Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:47 pm  

JEAN CAPDOUZE wrote:

What a load of rubbish the 2 x 10 is. It is a deceptive way of reconstituting the Super League and the Championship, with not enough places in the top level for all the much needed expansion teams that are rising up.

We need a 14 team Super League, that includes Catalans, Toronto Toulouse and London, with the option of expanding to 16 if New York and another north American or French team become viable enterprises.

Beneath that you can have a successful Championship with the likes of Leigh, Salford, Widnes, Wakefield, Featherstone, Halifax, Sheffield.

The ideal Super League from 2021 on needs 14 or 16 clubs, to consist of only strongly supported clubs and strategically vital clubs:

Wigan,
St. Helens
Warrington
Leeds,
Bradford,
Hull FC,
Hull KR,
Huddersfield,
Castleford,
London

Catalans
Toulouse

Toronto
New York

Montreal
Boston

If either the French or north American teams are successful on and of the field, then we should consider adding Avignon and Paris in the French case, and two out of Chicago, Philadelphia and Jacksonville in the north American case. That would then constitute a truly international Super League that would overwhelm the NRL in its significance.

Based on Catalans performace the last 2 seasons, they wouldnt and shouldnt be included in the list

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:03 pm  

luke ShipleyRed wrote:

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.

I'm fairly sceptical about the North American venture. I see why it's easy to be cautious about its prospects.

However, I think we need to view this in context: our game, as it is, is dying on its feet in this country. Participation numbers have crashed. Crowds are stagnant at best. Our paymasters at SKY are apparently looking to reduce the funding. We're struggling to find any sponsors, let alone blue-chip ones. And the showcase of the game - the super league - has seen a huge contraction, losing our only club in the capital, and one of our few genuinely 'big' clubs at Bradford. Along the way, we've also lost Paris, Gateshead, Wales and Sheffield. The single example of our sport growing, rather than shrinking, at the top level, is Catalans, and they were 80 minutes from being relegated last year in favour of a second club in Wigan. If that had happened, Rugby League's top flight would have been smaller geographically than at any time since we went fully professional in 1996.

There will be people who deny this, and I guess if you're a few streets away from Saints, Wigan, Leeds or Hull you might argue that you don't see what the problem is. But outside of those few spots (it's not even an M62 corridor any more - just a few areas along it), the only reason people haven't noticed the game is shrinking is that they don't notice it exists in the first place.

The North American ventures, the sacking of Big Nigel, the scrabbling around for new structures, and even the grumpy Hetherington attack on RL journalists, are all stemming from the same place: we're in deep trouble, and people are desperately looking for something - anything - which might save us.

There is a big tension here between different goals: clubs like Salford, Widnes, Wakefield etc are themselves struggling, and so their priority is to save their own advantages and position within the game, which means fighting to preserve their share of TV money, to retain P&R to save their position at the bottom of the league, and to place obstacles in the way of other clubs which might replace them. The clubs like Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Wire and Hull are not themselves in deep trouble yet, but recognise that if the game goes down, they go down with it, and so are much more focused on what can be done to attract more TV money, more sponsorship and more attention to the game as a whole. They are much more open to the idea of expanding the game to a North American market which, while risky, at least offers new income streams, and new potential, where there is none left in the so-called heartlands.

To me, the situation is a choice between a risky expansionist "Hail Mary" venture which may not work, or continuing to do what we've always done, which will inevitably continue the decline we are now clearly in. On the grounds that a small chance of success is still better than the certainty of failure, sign me up for Toronto, New York, London, Bradford and Toulouse.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:37 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

I'm fairly sceptical about the North American venture. I see why it's easy to be cautious about its prospects.

However, I think we need to view this in context: our game, as it is, is dying on its feet in this country. Participation numbers have crashed. Crowds are stagnant at best. Our paymasters at SKY are apparently looking to reduce the funding. We're struggling to find any sponsors, let alone blue-chip ones. And the showcase of the game - the super league - has seen a huge contraction, losing our only club in the capital, and one of our few genuinely 'big' clubs at Bradford. Along the way, we've also lost Paris, Gateshead, Wales and Sheffield. The single example of our sport growing, rather than shrinking, at the top level, is Catalans, and they were 80 minutes from being relegated last year in favour of a second club in Wigan. If that had happened, Rugby League's top flight would have been smaller geographically than at any time since we went fully professional in 1996.

There will be people who deny this, and I guess if you're a few streets away from Saints, Wigan, Leeds or Hull you might argue that you don't see what the problem is. But outside of those few spots (it's not even an M62 corridor any more - just a few areas along it), the only reason people haven't noticed the game is shrinking is that they don't notice it exists in the first place.

The North American ventures, the sacking of Big Nigel, the scrabbling around for new structures, and even the grumpy Hetherington attack on RL journalists, are all stemming from the same place: we're in deep trouble, and people are desperately looking for something - anything - which might save us.

There is a big tension here between different goals: clubs like Salford, Widnes, Wakefield etc are themselves struggling, and so their priority is to save their own advantages and position within the game, which means fighting to preserve their share of TV money, to retain P&R to save their position at the bottom of the league, and to place obstacles in the way of other clubs which might replace them. The clubs like Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Wire and Hull are not themselves in deep trouble yet, but recognise that if the game goes down, they go down with it, and so are much more focused on what can be done to attract more TV money, more sponsorship and more attention to the game as a whole. They are much more open to the idea of expanding the game to a North American market which, while risky, at least offers new income streams, and new potential, where there is none left in the so-called heartlands.

To me, the situation is a choice between a risky expansionist "Hail Mary" venture which may not work, or continuing to do what we've always done, which will inevitably continue the decline we are now clearly in. On the grounds that a small chance of success is still better than the certainty of failure, sign me up for Toronto, New York, London, Bradford and Toulouse.

How are Wakefield struggling? I'm confused. As a fan, if you are continuing t live in the past then yes we can always be deemed as perennial strugglers. But, it isn't the past. It is now. And the club is doing better than it has at any other time in Super League.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:45 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

I'm fairly sceptical about the North American venture. I see why it's easy to be cautious about its prospects.

However, I think we need to view this in context: our game, as it is, is dying on its feet in this country. Participation numbers have crashed. Crowds are stagnant at best. Our paymasters at SKY are apparently looking to reduce the funding. We're struggling to find any sponsors, let alone blue-chip ones. And the showcase of the game - the super league - has seen a huge contraction, losing our only club in the capital, and one of our few genuinely 'big' clubs at Bradford. Along the way, we've also lost Paris, Gateshead, Wales and Sheffield. The single example of our sport growing, rather than shrinking, at the top level, is Catalans, and they were 80 minutes from being relegated last year in favour of a second club in Wigan. If that had happened, Rugby League's top flight would have been smaller geographically than at any time since we went fully professional in 1996.

There will be people who deny this, and I guess if you're a few streets away from Saints, Wigan, Leeds or Hull you might argue that you don't see what the problem is. But outside of those few spots (it's not even an M62 corridor any more - just a few areas along it), the only reason people haven't noticed the game is shrinking is that they don't notice it exists in the first place.

The North American ventures, the sacking of Big Nigel, the scrabbling around for new structures, and even the grumpy Hetherington attack on RL journalists, are all stemming from the same place: we're in deep trouble, and people are desperately looking for something - anything - which might save us.

There is a big tension here between different goals: clubs like Salford, Widnes, Wakefield etc are themselves struggling, and so their priority is to save their own advantages and position within the game, which means fighting to preserve their share of TV money, to retain P&R to save their position at the bottom of the league, and to place obstacles in the way of other clubs which might replace them. The clubs like Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Wire and Hull are not themselves in deep trouble yet, but recognise that if the game goes down, they go down with it, and so are much more focused on what can be done to attract more TV money, more sponsorship and more attention to the game as a whole. They are much more open to the idea of expanding the game to a North American market which, while risky, at least offers new income streams, and new potential, where there is none left in the so-called heartlands.

To me, the situation is a choice between a risky expansionist "Hail Mary" venture which may not work, or continuing to do what we've always done, which will inevitably continue the decline we are now clearly in. On the grounds that a small chance of success is still better than the certainty of failure, sign me up for Toronto, New York, London, Bradford and Toulouse.

Good post but, why the f*** did we drop "franchising" and reduce SL, when the model was already in place to allow new clubs to come in.
We just make the sport look amateur (which in terms of "organisation", I believe it is).
I dot think there is one remedy to cure the ill's of the game and we shouldn't be looking for yet another quick fix.
Three years ago "every minute" mattered, apparently and now, the visionary's within the sport are "embarrassed" that we cant manipulate the system to fast track Toronto and Toulouse.

IF this is the primary aim of any new structure, why not take the very simple option of expanding SL by 2 clubs, exempt them both from relegation for 2 or 3 seasons and have done with it. There may be issues along the way, especially with promotion and relegation but, this simple change would allow the game to see whether Toronto and Toulouse are viable options, without risking the possibility of terminal damage to the game.

This seems like a win/win, with the exception of the few that say, "all new clubs should start in League 1" , because Toronto in League 1 was a bloody farce and yet again, made RL look amateur.

We ought to take up the mantra odf "do it once but, do it right"

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:11 pm  

2 leagues of 10 is a terrible idea.
Super League needs to get bigger not smaller.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:47 pm  

It's just not clear what two leagues of ten would actually deliver here.

'Super League 2' is bascially a rebranding job for the Championship - and a bad one at that. It doesn't make the Championship 'Super League', and it cheapens what is currently Super League. And as the talent and invariably the money would gravitate towards the top league, I don't see what an 'SL2' offers to anyone.

The original post mentioned a "14 team Super League with strict off-field eligibility criteria", which smells of a move towards franchising. Personally, I think franchising is the better model for the game given its current state (the old version was badly implemented and wasn't based on sound criteria), but I have reservations about the 14 team league. One of the things we should be moving towards on the field is greater intensity and making games more competitive, and I don't see how adding two additional teams from the Championship serves that purpose.

The biggest questions that aren't being answered behind any proposal that is reportedly on the table is "why?". What is the end goal in any of this? What is the end goal? What are the commercial objectives? What are the playing objectives? What do the key stakeholders (clubs, SLE, broadcasters) need to bring to the party? What does success look like?

I completely agree with Roy Haggerty in that we have more to lose by doing nothing than we do by taking a risk in North America, but those questions need to be addressed before any sort of structure is put in place. As it stands, throwing in two extra clubs from the Championship isn't going to achieve anything unless they can keep up with the pace set by the people with the vision to take the sport forward.

We're eerily close to the sort of scenario that the BDO found itself in in the early 90s and people can dismiss this as a power/cash grab by the big clubs as much as they like, but it's going to be the smaller clubs that get hurt the most if that sort of scenario actually plays out. It's no accident that we've had three clubs spending a combined five weeks in Australia this month, and it's no accident that all three took sizeable commercial and business development teams with them.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:58 pm  

If there is to be Stadia criteria then surely Cas will be alright but Wakey might be in trouble & where do Toronto stand given that they have to play half the season away before half at home ?

If there is to be attendance criteria then you would expect Salford, Widnes & possibly Huddersfield to be in trouble ?

I make that 4 current SL Clubs + the expansionists wet dream who might not qualify if those criteria are rigorously imposed.

Salford might yet go 'Pop' even before any restructure if reports are to be believed.

Anyway, strikes me as a rebranding of SL & Championship with a cut in Club numbers, the haves will have more & the have nots will ultimately have less.

Where this leaves CH1 Clubs is anyones guess, but my guess would be for a good few to go to the wall.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:02 pm  

bramleyrhino wrote:

It's just not clear what two leagues of ten would actually deliver here.

'Super League 2' is bascially a rebranding job for the Championship - and a bad one at that. It doesn't make the Championship 'Super League', and it cheapens what is currently Super League. And as the talent and invariably the money would gravitate towards the top league, I don't see what an 'SL2' offers to anyone.

The original post mentioned a "14 team Super League with strict off-field eligibility criteria", which smells of a move towards franchising. Personally, I think franchising is the better model for the game given its current state (the old version was badly implemented and wasn't based on sound criteria), but I have reservations about the 14 team league. One of the things we should be moving towards on the field is greater intensity and making games more competitive, and I don't see how adding two additional teams from the Championship serves that purpose.

The biggest questions that aren't being answered behind any proposal that is reportedly on the table is "why?". What is the end goal in any of this? What is the end goal? What are the commercial objectives? What are the playing objectives? What do the key stakeholders (clubs, SLE, broadcasters) need to bring to the party? What does success look like?

I completely agree with Roy Haggerty in that we have more to lose by doing nothing than we do by taking a risk in North America, but those questions need to be addressed before any sort of structure is put in place. As it stands, throwing in two extra clubs from the Championship isn't going to achieve anything unless they can keep up with the pace set by the people with the vision to take the sport forward.

We're eerily close to the sort of scenario that the BDO found itself in in the early 90s and people can dismiss this as a power/cash grab by the big clubs as much as they like, but it's going to be the smaller clubs that get hurt the most if that sort of scenario actually plays out. It's no accident that we've had three clubs spending a combined five weeks in Australia this month, and it's no accident that all three took sizeable commercial and business development teams with them.

Nothing to lose..... apart from clubs who produce a pathway for countless past and present gb/England internationals in a time when we don’t even have a reserve grade. Nice one

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:27 pm  

Cas Till I Die wrote:

Nothing to lose..... apart from clubs who produce a pathway for countless past and present gb/England internationals in a time when we don’t even have a reserve grade. Nice one

Nah, all the good youngsters come from Wigan and Leeds, I know its usually from junior clubs outside their direct area but, why should anyone be bothered about that.
Greed is good, honest.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:34 pm  

Huddersfield? Bradford?

Forget them in a 10 team league.

Hudds have zero potential and Bradford will NEVER return to be the force they once were.

However, Hudds (and Wakey and Cas), keep doing it where it matters - on the field.

You can dump Widnes any time you like though.