Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:34 am  

shadrack wrote:

why dont you get a team on the moon as well.

One step at a time, shadrack. The Mars RL team, backed by a silicon valley tech trillionaire, are first in the queue and could be competing in a 6 team Super league by as early as 2029.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:37 am  

It always amazes me how easily Jean can derail a thread, fair play

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:36 am  

Bad idea IMO. It would mean two less clubs benefiting from having Leeds, Wigan etc bringing good away followings. More games against the same opposition is boring for fans as well. We would also face the realistic possibility of only having 8 English top flight teams, which wouldn't be good for our national side. I can see the benefit in removing focus from League 1 though to be honest, a lot of those sides would be just as well playing in the NCL.

The only potential benefits I see in this, are that the SL2 would be a stronger competition, which they may have more chance of selling a TV contract and sponsorship for. Plus it would be beneficial to the likes of Featherstone and Halifax (for example), who may get 3,000 crowds hosting the likes of Widnes and Hull KR, rather than 2,000 against Rochdale and Swinton. I don't think that's a good enough reason to do it though. The only way I'd support it, is if they raised the cap for SL1 so we could attract/retain more talent, and used the extra weekends for internationals, if we could convince the NRL to play ball.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:19 am  

Seems like if this went ahead it would be the first step towards franchising. There will be promotion between tier 2 and 3 to start with but with all funding going to the 20 super league clubs then the 3rd tier will just get weaker and weaker and it isn't fantastic now. With 4 clubs dropping down to that level as well we will lose a few clubs there and they would have to be the expansion teams such as coventry, newcastle, hemel, skolars simply because they are the weakest teams so the slight progress that has been made there over the last few years would be completely undone. With certain criteria needing to be met by those clubs to be promoted then it is unlikely that many, if any, will be so after a couple of years that is when franchising would probably come in and a lot of 3rd tier clubs would be completely forgotten about.

You'd also have to wonder whether with so much focus and money being concentrated on the 20 super league clubs would the amateur game be a bit neglected. One criteria of super league 1 and 2 for me would be that it would be absolutely required to run a reserve league to develop and bring through younger players that way.

One positive I suppose would be that the competition would seem a bit more modern and a system of franchising would be more appealing to the north american market. A more modern competition would perhaps bring in more investment and so more money and a better tv deal, especially seen as this system would clearly include london and a number of north american sides. Of course, while we would want a london side in the competition, currently they would clearly not meet the criteria for a decent stadium and decent crowds and you can't just conjure up 10,000 people crowds overnight so some clubs would have to be given a certain amount of leniency for a couple of years you would think.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:31 am  

yorksguy1865 wrote:

Seems like if this went ahead it would be the first step towards franchising. There will be promotion between tier 2 and 3 to start with but with all funding going to the 20 super league clubs then the 3rd tier will just get weaker and weaker and it isn't fantastic now. With 4 clubs dropping down to that level as well we will lose a few clubs there and they would have to be the expansion teams such as coventry, newcastle, hemel, skolars simply because they are the weakest teams so the slight progress that has been made there over the last few years would be completely undone. With certain criteria needing to be met by those clubs to be promoted then it is unlikely that many, if any, will be so after a couple of years that is when franchising would probably come in and a lot of 3rd tier clubs would be completely forgotten about.

You'd also have to wonder whether with so much focus and money being concentrated on the 20 super league clubs would the amateur game be a bit neglected. One criteria of super league 1 and 2 for me would be that it would be absolutely required to run a reserve league to develop and bring through younger players that way.

One positive I suppose would be that the competition would seem a bit more modern and a system of franchising would be more appealing to the north american market. A more modern competition would perhaps bring in more investment and so more money and a better tv deal, especially seen as this system would clearly include london and a number of north american sides. Of course, while we would want a london side in the competition, currently they would clearly not meet the criteria for a decent stadium and decent crowds and you can't just conjure up 10,000 people crowds overnight so some clubs would have to be given a certain amount of leniency for a couple of years you would think.

Newcastle I'll give you, but what progress has been made at Hemel? They use Dewsbury reserves, get hammered every week, with a man and his dog in the crowd (they report around 100, but I've been there and it's definitely exaggerated). No harm at all in them dropping down to the NCL IMO, I don't think they would even be in the Premier Division.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:13 am  

Grimmy wrote:

Newcastle I'll give you, but what progress has been made at Hemel? They use Dewsbury reserves, get hammered every week, with a man and his dog in the crowd (they report around 100, but I've been there and it's definitely exaggerated). No harm at all in them dropping down to the NCL IMO, I don't think they would even be in the Premier Division.

I quite agree that Hemel wouldn't exactly be a loss, I was just meaning that the current policy of expansion as a whole, rather than at individual clubs, over the previous few years will be completely undone, I was just listing a few expansion clubs off the top of my head as examples of who would be dropped, but yeah, Hemel's inclusion in the pyramid is pointless. Another couple of failed expansion teams in Gloucestershire and Oxford are merging of course so it will be interesting to see what happens there and whether that Bristol side will play any part in a future 2 tier Super League should it happen. It seems like the list of teams that could potentially be included is just getting longer and longer with french teams, north american teams, bristol, london.

20 teams clearly isn't enough so some of these expansion teams will have to be dropped or some existing heartland teams and that isn't exactly going to make the existing rugby league fan base happy. Though I say 20 teams isn't enough but with less teams the quality might be better, at least in Super League 1. There certainly isn't enough decent talent to go right down through the 20 teams.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:57 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

Newcastle I'll give you, but what progress has been made at Hemel? They use Dewsbury reserves, get hammered every week, with a man and his dog in the crowd (they report around 100, but I've been there and it's definitely exaggerated). No harm at all in them dropping down to the NCL IMO, I don't think they would even be in the Premier Division.

The top amateur clubs would walk League 1

Regards

King james

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:37 pm  

10 teams isn't enough for a top flight competition. We're struggling to gain any attention, coverage or sponsorship as it is. We need a bigger competition which has wider appeal, not a smaller one.

It strikes me that the whole 2x10 SL idea is [yet another] sop to the chairmen of clubs who permanently exist around the bottom of SL/top of Championship. They're neither competitive nor net contributors to the game, and they never will be, yet they act as a barrier to prevent clubs which MIGHT be competitive or net contributors from even reaching the top table. This sounds like someone's cunning plan to shift them out of the top flight in the first instance by making out they'll still be able to scoop up the cash, and then when they're out, it'd be easier to shift in clubs with more potential/appeal.

Not a great idea IMO. I'd prefer a line-in-the-sand approach where a new 16-team SL is formed from 2019, requiring all clubs who want to enter to submit their bid to be assessed for inclusion. So a return to licensing. Any club with ambitions to join the top flight in future would have to build and plan to take part in a future regular bidding round.

If we continue to structure our game in order to cater to the desires of small clubs in areas where there is already saturation, then we will continue to shrink.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:42 pm  

So, we will be sold the idea on this allowing 20 full time professional clubs, with promotion and relegation between SL 1 & SL 2.
But, how much of the available funds will SL1 take and what will be left for the rest and the harsh reality is that we will actually be relegating a further 2 clubs from the top flight.
This will do little to allow the "expansion" clubs to compete at the top of the game and as other posters have suggested, it also looks like the entre back into "franchising", with the possible future "International SL" being the ultimate goal.

THe big clubs have wanted to reduce SL for some time, so that they can take a greater share of the Sky monies and hey presto, here it comes.

In the words of Jim Bowen, Great, Super, Smashing, come and have a look at what you could have won.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:43 pm  

DGM wrote:

Eh? Did you read it through properly?

Under these apparent proposals, P&R isn't being scrapped, there'll still be P&R between SL2 and the 3rd Tier, providing certain criteria are met, so any of the clubs you mentioned can still aspire to SL, as well as the sport attracting outside investment. Nobody is destroying anything, L1 only get about £50k as it is - if a club can't make up a £50k annual revenue shortfall, do we really need em?

It's fair to assume the 20 clubs will consist of Toulouse, Catalans, Toronto & NY. 20% are 'expansion' clubs.

Yes I did read it. The bit you underlined was referring to the past.
Yes there is a semblance of p & r. But the clubs promoted will be on the back foot given that everybody will have had at least a season of cash. So creating a yo yo effect which does nothing for the league.
And the only clubs at the top will be the one with benefactors. So in practice it won't be much of a p&r.

You could argue your point about money the other way around. SL already get most of TV money, add on ticket, merchandising and corporate packages. So why do they need the £100,00 that could be a lifeline to other clubs? If they that desperate for it, perhaps they should do more marketing of there own clubs.

Think you're right about the clubs involved. But then we're do Newcastle, Coventry (as Wasps), Bristol, Dublin who are all intrested in franchise SL. the other American clubs come in.
If you start them in league 1, it becomes even more of a joke league. Or do you kick more clubs out of SL 1/2 for them?

I still have reservations about the whole American thing.
If it works great.
But we seem to be thinking that a country that already has 4 mainstream sports (and that's just at professional level, not to mention the high school, college leagues), where other sports like RU have been trying to get a foothold for years. To be our saviour, and through all this money into the sport. Like I said great if it works, but it's going to take along time.
And I can't help but think, that by then they'll have there own league set up, and won't be needing us.