Relegation and player movement in Super League - Repost

Stevo spoke about it on this week's back chat so I thought I would re-post a blog I originally posted on my own blog a year ago about player movement in the relegation years of Super League. What Stevo said was that half the relegated team would end up at the promoted team, and to be fair to him, he wasn't completely wrong. Here's what I wrote:

The more time passes, the more I feel like one of a small small number who think whatever the change to structure in Super League, return of promotion and relegation between the top tier and the semi-pro tier shouldn't be one of them.

As I've gone over the ideas that are thrown around, thinking about journo Andy Wilson's preferred option of a two ten-team tier Super League is the only way I see this as a reasonable option - but there isn't enough money for a 14 team Super League, so a 20 team Super League wouldn't really advance things from what I can see. Before something like that could be considered the clubs and the RFL would have to do a lot to raise revenues and would need to think harder about sharing them too.

Here, I'm going to propose another reason why I feel promotion and relegation is of little benefit. I think there is only a limited number of players to go around. This is becoming even more the case now we're seeing an overall 'trade deficit' in playing talent between the Super League and the NRL. Even before this switch around in player trading, I feel the issue I'm going to highlight was seen. 

I reckon clubs that go down see the bulk of their important players move on to stay in Super League, and the clubs that come up sign players available from other Super League clubs. I write this introduction before I've really done my research, and I won't be ashamed if my assertion is proved wrong. Sometimes (often I'm sure!) that happens.

Largely using the brilliant Rugby League Project database as my source, with a bit of wider internet clarification when I feel its needed, I'll be going through the rosters of clubs that have either left or entered Super League in the recent past and will consider what the stories of players who played in more than 50% of their Super League games in that relegation season or that year after promotion. An exception will be the Catalan Dragons, whose entry to Super League I wont be looking at in the same detail because of the limited numbers of French representation before their entry - though if I do find some examples to support my argument I might throw them in if I need to save face! I'm also not going through the Salford and Crusaders entry when the league expanded in 2014 - as the league had more teams, there were no teams leaving to take players from.

Having looked into it a bit more, you could almost interpret things two ways depending on your starting position. There are many who want a return for promotion and relegation and don't know why. There are others who come from a bias of supporting the lower levels and so want that purpose to their clubs promotion brings. Broadcasters probably want those extra few meaningful games relegation might bring to the top league too. These people will (particularly the middle ones, exemplified by journo Gareth Walker) see that promoted clubs have often brought a number of the players that got them up with them. That is surely a good thing in favour of promotion being brought back. It also goes against the assertion I made above - some new players were getting a go in Super League and there was an avenue for players to reach the top level without needing to be signed by an incumbent club, which isn't a frequent occurrence. 

The other way is to look what happens when clubs go down. The core of that season's squad was lost in the majority of cases. Ok, that squad can't have been up to much as they got the team relegated, or the wooden spoon in Crusaders' case, but some of them must have been good enough as nearly 40% of players got a new gig in Super League and a decent number found their way on to NRL squads the following year too. This meant, in the majority of cases, the core of the side needed to be totally rebuilt - almost four times as many players that played 50% of games were no longer on the squad the year after, only 22% were.

Promoted teams (including those promoted as part of league expansion):
Clearly the teams involved in geographic or numerical league expansion had good retention and a lot less players were brought in from Super League clubs for the season - this indicates that these teams had longer to plan their promotions as these were mapped out in advance. Other clubs promoted via the league or a promotion final had much less time to plan for life in Super League. Over two fifths of players who appeared in 50% of the promoted teams games were retained from the previous seasons squad, which is a decent number and higher than I expected. A third of these players however were picked up from other Super League clubs for the new season in the top level. 

As noted above, these numbers don't overwhelmingly support my suggestion that there isn't much talent regeneration in Super League from promotion and relegation, and that the system just brings instability. They don't show the opposite either - most teams are made up as much by players who were in Super League or on NRL rosters in the previous campaign as they are by retained players from the NL1/Championship squads.

I would add that Huddersfield and Hull KR are the only teams not to have returned to a lower level at some point after promotion. 

My hypothesis is more supported when relegation is looked at n more detail: 

The Crusaders are an anomaly at one end of the scale, but their financial issues and special dispensation for clubs to sign their overseas players is an explanatory factor.

The 2002 Salford team are the other anomaly, taking a good number of players down with them, which helped them earn promotion in 2003 and bring plenty of these players back to Super League for 2004 (shown in above numbers). Every other relegated club saw as many or more players stay in Super League with other clubs, and saw as many again either return to Australia, retire or find deals at other lower level clubs. When you lose 78% of the core of your Super League squad on average for the next season, its hard to build or remain stable - Castleford and Salford became somewhat yo-yo teams, all the teams in the list other than Huddersfield have suffered or are suffering high profile financial difficulties, and its likely that only two will be featured in a 12 team top tier following restructure.

As a control to make sure Super League in general didn't see the same levels of player movement as promotion and relegation cause, I looked at Wigan and Wakefield, who has remained in Super League with varying fortunes over the period looked at. On average, these two sides retained 70% of players that appeared in 50% of one years games from season to season (Wigan 75%, Wakefield 65%).

I would note that in the closest relegation fights, Wakefield were inevitably the team that came on of this battle standing, so are a good comparison to make. Wigan have had successful and disappointing sides during the period. Both still managed to retain a much higher proportion of their squad year in year out and only saw on average three players per year leave to other Super League clubs, and six core players leave on average each year.

The averages show that teams that don't suffer relegation can maintain much greater on field stability. Wakefield have suffered some off-field instability and are a team that still need to progress in that area, but even with that issue, their playing squads haven't been seriously disrupted and that has helped them avoid relegation and earn the odd playoff spot along the way.

Outside the control sample, think of the consistency of the Bradford, Leeds and Warrington squads in their periods of success.

Yo-yo team Castleford and skin of their teeth Wakefield haven't been able to develop off the field how they might want to either because of promotion and relegation distractions. Yes, Cas have a strong youth development production line, but Wakefield are not as prominent in this area. Neither had made much progress in terms of stadium development. Salford, similarly don't have a stellar youth system and had to wait until well into licensing to finally move to a modern home. Halifax took a decade to finish the grand stand at their renovated stadium following relegation and weren't ever able to get themselves back to the big table or really achieve anything until they started planning long term.

In conclusion, I feel its clear that on field stability leads to better success on the field. Off the field, concentration on avoiding relegation or regaining promotion takes teams eye away from other matters that need addressing.

I'm not saying promotion and relegation is the big evil, but I just wanted to show the effect it has on players and a club's squad. It causes a great deal more movement and on-field instability than you get without the system, even if what replaced it hasn't necessarily proved to bring greater off field stability - I've spoken about this before and economic conditions have been a massive mitigating factor since 2008 that it would be unfair to not acknowledge, and also I feel licensing wasn't a strong enough move anyway (see Structure of Super League piece).

What I want fans of P&R to see is that it hasn't really helped anyone out. It didn't let clubs plan long term or get off-field matters sorted out. Fans of those clubs affected should realise players weren't coming in to play for the club, they were coming to play Super League, and they were gone when that was taken away. Do you want to see new players (and often coaches) trying to put together a new team year after year with no identity and continuity? Catalan Dragons, protected from relegation initially, have shown what that chance to plan long term affords a club - now they have better facilities, more French players coming through and regular playoff matches to compete in. They have a style and identity that has been allowed to develop and flourish.

Is one day at the top worth it? I'm not so sure. I followed a club that reached somewhat, and that was just for promotion between Championship 1 and the Championship, and all the good steady work was undone and the club went off the face of the RL world - now I have no local semi-pro team to go and watch because of the impossible dream of promotion.

A note on the proposed restructure for 2 x 12 > 3 x 8 set up, I don't think this will improve clubs retaining players and building long term - players will want to play in the top 8 division, so I think the player movement will increase mid-season as well as in the close season. Clubs losing out on top level revenues midway through a campaign when they are told they can no longer get decent crowds from hosting well supported clubs like Wigan, Leeds, Warrington, Saints and Hull FC will need to cut wage bills to survive. Combine this with top clubs wanting top players and top players wanting to play at successful well paying clubs and you will see mid-season deals of some sort. Stability won't be maintained. The issues I've talked about above won't be fixed. The proposal misses the point, but I've not had chance to fully map out my opinions on this yet outside the snippets I've raised on Twitter or other forums. I would say I don't like it, and will try and substantiate that some more at some point.

Mark

Super League Pod

Don't forget to comment or contact us on Facebook and Twitter, and make sure you listen to the show! All the links you need are in the sidebar.

Marquee Players - A Change of Heart by Tom

Last night we reposted my blog from a few weeks ago which detailed my thoughts on the idea of a marquee player exemption for Super League teams.

Having re read this blog myself I found that I have actually come around to a new way of thinking about this controversial proposal. 

I am in no way in favour of the blanket proposal made by Dr Koukash. I find it to be self serving and solely in his interests. He hides behind the shield of "I want to improve the sport" when I suspect what he actually means is "I want to improve the playing staff at Salford and see some return on my investment".

Dr Koukash, is of course, perfectly entitled to his opinions and I won't engage in the horrendous sour-grapes style Koukash-bashing that goes on over twitter every time he puts his ideas forward.

Since I've now gone some way to demonstrating my pro-Koukash proclivities, it's probably time I show my hand. But first, a little context...

Our sport is set to lose one of its three best players. England is about to lose its best player (sorry Mark, I don't mean little Sam). 

When Sam Burgess takes the field for Bath next season a body blow to English rugby league will have been fully delivered.

Five of our six best forwards, (Jammer, The Burgess', Cooper, and Mossop) ply their trade in the NRL. As does our best half back, Widdop. Our most exciting prospect in several years, Daryl Clark, is being linked with a move down under, as are the majority of Leeds outside backs at one time or another. 

Super League faces a talent drain from both the game in Australia and the other code. It seems that we cannot compete financially with our current structures in place.

The answer, to me, is to implement the Marquee Player Exemption. But only for players from THIS hemisphere. 

This would effectively kill two birds with the same stone. Firstly we would have a genuine means by which to more effectively retain the top 0.5% of talent in our game. This would help improve the overall quality of the sport as no team could hold a monopoly by virtue of their bank balance. It would also stem the flow of talent away from the English game.

It would also stop teams from investing in mediocre Aussies/Kiwis/Samoans/Tongans as marquee players and therefore reducing the options for our home grown talent.

The Northern Hemisphere Marquee Exemption would also have a beneficial effect on developmental rugby league and our junior systems. Teams would be behoved to develop their young talent because in the event they unearth a superstar, he can be exempt and therefore retained by the club that developed him during his formative years. The impetus then goes into improving structures and relationships away from the first teams so that a wider stream of young talent can come through the doors of each club. 

There will, of course be players that WANT to play in Australia, and try their hand at the NRL, it is after all, the sports premier competition. But at least we would have a carrot to dangle on our sticks. Rather than just a stick.

We can't stop players from moving away from our sport if they really want to. But we need a way to encourage them to stay. 

Tom
Super League Pod

PS. Don't forget to get in touch and listen to our latest show. All the links are in the sidebar!

Obstructing our enjoyment

So far this year - in fact, more and more as it goes on - we've heard lots of talk and criticism over the obstruction rule.

It's raised its head on both sides of the rugby league world but it seems more and more to dominate commentary and social media during televised Super League games.

We have talked about it on an earlier episode of our show but now Mark gives his thoughts and suggestions on clarifications and changes to the operating rules around obstruction.

Right, let's get the obvious one out of the way first. I'd stop the video ref from being able to call on obstruction decisions.

Two main reasons. First, it's often a fine margin judgement call that I think is best made by a person in the action with a feel for the flow of things. Second, I think it's these long and repetitive referrals that really gets on the fans nerves. We aren't always sure what they are seeing or looking for and they take it to too precise a level that you start to feel, like I did in the Salford v Wigan game, that no try will ever get given!

That brings me neatly to my second point on obstruction. We really need to know what they are looking for. The interpretation on the rule needs clearing up for us all. We all used to know that you can't run behind your own man close to the line carrying the ball. Crossing was clear, you rarely saw it but always understood it. Now we have the dummy runner/man out the back where was the ball caught and which shoulder of the defender did they run at questions to answer.

For me it's simple. Obstruction should be called when a player possesses the ball behind his own man, whilst that man clearly instigates contract that physically impedes an opponent to his own team's advantage.

That's what we should want. It doesn't reward poor defence, which we don't want. It will make for more tries being allowed again, which is part of what we want. It would also mean this would It should make things clear to everyone I would hope.

Actually, I think how I've worded the rule is how it's already intended to be applied but the refs have just got a little too bogged down in it all, and they are now in too deep so it would look weak to back down. After all, the coaches wanted this area tightening up too (sometimes you should be careful what you ask for). And I fear that a line in the sand on this issue might not be drawn until 2015, which for a lot of people might come too late.

The final thing I would do may actually be the most radical and unique. I would change the result of an obstruction to be a scrum rather than a penalty. Maybe in the past obstruction (or crossing as we always knew it) has been a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage for your team but now really it's just poor execution of attacking skills, like a knock on or a forward pass. It makes me think a penalty is too severe for what is very often a fine margin error in execution. A scrum would surely be fairer. I think fans would accept it more if you don't lose possession and 20 or 30 metres for the penalty for poor attacking execution.

That's what I think. Let us know what you think too. As always the best views we get will be read out on the show.

Thanks for reading. It would be great if you could share a link on your Facebook or Twitter too.

Mark
Super League Pod

Hardaker & the wider issue

Over the weekend, footage emerged from the match between Warrington and Leeds. Footage that beyond almost all reasonable interpretation shows Zak Hardaker in the calling referee James Child a faggot.

I'm not going to dance around the word or try to lessen it's impact to a sensible reader because the impact this word has on some of the people it is aimed at is utterly devastating.

I tweeted the footage on the SLP feed early Tuesday morning and was overwhelmed by the different responses and opinions this incident has provoked from people.

But first a little context, because I think Hardaker's actions actually reflect a wider societal problem. One that he is probably acutely unaware even exists.

The use of the word faggot in some quarters of society is meant to imply stupidity. Or a lack of machismo in certain circumstances. In the minds of the people who have grown up with this definition as part of their vernacular it is hard to see the damaging impact this word has because they don't use it with it's intended connotations. The result is that this deeply offensive term is tossed around with much less care than it ought to be. Sometimes.

When used in its intended fashion it is a word that drips with venom and hatred. It's almost impossible to say without sounding aggressive.

The word isn't invincible.

Many people abused for their sexuality are so comfortable in themselves that they can rightly laugh it off with the casual indifference that this writer would laugh off a crack about his lack of hair.

For many, however, it is stab at the very heart of a personal and lifelong internal monologue, which has seen that person, through sheer force of will find the courage and security to truly express who they are.

I believe Zak Hardaker is not a homophobe. I believe he is a young man uninitiated in the true meaning of a word he used as a means to express frustration at what he saw as poor refereeing by James Child.

This, to my mind however, in no way excuses him from any blame. It is beyond unacceptable to use the word faggot to insult or denigrate someone in any fashion.

What Zak Hardaker was in fact saying to Mr Child was "I feel you are performing badly. I do not like this. You are therefore a homosexual. I do not like this either. And nor should you."

As the debate progressed over our twitter feed it became clear that there were two distinct schools of thought. Firstly those who felt that as the word was not directed at a practicing homosexual it was not homophobic, and secondly those who felt any use of the word is at best inappropriate and at worst outright bigoted.

I fall into the latter group as you may have gathered from the tone of my piece.

At the time of writing the RFL has announced that it is to investigate the incident. There is little doubt in my mind that he will be found to have used this word and be subject to punishment under the RFL's own bylaws. I anticipate that he will avoid criminal prosecution.

The biggest question is where do we go from here? Should we accept that this type of behaviour is creeping back into a sport that prides itself on respect and dignity in the face of extreme physical competition? Or is there an opportunity for some good to come from this?

I believe there is. If Hardaker's club and the RFL act quickly.

Zak Hardaker is a young, popular and exciting talent in our sport. He is a role model to thousands of youngsters. At the moment the message he is sending to those youngsters is a negative one. A message that says it is acceptable to use a word like faggot, and by inference a number of other deeply offensive terms. But this could quickly be turned into a positive message.

Publicly demonstrating remorse for his actions would be a start. Awareness training of the type that NFL players who criticised the drafting of Michael Sam were made to undergo would also go a long way to reaffirming our sports commitment to being fully inclusive.

Zak Hardaker is a young man. Young men under pressure are prone to lapses. He needs to be helped to understand the impact of what he said. He needs to be shown that it cannot happen again. He needs to show the sporting world, and particularly his younger fans, that he regrets what he did to apologise unreservedly for this. And if it happens again, we throw the book at him and his club. I'm sure the threat of losing competition points would spur even the most backwardly run organisation into action, and Leeds Rhinos are a long way from backwardly run organisation.

The NRL has a rule that only captains may address the referee. I'd bring this in sharpish, because it is alarming to see the habit of disrespecting match officials starting to gain traction.

Rugby League battles hard to show that it is more than a parochial northern pastime. Handling the Zak Hardaker situation correctly will win it many admirers. Failing to do so will make the sport seem inaccessible and prejudiced.

Tom
Super League Pod

Let us know what you think on Facebook or Twitter and make sure you listen to the show for more views on this and much more.

The Future for Championship 1

Just like over at Red Hall, we at Super League Pod are keen on a whole game approach. With that in mind Mark has given some time this week to thinking about the future of our third tier, currently known as Championship 1.

Torch bearer of all things RL Championships related Gareth Walker recently revealed the proposed options for the third tier in the publication he edits, Rugby League World (and then again in sister publication League Express). So, many of you should have seen these by now.

There are three options that the clubs have been given to consider:

(1) A straight home & away 26 game league season. Top would be promoted to tier two along with the winner of a four team playoff for the other promotion spot.

(2) A 22 game league season with the same promotion & relegation method used, together with a 16 team cup competition including National Conference league and cup winners.

(3) A 20 game league season, with the same cup competition as above, but different playoffs. 1st would play 2nd, the winner getting promoted, the loser joining 3-5 in a four team playoff to decide the other promoted side.

Walker suggests that the clubs are keenest on option (2). On the face of it, it is the most sensible - it keeps a good number of games, whilst not being too complicated, along with having a few options for success that teams have to play for.

The first thought that occurred to me was how much excitement would the cup competition being if you're essentially going to be playing against the same teams you do in the league? It would be great for the two amateur clubs, but would fans really care? Would the fixtures become stale and repetitive? I think there is a real possibility of that.

There are two ways of livening it up, but they will not come together sadly.

Firstly, a great incentive would be to put the final as a Challenge Cup final curtain raiser (let's face it, no Champ 1 team will make that game in this era). A chance for clubs and players at that level to get the Wembley experience would be massive.

Secondly, however, it would be an opportunity for some clubs to keep their season alive, especially with it being a 14 team comp but only 5 teams seeing promotion possibilities at the end of the regular season. The 'however' is because the Cup final is likely to move forward (as we've said before, first Saturday in June would be ideal, but May is more likely). This means the cup competition can only be a Wembley curtain raiser of its played mid-season, when everyone's season is still alive.

Something fair to say is that what they have come up with isn't particularly radical and innovative, which may well come as a rare relief for rugby league fans!

One thing is now for certain, the third tier isn't being completely bypassed by the restructure, even if they are being financially sidestepped from taking rewards from the new TV deal.

The RFL and the Championship 1 clubs have to strike the right balance and find the best way to come up with an interesting and affordable way forward.

We'd love to hear your thoughts on what the best option to take might be and any ideas you might have that the powers that be haven't come up with. Leave a comment or get in touch through the normal social media routes.

Thanks for reading, and don't forget to listen to the show!

What More Can Be Done? (some simple ideas for British Rugby League)

Again we have a partial repost of a piece Mark wrote for his own blog last year, but we've added plenty of new ideas and want your ideas too.

We would emphasise this is a fan's eye view on what could be done. Plenty of this may already be done, more could undoubtedly be done though.

We'll start with an abridged version of Mark's 2013 ideas (full version here):

• All full-time contracted players should be contractually obliged to make themselves available at least one afternoon or evening each week (from Jan to Sep lets say as a minimum standard) to visit local schools, amateur clubs, charities and youth groups. 
• Full-time players must also be made available to meet local media on a regular basis (once a month?) and national media on a less regular basis (mandatory in week before big events, otherwise at least twice a season) - newspaper, radio and TV. Clubs should impose players on the media rather than wait for requests in order to help build anticipation for matches etc. 
• Major club news (transfers, coaching appointments etc.) could be released through 'exclusive' reports in a national and a daily local newspaper with exclusive interview access to that person, rather than a generic club press release - similar arrangement should be made with a TV & radio news broadcaster for interview access. Press conferences can follow later in the week for more general access for reporting within the sport specific press in their Monday papers.
• The RFL and clubs should use their own marketing or media relations staff to write copy for local papers who might not be able to afford the resources to dedicate time to reporting as much Rugby League as would be preferable.
• Every club should designate a player or coaching staff member to write a regular diary to their fans and also have players doing regular columns in the local newspaper.
• High profile overseas players and England international players should be offered regularly and often to TV companies to appear on sports panel shows or celebrity TV specials (one-off things like pointless celebrities more than long series like I'm a celebrity). Clubs should be accommodating to releasing players for this too. The more recognisable faces, the more sponsors will come in.
• The RFL should contact its celebrity supporters and get them involved in promotional material for the game, even just a video clip sound bite or something.

Jon Wilkin's piece in April's Forty-20 Magazine was one of the inspirations for some new ideas we've come up with. Wilkin spoke of the need to dedicate time and central resources (not necessarily money) to development areas if we as a sport are committed to making them work. This can be extended to talk about all struggling clubs across British rugby league. What needs to be remembered, yet is often forgotten when blame is getting assigned for club failures, is that a sports league is an interdependent entity that needs all participants to be strong to get stronger as a league.

• Centralised support of marketing, promotional activity and online presence. We can't have clubs not having match day programmes or not having up to date websites.
• Centrally negotiated or supported kit and merchandise deals. The governing body have to lend weight where clubs are having issues getting products to sell to their fans.
• Higher levels of cross subsidisation of revenue in the top level. The best way to even out competition is the stronger drawing clubs sharing a higher proportion of their revenues with the weaker drawing clubs. Clubs should not be forced to stand alone, especially where we're looking for development and growth. Richer clubs need other clubs to have a competition to play in.
• The governing body need to foster a collaborative environment between clubs at board room level, rather than a competitive one. A club that has some success with an off field initiative should be sharing that with other clubs. We're not talking about training methods or tactics, we're taking about where a ticketing or marketing initiative has worked, or where a positive supplier or sponsor relationship exists, or successful community programmes. 
• RFL community coaches should have closer links to the local clubs in the areas they are active, most crucially in development and expansion areas. Dual branded clothing with the RFL logo and local club logo would be a simple measure. A marketing pitch and goody bag including ticket offers could be given to parents or schools before/after sessions.
• A guide to all the grounds, provided by the RFL, that can be included by all clubs in season ticket packs. The world cup organisers provided one for that tournament that went out with all ticket orders. It will provide useful advice that may encourage more fans to plan to and get to away games.

We've given some ideas that we feel would be practical, simple and possible to implement.

We also asked for your ideas. We didn't really want big ideas or suggestions, we wanted smaller simpler ideas. We've included some of the larger, structural ideas that get mentioned plenty but would encourage you to concentrate more on those little ideas clubs can get to work on now. We got a decent balance of both from our listeners and would like to thank everyone who got in touch. Here are some of your ideas, grand and small:

Dar Garner @alfiewolf

• Make it family friendly cash wise, e.g. £5 for kids at all stadiums for 3 rounds (decided at the start of the season ) all clubs to do this.  
• All games to have an under-age curtain raiser played from each of the local schools within that area then those boys lead the teams out for the main event. How many parents does that bring in, and help to expand the game.
• The top 4 clubs have 1 designated home game played in a different area where rugby league is not played and the run up to the games are marketed as much as possible. Suggested locations: Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin, Limerick, Galway, Bristol. Its called the expedition round. (SLP ed. note: an 'on the road' round has been trialled previously with varying success)
• Give all players the skills needed to cope with the media, so to give good interviews. Take Sam Burgess now compared to when he left the bulls, he is much slicker interview wise. This would help again to promote the game and give a better potrayal of what the game can bring.

Scott Quibell @ScottQuibell85

• I think there should be a separate pot from central funding for each club only to be used on marketing, especially in the lower leagues. It's so so difficult for clubs in the Championships to advertise due to expense.

NOC @HalifaxExile

• Publish teams a day before the game as in RU, gives papers and journalists more to go at, could increase column inches.

Mike Hallett @mikehallett55

• I'd bring back the War of the Roses - Yorkshire V Lancashire #OriginOfOrigin
• More International games and more Rugby League TV shows.

Paul @mozza_Leeds

• I think they should employ ex-players to help video refs. Ex-players will understand the game better help cut out errors.
• Marketing wise they need to be stronger with TV. Last two rounds of cup and only one game on live TV. BBC don't care, Super League Show on at silly hours in morning. Make them show more live games as part of rights.

Bob Phillips @drbobphillips

• Similar to rail stations, it would be good if we could have league wide e-tickets making away games easier in particular.
• Video clips like in Headingley about how the ground works for new fans? (SLP ed. note: Leeds video example here) 
• Different approaches for new and revival audiences. And increased commitment from existing. So, new folk need to be brought by pals. Challenge Cup 2-4-1 for members would work well. Revivalist need reminding, so probably print and poster adverts in heartlands to remind folk the game is on and where to go. Grass-roots game probably draws a different group, going to take their child, or the child being a player, not to watch the game in the same way.
• Other awareness raising could be with big screen games in cities - not Henman Hill but Sinfield Square or Chase Place.

Josie Andrews @josie_andrews13

• The playoffs need to go back to 5 teams with the league winners straight through to the Grand Final.
• Move Challenge Cup Final back to May.
• More promotion and advertising of our game.
• Better pricing structures.
• Encourage fans to travel by providing safe transport.

SPOTLIGHT ON SL @HKRAWAYDAYS

• The international eligibility rules are terrible. We need transparency in this area.

London Faithful @LondonFaithful

• A beer sponsorship? So the Super League logo is spread on cans across the UK. (SLP ed. note: the Challenge Cup is sponsored by a beer brand)
• More internationals and a fixed home stadium for England games.
• One set of rules for the globe

MICHAEL DONNELLY @mikeldonnelly

• Join up with NRL to develop approaches. Maybe set up a player exchange/co-registration deal?

Andie Riley @Andie99uk

• Not having the same man in charge of Super League, the RFL AND now it seems the International federation.
• More qualified officials. That way, hopefully a better standard of refereeing at all levels of the professional game. (SLP ed. note: a new match officials structure has recently been announced by the RFL, read about it here)

Andi Jarvis @andijarvis

• Have you seen Running Man with Arnie? Any of the features they had. (SLP ed. note: some ideas are more valid than others)

We want this to be a continuous and collaborative piece so if you have any other ideas that we haven't covered, or want to add your ideas on ways we can achieve some of the things that have already been mentioned let us know and we'll continue to add to this piece. You can comment below, send your ideas to us over Twitter or Facebook, or email us at superleaguepod@gmail.com

Thanks for reading and keep listening to the show. We really appreciate the input and support!

Mark and Tom