Changes to the structure : Thu May 09, 2013 8:27 pm  

John Kear spoke in a very passionate way on boots and all about the way forward for the game. It actually made a great deal of sense. Clubs such as Halifax Leigh and Fev at the higher end of the Championship need a way forward and clubs at the bottom end of super league need to be lifted from complacency. I suppose what would need to come out of all this is a minimum standard for stadiums and attendances for aspiring clubs but we do need the game to leave this rut of meaningless games every season, unless you are Leeds of course, I notice Mr Hethrington did not see much wrong with the status quo. At least this would provide a level of promotion and relegation in a controlled fashion and to be fair the Cas chief exec said change was appropriate.

Re: Changes to the structure : Fri May 10, 2013 8:30 pm  

Loz wrote:

John Kear spoke in a very passionate way on boots and all about the way forward for the game. It actually made a great deal of sense. Clubs such as Halifax Leigh and Fev at the higher end of the Championship need a way forward and clubs at the bottom end of super league need to be lifted from complacency. I suppose what would need to come out of all this is a minimum standard for stadiums and attendances for aspiring clubs but we do need the game to leave this rut of meaningless games every season, unless you are Leeds of course, I notice Mr Hethrington did not see much wrong with the status quo. At least this would provide a level of promotion and relegation in a controlled fashion and to be fair the Cas chief exec said change was appropriate.

Crikey, I clicked on to your thread title thinking it was about the new (alleged) cladding for LP.

(no offence)

Re: Changes to the structure : Fri May 10, 2013 8:41 pm  

Loz wrote:

John Kear spoke in a very passionate way on boots and all about the way forward for the game. It actually made a great deal of sense. Clubs such as Halifax Leigh and Fev at the higher end of the Championship need a way forward and clubs at the bottom end of super league need to be lifted from complacency. I suppose what would need to come out of all this is a minimum standard for stadiums and attendances for aspiring clubs but we do need the game to leave this rut of meaningless games every season, unless you are Leeds of course, I notice Mr Hethrington did not see much wrong with the status quo. At least this would provide a level of promotion and relegation in a controlled fashion and to be fair the Cas chief exec said change was appropriate.

Sorry Loz, I've just read on BBC Sport about the new structure proposals.

I think we will end up with one of these two:

Option 2 - A two-division Super League with each division comprising 10 teams

Option 3 - Two divisions of 12 in Super League, with teams playing each other once to provide 11 fixtures before splitting into three groups of eight in mid-season and then playing each other home and away to provide 14 more matches

although Option 3 seems overly complicated and convoluted.

Re: Changes to the structure : Fri May 10, 2013 10:26 pm  

At least we've a couple of years grace to get our act together before we face the threat of relegation.......

Re: Changes to the structure : Sat May 11, 2013 9:45 am  

saint at wire wrote:

I think we will end up with one of these two:

Option 2 - A two-division Super League with each division comprising 10 teams

Option 3 - Two divisions of 12 in Super League, with teams playing each other once to provide 11 fixtures before splitting into three groups of eight in mid-season and then playing each other home and away to provide 14 more matches

although Option 3 seems overly complicated and convoluted.

They are seem desperate ideas from a failed CEO of The RFL, why was he ever asked to complete a review of the future when he has governed the game over it's recent failures?

Some of his incompetent ideas seem to have been copied from the Scottish FA which threw one out on a unanimous vote, did Nigel work it all out on the back of a cigarette packet? that is how is seems.

When SL1 Clubs will get £1.8 Million approx from Sky monies how can teams from SL2 ever compete with the £180,000 they are expected to receive, it will be a case of up and down, with still promoted teams being involved in one sides games. It is the rich clubs that will benefit and these days they seem to be Wigan, Leeds, Warrington & Salford!

The game of RL needs someone Fresh to take over the running of the game, the current CEO is desperately out of his depth and should have stayed at Halifax! Sky TV this morning did not even mentioned the Challenge Cup matches last night or even today, but they found time to talk about Rugby Union! if they ever lose interest in the game we are in one complete mess.

Re: Changes to the structure : Sun May 12, 2013 6:17 am  

I actually like the idea. I had the same concerns about teams competing however we were assuming some things.

Re: Changes to the structure : Sun May 12, 2013 7:21 am  

Firstly the money, we have no idea of the split. But with only 12 not 14 teams in the SL, then if you assume a similar split of money at the moment, then that leaves 2 SL clubs worth of money to be split between the lower division clubs, this will boost their income. Also with 2 bigger teams relegated to SL2, that should provide a minor boost to crowds.

For those at the top 4 of SL2, they should also gain an increase in attendances given they are now playing for something. Then when the leagues merge and split again you will now have 4 SL clubs with their attendances to boost. Also with division 2 effectively being a promotion and relegation league there should be a boost to attendances anyway as there is something on the line, where as at the moment in SL the bottom 4 have nothing on the line. And the top 4 in the championship are playing to gain nothing at the end of the day other than sporting wins.

Also yesterday we learned that in this option 3 points are carried forwards. So those will less income in SL2 come the split get the advantage of points in the bag.

After 11 games, you can imagine a club at the top of SL2, will have 22 points and the club at the bottom of SL 1 will have 0 points. If that was the case, there are only 14 games left in which to cover the distance, that's 28 points. Not alot of wiggle room to catch up, but it would be a fair response for not being competitive in those first 11 games.

Also even though the leagues are not even, it does not matter as the outcome of all the 3 divisions will be by playoffs. So it now justifies a playoff, compared to the current situation where the playoffs seam an uneven response to a fair even set of rounds.

In the end the clubs will have to vote on it so it will not be down to Nigel Wood or the RFL. If the clubs want 12 and 12, one up and one down, then they can vote for it.

But because something is a little different and new it does not mean it will not work.

I think the option 3 satisfies a lot of issues in terms of RL.

It offers promotion and relegation, it offers more money to the lower division, it offers the maximum in terms of competitive games. For clubs who can pay the max salary cap, if things work out as they should, then the top 8 will be those teams and so those final 14 games should be more competitive, probably with a top 3 -5 playoff at the end.

There is also the marketing side of this, the first 11 games in SL1 and SL2 could be sold seperately to TV companies, then the division 1 and division 2 games could also be sold seperately.

Fans should get maximum value from each game, teams will have to be putting out their best as a slow start to the season will see your chances of staying in the league of your choice stopped.

I would also suggest that tied into this you can have a mid-season break for the CC. After the first 11 rounds, the leagues split, but also you throw in as many rounds of the CC as possible. Allowing teams who get knocked out a rest period and then relaunch the divisions afterwards, a bit like having 2 starts to the season.

I think there is a lot going for this idea and I can see the clubs voting for it.

Top clubs as the coaches get the most competitve league they can hope for and Chairmen get maximum gate receipts with big clubs playing each other for the final 14 games. Also they get 25 rounds so no loss of income round wise.

The 'Yo-Yo' clubs will vote for it as it will offer them something to play for and should help them boost their crowds. The Championship clubs will vote for it as it offers them more money, bigger crowds and a chance to play for promotion.

The RFL will vote for it as it offers them a chance to offer expansion clubs a way in, also if clubs 'yo-yo' it's not such a big deal as the next season they can get a chance to play similar clubs again.

The money side will be something to watch, but I see no reason if a Kokash wanted to buy Sheffield, this would make it easier for him to get Sheffield into the top flight in double quick time.

The only ones I can see who may vote against are those happy with the status quo, bottom clubs in championship and the likes of Leeds who get pretty much maximum crowds at present.

Re: Changes to the structure : Sun May 12, 2013 7:22 am  

bewareshadows wrote:

I actually like the idea. I had the same concerns about teams competing and the money split, however I was assuming things, being different to what we now know.

Re: Changes to the structure : Sun May 12, 2013 9:59 am  

bewareshadows wrote:

I actually like the idea. I had the same concerns about teams competing however we were assuming some things.

Still not convinced it will make the game better and bring in big money and sponsorship, even more so after listening to the CEO on the red button after the game yesterday, as I said these ideas were floated by Scottish Football, why was Nigel Woods ever asked to complete a review of the game when he is part of the current failure, the problem is he is CEO and in discussions too many creep up to him and he tried to creep up to Jon Wilkin yesterday in the debate.

The game needs a Jon Wilkin or Robbie Hunter Paul to be in charge, someone who has played the game and has a modern approach to sport and RL in particular, the work Jon is doing with the players union may be good stead but we need someone now, the old brigade who have allowed RL to deteriorate sponsorship, media coverage, running of big games need to go NOW before any change is even taken one step further!

Re: Changes to the structure : Sun May 12, 2013 11:17 am  

jaybs wrote:

Still not convinced it will make the game better and bring in big money and sponsorship, even more so after listening to the CEO on the red button after the game yesterday, as I said these ideas were floated by Scottish Football, why was Nigel Woods ever asked to complete a review of the game when he is part of the current failure, the problem is he is CEO and in discussions too many creep up to him and he tried to creep up to Jon Wilkin yesterday in the debate.

The game needs a Jon Wilkin or Robbie Hunter Paul to be in charge, someone who has played the game and has a modern approach to sport and RL in particular, the work Jon is doing with the players union may be good stead but we need someone now, the old brigade who have allowed RL to deteriorate sponsorship, media coverage, running of big games need to go NOW before any change is even taken one step further!

He wasn't it was Maurice Watkins that reviewed it and gave his recommendations, these proposals have come from that report.