Re: Super League year Zero : Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:20 pm  

The SL should have 14 teams, given we apparently want to expand the game. This would allow for automatic P &R - there could (eg) be one auto promotion spot and playoffs for the second similar to what we have now, but as in Year 1, the increase would be achieved by just promoting 2 Championship clubs, no SL club could complain the next year about jeopardy, as unless they finished last i.e. 14th they end up in the same playoffs as now - and if they finished last, it would mean they finished behind the 2 newly promoted clubs anyway so there could be no valid complaint.

I think that would do wonders for the Championship too, the clubs have spent heavily in improving to mount genuine challenges for the playoffs - even if the actual MPG is hopelessly slewed against them in the current format, but if one team was bound to go up each year, this would reignite the enthusiasm which has faded amongst the Championship clubs when they see how slanted the theoretical chance is against them.

Some may say this will give you "yoyo" clubs - maybe -but it ain't so easy in the Championship - ask my own club, Bradford - and any relegated team would have to do it on merit.

The time for some system of guaranteed P&R is now ripe.

Re: Super League year Zero : Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:23 pm  

I think the Superleague chairmen need to get off there backsides and run the competition themselves with a major overhaul of marketing, sponsors, media presence etc. and let the RFL run things at grass root to championship levels. The Doctor is right in principal that the game has gone backwards and that the RFL are not fit for purpose, the problem is that in the medium term we are tied in with SKY who in my opinion have got the sport rights on the cheap.

One of the drawbacks at the moment though is that we can't put the game in the shop window to up profile it, the standard is pretty poor this season and needs full strength teams playing with a fair amount of intensity at the back end of the season. I.m not sure if its a good idea going to 14 teams as we don't have enough quality players to run 12 teams, we also don't have any world class overseas players here any more.

We don't have stability to bring the game to ground zero, so I think we will probably carry on tinkering and a risk strategy might go on the back burner until we are offered a Superleague Mk 2 from an outside source.

Re: Super League year Zero : Wed Jun 22, 2016 7:59 am  

Just to add to the debate, there are the clubs that were "relegated" from the second tier into Championship 1, who are dying on their backsides and they should clearly be plating in the Championship.
The third tier is a pretty poor standard, with the exception of the top 5/6 clubs and they should be playing in a "better" league.
Unfortunately, the "new" clubs are not up to speed yet and perhaps their needs to be a rethink on just ho to help them progress and become more competitive.

Re: Super League year Zero : Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:32 pm  

We need to look back at Super League Year Zero (aka 1995) where RL international crowds were decent and RU had yet to come to terms with professionalism. The influx of TV money to RL should have set the platform for us to become the dominant code, yet opportunities were squandered, and really the game doesn't seem any better off than it was all those years ago.

Re: Super League year Zero : Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:36 pm  

shinymcshine wrote:

We need to look back at Super League Year Zero (aka 1995) where RL international crowds were decent and RU had yet to come to terms with professionalism. The influx of TV money to RL should have set the platform for us to become the dominant code, yet opportunities were squandered, and really the game doesn't seem any better off than it was all those years ago.

It was never (and probably will never) be the dominant code due to the RU home nations plus, it's International program.
Also, Union is part of the Establishment and even IF we could get to the stage where we had more to offer, we would still be coming second in this country.

Having said that, as a full time pro sport, we should be ahead of Union in many other areas but, due to the gulf in revenue coming into the respective sport's, League will always be trying to play catch up and getting "mocked" by the media as it keeps on with it's innovative ideas.

Re: Super League year Zero : Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:26 pm  

Ok, an 18 team league.
The current 12 teams plus:
Toulouse
Toronto
Newcastle
Leigh
Bradford
London

This increase would mean each club would get around £1.8m a year from the TV money rather than £2.5m. Which sounds like a big drop but IIRC it's about what they were getting before the "new" tv deal.
Play every team once.
Play half the teams twice.
Gives 26 games per year.
Top 8 playoff like in NRL giving a max of 4 additional games.

No P&R.
Clubs will be assessed properly every 5 years. With proper targets given for growth/improvement in certain areas.

Lower division clubs can apply to enter and would expand the competition, not take someone else's place. Same goes for if a club goes under, it's not automatically replaced by someone else.

SL clubs must run a reserves side.

SL clubs to be entered into the Challenge Cup 2 rounds earlier than at present.

Standard club season tickets (as we know them) to be abolished. You now buy a Rugby League season ticket that includes the home SL matches of the club of your choice. It also commits you to buy a ticket for cup and playoff home games (like in football).
The price will be raised to also include entry to events such as Magic Weekend, Cup semi finals, mid-season internationals, Championship summer bash etc.

At the start of every season a 40/50 man England initial squad will be selected by the England staff. The players selected in this squad will then be restricted to playing a max of 25 games for their club in that season (excluding Cup & Grand Final).

Increase the number of marquee signings to 3 per club but include a 50% tax that goes to central funds specifically for marketing and development in specific areas. So say if Leeds wanted to sign a top player and pay him £200k per year as a marquee player, they'd have to pay £100k to this central fund too. The tax would be reduced to 20% for clubs in the bottom half of the table.

Just a few thoughts...

Re: Super League year Zero : Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:02 pm  

I reckon the game needs cleaning up first to increase intensity in matches. There is too much time wasting and conning the ref during the game these days, the PTB is a total mess and probably needs a few rule changes in these areas. It's not a consistent high pulsating game anymore and not very attractive to promote as an exciting dynamic sport.

Re: Super League year Zero : Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:05 pm  

Him wrote:

Ok, an 18 team league.
The current 12 teams plus:
Toulouse
Toronto
Newcastle
Leigh
Bradford
London

This increase would mean each club would get around £1.8m a year from the TV money rather than £2.5m. Which sounds like a big drop but IIRC it's about what they were getting before the "new" tv deal.
Play every team once.
Play half the teams twice.
Gives 26 games per year.
Top 8 playoff like in NRL giving a max of 4 additional games.

No P&R.
Clubs will be assessed properly every 5 years. With proper targets given for growth/improvement in certain areas.

Lower division clubs can apply to enter and would expand the competition, not take someone else's place. Same goes for if a club goes under, it's not automatically replaced by someone else.

SL clubs must run a reserves side.

SL clubs to be entered into the Challenge Cup 2 rounds earlier than at present.

Standard club season tickets (as we know them) to be abolished. You now buy a Rugby League season ticket that includes the home SL matches of the club of your choice. It also commits you to buy a ticket for cup and playoff home games (like in football).
The price will be raised to also include entry to events such as Magic Weekend, Cup semi finals, mid-season internationals, Championship summer bash etc.

At the start of every season a 40/50 man England initial squad will be selected by the England staff. The players selected in this squad will then be restricted to playing a max of 25 games for their club in that season (excluding Cup & Grand Final).

Increase the number of marquee signings to 3 per club but include a 50% tax that goes to central funds specifically for marketing and development in specific areas. So say if Leeds wanted to sign a top player and pay him £200k per year as a marquee player, they'd have to pay £100k to this central fund too. The tax would be reduced to 20% for clubs in the bottom half of the table.

Just a few thoughts...

Agree with most of this, I think we'd need to see how Toronto progress for a couple of years before putting them in Super League though, Toulouse would probably be the safest bet for an expansion team and we should really be looking at having them in Super League by 2020, London need a couple of years to regroup in the Championship and figure out what the best way forward is but I do think that a London SL team is viable if run properly. I think Newcastle would be a bad idea currently though, there doesn't look to be too much desire for a top flight team there. I would keep the Magic Weekend there, it's doing pretty well so far and if it can keep growing the game there then who knows one day.

I'd take your 25 games rule a step further though and extend it to every player, it's madness that in this day and age as the game gets more and more physical that players are being asked to play more and more games and I think the standard is suffering as a result.

I think everyone involved in Super League in any capacity needs to go on some kind of marketing course though as it's currently woeful at best.

I read someone suggest once that we should have a second Magic Weekend for the Challenge Cup quarter finals which I think is one of the best ideas I've heard in relation to the Challenge Cup in a long time.

Re: Super League year Zero : Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:38 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

I reckon the game needs cleaning up first to increase intensity in matches. There is too much time wasting and conning the ref during the game these days, the PTB is a total mess and probably needs a few rule changes in these areas. It's not a consistent high pulsating game anymore and not very attractive to promote as an exciting dynamic sport.

That's purely down to how strict the ref's are.
It can be stopped instantly if that is what the game wants to happen and it's got naf all to do with how many clubs are in the top flight.

The reasons given for reducing the number of clubs in SL was to increase the intensity in the weekly rounds but, the demise in form of Leeds and Huddersfield (plus maybe, Saints) has let everyone else off the hook and we have seen very few games so far, where both competing teams have been at the top of their game for the full 80. Maybe it will happen in the super 8's but, if this is the case, then, this is no different to the old play offs.

This may be an early indicator that the new system is not working as expected.

Clearly, every minute doesn't matter. However, we have seen THE most unpredictable season in SL history and perhaps in RL history.

Going back to how many clubs should be in the top flight. Again, the game must have a strategy for expansion and growth of the game and not just make it up as we go and the governing body needs to sell the idea to the current fans of the game and then to new fans but, don't hold your breath.
It wont happen.