Ahh all the chelping from Lenighan & co about uncertain fixtures so the brains trust cime up with Loop fixtures.


Guess what nobody knows what those loop fixtures will be either.
Im happy with top 5 but id hoped to see the 1 up 1 down extended to 2nd top Championship v 2nd Bottom SL for the MPG.
I think a 14 team SL would be better than loop fixtures & whatever GH thinks a reserve league is a must imo.

14 team SL needs to be put into place in next 2 to 3 years. Give clubs time to build. Need to find a way to get money invested in the game.

GH is our greatest ever chairman but he is wrong on this but it's wrong to say he should go.

So because other teams, who are all much more desperate for cash and security than Leeds because their businesses are generally not well run, voted for something, and Leeds didn't, Hetherington should quit.

If you don't vote for something and everyone else does that's an embarrassment in Gotchaland apparently.

Even when it's something which isn't really that consequential like a league format (which it is clear has been an excuse from all those non-performing club bosses as to why their clubs were losing crowds and money hand over fist).

So some great thinking there from Gotcha: if you don't go with the flow you should resign. Cos all those who voted yes have proven themselves to be visionary forward thinkers. And their club level incompetencey will all be solved by bringing back the competition structure from a decade ago and the play off structure from two decades ago.

Leeds are the biggest club in the game. Other than maybe Warrington we are the only financially stable English Super League club. Our potential relegation had the scope to single handedly knock millions off the value of the next TV contract. Our club is run to break even because the owner isn't looking for a return. Almost uniquely we can take a long view. If the people running other clubs don't agree that's fine. But bending over, voting against what you believe is right for the whole sport, voting to agree with some short termist grasping chancers just to avoid being in a minority would be the ultimate embarrassment.

An interesting post - just because you run your business effectively and don't forget Leeds has significant advantages over most other SL clubs in terms of potential audience especially corporate revenues it doesn't mean you are in touch with reality.

Leeds can only continue to prosper if they have fixtures that supporters/corporate/TV want to be involved with. If GH had his way the salary cap would be set to lowest that any team could manage i.e. Wakefield. Financially perhaps that would be good thing in the short term long-term it would be a disaster for the game. We have seen the drop off in the standard since the NRL salary cap increased how does lowering the cap improve the spectacle?

GH doesn't want to run a reserve grade - so again players are simply cast aside at 19 and lost to a game that is crying out for participation - again how is that good for the game.

Sometimes you need to be mindful of the long-term future of your business when you are looking down from your ivory tower. A deal is only a good deal if it works for all parties. SL generates all the revenues in the game - without the SL players you wouldn't have internationals nor would you have a CC competition worth anything. For the long-term prosperity of the game we have to have an elite competion that generates real quality and interest something that GH seems to have not considered.

The reserve team I agree on, not because Hetherington's approach is wrong in practice but because of the destructive effect it has on the league below in using dual reg for a de facto reserve teams.

But the excuses being made that the 8s is the root of all problems is laughable. Is it too much jeopardy for too many SL teams? Possibly. But it's enlivened that end of the table and the championship. On the other hand the short notice of fixtures is a definite challenge so it has its weaknesses. But changing format isn't going to suddenly make viable all those clubs which aren't viable. Grasping a bit more money at the same time would have, slightly, but that seems to have been fought off.

Going all in to save the 8s is probably not what I'd have bothered with if I were running Leeds as, frankly, it doesn't really make much difference to the end of the table we generally swim in. But standing up for the interests of the rest of the game is something I do applaud Hetherington for.

The Warning bells have been ringing for years. The fact that so few clubs in SL are thought of as financially stable should be a major cause for concern for those who follow this great game, including those that follow "sucessful" clubs. We struggle (and fail?) to maintain a truely competative 12 team comp, both on and more importantly off the field, Whilst I'm sure that many who don't follow Leeds will take a degree of schadenfreude from our performances this season and fair play to them. There is no joy for me in seeing clubs like Salford or Wakey struugle on the financial front. If we think the game is struggling now, imagine it if there were only 4 or 5 viable top flight clubs. Our failure to generate a truely competative world cup or international competition has, IMO, damaged the sport financially in the Norther hemisphere. If we can not pull together a sustainable model for top flight RL over here then we are doomed to a slow decline into total obscurity. We need strong collabrative leadership at club and RFL level and please god, a decent strategic plan.

The 8s may not be the root of problems but are a major concern. Attendances at matches and viewing figures are woeful. The system has obviously not enlivened things up as if it had it would be reflected in the attendances and viewing figures.. If they continue will have very adverse effect for negotiations for TV rights next time around. Clubs don't like the system, fans don't like the system so why continue with it.

If you believe Hetherington was standing up for the rest of the game in an altruistic way and should be applauded you must be very gullible. He was trying to stir things up purely to serve his own ends as he always does. He is always full of himself when putting forward his views but noticeably quiet when things go against him. The Fev Chairman was very considered in his response. Expressing his disappointment yet acknowledging the need to work together in the future. What was Hetherington's response? No comment he needed time to consider the situation. I wonder if the reporter managed to avoid the dummy?

If only a quick fix solution was available to cure the problem. The game at the moment is stagnant, boring and lacking any kind of appeal whatsoever. Phil Clarke the other night on sky said the championship clubs should have the money to them reduced. Because they had not improved or expanded the game. That may be the case ,but that accusation could apply to several super league clubs. Unfortunately I am in my late sixties, the only plus side is over the years I have been privileged to watch some superb players. Some of the games I have witnessed this season have taken boredom to the extreme. The number of talented players on view is minuscule.

He didn't say that at all. What he asked was is that the best use of the money, questioning if it could be better used to support community clubs with the aim of increasing player participation.

I’m torn on this one.

I like the 8’s, it’s probably the only system that eliminates as many “meaningless” games as a system ever can do and it does breathe life into the bottom of the table and the top of the Championship.

However, I think it draws too many clubs into potential relegation. Leeds being a good example of this this season. A team finishing 9th in the season is having to delay signings and planning for next season and beyond because their future in SL isn’t certain. Now for a club like Leeds they can probably deal with that uncertainty for a year but smaller clubs who are in that position year on year must be struggling.

So whilst I’d prefer a licensed league, I prefer the new structure over the current one. I like the top 5 playoffs as well.
I don’t like the loop fixtures. I get clubs would struggle with only 11 home games but I’d rather expand the league than have extra games against the same teams. Personally I’d expand the league to either 16 or even 20 teams.

What I don’t like though is the squabbling and time and effort that has been put into this from elements of the sport when they should be finding ways of improving attendances, corporate sales, sponsorship and non-game day revenues instead of just blaming the RFL for all the game’s ills.

The structure of the league isn’t going to significantly improve the health of the league. Clubs improving their own infrastructure instead of spending all their money on players, will.

Personally I’d introduce a rule on the salary cap, either you can only spend a maximum of 25% of your clubs income on players wages, or 50% but discount the TV money from a clubs relevant income for the calculation.

That way a club would have to bring in around £4m a year of their own money before they can spend the full cap.

I get there are concerns about the size of our salary cap compared to the NRL and Union, but whilst their salary cap is much higher so are their revenues.

We need our clubs to grow their revenues before spending more on the same players.

Agree re repeat loop fixtures but there’s far from enough quality players to have 16-20 teams, not to mention them being viable businesses. 14 tops, though we’re scraping the barrel at 12!

This is where you I disagree - the best interest of the game is to generate as much external revenue as possible - this can only happen if the elite competition is of a standard that attracts suitable TV and external sponsorship. To do this we need to improve the quality on the field and increase participation neither of which the Championship really contribute towards.

Destroying the championship clubs for relatively trivial amounts of money is not productive. The fans of those clubs are core rugby league consumers, who buy sky subscriptions, have kids who play the game and who go to big events like internationals or the grand final. The stuff coming out of the arrogant mouths of lie likes of Lenagan is pushing all those people away.

The game has ripped itself apart over money and arbitrary divisions for the past two decades. It isn't healthy and I strongly believe that those clubs who have been lucky enough to be at the top table when the music has stopped have no right to destroy the futures of clubs, many historically larger, who are not top flight right now.

Growing the game is essential. Not destroying the existing game and a large segment of the existing fan base is also essential.

In what way are the championship clubs being destroyed. I understand the funding is to remain the same until the next tv deal is negotiated. What happens after that is in the air in any case.

Are you in Hetherington’s fan club by any chance?

You say “I strongly believe that those clubs who have been lucky enough to be at the top table when the music has stopped have no right to destroy the futures of clubs.” They are not lucky! They are where they are due to hard work, development, investment and success on the field.

These clubs offer very little - their core support is pathetic given the legacy of many of these clubs - their facilities are - on the main - embarrassing I fail to see what investing in this sector actually brings that spending that amateur clubs would not. The numbers are so small the impact on Sky revenues would be minimal even if they all downed tools and quit SKY if some of these clubs were merged with others.

If Hunslet merged with Leeds do you really think the numbers of kids playing at Parkside would be diminished - kids play RL primarily because of peer pressure/need to be part of a gang.

The problem with the game is two fold: participation and the standard of the professional game - neither of which can be addressed by increased investment in the Championship and its clubs.

I've no strong views on the league structure, Seen 16 team playoffs through to 4 up, 4 down and everything in between , I suspect this current version will only last a few years.

Lenaghan, Elstone and co have their wish of ending super 8's - to help market games, draw in crowds and attract sponsors.

Just one minor issue, they have replaced it with loopy fixtures which they cannot yet explain who will play who and when. I suspect they will be very keen to manipulate this to help bring in coin - so expect a saints / Wigan game and hull Derby as 2 certain loopy games.

If wood or now rimmer had come up with a new structure that is not explainable to the fans, media, tv companies or sponsors they would have been rightly slaughtered by Lenaghan and co.

Pretty pathetic from Elstone and all the supposed genius business brains of the 11 SL clubs that they have agreed a new structure that is half baked.

What’s wrong with having a franchise structure where every 3 years any clubs can apply and be considered along with every other club? Why does someone have to drop out of the top division for someone else to be accommodated?

If it really is for monetary terms then those running the clubs and the game need to decide if they are doing it for he good of the game or for the good of themselves.

I agree. Franchise is the way to go. 14 teams inside next 2 years. Expand further if lower league clubs get the infrastructure right and have some money behind them.

Seems to me like we are going backwards. We used to have a twelve team league and then contrived extra fixtures . before that a 14 team league . All of these have been tried and then deemed as failures. No one coming up with any thing new . We have had a franchised system before , that didn`t work either.

The franchise model should have been the best approach. The problem was that the system was so badly set up because it measured the wrong things and encouraged the wrong behaviours. It encouraged clubs to give out unsustainably cheap tickets in order to meet the "average attendance" criteria for example, when the measurement should have been based around ticket revenue. That would have forced clubs to focus much more on how they market themselves to actually grow - free and cheap tickets isn't marketing.

That was what escalated Bradford's problems. The club devalued its product by selling it cheaply, it cut its profit margin to meet the attendance criteria and, when the bank pulled its credit line, it couldn't regain that profit margin.

There is no magic bullet to sort this out, too many teams in the North of England, Union in competition with league ( Union also struggling in the North of England ) 12 teams fighting over the pot of money given by SKY. The whole point of the three monkeys is to keep more of the money, so unless there is a huge cash injection from Sky at the next renewal then there will be no progress to 14 teams, hence the need for the loop games. Poor marketing at best and trying to make the game more appealing by including teams from France, surely they should have tried marketing the better off part of France as opposed to an area h little cash.
Looking at the Championship we have teams competing less than 5 miles from each other, even teams in the SL are too close together. Maybe it is time for a total rethink on how the game should be run. Start by cutting back the teams in the lower divisions, using them as feeder clubs. The SL clubs cannot afford to run a reserve team where will the money come from to pay the players, all it will do is dilute the Sky money even further, the standard will simply fall. You may as well play the reserves as we do now as duel registration etc. There are too many teams in such a small area across the north of England. People talk about promotion and relegation well since they introduced relegation and promotion the standards have not got any better, the only way the standards will improve is by getting more money into the sport and paying higher salaries to the top players. Paying the same to Salford, Wakefield and Widnes and others simply reduces the quality of the sport to the lowest of the low, The salary cap should be based on average attendance and not equally by each team. Teams with the highest support should be better rewarded and allowed to spend more money on players, simply capping everyone as the same will reduce the quality of the game.

I would wager your team has relatively good support.

At the very least, the salary cap should have increased in line with inflation. In real terms, the salary cap today is around £1m less than it was in 1999.

I have no issue with the concept of a salary cap - nobody wants to go back to the era where Wigan ed money that they didn't have buying up all of the talent, and where clubs like Leeds almost went into oblivion themselves by chasing after them - but we can't carry on giving the talent real-terms pay cuts for another two decades and we certainly shouldn't be in a position where clubs still can't afford to pay to a salary cap that was set nearly 20 years ago.

Would replacing the salary cap with a form of FFP work? Perhaps. If clubs want to spend more on players, it's up to them to come up with the growth to fund them. I seem to recall that the original salary cap had a "50% turnover or £1.9m, whichever was smaller" policy, before the 50% rule was scrapped.

The cap has been used to lower standards across the board. When Gallopp was CEO of the NRL in the mid 2000s he said that some SL teams were only paying 30-40% of the cap, compared to the NRL where most teams were at the limit. So by freezing it the bigger clubs have saved some money whilst others have probably gradually crept towards it.

As for the current system, it may have looked like a good idea, but it just hasn't worked.

Super 8s don't create any more meaningful games than just a straight playoff system - in the four years since it started only one team has made the top 4 from outside, and that was when Salford imploded from 4th.

The Middle s8s do create interest but put four SL teams in danger and forces them to take short term measures to try to stay up. Whilst it hasn't happened, it would have been possible for Widnes to finish bottom, sign a few stars for a couple of weeks and stay up at the expense of the 9th placed team. That clearly is not what was intended.

I have more sympathy as well with clubs complaining about the inability to plan and market games well in advance, and the crowds (for SL sides at least) are awful in both S8s and Middle 8s because those games can't be sold properly as part of the season ticket packages.

All in all it was an interesting experiment but ultimately a dud. Whilst I prefer franchising, 1-up 1-down will at least promote stability for more clubs in SL, and probably thr Championship as well.