About the Super League

[Knight87]

To all those who have been following Super League in UK or Aussieland or who know, I wanna ask ya something:

The Super League comp began in 1996 in England. What i want to know is: is it better than the old Rugby League comp in England that spanned over 2 yrs (in the Winter)? Whats the other differences besides the change of season? Also, is the quality of play better? What was the ppls reactions to it when the comp would be called Super League? How was the early years of Super League in comparison to today? Why has the Super League in England supposedly succeeded and still lasted today, whereas the Australian Super League flopped?

PS I can only faintly rememeber a couple of games of Super League from 1997 here in australia. Every Sunday arvo at 5pm, ABC use to have a show hosted by Debbie Spillaine, and they showed Australian Super League games, but sometimes, the English ones were shown. Man, all i remember was that the team names, scores and timeclock on the screens virtually took up the whole screen

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I don't know what it was like before Super League but I know the move to summer has been a success. The game was in some ways stronger before SL but when you consider crowd numbers and the closer competition that exists now I think most people would agree the club competition is better.
As for comparing English SL to Australian SL, it's not really something you can compare. The circumstances are so different. Effectively SL was embraced by the English and the RFL took up News Ltd's offer lock stock and barrel. Here we had the ARL rejecting News and the split ensued. SL also didn't really change the game that much in England other than the switch to summer. Here SL seemed to want to change the whole image of the game and Americanise it.
TBH I didn't watch SL from either hemisphere at the time of the split.

 

[KalgoorlieRed]

Its called the European Super League, not 'English' Super League.

I think the quality and standard has improved. UK clubs can match NRL clubs.

Cheers

 

[Fairleigh Good!]

To all those who have been following Super League in UK or Aussieland or who know, I wanna ask ya something:

The Super League comp began in 1996 in England. What i want to know is: is it better than the old Rugby League comp in England that spanned over 2 yrs (in the Winter)? Whats the other differences besides the change of season? Also, is the quality of play better? What was the ppls reactions to it when the comp would be called Super League? How was the early years of Super League in comparison to today? Why has the Super League in England supposedly succeeded and still lasted today, whereas the Australian Super League flopped?

PS I can only faintly rememeber a couple of games of Super League from 1997 here in australia. Every Sunday arvo at 5pm, ABC use to have a show hosted by Debbie Spillaine, and they showed Australian Super League games, but sometimes, the English ones were shown. Man, all i remember was that the team names, scores and timeclock on the screens virtually took up the whole screen

From a fans perspective it is certainly nicer to watch games on a Friday night in spring/summer than it was to watch them on a Sunday in winter. Early round games still see you watching games in the dark at minus 5 degrees and snow, but that happened a lot more when they played in winter.

I think Super League has been a massive success in certain ways. Viewing figures on Sky television have more than doubled over the time period, from about 100,000 to around 230,000 and the crowds are up at most clubs. I the crowd increases are due both to the nicer conditions and also in a large way to Wigan no longer being able to cheat and win every competition by spending millions more than anyone else. The salary cap has done its job so far, bar London, who are soon to be defunct there hasn't been an established club fail yet and things seem more stable financially. It has also levelled the competition out a lot, with every club now genuinely capable of pulling of a win against the top sides.

As for quality I'm not convinced. It certainly looks better but a lot of that will be down to the fact that the majority of the season is played in dry, warm conditions, which is always more conducive to attractive error free rugby than playing on waterlogged pitches in driving rain was. The international results for GB certainly don't suggest any improvement in quality when compared to the NRL, but perhaps that competition has also improved at a similar rate?

The clubs accepted Super League basically for the financial security it brought. The Sky deal saved a few clubs and unlike in Australia there were very few clubs who needed to be merged or scrapped, so there was none of the bitterness and controversy. It was seen as a bright new dawn, a chance for the game to escape the miserable times it was going through. I have always thought that the Australian teams were selfish and resistant to change which would have improved the competition had they embraced it. Sure there would have been losers, but the whole would have improved, but they wouldn't see it that way and fought every step of the way. At least thats the way it seems, I don't want to upset anyone and if it was different to that post and tell me why.

Super League has helped Rugby League in the UK a lot, I'm not sure it would have been anywhere near as big now were it not for Sky and Super League. The sport is fighting an unwinnable battle though as the country is closed to anything bar football and other minority sports such as Rugby Union dominate in the establishment, so our sport will never be given its chance in the media, public funding and corporate sponsorship. I think ultimately the sport will be dwarfed by Union and will retreat to the North as London can't survive for long on their 3,000 crowd average and the French clubs are always fighting a losing battle against their Council and Government who wish they didn't exist and who will never support them. I'm not suggesting the sport will ever die out, but I can't help but think we're pretty close to the glass ceiling in this country.

 

[Evil Homer]

Completely disagree with the above post, SL is expanding all the time. Typical negative northern view.

Also, the quality has improved immesurably since the start of Super League IMO.

 

[bowes]

Before SL the top division was larger (14/16 teams) and all bar Wigan and maybe Leeds were semi-pro rather than full time. Hence why the standard is far higher

Originally they were going to merge loads of clubs and there was uproar, so when they didn't do this there wasn't that much opposition, I don't think (except for from Widnes and Keighley). Keighley being the division 2 champions and Widnes one of the demoted clubs, who'd thought they were safe until relegation was increased from 2 to 6 after the season.

They just let in the top 10 teams from one season plus London and Paris, which was a mistake as it didn't reflect financial stability of clubs, hence several clubs folding or all but in the early years. After the disastrous off season between 1999 and 2000 (Hull/Gateshead and Huddersfield/Sheffield mergers) things largely stabilised, except for Halifax's collapse and the normal promotion and relegation. The crowds have steadily increased the last few years at most clubs which is good

Harlequins will probably fold soon, but Catalans have been a big success with the 7th best crowds in the league, and they're looking to rise. This year they're starting to get it right on the pitch as well

 

[Fairleigh Good!]

Completely disagree with the above post, SL is expanding all the time. Typical negative northern view.

Also, the quality has improved immesurably since the start of Super League IMO.

Is it? I mentioned crowds had gone up, but that I suspected they were close to being as high as they could realistically go given the sporting culture in the UK.

2,500 at Harlequins again, I can't see how they are going to be around much longer.

 

[bartman]

I think Harlequins/London will kind of be the lynch pin in whether Super League continues to be able to grow/expand. The first French club seem to be gradually winning (against the barriers that it initially faced) to be a sustainable concern. A second French side (down the track at the right time...) shows some promise as well to furthering the game south of it's heartlands.

London seems a struggle, and I'd hate to think of whether there have currently been any gains against the (new) business model to help it not spiral (again) into debt? I think the idea of a Welsh franchise might help give the London existence some added legitimacy and energy, hence probably the league's push behind the Crusaders and the Millennium weekend. But again that eventual Welsh presence in Super League has to be down the track at the right time, rather than rushing if/when it's drawing 1,000 and not fully ready and risks collapse and debt.

But progress with Super League seems good each year, albeit in small steps. I think it'll be a matter of whether Harlequins can hang on and stay solvent with their 3,000 a year until the league can create other (sustainable) expansion sides eg South Wales and Tolouse to help it attempt to get to the next stage of popularity (6-8000 crowds)? I'm not sure these sides will be ready (or not rushed to be so) by 2009, so it will take a lot of someone's money to keep London up until 2012, or a lot of someone's money to rush these two sides into the the Super League in 2009 while they then continue to build over the years that follow.

Either way I think a code without some presence at least at the edge of London doesn't stand much hope of future growth (relative to the national sporting market)? Doesn't mean the quality of the code/sport can't improve separate to any expansion and development (as it has been doing the past decade), but in my opinion the next big leap relies on that expansion happening somewhere southwards, at some point in the future. And good performance by GB/England internationally never hurts either.

 

[JonG]

re: Harlequins

I dont think the harlequins will be goign defunct any time soon tbh. People mention crowd figures, but things have changed so much more since they were the London Broncos.

They now have more english players than before, who won't be commanding as high salaries as their antipodean counterparts, so overall the wage bill will be lower. They are playing under a recognised brand/name so their marketing ability/sponsorship will be higher. Their average attendances are UP compared to when they were the broncos, and they now can sell corporate boxes and the like which they never had before.

The break-even figure for clubs in the SL is thought to be roughly an average of 5000 spectators. Whilst they still get 2500 for some fixtures, they will get and do get higher attendances for "bigger" games - i.e. Leeds, Wigan, Saints.

Their average attendance so far is 3400, after 5 home games. That includes games against wakefield and salford, who's travelling support is just as bad as quins.

Now the union season is over they should get an extra couple of hundred to each game, and with the next home game being Saints the average should go back up, to even higher than last years average of 4900

 

[Knight87]

So, there wasn't that much of a difference in the old Rugby League Championship tournament before Super League came in? Like, in terms of the comp, final series structure, crowds etc.?

 

[Evil Homer]

What Quins need is a rebrand. A rebrand and relaunch in their own stadium. Realistically, RL can't grow in London in the long term in the shadow of an RU club. If I was Ian Lenegan, I would seriously consider making a bid to become permanent tennants at one of the new stadiums being built in London for the 2012 Olympics.

 

[Evil Homer]

So, there wasn't that much of a difference in the old Rugby League Championship tournament before Super League came in? Like, in terms of the comp, final series structure, crowds etc.?

Yes. Massive difference. RL is far healthier now.

 

[nadera78]

It's like chalk and cheese. Before Murdoch came along and offered a big wedge of cash, the game was literaly on the verge of dieing. Wigan were the only full time club and won everything, to the extent that their business plan was bult on winning everything, when they finally lost a couple of trophies they almost went bust because of the implications it had. Leeds and Widnes had tried splashing the cash to keep up with Wigan and, again, both almost went to the wall because of it.

With union going openly pro, and the state RL was in, we would have been dead and buried by now if we had not taken the murdoch money. Simple as that.

You do tend to find lots of miserable northerners complaining about this, that and the other, but then they always complain, they're northern!

At the moment, RL is going great guns, despite the media bias that still treats us like crap, and the inability of some within the game to consider the common good.

 

[In-goal]

The Grand Final was only implemented around SL3 if i can remeber, maybe 2 or 4 it was a fair while back.

 

[bowes]

yeah the top 5 was introduced in 1998, changed to top 6 later on (can't think of the year from memory, 2001 or 2002 I think).

The team finishing top used to win the title and they had a separate Premiership competition (mostly top 8 in the old format but all 12 in the start of SL).

There were typically larger divisions in the old format (usually 16 but sometimes 14 teams in the top division, it changed every few years) and more teams promoted and relegated (2 before SL, 3 before that and at one stage 4 teams).

At one stage all professional clubs were in a giant league of 30 teams (and mostly just played teams from their county and about 3 from the other one) with top 4 (and later on top 16) straight knockout playoffs