Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

RFL needs to reform access to SL for Co-Op C. Clubs


  • Please log in to reply
196 replies to this topic

#161 dallymessenger

dallymessenger
  • Coach
  • 20,928 posts

Posted 13 September 2010 - 08:50 AM

this whole thread is based on the presumption that all clubs outside SL have a right to be in it.

this is wrong.

SL is the elite competition and unless a club meets certain standards it shouldnt be allowed in

i say P&R still exists now into SL

rather than P&R happening annually and be based only on on field performance, it now exists on a 3 year basis and determined by more than just on field performance.

the way into SL is there for championship clubs. other than widnes, none deserve it.

#162 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 13 September 2010 - 09:15 AM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 9 2010, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Regarding the P&R issue, why does rugby league feel it has to differ from practically every other major UK sport in this aspect?

How many clubs have sorted out their academy set ups, SL or Championship, as a result of licencing? How many clubs have sorted out their grounds as a result of licencing? So far I would say that it is the ages of grounds and inability to maximise revenue that has driven the likes of Saints to move forward. Which clubs are actually playing in stadiums that were built to win or keep a licence? Widnes, for example already had the ground and that was nothing to do with licencing,

Clubs like Workington and Oldham went bust because at the time all the money was polarised in SL and there was no safety net. Licencing has not changed this. Had P&R not been around Salford and Cas would have gone the same way as Workington and Oldham when they were relegated. Thanks to P&R those clubs fans stayed with them, the infrastructure they had could be kept in place and the teams kept to gether to try and reach to top level.

I don't see how subjective decision making by unknown officials using a process that is far from widely known or transparent can eb better than P&R. I'll go back again to my original question of why rugby league feels it has to be different to other major UK sports.


to answer your original question.

Why does different have to be wrong? Rugby League is not like most other major sports, in fact each major sport has different issues. Cricket has franchising of a type underneath the second division, Rugby Union has been talking of ring fencing for years, Northern Irish Football has a liscencing system. Ice Hockey has a closed shop etc..

as for the grounds.. whether it is lisencing or becuase they are old dilapidated and cant make money is arguable i suppose.. though its funny that they have been scrambling since the liscencing was announced but before that they just plodded along making what thye could without the outlay of a new ground and patching up holes.. and maybe talking of a new ground but not actually doing anything.. as i say this has concentrated the minds.

#163 BBR

BBR
  • Coach
  • 662 posts

Posted 13 September 2010 - 09:29 AM

Perhaps all CC clubs should make a pact to not pay players for the next 5 years and go totally amateur.

All the money they save on wages they can use to improve grounds/youth set up etc.

After all, why meet the salary cap and try to do well other than to try and boost the feeble crowds by a few?

#164 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 13 September 2010 - 09:37 AM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Sep 11 2010, 09:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So you'll be happy to have 14 pro teams followed by a near amateur sub-1k crowd environment

or of course franchising/liscencing may actually work and you get two strong divisions with more professionally ruin business style clubs taht actually make money from other sources and can afford to continue to run a rugby league club and we are all in a much stronger position. We also manage to expand the sport to new regions and new supporters which helps with a better national profile and a better sport. but we may lose some of the older clubs to the amatuer ranks becuase they cannot last... sadly that happens and it happens in these fantastic P&R sports too.. there are many teams that do well for a bit and then disapear off.. football being one.. Rugby Union has some very famous old clubs that did not do well in the new pro era, some who started doing very well went bust etc..

P&R is not perfect and does not keep old clubs around... some of these old clubs have only been kept semi pro and kept going becuase of the ring fencing of ch1 or the NFP or its numnber of predecessors.. with pure P&R they would have gone for a burton..

Liscencing is not perfect but we have to at least give it a chance to work where P&R has not. expansion and development of clubs.

#165 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,717 posts

Posted 13 September 2010 - 06:28 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Sep 13 2010, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Parky, you brought up respect, not me. You made the first disrespectful comment, not me. Don't go getting all upset that you aren't getting the respect you want, because when you basically tell someone they're talking out of their arris when only reading half a post (then realising all the points you argued were already covered in the part of the post you couldn't be bothered to read) what do you expect?

I don't want the upper hand. I really aren't that bothered. Discuss the points I've made and we can forget all about this meaningless "respect" discussion. But you won't be getting an apology from me as I've done nothing wrong. So let's move on...


Fair enough I'm OK to move on, but your final accusation was unfounded and nasty biggrin.gif

That doesn't bother me, it just suprises me coming from you!!

On the Hull/HKR thing as regards one club, or two or three or whatever, as I've posted before, "the model" is Leeds where when Hunslet nearly made a comeback to the big time it neither suited Uncle Mo's plan nor suited gary Hetherington. The indications were that there were kids playing RL in the city who would become pros (e,g, ablett, walker, McGuire, Bailey, Hall, etc etc) there were people who wanted to watch top class RL and business people who wanted to back it.

The Hunslet that would have gone up allegedly had access to funds like Hudgell provides HKR today, and thus the two clubs would be competing for these resources and ultimately having to accept sharing them.

Hetherington was of no help to Hunslet and since then we see what he has done with Leeds. We also saw before HKR's comeback where Hull were starting to go, I was at OT with them in the SL grand final. I suspect it will be a long time before either of them ever get there again now especially when the overseas quota bites.

I know what I make of that as applied to Hull. I also know what several Hull people said in reply and that was that if HKR were not in SL the whole of East Hull would go over to soccer.

Pretty polarised views there......... But the first scenario happened, the second of course is yet to happen and will supposedly do so if Hudgell pulls out.

Maybe you can play derbies with Hull City?




#166 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,717 posts

Posted 13 September 2010 - 06:30 PM

QUOTE (dallymessenger @ Sep 13 2010, 09:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This whole thread is based on the presumption that all clubs outside SL have a right to be in it.


And that they can afford to be in it.....

And that their directors actually want to be in it.......

#167 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:09 AM

QUOTE (RP London @ Sep 13 2010, 10:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
to answer your original question.

Why does different have to be wrong? Rugby League is not like most other major sports, in fact each major sport has different issues. Cricket has franchising of a type underneath the second division, Rugby Union has been talking of ring fencing for years, Northern Irish Football has a liscencing system. Ice Hockey has a closed shop etc..

as for the grounds.. whether it is lisencing or becuase they are old dilapidated and cant make money is arguable i suppose.. though its funny that they have been scrambling since the liscencing was announced but before that they just plodded along making what thye could without the outlay of a new ground and patching up holes.. and maybe talking of a new ground but not actually doing anything.. as i say this has concentrated the minds.


You haven't given one reason why RL has to differ from other major sports. With respect to any Ice Hockey fans on here or elsewhere, can it really be considered a major UK sport? Bradford and Salford have been looking at new grounds for years. Wakefield and Cas were doing so before licensing came along. The passage of time and grounds generally needing to be replaced is what has moved things along. Leigh and Widnes getting new grounds was nothing to do with licensing. same goes Warrington, Wigan, Saints etc etc.

As long as a ground is safe and clean with decent facilities with the relevant safety certificate, I really don't see the need to build new until it becomes too expensive to sustain an older facility.
Going to an all seat stadium is fine with me, but then so is going to somewhere like Odsal. The problem lies in particular for me at places like Belle Vue and The Willows where there are terrible sight lines all over the grounds and they really od hark back to too long ago. Wheldon Road is not so bad because of the angle of the terracing, though the main stand is a shack.
Reading John Drake's piece in this month's RLW he talks of the fascination with crowds, well I think there is an over fascination with stadia. There's not much better than standing on the terraces at a game with like minded people and enjoying the banter that goes with it, and watching a great sport. You just don't get that in all seat stadiums.

In my opinion the ground issue is being used as a way to shut the door and create an elite league that will only be open to clubs outside the heartlands in future. A bit like the NFL or NRL as they are now. Once this next round has passed I don't see any change in the make up of SL for several cycles unless a club inside it chooses to drop out.. Whoever drops this time, assuming the licensing panel makes such a decision, will be destined to go under.

Assuning Widnes are invited to join SL, there are no other heartland clubs that have stadia or will score better better than any of the older ones already in, or are in the right geographic areas for expansion. You won't see, for example, a Cas or Bradford replaced by a Halifax or a Featherstone.
What you will see in my opinion is a situation where the die is cast and those clubs inside will spread their influence in terms of player recruitment< and along with RFL regulations, preventing those outside from competing and producing talent, see Daryl Powell's comments, and thus widening the gap between the have's and have not's.

I think most fair minded fans want to see the game expand and prosper, but the way that cetain clubs seem to be treated differently suggests that the game is pretty much corrupt and licensing is merely a way to facilitate any changes the RFL wants to make due to it's entirely subjective framework and objectives. By rights Crusaders should have been stripped of their National League points and thrown out of SL. however the RFL chose to whiteqash the whole thing and allow the club to move and re-brand.

Look at the difference in treatment between Hull Fc and Halifax in the Challenge Cup. SL club gets a fine, Championship club has to cancel a game just hours before kick off and is thrown out of the competition. Ian Lenagan is allowed, despite it being a clear breach of RFL Operational Rules, to be the majority shareholder in two clubs. This is allowed to continue for almost three years before the RFL acts.

#168 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:14 AM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 13 2010, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Fair enough I'm OK to move on, but your final accusation was unfounded and nasty biggrin.gif

That doesn't bother me, it just suprises me coming from you!!

On the Hull/HKR thing as regards one club, or two or three or whatever, as I've posted before, "the model" is Leeds where when Hunslet nearly made a comeback to the big time it neither suited Uncle Mo's plan nor suited gary Hetherington. The indications were that there were kids playing RL in the city who would become pros (e,g, ablett, walker, McGuire, Bailey, Hall, etc etc) there were people who wanted to watch top class RL and business people who wanted to back it.

The Hunslet that would have gone up allegedly had access to funds like Hudgell provides HKR today, and thus the two clubs would be competing for these resources and ultimately having to accept sharing them.

Hetherington was of no help to Hunslet and since then we see what he has done with Leeds. We also saw before HKR's comeback where Hull were starting to go, I was at OT with them in the SL grand final. I suspect it will be a long time before either of them ever get there again now especially when the overseas quota bites.

I know what I make of that as applied to Hull. I also know what several Hull people said in reply and that was that if HKR were not in SL the whole of East Hull would go over to soccer.

Pretty polarised views there......... But the first scenario happened, the second of course is yet to happen and will supposedly do so if Hudgell pulls out.

Maybe you can play derbies with Hull City?


How would Hunslet being in Sl affect Leeds Rhinos? How would it affect what Hetherington is doing? Caddick woould still be there, Headingley Carnegie would still be there etc etc Similarly how has the resurgence of Hull KR affected where Hull FC were starting to go?



#169 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,746 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:22 AM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 11:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You haven't given one reason why RL has to differ from other major sports.


why should it be the same? It differs becuase it is er..different. It has its own set of opportunities and its own set of problems. In any case there are numerous examples of different P and R arrangements. I'm not a hockey fan, ice or otherwise, I'm not a basketball fan, nor am I an American Football fan but you need to really understand how popular some of these sports are. You'll get a surprise!

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 11:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think most fair minded fans want to see the game expand and prosper, but the way that cetain clubs seem to be treated differently suggests that the game is pretty much corrupt and licensing is merely a way to facilitate any changes the RFL wants to make due to it's entirely subjective framework and objectives.


the game is pretty much corrupt Utterly broken? That's a bit strong isn't it? Where is the evidence for that?

entirely subjective framework and objectives. I have to admit I am struggling to understand your meaning. Its all written down and published openly in the Operational Rules.

#170 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:33 AM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 11:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You haven't given one reason why RL has to differ from other major sports.
conversly you havent given a reason why they cannot differ.. different does not mean wrong..
QUOTE
With respect to any Ice Hockey fans on here or elsewhere, can it really be considered a major UK sport?
depends what you mean by major.. can RL be conisdered a major uk sport outside of us on here... really.. truly.. hand on heart?
QUOTE
Bradford and Salford have been looking at new grounds for years. Wakefield and Cas were doing so before licensing came along. The passage of time and grounds generally needing to be replaced is what has moved things along. Leigh and Widnes getting new grounds was nothing to do with licensing. same goes Warrington, Wigan, Saints etc etc.

thats one interpretation the other is that they were sitting on it till they were forced.. Saints i totally disagree with they have been doing sweet fa till the last couple of years..
QUOTE
As long as a ground is safe and clean with decent facilities with the relevant safety certificate, I really don't see the need to build new until it becomes too expensive to sustain an older facility.

i agree i dont see the need to build a new one but you have to make sure that the old one is top notch to help with the business development. and many are not or are too expensive to get up to premier stnadard which as a sport trying to be a major sport is where you need your facilities to be at.
QUOTE
Going to an all seat stadium is fine with me, but then so is going to somewhere like Odsal. The problem lies in particular for me at places like Belle Vue and The Willows where there are terrible sight lines all over the grounds and they really od hark back to too long ago. Wheldon Road is not so bad because of the angle of the terracing, though the main stand is a shack.

but yet these stadiums pass all the things you want above so why change them.. oh yes becuase they are being told they have to!
QUOTE
Reading John Drake's piece in this month's RLW he talks of the fascination with crowds, well I think there is an over fascination with stadia. There's not much better than standing on the terraces at a game with like minded people and enjoying the banter that goes with it, and watching a great sport. You just don't get that in all seat stadiums.


I dont disagree i hate all the stadium debates and hte crowd issues i think there is a lot more around it.. but i also understand that a stadium isnt just a venue to watch RL it is a venue for business to be done, to attract corporate business etc.. and this has to be considered. You also have to look at the ability to develop withing grounds etc..
QUOTE
In my opinion the ground issue is being used as a way to shut the door and create an elite league that will only be open to clubs outside the heartlands in future. A bit like the NFL or NRL as they are now. Once this next round has passed I don't see any change in the make up of SL for several cycles unless a club inside it chooses to drop out.. Whoever drops this time, assuming the licensing panel makes such a decision, will be destined to go under.

your opinion..

i see it differently.. i see it that all the clubs are being asked to have an up to date stadium with all the trappings needed to help the clubs build a vibrant business for the next 20 -30 years. They arent asking them to build a new one but to be able to make sure that their stadium is able to cope with the growth in the game. By doing that thye hope to increase income streams and levesl for lower clubs to help them build themselves up to the standard where the drop from one division to the next is not so marked.

i see the ability for expansion int he number of clubs next time around becuase i see the game growing with new people attracted by the spectacle on the pictch, as such and becuase of the better corportate facilities at new and referbed old grounds alike this can bring in more business and more sponsorship etc growing hte game imeasurably.

As you say the ground is one part, it has a knock on effect to the business plan and revenue streams etc but it is one part.. no one is saying that the ground is the be all and end all but the ground could be the tipping point for many of the poor clubs.. what else is there to hose between say Salford, Wakefield and Cas.. other than the ground they trade points with each other pretty much and they certainly all fall in the same grade.


#171 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:33 AM

QUOTE
Assuning Widnes are invited to join SL, there are no other heartland clubs that have stadia or will score better better than any of the older ones already in, or are in the right geographic areas for expansion. You won't see, for example, a Cas or Bradford replaced by a Halifax or a Featherstone.


i have said before that if i were cas and wakey i would be looking over my shoulder at fev very carefully .. they are developiung well and the stadium is no worse so they could be given a shot (with development on their ground).. Halifax may have a shout with dvelopment of business plans and turnover etc and could replace a bradford if they dotn get their act together.. you may not see it that is your opinion.. i see the other way i think there are those who could replace them easily.
QUOTE
What you will see in my opinion is a situation where the die is cast and those clubs inside will spread their influence in terms of player recruitment< and along with RFL regulations, preventing those outside from competing and producing talent, see Daryl Powell's comments, and thus widening the gap between the have's and have not's.

and this has to be carefully monitored i agree
QUOTE
I think most fair minded fans want to see the game expand and prosper, but the way that cetain clubs seem to be treated differently suggests that the game is pretty much corrupt and licensing is merely a way to facilitate any changes the RFL wants to make due to it's entirely subjective framework and objectives. By rights Crusaders should have been stripped of their National League points and thrown out of SL. however the RFL chose to whiteqash the whole thing and allow the club to move and re-brand.


sorry but get a grip... do we yet know where the actual balme for the whole crusaders immigration fiasco falls? until we do if we ever do a crass judgement like the above IMO is just whitewashing what happened as well. This could be nothign to do with crusaders becuase they did all their due dilligance.. that is what due dilligance is there for and you cannot and would not convict anybody in a court or in any other form of hearing for doing their due dilligance as per the regs set out.. alternativly we can just destroy all the hard work done in wales on the whim of people not furnished with facts..

the rebrand was a big big risk.. ut so would letting another club into the comp with no time to prepare.. they chose for the good of the game as a whoel to allow the rebrand to happen.. lets hope it pays off.. for the good of the game.

the game is run for the best interests of the game as a whole you may see that as corrupt but then it is run by those who run the leagues, it is their league to do what they will with, the clubs apply to be part of it no matter what level you play at.. you can always play somewhere else and not be a part if you disagree its happened before. Some of the clubs you talk about when looking at this dispassionalty are lucky to still be there and with true P&R would probably have gone into the amateur ranks by now but soldier on from one year to the next in the semi pro ranks.. if the game is to expand which iwll make for a bigger major sport and a succesful one some of hte "heartland clubs" will become amateur and disapear.. sadly

QUOTE
Look at the difference in treatment between Hull Fc and Halifax in the Challenge Cup. SL club gets a fine, Championship club has to cancel a game just hours before kick off and is thrown out of the competition. Ian Lenagan is allowed, despite it being a clear breach of RFL Operational Rules, to be the majority shareholder in two clubs. This is allowed to continue for almost three years before the RFL acts.


Hull vs Halifax i believe the difference was the complication of sortuing out the HUll one as it was a couple of rounds down the line before anyone spotted it where as Halifax was the next round and just beofre the match.. the two cases are not identicle at all.. one cannot be solved as easily as the other.. both are a farce and a cock up but your not comparing apples to apples..


there was no buyer for lenaghans shares... London would have lost the super league club if they had forced this issue.. would that have been better?? you can have your own opoinion on this but the point is they chose what they thought was most important thing.. keeping an SL presence in London.


#172 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:39 AM

QUOTE (JohnM @ Sep 14 2010, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
why should it be the same? It differs becuase it is er..different. It has its own set of opportunities and its own set of problems. In any case there are numerous examples of different P and R arrangements. I'm not a hockey fan, ice or otherwise, I'm not a basketball fan, nor am I an American Football fan but you need to really understand how popular some of these sports are. You'll get a surprise!



the game is pretty much corrupt Utterly broken? That's a bit strong isn't it? Where is the evidence for that?

entirely subjective framework and objectives. I have to admit I am struggling to understand your meaning. Its all written down and published openly in the Operational Rules.


Basketball and Ica Hockey and American Football are how popular over here? In my experience they have all tried and failed to break into the UK sports market in any real way and can't be considered major UK sports. I remember Manchester Storm used to play at the M.E.N in the early days of SL, where are they now?
The factors that make these sports so popular in other countries don't appear to be sufficiently common in this country. What are the problems RL faces that are so restrictive that it cannot operate like any other major UK sport?

You only have to read some of the licensing panel comments on clubs applications to see that there is a huge amount of subjectivity in how decisions are made. There is a huge amount of freedom for movement in the decision making, rather than the framework that is set down being rigidly applied.

#173 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 11:12 AM

QUOTE (RP London @ Sep 14 2010, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
i have said before that if i were cas and wakey i would be looking over my shoulder at fev very carefully .. they are developiung well and the stadium is no worse so they could be given a shot (with development on their ground).. Halifax may have a shout with dvelopment of business plans and turnover etc and could replace a bradford if they dotn get their act together.. you may not see it that is your opinion.. i see the other way i think there are those who could replace them easily.

and this has to be carefully monitored i agree


sorry but get a grip... do we yet know where the actual balme for the whole crusaders immigration fiasco falls? until we do if we ever do a crass judgement like the above IMO is just whitewashing what happened as well. This could be nothign to do with crusaders becuase they did all their due dilligance.. that is what due dilligance is there for and you cannot and would not convict anybody in a court or in any other form of hearing for doing their due dilligance as per the regs set out.. alternativly we can just destroy all the hard work done in wales on the whim of people not furnished with facts..

the rebrand was a big big risk.. ut so would letting another club into the comp with no time to prepare.. they chose for the good of the game as a whoel to allow the rebrand to happen.. lets hope it pays off.. for the good of the game.

the game is run for the best interests of the game as a whole you may see that as corrupt but then it is run by those who run the leagues, it is their league to do what they will with, the clubs apply to be part of it no matter what level you play at.. you can always play somewhere else and not be a part if you disagree its happened before. Some of the clubs you talk about when looking at this dispassionalty are lucky to still be there and with true P&R would probably have gone into the amateur ranks by now but soldier on from one year to the next in the semi pro ranks.. if the game is to expand which iwll make for a bigger major sport and a succesful one some of hte "heartland clubs" will become amateur and disapear.. sadly



Hull vs Halifax i believe the difference was the complication of sortuing out the HUll one as it was a couple of rounds down the line before anyone spotted it where as Halifax was the next round and just beofre the match.. the two cases are not identicle at all.. one cannot be solved as easily as the other.. both are a farce and a cock up but your not comparing apples to apples..


there was no buyer for lenaghans shares... London would have lost the super league club if they had forced this issue.. would that have been better?? you can have your own opoinion on this but the point is they chose what they thought was most important thing.. keeping an SL presence in London.


Why just Cas and Wakey? Why not Salford?
Only by some entirely subjective process that is built on subjective opinion, can you replace a Bradford with a Halifax. Or a Cas with Featherstone. Neither Halifax or Featherstone could hope to match or top, for example, the crowds currently attracted?

As regards the Crusaders whitewash, there has not been a word from the RFL on this. Six illegals were deported, the club was fined 5,000 by the UKBA. It's pretty conclusive that six players were registered that were inelgible to play. Therefore the club was granted an SL licence on performances achieved using players that should not have been available to the them. What's hard to understand about that?

The RFL is the governing body. It's procedures are clearly so lax in checking the registration of players that not one RFL official noticed that the Crusaders players were in the country on visas that were not the correct type. They seemed to notic when Widnes tried to register players on visas that weren't correct.

The situations with Halifax and Hull were no different. Both played ineligible players in previous rounds. Hull should have been expelled in the same way as Halifax were. The only difference is that Halifax played one game with an inelgible player and Hull two, and of course Hull FC are a top flight club and it would have made bigger headlines. There was nothing to stop the teams Hull FC beat in the previous two round from playing off to take their place.

What a ridiculous statement to say London would have lost it's SL club!! Lenaghan wanted to buy Wigan. He should have been told he had to surrender his interest in Harlequins RL in order for that purchase to go ahead. He was given two years and still did not offloasd them. The only way Harlequins would diappear was if David Hughes walked away. Classic case of the RFL breaking it's own rules to suit it's own agenda.

In the best interests of the game......Just what are they and who decides this?

#174 Big Picture

Big Picture
  • Coach
  • 1,167 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 12:02 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 12:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why just Cas and Wakey? Why not Salford?
Only by some entirely subjective process that is built on subjective opinion, can you replace a Bradford with a Halifax. Or a Cas with Featherstone. Neither Halifax or Featherstone could hope to match or top, for example, the crowds currently attracted?

As regards the Crusaders whitewash, there has not been a word from the RFL on this. Six illegals were deported, the club was fined 5,000 by the UKBA. It's pretty conclusive that six players were registered that were inelgible to play. Therefore the club was granted an SL licence on performances achieved using players that should not have been available to the them. What's hard to understand about that?

The RFL is the governing body. It's procedures are clearly so lax in checking the registration of players that not one RFL official noticed that the Crusaders players were in the country on visas that were not the correct type. They seemed to notic when Widnes tried to register players on visas that weren't correct.

The situations with Halifax and Hull were no different. Both played ineligible players in previous rounds. Hull should have been expelled in the same way as Halifax were. The only difference is that Halifax played one game with an inelgible player and Hull two, and of course Hull FC are a top flight club and it would have made bigger headlines. There was nothing to stop the teams Hull FC beat in the previous two round from playing off to take their place.

What a ridiculous statement to say London would have lost it's SL club!! Lenaghan wanted to buy Wigan. He should have been told he had to surrender his interest in Harlequins RL in order for that purchase to go ahead. He was given two years and still did not offloasd them. The only way Harlequins would diappear was if David Hughes walked away. Classic case of the RFL breaking it's own rules to suit it's own agenda.

In the best interests of the game......Just what are they and who decides this?

The governing body is responsible for that of course. They include getting more and better media coverage and more TV and sponsorship revenue to keep up with other sports, notably rugby union which has plenty of cash available to tempt players to switch.

None of those things will happen without Harlequins, Catalans and Crusaders all being in SL, and it would help to have Sheffield and Toulouse too. A bigger and better international game requires more countries able to field full-time pros, for the foreseeable future that requires French and Welsh clubs in SL. Getting national media coverage requires more teams outside the heartlands too, in places the sports editors know and rate.

The plain truth is that as traditional as the heartland clubs you advocate for are, they won't raise the game's profile and income, and that's just how it is these days.


#175 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,079 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 12:02 PM

In regards to the Hull CC incident, there was no RFL rule in place at the time to throw them out. It was because of the Hull incident that the RFL made the rule, and thus why Halifax were subsiquently ejected from the competition.

The rules changed between the two incidents, so two different outcomes. None of this "it's because they're in SL" rubbish. Had it happened to any club that year, the same would have happened.
Posted Image

#176 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 01:46 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 12:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why just Cas and Wakey? Why not Salford?

i've explained this in detail before but as a quick recap and i dont want to go to the ifs and buts becuase its another thread not this one.. but basically you could get rid of cas & Wakey and replace with Fev thus keeping the presence in the area and concentrating the efforts of everyone in the one club but punishing inactivity while rewqarding the work done at fev etc..
QUOTE
Only by some entirely subjective process that is built on subjective opinion, can you replace a Bradford with a Halifax. Or a Cas with Featherstone. Neither Halifax or Featherstone could hope to match or top, for example, the crowds currently attracted?

Why not? and anyway as you say there is more than just the crowd to conisder there is the business, there is the ground, there is contribution to the comp there are a number of things.. if its either bradford or halifax and bradfords crowds are dropping, ground is getting worse etc and there is halifax sitting there than you could replace one with the other easily.
QUOTE
As regards the Crusaders whitewash, there has not been a word from the RFL on this. Six illegals were deported, the club was fined 5,000 by the UKBA. It's pretty conclusive that six players were registered that were inelgible to play. Therefore the club was granted an SL licence on performances achieved using players that should not have been available to the them. What's hard to understand about that?

nothing is hard to understand about the way you put it and that would be fantastic if you hadnt missed out the fact that there was/is an investigation into culpability of both the club and the rfl... the club was fined but if they were fuly guilty of this to the extent that you are making out this fine/punsihment would be a huge amount higher as standard including potential jail time for employees. full culpability is not known at the moment to us. your making judgments without the facts here.

as for chucking them out of super league... they would have been throing in a team not prepared for it so potentially damaging them.. not only that but this was a strategic decision to put them in, were they put in on on field performance? no... it was about other things.. i woudl have more sympathy with your argument if this was straight P&R but it isnt.

oh and what punishment should have gone to the other clubs who were investigated but the players had already left so no action was taken but they were still guilty of the same issues as the crusaders were guilty of or simply the issues around the holiday visa changes.?

QUOTE
The RFL is the governing body. It's procedures are clearly so lax in checking the registration of players that not one RFL official noticed that the Crusaders players were in the country on visas that were not the correct type. They seemed to notic when Widnes tried to register players on visas that weren't correct.


so lets throw out the crusaders?? wheres your argument here? either the crusaders were to blame or they werent? if it is the RFL then it would be a bit harsh to throw them out the league if it si the RFL either bending the rules or being rubbish..


QUOTE
The situations with Halifax and Hull were no different. Both played ineligible players in previous rounds. Hull should have been expelled in the same way as Halifax were. The only difference is that Halifax played one game with an inelgible player and Hull two, and of course Hull FC are a top flight club and it would have made bigger headlines. There was nothing to stop the teams Hull FC beat in the previous two round from playing off to take their place.


no they werent the same as has been pointed out by you infact in the third sentence where you say "the only difference is" rolleyes.gif

that difference is quite large actually.. from my recollection they couldnt fit in a game between the two clubs that were knocked out for a start but more importantly Wellsy has pointed out that the rule was not in place.. stupid by the RFL yes but still it wasnt there for Hull but it was for Halifax..

QUOTE
What a ridiculous statement to say London would have lost it's SL club!! Lenaghan wanted to buy Wigan. He should have been told he had to surrender his interest in Harlequins RL in order for that purchase to go ahead. He was given two years and still did not offloasd them. The only way Harlequins would diappear was if David Hughes walked away. Classic case of the RFL breaking it's own rules to suit it's own agenda.


and prey tell who would Lenegham have sold them to? there is a very good chance that if forced leneghan could have wound the club up and potenitally recoup more of the loan from doing this than by selling them on at the time.. hence London could have lost the club.. it is not ridiculous it was one of the problems... dismiss it if you like but as the majority shareholder he could have done whatever he likes and Hughes would have been pretty much powerless to do anything about it..

i agree with your last sentence but i also agree with what the RFL did and why.
QUOTE
In the best interests of the game......Just what are they and who decides this?


the RFL are the custodians of the game, they are the governing body it is up to them to decide which direction the game goes in, what the aim is, where they want to be and how it is best to get there..
best interests?
more money
more expoure
more players playing
more people watching
more interest
more people buying merchandise
more media presence
etc etc etc
generally growth.. how we get that can be argued till we are blue in the face.. the RFL are doing it the wya they think is best.. so far since Richard Lewis has taken over the growth in many areas has been unprecedented IIRC now he and the RFL just need to transfer that into other areas of the game as well.

#177 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,717 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 04:42 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 11:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In my opinion the ground issue is being used as a way to shut the door and create an elite league that will only be open to clubs outside the heartlands in future. A bit like the NFL or NRL as they are now. Once this next round has passed I don't see any change in the make up of SL for several cycles unless a club inside it chooses to drop out.. Whoever drops this time, assuming the licensing panel makes such a decision, will be destined to go under.


Although you take a traditional view Stevie I much agree with that paragraph.

The ground issue could shut the door on one of RL's oldest, and one of RL's most famous city clubs where soccer is not in direct opposition which would be a nonsense.

Your reference to the NRL is an insight into what the RFL are aiming for - to effectively copy the NRL and licensing is how they are trying to achieve that.

I also agree that after not dropping anyone fron SL last time, this time they will use the licensing system to fine tune.

Then things may well be set in tablets of stone exceot for one factor, and that is private money.

If the private money backing some clubs stops they may well be stuffed for SL. If anyone is oprepared to put private money in some quantity into a club outside SL they could get in.



#178 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,717 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 04:58 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 11:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How would Hunslet being in Sl affect Leeds Rhinos? How would it affect what Hetherington is doing? Caddick woould still be there, Headingley Carnegie would still be there etc etc Similarly how has the resurgence of Hull KR affected where Hull FC were starting to go?


Hull and Leeds are RL cities. Within those cities are resources like paying fans, quality juniors playing the game and businesses wanting to sponsor the game.

These resources are limited as most players, fans and sports money gravitate to soccer.

So two clubs in one place have to compete for those limited resources.

It's really not a difficult concept, but hard to grasp if you do not like the idea of mergers.

On the fans issue Leeds crowd tends to be drawn from all over Leeds now. They take the best juniors that crop up locally and they have very large sponsorships.

If Hunslet were in Superleague some of the best local lads might be with them and not Leeds, some of the fans would not go to Headingley but Hunslet, and many south Leeds businesses would probably sponsor Hunslet and take corporate boxes there rather than at headingley.

Since Hunslet were denied SL Leeds have won SL four times mainly on the back of a local youth policy and attract 3-4000 more fans to Headingley. Just co-incidence?? If you want to say it is that's up to you.

If HKR had not had a place bought for them in SL by Hudgell would Hull have built on their SL final place???

Plenty of Hull people can be found to totally refute the notion that Hull could probably go better without HKR in SL, but they would wouldn't they?



#179 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,717 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 05:07 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You only have to read some of the licensing panel comments on clubs applications to see that there is a huge amount of subjectivity in how decisions are made. There is a huge amount of freedom for movement in the decision making, rather than the framework that is set down being rigidly applied.


Well said and a dose of realism. Having said that why would the RFL create a system that does not give them the answer they want. The point isn't other sports set ups in Great Britain.

You said it yourself - the point is the NRL set up is something Lewis and Wood would give their right arms to achieve. The licensing system allows them to pursue/copy this.

The SL has clubs in France, Wales and London....

The NRL has clubs in New Zealand Brisbane and Melbourne.....

Mergers have hapened in the NRL

Mergers are back on the cards for SL (Cas/Wakey.... Cumbria)

The similarities are rather obvious. However I don't take the view the RFL are "corrupt" because if we can become like the NRL that will do for me. They are shall we say "controlling"......


#180 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,714 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 05:39 PM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 14 2010, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Since Hunslet were denied SL Leeds have won SL four times mainly on the back of a local youth policy and attract 3-4000 more fans to Headingley. Just co-incidence?? If you want to say it is that's up to you.


Since Widnes dropped out of Super League, Rugby Unions crowds have gone through the roof. If you want to believe that's coincidence it's up to you.

Since I read Ricky Hatton's book he's been battered twice and found out as a Cokehead, coincidence? Again that's up to you.

Since Jbd left the board, the number of posts from you has massively increased, coincidence....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users