Re: Shane Richardson’s plan for Rugby League. : Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:46 am  

Sadly, the game in its present representation is doomed and I'd be very surprised if all the teams we see in SL right now are still viable next year and I'd include us, Hull , with decent crowds, in that, given the statements from Adam Pearson of late.
I watch the NRL every week and the difference in standard , both in playing and media coverage, is stark.
The Aussie game is apparently quite precarious too, with salary cuts and reductions, due to the impact of covid, across the board being mooted if you believe certain commentators. We have failed to promote our game to the point whereby people don't want to watch it anymore. The use of inarticulate, parochial Wigan centric ex players as analysts sounds both amateurish and embarrassing. Are Barrie McDermott and his partner in crime Terry O'Connor the most articulate and informed presenters we could muster? Phil Clarke is so biased and blatantly so, that it turns off the fans who don't see Wigan as the flavour of the month. It was the same with the previous cast as Eddie Hemmings lauded all things Lancashire and, in particular, Saints.
I agree that the above has probably little impact in terms of clubs finances, but I would assume SKY would offer more money if the viewing figures had warranted this. Contrast this to the NRL and you'd think we were watching a different sport, such is the gulf in class.
I have no real idea what will help the game going forward, but I cannot see how it can survive in the current state in which we find it - perhaps the best idea which I heard was the NRL takeover the British game, although I have not heard if they have an appetite for this. Peter V'Landys certainly looks a proactive and somewhat fearless leader of the Aussie game and we certainly need change in ours, quickly or it will die.

Re: Shane Richardson’s plan for Rugby League. : Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:17 am  

I think most would prefer more teams in SL, and the end of loop fixtures. The biggest hurdle to achieving this being club chairmen's willingness to accept even less of the dwindling TV income, in very uncertain and difficult times.

Re: Shane Richardson’s plan for Rugby League. : Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:08 am  

Too much self interest and too much power awarded to the clubs. They consider themselves as owners of SL.

Re: Shane Richardson’s plan for Rugby League. : Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:22 pm  

karetaker wrote:

Not aimed at you because you not the only person to ever say it BUT I don’t get the love in with Bradford, why should they be considered. They had it all and the owners got greedy or stupid either or.

If Simon Moran had been a Bradford fan I wonder how different history would have been for Bradford and Warrington.

Re: Shane Richardson’s plan for Rugby League. : Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:29 pm  

CW8 wrote:

Without bigger funding for the sport the only real option superleague has is to carry on treading water. The big clubs (including us) have too much power under the current setup but from the outside looking in the RFL don't appear to be fit for purpose either.

Yeah, I'm well aware my proposed changes would have no chance of seeing the light of day.

Clubs would have to take the short-term pain for the potential of long-term gain.

A bigger league solves quite a few issues but presents what is always the biggest problem, money.

Re: Shane Richardson’s plan for Rugby League. : Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:18 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

If Simon Moran had been a Bradford fan I wonder how different history would have been for Bradford and Warrington.

I'm sure we all recall Maurice Lindsay's plans for RL went down like a lead balloon. He suggested, for example, Wire and Widnes merge and one team in the Castleford area. In some ways the latest plan is simply a rerun of his ideas and clearly shows RL is no further forward then it was then. I
backed Lindsay's ideas and got plenty of stick for doing so from mates.
The tail has to stop wagging the dog. Tradition is a wonderful thing but the Aussies accepted the unpalatable and it worked. The RFL spends its time ticking boxes and closing its eyes to the need to move on. Messrs Hearns, Elstone and Kookash attempts to bring major changes were rejected ; nothing changes. New money is needed but it has to be earned. Richardson's plan must be at least a starting point if the game is to survive. My preference is for a franchise system which involves a much higher salary cap and let the best succeed.

Re: Shane Richardson’s plan for Rugby League. : Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:51 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

If Simon Moran had been a Bradford fan I wonder how different history would have been for Bradford and Warrington.

Moran came on board as majority share holder (although he was already a minor shareholder I believe) once the stadium had been passed, I think the more pressing question is that had Bradford had a new stadium approved and built with third party money and Warrington didn't where would the clubs be now?

The fact we ended up with a stadium owned by the club, and not in a similar situation to the likes of Leigh / Salford and to an extent Hull with an SMC running things had a massive impact on us as a club. Saints were fortunate to have a silent backer stump up for the costs of their stadium, Leeds have managed to acquire significant 3rd party funding (which will need paying back) for their development and Wigan are fortunate to play out of the DW stadium on very favourable terms for at least the next 10 years.

Warrington have Middleton now too, who I believe is very involved in terms of his financial backing to the club.

Re: Shane Richardson’s plan for Rugby League. : Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:44 pm  

Quite a lot to go at in that...

An independent commission

“The game is never going anywhere until smart independent business minds look objectively at the business, and most importantly are not bogged down by the past and vested interests , but look to invest in the future.

Don't entirely agree with his point, currently Superleague runs to a similar model to the Football Premier League, with each member having a vote, so its a system that can clearly work, but comparing SL with a competition such as the EPL is night and day in terms of stability. The recent European Superleague proposal aside, big decisions don't need to be made in the EPL as it works. SL is still trying to find a system that best suits the sport and its media partners. An independent commission could provide an unbiased and 'game first' approach i'd agree. But would Rugby League fans be happy leaving the sport in the hands of a Nigel Wood or Robert Elstone? Richard Lewis was probably the sports strongest CEO, but he wasn't particularly liked either? Roger Draper? I think we need to be careful what we wish for. The fundamental issues in the game would still exist, but I think I would be in favour of an Independent Commission running things - although it certainly wont be some kind of silver bullet. How the commission is voted in and how to remove an underperforming commission would need to be thought about. What an IC could bring is a strategic opportunity for growth, Development Officers were dropped a while back, rather than the clubs single-mindedly pocketing as much of the TV monies as possible more thought could be given to grow specific geographical areas. Identify Newcastle, York and Wales as future growth areas, and support them with development officers.

The chosen clubs
I don't see what Newcastle, Wales and York will bring to the league that the other clubs outside of his 'chosen 5' do. Newcastle look promising in terms of the work they do growing the community game and how they have grown as a club. But far more players are produced in the Wakefield and Castleford area. I don't see why we should create such ill feeling in the game to demote these clubs and potentially lose thousands of people from the game. This isn't Australia, these fans won't simply start supporting the closest club or a merged entity. What is important is what will Sky / Media partners prefer? Wakefield / Cas / Huddersfield Leigh will give them more viewers than Newcastle, Wales & York. We need to let things evolve naturally, whilst supporting areas we see with the most potential for growth. I wouldn't be in favour of shuffling the teams about, you risk damaging existing clubs by relegating them and risk that the new clubs don't make the grade.

In terms of numbers, 14 is probably ideal, but I'm just not sure we have the finance or number of viable clubs or player pool to make it work. You risk diluting the competition in my eyes and then the product gets even worse. Personally I think a SL1 and SL2 of ten teams each would be better. Just basing teams on their current league position that would be Catalan, Saints, Warrington, Hull FC, Wigan, Hull KR, Leeds, Castleford, Wakefield, Salford. SL2 Huddersfield, Leigh, Toulouse, Featherstone, Bradford, Halifax, London, York, Newcastle, Widnes. I think it would give you two decent competitions with enough interesting teams to encourage the broadcasters. Sell to the broadcasters as two packages. Package 1 is 2 x SL1 games and 1 x SL2 game a week. Package 2 would include 1 x SL1 game per week, maybe 1x SL2 game too, preferably on FTA. The loop fixtures aren't ideal, but its the lesser of two evils for me and I think its our best chance of getting a 2nd tier televised so increasing revenues. Teams from France have to be involved, with the ultimate aim of a French TV deal, with teams such as Avignon / Aude considered for SL2 inclusion should the French player pool allow it.

The impact on the international game

Completely disregards Tonga, PNG, Fiji, Samoa, France. I agree a calendar is needed, but would prefer a rolling schedule of:
1, World Cup
2, GB Tour
3, 4 Nations (with either France or best placed Pacific Islands team based on if its in Northern or Southern hemisphere),
4, Aus / NZ tour,
5, World Cup

As much notice given as possible so these events can be sold to a broadcaster. If State of Origin can be held mid season so can tests between NZ, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, PNG. England should be playing France every year. Internationals should be seen as the pinnacle, wouldn't agree with lay years.

Re: Shane Richardson’s plan for Rugby League. : Fri Jul 16, 2021 9:36 am  

Probably a controversial idea, but the success of a club in professional sport normally comes down to the commercial success based upon how well the club is run and the number of spectators putting bums on seats. So why not change the salary cap to a percentage of turnover. The bigger clubs with a greater support, who generate more money will spend more on players. The better players will in turn bring greater success, and the smaller clubs with lesser support who can't afford the best players ie, Salford, Wakefield, will fall away through relegation. A natural survival of the fittest resulting in success based upon financial strength. Any clubs geographically close together, who compete for supporters, would then have the choice of either merging to compete at the highest level, or sticking to there traditional roots and playing in the lower leagues.