Saddened! wrote:Ridiculous that the clubs get a say in this at all. They need strong leadership and any changes to the format and structure should wait until we have that.
This
Frank Zappa wrote:Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.
The_Enforcer wrote:Most idiotic post ever goes to Grimmy..... The way to restart should be an arm wrestle between a designated player from each side.
Donnyman wrote: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.
I think 3 'commercially attractive' games a year is ok, but 4 is overkill and there is a risk of further Cup and Playoff games against the same team. But that is of course luck of the draw, the Hull Derby hasn't been played in the Cup in the SL era and we've only had it as a playoff tie once and that was 11 years ago.
I do think they have overkilled the derbys at the Magic Weekend, this years strategy of teams expected to be in a similar position in the table seems to be a good one. Only Rovers-Leigh appears a mismatch so far and that's because Rovers have exceeded expectations, its in the dead last thing on Sunday slot anyway.
The game needs Bradford back in SL, they are now improving a bit on the field and Odsal is at least having a bit of a tidy up. No other club will instantly bring in that many fans and there is loads of history for the media to bring up in their TV coverage.
UllFC wrote:I think 3 'commercially attractive' games a year is ok, but 4 is overkill and there is a risk of further Cup and Playoff games against the same team. But that is of course luck of the draw, the Hull Derby hasn't been played in the Cup in the SL era and we've only had it as a playoff tie once and that was 11 years ago.
I do think they have overkilled the derbys at the Magic Weekend, this years strategy of teams expected to be in a similar position in the table seems to be a good one. Only Rovers-Leigh appears a mismatch so far and that's because Rovers have exceeded expectations, its in the dead last thing on Sunday slot anyway.
The game needs Bradford back in SL, they are now improving a bit on the field and Odsal is at least having a bit of a tidy up. No other club will instantly bring in that many fans and there is loads of history for the media to bring up in their TV coverage.
I'm confused by your post. You firstly say that playing each side 3 times a season isn't too bad and then follow by saying they "overkilled the derby games" by having them at Magic.
Remembering that there is the cup and play offs, clubs will meet a MINIMUM of 3 times in the 10 club league and this could easily ramp up to 5 or 6 by the end of the season.
The old saying about too much of a good thing springs to mind.
There seems to be the same thought processes going on as there was for the contrived MPG every season.
It was the rarity of the first MPG that made it special.
If FC played Rovers every few weeks, the derby would lose some of it's appeal.
For me, the problem isn't with the number of clubs in the top flight, in fact, it would benefit from having 14 clubs. It is the lack of cash in the game and reducing to 10 clubs isnt going to add a penny to the money coming into the game.
Also, with 2 French clubs in the top flight, there will be another game without any away fans, further reducing clubs' income, especially if a club cops 2 home fixtures against either or both of the French sides.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 5442 Location: Aberdeen
Those that don't like repeat fixtures are happy to speak loudly about it, but as the crowds in the grounds show, a second home game against a big team draws more than the first home game against a small team.
So even though the repeat fixtures may see lower crowds, they are more attractive to club owners.
“You are playing a game of football this afternoon but more than that you are playing for England, and more even than that, you are playing for right versus wrong. You will win because you have to win. Don’t forget that message from home. England expects every one of you to do his duty.”
One thing I can’t understand is the idea that a reduced number of clubs improve quality. The way to improve quality is to get more people to play the game then the pool you choose from has more quality players. Sports that have significantly increased participation such as cycling has achieved more. The countries that do the best in the olympics have the biggest populations. If we reduce the amount of SL teams and also the amount of academies. We make the path harder so people will choose to participate in others sports. We are in a pattern of ever diminishing circles. Less teams, less players, less fans, less money!
Leyther14 wrote:One thing I can’t understand is the idea that a reduced number of clubs improve quality. The way to improve quality is to get more people to play the game then the pool you choose from has more quality players. Sports that have significantly increased participation such as cycling has achieved more. The countries that do the best in the olympics have the biggest populations. If we reduce the amount of SL teams and also the amount of academies. We make the path harder so people will choose to participate in others sports. We are in a pattern of ever diminishing circles. Less teams, less players, less fans, less money!
This is my theory people go on about a pool, well the pool grows to the size of the fish it has to sustain we increase the amount of fish ergo opportunities and in time the pool will grow. It won't happen overnight tho.
If the restructure is a starting block and SL2 is to be credible then it would need its own TV deal with assurances of games broadcast weekly. I would prefere a 2 up 2 down system with the 10 teams, this will improve the quality in both leagues, and also keep the two leagues linked there will be 4 sides moving between the leagues eascj year so especially in SL1 every game will count a few bad games and you could be drawn into the relegation battle.
Leyther14 wrote:One thing I can’t understand is the idea that a reduced number of clubs improve quality. The way to improve quality is to get more people to play the game then the pool you choose from has more quality players. Sports that have significantly increased participation such as cycling has achieved more. The countries that do the best in the olympics have the biggest populations. If we reduce the amount of SL teams and also the amount of academies. We make the path harder so people will choose to participate in others sports. We are in a pattern of ever diminishing circles. Less teams, less players, less fans, less money!
some one has to sit back and review the where damage has been done with the lack of players making it through the system it so bleeding obvious that its as junior level why we are not achieving this, if schools aren't allowing RL to flourish within the curriculum then junior clubs away from the schools have to be supported, flood the junior levels with the players then over the years the will be more, the stop gap is at the age when they reach 16 to 18 when they decide the career direction, not all want to take continue suffering injuries, in my personal situation having recovered from a broken leg I then had enough when I broke my ankle in which I was just left at the hospital to sort my self out and then paid a pittance in insurance to cover my time away from work, It was this that at the time made me thing about finances and chose not to continue something I do regret
Leyther14 wrote:One thing I can’t understand is the idea that a reduced number of clubs improve quality. The way to improve quality is to get more people to play the game then the pool you choose from has more quality players. Sports that have significantly increased participation such as cycling has achieved more. The countries that do the best in the olympics have the biggest populations. If we reduce the amount of SL teams and also the amount of academies. We make the path harder so people will choose to participate in others sports. We are in a pattern of ever diminishing circles. Less teams, less players, less fans, less money!
[i]"More people playing the game"[/i] Is of course what we want plus more fans watching, more money men buying into clubs, and more media outlets buying into Rugby League.
But with respect you offer a solution without a plan to get there.
Most kids don't want to play Rugby or Soccer any more, nor do adults, the world has been changing and they don't "run off to other sports"
Now that parents can see the head knocks, and see the damage done to RL players RU players and Soccer players they are less enthusiastic to encourage or support their kids in these sports. It's not the game that makes the path harder it's social change, and health awareness.
Playing rugby and soccer is now a choice, people are free not to choose to do it.
Donnyman wrote:[i]"More people playing the game"[/i] Is of course what we want plus more fans watching, more money men buying into clubs, and more media outlets buying into Rugby League.
But with respect you offer a solution without a plan to get there.
Most kids don't want to play Rugby or Soccer any more, nor do adults, the world has been changing and they don't "run off to other sports"
Now that parents can see the head knocks, and see the damage done to RL players RU players and Soccer players they are less enthusiastic to encourage or support their kids in these sports. It's not the game that makes the path harder it's social change, and health awareness.
Playing rugby and soccer is now a choice, people are free not to choose to do it.
Think my solution is not a quick fix that the RFL looks for. 1. All teams should be supported in building academies. 2. Clubs should be supported in community engagement summer and holiday rugby camps. Take you point about the head knock concerns so touch rugby could be the start for the kids. 3. Focus on building the support back up at all clubs after COVID so some marketing around this to pull fans back in. 4. More money into marketing generally if you don’t oromote and product you won’t sell it. 5. Get the World Cup scheduled for 2022 now . 6. Set up a 9s tournament that can be sold to another network. I don’t have a magic answer but the moves we make seem to be wrong.please stick with a structure so clubs can plan. With regards to sky what do they want be good to explicitly know their view.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12646 Location: Leicestershire.
RL is played primarily in one not very wealthy region of England and is heavily reliant on money from a medium (television) that is starting to diminish in importance and value. On top of that there is the general economic malaise that has already lasted more than a decade now and doesn’t look to be ending any time soon, with the fallout from the pandemic.
Agonising about about 2 x 10 vs 12 vs 14 is a bit like being chained to the tracks as the train speeds towards you and wondering what type of sandwich you should have for lunch.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Users browsing this forum: RoyBoy29 and 108 guests
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