Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:59 pm  

Ste100Centurions wrote:

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 ?

Not sure how true they are, but there are rumours that Cas's new ground is in trouble and has been put back 18 month due to lack of investment.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:05 pm  

Adam_Harrison9 wrote:

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.

Struggling financially, the stadium drama rolls on and on, and the crowds were still bottom 3 in the comp last year, as in the years before. They're doing better on the pitch, but that doesn't matter, bluntly. Nobody cares what happens on the pitch except our existing fans, and we don't have enough of them. If Wakefield's stadium ever actually happened, and they filled it weekly with 10,000 fans, then I would be clamouring for their justified place in the top flight, whether or not they were winning or losing more. But they aren't. Obviously not in such a dire position as Salford, but it's arguable that Widnes are in less trouble because at least they have a stadium.

wrencat1873 wrote:

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.

Because, with the influence of Big Nigel (ex of Halifax), the RFL decided that their top priority was the possibility of Featherstone, Halifax or Leigh gaining promotion for a year in the top flight. The price for P&R, which was clearly only likely to benefit those three clubs, was a reduction in numbers in the top flight to spread the money thicker amongst the remaining clubs, plus a play-off system which I think everyone expected to so heavily favour the fully professional SL sides that actual P&R was seen as only a theoretical possibility, not a real one.

When the decision was taken in 2013 to reduce from 14 to 12, with P&R to follow, I suspect the SL clubs thought that the clubs to be cut would be London, who were in financial collapse at the time, and one of Salford, Widnes, Castleford or Wakefield, based on normal results. They didn't really want London to go, but were willing to pay that price for the extra cash and London seemed a basket case at the time anyway. Everyone was horrified when Bradford, one of the few genuinely big clubs, then collapsed and disappeared along with London, which suddenly made the league look much smaller and more parochial than expected.

We've since had the worst of all worlds. Hull KR and Leigh have demonstrated through their Yo-Yoing that even when it happens, P&R does nothing for the SL competition apart from swap two poorly-supported no-hoper teams in already-saturated markets. However, the near-disappearance of Catalans shook up the bigger clubs, because they can see that if the French follow London and Bradford, SL looks even more parochial and even less attractive to the broadcasters and sponsors. Meanwhile, the relegation of Hull KR and Leigh, who as fully pro sides weren't supposed to fall through the trapdoor, made the lower-half SL clubs terrified, because it could be them, while the possibility of losing a big, rich club like Warrington was just unacceptable to the other clubs. Hence the P&R had to go, for all the reasons which were given, and ignored, for not introducing it in the first place.

The clubs thought they'd been clever in introducing P&R to pacify the top championship clubs and more traditional-minded fans, without the risk of any big clubs falling foul of it because of the play-off system. In many ways, it was supposed to be much more of a closed shop than licensing ever was, because there was now no way for a new club to threaten the place of one of the poor performers other than the supposedly impossible play-off route. What they ended up with is the loss of one of the biggest clubs - Bradford - along with the loss of London, and the too-near-for-comfort potential loss of Warrington and Catalans. Yet while the system seems to allow for the disappearance of some of our few genuine asset clubs, it has become very apparent that the Leigh/Hull KR/Halifax clubs, while unlikely to add much to SL as a competition, are always likely to act as an effective barrier to entry (or re-entry) for new asset clubs clubs with greater commercial/developmental potential like Bradford, Toulouse and Toronto.

The system is a disaster - a genuine risk to the continuity and maybe survival of major clubs in a sport not overflowing with major clubs, but one which ensures that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any new potential to enter the top flight. It has to change.

The defenestration of Nigel Wood was partly the lower-half clubs acting to ensure their own survival, to try and bring the system to an end. But it was also the upper half clubs trying to find a way of recreating a way into SL for clubs beyond the Leigh/Halifax/Fev group in an attempt to improve the marketability and spread of a sport which they know is stagnant and declining. I have heard that they were furious to discover, after Nigel's departure, that the play-offs were enshrined in the TV contract, which explains why no new system has yet been announced, because there'll have to be serious negotiations with Sky first.

We're in uncharted waters, and I would love to have a mole on the inside of the RFL to fill in the gaps in what I've heard/read/gleaned from various places. But on balance, even if for selfish reasons, I think the bigger clubs are trying to take the sport in the right direction. Lenagan, Moran, Pearson, Davy, and McManus are not stupid men. They want a bigger, more attractive competition, and they recognise that all the current structure has achieved is to foster the game's stagnation.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:55 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

I tend to prefer to deal with the present and future rather than the past but now you mention it, of the 23 players that represented England at the last World Cup, 14 of them came from the academies of just four clubs (4 Bradford, 3 Wigan, 4 St Helens and 3 Leeds). Another two were from Australian clubs.

The only one that came from a club in the "heartland" that is the WF postcode area is Alex Walmsley from Batley.

The truth is that Julie Burgess' uterous is more of a "rugby league talent heartland" than some of our heartland clubs.

So wrencat probably isn't far off the mark, Leeds and Wigan probably will produce most of the talent - they're doing it already.

But even if you think that's still "something to lose", if the professional game continues to wither on the vine, we'll get to the point where we won't need a professional player pathway - because there won't be a professional game for them to play.

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

As it stands:
Superleague 1
Leeds
Saints
Wigan
Wakefield
Huddersfield
Castleford
Warrington
Hull FC
HKR
Widnes

Superleague 2
Salford
Catalan
London
Toronto
Toulouse
Featherstone
Leigh
Halifax
Dewsbury
Barrow

New York are still on the "back of a beermat" in terms of anything other than hot air.........but if they come into the game, then Dewsbury or Barrow will make way.

Each division play Home and Away games 3 times for a 27 week season then the top 4 play off in each with the Winners of 2 promoted. If you want a MPG (why I don't know...it got 50k viewers on SKY last year) then 2nd bottom 1 v losing grand finalist 2.....everyone plays to the same salary cap and overseas players rules. I'd actually add a rule that 4 of the match-day squad HAVE TO COME THROUGH THAT CLUBS YOUTH SYSTEM FROM U16 ONWARDS.
Forget stadium standards.......if clubs want to make money rather than lose it they will sort their own facilities out

2 million funding for SL 1, 1 million for SL2. Toronto, Leigh & London all have wealthy backers so would be able to press for a place at the top initially. No dual reg between the 2 comps, but allowed in the 3rd tier.

30 week season enabling breaks for Internationals and the Cup.......whichever TV company we partner with needs to put 1 2nd tier game on a week and 1 game on FTA.....
1 Kit supplier across all 20 sides.......this would make the deal more attractive to suppliers and more lucrative across the board for the clubs.....

Before Chorley Jean pipes up with teams in outer Mongolia, this is what we have NOW and what we can actually do.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:25 pm  

Change Wakefield and hudds for Toronto and Catalans and I would agree with that

Regards

King James

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:58 pm  

In my opinion, the reason the game is stagnating is because we don't have a proper international calender. So are viewed by the masses as a small club game, played in a certain parts of the country. So there is no need for the media to spend money on covering the game. Thus denying us a potential new audience, marketing and investment. And why are bigger companies going to invest when there very little coverage to promote there companies. And by decreasing the league, we're reducing not only people getting involved and wanting more. But potential audiences as well.

The fact that we're looking for other countries to plough money in, rather than trying to improve things in this country seems a risk strategy to me. I'm not against it in principle, and in an ideal world we should be looking at both improving it over hear, with the American money being an added bonus. But what we seem to be doing is giving up on it over hear. And putting all our eggs in one basket. And if this dosn't work, what then?

Let's not hide behind this is to get more money in for the good of the game. It's not, it's so the bigger clubs can get more money in for themselves.
This whole idea is not for the good of the game, or to improve it. It's just simply a money grab.

And what happens when more clubs come in. Newcastle, Coventry (well Wasps anyway), Dublin all wanted to be a part of franchise SL. Not to mention the other proposed American/Canadian clubs. Which league are we starting them in then?

Should we welcome expansion? Yes. Should we use it to promote our sport? completely. Can it benefit our sport? Of course. Should we rely on it? Not in the slightest.
I draw the line when it's at the detriment of existing clubs. And all about changing the goalposts to suit them. It should be one rule for every club, and moving the sport on for everyone. Not just the few.

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

Lebron James wrote:

Change Wakefield and hudds for Toronto and Catalans and I would agree with that

Regards

King James

I see you have 10 reputation points, who gave you them, JEANIE WEANEY?.. ...BTW - JEANIE WEANEY has 10 as well, bit of a coincidence don't you think?

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:45 pm  

luke ShipleyRed wrote:

In my opinion, the reason the game is stagnating is because we don't have a proper international calender.

1. International RL isn't International at all, but instead you have 14/16 sides where the vast majority of their squads come from the 2 Pro comps we have and either speak with a Kiwi, Aussie or Northern English accent. This will remain the norm until we get a much better foothlod in France and expand into North America.
2. NFL doesn't have a healthy International game either, but it seems to do OK. The NFL played 4 games in London last year and attracted 320,000 paying fans........what they do have is media reach and it is what we need more than anything. Toronto v London delivers interest to casual sports fans, Dewsbury v Batley doesn't!


...on the point about "at the expense of heartland/traditional clubs"....these clubs have had 100+ years and still they struggle to attract cash or more than a few hundred fans. They are now considered surplus to requirement by the SL clubs and as such, will either need to evolve or die

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:02 am  

A/
How do you think Cricket and RU would be fairing it it wasn't for there International calender?
In my opinion, alot of there marketing, sponsorship and media coverage. Is down to this, as well as getting alot more casual observers for these reasons.

B/
You're right about the NFL'S media reach.
But they have also had highlights on British tv for over twenty years. With the SB live for most of them. So they already had not just a presence, but had built up a support already before they tried over hear.

C/
Just after we play in Denver. USA are playing a RU international in the same city. Which of these games is already being marketed? Not ours.
Just goes to show, how far behind we are in regards to other sports over there.

D/
Youth could be right about the casual supporter and those 2 games you mentioned.
But to be honest. RL has fallen so far down the pecking order that neither would attract any casual observers.
I was at the York/Toronto game last year, which was very well marketed by both clubs. But most of the extra crowd were supporters of other clubs (it was played on the Sunday of SF weekend when other than Salford/Wigan no other SL or Championship games were on), come to see the fuss with Toronto. We don't appeal to casual observers because of our lack of media and marketing.

Re: 10 TEAM SUPERLEAGUE? : Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:13 am  

luke ShipleyRed wrote:

A/
How do you think Cricket and RU would be fairing it it wasn't for there International calender?
In my opinion, alot of there marketing, sponsorship and media coverage. Is down to this, as well as getting alot more casual observers for these reasons.

Club Union had nothing the year we started SL. The then 5 Nations was a "crown jewel" and attracted interest, but Leicester v Wasps would attract 5k at best.....the fact that Lecester now attract more than any Rugby Club has little to do with the 6 nations and more to do with how that game is run....from the top down. Same in Cricket.....they faltered and T-20 came to the rescue.....the ECB/RFU run their sports well....the RFL don't run Rugby League.....the SL chairmen do.

luke ShipleyRed wrote:

B/
You're right about the NFL'S media reach.
But they have also had highlights on British tv for over twenty years. With the SB live for most of them. So they already had not just a presence, but had built up a support already before they tried over hear.

So a sport from across the pond with a highlights show on C4 has marketed itself better than we have? We've had live club games on FTA for decades......

luke ShipleyRed wrote:

C/
Just after we play in Denver. USA are playing a RU international in the same city. Which of these games is already being marketed? Not ours.
Just goes to show, how far behind we are in regards to other sports over there.

We don't exist and wo't properly until we are a game played in colleges.....it took soccer 40+ years....

luke ShipleyRed wrote:

D/
Youth could be right about the casual supporter and those 2 games you mentioned.
But to be honest. RL has fallen so far down the pecking order that neither would attract any casual observers.

London v Toronto will be of interest. It may well be attended so long as David Hughes isn't still paying for things in London.....if he is then it wouldn't be marketed.

luke ShipleyRed wrote:

I was at the York/Toronto game last year, which was very well marketed by both clubs. But most of the extra crowd were supporters of other clubs (it was played on the Sunday of SF weekend when other than Salford/Wigan no other SL or Championship games were on), come to see the fuss with Toronto. We don't appeal to casual observers because of our lack of media and marketing.

I agree and I believe that the SL clubs should collectively drop 100k into a marketing pot each........