Page 1 of 1
No guarantee over expansion - RFL
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:37 pm
by GeoffN
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 207735.stm
The Rugby Football League says it will refuse to sanction an expanded Super League if it does not receive enough suitable applications...
Re: No guarantee over expansio...
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:04 pm
by DaveO
GeoffN posted:
The Rugby Football League says it will refuse to sanction an expanded Super League if it does not receive enough suitable applications...
Given that some of the existing SL sides don't meet the criteria IMO if Nigel Wood took this to its logical conclusion we might end up with less than 12 sides in the league, never mind 14.
With that in mind I think the above is a stupid thing to imply.
What he also does not state is the alternative. If we don't go to 14 teams will p&r apply this year after all?
I think the teams might like to know this so they can, as he says, indulge in a bit of "the short-term panic of trying to hire a player, invariably from overseas, who will just make the difference battling against relegation and then move off without any long-term legacy,"
At the end of the day had the RFL any doubt they could find two extra teams to meet the criteria they should never have proposed this as far as they have in the first place. You would hope that was the case so I don't see what he has to gain by coming out with this.
Either the RFL didn't check the idea was viable before setting the whole thing in motion or he is just blowing hot air to sound as if they are being strict.
Dave
Re: No guarantee over expa...
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:42 pm
by waterside glens
covering their backs with a nothing statement,these people are clowns
Re: No guarantee over expa...
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:56 pm
by GeoffN
DaveO posted:
GeoffN posted:
The Rugby Football League says it will refuse to sanction an expanded Super League if it does not receive enough suitable applications...
Given that some of the existing SL sides don't meet the criteria IMO if Nigel Wood took this to its logical conclusion we might end up with less than 12 sides in the league, never mind 14.
With that in mind I think the above is a stupid thing to imply.
What he also does not state is the alternative. If we don't go to 14 teams will p&r apply this year after all?
I think the teams might like to know this so they can, as he says, indulge in a bit of "the short-term panic of trying to hire a player, invariably from overseas, who will just make the difference battling against relegation and then move off without any long-term legacy,"
At the end of the day had the RFL any doubt they could find two extra teams to meet the criteria they should never have proposed this as far as they have in the first place. You would hope that was the case so I don't see what he has to gain by coming out with this.
Either the RFL didn't check the idea was viable before setting the whole thing in motion or he is just blowing hot air to sound as if they are being strict.
Dave
As far as I'm aware, they haven't actually spelled out the criteria. All they've done is outline a ranking system. Presumably they're using something similar to the "framing the future" concept, but they haven't said what the minimum criteria will be.
their proposed points system is all very well, but they haven't said how the points will be arrived at.
All their points are, as far as I can see, totally arbitrary, and more to the point, they haven't given a minimum number of points that they consider "suitable".
Looking at peoples' guesstimates of what points each club would get (from when the idea was first announced) there is little, if any, difference between the bottom 6 of the proposed 14 or so clubs (all coming out with around 4 points).
There seems to be a "hard core" of 8 clubs that will certainly get in, but little to choose between the rest.
Re: No guarantee over expa...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:40 am
by cpwigan
They must have issued the criteria because clubs already seem to know whether they will be categorised as a 1, 2 or 3 :conf:
Not sure who / why but everybody seems to accept that Wales will get a franchise so Woods is pulling the wool over nobody's eyes IMO
Re: No guarantee over expa...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:33 pm
by GeoffN
cpwigan posted:
They must have issued the criteria because clubs already seem to know whether they will be categorised as a 1, 2 or 3 :conf:
To some extent, yes; the point I was making is that there seems to be little to choose between the "threes" (and only about 8 clubs in the 1&2 categories), so how are they deciding which, if any, of them get in?
Re: No guarantee over expa...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:45 pm
by ancientnloyal
Has anyone else noticed more than normal the amount of promotion in the media by clubs talking about their Under 21s in their squads and more coverage of youth development attracting small stories in the Express or Leaguer?
Harlequins is the newest example, McDermott talking about 6 i think) home grown players in this years squad... never heard something like that from them ever.
Still, haven't seen anything from Wakefield as of yet.
Re: No guarantee over expa...
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:35 am
by warrior till i die
ancientnloyal posted:
Has anyone else noticed more than normal the amount of promotion in the media by clubs talking about their Under 21s in their squads and more coverage of youth development attracting small stories in the Express or Leaguer?
Harlequins is the newest example, McDermott talking about 6 i think) home grown players in this years squad... never heard something like that from them ever.
Still, haven't seen anything from Wakefield as of yet.
Well these clubs must of finally decided to bring through their youth as this is one of the criteria stated by the RFL, youth development.
On Geoff's point about the teams being chosen out of the lower standard clubs so to speak, Im sure the RFL will go beyond this and look at clubs history so to speak. For example, if it comes down to wakefield v hull kr for the final spot Im sure they will choose hull kr because of the history of the club. To be fair the RFL need to involve the fans more in the process. But can you really see the rfl leaving out any of the clubs currently in the league? Personally I cant because every club in the league are competitive with each other and the league over the last few years has come closer together in quality. I can still see the rfl going to 14 teams but I can only see 3 clubs who could seriously push for a licence. Widnes, Salford and Celtic.