Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Rams and Bulls announce link-up (merged threads)


  • Please log in to reply
281 replies to this topic

#161 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,577 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:05 AM

Do you mean FOS or the FSA?


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?

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





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


. Those parachute payments were a real bugbear of mine - they allowed clubs be relegated, retain top players and go straight back up again. I think just one club used the money to pay off outstanding debts (can't remember who - might have been leigh) and they didn't bounce back up. If that money had been given to those clubs with a right to promotion (I suppose hunslet and dewsbury spring to mind), they might have been able to assemble a business plan and a team that could compete. Have to admit though, the club administrators of the day would have botched it anyway :rolleyes: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.



#162 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 8,979 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:10 AM

Do you mean FOS or the FSA?


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?


The point that many people choose to overlook is that the RFL isn't an independent governing body but a representative body of all of the components of the gae, in particular the professional clubs. The rules were formulated by the SL club chairmen in the first instance so, yes, I would expect them to be largely self-governed. Participating in some QA courses doesn't give people much of an insight into the running of a business by the way.

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


So how is the introduction of a scheme agreed upon by the member clubs a fiasco?





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.


You were almost edging towards logic until this rant. Who have been trying to kill off the lower ranks? Have you spoken to any chairmen of CC clubs in order to arrive at this conclusion? I advise you to do so and then come back and say you were right.

Stay cool. B)
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#163 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,289 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:54 AM

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.


I stopped reading at this point. I can't take someone with so much bitterness and paranoia built up in them seriously. Sorry.
Posted Image

#164 Pride & Heritage

Pride & Heritage
  • Coach
  • 464 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:16 AM

The point that many people choose to overlook is that the RFL isn't an independent governing body but a representative body of all of the components of the gae, in particular the professional clubs. The rules were formulated by the SL club chairmen in the first instance so, yes, I would expect them to be largely self-governed. Participating in some QA courses doesn't give people much of an insight into the running of a business by the way.

So how is the introduction of a scheme agreed upon by the member clubs a fiasco?

[font=Arial][size=5][size=3][size=4]

You were almost edging towards logic until this rant. Who have been trying to kill off the lower ranks? Have you spoken to any chairmen of CC clubs in order to arrive at this conclusion? I advise you to do so and then come back and say you were right.

Stay cool. B)


No need to ask club chairmen, logic and looking at the facts it doesn't take Einstein to work out what is happening in the game. Please advise which part of my rant was untrue or not based on fact? Please let me know what I am missing here, I simply do not see see how allowing the SL votes count more than those from teams in the Championship can be a positive thing for Championship clubs? As you correctly point out, the RFL are a representative body and not independent, all I ask is, who is pulling the strings? With SL clubs getting 2 votes to 1, whatever SL want they will get. I may be wrong but, by my reckoning, that makes 28 votes for the 14 SL clubs and to 20 for the rest of the teams combined? Am I missing something, maybe adding 2 and 2 doesn't always equal 4, I thought it did?

Are we supposed to believe that the rules of nature regarding self interest, will not, and are not followed in RL circles? We are supposed to believe that every club in SL make there decisions without any self interest at all, and do what is for the good of the game as a whole?

Looking towards the end of next season when relegation is a threat again, I think it would be pretty naive to expect every club to play by the rules when faced with playing in the bottom division the year after and likely financial ruin. Is it only logical to think that one or two clubs might try to bend a few rules to avoid the drop, especially given the RFL's past record of administering things like the salary cap. and the licensing system which awarded a club who had budgeted to lose £1 million last year a grade B license? I admire your confidence in them given there record. I also look forward to seeing Dewsbury's or any of the teams with a link up's team list in the last couple of rounds of the season, especially if they are facing relegation. You can bet your bottom dollar if the partner clubs gives 2 hoots for them, that they will not be going in to the last couple of rounds without at least a couple of star players who are miraculously returning from injury at the same time, to try and get them out of the mire. I ask would that be fair or in the spirit of the game?

Edited by Pride & Heritage, 23 October 2012 - 11:42 AM.


#165 Pride & Heritage

Pride & Heritage
  • Coach
  • 464 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:24 AM

I stopped reading at this point. I can't take someone with so much bitterness and paranoia built up in them seriously. Sorry.


Pity, I thought with your journalistic slant you'd have seen the logic behind the rant and looked at the facts? Maybe I gave you more credit than was due. Then you'd have seen that it is not paranoia or bitterness, but real concern about how the game in the lower reaches will survive long term, when clubs like Dewsbury might be used as a play thing for a SL partner to keep there stars match fit, regardless of what it does to them as a club or to there gates as people get bored of seeing a stream of players who as soon as they show any form or real ability will be playing in SL for a different club than the one that gave them the chance to shine. I hope it works out for them and for the good of the game, but I really cannot see it,

Edited by Pride & Heritage, 23 October 2012 - 11:30 AM.


#166 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,289 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:54 AM

Pity, I thought with your journalistic slant you'd have seen the logic behind the rant and looked at the facts? Maybe I gave you more credit than was due. Then you'd have seen that it is not paranoia or bitterness, but real concern about how the game in the lower reaches will survive long term, when clubs like Dewsbury might be used as a play thing for a SL partner to keep there stars match fit, regardless of what it does to them as a club or to there gates as people get bored of seeing a stream of players who as soon as they show any form or real ability will be playing in SL for a different club than the one that gave them the chance to shine. I hope it works out for them and for the good of the game, but I really cannot see it,


You don't get it though do you? Your bitter agenda won't let you get it.

Dewsbury are not Bradford's 'play thing. Dewsbury will not be getting any 'Stars'. Dewsbury will be getting fringe first team players who may or may not improve their own squad of very capable Championship players. If in Glenn Morrison's opinion they do not improve Dewsbury's very capable squad of Championship players, they won't play, its as simple as that.

Looking towards the end of next season when relegation is a threat again, I think it would be pretty naive to expect every club to play by the rules when faced with playing in the bottom division the year after and likely financial ruin.


There is a beautiful irony of bitter Championship fans hating SuperLeague clubs for their perceived snobbery towards them, while at the same time showing the exact same snobbery towards Championship 1.
Posted Image

#167 Pride & Heritage

Pride & Heritage
  • Coach
  • 464 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:30 PM

You don't get it though do you? Your bitter agenda won't let you get it.

Dewsbury are not Bradford's 'play thing. Dewsbury will not be getting any 'Stars'. Dewsbury will be getting fringe first team players who may or may not improve their own squad of very capable Championship players. If in Glenn Morrison's opinion they do not improve Dewsbury's very capable squad of Championship players, they won't play, its as simple as that.

I did state MIGHT BE Bradford's play thing, and who dictates who is truly a "fringe" player? Towards the end of the season when relegation is in the offing for the CH club, how, and who decides who is a fringe player? I certainly haven't seen it published anywhere as to what constitutes a "fringe" player. Maybe you could enlighten me?

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that Cummins at Bradford who may have nothing to play for at the end of the season and GM at Dews is fighting relegation or for the playoffs and asks Bradford for a bit of help; who could argue if Cummins says Sammutt and Manuokafoa are not in the best of form at the moment and are therefore fringe players, so I'll let them go to the Rams and regain some form and help Dews out of the relegation zone or in to the play-offs? Is it impossible for this to happen?

There is a beautiful irony of bitter Championship fans hating SuperLeague clubs for their perceived snobbery towards them, while at the same time showing the exact same snobbery towards Championship 1.


No irony or snobbery, just simple logistics and common sense. How many away fans will the new clubs or London, South Wales or Gateshead bring to help pay the bills for the likes of Rochdale or Oldham next season? Especially if they are getting thumped every week? Not many is the answer, if London Scholars are any sort of guide. I'd take playing against Leigh, Featherstone, Dewsbury and Halifax any day, over playing at Hemel and South Wales Scorpions. If you were a fan of either Oldham or Rochdale next year, would you rather be playing away every other week travelling to places such as Gateshead, London, Hemel, Gloucester and South Wales etc, or would it be cheaper and easier to watch your team away at a more local venue costing you much less time and less travelling expenses to say the likes of Swinton, Leigh and Halifax?

Edited by Pride & Heritage, 23 October 2012 - 12:32 PM.


#168 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,289 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:58 PM

If Jarrad Sammut plays for Dewsbury or Gareth Ellis plays for York next season, I will happily donate £500 to the BISSA squadbuilder fund.
You are painting bleak pictures of these partnerships to suit your agenda that just simply aren't going to happen.

As for your other question, if a club is budgeting a season based on income from away fans, then they are clearly doing it wrong. Income from away fans should always be a welcome bonus, nothing more.

And if a teams fanbase doesn't want to travel more than 50 miles to a game, then you have to ask yourself why are they supporting a supposedly 'professional' club instead of their local North West Counties or Yorkshire league team...?
Posted Image

#169 oldrover

oldrover
  • Coach
  • 5,950 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:12 PM

As for your other question, if a club is budgeting a season based on income from away fans, then they are clearly doing it wrong. Income from away fans should always be a welcome bonus, nothing more.


call me a cynic, but don't you think this is the reason superleague clubs voted for bradford to stay in superleague next season.
joe mullaney is a god
the only good tiger is a stuffed tiger

Posted Image

#170 EQUALIZER

EQUALIZER
  • Coach
  • 1,443 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:16 PM

Pity, I thought with your journalistic slant you'd have seen the logic behind the rant and looked at the facts? Maybe I gave you more credit than was due. Then you'd have seen that it is not paranoia or bitterness, but real concern about how the game in the lower reaches will survive long term, when clubs like Dewsbury might be used as a play thing for a SL partner to keep there stars match fit, regardless of what it does to them as a club or to there gates as people get bored of seeing a stream of players who as soon as they show any form or real ability will be playing in SL for a different club than the one that gave them the chance to shine. I hope it works out for them and for the good of the game, but I really cannot see it,

And whose play thing are your team going to be.Forgot the feeder club deal thats going to blow us out of the water dont count since its the mighty one cup in 80 years famouse bulldogs.

#171 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,289 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:19 PM

call me a cynic, but don't you think this is the reason superleague clubs voted for bradford to stay in superleague next season.


You're a cynic. They voted to keep Bradford in for many reasons.

(I'm not saying I agree with that decision mind you...)
Posted Image

#172 coolie

coolie
  • Coach
  • 3,543 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:27 PM

If Jarrad Sammut plays for Dewsbury or Gareth Ellis plays for York next season, I will happily donate £500 to the BISSA squadbuilder fund.
You are painting bleak pictures of these partnerships to suit your agenda that just simply aren't going to happen.

As for your other question, if a club is budgeting a season based on income from away fans, then they are clearly doing it wrong. Income from away fans should always be a welcome bonus, nothing more.

And if a teams fanbase doesn't want to travel more than 50 miles to a game, then you have to ask yourself why are they supporting a supposedly 'professional' club instead of their local North West Counties or Yorkshire league team...?


does this also go for squadbuilder ? £500 ?????

#173 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,289 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:32 PM

does this also go for squadbuilder ? £500 ?????


No. If I'm forking out next year that means you lot have already had Jarrad Sammutt... ;)
Posted Image

#174 Pride & Heritage

Pride & Heritage
  • Coach
  • 464 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:36 PM

And whose play thing are your team going to be.Forgot the feeder club deal thats going to blow us out of the water dont count since its the mighty one cup in 80 years famouse bulldogs.

Hey Equalizer, I don't agree with it full stop whether it be Batley, Dewsbury or whoever, the whole thing stinks IMO. It is not a pop at the Rams, it is a pop at the nails being driven in to the CH coffin and the thought of turning our competition in to a potential farce.

Edited by Pride & Heritage, 23 October 2012 - 01:37 PM.


#175 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,289 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:39 PM

Hey Equalizer, I don't agree with it full stop whether it be Batley, Dewsbury or whoever, the whole thing stinks IMO. It is not a pop at the Rams, it is a pop at the nails being driven in to the CH coffin and the thought of turning our competition in to a potential farce.


Which it isn't going to do.
Posted Image

#176 Pride & Heritage

Pride & Heritage
  • Coach
  • 464 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:00 PM

If Jarrad Sammut plays for Dewsbury or Gareth Ellis plays for York next season, I will happily donate £500 to the BISSA squadbuilder fund.
You are painting bleak pictures of these partnerships to suit your agenda that just simply aren't going to happen.

Only time will tell, but I look forward to our donation none the less if it does. I also still await your factually backed up guarantees, that this marvellous system has constraints in place to make this sort of thing impossible. As stated earlier, I remember going to Bramley with a team consisting of players like Barry McDemott in it, I'll bet he was a "fringe" player at the time too. They were in a "partnership" with Leeds at the time and look what happened there.

As for your other question, if a club is budgeting a season based on income from away fans, then they are clearly doing it wrong. Income from away fans should always be a welcome bonus, nothing more.

Not a businessman then eh Gav? I'd bet a large percentage of a clubs income in most cases, is dependent on away fans, so it is idiotically naive to think a club would treat such a big percentage of income as merely a nice bonus and don't take it in to account. Don't kid yourself, every club needs away support, some more than others admittedly but they all need it. How do you think Hunslet budget for the season, with just there 200 or so season ticket holders and a bit of sponsorship no doubt? Wake up mate.

And if a teams fanbase doesn't want to travel more than 50 miles to a game, then you have to ask yourself why are they supporting a supposedly 'professional' club instead of their local North West Counties or Yorkshire league team...?

Are you being deliberately thick here, or is it a wind up? It is not a case of not wanting to travel, it is a question of affording the time and expense of travelling to the four corners of the UK to support your team. How many travelling fans did each club take to Toulouse when they were in the league? I'm sure it wasn't down to not wanting to go for most fans, they either couldn't afford to go or couldn't afford the time away from there family to go. It is also very different travelling those distances to away grounds a couple of times a season and going those distances every other week.

I suppose every one of the die hard York faithful (100% of them) will be travelling to each of the 3 Cumbrian teams next season, of course they will, just like all of the supposed die hard 1000 Sheffield home fans travel to all away games too?

Edited by Pride & Heritage, 23 October 2012 - 02:15 PM.


#177 potato ram

potato ram
  • Coach
  • 229 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:07 PM

No. If I'm forking out next year that means you lot have already had Jarrad Sammutt... ;)

Thought he'd left Bradford?

#178 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,289 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:14 PM

Only time will tell, but I look forward to our donation none the less if it does. I also still await your factually backed up guarantees, that this marvellous system has constraints in place to make this sort of thing impossible. As stated earlier, I remember going to Bramley consisting of players like Barry McDemott in it, I'll bet he was a "fringe" player at the time too. They were in a "partnership" with Leeds at the time and look what happened there.

Not a businessman then eh Gav? I'd bet a large percentage of a clubs income in most cases, is dependent on away fans, so it is idiotically naive to think a club would treat a big percentage of income as merely a nice bonus, don't kid yourself every club needs away support, some more than other. How do you think Hunslet budget for the season, with just there 200 or so season ticket holders and a bit of sponsorship? Wake up mate.

Are you being deliberately thick here, or is it a wind up? It is not a case of not wanting to travel, it is a question of affording the time and expense of travelling to the four corners of the UK to support your team. How many travelling fans did each club take to Toulouse when they were in the league? I'm sure it wasn't down to not wanting to go for most fans, they either couldn't afford to go or couldn't afford the time away from there family to go. It is also very different travelling those distances to away grounds a couple of times a season and going those distances every other week.

I suppose every die hard York fan (100% of them) will be travelling to each of the 3 Cumbrian teams next season, of course they will, just like all of the supposed die hard 1000 Sheffield home fans travel to all away games too?


I'm not saying this system is marvellous, I'm saying it has potential to improve the Championships, which it has. What Bramley did 20 years ago is completely irrelevant.

Not what I'm saying at all. I know clubs include away fans into their budget, I'm saying they shouldn't, as that is bad business practice. The clubs should focus on building their home supporter base instead. Tom Coates is already doing this for Dewsbury in a big way, it doesn't cost that much.

The return of promotion & relegation (probably in 2015) should help with this too.
Posted Image

#179 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,289 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:15 PM

Thought he'd left Bradford?


Signed a new 2 year deal last week mate.
Posted Image

#180 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,770 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:18 PM

These match-up's won't last once the SL clubs have no more contractual obligations to Academy players so there's no need for the doom and gloom.

Equally there's no reason to be happy with it either as most SL academy players don't match up to proven championship players. Those that do or are proven SL quality will be staying put.

The debate should be about youth development and what comes next because Academies in SL hands have pretty much failed.

If the doom merchants fear that championship clubs become the academy structure then for one thing there'll be more money in the Championship. Equally this doesn't necessarily mean those clubs developing players will need to align to one from the SL and be prevented from promotion with that team.

Edited by Ackroman, 23 October 2012 - 02:20 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users