loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_602 ... ction.html Well said that man! Absoulutely spot on IMO

loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_602 ... ction.html Well said that man! Absoulutely spot on IMO

I really like Peacock, despite his not so great presence in front if the camera, I think he is a very intelligent man, who has real drive and ambition. When he does hang his boots up I would love to see him go into a real administrative position with the RFL not a token appointment either.

Knowing the RFL though they will fall over themselves to give John Wilkin a role because he looks good on TV, despite having 0 substance.

Spot on but we've not got anybody with the balls to make it happen. The people in charge at the RFL are living on easy street looking after number one whilst the game slowly fades.

When Wigan RLFC are a feeder club for other leagues and even another sport you know there's a issue. Our chairman does leave us slightly open to these raids IMO but still his hands are tied sometimes.

We need 2 divisions of ten, we need less games but with higher quality in the regular rounds. We need a proper and fair play off system. We need promotion and relegation. We need the challenge cup final brought forward to May/June with regular rounds before to build up interest. We need a rise to the cap so that teams who can afford it, spend it and if you can't then have an official in charge who can control your financies properly and not get you in to trouble.

There's so many changes the game needs to make its untrue. We've spent years trying to please everyone rather then worrying about the overall health of the game. We need change and quickly, it would pi*s some clubs right off but sadly there would have to be casualties along the way to make the game stronger.

Where's Maurice Lindsay when you need him!

My estimation of Jamie Peacock has gone up a thousand times.

But look at some of the goons responding to him.

All the usual bitterness and drivel of a tail that is determined to keep on wagging the dog.

That's the problem. The game will never move on because we're sh*t scared of upsetting the little guy.

Spot on. A very good argument that ought to be listened to by the powers that be.

What a quality article.

Shame about the responses which basically plead poverty for the lower clubs.

Sometimes I wish Thatcher would have been a rugby administrator than a PM.

Sick to death of those with zero ambition holding back the people with the vision to shoot for the stars.

At the end of the day, of course, it's in the interest of the poverty row clubs to see the game's top stars keep defecting. It gives them more of a chance to compete.

I sympathise with their predicament to a degree - I hated it when Wigan were in the Second Division, I despaired when we were facing relegation all over again - but I totally agree with Peacock that the game as a whole is losing its gloss, and maybe soon will lose its appeal to our TV benefactors.

This idea that there shouldn't be winners and losers is ridiculous frankly, and alien to the basic concept of professional sport. Why everyone the game as a whole has to suffer because three or four clubs continually can't get their act together is beyond me.

Spot on.

It's fanciful, head in the clouds bull cr@p from the RFL to think we can seriously move the game forward with a level playing field.

All it ever does is create a situation where the teams that could be world class become simply good and the average teams remain average but the gap they have to bridge becomes smaller. BTW none of them ever go on to win anything anyway.

What the RFL should be doing is backing the sides that could be world class and creating British power house clubs like Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Saints & Hull FC. If clubs like Salford get sound financial backing then let them come along for the ride as well.

That's where our game should be. It should be a game where everyone strives to be the best club in the world and not simply satisfied they are in the top flight.

Well said that man! Someone who knows how the future of this league will go if we carry on down this path!

Someone needs to bite the bullet and risk upsetting the status quo for the future of our game.

Spot on, except I'd have everyone playing each other thrice, which would result in the same amount of games as we have now hence no lost revenue

How do you decide which teams get the drop to initially set-up the two ten team leagues? Would they all agree? Would Sky fund both? If so, that's a further dilution of tv money, not an increase. If Sky only funded the top league where does that leave the second tier? We've struggled for sponsorship for the league now, what happens when you double the problem?

I see the draw of a smaller top tier with regards to playing 'big' games. There's no indication that the Club's at the lower end of that league will not form the exact same thing that happens currently. Strugglers and and non-strugglers. If it was to be drastically changed in structure how do you level the playing field so that the initial top ten teams start on equal footing? If you don't give everyone an equal start you're left with 'Big' Clubs and 'Smaller' Clubs, just like now. A smaller number of teams will have exclusive access to the already small pool of quality players available in the UK resulting in stronger squads. How does that level the playing field for teams that gain promotion? How does creating a ten team SL not isolate every other professional RL Club? SL is already elitist in its current form, reducing the teams makes it even more distant and selective.

Testing times.

What JP's proposal does is allows the big clubs to use their money to buy/retain quality players rather than letting them all go to union/Australia. I'm convinced there's enough money at Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leeds, Hull FC and Salford to make this work. Will it be 6 great teams and 4 strugglers? Possibly, but that's no worse than what we have now. This is our best chance of stoping the rot IMO

the problem is we are not letting successful teams retain the best players. In sport there are winners and losers, not everyone gets a gold medal for just entering the olympics. Sponsors like to be associated with winners, it is up to those that are not winning to improve and raise the profile of the sport as a whole. The way we are being led by the RFL is to drag the best teams down to the level of the worst in order to create this "eutopia" of a level playing field for all teams to be able to win the Grand Final.

I wasn't suggesting it was a bad idea, I could just think of lots and lots of reasons why it would never come off. As it currently stands anyway. Raising the cap to 2m would barely make any difference with regards to the exodus of talent. The cap is already way bigger for both NRL and Union. Although, imo, the big reason British players will always go down under is the fact that their product is simply better than ours and they want to play at the top of their game. You couple this with a raise in cap levels in the NRL, and now you have teams looking to bring in the cream of British RL because it's value for money. It's almost as if raising the cap has helped richer Clubs retain the world-class pool of players to everyone else's detriment. Who'd have thought it eh?



So the knock-on effect is that lesser NRL teams skim-off our best players. Raising the cap over here will have to be done to stop the rot, but it will have the same effect of pooling the best players to a small elite of clubs. Therefore passing the problem down the line again. There's no real solution I can think of, but part of me feels like neglecting teams lower on the rung will only ultimately bring about our own downfall.

Im sorry but I dont agree with all this reduce to ten teams idea. Are clubs going to reduce season ticket prices by a third considering you would now get a third less home games and what would it do to their revenue streams, yes they will get more money from the RFL but this will be spent on increased salaries to retain players.
We should not reduce the number of team to fit the money we need to increase the money coming in so we can expand the league, like it or not media/fans are more interested in top flight clubs, you get the glory supporters when you are in the top flight and therefore more income.

We need to improve our profile in the national media to gain more interest from sponsors, I watch BBC1 in the mornings and you will often see sections on minority sports such as womens hockey etc. you very rarely see an item on rugby league, until we increase our profile in main stream media we will always be second to union.

Also why is everybody obsessed with the whole league being classed as a level playing field, that any club within the league will win the title/cups, do you think the minnows in the premiership start the season thinking they are going be top over united or liverpool, no, they aspire to be the best they can be and finish as high as they can, if they manage to get to a final along the way then they cash in on it. I can't see any league in any sport having teams which are considered equal, the clubs with the better profiles will always attract the better players creating a stand-out team.

I don't have the answers of how to increase income but I think a market that we rarely tap into is the celebrity market, the sport is loved by many high profile actors/sports person etc. why are we not trying to get these people to promote the game on national TV, anyway rant over.

Very impressed with Jamie Peacock on this one.

Speaks with passion and intelligence over the future of our game and he's also absolutely correct.

I hope the RFL take heed but i wont hold my breath!!

No need to reduce the number of games, just have everyone playing each other three times and you get the same number of games as now. They'll be better games too with higher average attendances which means more revenue for the clubs.

Just like the SPL?

If football was on in my back garden I would shut the curtains. Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't the problem there that there are 2 rich clubs that the rest can't compete with? I'm not suggesting abolishing the cap or setting it at a level only two teams can afford so no, not like the SPL

I read it last night, and I've read it again now, and I see a few problems with it.

Firstly, how are we going to sustain 20 full time teams when we can't sustain 14 at the moment? Is full-time profesional RL really sustainable in places like Cas, Fev, or even Cumbria? And, how are they expected to increase attendances enough to remain sutainable? How are we going to replace the revenue lost by the reduced number of league and play off games and at the same time creating enough income to be able to spend the full 2m cap? I actually think the cap should be increased but only if it doesn't have a negative long term effect on club finances. Another question I would ask is why the clubs continue to vote against increasing the cap?

As for P & R, how is the promoted club suspose to just magic another £1m out of nowhere to be able to spend the full cap, and at the same time remaining competative on field when chances are the only players they'll be able to sign are the players from the relegated team none of the other clubs wanted?

I think the RFL should be working with clubs like Sheffield and Toulouse to try and improve their infastructure to get them into a position to be able to apply for an SL license. I know some will say why would anyone want to invest their hard earned cash into a project like Sheffield, Wales or Toulouse when there's no guarantee of getting into SL but I think the added security of no relegation could also make the investment more attractive.

The 'player drain' at this point is being over stated. Who have we actually lost to RU in the last decade? Lee Smith, Chev Walker, Joel Tomkins, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, Vainakolo, and Farrell? None of those are exactaly irreplacable are they? Hall replaced Smith, Watkins has replaced Walker, Farrell has replaced Tomkins, and Tomkins has replaced Ashton. It would be great if we could keep everyone in SL, but do we honestly think raising the cap by 200k is going to enable clubs to match some of the contracts RU and the NRL will be able to offer? The NRL can offer a profile and lifestyle that we simply can't compete with at this stage. To me one of the better solutions is to improve the games infastructure, and get a better standard of coaches, development officers, scouts, marketing officers and CEO's involved in our game. To simply increase the salary cap and change the structure of the league to a system that isn't sustainable and didn't work before isn't going to solve anything.

There's no quick fix here unfortunately.

This is head-in-sand stuff and typical of the mentality that results in us doing nothing more than sitting and watching.

The problem is not the ones who've already gone, though I notice you craftily forgot to mention Hape, Eastmond, Harris, Paul and Robinson from your list - not all from the same era and not all English, but they were all players who lit up the British game in their day, and all went before they should have (you could also add Owen Farrell and George Ford, and if you include losses to the NRL, Ellis, Graham, the Burgess brothers, with Hock and Mossop on their way,) - the casualty list doesn't look quite so light then, does it?

But I reiterate the problem is not the ones who've gone, but the ones who may yet go. Likely on that list, according to strong rumour, are Sam Tomkins and Watkins (according to his club skipper), and it'll be an absolute miracle if Hall isn't being tapped up - so that's three of your proposed replacements.

What happens then?

Okay, we replace them too ... until those replacements get pinched as well.

Seriously ... how long can it go on that the British game is an open market for any foreign club with a bit of cash?

It infuriates me when British fans adopt that silly Aussie-type bravado about 'it doesn't matter who goes, coz we can always replace them". We haven't got the player resources the Aussies have, and even they gave up that policy in the end.

While the NRL continues to grow and pump more money into itself, raise its cap, spend millions on their amateur and semi-pro game, and generally show us how the game should be run. So in answer to your question, indefinitely at the moment. Raising our cap wont do a great deal either.

Harris and robinson left more than 10 years ago so that's why didn't include them. The answer to the 'problem' isn't a quick fix such as simply raising the salary cap by 5%. I remember when Graham moved to the Dogs and everybody was saying 'I wish more players would go to the NRL, it would really improve the England team' now that seems to be happening people don't like it. Players come and go, they always have now, we can either panic and put in place some short term fixes that could be bad for the game long term, or we can improve our infastructure at all levels to try and increase the conveyorbelt of quality players coming through which makes it easier to replace players who leave to the NRL/RU.

Raising the cap may well go some way to helping - in reality the cap has not increased since it was introduced, so in real terms player salaries have gone down. Now suppose the cap was raised to a level where players could earn a reasonable wage - that could well persuade some players to stay in the game in this country.

At the moment the difference between here and Aus/RU is getting larger and larger with every passing year making it more and more attractive to players to leave. Doing nothing is not an option as it will only get worse as SL falls further and further behind.

I am not sure JP's suggestions are the best ones but at least he is openly saying that something needs to be done and that is to be applauded.

Sadly i fear that the head in the sand brigade will continue to win the day at the meetings/decision making points and things will continue to slowly stagnate.