SUPER LEAGUE FRANCHISE

[cpwigan]

I think 3 years Mike is long enough and oddly short enough for clubs to push to improve themselves playing wise. Hull KR seems the ideal model to me.

One of the issues re Catalans has been because years 1 and 2 did not really matter they rarely tried as hard as they should have done. IL admitted at the fans forum that Harlequins pushed the boat out financially last year because that was the last year of promotion/relegation. Too many teams IMO coast at certain stages in the season, they also concede fixtures by fielding sub standard teams periodically.

[DaveO]

cpwigan posted:
I think 3 years Mike is long enough and oddly short enough for clubs to push to improve themselves playing wise. Hull KR seems the ideal model to me.

I am not entirely sure why we have a time limit at all. I don't think the NRL does. Teams are added or removed from the NRL when its deemed good for the league not when some arbitrary timer has gone off.

The three year thing is a sop to the p&r brigade IMO and I suppose in defence of the RFL it is about as far as they dare push the idea of a true franchise system given the way the tail has always wagged the dog in RL.

One of the issues re Catalans has been because years 1 and 2 did not really matter they rarely tried as hard as they should have done.

You can't be seriously suggesting this?

IL admitted at the fans forum that Harlequins pushed the boat out financially last year because that was the last year of promotion/relegation.

No one wanted to get relegated last season so I am not sure of what relevance IL's statement is. I'd expect all sides in danger of the drop to have done their up most to stay up.

I'd also expect sides who never have before to take a much greater interest in youth development because it is a requirement for a franchise. I don't see that as strange but inevitable so the fact Quins pushed the boat out last season is just another consequence of the changes as is taking an interest in youth development if you see what I mean. So I am not sure what your point is.

Too many teams IMO coast at certain stages in the season, they also concede fixtures by fielding sub standard teams periodically.

I don't see how you can say this. Teams are in it to win games not just turn up for the beer. Team do not coast until all of a sudden they realise they might get relegated or might have a chance of a top six place.

I have no doubt teams do give up on the odd fixture but they always have done. What I don't think they do is do this for any other reason than tactics in order to win a more winnable game (for example) which will ultimately in their eyes lead to a better chance of success.

I think your idea that Les Cats didn't try for two season because they were safe is a bit crazy.

Dave

[cpwigan]

If you analyse how teams react to the threat of relegation, they very often become far more difficult to beat and their wins/losses improves as relegation draws near. With Catalan that never happened. They actually became the easiest team to beat.

Catalan replicated the teams of yesteryear who having reached Wembley basically threw game after game away in the league. Catalan prior to beating us in the semi were hopeless, they lost umpteen games. Many people argued they were saving themselves for the semi.

Teams IMO do virtually throw fixtures

In the NRL, pressure is very different. Far more cut throat. The NRL did operate a franchise points total when it cut Souths and forced others to merge. They still do a point system but rarely if ever have to cut teams nowadays. In Britain, if a club goes to the wall, the players are inundated with offers from other clubs. Failure is rewarded. Our players can eek out a living without having to cut it.

[GeoffN]

Some NL clubs are whinging about it in here; they've started an e-petition, apparently...

http://timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... scina.html

"More than 650 people have so far signed an e-petition on the Downing Street website calling on the PM to investigate the impact that the system of Super League licences for a 14-team league from 2009 will have on Co-operative National League clubs and communities and supporting businesses."

It also says further down:

"Halifax and Featherstone are also understood to be preparing applications."

...which kind of undermines their case, given that they've little hope of achieving SL by way of the "traditional" P&R route.

[DaveO]

cpwigan posted:
If you analyse how teams react to the threat of relegation, they very often become far more difficult to beat and their wins/losses improves as relegation draws near. With Catalan that never happened. They actually became the easiest team to beat.

The idea teams become far more difficult to beat when they face relegation is a generalisation that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Leigh went down with about four points. Fax went down with two (I think), Salford sank easily and Cas also. None of these sides three of whom were relegated recently fit with what you say. They were all easy-beats. In fact Cas started the season well and we had their supporters bragging about their league position only for then to get worse not better as you suggest they should when faced with relegation.

You also have no way to prove any link between how Les Cats performed and your theory. If they became easy to beat it could be because they simply were not very good in exactly the same way other teams who end up at the bottom of the league are.

Catalan replicated the teams of yesteryear who having reached Wembley basically threw game after game away in the league. Catalan prior to beating us in the semi were hopeless, they lost umpteen games. Many people argued they were saving themselves for the semi.

What has that got to do with how they performed in the previous two seasons which is what you were on about before?

I am quite sure sides who reach Wembley ease off in the league if they have no chance if winning it. They always have but I am not sure what that has got to do with them being easy to beat in the previous two seasons compared to sides facing relegation who were also easy to beat.

In the NRL, pressure is very different. Far more cut throat. The NRL did operate a franchise points total when it cut Souths and forced others to merge. They still do a point system but rarely if ever have to cut teams nowadays.

As far as I know the NRL do not operate the same system as we will with franchises regularly reviewed. It doesn't mean they will never change their league but the point I was making is that sort of system is a step too far for the purists in the UK.

Dave

[cpwigan]

I am not enough of an anorak nor am i overly concerned but if you checked you would find that in the latter 1/4 of a season you get some strange results whereby the lower clubs topple those much higher than them. If the club is long gone it makes no difference. Salford last year threw the towel in and released players / gave youngsters a chance. Now if a clubs results/placing mattered then they may well not have done that. Salford having had a good previous season would have fought for even a single higher placing knowing it could mean the difference over 3 years. After all, giving teams something to play for was one of the raison d'etres of the P/Os

The reality of life Mr O is that under pressure people either crumble or upppp their effort. We see that economically where very often workers will become far more productive when their job is under threat. The side issue we have in this country is that players can fail and not get punished for it. They just move on. That is an important difference compared to the NRL.

Re Franchising. The criteria the RFL is using is a watered down version of what the NRL used. The NRL also assess new additions via a criteria.

[DaveO]

cpwigan posted:
I am not enough of an anorak nor am i overly concerned but if you checked you would find that in the latter 1/4 of a season you get some strange results whereby the lower clubs topple those much higher than them. If the club is long gone it makes no difference. Salford last year threw the towel in and released players / gave youngsters a chance.

I am not really sure what point you are trying to make. We get shock results every now and again but we always have haven't we?

Teams who are all but relegated giving up totally? Maybe they do sometimes but again I am not sure what your point is. Maybe when their fate is sealed the pressure is off so they throw the ball about a bit and win the odd game but if so, what is the relevance of any of this to your argument?

I thought you were arguing that Les Cats, who were immune from relegation for two season didn't play well because they were safe (as opposed to just not being very good) and if so I am not sure how what you say above backs this up.

Now if a clubs results/placing mattered then they may well not have done that. Salford having had a good previous season would have fought for even a single higher placing knowing it could mean the difference over 3 years. After all, giving teams something to play for was one of the raison d'etres of the P/Os

So what you are saying is the scheme you proposed would give sides something to play for?

If so I think the flaw in your theory is the idea that clubs just give up if they do not have anything to play for. It has always been true regardless of what league system RL has operated that some clubs at some stage in the season will end up in a position with nothing to play for. I don't think you can ever get away from that.

With the franchise system what you have that is different is when a club does find itself in this position it can adopt a positive attitude and plan for the next season. It can play some younger players for example and given the threat of relegation has gone can sort of enjoy taking each game as it comes and playing their part in the remaining fixtures. This doesn't mean they won't try.

It requires change in attitude but I think this is better than the alternative that is the relegation scrap because with that all we have seen in recent seasons is a scramble to avoid this at all costs. So while it looks exiting it is counter productive IMO because it doesn't do the clubs involved any long term good from a development aspect.

The reality of life Mr O is that under pressure people either crumble or upppp their effort. We see that economically where very often workers will become far more productive when their job is under threat.

And? You are not going to get a system where every team is under pressure all season regardless of what system you employ.

The side issue we have in this country is that players can fail and not get punished for it. They just move on. That is an important difference compared to the NRL.

Given there is no relegation in the NRL just how do players fail and move on in that competition? Here this happens when contracts are torn up when a side is relegated but they don't have that in Oz.

The problem we have here is too small a player pool. This is why some (but not all) players from a relegated side get picked up by other clubs. One of the issues franchising hopes to improve on is this lack of numbers. It needs to if we are to add two teams to the league. That is 50 more players.

Re Franchising. The criteria the RFL is using is a watered down version of what the NRL used. The NRL also assess new additions via a criteria.

It may well do but the point was making is they don't do it every three years.

Dave