Quote: Bull Mania "I agree with the SL clubs in that we need to go to 1 up 1 down with top 5 play-offs. But as soon as Carter said they would be loop fixtures i had my head in my hands. One of the main problems with Super 8s is that they are too many games against the same clubs. Wigan/Saints derby could end up playing each other 6/7 times.
I feel its being rushed through. This is half the reason licensing and the 8s didn't work. Licensing didn't have definitive rules set out. Wakefield, Bradford & Crusaders should have all been thrown out when they went into admin. But because this wasn't set out, the RFL ended up making it up as they went along. FAIL. The 8s, again many people had worries about the 8s, but the RFL only looked at the positives, didn't look at the negatives, waved a load of cash at the clubs and thry voted it through fail.
Its happening again. They're trying to rush it in for 2019, have come up with the ridiculous loop fixtures which we all know don't work, and could still see a wigan/saints derby 7 times in a season creating fan fatigue (which is one of the main flaws of the 8s.) we'll be back here again in 3 years wondering what went wrong when crowds shrink because they're bored of the same fixtures. I'd rather have a other year of the 8s, but take out time as a sport to get a proper structure sorted that will stay for ghe next decade'"
Carter wants loop fixtures because it's easy for him. The more he can flog the talent, with as many games as he can get away with, the less effort he has to invest in actually trying to sell the games he has. He says that the 'short notice' of the eights system makes it hard to sell tickets, yet there were 16 days between the fixtures being announced and Wakefield's first home game - ample time to come up with a sales strategy for that event (as evidenced by much smaller clubs like London Broncos, who have been actively promoting this game with a part-time operation).
Carter is undoubtedly good at what he does, which is bean counting. There is nothing wrong with that, but let's never pretend that he is in any way a visionary that can take the sport forward. His MO is protectionism and cutting the costs, not seeking out the opportunities.
And this whole proposal by Elstone and crew is about protectionism. It's about removing risk for the smaller clubs, allowing them to bumble along investing as little in business growth as possible and reducing their cost base without consequence, and for the bigger clubs it is about how much of the pie they can take, rather than how they can make the pie bigger. Anybody who doubts Ian Lenaghan's motives behind this simply needs to look at Wigan's accounts and take note of the reporting of an "operating loss of £605,286" due to a "significant reduction in sponsorship income" due to a "loss of a major sponsor" - on top of the previous year's £180k+ loss.
