Jump to content


RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE (ISSUE 397 - MAY 2014): Available to download now. Get the app from Apple Newsstand or GooglePlay, or click here to read it online now at Pocketmags.com - Print edition in shops from Friday, or click here to get it delivered by post in the UK or worldwide.

Rugby League World - April 2014
League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Warrington it is.


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#41 duffymoon

duffymoon
  • Coach
  • 2,507 posts

Posted 13 September 2012 - 12:41 PM

That's fair comment Mark,I just hope common sense prevails with the amount of Warrington players that are used.

#42 marshy1

marshy1
  • Coach
  • 1,520 posts

Posted 13 September 2012 - 12:50 PM

Yet again short-termist thinking rules the roost, the rugby league disease. Everyone (including management at various Championship clubs) gets fixated on the possibility of the arrival of a few new players, but is that really the overall effect?

There is nothing to prevent "use of certain facilities and coaching methods" anyway. You don't need a formal partnership to achieve that. If a Championship club wishes to develop itself by mimicking what happens in Super League that can be done already. Swinton Lions shouldn't need to take notes off Warrington to determine where it can improve itself. I could give you a long list of worthwhile improvements right now!

A formal partnership of this nature is not going to force any Super League club to do anything against its voluntary will, to assist the Championship club. The Super League club will only go so far as it wants to. So in aspects other than dual reg players, there is no value in partnering. You could do it anyway. Tony Smith is an open minded guy, just ring him up.

The concept of partnering has not come about to help Championship clubs. Its all about the self interest of SL clubs, a majority of whom want to cut their cost base and see this as a way so to do, while also retaining the registrations of a generation of young players whom would otherwise have to be promoted to first team level or released.

So perhaps the true effect is that the best of the players that would've been released from SL and gravitated towards the Championship anyway, and become bone fide Championship players, are now only going to be available as dual reg.

This way the SL clubs get to have their cake and eat it. To some extent they will be able to dictate selection policy to the Championship club, as we saw last season with Forster coming and going as it suited Saints. If a player does well or the SL suffers injuries, players will disappear overnight, to the whim of the SL club. They don't want to spend the money on these young players anymore, but they still want first dibs.

In fairness to Warrington, it is a club that has taken development of young players seriously for a number of years and I suspect they would probably have preferred to stick with the old system but it has been forced upon them due to weaknesses elsewhere in SL.

There are a number of risks from a Swinton Lions perspective. These need to be recognised and managed, which will require some insightful judgements. The track record of not only Swinton Lions but also other clubs generally shows that short-termism and self interest nearly always rule the roost when it comes to such strategic decisions. The impact is nearly always negative in the long run.

I prefer the way football does these things. Yes the big clubs loan out promising youngsters to get experience, but its done as loans. The rules surrounding loans in football seem much better designed in protecting the sanctity of competition and each club's unique identity.

Well Phil I am suitably impressed that you now know Tony Smith on a personal level that you can just ring him up and he talks all thing rugby.

Can I ask you a question, would you prefer that Swinton don't register any dual registered player and end up possibly back in championship 1 or that they accept an offer from possiblyone of the best super league clubs at the moment whereby we get use of there better squad players.I do agree with you that the number allowed should be restricted especially in terms of the teams put out on the pitch each game. Like it or not the facts are Swinton at the present moment in time don't have the resources to operate a second team and even if Agecroft was built and we were in it I doubt they would, yes we can ask the clubs if we can sign these players on either as full Swinton players or full season loan players but you know as well as I do their parent club won't agree and most likely prefer the dual registration system wherby they can call them back at a minutes notice. But then didn't we have a couple of players on loan last year one of which we brought back prematurely so the loan system isn't adequate either and the same situation happens in soccer.

I also think you should be taken to task regarding your disgraceful comment regarding Paul Kidd and him " Engineering an opportunity to hob nob with the liikes of Daniel Anderson and Tony Smith " do you actually know that he has met either.? You are the first to get on your high horse when comments are rendered against you on here yet you readily post such rubbish. Do you not think that Paul will already know these guys through his Sky sport /rugby connections any way and therefore wouldn't need to engineer anything to allow him to talk to them.

Our own current coach Steve Mc is on record as saying he feels the link will be invaluable to Swinton....do you think he is engineering anything.!!

Edited by marshy1, 13 September 2012 - 02:18 PM.


#43 GLENNGARY

GLENNGARY
  • Coach
  • 225 posts

Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:26 PM

Because it states that up to 10 dual reg players can be used does not mean we will use that many. It will be up to Steve how many he wants to play, he might only want to play a couple,but the option is there for him to use more as and when he needs them , eg. if we are stuggling with injuries, surely this as got to benefit us to be able to keep a strong squad throughout the campaign. Yes it as got its negatives and positives but lets stop this snipeing and give it a chance .Don't bring the likes of Fev Halifax and Leigh into the equation they don't need d/reg players , they can sign the best available players b ecause of there positions of strength and stability in the championship.To get to that position we need to be up there with them and competing on the same terms,this d/reg deal might just give us the chance to do this.Give it a chance if it dosn't work then and only then slate it

#44 bigtony

bigtony
  • Coach
  • 122 posts

Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:58 PM

Because it states that up to 10 dual reg players can be used does not mean we will use that many. It will be up to Steve how many he wants to play, he might only want to play a couple,but the option is there for him to use more as and when he needs them , eg. if we are stuggling with injuries, surely this as got to benefit us to be able to keep a strong squad throughout the campaign. Yes it as got its negatives and positives but lets stop this snipeing and give it a chance .Don't bring the likes of Fev Halifax and Leigh into the equation they don't need d/reg players , they can sign the best available players b ecause of there positions of strength and stability in the championship.To get to that position we need to be up there with them and competing on the same terms,this d/reg deal might just give us the chance to do this.Give it a chance if it dosn't work then and only then slate it

Its 6d/r players and 4 loan players but only 6 of the 10 can play in any 1 game and do you not think tony smith will want his players playing every wk thus putting pressure on sm to play them

#45 Bryce

Bryce
  • Coach
  • 901 posts

Posted 13 September 2012 - 02:04 PM

I'm confident that Steve will play whichever team he sees fit. He's made it clear over the past two seasons that he will do so.

#46 PhillH

PhillH
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:05 AM

Well Phil I am suitably impressed that you now know Tony Smith on a personal level that you can just ring him up and he talks all thing rugby.

Can I ask you a question, would you prefer that Swinton don't register any dual registered player and end up possibly back in championship 1 or that they accept an offer from possiblyone of the best super league clubs at the moment whereby we get use of there better squad players.I do agree with you that the number allowed should be restricted especially in terms of the teams put out on the pitch each game. Like it or not the facts are Swinton at the present moment in time don't have the resources to operate a second team and even if Agecroft was built and we were in it I doubt they would, yes we can ask the clubs if we can sign these players on either as full Swinton players or full season loan players but you know as well as I do their parent club won't agree and most likely prefer the dual registration system wherby they can call them back at a minutes notice. But then didn't we have a couple of players on loan last year one of which we brought back prematurely so the loan system isn't adequate either and the same situation happens in soccer.

I also think you should be taken to task regarding your disgraceful comment regarding Paul Kidd and him " Engineering an opportunity to hob nob with the liikes of Daniel Anderson and Tony Smith " do you actually know that he has met either.? You are the first to get on your high horse when comments are rendered against you on here yet you readily post such rubbish. Do you not think that Paul will already know these guys through his Sky sport /rugby connections any way and therefore wouldn't need to engineer anything to allow him to talk to them.

Our own current coach Steve Mc is on record as saying he feels the link will be invaluable to Swinton....do you think he is engineering anything.!!


Steve McCormack would say that, wouldn't he! If he wants to keep the job, that is. Merely staying on message with his employers. It would be a major surprise if he were to say anything else in the circumstances. I do wonder how he personally is supposed to get engaged in various things at Warrington, whilst also holding down a full time job as a teacher. We shall see.

The fact is we have seen numerous initiatives over the years that had the hallmarks of personal hobby horses for John / Paul but have ultimately done nothing to grow the strength of Swinton Lions. Bolton le Moors?? East Lancashire Lions?? Tie up with Saints?? None of them even exist any more, do they?

What a pity the resources that were put into these projects were not targetted at strengthening rugby league in M27 and improving Swinton Lions income - if so perhaps there would now be something worthwhile to show.

Of course John is at liberty to put his own private money into such ventures if they take his fancy, subject to RFL rules to some degree, but in doing so he has to accept that they have not helped to grow Swinton Lions one iota.

Question is - will this latest venture be any different? If the true objective is to grow Swinton Lions it is important to differentiate between things that John and Paul might find interesting versus things that truly grow Swinton Lions as a brand. It is a mistake that has already been made, and more than once. Do we want the club run as a business, or a family play thing?

Outward looking stuff is fine, but there is no positive impact for the club itself unless it results in positive changes to the way Swinton Lions is set up, its infrastructure and working practices. That is where the focus needs to be, in order to address the root causes of why the income is so low! I for one believe 400 hardcore fans is not the maximum the club is capable of attracting, if Agecroft ever does get delivered and certain things were done better that number could be as much as 3 or 4 times higher in relatively short shrift. Sort those things out and it would be true progress and we wouldn't be saying "we cannot compete in the Championship without 10 players from another club".

Edited by PhillH, 14 September 2012 - 09:07 AM.

Rugby League - great game, shame about the administration.

#47 Barnie

Barnie
  • Coach
  • 1,986 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:28 AM

Lets face facts. SL do not want promotion and relegation to come back into force. this is the perfect way to do it. water down the talent in the lower leagues and then when the pesky lower league supporters bang on about P and R then remind them about the fact that only 7 of your 17 players are registered to you.

the fun will come with the Challenge Cup. do u seriously think the SL teams will let their players play against them. not a chance. this could be the final nail in the coffin of the Championship and the Challenge Cup.
Dont worry, it will soon be Christmas!

Posted Image

#48 Bryce

Bryce
  • Coach
  • 901 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 11:00 AM

It wouldn't be 10 out of the 17 though Barnie.

From what's been said it would be no more than 6 of the 17. We had 4 in the season just gone, allebeit through D/R from Saints, Huddersfield and Warrington. Riley, Walker, Forster, Hale.

#49 wayne_r

wayne_r
  • Coach
  • 349 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 12:12 PM

I agree with Barnie - as far as I am concerned the removal of automatic promotion and relegation to / from Super League has all but in name established two seperate rugby league entities as far as I am concerned - those clubs in Super League and those not in..........the logical step is a move to feeder clubs as that is what happens in sports where the top league is franchised - American Football, Basketball, Baseball etc - the "feeder clubs" in the US are the College Leagues.........which can be said are big in their own right - I would not support it - but it is inevitable...............only pity is that Championship Clubs (all clubs) are not strong enough to break away and set up a seperate competion away from Super League.
The longer the franchise system continues the largest the gap between SL and Championship clubs will become - to point where there can never be a return to promotion and relegation..........I think that point has actually already been passed.......:(

#50 bigtony

bigtony
  • Coach
  • 122 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 12:59 PM

I think this is a way of sl clubs saving themselves a bundle of money, so they can go after better Quality players from oz which means home grown players will fall further down the ladder

#51 mark richardson

mark richardson
  • Coach
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:56 PM

Steve McCormack would say that, wouldn't he! If he wants to keep the job, that is. Merely staying on message with his employers. It would be a major surprise if he were to say anything else in the circumstances. I do wonder how he personally is supposed to get engaged in various things at Warrington, whilst also holding down a full time job as a teacher. We shall see.

The fact is we have seen numerous initiatives over the years that had the hallmarks of personal hobby horses for John / Paul but have ultimately done nothing to grow the strength of Swinton Lions. Bolton le Moors?? East Lancashire Lions?? Tie up with Saints?? None of them even exist any more, do they?

What a pity the resources that were put into these projects were not targetted at strengthening rugby league in M27 and improving Swinton Lions income - if so perhaps there would now be something worthwhile to show.

Of course John is at liberty to put his own private money into such ventures if they take his fancy, subject to RFL rules to some degree, but in doing so he has to accept that they have not helped to grow Swinton Lions one iota.

Question is - will this latest venture be any different? If the true objective is to grow Swinton Lions it is important to differentiate between things that John and Paul might find interesting versus things that truly grow Swinton Lions as a brand. It is a mistake that has already been made, and more than once. Do we want the club run as a business, or a family play thing?

Outward looking stuff is fine, but there is no positive impact for the club itself unless it results in positive changes to the way Swinton Lions is set up, its infrastructure and working practices. That is where the focus needs to be, in order to address the root causes of why the income is so low! I for one believe 400 hardcore fans is not the maximum the club is capable of attracting, if Agecroft ever does get delivered and certain things were done better that number could be as much as 3 or 4 times higher in relatively short shrift. Sort those things out and it would be true progress and we wouldn't be saying "we cannot compete in the Championship without 10 players from another club".

Whether what you say is right or wrong Phil and in this case I feel you've gone too far in criticising the Kidds, the fact remains that John has paid for the two best seasons at Swinton for a long time 2011 and 2012. I bet sometimes he must read what you write and wonder why he bothers.
This latest move is something I believe we really do need at this present time.
Like I said before its not just our team doing this it'll be every team and so the discussion should be a sport wide debate and not another opportunity to knock down the club we all (apparently) love.


#52 marshy1

marshy1
  • Coach
  • 1,520 posts

Posted 15 September 2012 - 12:29 AM

Have to agree Mark.

#53 lionsfanusa

lionsfanusa
  • Coach
  • 401 posts

Posted 16 September 2012 - 12:51 AM

You know how sometimes from a distance things look different? Like the joke "from 35,000 feet my uncle looks like an ant"?
So a question for you all from 3,500 miles away.
Why did Warrington enter into an agreement with the Lions? We could assume they could have their pick of partners, right?
Just asking!
Posted Image

#54 bigtony

bigtony
  • Coach
  • 122 posts

Posted 16 September 2012 - 01:51 AM

You know how sometimes from a distance things look different? Like the joke "from 35,000 feet my uncle looks like an ant"?
So a question for you all from 3,500 miles away.
Why did Warrington enter into an agreement with the Lions? We could assume they could have their pick of partners, right?
Just asking!

Must admit it did surprise me, i thought it was going to be saints so im thinking warrington didnt have a choice and it was the rl who decided

#55 mark richardson

mark richardson
  • Coach
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:36 AM

Must admit it did surprise me, i thought it was going to be saints so im thinking warrington didnt have a choice and it was the rl who decided

There's the Richard Marshall connection too



#56 Barnie

Barnie
  • Coach
  • 1,986 posts

Posted 16 September 2012 - 09:20 AM

I would imagine that Wire chose us for a couple of reasons. firstly we have played then pre-season for the past few years so there must be some form of relationship between the two clubs and secondly we are not going to upset their supporters unlike a match up with Leigh or a Yorkshire club.

Now that Widnes are in SL us and Leigh were really their only viable propositions to wire.

This is the point where we see how serious the club take the relationship. i believe we should offer entrance to our home games to all wire fans for a few quid. lets see if we can push our gates up.
Dont worry, it will soon be Christmas!

Posted Image

#57 PhillH

PhillH
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:00 AM

You know how sometimes from a distance things look different? Like the joke "from 35,000 feet my uncle looks like an ant"?
So a question for you all from 3,500 miles away.
Why did Warrington enter into an agreement with the Lions? We could assume they could have their pick of partners, right?
Just asking!


Surely the reasons are pretty obvious?

Within a convenient commute, Warrington's only options at Championship level are Leigh and Swinton.

Leigh are not so keen on the concept. The main focus for Centurions management is on building a case for the next round of Super League Licenses, via the beLEIGHve campaign, the criteria for which will not be compatible with having to rely on a large contingent of players from another club to deliver success at Championship level.

Admittedly they have made a very minor announcement that for the purpose of compliance and to keep the option of dual registered players available to them in 2013 a link will be made between them and Wigan, but certainly haven't "bigged it up" - most people missed it.

Leigh also has a stronger squad of experienced players already signed up for 2013, which from a Warrington perspective probably means less opportunities for their young players.

In essence, Leigh don't see a partnership agreement as a central part of where they want to go as a club.

Warrington will be focussed on development of their young players and its far more likely they can control that by engaging with Swinton Lions.

Mark R is right that Richard Marshall gives a Swinton Lions - Warrington link and is likely to be a central character in how it all works.

Edited by PhillH, 17 September 2012 - 09:02 AM.

Rugby League - great game, shame about the administration.

#58 PhillH

PhillH
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:20 AM

This is the point where we see how serious the club take the relationship. i believe we should offer entrance to our home games to all wire fans for a few quid. lets see if we can push our gates up.


So we should not only look towards Warrington for a good proportion of players, but also for supporters?

This would be an easier suggestion to stomach if something was being done to promote and market the club to people in its home community, but in the complete absence of that Swinton Lions should not be prioritising the people of Warrington!

Thin end of the wedge.

If you take that argument too far you end up with - "We may as well play at the Halliwell Jones" and then certain death.

Edited by PhillH, 17 September 2012 - 09:20 AM.

Rugby League - great game, shame about the administration.

#59 PhillH

PhillH
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:59 AM

Whether what you say is right or wrong Phil and in this case I feel you've gone too far in criticising the Kidds, the fact remains that John has paid for the two best seasons at Swinton for a long time 2011 and 2012. I bet sometimes he must read what you write and wonder why he bothers.
This latest move is something I believe we really do need at this present time.
Like I said before its not just our team doing this it'll be every team and so the discussion should be a sport wide debate and not another opportunity to knock down the club we all (apparently) love.

The moment people truly believe the future viability of Swinton Lions is totally dependent on John Kidd's personal financial backing then its right we all take a step back and question, "What's the point?".
Rugby League - great game, shame about the administration.

#60 Jonty

Jonty
  • Coach
  • 3,001 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 11:16 AM

I'd imagine that the four biggest single sources of income for the club are:

a. The RFL
b. Fans (and away fans) through the turnstiles/tickets
c. The club lottery
d. The Kidds

What order they are in is anyone's guess. Considering the fans account for two of those, surely they also have also "paid for the two best seasons at Swinton for a long time".
disques vogue

The club where Eurovision isn't a dirty word. A waltz through the leopard skin lined world of Tom Jones, Bert Kampfert and Burt Bacharach. Step out to the sound of the happy hammond and swing to the seductive sounds of the samba.

DJ's, raffles, cocktails and wide collars. Please dress smart. Gentlemen might like to wear a suit.

Same price. Same music. Same rubbish prizes.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users