They should have let the NRL take over when they wanted to get involved. They know how to run a competition and attract commercial partners as well as negotiate TV deals and sponsorship. The management in rugby league has been so poor for so long. I find it ludicrous that as a sport we don't attract enough money centrally to ensure all the clubs can spend the salary cap. Not all clubs are made equal. Wigan is a rugby town. Salford is a footballing city. We won't get 15k fans even if we're successful. They will always hold that advantage over us. But I would have thought that centrally there would be enough income to distribute among the clubs to ensure everyone can spend the cap. For me that's the key thing to having an interesting competition... one where the cap actually works, we don't bring in rules that allow rich clubs to spend even more, and where player talent actually becomes dispersed, like in the NRL and NFL. Talent only goes one way right now, the big teams get to keep their players, we add two marquees and extra dispensations to let them keep even more, and they can then take players from clubs like us, Wakey, Leigh, London, Toulouse.
I find the whole proposal ridiculous to be honest. A stadium or number of fans through the gate could actually get you promoted over a team who perform much better on the pitch.
For my money performance should be 50%. Teams like ourselves, Hull KR, and Cas, at times have all punched above our weight in the past decade despite not having the advantages of other teams (rugby hotbed, thriving academy, full cap). I think that performance deserves a much higher %
Honestly, I couldn't care less about a stadium and don't think it should be a factor other than capacity of say a min or 8-10k. I don't care if I'm watching a game at the AJ Bell or The Willows. I'd rather watch a game at Cas than Wigan or Hudds, I hate those stadium's, too big for the crowds. I'd rather be at The Willows, own the ground, not pay rent, and make money on matchdays than play at the AJ Bell. Okay The Willows needed a bit of work... Better toilets and take a corner of the ground for better changing rooms. The rest wasn't all that bad. Plenty of standing and seating. Enough cover. Maybe a new roof here of there but nothing compared to the cost of the AJ Bell.
The catchment is an odd one... It says population and number of clubs. But what's the balance there for grading? We have a good population compare to other areas but we aren't a hotbed for youth rugby in schools or amateur clubs.
Fan base... I'd like to see the Wigan and Saints attendance is they operate don a small salary cap and didn't win for several years... Hanging around outside the bottom six. It's a fact that performance has an impact on this, as does the actual catchment area you are in - it's make-up, as I said, rugby town, football city. For me this should be rolled up into catchment and performance.
Finance, I agree teams need to be sustainable, but I think that's all. If you have £1 more coming in than going out then you should have an A. Teams like Saints, Wigan and Leeds will have the income from various streams but will teams like Hudds and Leigh, who rely on a benefactor to overspend against there ACTUAL means, still be awarded an A? For me that isn't sustainable and to only have to look at football and union to know that.
We all know the plans will go through because there are teams who are guaranteed an A and this is just another system to give them even more advantage. I'm sure it's their owners that've shaped this system. At least on the current system, if Leeds would have finished bottom a few years ago, or Warrington last year, they would have been relegated because they deserved it!
