Re: Relegation : Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:50 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

We certainly can't wait too long or who the coach is will become irrelevant.

Agreed

Re: Relegation : Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:59 pm  

Let’s be honest the powers at be wouldn’t let Leeds be relegated. It’d turn into a 14 team super league.

Re: Relegation : Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:12 pm  

At some point we have to go back to licensing.

The point of (or at least one of the major reasons for) the salary cap is to spread the playing talent and make the league more equal than it would be.

Eventually you reach a point where the salary cap combined with P&R is actually weakening rather than strengthening the league because it’s already evened out the quality so there’s relatively little difference. At that point if you relegate a club and promote a new one you’re weakening the league not giving a new club a chance as P&R is supposed to do.

For instance if the bottom NRL club were relegated and they were replaced by one of their 2nd tier clubs I don’t see how anyone could view that as strengthening the competition.

So eventually once the competition has been evened out by the salary cap we have to get rid of one of either the cap or P&R.

Re: Relegation : Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:15 am  

That's not quite what happens though is it? If a side is relegated most of their usable players end up with other lower table clubs including the promoted side, meaning almost the same set of players just at different clubs.

Whilst the cap may be aimed at levelling the playing field, its never going to because the gap between 'big' and 'small' clubs in financial terms is enormous. Even in the supposedly more equal NRL, some teams are just bigger than others, and from a commercial perspective far more important - the Broncos dwarf every team in almost all financial dimensions (in some ways the gap is even bigger here because its hidden by the TV deal which enables all clubs to get close to spending the full cap).

Failure to recognise these disparities is a mistake. I still think it was a huge mistake to let the Bulls fall out of SL and end up where they are. They didn't get everything right, but they could bring crowds that are just a dream for most SL sides, and if we're being honest SL lost something when they went. Replacing the Bulls with the likes of Leigh or Widnes isn't like for like in anyway at all, regardless of how 'fair' it is. Even in a player development sense they were immense - half the Brits in the NRL came through their Academy.

Given the current setup and teams in SL and below, there are really only 2 teams P&R helps - Leigh and Widnes. If the game was purely about financial strength it would be a continual yo-yo between them Salford and London. If we moved back to franchising Toronto, Toulouse and London would all stand a much better chance of getting in than through P&R, assuming they have the initial financial backing required.

Re: Relegation : Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:48 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

That's not quite what happens though is it? If a side is relegated most of their usable players end up with other lower table clubs including the promoted side, meaning almost the same set of players just at different clubs.

Whilst the cap may be aimed at levelling the playing field, its never going to because the gap between 'big' and 'small' clubs in financial terms is enormous. Even in the supposedly more equal NRL, some teams are just bigger than others, and from a commercial perspective far more important - the Broncos dwarf every team in almost all financial dimensions (in some ways the gap is even bigger here because its hidden by the TV deal which enables all clubs to get close to spending the full cap).

Failure to recognise these disparities is a mistake. I still think it was a huge mistake to let the Bulls fall out of SL and end up where they are. They didn't get everything right, but they could bring crowds that are just a dream for most SL sides, and if we're being honest SL lost something when they went. Replacing the Bulls with the likes of Leigh or Widnes isn't like for like in anyway at all, regardless of how 'fair' it is. Even in a player development sense they were immense - half the Brits in the NRL came through their Academy.

Given the current setup and teams in SL and below, there are really only 2 teams P&R helps - Leigh and Widnes. If the game was purely about financial strength it would be a continual yo-yo between them Salford and London. If we moved back to franchising Toronto, Toulouse and London would all stand a much better chance of getting in than through P&R, assuming they have the initial financial backing required.

I agree the players end up going to the newly promoted side but then you’ve just massively hit one clubs infrastructure and planning with relegation whilst the new club has a lesser infrastructure naturally because they were in a lower division. So it’s weakened the league and the sport.

There’s an argument for P&R when one club is so significantly worse than the others but when it’s close between 3 or 4 clubs then it’s just weakening the league.

I agree the cap can’t fully even everything out but it at least stops rich clubs stockpiling players and gives poorer clubs a better chance than they would have had.

But I think we have to move back to licensing. Just licensing done better than the last attempt. And then stick with it. We need to say we’re going with licensing for 15 years and then review after that.

Re: Relegation : Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:08 am  

Him wrote:

At some point we have to go back to licensing.

The point of (or at least one of the major reasons for) the salary cap is to spread the playing talent and make the league more equal than it would be.

Eventually you reach a point where the salary cap combined with P&R is actually weakening rather than strengthening the league because it’s already evened out the quality so there’s relatively little difference. At that point if you relegate a club and promote a new one you’re weakening the league not giving a new club a chance as P&R is supposed to do.

For instance if the bottom NRL club were relegated and they were replaced by one of their 2nd tier clubs I don’t see how anyone could view that as strengthening the competition.

So eventually once the competition has been evened out by the salary cap we have to get rid of one of either the cap or P&R.

Absolutely bang on. In the current system SL has been weakened for me. That's not just donwn to P&R I know but it has played a sizeable part for me

Re: Relegation : Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:55 am  

wakefield1990 wrote:

Let’s be honest the powers at be wouldn’t let Leeds be relegated. It’d turn into a 14 team super league.

Just like the way they didn't let Bradford go down?

Re: Relegation : Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am  

The future has to be a return to Licensing, it’s the only long term sustainable way. We can’t have a system that means something as unpredictable as a run of injuries to key players could be the thing that effectively finishes a club. There has to be a safety net, along with prudent and practical financial control.

There’s nothing stopping the RFL setting the criteria for acceptance of a license and publicising it so any club from outside SL could apply to join by a certain date each year.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Relegation : Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:44 am  

TOMCAT wrote:

Just like the way they didn't let Bradford go down?

Yeah but they were expecting Bradford to go bust, totally different situation

Re: Relegation : Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:45 pm  

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote:

Yeah but they were expecting Bradford to go bust, totally different situation

Exactly this. Bradford were in a complete mess financially before they were relegated. Leeds on the other hand are the biggest and most profitable team in SL. For them to be relegated would be a disaster to the sport and not something which the RFL would let happen.