Red Hall's policy review document is now available to read online, for those interested. 28 pages but a good read for sad acts like myself. I have to say that apart from the nature of the restructure there is little there to disagree with. Thoughts? www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29 ... umentation

Red Hall's policy review document is now available to read online, for those interested. 28 pages but a good read for sad acts like myself. I have to say that apart from the nature of the restructure there is little there to disagree with. Thoughts? www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29 ... umentation

Quote ="Ganson's Optician"Red Hall's policy review document is now available to read online, for those interested. 28 pages but a good read for sad acts like myself. I have to say that apart from the nature of the restructure there is little there to disagree with. Thoughts? www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29 ... umentation'" Yes, but that's the problem. The RFL seem to be intent on creating complicated structures that only keen students of the game can understand. They should concentrate on trying to promote the game and stop constantly messing with it. A few simple changes would be a far better way to improve the game than a complicated new system .

Quote ="Ganson's Optician"Red Hall's policy review document is now available to read online, for those interested. 28 pages but a good read for sad acts like myself. I have to say that apart from the nature of the restructure there is little there to disagree with. Thoughts? www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29 ... umentation'" Yes, but that's the problem. The RFL seem to be intent on creating complicated structures that only keen students of the game can understand. They should concentrate on trying to promote the game and stop constantly messing with it. A few simple changes would be a far better way to improve the game than a complicated new system .

That is the problem with the 8:8:8, personally I think it would work well and be exciting but that is as someone who enjoys taking the time to sit and read a 28 page proposal. In the UK we are competing with soccer and due to the Premier League's domination it is difficult enough for people to get their head round play offs let alone this new structure.

Really like this idea though-

There is a vast amount to look at in this document. What disappoints me is the lack of (presented ? ) data to support their case. It therefore comes across as a university students dissertation - long on theory and rules, short on evidence. The central case for the new structure needs to be backed up by estimates of game attendances in order to get some form of projection on income - the whole plan depends on this one aspect, and nothing is forthcoming. At the moment some SL clubs are / have been close to folding, so income needs to be estimated so we know what level of risk is involved in providing extra income to the Championship clubs.

I like the P R introduction, If affordable I like the connection to the Championship clubs also. Reducing bureaucracy on licensing seems a good move. But I don't like the academy rules much, particularly stating there will only be 10 allowed and introducing a salary cap. If clubs can get more youth into academies using higher salaries, then I think they should be encouraged to do so.

Finally, no mention of the RFL's ability to attract sponsorship. I think this aspect needs to be removed from their remit and given to SLE.

The 888 idea was rejected a couple of years ago by scottish football. We already have people complaing that we currently have a league system that is a qualifying competition for the play-offs. The proposed new system is a qualifying competition for another qualifying competition. A 12 or 14 team league with P and R is a far better proposal, in fact a 12 team league with P and R was an alternative, but seems to have been ditched by Nigel Wood in favour of his own system.

I just can't imagine how clubs will legislate for the proposed changes in dividing up the league's. Season ticket sales will be an issue. Without being disrespectful to lower league clubs, imagine paying top dollar for a season ticket for a SL club to end up playing mid table club's from a lower division at the same cost? Whilst I understand the rules will be the rules to all but I can only see it as a recipe for disaster if clubs go chasing the prize to stay in the top flight but don't make it. Hopefully the recent turmoil that Bradford went through Will serve as a warning to other clubs.

I like the 8:8:8 as it addresses a real problem of far too many meaningless games. I think it's about time we stopped saying it's too complicated. It's really very simple. I think it's a bit of an insult to people's intelligence to suggest it's too complex. How daft do you think we are? Don't answer that!

The proposal is over complicating something that should be relatively simple. It should be 2 leagues of 12 with 2 up and 2 down and a top 4 play off

Can I ask a question Doc? Do you personally think it's complicated or are you concerned that other people will find it complicated. My view is that anyone who takes a minute to look at the proposed system will understand it. If they aren't prepared to look at it they won't watch the game anyway. I really think it will spice up the games. The end of season Middle 8 fixtures (Super League Qualifying Play Offs) will be great fun. It will be a good way of assessing who should be in the top tier the following season.

I don't think that it is complicated to understand but that it's complicating something that doesn't need to be made complicated. Personally I wouldn't want any play offs under the current or future structure unless you adopt an American format where the play offs actually mean something, i.e. the best of one league play the best of the other league.

While you mention the American format Doc, lets have a draft system so that those clubs in the second 8 get first dabs on academy players from the top 8.
Can't we just have a rugby competition where the best rise to the top, and the bottom goes to another league whilst the top of the lower league goes to a higher league? I think it is called promotion and relegation and is currently being tried in the round ball game. Could work.
I don't want to buy a season ticket with the possibility that I could be watching Wire versus Batley in the second half of a season. No disrespect to Batley by the way.

It wouldn't be the second half. It would be 23 matches in your 12, followed by an extended playoff series of 7 matches, then semis and a final. So actually you'd know what 76% of your fixtures would be up front.

Think how life will suddenly become much more exciting for the likes of Batley, Leigh, Halifax, Sheffield and Featherstone. There is suddenly a real incentive. You get into the top four then finish off the season with a crack at four super league teams. Great fun! It's 8:8:8 for me.

I like the 8:8:8 proposal.

Whilst I agree that it might be over complicating things unecessarily, I am willing to give it a go and it will certainly be intertesting.

Bottom line for me is the introduction of P&R, a lack of jeopardy is sure fire way to become stale and there shouldn't be a glass ceiling for aspiring clubs. We are one game after all and it could easily have been us knocking on a seemingly locked door. We shouldn't have any more right to the top prize than the likes of Leigh and Featherstone IMO.

The report below states that 6 clubs (including Wire) have walked out of the discussions on the restructuring proposals from the RFL. www.loverugbyleague.com/news_136 ... eting.html The sticking point appears to be the commercial case that underpins the proposals (as well as governance). As i mentioned previously, the RFL have not published data to show what anticipated revenues will be generated in the new structure, or in business parlance a 'business plan'. I assume the governance issue is who sits on the committee that runs the new structure and what voting power they will have.

The report below states that 6 clubs (including Wire) have walked out of the discussions on the restructuring proposals from the RFL. www.loverugbyleague.com/news_136 ... eting.html The sticking point appears to be the commercial case that underpins the proposals (as well as governance). As i mentioned previously, the RFL have not published data to show what anticipated revenues will be generated in the new structure, or in business parlance a 'business plan'. I assume the governance issue is who sits on the committee that runs the new structure and what voting power they will have.

The 888 system is totally bonkers. As it is, we have regular season fixtures with half empty grounds, does it really seem likely that Wigan vs Batley is going to draw enough fans or television money to make the reorganisation of the league financially viable? There's not really enough money in the sport to support the 14 SL teams as it is, and the low turn out at televised games, particularly the first round of play offs or the CC quarters, should scream to the RFL that fans actually want fewer games with higher quality. Whatever gets said on here, it's the money fans bring in that really speaks to the desire for change and given how poor the attendances are for the play off system as it is, fans clearly aren't interested in a more convoluted system.

Can't we just have a 12 team SL, with the top team winning a more meaningful trophy, a top 4 or 5 play off at the end of it and 1 or 2 up/down promotion relegation? I don't see other successful sports with a messy structure to their sport like we're proposing.

Looking at today you can see an almighty split coming.....

In all honesty there isn't enough talent within the game to sustain 2 leagues of 12 teams without in 2 years time discussing on the forum how big the gulf is between club number 1 & club 24 . It will be very similar to what gets discussed on here every week at present & the more of our players that get tempted Down Under ,the worse the situation will get.

Are we wasting our time and should we simply accept the status quo?

If we consider how many spectator sports have improved their position in the long established pecking order, there are many if indeed any. Soccer in the USA and American Football over here have had their moments, yet in spite of the many millions invested, they're still minority sports. I don't know what established the pecking order, but it does seem very difficult to change.

If the 6 are worried about money just go join the RFU. Take you're selfish greed there.

This criticism of the 6 "rebel" clubs is really starting to irk me. From my understanding of the articles I've read, these clubs want a review of the governance and commercialism of the game alongside any discussion or colossal league restructuring. Now surely this is simply commonsense? Let's not forget that any restructuring here is massive. It will change the sport. If clubs aren't happily waving it through then they must have serious concerns. Already posters on here have highlighted issues with the RFL's proposal statement, a lack of evidence and information on commercial facets I think were the points raised. If we mere mortals can see issues then why is it so unreasonable to think professional clubs can too?

For too long the RFL have been conducting their own annual reviews and declaring themselves as 'excellent'. There's no accountability or transparency coming out of Red Hall. Off the top of my head, just some of the recent failures (IMO) from the RFL:

- No SL sponsor
- The free Stobarts deal
- Scrapping club academies
- Dual registration, which has been abused by clubs in the most ridiculous way
- Increasing SL league size & decreasing competitive matches
- Increasing SL play off size so effectively you can lose more than win & still make play offs
- Moving the CC semis/final to August
- Multiple club bankruptcies (not to mention the Crusaders fiasco)
- Scrapping the Northern Rail Cup
- The way franchises have been done (though I don't disagree with the principle)
- Club Call, a joke to everyone
- The referees 'boys club' with no accountability/improvement

Now we're all to contend with a ridiculous new structure that half the fans can't even understand and many don't want, not to mention the impact on new fans coming into the sport. Is it any wonder the 6 clubs have asked for a governance and commercial review alongside any discussion about league restructuring. For me, that's common sense.



Isn't it funny how Hetherington was all for a top-down review of the RFL in 2011 after the Crusaders debacle. Suddenly Leeds are the RFL's golden boys and he's happy to turn a blind eye. Also interesting to note that, alongside Leeds, none of the clubs 'saved' by the RFL have raised a peep...

For Hetherington to release a statement calling these 6 clubs "selfish" and "self-interested" is nothing short of disgusting.

*Edit* I don't want the 8:8:8 structure. I don't struggle to understand it, I just find it stupid and convoluted and completely unnecessary when there are simpler and more productive ways to improve RL.

Do you seriously believe the 6 clubs are worried about money and it's as simple as that? Moran, Lenegan, Davy, Pearson, these are rich men at profitable clubs.

LOL

Andy Gatcliffe made Warrington's position clear back in early August: www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... ney__RFL_/ I'm guessing since then the RFL haven't provided any answers to the questions he posed. Certainly the review document they issued didn't. They have also failed to deliver a taker of the naming rights to the World Cup despite it receiving exposure on free to view tv channel - the RFL is not fit for purpose.

Andy Gatcliffe made Warrington's position clear back in early August: www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... ney__RFL_/ I'm guessing since then the RFL haven't provided any answers to the questions he posed. Certainly the review document they issued didn't. They have also failed to deliver a taker of the naming rights to the World Cup despite it receiving exposure on free to view tv channel - the RFL is not fit for purpose.