promotion/relegation

[shaggy]

i have heard talk both last yr & this yr (by daniel anderson, michael devere, & stevo) about scrapping promiton/relegation in favour of clubs giving britsh kids game time (2 make the local game stronger) instead of signing aussies/kiwis so they wont fall down 2 division 1

just wonderein what every1 thinks on the idea

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I think if Wakefield get relegated this year it will be deserved because of all the teams in the ESL it has the most non-British players (other than Quins and even then it's a near thing).

 

[International RL]

Yep they definately need to figure out a way to reduce low calibre imports. I think superleague in 2009 has a real exciting look about it with 2 new teams and no promotion/relegation

 

[bartman]

The league has plans to move to a franchise system from 2009, which would spell an end to automatic/annual promotion and relegation. I think franchises would be renewed on a three-year basis and top flight teams would be given performance taregts or criteria, theoretically leaving the window open for other teams to make bids to enter Superleague in the future.

Whether that plan comes with any scheme to reduce the number of imported players that clubs field remains to be seen. My understanding is that the league's hands are pretty much tied in that any restriction they seek to impose would contravene European labour laws, and be open to challenge through the appropriate court (the one which delivered the Kolpak ruling in the first instance).

 

[East Coast Tiger]

There's no reason why the RFL can't cut back the number of overseas players. The EU laws might prevent them turning those with Euro passports away but at the moment there is still a quota system that allows four or five players to play with each club. If they wanted to the RFL could cut this number to one or two. That would cut the number of overseas players but still allow each club to sign one big-name player from overseas. It might also help even out the competition. If Wigan had Trent Barrett on their books they couldn't also sign Brett Kimmorley for example and he might then go to Salford or another weaker club.

 

[bartman]

The quota system is currently set at only three overseas (non-EU, non-Kolpak) players per club. I think Harlequins have an exemption to allow them a few more, as does Catalans, but the rest are only meant to have three?

The way clubs stretch this three is by counting some players of pacific islander heritage under Kolpak law, and by encouraging other (say Australian) players to check their eligibility for European or Kolpak nation passports. The grandparent rule is usually enough for you to claim say an Irish passport, and presto an extra Aussie can play alongside your legal three, and your other few islander players you've signed through the Kolpak exclusion.

The RFL would have to cut the existing quota down to zero or one overseas player per club for it to make a noticable difference, somthing the clubs that run superleague (and have veto power over such decisions) would not agree to. So good idea as it may be, unfortunately I can't see any progress being amde on this issue in the near future...

 

[Evil Homer]

The ironic thing is,the more successful teams tend to field more British players than the ones lingering at the bottom,so it usually works itself out anyway.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

This EU law stuff is all bullsh*t. The only way this law could have any bearing on league is if someone, club or individual, challenged the RFL in court. They should bring a rule in that there is to be no additional Aussies/Kiwis over the three quota and all the clubs should agree to abide by the rule. Seriously what club would take the league to court to fight this? A stupid one I'd say. Imagine how much crap that club would face. What's more with franchises handed out by the RFL in coming years I bet any club that took the league to court would be zero hope of playing in SL in 2009 and beyond. The only problem is the clubs agreeing to it in the first place. But once again if they want a franchise...

 

[bartman]

Seriously what club would take the league to court to fight this? A stupid one I'd say.

Or how about one that was hell bent on using an advantage (greater turnover and higher salary cap) to achieve better performances, buoyed on by three of it's mates who fancy their cahnces at doing the same? Don't forget the clubs in Superleague now officially are/run Superleague, following a recent RFL rule change.

http://www.superleague.co.uk/news/3456

Significantly, the RFL and the member clubs will jointly control the number of clubs to play in engage Super League in any one season and the competition’s Salary Cap Regulations. Amendments to these areas cannot be made if the other party offers a veto.

I get what you're saying, but club mentality now is more aussie/kiwi players = more interest = more people at the gate = higher salary cap = better players (UK or non-UK) = club success. You need seven of the current Superleague clubs to take a stand against this mentality - hard to achieve when at any one time there's likely to be three striving to avoid relegation, and maybe nine striving to improve their position and make the play-offs or cup final.

Technically the RFL could get harsher on the quota, but in practice it wouldn't go there not without the support of its clubs. And I don't see many clubs speaking up against the status quo, because selfishly it seems to serves them - but not the future development of the game - well.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The clubs don't have that much power. If they are the ones making the decisions who will be handing out franchises in 2009? The clubs in SL? That can't be right. It's also the RFL that are telling the NL clubs which are capable of playing in SL and which aren't. So basically the RFL still holds the power in regard to who plays in SL and who doesn't. Therefore any club/s that is so disrespectful of the game, its well-being and its laws to take the RFL to court over quota related issues could be in line for the chop and rightly so too.

 

[bartman]

If only it was that simple. Yes the RFL controls the criteria for entry etc. But I honestly can't see it using any of its powers on this issue?

It will use it's power to make sure the franchises it wants are included for 2009, but I don't see any indication that it seeks to use any powers to reduce the level of imports (when this goes against most SL and NL clubs' apparent interests), or exclude players claiming heritage or Kolpak rights (when this contravenes EU law) as part of doing that or as part of promotion/relegation.

In practice the RFL will cow-tow to the Superleague clubs (especially the big ones) even when it doesn't technically have to, because in this case it believes that the clubs share a common view that overseas players = more chance of success = more interest and revenue = more salary cap etc etc. As long as the money's flowing everybody is happy, including the RFL.

The RFL knows that without the SL clubs it has (next to) nothing, and that if one club takes it court several others will support that action, and it's easy enough for them to set up a rebel comp if need be (cf 1895, 1995). Only when the clubs collectively agree they want to restrict the level of overseas players is when I think you'll see the RFL be brave enough to take any action. And which of the clubs is going to be brave enough to change the thinking on this, when they all seem to be together on this one?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Great Britain will continue to lose and every time they do the fans, commentators etc will bitch about the quota, number of players from overseas etc but nothing will be done. If the fans really cared about GB they'd lobby their clubs to cut the number of overseas players.

It would be great if one club decided to go all-British and went on to win the comp. That might show the way. I think they probably would go well too. Many superb Aussie players go over there and are crap, largely because they're only there for the money and they don't really care about winning for the club. Clubs like Quins and Wakefield who are down near the bottom are full of good imports but they are inconsistent and often lose games they shouldn't lose. I'm sureit's because they are full of overseas players who don't give a toss. They're good enough to still win occasionslly but can't be bothered much of the time.

 

[skeepe]

Would a match-day quota work? Say you could only have a maximum of 3 non-British players in the match day team? Or would it be open to the same sort of abuse as the current system?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Would a match-day quota work? Say you could only have a maximum of 3 non-British players in the match day team? Or would it be open to the same sort of abuse as the current system?

Bugger me, that's a good idea. Hadn't thought of that. Every club can only use a certain number of overseas players. Doesn't mean they can't employ all the Kolpaks and grandparent rule Aussies they want, they just can't run them out all at once. Surely that won't break any EU laws. After a while most clubs will probably cut down on the number of overseas players too because if they can only use two or three of them there's not much point paying the extras to sit on the sideline waiting for an injury. This idea shouldn't be open to any abuse if the RFL and/or the clubs make an agreement to abide by the rule. Once again the only problem would be the clubs not wanting to do it.

 

[bartman]

That sounds like a workable idea Skeepe. Only trouble again is convincing the clubs.

But as ECT said if the fans care enough they should lobby their clubs to go all British, or at least reduce the reliance on imports. Clubs are more likely to listen to own their fans (than commentators or the RFL in my opinion), as they are a key source of club income through gates and merchandising.

But is it just a certain type of fan that considers national/rep development equally important as their own club's on-field success? Are they excited about having the Jamie Lyons and Andrew Johns playing in Superleague to the point it matters more to them than national performance these days in the rep games?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

But is it just a certain type of fan that considers national/rep development equally important as their own club's on-field success? Are they excited about having the Jamie Lyons and Andrew Johns playing in Superleague to the point it matters more to them than national performance these days in the rep games?

Alas no, most fans don't seem to care more about GB than their club. The only time anyone questions the problem is in the days after GB has been beaten again. During the SL season the ONLY thing fans seem to care about is how their club is going and I doubt they care if the team is all British or all non-British. If they were to vote on this issue it should be the day after the Australia v GB 3N game in Sydney this November. That's the only time there might be enough feeling to prompt some action to be taken. As far as having players like Lyon and Johns in SL, I would be excited about that. The problem is not those truly exceptional players its the mediocre players that couldn't cut it in the NRL and those looking for a retirement fund that choke up the SL. Truly great players will enhance the standard of SL and that will help young British players develop their game too, but it won't if those British players are kept out of SL by average imports in the over 30 category.

 

[bartman]

Yeah, it's the stock-standard unexceptional overseas players that are more the problem. Fans and clubs alike should see that there is no difference between having them and having stock-standard unexceptional local players who with game time and access to coaching might improve their standard.

But there seems to be a mystery value about overseas imports here. Even in there lower divisions I'm surprised at the excitement about overseas players, being unknown quantities and all. End result is they tend not to give anything different than the local guy who missed out on a game as a result.