76 replies to this topic

[bowes]

For clubs south of the Trent would you enter a conference south? If there isn't one would you play in the National Conference League?

[West Country Eagle]

Sure Sonics would, presuming the NCL don't want us. I know Northampton and Leicester are keen on moving up to Tier 3. I assume St Albans would want to stay in Tier 3, ditto South Wales.

Could do with a few more teams, mind. I expect Cov and Nottingham are keen on NCL next year.

[bowes]

Sure Sonics would, presuming the NCL don't want us. I know Northampton and Leicester are keen on moving up to Tier 3. I assume St Albans would want to stay in Tier 3, ditto South Wales.

Could do with a few more teams, mind. I expect Cov and Nottingham are keen on NCL next year.

Yeah if we're not in Championship 1 then NCL would probably be next choice but not sure if we'd be allowed if there's a Conference South in which case I assume we'd play there.

Nottingham in NCL/Conference North is a done deal (assuming clubs vote with committee recommendation)

NCL wouldn't want the Hornets due to them failing criteria but could play in a Conference South if there is one.

Eastern Rhinos I think would play in a Conference South but not sure how popular it would be with the London clubs who at least a couple of would need to be won over for it to work.

Edited by bowes, 17 June 2012 - 08:57 PM.

[Li0nhead]

Was there not a summer conference/NL3 in the past?

[bowes]

Was there not a summer conference/NL3 in the past?

There's a Conference 3 this year but it's closing did to being obsolete with the NCL expansion. What's being debated is whether the NCL should just be northern and have a separate league down south or have the southern clubs play in the NCL. A Conference South would be a replacement for Conference 3 effectively

Obviously those clubs that don't meet criteria won't join the NCL.

Edited by bowes, 18 June 2012 - 06:35 AM.

[Marauder]

There's a Conference 3 this year but it's closing did to being obsolete with the NCL expansion. What's being debated is whether the NCL should just be northern and have a separate league down south or have the southern clubs play in the NCL. A Conference South would be a replacement for Conference 3 effectively

Obviously those clubs that don't meet criteria won't join the NCL.

Dare I say what if they get more than the required number of clubs applying to form a NCL 3 & only Northern clubs are voted into NCL 3.

[bowes]

Dare I say what if they get more than the required number of clubs applying to form a NCL 3 & only Northern clubs are voted into NCL 3.

That's partly why they're looking at a Conference South. But also let's more clubs play at that level from London that might not fancy trips up north.

But they're prepared to let in up to 15 new clubs to the NCL and the more new clubs the better it is P and R wise for existing clubs.

Edited by bowes, 18 June 2012 - 07:50 AM.

[Marauder]

That's partly why they're looking at a Conference South. But also let's more clubs play at that level from London that might not fancy trips up north.

But they're prepared to let in up to 15 new clubs to the NCL and the more new clubs the better it is P and R wise for existing clubs.

Could be more room for Southern clubs if some NCL sides move back to Winter (I can't see this happening after just one season thou)

[bowes]

Could be more room for Southern clubs if some NCL sides move back to Winter (I can't see this happening after just one season thou)

Perhaps though I doubt there will be 15 applicants even including southern clubs.

I'd expect us and Nottingham to get voted in but the question is would the travelling put clubs off Bristol and St Albans? I hope not but I think a Conference South would probably benefit those clubs as well from less travelling

Edited by bowes, 18 June 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[Marauder]

Perhaps though I doubt there will be 15 applicants even including southern clubs.

I'd expect us and Nottingham to get voted in but the question is would the travelling put clubs off Bristol and St Albans? I hope not but I think a Conference South would probably benefit those clubs as well from less travelling

The NCL has been littered with clubs they have allowed in the past but failed to maintain the standard on the field which is a very big part of the criteria to the clubs.

[SherwoodForester]

Let’s face it, if clubs in the Northern Conferences have a choice, they are always going to vote in local clubs ahead of clubs from further afield.

For example, if your club was based in Dewsbury or Featherstone you will prefer teams from Castleford or Wakefield ahead of teams from Nottingham and Coventry it’s a no-brainer really and you can't blame the clubs for doing so.

So in reality, even if southern clubs meet the criteria for NCL admittance, they are unlikely to get in if other Northern teams are also vying for a limited number of places.

This was always going to be the case as soon as the RFL scrapped the idea of an open pyramid system and handed control to a separate tier 3 structure run by the member clubs.

[bowes]

The NCL has been littered with clubs they have allowed in the past but failed to maintain the standard on the field which is a very big part of the criteria to the clubs.

Coventry and Nottingham are easily up to standard on the pitch (in the lower NCL divisions). Assuming the travel doesn't hit them too hard St Albans probably would be. As for Leicester and Bristol I'm not sure how they'd fare on the pitch in a division 3, they wouldn't be up to division 2 standard just yet IMO.

[bowes]

Let’s face it, if clubs in the Northern Conferences have a choice, they are always going to vote in local clubs ahead of clubs from further afield.

For example, if your club was based in Dewsbury or Featherstone you will prefer teams from Castleford or Wakefield ahead of teams from Nottingham and Coventry it’s a no-brainer really and you can't blame the clubs for doing so.

So in reality, even if southern clubs meet the criteria for NCL admittance, they are unlikely to get in if other Northern teams are also vying for a limited number of places.

This was always going to be the case as soon as the RFL scrapped the idea of an open pyramid system and handed control to a separate tier 3 structure run by the member clubs.

I think you'll get in purely because the more clubs are let in the better P & R is for existing clubs and the NCL management are very keen on your inclusion. Us I don't know but wouldn't fancy the chances of someone further south.

Edited by bowes, 18 June 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[MagicXIII]

Coventry and Nottingham are easily up to standard on the pitch (in the lower NCL divisions). Assuming the travel doesn't hit them too hard St Albans probably would be. As for Leicester and Bristol I'm not sure how they'd fare on the pitch in a division 3, they wouldn't be up to division 2 standard just yet IMO.

I would be amazed if St Albans play in a nationwide based competition in 2013.

[bowes]

I would be amazed if St Albans play in a nationwide based competition in 2013.

So if there's no Conference South you'd sooner play Premier South than NCL?

Then again guess you have a better local comp to play in, midlands premier is too low a standard for us.

Edited by bowes, 18 June 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[Marauder]

So if there's no Conference South you'd sooner play Premier South than NCL?

What I don't understand is the fact that many Southern based committees seem to want to chase the higher divisional titles more than the consequences of travelling a long distance to get a good thumping.

[bowes]

What I don't understand is the fact that many Southern based committees seem to want to chase the higher divisional titles more than the consequences of travelling a long distance to get a good thumping.

If you'd had to play midlands premier you'd understand

[Marauder]

If you'd had to play midlands premier you'd understand

I have two friends(Who play for a Doncaster based club) travelling to play for the team sat at the top of the Midlands Premier at the moment and they have informed me of the standard.

[MagicXIII]

So if there's no Conference South you'd sooner play Premier South than NCL?

Then again guess you have a better local comp to play in, midlands premier is too low a standard for us.

I am aware of the workings of the St Albans club at Open Age. The view I expressed is my own, and may not reflect the clubs. My view is the first team don't have the levels of commitment required to compete in a good standard national competition and there is very little, if any depth to the 'squad'. The variability in the team that will turn out away from home and at home speaks volumes. Perhaps this situation is commonplace across all clubs in this League. My belief is that the effort required to put the club on the national stage in a compettion that after all has a one year life span, would have been better spent ensuring a vibrant and flourishing junior set up that will one day lead to committed players turning out for the club on the national stage.

[bowes]

I have two friends(Who play for a Doncaster based club) travelling to play for the team sat at the top of the Midlands Premier at the moment and they have informed me of the standard.

How would they rate Leicester and Northampton? The other 3 are a fair bit behind those 2. My opinion would be that those 2 sides are good enough for Conference South but not NCL. Coventry and Nottingham would be sort of top end or midtable division 2 IMO as they're comparable to Dewsbury Celtic. Much too good for a midlands premier and easily capable of the national travel as up north and down south is equidistant roughly.

The problem is the London clubs may whinge about having to play us but we don't have a local option. Bristol have a similar problem in that regard but might struggle on the field in the NCL. They'd be too good for midlands premier though.