FORUMS > Hull FC > Clubs Reject Restructuring - (Oh no they didn't !!) |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Owner | 9673 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2004 | 21 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jul 2024 | May 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Humberside this morning were suggesting that Pearson has changed his stance and will vote with the RFL!
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 197 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2008 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2015 | Sep 2015 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: Smiggs "Humberside this morning were suggesting that Pearson has changed his stance and will vote with the RFL!'"
Heard that as well and couldn't make sense of it. Even if not true it still looks like the 8 x 3 is going to get the green light. So many issues that I just don't see what the clubs think will be the benefit.
If AP has changed camps I would be very surprised, seemed so set on trying to force major change at the RFL. This wouldn't be the way to do it, would probably make the RFL stronger as again they will have gotten there own way.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 7401 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2005 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: Smiggs "Humberside this morning were suggesting that Pearson has changed his stance and will vote with the RFL!'"
Just my opinion but I think that's a distinct possibility he spoke strongly against it at the last forum but there are a lot of folks who are relatively new to the game who think its the best thing since sliced bread, they might be right, only time will tell, I support Hull FC whatever competition we play in and we have to get on with it, because one things for sure the Clubs in general and the RL were never going to consult the fans.
However if we do go to a 8x8x8 split, it will be hard one to sell and however much we all appear to embrace it many have bought seasons this year as one last throw of the dice to support Adam in whom everyone trusts but we had better have a well above average season because with the uncertainty about who you play at the end of the season in 2015, I can see a lot who are looking for an excuse to pick their matches doing just that, rather than buying seasons, then again I might be wrong too.
All you can do is stick by your Club I guess and hope we finish outside the bottom two this year and the bottom 4 next!
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: FCFaithful Stu "Heard that as well and couldn't make sense of it. Even if not true it still looks like the 8 x 3 is going to get the green light. So many issues that I just don't see what the clubs think will be the benefit.
If AP has changed camps I would be very surprised, seemed so set on trying to force major change at the RFL. This wouldn't be the way to do it, would probably make the RFL stronger as again they will have gotten there own way.'"
Or more likely, the issue itself wasn’t ever the structure, which should benefit a club like Hull if they perform to their potential but more about the governance structures so that when this structure inevitably fails in 3-5 years and makes Wood and Rimmers positions untenable, the SL clubs can call for a root and branch restructure of the RFL and seize more control for themselves. This seems a battle the SL clubs were always prepared to lose to win a larger war. The agreement on it will be unaninamous. It was always going to be.
It just should have been handled better by all sides in that there was no reason or benefit to the clubs setting themselves against each other when there doesnt seem much, if anything that wasnt a common goal. We just saw some wierd fist-banging, foot-stomping, pointlessly aggressive agreement.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Board Member | 1707 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2003 | 22 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2016 | Aug 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| I am very much more in favour of the 12 x 2 8 x 3 structure as opposed to boom and bust straight P&R. I do recognise that there is far more to it than simply saying this is the way its going to be. Financially the top 4 in the Championship need some leeway or assistance in order to compete with the bottom 4 of SL. But I do feel its far better than winning a competition in October and expecting to put together a competitive squad that will avoid relagation by February. I know its been done in the past, but more often than not the promoted team gets relegated. Even when we have had more than 1 promoted. I recall 1976 when we were promoted as champions with 3 other clubs. We were all relegated the following year.
I believe the 8 x 3 allows the top championship sides to develop over time in order to establish themselves in the top flight. But hey I know that I am in a minority.
Moving on though, I think the issue that AP and Hudge etc have with the RFL is the promotion, marketing and general commercial value of the competition. It is so badly under valued and needs better direction. In order for that to happen agreement has to be made on the structure be it P&R or 8x3 and from there the brains in all the clubs get working to maximise the commercial revenue. Hopefully any compromise that may have been reached will lead to the commercial side getting better and the sport being able to progress. With that progression we can hopefully get to a situation where we don't have to back clubs that go into administration as we will let them fall behind and promote the stronger of the championship sides who can run proper businesses.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 197 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2008 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2015 | Sep 2015 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "Or more likely, the issue itself wasn’t ever the structure, which should benefit a club like Hull if they perform to their potential but more about the governance structures so that when this structure inevitably fails in 3-5 years and makes Wood and Rimmers positions untenable, the SL clubs can call for a root and branch restructure of the RFL and seize more control for themselves. This seems a battle the SL clubs were always prepared to lose to win a larger war. The agreement on it will be unaninamous. It was always going to be.
It just should have been handled better by all sides in that there was no reason or benefit to the clubs setting themselves against each other when there doesnt seem much, if anything that wasnt a common goal. We just saw some wierd fist-banging, foot-stomping, pointlessly aggressive agreement.'"
Just can't see that making any sense. Why throw away 5 years and risk the whole sport going bust when you could push for changes now if the clubs stayed strong as a collective. To few clubs with to much power and influence in the sport I'm afraid. Things need to change.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 197 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2008 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2015 | Sep 2015 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: Graham Richards "I am very much more in favour of the 12 x 2 8 x 3 structure as opposed to boom and bust straight P&R. I do recognise that there is far more to it than simply saying this is the way its going to be. Financially the top 4 in the Championship need some leeway or assistance in order to compete with the bottom 4 of SL. But I do feel its far better than winning a competition in October and expecting to put together a competitive squad that will avoid relagation by February. I know its been done in the past, but more often than not the promoted team gets relegated. Even when we have had more than 1 promoted. I recall 1976 when we were promoted as champions with 3 other clubs. We were all relegated the following year.
I believe the 8 x 3 allows the top championship sides to develop over time in order to establish themselves in the top flight. But hey I know that I am in a minority.
Moving on though, I think the issue that AP and Hudge etc have with the RFL is the promotion, marketing and general commercial value of the competition. It is so badly under valued and needs better direction. In order for that to happen agreement has to be made on the structure be it P&R or 8x3 and from there the brains in all the clubs get working to maximise the commercial revenue. Hopefully any compromise that may have been reached will lead to the commercial side getting better and the sport being able to progress. With that progression we can hopefully get to a situation where we don't have to back clubs that go into administration as we will let them fall behind and promote the stronger of the championship sides who can run proper businesses.'"
I agree with a lot of what you have said. Particularly think the way the game is marketed and run is not what it should be. The fact that the governing body are financially sound enough to regularly prop up and help struggling clubs would suggest that the balance is to far in the direction of the RFL in terms of how what revenue is available is split.
If 8 x 3 gives the sport and clubs a solid base to push for change and improve the governance of the sport I can see it working long term. There will be lots of issues in the near future though and can't help but think that the strongest voices in support are the ones with the most influence at present and the most to lose. That would suggest little will change.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: FCFaithful Stu "Just can't see that making any sense. Why throw away 5 years and risk the whole sport going bust when you could push for changes now if the clubs stayed strong as a collective. To few clubs with to much power and influence in the sport I'm afraid. Things need to change.'"
Because it wont make the whole sport go bust. The problems with this system are mainly around the fact it focusses the middle and bottom of SL to focus on staying up instead of growing and the instability that breeds. A fair few clubs wont be affected by it, Leeds, Wigan, Wire, Saints Hudds, aren’t going to finish out of the top 8. The difference to them is they swap a few games against the SL stragglers for a few more games against each other. This is a good thing. Hull, Hull KR, Catalans, Salford are all capable of joining them and strong enough financially to take the ‘hit’ of having 7 games against lower SL sides and championship sides and there is no way they will get properly relegated.
The clubs who will see a disastrous effect are Wakefield, Cas, London, Bradford and possibly Widnes from SL, and everyone else down (who have yet to notice the gifts those kind greeks have brought) who will struggle to deal with the instability of a possible huge drop in revenue from ‘proper relegation’ and will drift further and further away from the bigger teams.
The net effect will likely be we will have 6 or 7 strong SL level clubs, 1 or 2 on the brink of being strong SL clubs with the rest too far away. We will have a natural gap, a natural line to draw for a 10-12 team ringfenced SL
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 10540 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2007 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Mar 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: Graham Richards "I am very much more in favour of the 12 x 2 8 x 3 structure as opposed to boom and bust straight P&R. I do recognise that there is far more to it than simply saying this is the way its going to be. Financially the top 4 in the Championship need some leeway or assistance in order to compete with the bottom 4 of SL. But I do feel its far better than winning a competition in October and expecting to put together a competitive squad that will avoid relagation by February. I know its been done in the past, but more often than not the promoted team gets relegated. Even when we have had more than 1 promoted. I recall 1976 when we were promoted as champions with 3 other clubs. We were all relegated the following year.
I believe the 8 x 3 allows the top championship sides to develop over time in order to establish themselves in the top flight. But hey I know that I am in a minority.
Moving on though, I think the issue that AP and Hudge etc have with the RFL is the promotion, marketing and general commercial value of the competition. It is so badly under valued and needs better direction. In order for that to happen agreement has to be made on the structure be it P&R or 8x3 and from there the brains in all the clubs get working to maximise the commercial revenue. Hopefully any compromise that may have been reached will lead to the commercial side getting better and the sport being able to progress. With that progression we can hopefully get to a situation where we don't have to back clubs that go into administration as we will let them fall behind and promote the stronger of the championship sides who can run proper businesses.'"
I don't think it will be as simple as that. The top 4 championship clubs will still have recruitment difficulties that are similar to what stops promoted sides being able to compete, and therefore still mainly struggle to compete against the bottom 4 SL sides. How many players given the choice will opt to start the season at a Championship club aiming for the mediocre league at best over a SL club with an outside (however small) chance of the big boy finish, where their worst case scenario is already the best they could have done at the Championship club? All the decent players will still mainly gravitate to the same clubs, so I don't see it improving Championship clubs that much.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 10540 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2007 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Mar 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "The net effect will likely be we will have 6 or 7 strong SL level clubs, 1 or 2 on the brink of being strong SL clubs with the rest too far away. We will have a natural gap, a natural line to draw for a 10-12 team ringfenced SL'"
That's essentially what we already have. Have a look at the predictions thread and see how many people have broken SL up like that already, and it's true. The only real change will probably be more poor gates at the end of the season, similar to Challenge Cup earlier rounds against lower division opponents.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 7401 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2005 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "Because it wont make the whole sport go bust. The problems with this system are mainly around the fact it focusses the middle and bottom of SL to focus on staying up instead of growing and the instability that breeds. A fair few clubs wont be affected by it, Leeds, Wigan, Wire, Saints Hudds, aren’t going to finish out of the top 8. The difference to them is they swap a few games against the SL stragglers for a few more games against each other. This is a good thing. Hull, Hull KR, Catalans, Salford are all capable of joining them and strong enough financially to take the ‘hit’ of having 7 games against lower SL sides and championship sides and there is no way they will get properly relegated.
The clubs who will see a disastrous effect are Wakefield, Cas, London, Bradford and possibly Widnes from SL, and everyone else down (who have yet to notice the gifts those kind greeks have brought) who will struggle to deal with the instability of a possible huge drop in revenue from ‘proper relegation’ and will drift further and further away from the bigger teams.
The net effect will likely be we will have 6 or 7 strong SL level clubs, 1 or 2 on the brink of being strong SL clubs with the rest too far away. We will have a natural gap, a natural line to draw for a 10-12 team ringfenced SL'"
Very well put ands animates I guess what a lot of us have been trying to say about our fears for the lower Super league teams for some time. It does however beg the question of why did Cas Wakey, Widnes and London vote for the change? Are Wakey and Widnes under GH's influence, are Cas and London indebted in some way to the RL our do they all genuinely have illusions of grandeur?
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: carl_spackler "That's essentially what we already have. Have a look at the predictions thread and see how many people have broken SL up like that already, and it's true. The only real change will probably be more poor gates at the end of the season, similar to Challenge Cup earlier rounds against lower division opponents.'"
I don’t massively disagree with that, I think from the bottom though, the gap between the top 4 championship bottom 4 SL is far bigger than the gap between 9th and 10th in SL. You could make an argument that Widnes and Bradford are capable of play-off RL, if not now but long term they are set up for it. I think the difference will be that there becomes a natural league of 10-12 in SL and a natural league of 10-12 below with a bigger gap between them where as we don’t really have that now. We have groups of 4 or 5 with a gap between each. I think we will see those groups expand to groups of 8-12 but the gaps between them grow.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: The Dentist Wilf "Very well put ands animates I guess what a lot of us have been trying to say about our fears for the lower Super league teams for some time. It does however beg the question of why did Cas Wakey, Widnes and London vote for the change? Are Wakey and Widnes under GH's influence, are Cas and London indebted in some way to the RL our do they all genuinely have illusions of grandeur?'"
I think the opposite, I don’t think they have delusions of grandeur I think they dare not admit they have given up.
I think London have pretty much gone under this guise. Unless their new owner pumps lots in to them they are dead in the water. I think Widnes and Cas have seen the size and quality of growth at the top of SL and seen it as a mountain they cannot climb. So are seeing this SL1.5 proposal as a chance to realistically drop down a league without dropping down a league, they struggle to justify their position at the top table under franchising (though Widnes have done a lot of good work) and think a return to semi-pro will destroy them and I think Wakefield are just hanging on for their new stadium, they see that as a bit of a panacea. They don’t really see themselves challenging for anything for the next 5 years or so, so they see a situation where they simply limit the downsides of possible relegation, it become much less likely for them, and the drop in funding is not as large.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 10540 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2007 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Mar 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "I don’t massively disagree with that, I think from the bottom though, the gap between the top 4 championship bottom 4 SL is far bigger than the gap between 9th and 10th in SL. You could make an argument that Widnes and Bradford are capable of play-off RL, if not now but long term they are set up for it. I think the difference will be that there becomes a natural league of 10-12 in SL and a natural league of 10-12 below with a bigger gap between them where as we don’t really have that now. We have groups of 4 or 5 with a gap between each. I think we will see those groups expand to groups of 8-12 but the gaps between them grow.'"
I agree with that, but I just don't see this proposed structure really changing that, for the reason outlined to Graham Richards. Players will still predominantly pick the incumbent SL clubs where they can, so the top 4 Championship sides will still be feeding off the rejected scraps.
EDIT: After a second read-through of your post, I see you think exactly the same regarding the gap between the 2 divisions not closing. I'm not so confident that we'll see the loss of gap between top contenders and the middle fodder, however.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: carl_spackler "I agree with that, but I just don't see this proposed structure really changing that, for the reason outlined to Graham Richards. Players will still predominantly pick the incumbent SL clubs where they can, so the top 4 Championship sides will still be feeding off the rejected scraps.'"
For me it’s a question of focus. Say you are running Cas. You have a limited budget to work with and a limited potential with that budget. Do you spend the full cap to try and sneak 8th, then get pounded for 7 games? Or do you spend 75% of the cap and put together a squad which isn’t going to finish 8th, but isn’t going to be beaten by the championship clubs either? If you are a club like Cas, why try to spend as much as you can to qualify for a competition you can’t compete in when you can spend much less and not get relegated. This new system means you can literally win 0 games in the first part, 4 games in the 2nd and continue to be an SL side. That’s why I think it will bring the bottom of SL closer to the top of the championships. The primary focus for SL clubs changes from competing in SL to being better than the championships.
This will be exacerbated by the facts that the championships will get higher revenue as a gift from SL, the Top SL clubs will be going further away, and the middle 8 group will be a levelling down.
|
|
|
|
|
|