Joined: Jan 10 2019 Posts: 2773 Location: Horbury, a small town in Wakefield
Ste100Centurions wrote:Well, it's being widely reported that the decision is made.
Super League will stay at 12 teams this year with a strong possibility of a move to 2x 10 SL1 & SL2 for 2023.
The Turkeys have voted, Leigh being one of the said Turkeys I hope we voted for a 14 team SL followed by 2x10 for 2023.
Any betting that Wakefield, Salford, Huddersfield & possibly K.R or maybe Cas voted to stay as is for 2022 ? With 4 down at the end of 2022 *proposed plan* those were the Club's most likely *with Leigh* to be relegated, so would have been Turkeys voting for Christmas. Not forgetting that Sir Ken of Davey is the current Super League Supremo !!!
Edit.
Question also, which Super League Club's can't afford to share the pot 14 ways ? They should be the first out of the door !!!
The five teams you mentioned are still a minority of the 12 teams in SL, and wouldn’t win a majority vote, therefore, some of the so called bigger clubs must be voting against any change at this time. I would imagine most RL fans believe whatever decisions are made, it’s the CEOs /Chairmen of the top six clubs who make the real decisions.
The up to 14/down to 10 proposal was inherently a bad idea so it's no surprise if some of the larger SL clubs voted against it. Anyone with a brain would understand very few fans wanted a 10 team league.
The league structure is not the problem with the game. It's amazing that people still think tinkering with this will fix up the real problems the sport faces. If anything yet another change just further reinforces the impression of drift and malaise some people think the game has.
This however....
atomic wrote:Complete self interest.. The game is now officially dead.
What complete BS. Accusing other people of self interest because a very bad proposal which would have benefited your club more than almost any other didn't go through. Unbelievable. And please stop using the "game is dead" crap too. It's lazy and tedious in the extreme.
"Brian McDermott, with a wry smile, nods when asked if he remembers a specific incident which made him realise he was a prick. 'I do', he murmurs."
Trainman wrote:I’ve no problem in principle if 2 leagues of 10 providing we finance the second tier enough for them to be full time pro.
What I don’t want is the loop fixtures.
As a sport we should be striving to increase the quality of the competition which has been on a downward trajectory for a while now. We need to reduce the number of games to allow the players to rest, recuperate and train properly between games and reduce fatigue.
I’d like to see a league of 10 with 18 games, play each team home & away plus playoffs.
We’d then need something else to provide a few extra home games for each club. I like the suggestion Castleford made. Run a 9’s competition throughout the season. This could involve all 20 clubs split into groups of 4 at a time so 6 matches at each venue. Maybe 8 weekly rounds so each club gets 2 home fixtures out of it. The 9’s league can then culminate in a play off to replace the magic weekend to determine the winners. I hope it might take off like 20-20 in Cricket. Clubs to name a squad of 14 for each fixture allowing players with niggles to rest up a week.
Is having 3 league games against each of the other clubs any better than "loop" fixtures" It would be a "balanced" fixture program of sorts but, playing every other club a MINIMUM of 3 times a season (plus cup games and play offs) doesn't really improve things.
Having a 14 club top flight would do though
As Sky keeps reducing their investment, how long before the 10 club top flight becomes 8.
The "soft sell" and pretense that the 2nd tire will still be Super League shouldn't fool anyone but, already, plenty seem happy with the Championship "re branding". How can SL 2 have any level of serious funding ? The main reason for change is to allow SL 1 to maintain a similar level of funding for a reduced number of clubs in the league.
Cokey wrote:18 games plus a few play off games wouldn't yield enough revenue to sustain a club.
This purist idea that clubs must only play each other twice is ridiculous. It totally ignores the commercial realities.
So Lenegan & co, say to SKY "we are only playing each other twice, take it or leave it" so SKY says "We will leave it" and the game collapses.
So Lenegan says "we will invent some other competition to fill July and August, (and in that competition like a 9's clubs still end up playing each other a third time or more )
Season 2003
Leeds.v.Bradford 71,000 Bradford.v.Leeds 22,000 Leeds.v.Bradford 23,000 Bradford,v,Leeds 21,000 Bradford.v.Leeds 20,000 It's the entertainment business, if we want "sport" try the Pennine league.
wrencat1873 wrote: Is having 3 league games against each of the other clubs any better than "loop" fixtures" It would be a "balanced" fixture program of sorts but, playing every other club a MINIMUM of 3 times a season (plus cup games and play offs) doesn't really improve things.
Having a 14 club top flight would do though As Sky keeps reducing their investment, how long before the 10 club top flight becomes 8.
Oh brilliant
Split the already reduced TV money 14 ways and you will end up with clubs who can't compete, with a return of clubs who will only manage to get a few wins against each other, Leigh can't win a game, will London compete, can TO compete will Fev compete? No chance.
SKY won't want these clubs on Television they get far bigger returns and we get far bigger crowds with Loop fixtures as you can see from the Leeds,v,Bradford stats.
Late in a season an RL punter thinks "shall I watch Saints and Wigan, they have been on TV twice before playing each other"...."nah I won't bother!"
It's not that people even think like that, they may not have seen the two other games. Don't people get that this is about audiences and money.....
Remember the godawful Wakefield Trinity side of 2015? Did people think "Ooooh Wakey are playing wire for the first time this year. I must watch that
Result Warrington 80 Wakefield 0........... That's your 14 club disaster........
Donnyman wrote:Result Warrington 80 Wakefield 0........... That's your 14 club disaster........
I remember one season where London stuck 70+ twice on widnes and again once on wakey....there was the legendary shirt burning incident when we stuck that number on Warrington when we were pastel......the sky didn't fall in. It happens.... If you can't survive on 8% less tv money you've no place in soooooooper keeeeeeeeeeague.
If it is about attendances and money then just build a SL based on this best attendances and richest clubs. So Salford would be out. No place for London no fans or Bradford no money. These factors tend to determine leaguer position anyway. Sport should give everyone opportunity that is what it should be about the biggest stories are about surprise successes. Will we have a story like Brentford beating Arsenal?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
