Super League to stay at 14

[Badly Overdrawn Boy]

Clubs have voted to stick with 14 teams in Engage Super League from 2012.

The League was expanded from 12 clubs ahead of the 2009 season, when automatic promotion and relegation was scrapped and three-year licences were given to newcomers Celtic Crusaders and Salford City Reds.

However, the recent economic downturn prompted calls for an about-turn, the argument being that clubs would receive more central funding if the pot was split 12 ways instead of 14.

Rugby Football League chief executive Nigel Wood sparked a debate over the make-up of Super League at the launch of the new season in London last month and the issue topped the agenda at Monday's meeting with club representatives to discuss future strategy.

Although no voting details have been disclosed, the League say that clubs decided to keep 14 teams, at least through to 2014 when the licences next come up for renewal.

The news will be a relief to clubs in danger of failing to meet minimum standards but, with a Co-operative Championship club almost certain to be promoted in 2012, there will be no reprieve for one Super League outfit.

Castleford, Salford, St Helens and Wakefield have all been warned to follow up on their pledges to move to new stadia or face the consequences.

A decision on the next set of licences is due to be made in the summer of 2011 and so far three Championship clubs - Widnes, Barrow and Halifax - have earned the right to seek promotion.

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/02/08/RUGBYL_Super_Nightlead.html

[Badly Overdrawn Boy]

Well that's one problem resolved for Championship teams.

A bit of a worry for some SL clubs though. Very interesting.

[Peter]

Well that's one problem resolved for Championship teams.

A bit of a worry for some SL clubs though. Very interesting.

If one is to go from SL will it be St Helens? 

While I doubt it, the RFL did put some word in about the credit crunch, which will let some clubs off the hook.

[King Viking]

Why would it be St Helens? They'll be at their new ground for the 2012 season, and they've already got everything else in place - fanbase, youth setup etc.

[Peter]

Why would it be St Helens? They'll be at their new ground for the 2012 season, and they've already got everything else in place - fanbase, youth setup etc.

St Helens did get a warning letter. My post was somewhat facetious, as I don't think the RFL would ever drop a successful team with a good fanbase and a long standing club setup, even though their stadium was not up to standard.

[NAT]

        The fact that there was even a vote on this just shows how little our governing body think of those outside of the top 6 in super league . It should never have seen the light of day and just goes to show the total contempt some have for others within the sport .

[DJP09]

http://www.trustinwidnes.com/forum/index.php/topic,27667.0.html

 

[ozviking]

        The fact that there was even a vote on this just shows how little our governing body think of those outside of the top 6 in super league . It should never have seen the light of day and just goes to show the total contempt some have for others within the sport .

Now this really is a case of complaining about NOTHING. THey took a vote and decided to do... NOTHING. But hey, let's not miss an opportunity to whinge about it.

What the RFL did was entirely responsible, they asked the question... can we afford to stay at 14 or should we reduce to 12 (did they ever consider increasing to 16??? - I dunno but I bet that was an option). In the end... they decided to stay where they are.

[Peter]

Now this really is a case of complaining about NOTHING. THey took a vote and decided to do... NOTHING. But hey, let's not miss an opportunity to whinge about it.

What the RFL did was entirely responsible, they asked the question... can we afford to stay at 14 or should we reduce to 12 (did they ever consider increasing to 16??? - I dunno but I bet that was an option). In the end... they decided to stay where they are.

The RFL are always responsible.  They have been responsible for all the ills that have happened in our game. For changes in rules that have done nothing to improve our game, for obeisance to SKY, for allowing the Antipodean influx, and particularly for mismanaging the money coming from SKY.

[GRIFFIN]

The question, in my opinion, was never realistic as no SL clubs would vote for themselves to possibly lose a licence and if SL reduced to 12 clubs with a championship gauranteed entry in 2012, that would mean 3 existing SL clubs losing their status and with several clubs in the mix to lose their licence. a lot of clubs would be twitching if 3 were due to go. Also, gate revenue may well be a factor in decisions. 27 games to me is a realistic expectation for a profesional sportsman and supporter.

[King Viking]

I think the issue was raised as part of a review of the RFL's operations by HMRC. Something to do with bonuses, image rights etc, that effects teams and their incomes. It was definitely worthy of discussion, debate and vote. The likes of Salford, Wakefield, Cas, Crusaders would definitely have voted no to the reduction.

[ozviking]

You're right Griffin, about half the clubs would have been vulnerable if they'd voted to reduce to 12 - it was a daft vote really, which is why I rasie the more realistic question of increasing the number to 16. I could quite easily see a vote of three options, increase to 16, stay as we are or (purley for balance) reduce to 12.

Had it not been for the economic situation my bet would have been on an increase by at least 1 club from the championship (Widnes) and another expansion club (Toulouse).

I think this decision though means that Widnes may struggle to get the nod. Especially iof work were to start at Cas / Salford / Wakefield. Even so, I think the words "economic climate" will come up again as a defence against building a stadium and increasing support. If that's accepted then it will be Status Quo I'm afraid. I don't think Widnes' support at the moment provides a compelling reason, alone, to change the make up of SL. Stadium would, but it would be a brave man who kicks out any SL club right now.

In my humble opinion, Widnes MUST SIGNIFICANTLY increase it attendances this year.

[neilw]

The problem here OZ is that in our league watching the lower quality players no team will ever command average support over 5,000. Not everyone will pay £15 to watch lower league Rugby League, however as proven in our 4 yrs in SL we can attract 7,000+ averages crowds and that was with a much more uneven ship IMO.

As a club we now have a wealthy backer who is willing to back the club if we get to SL or that is how I read it. If we don't he will not continue to spend in the lower league, however he is trying to make the club a viable stand alone business so as not to need continual finacial help.

So it is my belief and I'm sure many others too that if we get the nod then I would easily expect us to attract over 7,000 average in year one, which is more than Salford, London and Celtic got last year. Depending on how we go and signings it could be more but I would expect this to increase in years 2 & 3 resulting in 8,500 or more average in year 3. Now increasing your support by 100% over 3 yrs is a good gain IMO. It will take time to attract people back or new people into the SL ethos should we get there.

It would be wholly unfair to not award a franchise to Widnes using Championship attendances. IIRC HKR had lower crowds than Widnes in NL1 before they were promoted and they are now averaging over 8,000 fans. I can't see why we wouldn't match this feat.

[RB]

The question, in my opinion, was never realistic as no SL clubs would vote for themselves to possibly lose a licence and if SL reduced to 12 clubs with a championship gauranteed entry in 2012, that would mean 3 existing SL clubs losing their status and with several clubs in the mix to lose their licence. a lot of clubs would be twitching if 3 were due to go. Also, gate revenue may well be a factor in decisions. 27 games to me is a realistic expectation for a profesional sportsman and supporter.

Off Course it was realistic they have done it before when they merged Gateshead and Sheffield out of existence.
When they were down to 12 last time they simply played extra games.
What do you think brings in more money an extra Wigan vs Saints Derby or a Wigan home match against Salford.

No Super League Clubs would vote themselves out of existance but neither did Gateshead or Sheffield.
At the end of the day the top clubs are selfish and will vote in their own best interest if that means pushing out Crusaders and Salford or some other unfortunate in their place that is what they will do.

I am glad that this has been clarified becuase how can this be being discussed only one season after the number of Super League Clubs was put up to 14.
How can any club outside the chosen say 8 or 9 make long term plans when the Super League Elite are playing the hokey kokey with Super League Numbers.
This would have been brought up by objecting councillors at every planning meeting regarding ground developments and it may still be as the statement makes it clear that this decision will be reviewd for 2014.

[RB]

The problem here OZ is that in our league watching the lower quality players no team will ever command average support over 5,000. Not everyone will pay £15 to watch lower league Rugby League, however as proven in our 4 yrs in SL we can attract 7,000+ averages crowds and that was with a much more uneven ship IMO.

As a club we now have a wealthy backer who is willing to back the club if we get to SL or that is how I read it. If we don't he will not continue to spend in the lower league, however he is trying to make the club a viable stand alone business so as not to need continual finacial help.

So it is my belief and I'm sure many others too that if we get the nod then I would easily expect us to attract over 7,000 average in year one, which is more than Salford, London and Celtic got last year. Depending on how we go and signings it could be more but I would expect this to increase in years 2 & 3 resulting in 8,500 or more average in year 3. Now increasing your support by 100% over 3 yrs is a good gain IMO. It will take time to attract people back or new people into the SL ethos should we get there.

It would be wholly unfair to not award a franchise to Widnes using Championship attendances. IIRC HKR had lower crowds than Widnes in NL1 before they were promoted and they are now averaging over 8,000 fans. I can't see why we wouldn't match this feat.

Castleford attracted more than 5000 when they were in the Championship.
Widnes had double Hull KR's and Celtic's crowds when they were promoted and far higher crowds than Salford excepting when they went into flog mode and got away with it.
We avearged almost 7000 in our last year in Super League which is probably about what we could expect to  get if we got in again.
Our Crowds dropped last year as have our Season tickets this year they will factor in all things like this and use them against us should they decide not to let us in.