Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Halifax RLFC vs Widnes Vikings


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

Poll: Who will win? (10 member(s) have cast votes)

Who will win?

  1. Halifax RLFC (4 votes [40.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.00%

  2. Widnes Vikings (6 votes [60.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 01 August 2010 - 06:53 PM

QUOTE (Lounge Room Lizard @ Aug 1 2010, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But having a millionaire chairman willing to cover costs puts Widnes in a good place. I bet if SOC was not there, then Widnes would not have an academy or many of these Kids would be at Widnes. You could say you are very very lucky. But thats life.
However the way Widnes fans go on about things they fail to see the difficulties, Fev, Leigh, Batley, Fax have with no money man throwing money to support them and why its very difficult running a Academy. Also Widnes may be in a good position to sign local players despite SL clubs presence due to SOC and the way Widnes are likely to be in SL from 2012. Other championship clubs do not have that luxury and often are left to sign the best of the rest from the local scene who often have little chance of being good pro players.


We weren't running an academy before SOC then? And we didn't have multiple bids for the club when he took over?

#42 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 01 August 2010 - 06:59 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 1 2010, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
These also come from a junior devleopment system that nobody else in the league is able to fund.

You may be right about this MD, but I'm wondering what it is about Widnes' development system that is superior to my club's, Featherstone Rovers for example? I know we have scholarship sides at under 15 and 16 which have beaten several SL outfits and a successful Academy set up too which has produced current first teamers, Smeaton and Hardaker. Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you, infact I agree with much of what you contribute to this forum but I'm just intrigued as to what the difference is that sets Widnes apart from the rest.
Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

http://www.pictureho...ingfilms.co.uk/

#43 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 01 August 2010 - 10:04 PM

QUOTE (Terry Mullaney @ Aug 1 2010, 07:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You may be right about this MD, but I'm wondering what it is about Widnes' development system that is superior to my club's, Featherstone Rovers for example? I know we have scholarship sides at under 15 and 16 which have beaten several SL outfits and a successful Academy set up too which has produced current first teamers, Smeaton and Hardaker. Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you, infact I agree with much of what you contribute to this forum but I'm just intrigued as to what the difference is that sets Widnes apart from the rest.


We are well known to be the only team that runs an U18's team at Super League level. I'm not trying to denigrate other clubs efforts but as far as I am aware, we are the only side that would meet the criteria for youth development.

#44 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 01 August 2010 - 11:43 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 1 2010, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We are well known to be the only team that runs an U18's team at Super League level. I'm not trying to denigrate other clubs efforts but as far as I am aware, we are the only side that would meet the criteria for youth development.

Thanks for your response MD. Sincerely, I wasn't suggesting you were trying to denigrate other clubs' efforts. I wasn't aware that only an under 18's presence in the SL will qualify for getting a tick in a box.

So presumably, in order to run an under 18's team, clubs must have the ability to pay those junior players otherwise they cannot have a team. If that is the case then the game is indeed in a sorry state and a clear indication that the SL wants absolutely everything there is to be had, all the money, all the fans and all the best young talent, and to hell with the rest.
Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

http://www.pictureho...ingfilms.co.uk/

#45 mick wilson

mick wilson
  • Coach
  • 4,466 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 01:47 AM

QUOTE (Terry Mullaney @ Aug 2 2010, 12:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You may be right about this MD, but I'm wondering what it is about Widnes' development system that is superior to my club's, Featherstone Rovers for example? I know we have scholarship sides at under 15 and 16 which have beaten several SL outfits and a successful Academy set up too which has produced current first teamers, Smeaton and Hardaker. Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you, infact I agree with much of what you contribute to this forum but I'm just intrigued as to what the difference is that sets Widnes apart from the rest.



Huge Ego's and a superiority complex laugh.gif

#46 mick wilson

mick wilson
  • Coach
  • 4,466 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 02:09 AM

QUOTE (Bulletproof @ Aug 1 2010, 10:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Paying for a team bus and the occasional board is hardly the same as funding player contracts. Our squad has been weaker this year for the reason listed above. You can still afford Jamie Rooney. Widnes and Leigh are the sole clubs represented in lancs in the league so we have to do our fair share of travelling too.


"Paying for a team bus & occasional board", ffs man talk about over simplyfying things, Our players do train you know unfortunatly they dont levitate tongue.gif their cars require petrol.

Its much harder to get the better calibre of players to play for Barrow im the main due to the amount of travelling involved which again is not just on match days.

Same problem is getting loan or duel players.
Same problem in getting visitor fans making the trek, so our number are well down in this respect every year.

In my opinion clubs like Fax & Widnes have it much easier in these respects & you both have had your chance in the limelight and blow it already, you both have been Insolvent, Bankrupt or been in Adminastration etc & more than once.

One could say that because of mismanagement you have gained from it by having new shiney stadia to crow about and use it as an unfair advantage against well managed clubs who hisorically cut thier cloth accordanly.

Why not let Fev or Barrow have three years to see if we manage it better biggrin.gif the buzz it would generate who create hure interest in these communitys and benefit the game by cementing RL in these area's.

#47 mick wilson

mick wilson
  • Coach
  • 4,466 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 02:20 AM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 1 2010, 12:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If it was purely about on the field we would have a better squad, simple as. The fact is that we are the only club that has spent this round of licensing trying to fit the criteria for Super League and that includes the youth and home grown players in the squad. No other club comes close to us on this.

bettered by no-one in the league and we have a proper youth policy. Of course it causes resentment amongst other fans but it doesn't change the fact.


Arrogance of the highest order, you have outdone yourself here, well done.

FYI, BARROW had several Barrow born raised & schooled in RL lads in our 1st team yesterday & they all did rather well dont you think ?.

#48 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 03:39 AM

QUOTE (mick wilson @ Aug 2 2010, 02:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Huge Ego's and a superiority complex laugh.gif


Other people might get away with saying this, but other people don't consistently attack us and run our club down whilst talking up theirs. In other words, shut up and stop being a massive hypocrite. Responding to your twaddle does not constitute to having a massive ego and/or a superiority complex. Putting teams down whilst being blind to the fault of yours, as you have in the posts just behind mine does.

Honestly Mick, besides being a liar, your also particularly dumb on occasion.

#49 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 04:02 AM

QUOTE (mick wilson @ Aug 2 2010, 03:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"Paying for a team bus & occasional board", ffs man talk about over simplyfying things, Our players do train you know unfortunatly they dont levitate tongue.gif their cars require petrol.

Its much harder to get the better calibre of players to play for Barrow im the main due to the amount of travelling involved which again is not just on match days.


Mick, you don't live in khatmandu. And pointing out the flaws in your club does not bode well for you. These problems will also occur if you were in super league. It isn't a plus point in your favour pointing out the difficulty you have attracting and paying your players fairly. If you're living in a backwater, just live to your means. We'd be best off planning for a future in a centre of population like Newcastle. Despite these obviously crippling issues, you have managed to win the league recently and featured a squad containing the likes of Jamie Rooney. The facts laid out to you regarding our youngsters counting on the cap have been largely ignored and turned into some bizarre reverse whinge.

QUOTE
In my opinion clubs like Fax & Widnes have it much easier in these respects & you both have had your chance in the limelight and blow it already, you both have been Insolvent, Bankrupt or been in Adminastration etc & more than once.


Lie. We have been in admin once, due to a crooked owner which could have leeched himself onto anyone. The fact that we had multiple credible bids for our club after he left us in dire straits speaks volumes. We have the largest crowds in the division, and a relatively low salary cap with which to work in, and a new owner with a better sense of morals. This is a completely irrelevant divergence you have taken us on and a false one at that.

QUOTE
One could say that because of mismanagement you have gained from it by having new shiney stadia to crow about and use it as an unfair advantage against well managed clubs who hisorically cut thier cloth accordanly.


A staggering bit of idiocy.

Please explain to the board how we benefitted from administration by getting a stadium built 10 years earlier than it happened, before we were involved with Mr Vaughn, before we even qualified for super league? Hell, explain the workings of its finances and how it was dodgy. Please, go into detail. You surely can't leave this on such a compelling, vague point. Explain, liar. Did it enable us to build a time machine? You don't half talk some ######.

By the way, droning on and on about widnes fans "crowing" becomes slightly less impacted when you do it repeatedly yourself and with no provocation.

QUOTE
Why not let Fev or Barrow have three years to see if we manage it better biggrin.gif the buzz it would generate who create hure interest in these communitys and benefit the game by cementing RL in these area's.


Absolutely. In fact as we're ignoring due process and all the hard work clubs have taken to ensure they are fully in accordance with RFL policy, why not chuck Moghadishu a license? It would create such a buzz and builr up rugby league n their region, give them a shot. In fact, ###### that. Chuck a dart at a world map and see where it lands. Licensing by guessing. It works so well!


#50 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 07:48 AM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 1 2010, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes when they are included in your squad. Widnes have a large number of their squad taken up with juniors purely to try and meet the criteria for Super League. These also come from a junior devleopment system that nobody else in the league is able to fund.



Just checked - they dont count on the cap

7.3 Costs for those players under 21 who are eligible to play in the academy teams are to be
excluded from the Salary Cap Qualifying Costs. For the avoidance of doubt, this means
players need to be under 21 years of age on August 31st in the year prior to the Salary Cap
Year in question.



#51 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 11:19 AM

QUOTE (mick wilson @ Aug 2 2010, 03:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Arrogance of the highest order, you have outdone yourself here, well done.

FYI, BARROW had several Barrow born raised & schooled in RL lads in our 1st team yesterday & they all did rather well dont you think ?.


Grow up Mick. You know full well that what Super League classes as a youth policy amounts to far more than what you're suggesting.

How are Barrow doing in the U18's Super League Academy?

Just because you dislike the truth doesn't change it.

#52 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 11:35 AM

QUOTE (a.n Other @ Aug 2 2010, 08:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Just checked - they dont count on the cap

7.3 Costs for those players under 21 who are eligible to play in the academy teams are to be
excluded from the Salary Cap Qualifying Costs. For the avoidance of doubt, this means
players need to be under 21 years of age on August 31st in the year prior to the Salary Cap
Year in question.


Good point but it also says 'those who are eligible to play in the Academy,' there may be a fair few who are home grown but aren't.

I don't want to focus too much on the playing side of things because it is not what licensing is about. The point is that it is too easy to point to a team doing well in the league and say that means they deserve to be in. There are many other factors under licensing. Aside from the fact that Widnes have had no coach for a large portion of this year and have had key players out, we have also been clearly trying to get more club trained players in the squad and playing in the team. This is what licensing is supposed to be about. No other club in the division has focussed on this in the same way and are only recently been trying to rectify it whereas Widnes have been doing it since the last round of franchising.

If it wasn't about being awarded licenses then priorities would be different. As often happens the club with the biggest and best resources inevitably gets promoted over a short period of time. Why would Widnes bother spending big on going all out to win the Championship when it adds almost nothing to our bid. I don't think for a second we thought we'd miss the playoffs but we wanted to be in the mix and the squad we had should have enabled that.

Widnes can't be blamed for playing the game the way the RFL asked, tick a box on the field and spend the rest getting off the field right. Many on here seem to think this is somehow Widnes fault or that we should be punished for not finishing high enough. Once again this is not what licensing is about, it might stink and it might be killing the Championship as a competition but that is not Widnes' fault.

#53 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 12:01 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 2 2010, 12:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Good point but it also says 'those who are eligible to play in the Academy,' there may be a fair few who are home grown but aren't.

I don't want to focus too much on the playing side of things because it is not what licensing is about. The point is that it is too easy to point to a team doing well in the league and say that means they deserve to be in. There are many other factors under licensing. Aside from the fact that Widnes have had no coach for a large portion of this year and have had key players out, we have also been clearly trying to get more club trained players in the squad and playing in the team. This is what licensing is supposed to be about. No other club in the division has focussed on this in the same way and are only recently been trying to rectify it whereas Widnes have been doing it since the last round of franchising.

If it wasn't about being awarded licenses then priorities would be different. As often happens the club with the biggest and best resources inevitably gets promoted over a short period of time. Why would Widnes bother spending big on going all out to win the Championship when it adds almost nothing to our bid. I don't think for a second we thought we'd miss the playoffs but we wanted to be in the mix and the squad we had should have enabled that.

Widnes can't be blamed for playing the game the way the RFL asked, tick a box on the field and spend the rest getting off the field right. Many on here seem to think this is somehow Widnes fault or that we should be punished for not finishing high enough. Once again this is not what licensing is about, it might stink and it might be killing the Championship as a competition but that is not Widnes' fault.


Cant argue with a lot of that. But salary cap wise, i would be suprised if you werent up to the cap, so i dont see that as saving money or not spending big could be wrong though.

As for what the RFL want for licences, the only thing i can see where it has been confirmed what they are potentially looking for is the following from the SL website

"The RFL has already started planning for the next licence period and has been working with Super League and Championship clubs to agree minimum standards in five key areas: Business Management, Facilities, Finance, Commercial/Marketing/Community and Playing Strength/Performance.

Gary Tasker added: “Clubs need to be aware that we are raising the bar for the next licence period and showcasing the Super League competition in high quality, 21st Century stadium facilities remains a key strategic objective.”

Would imagine the youth aspect comes under playing strength?

Edited by a.n Other, 02 August 2010 - 12:02 PM.


#54 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 01:07 PM

QUOTE (a.n Other @ Aug 2 2010, 01:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Cant argue with a lot of that. But salary cap wise, i would be suprised if you werent up to the cap, so i dont see that as saving money or not spending big could be wrong though.

As for what the RFL want for licences, the only thing i can see where it has been confirmed what they are potentially looking for is the following from the SL website

"The RFL has already started planning for the next licence period and has been working with Super League and Championship clubs to agree minimum standards in five key areas: Business Management, Facilities, Finance, Commercial/Marketing/Community and Playing Strength/Performance.

Gary Tasker added: “Clubs need to be aware that we are raising the bar for the next licence period and showcasing the Super League competition in high quality, 21st Century stadium facilities remains a key strategic objective.”

Would imagine the youth aspect comes under playing strength?


I'd assume so.

If you look at their summations from the last round of licensing you can see how prominently youth development figures, especially under club-trained rules. Almost all clubs under discussion were told they would need to improve their youth development to get it to a Super League level, including Widnes. We now have the 8 club trained players and an Academy system that surely would be classed as Super League standard, we are the only Championship club that runs teams at all levels and at the highest level U18's


#55 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,768 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 01:54 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 2 2010, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd assume so.

If you look at their summations from the last round of licensing you can see how prominently youth development figures, especially under club-trained rules. Almost all clubs under discussion were told they would need to improve their youth development to get it to a Super League level, including Widnes. We now have the 8 club trained players and an Academy system that surely would be classed as Super League standard, we are the only Championship club that runs teams at all levels and at the highest level U18's


Max - I can see what you are saying, but the only reason you can run all these youth teams is because you have a sugar daddy. This was something that has been used in argument against Des (not sure of sirname) at Barrow

Also I seem to remember that Leigh had one of these academy U18's a couple of years ago, but were not allowed to play against the likes of Wigan, Saints etc U18's. Not sure what the situation is now (maybe amh knows)

I've nothing against Widnes, though ever since the last knobhead franchising decision, I feel it was nailed on for them to get the next vote regardless of on-the-pitch accolades from other clubs. IMO it would have been better if there had been a points system for on-the-pitch successes which I've posted in other threads. The other off-the-pitch things could have been secondary requirements

The problem now I feel, is that the other clubs bar Widnes perhaps don't want to spend considerable amounts of cash on academies if they aren't going to get a licence. Really sky money should fund every club in NL1 to have a full time acaedmy, then at least everyone would be on the same playing field. Alas now we are relying on sugar daddies

#56 amh

amh
  • Moderator
  • 11,083 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 02:21 PM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Aug 2 2010, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Also I seem to remember that Leigh had one of these academy U18's a couple of years ago, but were not allowed to play against the likes of Wigan, Saints etc U18's. Not sure what the situation is now (maybe amh knows)


I don't to be honest. I know they disbanded them when we didn't get into SL because we couldn't afford them (2003) and I'm sorry to say I've no clue after that. It seems we rely heavily on the set ups at Miners & Easts, plus we have a link with Wigan & Leigh college where males 16- 19 can join their academy and have coaching from Leigh staff and gain alevel 1 coaching certificate

We need someone who actually knows to comment eg LeytherMatt , DemonUK or AlanE

Whilst I do not suffer fools gladly, I will always gladly make fools suffer

A man is getting along on the road of wisdom when he realises that his opinion is just an opinion


#57 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 03:16 PM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Aug 2 2010, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Max - I can see what you are saying, but the only reason you can run all these youth teams is because you have a sugar daddy. This was something that has been used in argument against Des (not sure of sirname) at Barrow


We were running an academy before SOC came along though. We've been running one for years. Admittedly we've not always pushed our youngsters on to the scene as successfully as we can now but they have been there.

QUOTE
I've nothing against Widnes, though ever since the last knobhead franchising decision, I feel it was nailed on for them to get the next vote regardless of on-the-pitch accolades from other clubs. IMO it would have been better if there had been a points system for on-the-pitch successes which I've posted in other threads. The other off-the-pitch things could have been secondary requirements


If you've nothing against Widnes why have successive postings been about how every other team seems to be more suitable for promotion. One day, you said Barrow were nailed on, two days later, you said Halifax were dead certs. It seems to be every team other than the team with the biggest crowds and best set up. We were always going to suffer on the pitch this year blooding youth players, but we've been significantly weakened by a prolongued and difficult injury crisis the likes of which I've never seen at the club. People forget that, for large portions of the season we were without 7 or 8 players, two matches or so there were almost enough to field a seperate team. Emergency loan signings are all very well and good but if the team cannot settle and players cannot get used to one another your form is bound to suffer. Had we had better luck with injuries we would be far more comfortable than we are now. People conveniently leave this out when discussing future licenses. The whole point of the process, which not all of us agree with, but the only point of it is to make sure the club going up is the best placed and the one going down is the weakest. That things like temporary form issues are put on a back burner for things like overall strength.

#58 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 03:23 PM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Aug 2 2010, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Max - I can see what you are saying, but the only reason you can run all these youth teams is because you have a sugar daddy. This was something that has been used in argument against Des (not sure of sirname) at Barrow

Also I seem to remember that Leigh had one of these academy U18's a couple of years ago, but were not allowed to play against the likes of Wigan, Saints etc U18's. Not sure what the situation is now (maybe amh knows)

I've nothing against Widnes, though ever since the last knobhead franchising decision, I feel it was nailed on for them to get the next vote regardless of on-the-pitch accolades from other clubs. IMO it would have been better if there had been a points system for on-the-pitch successes which I've posted in other threads. The other off-the-pitch things could have been secondary requirements

The problem now I feel, is that the other clubs bar Widnes perhaps don't want to spend considerable amounts of cash on academies if they aren't going to get a licence. Really sky money should fund every club in NL1 to have a full time acaedmy, then at least everyone would be on the same playing field. Alas now we are relying on sugar daddies


This is an over-simplification I feel and does a diservice to the club to say we are reliant on a sugar daddy. Without him we still get the biggest crowds and have the joint best ground. We also made the best stab of Super League out of any of the current championship clubs. Let's not forget that we were one game away on two occasions from being a Super League club and had we won either of those we would be a shoe in for a continued SL license. This is all without Steve O'Connor. At the same time you have a club like Wakefield who have been one game away from relegation and probable permanent SL exclusion. That is how fine a line Widnes were from being a permanent member of SL, no other Championship clubs were in this situation.

Therefore it's unfair to put all of Widnes' reasons for inclusion on a sugar daddy. Barrow are a different matter, their success is largely built on a sugar daddy, one who has made comments that don't make him seem reliable. Plus despite his money Barrow still haven't many other boxes ticked.

#59 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 03:24 PM

Triple post!

Edited by Maximus Decimus, 02 August 2010 - 03:37 PM.


#60 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 03:26 PM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Aug 2 2010, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Max - I can see what you are saying, but the only reason you can run all these youth teams is because you have a sugar daddy. This was something that has been used in argument against Des (not sure of sirname) at Barrow

Also I seem to remember that Leigh had one of these academy U18's a couple of years ago, but were not allowed to play against the likes of Wigan, Saints etc U18's. Not sure what the situation is now (maybe amh knows)

I've nothing against Widnes, though ever since the last knobhead franchising decision, I feel it was nailed on for them to get the next vote regardless of on-the-pitch accolades from other clubs. IMO it would have been better if there had been a points system for on-the-pitch successes which I've posted in other threads. The other off-the-pitch things could have been secondary requirements

The problem now I feel, is that the other clubs bar Widnes perhaps don't want to spend considerable amounts of cash on academies if they aren't going to get a licence. Really sky money should fund every club in NL1 to have a full time acaedmy, then at least everyone would be on the same playing field. Alas now we are relying on sugar daddies


This is an over-simplification I feel and does a diservice to the club to say we are reliant on a sugar daddy. Without him we still get the biggest crowds and have the joint best ground. We also made the best stab of Super League out of any of the current championship clubs. Let's not forget that we were one game away on two occasions from being a Super League club and had we won either of those we would be a shoe in for a continued SL license. This is all without Steve O'Connor. At the same time you have a club like Wakefield who have been one game away from relegation and probable permanent SL exclusion. That is how fine a line Widnes were from being a permanent member of SL, no other Championship clubs were in this situation.

Therefore it's unfair to put all of Widnes' reasons for inclusion on a sugar daddy. Barrow are a different matter, their success is largely built on a sugar daddy, one who has made comments that don't make him seem reliable. Plus despite his money Barrow still haven't many other boxes ticked.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users