Franchises in 2009?

[eels_fan_01]

I have heard this everyone but havent seen any actual information or any real evidence from people in charge, is it definately going be a 14 team franchise in superleague rather then promotion and relagation which they have now?

 

[bartman]

Yeah, the information is hard to come by and isn't real detailed. Might have to create a sticky topic around this as the change gets closer, with as many links as can be found.

Here's one that goes some way to explaining it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/4556801.stm

 

[Padds]

I have heard this everyone but havent seen any actual information or any real evidence from people in charge, is it definately going be a 14 team franchise in superleague rather then promotion and relagation which they have now?

As far as I know there will be 12 franchaises in 2009 going up to 14 in 2012, but the goalposts keep getting moved.

 

[bartman]

They've reserved the right not to expand to 14 if they don't think it's warranted or sustainable, but that's their eventual intention. So as far as 2009 goes, everyone would be in the dark for a while yet...

 

[AlbertRosenfeld]

Let us get a few things straight here.

1. The RFL has decided that the Super League will abandon promotion and relegation for a franchise system in 2009.

2. It is the clear intention of the RFL to expand the SL to 14 in 2009. That will help shorten the northern hemisphere season by two weeks.

3. The two most favoured new clubs for admission into an expanded Super League are Toulouse (France) and Celtic Crusaders (Wales). Nothing is definite on which clubs will be promoted, but the RFL wants to expand beyond northern England, and I would put money on those two being promoted.

 

[Quidgybo]

They've reserved the right not to expand to 14 if they don't think it's warranted or sustainable

The most important thing I see coming out of this isn't so much the expansion, which as you point out might not actually go ahead in 2009. It's the effect on current teams - particularly Les Catalans. From the sounds of it the decision to move to the franchise system is a done deal. Given the Dragons are protected from relegation for their first three seasons (2006, 2007, 2008), that pretty much guarantees their survival in the top flight provided they keep their finances in order. Even before the franchise system is introduced they can work on the basis of controlled growth rather than requiring instant success at any cost. That might see them hug the bottom of the ladder for a decade but at least it won't see them broke or relegated before they manage to get their house in order.

The other interesting case are Harlequins. If they are relegated in either of the next two seasons what happens in 2009? Are they (or another London club) re-introduced as part of an expansion to 14 teams at the expense of either Wales or Toulouse - essentially allowing an extra northern club to stay in the top league. Or is one of the 11 northern clubs who made the cut forced out to make way for them? Given it's a franchise system where no club is guaranteed a place based purely on performance its perfectly possible that not all of the 10 northern clubs in Super League at the end of 2008 will gain entry into 2009 - even if they've avoided relegation. The clubs awarded franchises could conceivably include several NL1 clubs even though they have failed to win promotion thru on field performances.

Leigh.

 

[Achillies]

If it is to be a 12 team franchise competition i reckon they might go something like this

*8 Teams from Northern England
*2 Teams from france
*A team in London
*Celtic Crusaders

If it is a 14 team league i would have 10 teams in the North.

What do you guys think the restructured league should look like?

 

[jason taylor]

bring back gateshead

 

[Evil Homer]

We can't just throw teams in willy-nilly,look at what happened in 1996.

Provided Celtic put together a viable bid,then their inclusion would be a big boost.

Not so keen on a second French team at the moment,another London team(Skolars) would be more of a priority for me.

Provided one of Wakefield and Cas get a new stadium,I can see the other not being accepted(both areas are controlled by Wakefield council,so it's not likely they'd be able to fund two new stadiums).

I don't think Hull KR have much of a chance of getting through either,but if they establish themselves in SL over the next few years they have a chance.

 

[bowes]

They've confirmed going to franchises and said they'll consider expansion to 14 teams if there are 14 teams that meet the criteria, if not it may remain at 12. Teams already in aren't guaranteed a spot, but if they meet criteria they almost certainly will be in.

There's no RFL plan to get Toulouse and Celtic Crusaders in the league but if they apply (as is expected) and meet criteria they will be seriously considered (although if the Crusaders are still in NL2 their application will go straight in the bin in my opinion), although I doubt either will make them. The Skolars aren't even considering it in response to the above post and are nowhere near criteria.

If Castleford and Wakefield get a new ground then they will probably both be in, but they both require a new stadium if they want to get in.

The following teams are virtually guaranteed a place

Wigan
St Helens
Warrington
Widnes
Leeds
Bradford
Hull
Huddersfield
Catalans
Harlequins

subject to getting the new ground the following will get a franchise
Hull KR
Castleford
Salford

subject to a new ground one of the following, or both if there's a space, will get a franchise:
Leigh
Wakefield


Any talk of Toulouse, Celtic Crusaders or Doncaster is, in my opinion, delusional

 

[bartman]

I think I read somewhere that 6 teams currently hit the 3m target or whatever, being able to use the maximum salary cap? The league hopes that the remaining since (of the then SL clubs) would eventually be able to achieve the same.

I think Catalans obviously are in future plans, otherwise why bother with all the effort. I think even if Harlequins are relegated between now and 2009, they'll be in the plans too, because an ongoing presence in London has been fought for for so long. I believe ten of the twelve teams playing in 2007 will be basically "safe" in the new breakdown given their records, facilities, (hopefully) and finances, even if they happen to get relegated. (The exceptions being Wakefield and Hull KR as below).

I think the only question marks about what the league will do in making their 14 team league are:
- the Wakefield/Castleford situation (both, either one, a merger, or neither)
- the Hull FC/Hull KR situation (again both, Hull FC, or neither)
- the Widnes/Leigh/anyone else situation (in terms of teams that might push for promotion between now and 2009.
- and finally the Celtic Crusaders and/or Toulouse situation, in terms of areas/teams that have been identified as possibilities in an expansion.

As has been said, stadiums, finances, and on field performance etc may go some way to working out which of these gets the nod and who sits in the 14 for the first three years, or if it is able to be a 14 yet or not.

My fearless (and basically empty) prediction:
- one of Wakefield or Castleford, pending stadium
- one of Hull KR/Widnes, pending stadium/performance
- add one of Toulouse or Celtic Crusaders, pending finacnes, support, performance, stadium etc
- add best of Cumbria or 2nd London or anyone that missed out from the three pairs above, pending the usual factors

It may be a two-or-more-step thing to acheive their ultimate goals in 2012 or thereafter, ie having Celtic, 2nd French, 2nd London, Cumbria, Gateshead area and reducing or rationalising northern teams, area-based like the original 1996 proposals. That would again cause a lot of concerns so I don't think they'll jump straight to something like that, just try and build in steps.

 

[bartman]

Good analysis Bowes, I hadn't read it before my post. I don't think the 2009 changes will be too different, and that it's more about building clubs/areas up to a standard for the future.

The missing link is what they might do with NL1 clubs or any clubs that miss out, to maintain some pathway for them in the future.

 

[Evil Homer]

Any talk of Toulouse, Celtic Crusaders or Doncaster is, in my opinion, delusional

I don't see what's so far fetched about Doncaster.If they pick up performances and support over the next two years,I don't see why they wouldn't be a real possibility.They will certainly have the facilities.

Celtic obviously still have some work to do.I don't know what their stadium is like,but provided it meets criteria I don't see why they shouldn't be accepted.Perhaps they will work for the next round of franchises.

Fair enough about Skolars - I had read they had appointed a full time coach and assumed they were building towards a possible franchise.

 

[eels_fan_01]

Thanks boys, interesting stuff.

Just to look at it from an international rugby league point of you, wouldnt it be much better to have 14 teams for a England/Great Britian point of view, they need to play more English talent. Even if there is new Welsh and French team im sure close to half would be English players would they not?

Always with the new franchises i think they should lower the overseas quota to although atleast two players less than they let now because theirs too many Aussies and Kiwis going there.

The one bad side to franchises would be the challenge cup wouldnt be as exciting as the NL1 teams would have way worse rosters and no chance of ever being in the superleague so smaller crowds and less exposure.

 

[bowes]

I don't see what's so far fetched about Doncaster.If they pick up performances and support over the next two years,I don't see why they wouldn't be a real possibility.They will certainly have the facilities.

Celtic obviously still have some work to do.I don't know what their stadium is like,but provided it meets criteria I don't see why they shouldn't be accepted.Perhaps they will work for the next round of franchises.

Fair enough about Skolars - I had read they had appointed a full time coach and assumed they were building towards a possible franchise.

Doncaster have an appalling support and folded last time they played in the top flight. Naturally they're a bottom of NL2 side who just have a rich owner, and still failed to make the NL1 playoffs. They will have the ground but would be too appallingly supported to get a franchise.

Celtic Crusaders meet ground criteria, but again they have bad support and aren't good enough on the field, so they would have to chuck all their Welsh players out to play SL which would harm the Welsh national team (at least short term, unless a new NL2 team joins there)

 

[bowes]

Thanks boys, interesting stuff.

Just to look at it from an international rugby league point of you, wouldnt it be much better to have 14 teams for a England/Great Britian point of view, they need to play more English talent. Even if there is new Welsh and French team im sure close to half would be English players would they not?

No none would be English players, English players don't travel to play. Every Crusaders player (unless they can buy some RU players which isn't guaranteed) would be Antipodean, and at least half of Toulouse would be.

The one bad side to franchises would be the challenge cup wouldnt be as exciting as the NL1 teams would have way worse rosters and no chance of ever being in the superleague so smaller crowds and less exposure.

This happens anyway 90% of the time, and isn't a good reason. Some NL1 clubs that meet criteria could be in SL, and most of the current ones don't meet them so couldn't be in, never is a strong word, just a case of it not being guaranteed on winning NL1.

 

[The Clan]

Don't be too quick to discount Doncaster they have an absolutely superb brand new stadium and they have worked for the last two years towards their goal of being a Superleague club by the time franchising comes in to operation.

There is also a strong school of thought that expansion should not be done by way of far off satellite clubs. Many people believe that RL should grow steadily by expanding into areas adjacent to the heartlands of the game. South Yorkshire, Nottingham, Leicester, Lincolnshire etc.

 

[bowes]

They will need to get triple their current attendances while still in NL1 before they can be considered for SL, and don't think a new stadium would do more than double it. Letting them into SL on the back of a rich backer is stupid as the day he pulls out they'll wind up on the spot.

There may be a school of thought for setting up teams near the heartlands but it's been tried and failed: Chorley, Mansfield/Nottingham, Scarborough, Carlisle etc.

Sheffield went bust in SL last time and Doncaster would be no different, I don't see why a very poorly supported team should be let in just on geographical and ground reasons.

 

[Evil Homer]

We're not saying they should - but if the business plan is in place,they should have every chance and not be dismissed as they're 'going to go bust'.

 

[bowes]

That I agree with, but their whole business plan seems to be based on having a rich owner. They'll need to vastly improve attendances to at least 3000 (from 1000) before they deserve consideration, as otherwise they'll be unviable. If they can do it they should be included, but what annoys me is some people saying they should be in because they're in South Yorkshire and have a nice ground. I don't for a minute think they'll get remotely suitable attendances or raise enough revenue outside of the backer, hence why I think it's delusional to talk of them as possibles for a franchise over many far more deserving teams