Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 43 of 43

Thread: Ten or Fourteen teams in Super League?

  1. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    There is no TV demand for second-division rugby and not really enough TV money paid for SL rights to support SL clubs and pass a chunk downwards.

    But we still insist on promotion & relegation, so in order to stop the gap between SL and the Championship becoming too massive, the TV money for SL needs to be shared with clubs in the Championship.


    Personally, whilst promotion/relegation is something I'd ideally want to see, I think we need to move to a licensing system, with SL as the only fully-pro competition, and the rest semi-pro to varying degrees.

    No automatic promotion/relegation. Ideally licences to be issued on the basis of grounds/facilities; financial position of the club; actual and potential support. And running a reserve team would be a requirement.

    There's always been arguments both for and against for each of promotion/relegation and licencing, but now the issue of less money in the game tips it toward licencing.

    We cannot sacrifice the golden goose of Super League in a vain effort to help Championship/National League clubs.

  2. #27
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,643
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    There is no TV demand for second-division rugby and not really enough TV money paid for SL rights to support SL clubs and pass a chunk downwards.

    But we still insist on promotion & relegation, so in order to stop the gap between SL and the Championship becoming too massive, the TV money for SL needs to be shared with clubs in the Championship.


    Personally, whilst promotion/relegation is something I'd ideally want to see, I think we need to move to a licensing system, with SL as the only fully-pro competition, and the rest semi-pro to varying degrees.

    No automatic promotion/relegation. Ideally licences to be issued on the basis of grounds/facilities; financial position of the club; actual and potential support. And running a reserve team would be a requirement.

    There's always been arguments both for and against for each of promotion/relegation and licencing, but now the issue of less money in the game tips it toward licencing.

    We cannot sacrifice the golden goose of Super League in a vain effort to help Championship/National League clubs.
    This is the way forward for me.
    St Helens Rugby League Football Club

  3. #28
    Learning All The Songs SaintJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,457
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    There is no TV demand for second-division rugby and not really enough TV money paid for SL rights to support SL clubs and pass a chunk downwards.

    But we still insist on promotion & relegation, so in order to stop the gap between SL and the Championship becoming too massive, the TV money for SL needs to be shared with clubs in the Championship.


    Personally, whilst promotion/relegation is something I'd ideally want to see, I think we need to move to a licensing system, with SL as the only fully-pro competition, and the rest semi-pro to varying degrees.

    No automatic promotion/relegation. Ideally licences to be issued on the basis of grounds/facilities; financial position of the club; actual and potential support. And running a reserve team would be a requirement.

    There's always been arguments both for and against for each of promotion/relegation and licencing, but now the issue of less money in the game tips it toward licencing.

    We cannot sacrifice the golden goose of Super League in a vain effort to help Championship/National League clubs.

    This

  4. #29
    In The West Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    I can see the financial argument for licensing, but I'm a bit of a fundamentalist on this issue: I absolutely hate the franchise system and for me P&R, while imperfect, is the way to go.

    If you have a ten-team league with licensing in place, you'll have three or four clubs with nothing to play for and nothing to fight against. They'll bumble along just fulfilling their fixtures and showing no ambition whatsoever.

    Meanwhile the Championship, which has been revitalised since P&R returned, will be once more reduced to a lifeless shell.

    Licensing might in theory bring some financial security, but IMO it also must act as a strong deterrent to anyone thinking of investing in a club outside of SL.

    Add to that the fact that every franchising decision made by the sport, with the notable exception of Catalans, has been disastrous.

    I was feeling upbeat yesterday after the news about the game possibly getting regular terrestrial coverage, but the prospect of a 10-team SL with no promotion or relegation has brought me right back down again.
    Last edited by Dux; 29th April 2021 at 13:52.

  5. #30
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,643
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    I can see the financial argument for licensing, but I'm a bit of a fundamentalist on this issue: I absolutely hate the franchise system and for me P&R, while imperfect, is the way to go.

    If you have a ten-team league with licensing in place, you'll have three or four clubs with nothing to play for and nothing to fight against. They'll bumble along just fulfilling their fixtures and showing no ambition whatsoever.

    Meanwhile the Championship, which has been revitalised since P&R returned, will be once more reduced to a lifeless shell.

    Licensing might in theory bring some financial security, but IMO it also must act as a strong deterrent to anyone thinking of investing in a club outside of SL.

    Add to that the fact that every franchising decision made by the sport, with the notable exception of Catalans, has been disastrous.

    I was feeling upbeat yesterday after the news about the game possibly getting regular terrestrial coverage, but the prospect of a 10-team SL with no promotion or relegation has brought me right back down again.
    Where’s there been anything about a licenced ten team league? I was under the impression it was two leagues of ten with promotion and relegation between the two.
    St Helens Rugby League Football Club

  6. #31
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,856
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    I can see the financial argument for licensing, but I'm a bit of a fundamentalist on this issue: I absolutely hate the franchise system and for me P&R, while imperfect, is the way to go.

    If you have a ten-team league with licensing in place, you'll have three or four clubs with nothing to play for and nothing to fight against. They'll bumble along just fulfilling their fixtures and showing no ambition whatsoever.

    Meanwhile the Championship, which has been revitalised since P&R returned, will be once more reduced to a lifeless shell.

    Licensing might in theory bring some financial security, but IMO it also must act as a strong deterrent to anyone thinking of investing in a club outside of SL.

    Add to that the fact that every franchising decision made by the sport, with the notable exception of Catalans, has been disastrous.

    I was feeling upbeat yesterday after the news about the game possibly getting regular terrestrial coverage, but the prospect of a 10-team SL with no promotion or relegation has brought me right back down again.
    This is a thoroughly depressing thread but I agree with you on promotion and relegation. Championship teams need an incentive and the hangers on in the top division need some jeopardy to keep them on their toes.

  7. #32
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,856
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    Where’s there been anything about a licenced ten team league? I was under the impression it was two leagues of ten with promotion and relegation between the two.
    Webbo’s post raises the possibility. He has good reasons for suggesting it but I don’t like the idea of returning to a closed shop for financial reasons. Anyway, no matter what any of us think, they’ll keep on tinkering until the game go down the plug hole.

    P.S. I mean any closed shop/franchise system would be introduced for financial reasons- to give clubs security but, in the case of the bottom clubs, no incentive to improve and fight other than to win what for them would be a series of friendlies.

  8. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    I can’t get my head around two leagues of ten. We’ve currently got a Super League littered with clubs with issues; stadia issues, declining crowds, no player pathway etc, some of those clubs with multiple issues. Outside of Super League we’ve got two other full time teams, Toulouse and London. Toulouse seem quite impressive from the outside and London have had more lives than a cat. After that we’ve got a handful of clubs whose declining number of fans yearn for the halcyon days of 25-40 years ago, a couple of clubs with genuine ambition, a few expansion clubs dotted in random locations around England and Wales and a load of clubs who are happy existing and have no real ambition to grow (which is fine). That said, this new TV deal is a short-term fix and doesn’t look like being financially lucrative enough to push some clubs from part-time to full-time, so we’re essentially trimming the Super League and Championship and not a lot more. I’m not sure what the purpose of that would be. As for fourteen, as above, we have a load of clubs who have various issues, why would we dilute an already diluted and pretty bog standard competition, brand and image? It makes no sense and only serves to be a quick fix to get rid of loop fixtures.
    I'd agree with that summary, the key question for me is how the sport can justify reducing the number of teams at elite level (outside finances).
    The popularity of the sport is dwindling at best so how is there any logic for a 10 team League? Basically it would strike me that the sport is reducing its appeal even more and further reducing its geographical exposure. Then there is the commercial implications. Its fair to assume 10 teams = less fixtures and ergo less exposure for the sports commercial partners. Its a crazy suggestion that is like prescribing a diet for an anorexic sufferer.

    The point on the 'handful of clubs' that yearn for halcyon days (off the top of my head: Swinton, Hunslet, Oldham and Rochdale) is apt. I'd guess these teams are a shadow of what they were; they are less culturally relevant than ever and I'd suggest they have a pretty aged fanbase. Surely the sport does'nt want to risk mroe clubs becoming like this?

    It appears Gray's letter was better timed than ever!

  9. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suttoner View Post
    Webbo’s post raises the possibility. He has good reasons for suggesting it but I don’t like the idea of returning to a closed shop for financial reasons. Anyway, no matter what any of us think, they’ll keep on tinkering until the game go down the plug hole.

    P.S. I mean any closed shop/franchise system would be introduced for financial reasons- to give clubs security but, in the case of the bottom clubs, no incentive to improve and fight other than to win what for them would be a series of friendlies.

    Outside of Super League, there would be a separate competition for the non-SL semi-pro clubs. ​

    One problem that teams outside of SL have had is that they compete in a league that is viewed as substandard with the ambition of clubs nothing more than to get into SL. By having a league marketed as a competition in its own right, I think they'd do better.

    If a club or clubs became successful, attracted decent crowds, had a decent stadium and had secure finances, then at the next licence review they could apply to be considered for a SL licence (and replace some shitarsed team like Wakefield).

    Or, as another alternative, they could affiliate with SL clubs (like in Aus with NSW Cup/NRL sides) and act as reserve teams.


    The crucial fact is, if Super League crashes, the professional game in this country dies. The better players would be snapped up by the NRL and rugby union.

    How long would Saints last with that big stadium and crowds around 5k watching semi-fit, semi-pro players of current Championship quality?

    SL needs to be protected at all costs.

  10. #35
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    For the long term, I think two Super Leagues of ten each would be a superb idea, if only because I tabled this suggestion myself years ago. :-)

    The promotion and relegation system has been an integral part of our game since we split from one division in 1974, because it keeps the dream alive for all clubs. However, the Super League formation cut that free gangway in the sense that it made promotion exceptionally difficult, with only one club per year allowed back (if that). Supporters of many clubs saw that their chances of competing with the elite again were doomed, and many clubs still in existence long since gave up their dreams and 75% of their supporters with it.

    Given the financial disparity now between the professional elite and the semi-professional remainder, we are now in a situation where many clubs have no real wish to strive for Super League. They simply could not afford promotion if they wanted it. Some of those clubs are now effectively standing in the way of those who wish to progress. This isn’t so much evident now, as third tier clubs such as Bradford, York and Newcastle have managed to escape, but it was so when they were attacking one, maybe two promotion positions together, whilst the likes of Sheffield, Oldham, Batley and Dewsbury in the division above all said at some point that they simply had no Super League ambitions.

    Promotion and relegation as it stands isn’t working. The gulf has become too big. Leigh will surely go down, as will next year’s Champions of the second tier twelve months later. London gave it a good shot, but it’s financially done for them and Widnes have never managed to get out of their financially troubled cycle. The only team to have come up in the last twenty years after a long spell out of top flight rugby and really make a go of life in Super League is Hull KR, and they are perennial strugglers.

    What we need is a promotion and relegation scenario that is not so damaging that clubs have to spend beyond their means to try and achieve one and avoid the other. To my mind, if we can create a two-tiered competition along the lines of the County Cricket Championship split then we have excitement drama and solvency.

    If 20 clubs take a much more equal share of the Super League money, then you can have two up and two down each year without the catastrophic implications of relegation. Clubs would not need to spend beyond their means. They could grow organically. Relegation would not be a financial disaster.

    If we look at the game now, we only have a select few that would want to be in this elite twenty. The likes of those clubs mentioned before realise that their support level and potential is limited. However, for those outside of the initial twenty with ambition, including potential new clubs, there can be a mechanism of entry/re-entry based upon an application system every three years or so and an RFL that is tough on those within the twenty who are not performing on or off the field. We’ve got to a point now when most non-Super League clubs have accepted that lower division rugby is all there is for them. They need to break these divisions into two. Those that fancy a gamble at the big time, and those that are happy to carry on as they are, because this isn’t the 1980’s. Super League changed everything and there is no real going back. In Rugby League, many clubs have lost that dream of the big time. Therefore, we must now work with what we have today.

    In my opinion, we have the existing 12, plus Toulouse, Featherstone, Bradford, Widnes, York, Newcastle, Halifax and London, and there’s your 20. I don’t seriously see anyone beyond those clubs who have any real long term interest in striving for the top.

    So, for those progressive, we’d have a chance to expand the Super League empire to encompass new clubs, and the excitement that a two tier system would provide would give us a chance to negotiate better TV and sponsorship deals that could help finance those extra clubs.

    We simply haven’t got the quality of personnel for a 14 team top flight, and you might argue we haven’t enough for 12. 10 might breed a bit too much familiarity, but the whole two tier set up could provide excitement, drama and increased support.

    Or maybe I’m a hopeless sporting romantic who is missing something! 😊
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

  11. #36
    In The South Stand Tabasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rivington Road, St Helens
    Posts
    2,903
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Taken from SeriousaboutRL

    “There have been claims that a possible restructuring would be in the pipeline, with the elite tier being reduced to ten, but Davy was keen to stress that won’t be the case.”

  12. #37
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,643
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Ten sounds good in principal but three games a year against the same opponents doesn’t sound so good and dropping to a nineteen game season (9 H&A and Magic) just isn’t viable for anyone, so it looks like twenty-seven games and playing everyone every few weeks. I’d say the novelty will wear off but we’ve had twenty plus years of Huddersfield and Wakefield and the novelty wore off years ago.

    I wouldn’t want to go to 14 either. We’ve got twelve clubs now and among them are clubs riddled with stadium issues (Cas, Wakefield, Salford), poor crowds (numerous), no Academy (Leigh and Salford) and clubs spending nowhere near the cap (again, numerous). I don’t see what adding two more would do, other than exacerbate the issues we have now. Other than losing loop games, I see no point in it.

    I think we should stay at twelve but hit the reset and go to licensing with long term plans to go to fourteen and beyond.
    St Helens Rugby League Football Club

  13. #38
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk The Wee Waa Womble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Harrogate
    Age
    33
    Posts
    7,965
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    Ten sounds good in principal but three games a year against the same opponents doesn’t sound so good and dropping to a nineteen game season (9 H&A and Magic) just isn’t viable for anyone, so it looks like twenty-seven games and playing everyone every few weeks. I’d say the novelty will wear off but we’ve had twenty plus years of Huddersfield and Wakefield and the novelty wore off years ago.

    I wouldn’t want to go to 14 either. We’ve got twelve clubs now and among them are clubs riddled with stadium issues (Cas, Wakefield, Salford), poor crowds (numerous), no Academy (Leigh and Salford) and clubs spending nowhere near the cap (again, numerous). I don’t see what adding two more would do, other than exacerbate the issues we have now. Other than losing loop games, I see no point in it.

    I think we should stay at twelve but hit the reset and go to licensing with long term plans to go to fourteen and beyond.
    With 10 clubs you could actually end up playing the same club 7 times in one season. 3x league, 1x magic, 1x challenge cup, 2x play offs (format depending).
    Forwards win games. The backs decide by how much.

  14. #39
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,178
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    Ten teams would be woeful. It’s bad enough playing only a couple of sides three times a year, playing Wigan every eight weeks or so, probably less with the cup and play-offs, does nothing for me and that’s our biggest game and biggest rival, so playing Wakefield or Huddersfield three times is as appetising and appealing as licking the wall in the men’s on the scaff.
    I wasn't advocating a 10 team league, but if we have one I think Stiddy's suggestion is workable. If we had the depth I would much prefer to see an enlarged SL with no loop fixtures.

  15. #40
    In The South Stand KentishBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,737
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wee Waa Womble View Post
    With 10 clubs you could actually end up playing the same club 7 times in one season. 3x league, 1x magic, 1x challenge cup, 2x play offs (format depending).
    Didn't we have that possibility anyway with recent structures?

  16. #41
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    It was interesting to think about how often we could play Wigan if we went too far with the loop fixtures in a new system, because I've never remembered an era in my time watching the game when we ever just played them twice a season given all the Cup comps, Premiership, play-off games we had that invariably meant we played Wigan more than the traditional two league games.

    I had a quick scoot through the Heritage site and found out that in the 36 seasons I've followed Saints we've only had 3 where we played Wigan only twice. Loads of seasons had at least 4 games, and a couple had as high as 6. So, in a way I don't think it's a massive issue in terms of the amount of games, but more a problem of the games these days not being that important given the structure we play in.

  17. #42
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    P&R seems to be something that has been brought back to silence crying from the lower leagues. 1 up 1 down, 2 up 2 down, super 8s are all promotion and relegation and non help with the long term sustainability of the sport.

    That being said some teams response to getting a three year licence was to change grounds and put out substandard teams.

    It has been my opinion for a while that we need a genuine hybrid system where all teams are continually assessed and determined the highest and lowest place on the ladder they can play at. Security for critical teams and opportunity for teams on the fringes.

    Once you know the teams fulfil certain criteria you can then change the sizes of the league to accommodate the teams we have.

    At the moment we have 9 teams regardless of the size of the league
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

  18. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noel Cleal View Post
    P&R seems to be something that has been brought back to silence crying from the lower leagues. 1 up 1 down, 2 up 2 down, super 8s are all promotion and relegation and non help with the long term sustainability of the sport.

    That being said some teams response to getting a three year licence was to change grounds and put out substandard teams.

    It has been my opinion for a while that we need a genuine hybrid system where all teams are continually assessed and determined the highest and lowest place on the ladder they can play at. Security for critical teams and opportunity for teams on the fringes.

    Once you know the teams fulfil certain criteria you can then change the sizes of the league to accommodate the teams we have.

    At the moment we have 9 teams regardless of the size of the league
    That's not far from what I was advocating.

Posting Permissions

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