Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Rams and Bulls announce link-up (merged threads)


  • Please log in to reply
281 replies to this topic

#141 Rambo

Rambo
  • Coach
  • 500 posts

Posted 21 October 2012 - 08:20 PM

What would have been better than some championship clubs linking with SL teams would have been the Chsmpionship clubs sticking together and setting up a league totally unassociated with SL.
Posted Image

#142 John North

John North
  • Coach
  • 1,528 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:02 AM

at the top of this forum you list a squad of 22 players. if your new partners beg/coerce/insist that 5 of their 8 players are in the 17 on matchday, that will leave 10 of your players without a game. i assume no play no pay. how will that sit. not saying it will happen, but could it.


claptrap.

Bradford have no say in our squad selection and yet all the knockers keep harping on about players being forced on us.
Ill happily stand corrected if this proves to be true but until such time, i prefer to accept the word of our Chairman and Coach on these matters and not
some bitter and twisted fervent traditionalist.
Red Amber Black - Its that simple

#143 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,291 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:09 AM

What would have been better than some championship clubs linking with SL teams would have been the Chsmpionship clubs sticking together and setting up a league totally unassociated with SL.


And then joining BARLA no doubt.

Edited by Blind side johnny, 22 October 2012 - 08:09 AM.

Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#144 fredm

fredm
  • Coach
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:54 AM

claptrap.

Bradford have no say in our squad selection and yet all the knockers keep harping on about players being forced on us.
Ill happily stand corrected if this proves to be true but until such time, i prefer to accept the word of our Chairman and Coach on these matters and not
some bitter and twisted fervent traditionalist.


But surely, if FC rings GM and says these 8 players are not in my squad for friday night, do you want some of them, if GM thinks that 5 will enhance/improve the Rams squad on Sunday he should be selecting them?

#145 John North

John North
  • Coach
  • 1,528 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:13 AM

Absolutely, if GM thinks thats best for the team.
The point being that the decision lies with Dewsbury and not with Bradford.
I would also think that the players would need to be of an exceptional standard for Gm to consider simply dropping players into the team bearing in mind
the prep work he will have no doubt done with his squad during the week.
Red Amber Black - Its that simple

#146 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,655 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:44 AM

Mine was a genuine post. AMBITION thats why players came to us! and your club has further shown its lack of ambition with this tie up!!! Look at it long term you pleb

To be fair he got my goat with his side swipe at fev. I can assure of this I do not hold my view because fev are not buying into it.

Mine was also a genuine post PSF, and I am not generally given to having a swipe at fev - I have a soft spot for them and their supporters dating back to the fev v Hull challenge cup game, but if you've read the posts on this topic, you will have noticed that many posters, myself included, are not easy about the situation, so what would you have us do ? picket the chairmans house ? refuse to buy season tickets ? lynch the coach ? The deal is done and we're stuck with it, in common with most other championship supporters. If you are basing your away support on going only to clubs without a SL tie up, that'll be two a season then, but if you are the diehard supporter you appear to be, you'll support the team home and away whatever the circumstances. As for your point about ambition attracting the better players to fev - well if ambition means more money, then yes it does, but it's a fact that Steve Crossley gave mark sawyer the opportunity to keep him at the rams and would of been happy to stay if we could have got anywhere near matching fevs offer. At the end of the day PSF, fev and the fax supporters can take the moral high ground because they have the crowds and therefore the funds to attract players good enough to keep them in the top three or four without the need (at present) to resort to outside help, but if you do get SL, and i genuinely hope you do, you might also get fed up with being on the receiving end of disparaging comments from the smug bugg ars at places like cas and leeds.



quote The long term is you PLEB

Quoting Andrew Mitchell PSF - I'm surprised at you. :o

#147 oldrover

oldrover
  • Coach
  • 6,005 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 10:16 AM

claptrap.

Bradford have no say in our squad selection and yet all the knockers keep harping on about players being forced on us.
Ill happily stand corrected if this proves to be true but until such time, i prefer to accept the word of our Chairman and Coach on these matters and not
some bitter and twisted fervent traditionalist.

if you read my post again, i am asking a question. could it happen, yes or no. a simple no would have been sufficient.
joe mullaney is a god
the only good tiger is a stuffed tiger

Posted Image

#148 fredm

fredm
  • Coach
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:05 AM

Absolutely, if GM thinks thats best for the team.
The point being that the decision lies with Dewsbury and not with Bradford.
I would also think that the players would need to be of an exceptional standard for Gm to consider simply dropping players into the team bearing in mind
the prep work he will have no doubt done with his squad during the week.


I appreciate what you are saying and agree that the decision is GM's. What I am uneasy about is the number allowed being 5. I was happy to accommodate 3 in a matchday squad of 18 as the ones missing out would probably get a chance in the near future but to put it up to 5, I believe, is a step too far. We shall just have to wait and see I suppose.

#149 Tom Coates

Tom Coates
  • Moderator
  • 972 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 01:24 PM

Five is the maximum, not a recommendation.

#150 intheshed

intheshed
  • Coach
  • 407 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 01:28 PM

claptrap.

Bradford have no say in our squad selection and yet all the knockers keep harping on about players being forced on us.
Ill happily stand corrected if this proves to be true but until such time, i prefer to accept the word of our Chairman and Coach on these matters and not
some bitter and twisted fervent traditionalist.


If Bradford didnt walk away from negotiations with a reasonable expectation that their players would be accomadated in your matchday squads what are they getting from the deal?

Dewsbury get use of players when they want them for negligable cost, use of Bradfords facilities, access to coaching & business best practice. Bradford get next to nothing, the picture being painted is of a fantastically one-sided deal. I sincerely hope its an accurate one but im struggling to see why Bradford would give up so much and apparently ask for so little in return.

#151 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,655 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 01:33 PM

I appreciate what you are saying and agree that the decision is GM's. What I am uneasy about is the number allowed being 5. I was happy to accommodate 3 in a matchday squad of 18 as the ones missing out would probably get a chance in the near future but to put it up to 5, I believe, is a step too far. We shall just have to wait and see I suppose.

Personally i would not allow more than two. My main concern still remains that the system is open to abuse. Let us say that the last game of the season involved a relegation clash with the rams and somebody else - winner stays up. Now what if the bulls didn't have a match that weekend - the temptation would surely be for glenn to ask FC for five of his top players, and that would be wrong. I think the ground rules should be laid out and strictly policed. I have some sympathy with the fax, fev and eagles supporters who are going it alone, because the way things stand, they could be playing a hunslet side containing half the rhinos squad one week, while their closest rivals could be playing them with a much weaker squad the week after. I think the best bet would be to get rid of DR, and to allow just two first team squad players from the parent club to be borrowed.

#152 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,648 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:54 PM

What would have been better than some championship clubs linking with SL teams would have been the Chsmpionship clubs sticking together and setting up a league totally unassociated with SL.


Do we still have neanderthals looking for a breakaway ?

Leave behind Sky, the Challenge Cup, Government derived development money - amongst others ?

Just what our sport needs - another ********* breakaway ......
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#153 Pride & Heritage

Pride & Heritage
  • Coach
  • 464 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:12 PM

Personally i would not allow more than two. My main concern still remains that the system is open to abuse. Let us say that the last game of the season involved a relegation clash with the rams and somebody else - winner stays up. Now what if the bulls didn't have a match that weekend - the temptation would surely be for glenn to ask FC for five of his top players, and that would be wrong. I think the ground rules should be laid out and strictly policed. I have some sympathy with the fax, fev and eagles supporters who are going it alone, because the way things stand, they could be playing a hunslet side containing half the rhinos squad one week, while their closest rivals could be playing them with a much weaker squad the week after. I think the best bet would be to get rid of DR, and to allow just two first team squad players from the parent club to be borrowed.


Excellent point GOR, nail on the head. Maybe Tom can answer that one? Is there anything to stop this from happening? Probably not, knowing the RFL. Even if they had thought of it, they wouldn't be able to stop it, I mean it is not like they have been able to sort the pathetically managed salary cap scheme out, to stop there flagship clubs from going in to administration is it.

Maybe, the best bet for all Championship club's is to sell their souls to a SL team just outside the play-off's, one with no chance of winning anything. That way, when the SL club have given up believing they can compete, approximately halfway through the season and they truly have nothing left to play for, GM can take whichever stars he wants and you can watch them in a Dewsbury shirt for 2/3's of the cost of going to watch them in SL, brilliant. We can all forget the fact that it turns the championship from a once great competition in to a farcical lottery.

Edited by Pride & Heritage, 22 October 2012 - 03:15 PM.


#154 Ramite

Ramite
  • Coach
  • 836 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:16 PM

I have read that the plans are to give each SL player a value for the purposes of the championship salary cap which should in theory anyway stop this.
Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]


#155 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,291 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:43 PM

Excellent point GOR, nail on the head. Maybe Tom can answer that one? Is there anything to stop this from happening? Probably not, knowing the RFL. Even if they had thought of it, they wouldn't be able to stop it, I mean it is not like they have been able to sort the pathetically managed salary cap scheme out, to stop there flagship clubs from going in to administration is it.

Maybe, the best bet for all Championship club's is to sell their souls to a SL team just outside the play-off's, one with no chance of winning anything. That way, when the SL club have given up believing they can compete, approximately halfway through the season and they truly have nothing left to play for, GM can take whichever stars he wants and you can watch them in a Dewsbury shirt for 2/3's of the cost of going to watch them in SL, brilliant. We can all forget the fact that it turns the championship from a once great competition in to a farcical lottery.


No bitterness then P&H?

B)


I know facts can get in the way of a good prejudice but Bradford's woes weren't associated with maladministration of the salary cap by the RFL. Let's not stop them being whipping boys though eh? It's much easier than trying to understand things properly I always say.

Take care.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#156 Pride & Heritage

Pride & Heritage
  • Coach
  • 464 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:53 PM

I believe bitterness is one word for it, I suffer with this,erm... love I suppose you'd call it of RL. It is by far the best game in the world in my humble opinion, and when someone wants to spoil it and turn it in to a farce, I tend to turn from a very laid back individual in to a rather emotional person about the whole affair.

I hate the fact that the powers that be would want to ruin my beloved club and it's opponents (as there's no point having a Batley, if there is nobody else to play against) through a misguided belief that by taking the game to places that doesn't share my feelings towards the game and greed is in the best interest of the game rather than just the best interests of a greedy select few,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't mention Bradford in my post, if you could point it out, I would be most grateful My feelings towards the RFL's inability to manage the salary cap comes from.... ...ooh I suppose you'd call them facts and past track record on being unable to organise a pea soup in a brewery.

The RFL brought the salary cap in to ensure the long term security of clubs and ensure they did not find themselves in financial difficulties in the future, would you agree or was that just a bad joke issued by the RFL at the time??? Now since the salary cap was introduced, Salford and Castleford most recently, but add Wakefield, Leigh, London, Crusaders, Bradford and others have all had financial trouble, something the salary cap was brought in to stop. They also missed the fact Barrow were spending far more than was in the rules until after the season had finished, when anyone with even half a brain could work out you could not get the side they had for £300k a season.

This link-up fiasco is just another nail in the coffin, with the SL clubs and RFL hammering the nails in to kill the game below SL, simply due to money and greed.

Edited by Pride & Heritage, 22 October 2012 - 05:58 PM.


#157 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,291 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 06:23 PM

............I mean it is not like they have been able to sort the pathetically managed salary cap scheme out, to stop there flagship clubs from going in to administration is it..


Clearly I misinterpreted this to include Bradford.

Oddly enough I tend to believe that the ultimate responsibility for managing a business lies with the clubs themselves rather than the RFL. This is a bit like blaming the FSO for all the banks being a set of crooks or the police for there being too many thieves. If the clubs aren't willing to adhere to the rulles, with which they have agreed in advance, then the RFL can only be reactive. To expect them to have a presence in every club watching how every penny is being spent is a bit naive, don't you think. the salary cap rules for CC clubs are riddled with holes and almost impossible to apply, as I'm sure you know as you clearly look into these things in detail.

I am also troubled by the links being established between SL and CC clubs but I fail to understand how it is a "fiasco", unless my grasp of language is failing me.

Finally, what evidence do you have that "the powers that be want to ruin your club" ? This is news to me.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#158 EQUALIZER

EQUALIZER
  • Coach
  • 1,500 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:38 PM

If Bradford didnt walk away from negotiations with a reasonable expectation that their players would be accomadated in your matchday squads what are they getting from the deal?

Dewsbury get use of players when they want them for negligable cost, use of Bradfords facilities, access to coaching & business best practice. Bradford get next to nothing, the picture being painted is of a fantastically one-sided deal. I sincerely hope its an accurate one but im struggling to see why Bradford would give up so much and apparently ask for so little in return.

it balances up for the one sided partnership that weve had over the last years.

#159 John North

John North
  • Coach
  • 1,528 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:02 AM

If Bradford didnt walk away from negotiations with a reasonable expectation that their players would be accomadated in your matchday squads what are they getting from the deal?

Dewsbury get use of players when they want them for negligable cost, use of Bradfords facilities, access to coaching & business best practice. Bradford get next to nothing, the picture being painted is of a fantastically one-sided deal. I sincerely hope its an accurate one but im struggling to see why Bradford would give up so much and apparently ask for so little in return.


Perhaps they want to give back to the Rugby League Community who saved them from the brink of extinction not once but several times ;)

Edited by John North, 23 October 2012 - 07:02 AM.

Red Amber Black - Its that simple

#160 Pride & Heritage

Pride & Heritage
  • Coach
  • 464 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:39 AM

Clearly I misinterpreted this to include Bradford.

Oddly enough I tend to believe that the ultimate responsibility for managing a business lies with the clubs themselves rather than the RFL. This is a bit like blaming the FSO for all the banks being a set of crooks or the police for there being too many thieves.

Do you mean FOS or the FSA?

If the clubs aren't willing to adhere to the rules, with which they have agreed in advance, then the RFL can only be reactive. To expect them to have a presence in every club watching how every penny is being spent is a bit naive, don't you think. the salary cap rules for CC clubs are riddled with holes and almost impossible to apply, as I'm sure you know as you clearly look into these things in detail.


Surely even the most naive of organisations should be expected to adequately police a system or rule they have introduced? Before introducing a rule, it is not unreasonable to think that it would be thought through enough to expect it to be adequately monitored. Part of business 101 teaches S.M.A.R.T. objectives, when introducing any scheme or objective, the "M" standing for measurable? Especially for such an important rule, which if broken, would give such an unfair competitive advantage on the playing field. The RFL brought in the licencing system, I'd have thought that it was partly designed to administer the salary cap rules and to supposedly see how clubs finances are being managed? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect the powers that be to have an inkling that the rules were being broken at Barrow at the start of the season and to investigate a bit?

I am also troubled by the links being established between SL and CC clubs but I fail to understand how it is a "fiasco", unless my grasp of language is failing me.

Main Entry:
fiasco[fee-as-koh or, especially for 2,-ah-skoh] blunder, botched situation, breakdown, debacle, disaster, dumb thing to do, dumb trick, embarrassment, error, failure, farce, flap, flop,mess, miscarriage, route, ruin, screwup, stunt,washout
Definition: catastrophe



Finally, what evidence do you have that "the powers that be want to ruin your club" ? This is news to me.



Come on BSJ, they have been trying to kill the lower ranks off since the inception of SL. Why else would they take away P&R and with it, any real chance of supposed smaller clubs bettering themselves and competing at the top level. Why else would the SL clubs get 2 votes to 1 in matters relating to all thing RL. I cannot believe it is for the benefit of the CH clubs? When the RFL were handing parachute payments out to clubs relegated from the top flight, it would have been better to make those payments to the club who was promoted, giving them a real chance of recruiting well enough to remain in the top flight. Do you not think it is very naive to believe these things were brought in for the benefit of the clubs like Dewsbury and Batley etc.

Edited by Pride & Heritage, 23 October 2012 - 08:53 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users