: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:33 pm  

Disco wrote:

Cosmetic change only - already dismissed.

no it isnt, having a wider geographic spread has many potential advantages, especially when it comes to selling sponsorship and advertising

Really? Explain how a club in an area with limited roots in RL is so much better equipped to produce players than one which has been doing it for years.

because when you have 3 clubs within 10 miles of each other, they start to step on each others toes, we have proved time and time and time again there isnt the talent in the heartlands to sustain the league, this is why clubs need so many overseas players,

another club, in another area, opens up a whole new area and pathway for elite players, players who simply didnt have RL as an option before, and no club can have been producing players for years and years unless at one stage it had limited roots, the same as Cas once had limited roots in RL, so did Quins, now both are doing some great work, not everything in RL needs to be immediate

also representative numbers wasnt number of players who can represent us, it was number of people who are represented by and have a link to an RL club, which is very important again in terms of sponsorship and advertising

Hope? You're not getting desperate after just four are you?

turn of phrase, it was supposed indicate that for this to happen the club would have to be run well, it was to compare and contrast with the above list which was put into the context of what would definately happen, as the context of these would be what should... but may not if the clubs isnt run correctly.... happen

i thought that was pretty simple tbh

Apparently you are. 'Audience within targetted demographic' is frankly just bullsh*t speak for 'expanding audience',

no it isnt, Advertising for RL is generally sold on a block basis by sky, the sell to these advertising slots for about companies who are looking to target males 15-34, there are only so many males between the ages of 15-34 who exist in the heartlands, the audience is limited by the fact not everybody is that age and that sex in the heartlands, so we need more people in general, so we can have more people of that demographic so that sky can charge more for their advertising slots, so our value to them goes up, so they pay us more for the rights, so we have more money to invest in the game

simple

while 'participation' (presumably playing the game?) is in effect a more active form of audience engagement than just 'being a fan'. So let's save time and address these together....

so amateur RL is is just the sky audience actively engaging in being a fan? what an odd thing to say

It makes no commercial sense to disillusion the audience (passive or active) you already have in the vague and unproven hope that you'll attract a new, presumably bigger, one somewhere else. It's far, far better to keep the one within the family while at the same time pushing the boundaries outwards. Expansion, not replacement - any fool can see that.

who would be disillusioned other than the club that got dropped? which would likely be a small club based in a small town which doesnt really contribute to the value of the tv rights contract,

Sky wont pay less because the 50k people we could (generously) look at as Cas core target market were no longer represented, a fair portion of that would go to either Leeds or Wakefield and of those that dont who cares, its only going to be at most maybe 5k people who leave the game,

Sky might however be happy to pay more to give their sponsors the chance to reach the 700k in the nottingham urban area,

when Cas play on sky(or in fact any team) only a tiny fraction of 'cas' fans make up the audience, the vast vast majority are neutrals, who are completely unaffected by whether cas are in SL or not, dropping them and replacing them with a.n. other would barely register in terms of audience figures,

the market which would be alienated wouldnt be the RL market, it would be a tiny fraction of the RL market that support Cas, and even then a fair portion of that would be replaced by the new club, a fair portion would drift to leeds or Wakefield, a fair portion will still watch RL on tv, and only a small portion would be lost,

I don't buy this argument. Things like 'history', 'continuity', 'tradition', are just as effective selling points as 'new', 'fresh', etc. It's all down to the marketing. Even if it weren't the case, you still haven't explained why getting rid of one club to make way for another is apparently better than keeping the one club AND including another.

numerous reasons, 1) we cant go on forever expanding the size of the top league, not everyone is an elite club,
2) we barely if at all have the player pool to support 14 teams, we are no where near being able to support 16/18/20 teams
3) every team added means the pie is cut a little smaller, most clubs struggle financially the pie simply isnt big enough to support more teams
4) some clubs arent very good, even though they are in the elite league, they arent elite clubs, we have too many at elite levels who are too close together, when we have such vast swathes of the country unrepresented it would be better to have 2 or 3 top quality clubs in west yorkshire for instance than 1 top quality one and 4 struggling ones

So come on, you haven't got all day. You've got a marathon to train for.

not yet, you still need to survive two more franchise judgements

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:51 pm  

I think Smokey raises some very good points but I agree with the initial point that no club should be dropped for an 'expansion' club at this time.
I feel this was the reason that Cas or Wakey weren't dropped last year, there's no point destroying a current SL club for a 'gamble'.

In time that might change, however what i'd like to see in time, possibly ten years would be two conferences. RL has always been innovative in this country and if we had 20 teams at some point i'd like to see an East and a West conference playing each other home and away and playing each team from the other conference alternating each year H/A, 27 games plus Magic, culminating in a Grand Final between the conferences.
Or possibly a playoff system involving the top 4 from each combined to form a top 8, similar to the NHL system.
Thoughts?

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:59 pm  

Dico wrote:

I think Smokey raises some very good points but I agree with the initial point that no club should be dropped for an 'expansion' club at this time.
I feel this was the reason that Cas or Wakey weren't dropped last year, there's no point destroying a current SL club for a 'gamble'.

In time that might change, however what i'd like to see in time, possibly ten years would be two conferences. RL has always been innovative in this country and if we had 20 teams at some point i'd like to see an East and a West conference playing each other home and away and playing each team from the other conference alternating each year H/A, 27 games plus Magic, culminating in a Grand Final between the conferences.
Or possibly a playoff system involving the top 4 from each combined to form a top 8, similar to the NHL system.
Thoughts?

People attack the 'rights' of a SL club to exist, but there seems to be no counter argument along the same lines that is challenged to a so called expansion team.

Namely,

'What right does a newly instituted team have to take the place of a club that is functioning satisfactorily?'

In may cases we have a well funcitoning League. Teams are improving facilities, have established decent juinor set ups and have sound business plans.

Of course there are also the fine traditions many of our clubs have - and the fact that they are woven into the fine tapestry of the Greatest game.

Any 'franchise' team should have to do it the Celtic way which starts at NL2 or 3 and works there way up. Even then there is a valid question surronding player development.

Risk and respect for exisitng teams are key.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:07 pm  

Dico wrote:

I think Smokey raises some very good points but I agree with the initial point that no club should be dropped for an 'expansion' club at this time.
I feel this was the reason that Cas or Wakey weren't dropped last year, there's no point destroying a current SL club for a 'gamble'.

In time that might change, however what i'd like to see in time, possibly ten years would be two conferences. RL has always been innovative in this country and if we had 20 teams at some point i'd like to see an East and a West conference playing each other home and away and playing each team from the other conference alternating each year H/A, 27 games plus Magic, culminating in a Grand Final between the conferences.
Or possibly a playoff system involving the top 4 from each combined to form a top 8, similar to the NHL system.
Thoughts?

personally i think that is the way it will go, as a european competition we are always going to get to a point where one league isnt enough and we are too big, splitting it into two divisions i.e SL1 and SL2 will still leave a lower league and be no different really to the championship,

there are pros and cons to a two tier SL, but i agree that a conference system with playoffs would be the way to go

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:13 pm  

It depends on how the Championship progresses as a stand alone competition I suppose.
We're not in the same position as football, by that I mean we can afford three or four tiers full time with great crowds. If the championship progresses like that then so be it but we need to get as many professional clubs playing at the top level as possible. With the knocks teams get in SL a 20 team straight league could well mean 38 league games (unless you use the NRL system) and a hell of a lot of travelling.
The conference system means we could keep most of the derbies, expand the competition without playing 40 odd games a year. It would also mean when one of the 'big' opposition conference sides, say Leeds travelling to Wigan, would ensure bumper crowds.
On a slightly different note I reckon it could be used as a format to bring back a SoO.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:14 pm  

eddiewaringsflatcap wrote:

'What right does a newly instituted team have to take the place of a club that is functioning satisfactorily?'

to answer that you would need to define satisfactorily

are the stadiums at Cas, Wakefield, Hull KR, and a few other satisfactory? or are they in need of improvement,

is the youth development at these clubs satisfactory or in need of improvement,

are the attendances satisfactory? The business model? the marketing? the investment? the training facilities? they match day experience?

how many of these things need to be satisfactory for a club to be judged as functioning satisfactorily? who judges the satisfactoriness of a club? is it an objective or subjective judgement? is it weighted in certain areas or a flat? who decides the weightings? are all clubs judged on the same level of satisfactoriness i.e judged against each other? or are they judged against themselves, their potential and their progress towards that?

is satisfactory enough? surely at elite level we would be wanting all clubs to excell to push the boundries? surely simply existing and meeting the basic level is disrespectful to the clubs trying to push the boundries forward, and clubs that do this are holding the game back? are clubs who simply meet a minimum level satisfactory? not in my opinion, maybe not in someone elses, maybe so

and if a club isnt satisfactory then surely it is better not only for the club looking to replace them, but the whole league that they are replaced?

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:19 pm  

Dico wrote:

It depends on how the Championship progresses as a stand alone competition I suppose.
We're not in the same position as football, by that I mean we can afford three or four tiers full time with great crowds. If the championship progresses like that then so be it but we need to get as many professional clubs playing at the top level as possible. With the knocks teams get in SL a 20 team straight league could well mean 38 league games (unless you use the NRL system) and a hell of a lot of travelling.
The conference system means we could keep most of the derbies, expand the competition without playing 40 odd games a year. It would also mean when one of the 'big' opposition conference sides, say Leeds travelling to Wigan, would ensure bumper crowds.

the problem with the championship is, if it progresses to a point in becomes a viable SL two, with 2 full time pro leagues and p and r between the two, it stops becoming the top division of the championship and starts becoming the 2nd tier of SL, and that makes it harder to sell, it stops becoming what made it successful a viable stand alone comp, and goes back to being simply a proving ground for SL, i think a conference system is better in that it can accomodate more clubs, yet still keeps it the top level

im not sure we will ever see a return to p and r

On a slightly different note I reckon it could be used as a format to bring back a SoO.

maybe, im not sure how we could split it into east and west though with a european competition, pretty much everything on the continent is west, which would leave us with a lancashire league which included a welsh side, then everyone else

maybe a draw every year would be better,

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:24 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

to answer that you would need to define satisfactorily

are the stadiums at Cas, Wakefield, Hull KR, and a few other satisfactory? or are they in need of improvement,

is the youth development at these clubs satisfactory or in need of improvement,

are the attendances satisfactory? The business model? the marketing? the investment? the training facilities? they match day experience?

how many of these things need to be satisfactory for a club to be judged as functioning satisfactorily? who judges the satisfactoriness of a club? is it an objective or subjective judgement? is it weighted in certain areas or a flat? who decides the weightings? are all clubs judged on the same level of satisfactoriness i.e judged against each other? or are they judged against themselves, their potential and their progress towards that?

is satisfactory enough? surely at elite level we would be wanting all clubs to excell to push the boundries? surely simply existing and meeting the basic level is disrespectful to the clubs trying to push the boundries forward, and clubs that do this are holding the game back? are clubs who simply meet a minimum level satisfactory? not in my opinion, maybe not in someone elses, maybe so

and if a club isnt satisfactory then surely it is better not only for the club looking to replace them, but the whole league that they are replaced?

But at this stage can we afford to destroy current clubs in our competition? Some people say there isnt the player pool for 14 teams but I disagree. While I wouldn't be rushing to make it a 20 team league I certainly feel we have the pool for 14.
Unless something major went wrong at a club I wouldn't boot them. The worst case scenario at the moment is Wakey not getting a ground but if it actually came down to that I feel they could rent from Cas.
As for Salford, while it looks slightly gloomy at the moment i'm confident they'll have it sorted in the end.
KR I feel are worth a mention. I feel they've made great strides without the massive backing some clubs have and although I'd call CP not quite there yet, they're working hard to rectify that.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:26 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

the problem with the championship is, if it progresses to a point in becomes a viable SL two, with 2 full time pro leagues and p and r between the two, it stops becoming the top division of the championship and starts becoming the 2nd tier of SL, and that makes it harder to sell, it stops becoming what made it successful a viable stand alone comp, and goes back to being simply a proving ground for SL, i think a conference system is better in that it can accomodate more clubs, yet still keeps it the top level

im not sure we will ever see a return to p and r




maybe, im not sure how we could split it into east and west though with a european competition, pretty much everything on the continent is west, which would leave us with a lancashire league which included a welsh side, then everyone else

maybe a draw every year would be better,

If the championship became a viable competition you'd still have the Elite clubs in SL. I refer to the clubs you talked about in your previous posts as not being Satisfactory, those clubs wouldn't make the cut and the top 12 or so would.
I'd have the boundary being the Penines pretty much. Or literally the conferences so it would be an all star game between the two.
FWIW I was just providin a slightly different argument, I agree with the conference system, hence why I suggested it. The RFL could reach a major crossroads in the years coming up.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:31 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

who would be disillusioned other than the club that got dropped? which would likely be a small club based in a small town which doesnt really contribute to the value of the tv rights contract

This is essentially the ethos behind all you're arguing isn't it? "Screw the little guy, they don't maximise my profits". My stance revolves around avoiding disillusioning even the little guy when there's no real reason to do so, and when you continually refer to that as a "strange" way of thinking I just feel sorry for you.