89 replies to this topic

[Padge]

Its pretty hilarious that you use seasons from the 1970's and early 1980's to highlight your point. Please get your Rothmans back out and examine the promotions and relegations from the season you chose to end your statistical spunkfest. You'll find that some clubs that were promoted went on to find relative success in the top flight, and even if relegated managed to make it back up within a season or two.

It isn't hilarious at all, it's bloody tragic. The list of clubs going up and down and finishing up in deep financial mire is a lot longer than those that have gone up, stayed up and not had financial problems.

Lets carry on from where I left off then.

Barrow Workington Hunslet up 83/84 down 84/85
Swinton York Dewsbury up 84/85 down 85/86
Barrow Wakefield up 85/86 down 86/87
Hunslet Swinton up 86/87 down 87/88
Oldham up 87/88 down 88/89
Leigh Barrow up 88/89 down 89/90
Rochdale Oldham up 88/89 down 89/90
Swinton up 90/91 down 91/92 bust
92/93 is the only season that a promoted club didn't go straight back down, also the year the league was split to 3 divisions.
Doncaster up 93/94 down & bust 94/95

At this point all change for SL.

Workington and Oldham both in the initial SL both brought to their knees trying to stay in. Down in 96 Workington and in 97 Oldham.

Huddersfield promoted in 97 bottom in 98 but stayed in due to no suitable promotion candidate, Hull promoted at the same time survive but hae massive financial probems. We all know the eventual fate of these two clubs.

Other teams have held on in there for a couple of seasons but finished with crippling debts when they finally succumbed to relegation.

I am sorry but the whole history of P&R is a history of clubs going straight up, straight down and straight into deep financial trouble.

[HaroldShand]

It isn't hilarious at all, it's bloody tragic. The list of clubs going up and down and finishing up in deep financial mire is a lot longer than those that have gone up, stayed up and not had financial problems.

Lets carry on from where I left off then.

Barrow Workington Hunslet up 83/84 down 84/85
Swinton York Dewsbury up 84/85 down 85/86
Barrow Wakefield up 85/86 down 86/87
Hunslet Swinton up 86/87 down 87/88
Oldham up 87/88 down 88/89
Leigh Barrow up 88/89 down 89/90
Rochdale Oldham up 88/89 down 89/90
Swinton up 90/91 down 91/92 bust
92/93 is the only season that a promoted club didn't go straight back down, also the year the league was split to 3 divisions.
Doncaster up 93/94 down & bust 94/95

At this point all change for SL.

Workington and Oldham both in the initial SL both brought to their knees trying to stay in. Down in 96 Workington and in 97 Oldham.

Huddersfield promoted in 97 bottom in 98 but stayed in due to no suitable promotion candidate, Hull promoted at the same time survive but hae massive financial probems. We all know the eventual fate of these two clubs.

Other teams have held on in there for a couple of seasons but finished with crippling debts when they finally succumbed to relegation.

I am sorry but the whole history of P&R is a history of clubs going straight up, straight down and straight into deep financial trouble.

What you should have said is :

'I am sorry but the whole history of P&R is a history of clubs going straight up, straight down, WITH A FEW straight into financial trouble.'
Lets tar all club chairman and directors as idiots and incompetents who following any promotion would definitely bankrupt their clubs.

[Padge]

What you should have said is :

'I am sorry but the whole history of P&R is a history of clubs going straight up, straight down, WITH A FEW straight into financial trouble.'
Lets tar all club chairman and directors as idiots and incompetents who following any promotion would definitely bankrupt their clubs.

A FEW a chuffing FEW

Doncaster bust
Swinton bust
Widnes bust (trying to go up didn't even make it)
Halifax bust
Keighley bust (don't argue that was Lindsay's fault they were already in deep ****)
Leigh bust
Rochdale bust
Hunslet bust
Carlisle bust
York bust

That's not a full list either.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

You don't honestly believe that franchising was introduced to save poor clubs like Workington, do you? It was introduced to prevent clubs like Workington entering the Super League, despite on-field achievements. If you've got a nice council-built legoland ground that looks good on the SKY cameras, or play in Wales or France, then you're in. If not, then no chance.
Do you really imagine that if my club, Batley, were suddenly taken over by a multi-millionaire, finished off our stand (giving us a 12'000 capacity), stuck some money in the bank, set up a thriving Academy and made a franchise bid (we already tick the crucial box of having won a trophy), we'd stand even a slim chance of consideration?
Take a couple of deep breaths and give me a really honest answer please.
The rigid concept of meeting the 'strict' franchise criteria before a Super League place is granted was exposed for the sham it is when Celtic Crusaders (who met very, very few of the criteria) were granted a franchise in 2008 ahead of Widnes Vikings, who's franchise application even back then blew the Welsh club out of the water.
The sneaky little clause which will allow Toulouse to apply (and, I've no doubt, win) for a 2012 franchise also confirms that the franchise system is a big crock of poop. It basically states that a club which doesn't meet even ONE of the criteria set out by the guidelines can apply for a Super League franchise providing it is based overseas and is invited by SL to apply for a place! So why do the 'criteria' apply to Championship clubs based in Britain, and not overseas clubs? Hmmm?

are you suggesting I am dishonest?

I was answering Derwent's question at I think the third attempt

[goldcard]

As I said earlier.
Where P&R exists, look at Keighley, Doncaster ,Gateshead and Blackpool.
FFS, why can't folks see the wood for the trees.

P&R exists to S/L, but only making sure it isn't going to bankrupt a club being there, with a 3 year stabilising period added, and with the above 4 being very recent casualties, maybe some sort of checks should be made lower down the structure of semi-pro rugby.

[Derwent]

As I said earlier.
Where P&R exists, look at Keighley, Doncaster ,Gateshead and Blackpool.
FFS, why can't folks see the wood for the trees.

P&R exists to S/L, but only making sure it isn't going to bankrupt a club being there, with a 3 year stabilising period added, and with the above 4 being very recent casualties, maybe some sort of checks should be made lower down the structure of semi-pro rugby.

Hmmm but you could apply that to some current SL clubs too, so what would you do about them ?

How about a SL club that has had 18 CCJ's against it, the most recent one being in June this year when it couldn't afford a bill of just £12k ?

http://www.dailypost...55578-26991665/

Edited by Derwent, 07 August 2010 - 03:46 PM.

[Keith T]

I wish people would stop using Workington as an example in these arguments as their relegation was as the first sacrificial lamb on the alter of expansionism by the RFL. Had the RFL not assisted PSG so much to help them finish above Town then Town would have not been relegated and who knows what might have happened?

As it was they did get relegated with players on SL contracts which had to be met and in a lower league. Several players left and the performances in the lower league were poor and they dropped again into the third division and then went in to administration. The period in administration meant that they did not receive any money from the RFL from the Sky monies which only added to their predicament.

That scenario would not happen now for as Derwent states the problem has been legislated for regarding SL contracts.

[goldcard]

Hmmm but you could apply that to some current SL clubs too, so what would you do about them ?

How about a SL club that has had 18 CCJ's against it, the most recent one being in June this year when it couldn't afford a bill of just £12k ?

http://www.dailypost...55578-26991665/

The final paragraph is the most telling in that report.
However, they aren't in admin , and still could be a viable club.

[Padge]

I wish people would stop using Workington as an example in these arguments as their relegation was as the first sacrificial lamb on the alter of expansionism by the RFL. Had the RFL not assisted PSG so much to help them finish above Town then Town would have not been relegated and who knows what might have happened?

As it was they did get relegated with players on SL contracts which had to be met and in a lower league. Several players left and the performances in the lower league were poor and they dropped again into the third division and then went in to administration. The period in administration meant that they did not receive any money from the RFL from the Sky monies which only added to their predicament.

That scenario would not happen now for as Derwent states the problem has been legislated for regarding SL contracts.

Yes things could have been oh so different if Workington had been given a three year period to stabalise in the original SL, as it was they weren't.

I'm a firm believer that expansion clubs should get a huge subsidy from the RFL, but the RFL get a seat on the board of the club so they know exactly what is going on.

[Derwent]

The final paragraph is the most telling in that report.
However, they aren't in admin , and still could be a viable club.

They could be, time will tell.

But it annoys me when people seem to think that it is only clubs below SL who have financial problems. There are many SL clubs who are carrying huge debts forward and sooner or later some of these are going to bite. I've said it before, some clubs are only a heart attack away from bankruptcy.

[Keith T]

Yes things could have been oh so different if Workington had been given a three year period to stabalise in the original SL, as it was they weren't.

We would have been happy with a fair chance to have a second season to see how we got on

I'm a firm believer that expansion clubs should get a huge subsidy from the RFL, but the RFL get a seat on the board of the club so they know exactly what is going on.

Which is what happened when Lindsay and Jepson became directors of PSG but even that could not save them 2 years later

[dkw]

Yes things could have been oh so different if Workington had been given a three year period to stabalise in the original SL, as it was they weren't.

I'm a firm believer that expansion clubs should get a huge subsidy from the RFL, but the RFL get a seat on the board of the club so they know exactly what is going on.

Thats not what Keith was getting at, Town getting a fair shot at staying up was all we were after. What went on that season was nothing short of scandalous, Town had almost no chance of staying up and were then cast adrift.

[Padge]

They could be, time will tell.

But it annoys me when people seem to think that it is only clubs below SL who have financial problems. There are many SL clubs who are carrying huge debts forward and sooner or later some of these are going to bite. I've said it before, some clubs are only a heart attack away from bankruptcy.

I don't think people think that its only championship clubs that have problems. The state of many clubs in SL is well known, the whole point is that a lot of financial problems stem from overspending either to gain promotion or in trying to stave off relegation. One of the ideas of licenses is to try and break the cycle that I have shown in my earlier posts.

Once again I reiterate some of us may not be around to see the success of this process, however without I personally am convinced that we will be around to see the game become a local novelty like Cumbrian Wrestling.

[Padge]

Thats not what Keith was getting at, Town getting a fair shot at staying up was all we were after. What went on that season was nothing short of scandalous, Town had almost no chance of staying up and were then cast adrift.

I think that post of mine is misunderstood, I wasn't having a go at Keith, I was pointing out that I belive that given current conditions then they would have had a chance at fairing much better.

The whole point of these changes to how the game operates is to try and avoid a lot of this ****.

[dkw]

I think that post of mine is misunderstood, I wasn't having a go at Keith, I was pointing out that I belive that given current conditions then they would have had a chance at fairing much better.

The whole point of these changes to how the game operates is to try and avoid a lot of this ****.

Fair enough, and for the record I think getting rid of relegation and the whole licensing thing was a great move by the powers that be. We cant judge it on one run through, we need to wait until its a few iterations old to see the results. The main thing I was hoping for was clubs near the bottom would stop signing over the hill Australians to try and stay up and allow their young players time to bed in without the fear of relegation.

[The Parksider]

You don't honestly believe that franchising was introduced to save poor clubs like Workington, do you? It was introduced to prevent clubs like Workington entering the Super League, despite on-field achievements. If you've got a nice council-built legoland ground that looks good on the SKY cameras, or play in Wales or France, then you're in. If not, then no chance.

Do you really imagine that if my club, Batley, were suddenly taken over by a multi-millionaire, finished off our stand (giving us a 12'000 capacity), stuck some money in the bank, set up a thriving Academy and made a franchise bid (we already tick the crucial box of having won a trophy), we'd stand even a slim chance of consideration?

Take a couple of deep breaths and give me a really honest answer please.

The honest answer is YES of course SL will take Batley if they have the ground, the youth set up and can afford the full salary cap, all provided by a millionaire chairman.

Its an absolute YES. They are taking Widnes on that exact basis, and Widnes are as stuck in a triangle of established SL clubs as batley are.

Franchising isn't about shutting out M62 clubs - It would be if the RFL had a choice of clubs all providing the full criteria but they don't.

And Franchising isn't to stop Workington either. It's far more to stop Catalans, Crusaders or London being relegated. The original franchises started with Catalans.

They just can't justify relegating anyone from 11th place anymore.

[Padge]

Fair enough, and for the record I think getting rid of relegation and the whole licensing thing was a great move by the powers that be. We cant judge it on one run through, we need to wait until its a few iterations old to see the results. The main thing I was hoping for was clubs near the bottom would stop signing over the hill Australians to try and stay up and allow their young players time to bed in without the fear of relegation.

Teams are being given the opportunity to move away from this, some are and some seem to be dragging their feet. There are problems where players are already contracted and we have to abide by the law of the land.

I think the RFL have played it cute with SL clubs, they can't openly ban someone who is legally entitled to work in this country. However by making youth development a criterea for those in SL clubs that over rely on overseas imports to bolster their sidewill be at a disadvantage when the points are topped up. If you like its discrimanation through the back dorr, I'm sure the RFL's legal team have poured over this to try and ensure they don't fall foul of EU law.

I think clubs that continue to fail in this department will be weeded out, once the stadia become less of an issue I think this is where the focus will be, it is now but isn't the headline maker.

[The Parksider]

Fair enough, and for the record I think getting rid of relegation and the whole licensing thing was a great move by the powers that be. We cant judge it on one run through, we need to wait until its a few iterations old to see the results. The main thing I was hoping for was clubs near the bottom would stop signing over the hill Australians to try and stay up and allow their young players time to bed in without the fear of relegation.

The whole purpose of Licensing was to make clubs set up proper youth systems, and as you indicate earlier in your post you have to wait some time for licensing to have it's effect.

You also have to wait some time for all the lower clubs to actually have a proper youth system turning out quality players. All SL clubs may have academies but the standards have been low.

If you took out all the over the hill aussies in the bottom seven clubs and replaced them with academy players the result would be appalling one sided contests and fans simply not bothering to go in great numbers.

I think the gradual reduction in the overseas players quota will do the trick here.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

They could be, time will tell.

But it annoys me when people seem to think that it is only clubs below SL who have financial problems. There are many SL clubs who are carrying huge debts forward and sooner or later some of these are going to bite. I've said it before, some clubs are only a heart attack away from bankruptcy.

do you think tha prom and reg during and before super league helped your club?

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 07 August 2010 - 05:19 PM.

[Derwent]

The state of many clubs in SL is well known, the whole point is that a lot of financial problems stem from overspending either to gain promotion or in trying to stave off relegation.

That's an easy thing to blame though and is a bit too convenient sometimes. What's the excuse for Saints ? or Bradford ?