9 replies to this topic

[Pugwash]

With only 9 clubs in our division next season that means only 16 league games which a ridiculously low number for a full season. I know we are now the 'Forgotten Clubs' as far as Red Hall goes but surely they must realise that we need some more games to make the competition credible.

Maybe if we all played each other home and away then half the clubs at home and the other half away that would give 24 games each in the league. As for the Trains Cup I think it has run its life and should now be either straight knockout or ditched!!!

Pugwash.

[glemiln]

Our neighbour's forum includes a suggestion of only 8 home league games next season, plus 3 from the NR Cup as part of a two-way split of 8 teams
(- Oxford) and possibly more with any qualification to the NR with the Championship clubs.

It is too much to assume that Hornets would have been consulted/notified on any format, but whatever it is we should not underestimate the new clubs.
Our new coach will have one task - to get out of this division. The resolve by most will not be any less than it was this year.

[Anita Bath]

I believe this is a policy of RL of contraction by expansion.

The division has lost its best four teams (presumably with above average players for this divsion) and been replaced not by teams from the divsion above but by new teams. This requires a proportionally massive increase in the number of 'part time professional' players, in this case presumably below average quality for this division (otherwise why weren't they playing part time already). So we can expect a drop in the quality of play (on average), meaning probably reductions in average attendence. This will enable the RL to slowly offload the division, if it survives at all, onto the amateur level leaving the old two divisions (SL and Championship). A very underhand way of getting rid of two (semi) professional clubs each with a long history of contrib uting to the sport.

Expansion like this is ludicrous and everyone who voted for it should hang their heads in shame. Dare I challenge them to look at Australia where RL is a massive sport - how many professional teams do they have? Where do they go for expanding the product (Queensland)? What did they learn from trying to expand into non RL areas (Perth Adelaide)? Yes Melboure 'survived' but we all know how - through an unbalanced playing field, massive subsidies from a cable TV company and illegal payments. Oh, and it might be worth looking at international results.

RFL - biggest expansion in over a century I think, into areas with no history of supporting professional RL, at the height of a recession. If I was CoCo the clown Id be worried about my job.

[BASKET CASE]

Agree 100% with you Anita

[morty]

spot on Anita

[Hornetto]

The big c o ck-up is that they've pushed into new areas, but circumvented existing clubs in those areas. Northampton Demons have been playing regional conference RL for about 10 years and have a big junior section, but they bypassed their experience to give a place to a deluded soccer chairman who took his (round) ball home when he realised that CC1 wouldn't deliver four figure crowds. Similarly, the RFL chose to ignore the Oxford Cavaliers, one of the oldest established 'southern' RL clubs (20 years) in favour of another 'new venture' run out of a university sports ground. This dismissing of established clubs that would provide a solid foundation for expansion and evolution doesn't instil confidence.

TBF, of the new 'teams', Hemel is the only authentic 'club' - having been around for 25 years and plays at a good standard in NC3. They play Hudds Underbank at Featherstone in the NC3 GF on Saturday at 2pm if you fancy a look at them.

NB - just noticed on the RFL site that Oxford are holding open trials, co-ordinated and hosted by Oxford Cavaliers.

Edited by Hornetto, 28 September 2012 - 09:13 AM.

[excolt]

The new clubs should be okay for awhile its only when you have been going over 100 years the rugby league dump on you unless you are in super league,not counting Widnes.

[bowes]

I believe this is a policy of RL of contraction by expansion.

The division has lost its best four teams (presumably with above average players for this divsion) and been replaced not by teams from the divsion above but by new teams. This requires a proportionally massive increase in the number of 'part time professional' players, in this case presumably below average quality for this division (otherwise why weren't they playing part time already). So we can expect a drop in the quality of play (on average), meaning probably reductions in average attendence. This will enable the RL to slowly offload the division, if it survives at all, onto the amateur level leaving the old two divisions (SL and Championship). A very underhand way of getting rid of two (semi) professional clubs each with a long history of contrib uting to the sport.

Expansion like this is ludicrous and everyone who voted for it should hang their heads in shame. Dare I challenge them to look at Australia where RL is a massive sport - how many professional teams do they have? Where do they go for expanding the product (Queensland)? What did they learn from trying to expand into non RL areas (Perth Adelaide)? Yes Melboure 'survived' but we all know how - through an unbalanced playing field, massive subsidies from a cable TV company and illegal payments. Oh, and it might be worth looking at international results.

RFL - biggest expansion in over a century I think, into areas with no history of supporting professional RL, at the height of a recession. If I was CoCo the clown Id be worried about my job.

This was my concern about it. Also by grouping all expansion clubs together they risk losing the good with the bad if they have to contract as you say.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Expansion like this is ludicrous and everyone who voted for it should hang their heads in shame. Dare I challenge them to look at Australia where RL is a massive sport - how many professional teams do they have? Where do they go for expanding the product (Queensland)? What did they learn from trying to expand into non RL areas (Perth Adelaide)? Yes Melboure 'survived' but we all know how - through an unbalanced playing field, massive subsidies from a cable TV company and illegal payments. Oh, and it might be worth looking at international results.

By that rational the RFL have got it right by having only 14 pro teams and should, by your rational, close the door completely. Many teams below the NRL are feeder clubs, so I assume you are a fan of that to? Does the NRL give any money to leagues below them?

[Anita Bath]

No, your intrepretation is precisely that, yours not mine.

The rugby leaguie authorities in Australia have expanded on several occasions over a long period doing it slowly, gradually and carefully in rugby league strong holds (Melbourne excepted), with one exception, the mid 1990s expansion associated witht eh super league war which was a disaster - and they learned their lesson.


So lets talk about the success of Carlise, Southend, Kent, Mansfield, Chorley, . . . . . . . . . . .

Feeder clubs, I suspect that may be the only long term solution.