RFL Restructure on Twitter Last Night : Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:44 am  

I followed the Twitter feed of the RFL meeting with fans about the restructure. I was very pleased about what the rfl had to say, they want the Top Championship teams to be more competitive with the rest of the super league and they are looking to increase the amount Championship sides get from the RFL from 100K to around 500K a year (although this will be dependant on where you finish) they also hope that there will be 16 Full Time teams and hope that Championship attendances will increase from average 1,200 to 1,800 (we can dream !!)

I was also pleased to hear that my preferred option of the split and super 7 matches at the end of the season to determine who will be in the Super League is the most popular option.

With regards to TV Rights these are still to be discussed but I would imagine that there will be Super League (2 matches a week) and Super League 2 (1 Match a week) with Sky being the likely winners (although it would be interesting if BT sport took an interest it could result in a bidding war) Toulouse was mentioned but from what i can remember they will have to pay the RFL so i cant see them joining especially as it would cost a lot of money for championship sides to travel to france

Duggs

Re: RFL Restructure on Twitter Last Night : Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:50 am  

30 games is too many, imho.

Re: RFL Restructure on Twitter Last Night : Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:57 am  

As I said on twitter last night, it seems unlikely to me that an average gate for the Championship is 1200. There's only 3 clubs get 1200+ regularly with a couple of clubs regularly getting <500.

Re: RFL Restructure on Twitter Last Night : Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:01 am  

16 fulltime teams basically means 2 championship clubs going fulltime if one of them clubs have a poor season and don't make the middle 8 financially what would happen to them? what is the "pyramid" financial reward for finishing 5th or 6th is it enough to sustain a fulltime club?

2 up 2 down for me, overspend and go bust... well tough

Re: RFL Restructure on Twitter Last Night : Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:32 am  

The 2x12 3x8 thing is destined to fail IMO.

We've had a hard time explaining to people that we're the Champions of the second tier yet haven't gone anywhere. Imagine explaining that you're the Champions of the bottom eight...

One thing I will say is it will bring a bit of excitement and interest which has been sadly lacking over the last few years. Just hope that isn't at the expense of a couple of clubs.

Re: RFL Restructure on Twitter Last Night : Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:36 am  

Are you even "champions" of the bottom eight ? Ralph said that the bottom eight would be playing to avoid relegation, not actually win anything. If you take this year's Championship bottom eight, take out the bonus points (if we're not having them), we've got Workington on 9 wins and Barrow and Hunslet on 5 and 4. It's going to take some sort of collapse over seven more games for Workington to go down, so imagine the excitement there.

The more games you play, the more likely that there'll be meaningless games. Quite how that encourages big crowds is beyond me.

Playing each other once (5 home, 5 away, 1 Magic) , then home and away in the eights made more sense.

Re: RFL Restructure on Twitter Last Night : Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:41 am  

I agree Griff.

Wait that doesn't sound right.

Re: RFL Restructure on Twitter Last Night : Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:44 am  

E.S.O wrote:

I agree Griff.

Wait that doesn't sound right.

No - even though we're saying the same thing, you must be wrong.

Re: RFL Restructure on Twitter Last Night : Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:19 pm  

Taken from the virtual terrace


"From a 'Fans Forum' hosted by Ralph Rimmer last night:

KPMG were consulted and, in a nutshell, they said that we need promotion & relegation, and a structured format from SL right across to local community clubs. KPMG's brief was also to design a system to get more bums on seats.

All clubs were invited to discuss KPMG's proposals. The league structure was narrowed down to 2 choices:
3 divisions of 12 with straight relegation at the end;
3 division of 12 with a play-off system at the end [the much vaunted 12/12 -> 8/8/8 format].

The currently favoured solution is the 2nd and would work as follows:

SL1 - 12 teams; £1300K funding each [currently £1225K, or something near].
SL2 - 12 teams; sliding funding from £650K [top club in previous season] down to £150 [bottom club previous season]: the idea being that clubs can plan to 'better themselves' over a number of years, eventually gaining SL1 status.
(3rd Division); 12ish clubs; £75K funding each.

For SL1 & SL2 [or whatever brand name it is given], at the end of the 23 game season [play each other home and away plus Magic Weekend for both divisions], the end-of-season play-offs would be as follows:
top 8 SL1 clubs keep their points and play each other once more with the highest finishing 4 clubs to have 4 home games; after this the top 4 then go on to play for the Grand Final;
bottom 4 SL1 clubs & top 4 SL2 clubs play each other once with the 4 SL2 clubs to have 4 homes games; the top 4 go into SL1 the following season;
bottom 8 SL2 clubs play each other once to decide their final league positions [and next season's money] & to see who gets relegated.
This is designed to have more equal, intense matches. The idea being that every match counts, the higher you finish, the better your chances in the play-off rounds.

Currently the ratio of SL to Championship funding is 12 to 1. This system gives the aspiring SL1 clubs more money to prepare for SL1 status.

The bottom 2 clubs at the end of 2014 will definitely be relegated - unless a team in a higher position goes into administration.

The entry requirements to SL2 would be basically 'would a broadcaster be able to televise a live match at your ground?'. This ensures that clubs can be promoted to SL1 on playing merit.

Mid-week matches are here to stay because Sky say so. We have to live with it. [Gate money is around £20m, Sky money is around £20m. If Sky pull out, we are, well, you can guess the rest!]

Hope this sheds some light on the way the RFL is thinking."

Re: RFL Restructure on Twitter Last Night : Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:05 pm  

Well, the obvious change from the plan as first proposed is that the finances have ameliorated.

I still have issues with it .....

1. 30 games is too many - even if we lose the NRC (which it looks like we will be doing).

2. The third eight looks like it's just there to stop the season finishing too early. Do these clubs keep their points ? Is there a play-off for the top four ? Or the bottom four (once you win, you're out) ? There's been very little information on how this will work.

3. Games arranged at short notice are notoriously difficult to sell sponsorship for.

4. I still think the likelihood is that no-one will be promoted from SL2 to SL1 without some backer chipping in a huge wedge. Up to the backer how he spends his money, obviously, but I don't think it helps a club's stability.