Re: RFL has released its policy review document : Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:03 pm  

My issues with the system are,

1 It will entrench the big 4 as bigger than the rest and exacerbate that gap. Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire, will not under almost any circumstances fail to make the top 8. Even if a catastrophic series of events created a situation where they did, they would absolutely smash the lower league sides. Relegation is not a problem for them and they can plan/spend/build accordingly. It will also see these clubs play more games against each other and fewer against lesser sides. We will see a growth in attendance at these clubs because of this but also the corresponding fall elsewhere.

I can't argue with this, it is the desired effect. But the growth and reduction will not be very stark as season tickets will balance out the average somewhat. But I would argue the fall at lesser clubs is not 100%. There is the possibility that with the end of season being more relevant to the bottom 4 that there crowds do not go down. But it's impossible to say either way, without testing the theory (that's not an arguement for testing the theory, but it does mean we can't say for sure)

2 clubs like Hull, Hudds and Les Catalans will lose out. They are relatively strong off the field clubs, set up and succeeding in SL, growing and in facilities which are SL worthy. They should be fine in most seasons, however a drop in form, bad injuries on year, the bounce of a ball could all see them fall out of the top 8 with the corresponding drop in revenue of swapping a game against Leeds, Wire, Wigan, Sts, for games against, Fev, Sheffield, Leigh, Halifax, this will damage them and their ability to compete at the top. Should the worst happen and they are actually relegated, that club will also lose out massively, dropping funding in half immediately yet still having to fund a team capable of beating some SL sides to get back in, all whilst cutting the wage bill, but with all the fixed overheads being exactly the same. A season of 3/4k fans rattling around the KC while Hull play Fev would cost Hull a fortune.

I agree, but then this is the nature of most sports. You get relegated you take a hit. Either we are a sport and play like a sport or we are all about protecting current markets. Either way I would rather we come out one way or the other. But I for one am not a fan of assuring clubs of their place, I'm sure others are happy with it. But when you start fixing places such as the top 12, why not the top 11, 10, 9.... etc you get the point, why call it a sport if there is no competition.

3 Wakefield, Cas, Widnes, London, Hull KR, Bradford will be constantly looking over their shoulder. Their one aim being survival. Everything else will go out of the window. It is telling that since the RFL started pushing for the removal of licensing we have seen an upping of the overseas quotas and Cas have seen their brand spanking new stadium in the middle of a huge entertainment complex change to repainting their dilapidated facility. These clubs will invest nothing in their infrastructure, nothing in youth development, nothing in putting in place the structures needed to be successful because all their money will be put towards staying in SL because even though the gap in terms of TV funding is narrowed, it is still pretty big and they still have to deal with the drop in corporate, sponsorship, attendance and merchandising of a drop in to the 2nd tier. This will take them further and further away from the top of SL.

I completely disagree with the overseas quota going up, I'm also not 100% happy that Lancashire clubs have made great strides to fit the original SL aim of improve stadia and others have not. For me it should have been a ruling of the licence that if you did not comply on both of these then a penalty should have followed. As it is some clubs have just ridden time and are still where they where prior to SL. But again I'm not against competition and movement between divisions so I don't see it as the same problem that others do. Assurance of their position seems to be a requirement that over-rules on the field performance.

4 clubs at the top of the championship will be encouraged to overspend hugely in the hope of promotion.

This is true, but then it's down to clubs to manage themselves. Why should the competition do this? If we want the competition to govern club finances then clubs need to give up more control to the central body.

5 clubs at the bottom of the championship will be even more encouraged to overspend. They will be playing against clubs who have funding of up to £500k more than them, they will be playing to avoid relegation to a league roughly the level of C1 now, but they will be getting relegated from a league where the expectation is that clubs spend enough to compete with lower SL sides. These are clubs who are going to need to be spending at least C£1m on players dropping in to a league where clubs are spending no more than a 5th of that and playing in some cases in front of crowds of around 300. Can you imagine how damaging that drop is? It is bigger than the drop from SL to Championship ever was. One of two things would happen, either the club which gets relegated is pretty much destroyed or they are so far ahead of every other team in that league that it becomes a farce with them winning every game by 60points.

I'm not going to argue this as I feel it's the same as what I've said above

6, the end of season games in tier 3 of the 8 would be utterly pointless at the top and hugely damaging at the bottom. Nobody is going to watch a grand final for the team who is to be crowned 5th best in the championship.

Fair point

7 there will be a huge amount of dead rubber games in the top 8, the difference between 8th and 4th last year was 9 points. Realistically 9 points in a 7 game, 8 team season is an insurmountable gap. Whoever finished 8th wouldn’t be playing for anything. Very quickly this would become the case for 6th and 7th, and 1st and 2nd who would be too far ahead to drop out of the top 4.

I feel this assumes a lot. Hull KR had quite a run at the back end of this season.


8 It would make it far more difficult for clubs to plan financially, the last 3rd of the season could either be big games against big clubs, or walkovers against small clubs with the corresponding rise and fall in attendances. Financial planning would just become a lottery.

It would become more difficult

There are good reasons it is a bad idea.



In the end alot of the points seem to be about stability and predictability for the clubs and keeping the status quo as a priority. To me there is nothing wrong in what you have said, it all rings true. But to me it's sacrificing the sporting element for medium term stability. But in my opinion you sacrifice the sporting element to the determent long term of the sport. Either we are a sport or we are not, we can't be some kind of halfway house as I feel people will lose interest as people watch sport for sport not for stability.

Re: RFL has released its policy review document : Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:25 pm  

Albion wrote:

Oh, I understand what you are saying. But surely this gives an incentive to those clubs who want to be able to spend big money to run successful academies? If this was to be put into action, Koukash may invest more into his academy than he may have wanted to do at this stage.

Surely this is a benefit in the long term. The effects that you have pointed out are purely short term. Warrington have invested heavily and could benefit from such a system soon, Huddersfield are producing good academy players etc. It won't just be those three clubs who will benefit in 10yrs time with such a change.

I think that the game is constantly looking to allow the smaller teams to catch up when we should be looking to allow the bigger teams to flourish. Top 8 is an example of that. By allowing the smaller teams to not even finish in the top half of the table, yet allow them to be labeled as a 'playoff team' is ridiculous.

About time we started to allow the best teams to progress and not hold them back. This allows the likes of saints to have a greater chance in keeping hold of the Grahams and the Eastmonds of this world. Surely that is better for the game as a whole over here.

That is a good point especially when it comes to Huddersfield and Warrington. However if you read the document it looks like the RFL want to focus junior production to the main teams. Funding 10 elite academies, giving them the funding that other less successful academies would get, so as long as you get one of the 10 licences you have the chance to have a long term strategy, like you said. It is a shame that more club do not have long term views and take your suggested route.

On a side note; there is nothing saying that a club could not have 2 academies funded by the RFL. Wouldn't it be great if we had academies in talent rich areas that currently have no teams. Cumbria would be a great place for an academy, Wigan have shown a lot of interest in South Wales, while the north east and Ireland have produced talent in the past. If London do not continue full time maybe their academy could be adopted too.

Maybe the big 4 teams should look into doing this.

Re: RFL has released its policy review document : Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:19 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I can't argue with this, it is the desired effect. But the growth and reduction will not be very stark as season tickets will balance out the average somewhat. But I would argue the fall at lesser clubs is not 100%. There is the possibility that with the end of season being more relevant to the bottom 4 that there crowds do not go down. But it's impossible to say either way, without testing the theory (that's not an arguement for testing the theory, but it does mean we can't say for sure)

Surely first we must identify that crowds at the bottom of the table fall towards the end of the year. Then we would need to identify if they rose or fell less dramatically during P+R. Otherwise this increase expected at the bottom would be based entirely on a false premise. This is one of the major issues with the policy review and why it doesn’t hold much water. We have resolutions based on conclusions based on no evidence on a problem that hasn’t been proven to exist.

I agree, but then this is the nature of most sports. You get relegated you take a hit. Either we are a sport and play like a sport or we are all about protecting current markets. Either way I would rather we come out one way or the other. But I for one am not a fan of assuring clubs of their place, I'm sure others are happy with it. But when you start fixing places such as the top 12, why not the top 11, 10, 9.... etc you get the point, why call it a sport if there is no competition.

Which would be fine, but the opposite standpoint is taken on many other issues. It’s a bit of an all or nothing standpoint isn’t it. If you stand on your own two feet you stand on your own two feet. There isn’t really levels of doing so in my opinion. Yet the game does insist that clubs are protected from themselves in terms of a salary cap and a quota. If clubs are left to their own devices then we can’t insist on how much they spend and on who. If we accept that there are limits to a clubs freedom for the good of the game, then this argument falls down somewhat.

I completely disagree with the overseas quota going up, I'm also not 100% happy that Lancashire clubs have made great strides to fit the original SL aim of improve stadia and others have not. For me it should have been a ruling of the licence that if you did not comply on both of these then a penalty should have followed. As it is some clubs have just ridden time and are still where they where prior to SL. But again I'm not against competition and movement between divisions so I don't see it as the same problem that others do. Assurance of their position seems to be a requirement that over-rules on the field performance.

This is true, but then it's down to clubs to manage themselves. Why should the competition do this? If we want the competition to govern club finances then clubs need to give up more control to the central body.

Again this links up to what I said above. Either we can insist clubs do certain things or we leave them to their own devices. This is a good example of why it is all linked in. Cas highlight it well. If Cas can’t get enough people through the door that they need an SC to compete, then it is only fair the game insists they improve their facilities and infrastructure so they can get enough people through the door to compete and other clubs aren’t held back by what Cas’ can spend. If the game insists they improve their facilities and infrastructure so they can get enough people through the door, then it is only fair Cas are given the time and space to do so. This is what franchising/licensing was supposed to address. What we have now is a hypocritical standpoint which argues that how many people Cas get through the door is their problem, that if they don’t want to invest in their stadia they don’t have to, that what happens on the pitch should be what is important. BUT we need to keep in place a Salary Cap so Cas can compete on the pitch. Theres contradiction there isn’t there? That the amount Cas’ make is Cas’ problem and not the games and what happens on the field should decide the level Cas’ play at but what happens on the pitch for all teams should be affected by what Cas’ can afford to spend?

I feel this assumes a lot. Hull KR had quite a run at the back end of this season.

Its more a maths thing isn’t it. 8 teams, 7 games, 9 points when there are only 14 available. If you are 8th you need to not only gain 9 points on 4th, but points on 5th, 6th, 7th aswell. The permutations of 4th gaining a maximum of 5 points, but 5th, 6th and 7th not gaining enough points to not be overtaken by 8th just make it very very unlikely. There just isn’t the amount of games for there to be big movement in that 2nd part of the season when some clubs will be at such a disadvantage.

In the end alot of the points seem to be about stability and predictability for the clubs and keeping the status quo as a priority. To me there is nothing wrong in what you have said, it all rings true. But to me it's sacrificing the sporting element for medium term stability. But in my opinion you sacrifice the sporting element to the determent long term of the sport. Either we are a sport or we are not, we can't be some kind of halfway house as I feel people will lose interest as people watch sport for sport not for stability.

As I say, if we make the decision that what happens on the field decides everything, then we can’t have restrictions on what a club can put on the field. We can’t have a situation where a club can afford to put better bodies on the field but is restricted to keep those who can’t competitive relegated in favour of one of those clubs who need the SC to be competitive, yet those same clubs are the ones arguing that they shouldn’t have to invest in their infrastructure and facilities because it should all be decided on the pitch. I agree we can’t have a halfway house, we can’t have clubs refusing to invest in their infrastructure to grow but demanding an SC because they are so small. Either we accept we need to make demands of clubs if they are to benefit from restrictions we put in place for the good of the game, or we leave it entirely to what happens on the field but they don’t get the benefit of those restrictions.

Re: RFL has released its policy review document : Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:11 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Surely first we must identify that crowds at the bottom of the table fall towards the end of the year. Then we would need to identify if they rose or fell less dramatically during P+R. Otherwise this increase expected at the bottom would be based entirely on a false premise. This is one of the major issues with the policy review and why it doesn’t hold much water. We have resolutions based on conclusions based on no evidence on a problem that hasn’t been proven to exist.



Which would be fine, but the opposite standpoint is taken on many other issues. It’s a bit of an all or nothing standpoint isn’t it. If you stand on your own two feet you stand on your own two feet. There isn’t really levels of doing so in my opinion. Yet the game does insist that clubs are protected from themselves in terms of a salary cap and a quota. If clubs are left to their own devices then we can’t insist on how much they spend and on who. If we accept that there are limits to a clubs freedom for the good of the game, then this argument falls down somewhat.

Again this links up to what I said above. Either we can insist clubs do certain things or we leave them to their own devices. This is a good example of why it is all linked in. Cas highlight it well. If Cas can’t get enough people through the door that they need an SC to compete, then it is only fair the game insists they improve their facilities and infrastructure so they can get enough people through the door to compete and other clubs aren’t held back by what Cas’ can spend. If the game insists they improve their facilities and infrastructure so they can get enough people through the door, then it is only fair Cas are given the time and space to do so. This is what franchising/licensing was supposed to address. What we have now is a hypocritical standpoint which argues that how many people Cas get through the door is their problem, that if they don’t want to invest in their stadia they don’t have to, that what happens on the pitch should be what is important. BUT we need to keep in place a Salary Cap so Cas can compete on the pitch. Theres contradiction there isn’t there? That the amount Cas’ make is Cas’ problem and not the games and what happens on the field should decide the level Cas’ play at but what happens on the pitch for all teams should be affected by what Cas’ can afford to spend?


Its more a maths thing isn’t it. 8 teams, 7 games, 9 points when there are only 14 available. If you are 8th you need to not only gain 9 points on 4th, but points on 5th, 6th, 7th aswell. The permutations of 4th gaining a maximum of 5 points, but 5th, 6th and 7th not gaining enough points to not be overtaken by 8th just make it very very unlikely. There just isn’t the amount of games for there to be big movement in that 2nd part of the season when some clubs will be at such a disadvantage.


As I say, if we make the decision that what happens on the field decides everything, then we can’t have restrictions on what a club can put on the field. We can’t have a situation where a club can afford to put better bodies on the field but is restricted to keep those who can’t competitive relegated in favour of one of those clubs who need the SC to be competitive, yet those same clubs are the ones arguing that they shouldn’t have to invest in their infrastructure and facilities because it should all be decided on the pitch. I agree we can’t have a halfway house, we can’t have clubs refusing to invest in their infrastructure to grow but demanding an SC because they are so small. Either we accept we need to make demands of clubs if they are to benefit from restrictions we put in place for the good of the game, or we leave it entirely to what happens on the field but they don’t get the benefit of those restrictions.

I think I agree, or agree that we disagree, although I'm not 100% sure. In the end it's a value judgement. Do we think having a closed league is better or an open one, in which ever form that happens to be.

I would personally prefer an NFL type approach.

But it would require the clubs to give up more control to make it achievable.

I do think the major structural issue for me is that we run a league and a playoff system and this does not sit happy with a lot of fans. When you have an even number of game (or near as even) then the playoffs are devalued (certainly for me). Also the league is devalued as teams not finishing top call it a pre-season.

I think there has to be some inbuilt inbalance somewhere to get better buy in to the playoffs. Or call the top team champions and see if the playoff or premiership can stand on it's own 2 feet as a crowd puller.

Re: RFL has released its policy review document : Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:25 pm  

I have to say I pretty much agree with the entirety of what Smokey has stated.

I personally believe the move to "System 8 8 8" as I call it (anyone spot the Saints link from there) is about downsizing the league to a predominantly part time operation, with a few of the big clubs staying full time.

There is no way that clubs outside the top 8 will be able to continue running full time operations by playing fixtures against Leigh, Sheffield, Batley etc. Similarly there is no way the Likes of Leigh who are continually in financial difficulty will be able to employ a mixed bag of full time and part time pros, when they can barely keep their heads above water now.


The RFL will only allow there to be 10 junior academies. However the SL will have 12 teams in it.
Now I can see the French not having an academy, but that leaves one other SL team without an academy. i'm presuming that the academies are attached to SL clubs, though the RFL have intimated recently that academies may be more regional in nature.
If a club doesnt have an academy, they wont be able to develop their own players, and therefore wont be able to develop club trained players. If they don't develop club trained players, they wont be able to get the salary cap dispensation, and so will be at a disadvantage against clubs that do have a built in club academy.

This also applies to the championship clubs by the way, who because they wont have any academy or junior structure linked to the club will find it difficult to achieve club trained player status.

Another aspect is player contracts.
Clubs will have to put provisions in contracts for failing to make the top 8, or else risk financial ruin. This is because if you are to all intents and purposes relegated part way through the season, your income levels will collapse. This will be through reduced crowd receipts through playing the likes of Leigh or Sheffield compared to Leeds and Warrington, and also reduced commercial income due to a reluctance of sponsors to promote themselves to what are perceived as lower league clubs.
We have an example of this in the challenge cup whereby hospitality for Saints v Oldham was only £20, compared to £65+vat against Bradford in the SL.
There is no way clubs would be able to continue paying players at the same rate. This therefore creates a lack of financial stability for players attached to the likes of Castleford, Bradford, Wakefield etc.
We have seen recently how even a sniff of financial insecurity and players are off. Just look at how players have left Bradford, Hull KR and Wakefield of late. This results in a concentration of quality players around the better teams, were there is job security, and a collapse in playing standards amongst the rest.
Hence we are likely to see a growth in blow out scores with mismatches across the league between the haves in the top 8, who will very quickly become to all intents an purposes an exclusive club, and the pseudo SL teams occupying the bottom four slots.

I note that the Salary cap for the championship is proposed to rise to £900k. This is greater than the entire income streams of I dare say all the championship clubs, Its a recipe for financial ruin.
I also note that the salary cap for championship 1 is staying at £150k.
So championship clubs will have a cap close to half of that of SL, whereas the championship one clubs will have a cap only around one sixth of that of the championship. With such a disparity, then it is likely that CH1 clubs will find it even harder to compete against Championship clubs, than championship clubs currently do with SL.

This doesn't seem therefore like a whole game review aimed at introducing a more fluid competitive environment. It seems more like an agenda driven document, compiled by a politician with certain sweeteners thrown in to buy club votes and influence. It looks like the likes of Wigan and Saints have seen through this and therefore rightly kicked up a fuss.

Re: RFL has released its policy review document : Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:14 pm  

These posts are like war & peace

Re: RFL has released its policy review document : Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:31 pm  

St pete wrote:

These posts are like war & peace

you must have my attention span! if its longer than 3 lines i get bored lol!

Re: RFL has released its policy review document : Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:09 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

:lol:
you must have my attention span! if its longer than 3 lines i get bored lol!

Not read any mate. Soon as I saw the length of the posts I just thought stuff reading all that.

Re: RFL has released its policy review document : Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:14 pm  

I keep clicking on and scrolling to the bottom just so it doesn't say there's new posts.

Re: RFL has released its policy review document : Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:40 am  

http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_135 ... cture.html Sir Mac says hes happy with it now

http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_135 ... cture.html Sir Mac says hes happy with it now