Re: Today's big decision : Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:23 pm  

It's going to be interesting attracting new fans when half of the current fans will probably struggle to understand the format.

It's another complex and unnecessary 'innovation' and I wouldn't even know where to start trying to explain it to my mates who follow other sports and catch the odd RL game.

There will be many fans who won't even bother with the details of the new format, they'll just turn up to the games whenever their team is playing. I may be one of them.

Re: Today's big decision : Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:14 pm  

King Street Cat wrote:

It's going to be interesting attracting new fans when half of the current fans will probably struggle to understand the format.

It's another complex and unnecessary 'innovation' and I wouldn't even know where to start trying to explain it to my mates who follow other sports and catch the odd RL game.

There will be many fans who won't even bother with the details of the new format, they'll just turn up to the games whenever their team is playing. I may be one of them.

Now I can agree with this to a point. My point is that I never started watching RL because of the type of system in place.

I started watching because I enjoyed the spectical and the competition between the sides.

IF this adds to the entertainment and the competition, then knowing how the structure works will be irrelevant to new fans.

A bit like the WC, did new fans kick up a fuss that not all the league were even and that 3 teams came out of some leagues less out of others???

The structure is there, but no one watches for the structure. They watch for entertainment and the passion of following your local side.

Re: Today's big decision : Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:18 pm  

Nat (Rugby_Aholic) wrote:

The fact stands that SL clubs and the RFL have brought this about by making a mockery of the franchising system. People take great pleasure in comparing Bradford/Widness/London to Fax/Fev/Leigh but that cant ever be a fair comparison whilst on is on 1.8m of central funding and the other is on less than 100k. If you give either Fev, Fax or Leigh 1.8m a season and competitive games to bring in the fans the comparison would be much less favourable to the SL clubs.

so how much was the funding before the franchise system? It not like those clubs haven't had a chance before is it. Its more like enough years have passed for some people to forgot how bad super league was with promotion and relegation and the amount of journeyman that was in super league to try and avoid relegation.

Re: Today's big decision : Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:32 pm  

Not much difference to today then??

Re: Today's big decision : Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:40 pm  

"Overly complex", "struggle to understand"......its actually very very simple.

It seems its only complex to SL fans. The SL clubs have agreed to it...they didn't have to and if SL or indeed Champ clubs bankrupt themselves trying to stay or get in SL1, then that is entirely the clubs fault not the RFLs. Time for the marketing guys to actually earn their salaries and market their club.

No one has a divine right to a position at the top table.

Re: Today's big decision : Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:47 pm  

dubairl wrote:

These are the same clubs before franchising that could get in super league or even stay in super league we just had a yo-yo effect.

You were wrong about Super League V Aviva Premiership attendances, you were wrong about the new Super League structure (you hadn't been bothered enough to read the details) and now this.

Let's take a historical look at this alleged Yo-Yo effect in Super League during periods of P&R.

SL 1997: Salford promoted - finished 6th out of 12.
SL 1998: Hull FC promoted - finished 9th out of 12.
SL 1999: Wakefield promoted - finished 11th out of 14.
SL 2002: Widnes promoted - finished 7th out of 12.
SL 2003: Huddersfield promoted - finished 10th out of 12.
SL 2004: Salford promoted - finished 9th out of 12.
SL 2005: Leigh promoted - finished 12th out of 12 and RELEGATED!
SL 2006: Castleford promoted - finished 11th out of 12 and RELEGATED in favour of Catalan 12th.
SL 2007: Hull KR promoted - finished 11th out of 12.

So that's just 1 team (Leigh) who got promoted and finished bottom of SL and relegated the following season. Then there was 1 team (Castleford) who got promoted and finished 11th but were relegated in order to preserve Catalans SL status.

Re: Today's big decision : Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:52 pm  

dubairl wrote:

yeah leigh "had all that sky money" nothing come of it.

Got any more Yo-Yo examples which came to nothing?

Re: Today's big decision : Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:53 pm  

William Eve wrote:

You were wrong about Super League V Aviva Premiership attendances, you were wrong about the new Super League structure (you hadn't been bothered enough to read the details) and now this.

Let's take a historical look at this alleged Yo-Yo effect in Super League during periods of P&R.

SL 1997: Salford promoted - finished 6th out of 12.
SL 1998: Hull FC promoted - finished 9th out of 12.
SL 1999: Wakefield promoted - finished 11th out of 14.
SL 2002: Widnes promoted - finished 7th out of 12.
SL 2003: Huddersfield promoted - finished 10th out of 12.
SL 2004: Salford promoted - finished 9th out of 12.
SL 2005: Leigh promoted - finished 12th out of 12 and RELEGATED!
SL 2006: Castleford promoted - finished 11th out of 12 and RELEGATED in favour of Catalan 12th.
SL 2007: Hull KR promoted - finished 11th out of 12.

So that's just 1 team (Leigh) who got promoted and finished bottom of SL and relegated the following season. Then there was 1 team (Castleford) who got promoted and finished 11th but were relegated in order to preserve Catalans SL status.

Not forgetting Wigans dubious activities to avoid relegation that year as well!

Re: Today's big decision : Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:57 pm  

I'm not one to side with William (look at WC threads)

But it's interesting that were people were split over the RLWC, the new splits are from those who were previously together on other things.

Look at me and Magic Super Beetle. Same club, both fairly positive, yet completely opposite views on this.

I think that demonstrates it's a talking point that will go on for 12 months until we actually see a real outcome, rather than the theorized possibilities.

I am open minded and if it does not work I'm happy to say it was tried and failed. I just wish those against would be open minded too that it may work and that it's not actually the end of RL. Something does not last for 100 years through many structures and tests and suddenly collapse due to a structural change.

Re: Today's big decision : Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:03 pm  

William Eve wrote:

You were wrong about Super League V Aviva Premiership attendances, you were wrong about the new Super League structure (you hadn't been bothered enough to read the details) and now this.

Let's take a historical look at this alleged Yo-Yo effect in Super League during periods of P&R.

SL 1997: Salford promoted - finished 6th out of 12.
SL 1998: Hull FC promoted - finished 9th out of 12.
SL 1999: Wakefield promoted - finished 11th out of 14.
SL 2002: Widnes promoted - finished 7th out of 12.
SL 2003: Huddersfield promoted - finished 10th out of 12.
SL 2004: Salford promoted - finished 9th out of 12.
SL 2005: Leigh promoted - finished 12th out of 12 and RELEGATED!
SL 2006: Castleford promoted - finished 11th out of 12 and RELEGATED in favour of Catalan 12th.
SL 2007: Hull KR promoted - finished 11th out of 12.

So that's just 1 team (Leigh) who got promoted and finished bottom of SL and relegated the following season. Then there was 1 team (Castleford) who got promoted and finished 11th but were relegated in order to preserve Catalans SL status.

ok now post the relegations and compare them and see the yo-yo effect. And I'm not wrong about the structures its over complicated. Also i stand by that those figures for Aviva are inflated i watch a lot of union on tv and its easy to see that tigers don't have a sell out every weekend.