottom 4 playoffs to see one team relegated

    Frankly I would prefer a 16 team Super League with no playoffs. 30 weekly rounds. Top of the league are champions bottom team is relegated but there is no chance of that
    I guess this would create more games at the back end of the year we're more teams would be jostling for league position.

  9. #59
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,426
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasty View Post
    Time to go to a 14 team Super League. 26 weekly rounds plus magic weekend. Top seven playoff. Bottom 4 playoffs to see one team relegated

    Frankly I would prefer a 16 team Super League with no playoffs. 30 weekly rounds. Top of the league are champions bottom team is relegated but there is no chance of that
    7 play off teams is too many. When we had Top 8 it diluted the weekly rounds to a ridiculous level, and 7 would be the same. 4 or 5 is the maximum, and the current system (which was also the original) is probably the best and fairest play off system and should not be tinkered with from now on if we're going to persist with play-offs.

    I also don't like the idea of a Bottom 4 play-off system either. The team finishing 4th from bottom shouldn't be faced with the prospect of relegation, which could happen if they pick up crucial injuries at the back end of the season. It is daft that a team can lose nearly half its games and win a league title through a play off system, but in a way getting relegated is a bigger deal than winning the league in terms of finances and the future of clubs, and no club should face the cliff edge of a relegation scenario after finishing 4th from bottom.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Here's how I see it, I know I've posted this before but anyway:

    Leagues: 14 team league, play each other twice plus a magic/charity round if we must keep it. Top is champion, Bottom is relegated, end of story. Second bottom and second in the championship play off for the final SL place for the next season. All top 3 division teams to have same cap expenditure available, if you can't manage your finances hard luck.

    Challenge Cup: All top 3 division teams to start in round 1 giving smaller teams the chance of a payday/giant kill, all teams must name a minimum 23 man squad prior to the start of round 1, this will carry through to the final which will be in May. Round 1 to start 1st week of January.

    WCC: To be played once both Grand finals have been played. If the Aussies don't want to play ball, •••• them.

    Also bin this Aussie/Yank nonsense of golden point, a draw is a perfectly viable result and part of our sporting culture. I think that covers the issues within the competitions themselves but there's also plenty of other issues not been covered here.

  11. #61
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    415
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Disappointed with Tony Smith, he said yesterday that he & others would be pleased that it was London Broncos relegated, as they had been given point by St Helens? It's find to say no one says anything about football clubs being relegated or RU clubs, but look at the parachute payments they give compared to relegation from Super League, look how Widnes Vikings suffered this season, and next season London will get an even lower payment than Widnes, following a vote by Championship clubs. Toronto may get promoted but think how much they have spent and reported have had financial problems, the reason they stopped TV coverage as they were paying for the broadcast! Wakefield & Hull KR brought in so many players just prior to the deadline, which I feel is far too late, should be around the end of June or early July, but both owners must have had money to do this. I agree with many the way teams play each other needs the increase in clubs so we do not see some clubs playing each other 3 times.

  12. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jaybs View Post
    Disappointed with Tony Smith, he said yesterday that he & others would be pleased that it was London Broncos relegated, as they had been given point by St Helens? It's find to say no one says anything about football clubs being relegated or RU clubs, but look at the parachute payments they give compared to relegation from Super League, look how Widnes Vikings suffered this season, and next season London will get an even lower payment than Widnes, following a vote by Championship clubs. Toronto may get promoted but think how much they have spent and reported have had financial problems, the reason they stopped TV coverage as they were paying for the broadcast! Wakefield & Hull KR brought in so many players just prior to the deadline, which I feel is far too late, should be around the end of June or early July, but both owners must have had money to do this. I agree with many the way teams play each other needs the increase in clubs so we do not see some clubs playing each other 3 times.
    He also said we had the right to pick what team we saw fit a while ago so him crying now doesn't really carry much weight. Hull KR also lost to London home and away so it's just as easy to say if his team had played better they wouldn't be in that position.

  13. #63
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk paulscnthorpe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St Helens
    Age
    40
    Posts
    8,592
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jaybs View Post
    Disappointed with Tony Smith, he said yesterday that he & others would be pleased that it was London Broncos relegated, as they had been given point by St Helens? It's find to say no one says anything about football clubs being relegated or RU clubs, but look at the parachute payments they give compared to relegation from Super League, look how Widnes Vikings suffered this season, and next season London will get an even lower payment than Widnes, following a vote by Championship clubs. Toronto may get promoted but think how much they have spent and reported have had financial problems, the reason they stopped TV coverage as they were paying for the broadcast! Wakefield & Hull KR brought in so many players just prior to the deadline, which I feel is far too late, should be around the end of June or early July, but both owners must have had money to do this. I agree with many the way teams play each other needs the increase in clubs so we do not see some clubs playing each other 3 times.
    He fails to mention we rested a few against Hull KR in march: Welsby, Smith, Bentley and Ashworth all played, who you'd probably say aren't first 17, against London there was Welsby, Ashworth, Richardson, Costello and Bentley all played..

    There's 12 players who played in both games (I.e. Vs Hull Kr & London)

  14. #64
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,672
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Smith has put a weak team out every week

  15. #65
    In The West Stand saintgeorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    eccleston
    Posts
    5,257
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Just thinking ahead to next season, haven’t Toronto got a plastic pitch? Would that mean we wouldn’t play Lomax and Makinson if so?

  16. #66
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Christchurch, NZ
    Posts
    435
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saintgeorge View Post
    Just thinking ahead to next season, haven’t Toronto got a plastic pitch? Would that mean we wouldn’t play Lomax and Makinson if so?
    Yes and it is a "public toilet" of a stadium. Seems soulless. Not sure what they will bring to Superleague other than increased travel budgets and a novelty factor.

  17. #67
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_down_under View Post
    Yes and it is a "public toilet" of a stadium. Seems soulless. Not sure what they will bring to Superleague other than increased travel budgets and a novelty factor.
    I would prefer to see Toulouse in Super League

  18. #68
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    7 play off teams is too many. When we had Top 8 it diluted the weekly rounds to a ridiculous level, and 7 would be the same. 4 or 5 is the maximum, and the current system (which was also the original) is probably the best and fairest play off system and should not be tinkered with from now on if we're going to persist with play-offs.

    I also don't like the idea of a Bottom 4 play-off system either. The team finishing 4th from bottom shouldn't be faced with the prospect of relegation, which could happen if they pick up crucial injuries at the back end of the season. It is daft that a team can lose nearly half its games and win a league title through a play off system, but in a way getting relegated is a bigger deal than winning the league in terms of finances and the future of clubs, and no club should face the cliff edge of a relegation scenario after finishing 4th from bottom.
    How about a 14 team competition with a top five and bottom team relegated. Add more challenge cup matches by having the SL teams enter earlier in the comp?

  19. #69
    In The West Stand Ralph Fridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    5,517
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Super League needs it's own cup competition with top of the league being champions. This final mid season (end of June).

    Challenge Cup final moved to last game of the season. Should be the showpiece of our club game.

    With 21 years of tinkering & messing about with play off formats, plus all these loop fixtures & magic weekend, the league format is a mess as well.

    It might have been better having loop fixtures 15 to 20 years ago when the standard was higher but now it's just more of the same. 14 teams, home & away format please. I would scrap the magic weekend altogether

  20. #70
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph Fridge View Post
    Super League needs it's own cup competition with top of the league being champions. This final mid season (end of June).

    Challenge Cup final moved to last game of the season. Should be the showpiece of our club game.

    With 21 years of tinkering & messing about with play off formats, plus all these loop fixtures & magic weekend, the league format is a mess as well.

    It might have been better having loop fixtures 15 to 20 years ago when the standard was higher but now it's just more of the same. 14 teams, home & away format please. I would scrap the magic weekend altogether

    Challenge cup in October?
    No play offs, league would have been over two months ago, loads of games with nothing riding on them
    No grand final, the biggest draw for TV rights and helps negotiations
    Complaints of tinkering so we make major changes again
    Loop fixtures ok when standard was higher? Low standard is the reason given for loop fixtures not high? Higher standard could have more teams so no need for the loop fixtures. I don't beLieve the standard is lower, think that's a myth we are hoping becomes reality if we say it enough times. Another sign of rugby league fans telling the world how rubbish we are


    No thanks

  21. #71
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasty View Post
    How about a 14 team competition with a top five and bottom team relegated. Add more challenge cup matches by having the SL teams enter earlier in the comp?

    This for me, the bottom of the league is proof of teams being good enough to compete, the bottom team won 10 games, Toronto and Toulouse have good attendances, York is a major city, attendances up massively, so many good reasons to go to 14 teams.
    Don't want a play off bottom four for relegation, that would be a big mistake
    Top five I think is the best system
    I think SL clubs should enter the comp earlier, inlike the idea of a champions league format

  22. #72
    Learning All The Songs roy litherland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Moss Bank
    Posts
    1,986
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    To be honest , if London had have stayed up this year it would only be until next year , with the amount of thier better players as Norman Tebbit quoted well very similar "on thier bikes" , and with thier smaller CAP , they would have really struggled.
    roy litherland it's happened i told you it would

  23. #73
    In The West Stand Ralph Fridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    5,517
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    Challenge cup in October?
    No play offs, league would have been over two months ago, loads of games with nothing riding on them
    No grand final, the biggest draw for TV rights and helps negotiations
    Complaints of tinkering so we make major changes again
    Loop fixtures ok when standard was higher? Low standard is the reason given for loop fixtures not high? Higher standard could have more teams so no need for the loop fixtures. I don't beLieve the standard is lower, think that's a myth we are hoping becomes reality if we say it enough times. Another sign of rugby league fans telling the world how rubbish we are


    No thanks
    Ok then.

    Soon be one less fan attending this current garbage.

    The standard isn't dropping? Now I know you're on the wind up. It's atrocious.

  24. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph Fridge View Post
    Ok then.

    Soon be one less fan attending this current garbage.

    The standard isn't dropping? Now I know you're on the wind up. It's atrocious.
    Anyone with half a brain know's who's right in this argument.

  25. #75
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,672
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph Fridge View Post
    Ok then.

    Soon be one less fan attending this current garbage.

    The standard isn't dropping? Now I know you're on the wind up. It's atrocious.
    Anybody who doesn’t think the standard is dropping should go and have a look at the names playing for the likes of Saints, Wigan and Bradford in the late 90s/00s

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •