John Kear spoke in a very passionate way on boots and all about the way forward for the game. It actually made a great deal of sense. Clubs such as Halifax Leigh and Fev at the higher end of the Championship need a way forward and clubs at the bottom end of super league need to be lifted from complacency. I suppose what would need to come out of all this is a minimum standard for stadiums and attendances for aspiring clubs but we do need the game to leave this rut of meaningless games every season, unless you are Leeds of course, I notice Mr Hethrington did not see much wrong with the status quo. At least this would provide a level of promotion and relegation in a controlled fashion and to be fair the Cas chief exec said change was appropriate.

Crikey, I clicked on to your thread title thinking it was about the new (alleged) cladding for LP.



(no offence)

Sorry Loz, I've just read on BBC Sport about the new structure proposals.

I think we will end up with one of these two:

Option 2 - A two-division Super League with each division comprising 10 teams

Option 3 - Two divisions of 12 in Super League, with teams playing each other once to provide 11 fixtures before splitting into three groups of eight in mid-season and then playing each other home and away to provide 14 more matches

although Option 3 seems overly complicated and convoluted.

At least we've a couple of years grace to get our act together before we face the threat of relegation.......

They are seem desperate ideas from a failed CEO of The RFL, why was he ever asked to complete a review of the future when he has governed the game over it's recent failures?

Some of his incompetent ideas seem to have been copied from the Scottish FA which threw one out on a unanimous vote, did Nigel work it all out on the back of a cigarette packet? that is how is seems.

When SL1 Clubs will get £1.8 Million approx from Sky monies how can teams from SL2 ever compete with the £180,000 they are expected to receive, it will be a case of up and down, with still promoted teams being involved in one sides games. It is the rich clubs that will benefit and these days they seem to be Wigan, Leeds, Warrington & Salford!

The game of RL needs someone Fresh to take over the running of the game, the current CEO is desperately out of his depth and should have stayed at Halifax! Sky TV this morning did not even mentioned the Challenge Cup matches last night or even today, but they found time to talk about Rugby Union! if they ever lose interest in the game we are in one complete mess.

I actually like the idea. I had the same concerns about teams competing however we were assuming some things.

Firstly the money, we have no idea of the split. But with only 12 not 14 teams in the SL, then if you assume a similar split of money at the moment, then that leaves 2 SL clubs worth of money to be split between the lower division clubs, this will boost their income. Also with 2 bigger teams relegated to SL2, that should provide a minor boost to crowds.

For those at the top 4 of SL2, they should also gain an increase in attendances given they are now playing for something. Then when the leagues merge and split again you will now have 4 SL clubs with their attendances to boost. Also with division 2 effectively being a promotion and relegation league there should be a boost to attendances anyway as there is something on the line, where as at the moment in SL the bottom 4 have nothing on the line. And the top 4 in the championship are playing to gain nothing at the end of the day other than sporting wins.

Also yesterday we learned that in this option 3 points are carried forwards. So those will less income in SL2 come the split get the advantage of points in the bag.

After 11 games, you can imagine a club at the top of SL2, will have 22 points and the club at the bottom of SL 1 will have 0 points. If that was the case, there are only 14 games left in which to cover the distance, that's 28 points. Not alot of wiggle room to catch up, but it would be a fair response for not being competitive in those first 11 games.

Also even though the leagues are not even, it does not matter as the outcome of all the 3 divisions will be by playoffs. So it now justifies a playoff, compared to the current situation where the playoffs seam an uneven response to a fair even set of rounds.

In the end the clubs will have to vote on it so it will not be down to Nigel Wood or the RFL. If the clubs want 12 and 12, one up and one down, then they can vote for it.

But because something is a little different and new it does not mean it will not work.

I think the option 3 satisfies a lot of issues in terms of RL.

It offers promotion and relegation, it offers more money to the lower division, it offers the maximum in terms of competitive games. For clubs who can pay the max salary cap, if things work out as they should, then the top 8 will be those teams and so those final 14 games should be more competitive, probably with a top 3 -5 playoff at the end.

There is also the marketing side of this, the first 11 games in SL1 and SL2 could be sold seperately to TV companies, then the division 1 and division 2 games could also be sold seperately.

Fans should get maximum value from each game, teams will have to be putting out their best as a slow start to the season will see your chances of staying in the league of your choice stopped.

I would also suggest that tied into this you can have a mid-season break for the CC. After the first 11 rounds, the leagues split, but also you throw in as many rounds of the CC as possible. Allowing teams who get knocked out a rest period and then relaunch the divisions afterwards, a bit like having 2 starts to the season.

I think there is a lot going for this idea and I can see the clubs voting for it.

Top clubs as the coaches get the most competitve league they can hope for and Chairmen get maximum gate receipts with big clubs playing each other for the final 14 games. Also they get 25 rounds so no loss of income round wise.

The 'Yo-Yo' clubs will vote for it as it will offer them something to play for and should help them boost their crowds. The Championship clubs will vote for it as it offers them more money, bigger crowds and a chance to play for promotion.

The RFL will vote for it as it offers them a chance to offer expansion clubs a way in, also if clubs 'yo-yo' it's not such a big deal as the next season they can get a chance to play similar clubs again.

The money side will be something to watch, but I see no reason if a Kokash wanted to buy Sheffield, this would make it easier for him to get Sheffield into the top flight in double quick time.

The only ones I can see who may vote against are those happy with the status quo, bottom clubs in championship and the likes of Leeds who get pretty much maximum crowds at present.

Still not convinced it will make the game better and bring in big money and sponsorship, even more so after listening to the CEO on the red button after the game yesterday, as I said these ideas were floated by Scottish Football, why was Nigel Woods ever asked to complete a review of the game when he is part of the current failure, the problem is he is CEO and in discussions too many creep up to him and he tried to creep up to Jon Wilkin yesterday in the debate.

The game needs a Jon Wilkin or Robbie Hunter Paul to be in charge, someone who has played the game and has a modern approach to sport and RL in particular, the work Jon is doing with the players union may be good stead but we need someone now, the old brigade who have allowed RL to deteriorate sponsorship, media coverage, running of big games need to go NOW before any change is even taken one step further!

He wasn't it was Maurice Watkins that reviewed it and gave his recommendations, these proposals have come from that report.

A well thought out post.

It makes me wonder why the RFL renewed the Sky deal so early with only a small improvement in the cash, as these plans require a new format of funding.

Current SL Teams that fail to make the split i.e. the bottom 4, and don't get into the top 12 the following season will find it impossible to stay full time you only need a re-building period where results are poor.
Perhaps it could work if the new format starts when the sky deal ends and then we could look to Premier as well as Sky, and perhaps the BBC for the lower divisions.

Option 2 won't work without extra dosh either as the two teams which go to "SL2" having to share their Sky money with the rest is a non-starter.

Maurice Watkins did the governance report which was completed in July 2012, but structure etc just completed has been very much in the hands of Nigel Woods.

Whoever did the report the first conclusion should have been it is time for Change and someone with fresh ideas and competence to take over the running of The RFL.

www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... eadership/

www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... eadership/

I imagine the concern of many is the way the governing body is controlled at the highest levels by individuals, who did not inspire confidence at their respective clubs. Ralph Rimmer formerly Huddersfield is basically an enforcer for Nigel Wood ex Halifax. The framing for the future forced clubs to improve stadium facilities which would have been a good initiative if it was consistent, however it seems only to have been foisted upon the Lancashire clubs. Little improvement has been made to Yorkshire grounds and that strategy now seems to have fallen away. Influential owners with significant investment seem to be driven into a corner by the majority of clubs who still lurch from crisis to crisis but understand that safety is in numbers and do not want change. That is why some form of promotion and relegation is vital even if it does require defined criteria to be met. The top eight especially is reward for failure and does not and will not work. The Championship play-off cannot see Leigh play Halifax or Fev every season to win a cup and ten grand but then same as you are next year boys.

I've just stuck that on the VT as I thought it was worth discussing across the board although knowing the kind of comments that tend to arise on RL Fans I might be indulging in some wishful thinking!

Why I tend generally to stick to here!

TS is spot on though. I'm sure Saints feel the same way too.

The one thing about Tony is he understands how the game works or doesnt

There is merit in what TS says, however, in his questioning of the leadership, he comes back with not being sure about a leader that gives 3 options, rather than just telling people the way it should go.

I take a bit of an issue with this, because it's fine to say show leadership, but SL is set up to negate the leadership of the RFL.

The chairmen make the rules. The RFL would look very weak to come out with a plan, only for a majority of the SL clubs to eject the plan. The RFL is a strong advisory body to the SL chairmen, who in the end are the decision makers and the sole people responsible for the state of our game after many years of SL.

SL clubs harp on at the RFL as it's an easy target. They can direct fans fury at the RFL as the governing body, but fail to set up and take responsibility for voting in all these systems.

As for the comment about us needing a John Wilkin in charge. Please no! On that forum yesterday, he was talking about watching other sports and how tight the marketing was, and how RL needs more of that, then said, I've no idea about how that would be done.

That's basically what fans do. We need this, we need that, we've no idea how to fund it or what effect it will have,, but we can shout from the side lines and say we need it.
I need a million pounds, I've no idea how to get it, but I need it!!!

He said he didn't have any idea about marketing. However, he is very good at communications. He is a natural in front of the camera. Whenever the RFL wheel someone out, with the exception of Blake Solley, they look and sound like they work for accounts in the local council. Jon Wilkin would be a superb communications man for the RFL.

We have got to move away from the flat cap image those running the game are stuck in! I said in my response on the Warrington Guardian website last night, Jon may not be ready yet, the final product, but as he brings his playing days to an end he could be training ready!

Back in the late 80's early 90's I did an Australian postal sports marketing/admin correspondence course with the late Peter Deacon ex Bulls & then Union, the report I did was taken up by Wigan and though I had a great job in radio I went for an interview, but even Maurice at that time did not want to move so quickly and catch up with the Aussies who were light years ahead.

Something has to happen now to get rid of the old brigade, we need fresh blood with imaginative ideas who will be excited in what they are doing, staying like we are plodding along is No Longer an Option!

I've no problem with Wilkin as a front man, but I would not have him as an idea's man. He speaks very clearly, but it's a bit different being asked your opinion on something as a pundit and being questioned and asked to come up with idea's, that can be funded.

It's the difference between those politicitions who are out of power and promise the world and those in power, who have to fund promises, which means finding the money or taking the money away from someone to give to someone else.

That's what I mean about marketing, it's fine to say we need better marketing, but someone has to get paid for doing that, if better marketing costs say £1million, that has to come from somewhere either a new revenue stream or taking it away from someone else ie the clubs. If that marketing only adds a few thousand here or there, is it money well spent??

The money for increased and better marketing has to come from increased sponsorship! which Nigel Woods & his team have failed miserably in the past few seasons to understand how to sell. The only serious money coming in to the game currently is from Sky, we can't survive that way. The way we handle national media is a joke, every time we stage an event say the Super League season launch it is so amateur. Until we get real professionals this side will never improve and it the same people who are coming up with crazy ideas to restructure the game, it is no wonder the stick they have come in from in the weekly RL media today, but they seem like Teflon that it does not affect them in the least and the club let them continue to run the game of RFL??

Really good point but the art is to have the majority of clubs on your side. The Yorkshire clubs protect the Leeds powerbase. The governing body would be better based in Huddersfield the birthplace or even Manchester with no club link.

What we need is a man with vision like Dana White. He took a failing sport with no commercial TV worth, adjusted and turned MMA (UFC organisation) into one of the most exciting and highly sought after sports in the world.

There is only one way RL will stay relevant and that is to mirror the Aussies, somehow we need to convince the broadcasters that a vastly increased TV deal is needed. The game needs money to keep its best British players and it needs money to attract the best overseas players. The problem is do we have the ability to convince Sky, BT, Premier Sports, ESPN to see the benefit of SL being the Premier League of RL? It's never going to happen but that's the only option for our game if it is to survive as a competition of any quality. With all due respect, the top clubs can't possibly justify £25 a game to watch a team of Chamionship quality players, which is where we could end up inside 5 years.

I still think we need to push a shortened version of the game. For me the issue is reach. We cannot reach a wide enough audience when there is such a geographical gap between the game and the audience.

People want to be able to get involved and for me the shortened version of the game is the key to this. I know that die hards will say the product we have is good enough, but just like in cricket a shorter sharper version of the game is something you can take on the road and get people to buy into.

The big issue is players. Who would play and will the clubs release them?? If you want innovation then you have to accept changes and as the option 3 idea shows anything that requires a change away from the norm gets blasted by coaches and fans.

But with a 7's game you could take it on the road, play it indoors. There are various options open to it. Just like boxing you would get several quick games on the card. But you have to free it up to allow the players to keep some of the money. That's where the issue is for clubs. If the players are earning in the shortened game does it threaten the larger game? That's why our current 7's tornements are held in RL heartlands on a wednesday night with no great players playing.