Board index ‹ Welcome to RLFANS ‹ The Virtual Terrace ‹ New structure for 2019

Call Me God wrote:

no more or less so than Castleford v Huddesfield is either.
It'll be interesting to see the BARB figures for this coming Saturday

So you are saying that the quality of rugby on show is similar in the semi pro/amateur level of the championship than it is to the 3rd best team in super league? You don’t half spout some rubbish. Even by your standards!

Regards

King James

Bull Mania wrote:

One minute they need loop fixtures as 11 home games aren't sustainable, the next, they're big enough to breakway from the sport (without the CC or England RL) It won't matter to all, but i can't see many players being happy at not having chance to win CC or play for their country anymore.


Sorry, with threatening statements like that from chariman wanting more power, the sport is heading one way. SL isn't premier league football, many of the "elite" clubs are getting over 6k attendances.


I've said all a long, i agree with SL that the eights need to go. But this railroading and threatening language of "do what we say otherwise we'll screw the rest of the sport over just because we're the 12 clubs that happen to be in SL at this moment in time." is laughable. Take time out, and try find solutions to the problems that have caused us to change the structure for the third time in 10 years. No matter what Hudgell and Pearson think, SL isn't big enough to go it alone. The super 8s being removed on Friday isn't going to solve the sports main issues, lack of money, and most importantly, lack of people playing the game.

While I don’t agree with SL breaking away, i’m not sure not holding the rights to the CC would be an issue, they could just call it the ‘SL Cup’ still rent Wembley out for final and would the BBC even be bothered so long as they get top games to show?

Same for the international game, I doubt the RFL own the brand for ‘England team’ or ‘Great Britain’ as they are too generic, so quite easy to create a team there. And again would Australia and NZ be bothered if they are playing a spinoff team so long as their match fee is right and they are playing SL’s top players? Don't forget we’ve had an SL Australia team before.

Lebron James wrote:

So you are saying that the quality of rugby on show is similar in the semi pro/amateur level of the championship than it is to the 3rd best team in super league? You don’t half spout some rubbish. Even by your standards!

Regards

King James

No. That's not what I said.
I said that the game on Thursday night would appeal no more or less to the passing sports fan (or non fan as you call them) than either of the games on Saturday.
I am attempting (god knows why) to converse with you in an adult fashion.....ease up on the insults.

UllFC wrote:

While I don’t agree with SL breaking away, i’m not sure not holding the rights to the CC would be an issue, they could just call it the ‘SL Cup’ still rent Wembley out for final and would the BBC even be bothered so long as they get top games to show?

Same for the international game, I doubt the RFL own the brand for ‘England team’ or ‘Great Britain’ as they are too generic, so quite easy to create a team there. And again would Australia and NZ be bothered if they are playing a spinoff team so long as their match fee is right and they are playing SL’s top players? Don't forget we’ve had an SL Australia team before.

SL could indeed have their own "SL Cup", but it would be for a different trophy. In terms of international games, world rugby is governed by the Rugby League International Federation, of which the Rugby Football League is a full member. A SL breakaway would have no part to play. Yes, they could raise a team, and even arrange games against Australia etc., but they wouldn't be representing England (or GB).

Lebron James wrote:

So you are saying that the quality of rugby on show is similar in the semi pro/amateur level of the championship than it is to the 3rd best team in super league? You don’t half spout some rubbish. Even by your standards!

Regards

King James

They can be though not as often but then you’d know that had you ever been to one.

Oh and I’m no grammar Nazi but it’s Wolves not Wolfs you dimwitt

And another oh! Why are you still here?

Lebron James wrote:

As a purist I will be glued to rugby union aswell
Given that Webb Ellis was a rugby union lad. My point stands. The championship is poor as a spectacle to the non fan. We just find it exciting due to the possible permutations of possible promotion candidates

Regards

King James

We broke away from Rugby Union in 1895, please move on.

The Championship would be watched by plenty of RL fans but, lets face it, SL isn't a huge draw and The Championship would be less so. However, The top fixtures in that division will be decent viewing and any games involving 2 sides out of the top 6/7 clubs will be a decent watch.

HXSparky wrote:

SL could indeed have their own "SL Cup", but it would be for a different trophy. In terms of international games, world rugby is governed by the Rugby League International Federation, of which the Rugby Football League is a full member. A SL breakaway would have no part to play. Yes, they could raise a team, and even arrange games against Australia etc., but they wouldn't be representing England (or GB).

Exactly. That would be a big hand the RFL would have over SL in trying to lure players to their comp. If the money was with SL then obviously many would still choose to sign with them.

Also if there was a breakaway, what makes everyone so certain SKY would buy rights for that rather than the RFL one. SL only has 4/5 elite clubs (Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire/Hull) the rest are all replaceable. SKY don't give 2 stuffs about KR/Wakey/Salford. Leeds don't seem to be united with SL and could well join an RFL breakaway. If the best players were to sign for the RFL one, SKY would drop SL like a stone.

Anyway the above is all irrelevant as it will never happen. My point is SL isn't as big or as strong as it think it is. The sport will crumble with a breakway. Heads need banging together and the obvious solution of 12/14 team, 1up 1 down, 22 home/away fixtures, 5 team play off, and each league keeps same percentage of funding for next decade and we all work together as a sport to increase the size of the pie. Then we can move onto the actual issues in RL like falling participation numbers.

Bull Mania wrote:

The sport will crumble with a breakway. Heads need banging together and the obvious solution of 12/14 team, 1up 1 down, 22 home/away fixtures, 5 team play off, and each league keeps same percentage of funding for next decade and we all work together as a sport to increase the size of the pie. Then we can move onto the actual issues in RL like falling participation numbers.

That's more or less what needs to be agreed except some form of TWO up, 2 down (one automatic, the other via some kind of play-offs).

HXSparky wrote:

SL could indeed have their own "SL Cup", but it would be for a different trophy. In terms of international games, world rugby is governed by the Rugby League International Federation, of which the Rugby Football League is a full member. A SL breakaway would have no part to play. Yes, they could raise a team, and even arrange games against Australia etc., but they wouldn't be representing England (or GB).

I last ke the udea if a Super League cup, 3 groups of 3 play each other home and away x 2 start pre season 4 group winners 2 semis and a final around may bank hol. Better than pointless loop fixtures. Clubs get a guaranteed 23 home games then.