www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... rfl-debate

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... rfl-debate

How many times will Nigel be asked how much he eats or if he fancies going on a diet do you think?
My point is that most will probably think they will have already made their minds up so will take the chance to have a dig.

so, the 12x12 then 8x8x8 is going to get pushed through that will mean 2 teams relegated in2015 then another 4 half way into the season meaning 6 teams will be relegated that year by that time the first 2 will have had to ditch all of there good players to remain viable the 4 who come down will have to realy cut their playing rosta to remain viable the end result is we go from a stable league into a league with 4 yoyo teams every year and every year all it will do is make the rich richer and the rest fighting off admin v good plan that.

Anyone who supports that system must be completely and utterly stupid.

Hopefully the clubs tell these idiots where to stuff it and we can somehow convince Richard Lewis to come back.

Now, now, these are our leaders you're talking about



On 2 nd thoughts I agree with your 1 st point, its completely bonkers

It was interesting hearing Smith’s & Gentle’s comments on the proposed new structure tonight.

It appeared that Gentle was up for a twelve team S.L with a one up, one down system, whilst Smith appears to be in the licence camp

Not sure if Gentle was quizzed regarding the “all or nothing” path that some clubs would practically bankrupt themselves in order to stay in the top division?

However, Smith was advocating the licence system, presumably with either ten or twelve teams, in order to have the quality of tonight’s game replicated week after week.

Whilst I agree with Smith regarding youth development, his stance on high quality games, week on week flounders on the number of clubs he’s proposing.

I don’t believe there are ten clubs which could produce the intensity of tonight’s game every week – not yet anyway.

Finally, just to throw another spanner in the works, when the S.L clubs signed up for a three year licence were they made aware that at the end of the said licence period that maybe two clubs would be demoted?

By threatening to remove two clubs at the end of 2014 will cause mass panic to the bottom eight clubs, and so the cycle continues…

Darryl Powell at Tigers firmly in the same camp as Tony Smith here :- www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... coach.html

Darryl Powell at Tigers firmly in the same camp as Tony Smith here :- www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... coach.html

I thought it was a joke when I first read it, then nearly fell off my chair when I realised they were serious!

We think the sl is screwed at the moment, this will knock in the final nails!

I would encourage RL to come anywhere he wanted as long as it was a long way from our sport

While I still think the proposed split season system is too complicated, the difficulty is that there are also major flaws with the alternatives.
Licensing as a concept that gives us stability, while also allowing poorly run SL clubs to fail and well-run Championship clubs to progress is a busted flush. The opportunity to 'stick with it' has gone. What it would now mean now is a clear and unambiguous split between the pro and semi-pro games, with no formal mechanism for moving between them. There is a case for that - but it would be new. Or being honest and self-aware about it would be, at least.
P&R only work if you narrow the gap between the divisions - allowing the Championship to go 3 quarters pro or something. Cutting SL by just 2 doesn't free up enough cash to make much difference, even assuming the top flight clubs would pass it to the second tier, rather than divvy it amongst themselves.
I'm not a huge fan of 2x12 and 3x8, but I think the RFL are being more honest and/or intelligent than some of its critics.

Somebody please tell me how the 2 x 12 leagues will be funded ?

They won't we will just see inequity in funding and thumpings on the field. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I'd rather see a fair licensing system.

12 team SL, to be in it you have to guarantee you can spend full cap and x amount on off field and jnr operations. If you go into administration you lose your license. If you fail to meet the criteria you lose your license.

If a team loses its license any existing or new club can bid for the license as long as they met the criteria financially and infrastructure. Rfl will then choose the best bid to replace the failed club.

You won't get 12 teams then.

Tried and failed, a few details aside - they didn't have the stomach for the hard decisions it requires. And in fairness, hard decisions are, y'know... hard.
And a club's fate getting decided in the offices of KPMG or whoever - better than the improvised election nonsense we got, but it hardly stirs the blood.
I'd happily accept an NRL type model, or (together with greater re-distribution of Sky money) a return of P&R. If we can't quite bring ourselves to bite those bullets, I could live with this split season thing. Licensing and assessments - boring, pointless and discredited, the worst possible option IMO.

I'd guess that only 5/6 clubs (if that) spend up to the cap though.

I agree with your sentiments though, FAIR licensing seems to be the best option.

i'd have kept a 14 team sl, but with 1 team up n 1 team down every season. why does the rl have to complicate everything.
sl needs a higher salary cap or ALL our best players will go and earn big bucks in oz leaving us with a sub standard comp. yes it will give up and coming players a chance but when they get to the right standard they will go to nrl like those before them.
if the standard of sl drops the game will be less attractive to potential investors and we may have to go back to part time players. and will sky pay good money for a lesser product. i think not
the rl already sells our game well short of its value and our national advertising of big games is non existent.
i dont buy that 27 games + the cup is too many games. top nrl players will play 24 league games, 3 soo + presidents cup etc. so they arent playing that many games fewer then ours, and only clubs that progress in the cup will play a few more anyway
the game needs greater sponsorship money coming in and better promotion of the product

I hope that whatever structure changes is decided that the franchise test will still be retained inc. finance and ground condition etc.

I do believe that promotion and relegation should be found a place in the future structure but I would hate to see an annual up and down situation of basically the same clubs. One team up and one team down should I feel be a maximum but there must be some protection for the teams that one year simply would not give (and quite possibly with Administration being the result). Having said that I dare say that if I supported a team in the Championships I would probably accept any opportunity to get into Superleague!!!

Current attendances in the lower divisions are sadly very low (mind you so too have London attendences been, particularly this year). Whilst I recognise that superleague will create excitement and increased crowds I am yet to be convinced that the increase will be at a level to ensure a promoted club's success. However, I would still want that chance as a championship supporter!!!

People on the forums seem to be quoting that the 8 split system is the favoured one but I am certainly not convinced. This and other boards surely are not the arbiters of deciding the future league system and a thousand board responses would not make it so. I cannot/dont believe that the number favouring one system or the other by posting on this board carries the strength of argument to make such an important decision. But as I said before a mechanism for P & R should be found but it should be made to work within the existing system.

Having 4 teams from Superleague and the Championship competing against each other to me seems unworkable because of the gap in finances/player quality throughout the season. I know it can occasionally work that the lower division club can succeed in an important game and as I have said above the Championship side will want to take that opportunity. I do not believe that this will happen in the proposed system

I support the statement of Tony Smith. I believe the RFL should not keep changing the existing systems which frankly have hardly been given much chance to work.

I prefer a 14 team Superleague.

I accept that my submission is not a vote in favour or against all the proposals - It is just an opinion ilke everybody elses.

More money for the Championship clubs first and P & R to go with it.

Quote ="Tigerade"Darryl Powell at Tigers firmly in the same camp as Tony Smith here :- www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... coach.html'" Shock horror, coach of one of the teams most likely to be relegated doesn't like the idea. Mr Powell has certainly changed his viewpoint as well as his job in the last couple of weeks.

Quote ="Tigerade"Darryl Powell at Tigers firmly in the same camp as Tony Smith here :- www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... coach.html'" Shock horror, coach of one of the teams most likely to be relegated doesn't like the idea. Mr Powell has certainly changed his viewpoint as well as his job in the last couple of weeks.

Although the cap should be increased, at least in line with inflation, the fact that less than half of the club in SL can afford to pay the full cap, means that it actually doesn't matter too much.
The cap at its current level may be preventing the top 5/6 being even more dominant than they currently are.
As for the biggest names going to Aus, or RU, even with a substantial increase in the cap, we cannot compete with these two.
The only way to help, would be to give dispensation for one or two "superstars" per club but, this would only apply to the top 5/6 and there is a danger that this could see all the UK talent going to just 6 clubs.

almost as shocking as

If they sort out the funding of 24 clubs then option 3 would work and bring meaningful games week in week out. I doubt they can find a solution though in time foe the vote in July

The level of funding would have to be pooled and be directly linked to where you finish at the end of the season.

There is about £20,000,000 available from the RFL/TV money to fund this set up....

Divide this by 6, with 3 portions for the top table, 2 for the mid table and 1 for the bottom set and you have the following scenario:

Top tier £1.2 million each
Mid Tier $825,000 each
Bottom Tier $410,000

The financial step up between tiers is not "massive"....and as the clubs in the bottom 16 start to develop their players, then they will climb. The potential hammerings when the top 8 face those at the bottom will become less prevelant as the teams playing from positions 9-24 will have a lot to play for.....and after a while, those in the mid 8 will knock off the top 8 more often.

A few rules need to be put in place. If a player signs for a club aged 16 or over, then regardless of if he is off contract or not, a set fee has to be paid to that club should he move to a higher ranked club.
Scenario: Dixon is at London who are in the mid section. He is off contract at the end of 2015 and agrees terms with Wire to join them in 2016. To stop the bigger clubs cherry picking stars like this, there needs to be at least some form of renumeration for the club that trained him.....not a massive amount money, but £50,000.

Stadiums and their requirements need to be to a certain standard, but more so on health and safety grounds.....the empty boxes at Salford and Saints point to fans wanting a safe place to watch the game from, not a prawn sarnie. For now, grounds like Bell View, The Jungle, Odsal etc are fine.....they will develop when the demand dictates they must....putting the cart before the horse is not the way forward IMHO.

The above is only "thinking out loud: by the way......I am sure it has more holes than swiss cheese

Change is coming.....let's hope that the RFL and the clubs make the right choice for the future of the game

????

Only a select few will play 3 Origin games and some of those might not even get a play off game. If you are a top player for a top team including origin, you could potentially play in 31 games per year in the NRL. In Super League you could potentially play in 36. 5 weeks is a big difference, hence why Super League starts in early Feb and the NRL starts in March. That's a lot less time in training / time off. Better still every NRL club gets 2 bye rounds to guarantee time off throughout the season. You would have to get knocked out of the 1/4 finals of the CC to get the same in Super League.

How do you suggest the amateur game is funded?

Not to mention referees, internationals etc

as I said, swiss cheese...