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
- - - - -

Eagles for SL


  • Please log in to reply
549 replies to this topic

#521 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,907 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 05:32 AM

1. You deny saying that you think all is well with SL but then in point 2 of your post, you list a litany of successes of SL. You apparently do think SL is a roaring success.

2. No there hasn';t ever been a fully profitable or even a remotely fully profitable or, in fact, anything which even faintly resembles a profitable SL. However, if we don't get a lot closer to a profitable operation, there will be "touble at t mill", big time.

As to your laundry list.I will agree with a, e and f. Of the remainder

b. This is not true. Since we went to Sky and dumped terrestrial TV, e.g. the players trophy and most internationals, the profile of RL has vastly decreased. There is no comparison with the exposure on Sky TV compared to the BBC. The BBC is hundreds of time bigger in the exposure league than Sky. Do not interpret this as me saying that I do not value the Sky coverage because I do. The money from themn is vital BUT in terms of exposure, Sky has reduced the profile of the game in this country.

c. This is patently false. The game is played all over the country due to the initiative of Lionel Hurst and thereafter the RFL and the growth of the Summer Conference league and then the appointment of development officers nationwide due to the Sports England wwindfall. SL had very little if anything to do with this.

d. I am not so sure they have developed more amd more professional players from all across the country. Firstly, many hundreds, if not thousands, of professional players were recruited from Australasia. This was even more true in France, than England. The other professional players produced were, as always, introduced to the game via the amateur ranks and any gems uncovered were hoovered up by SL clubs.

3. The number of clubs being too great at 14.I disagree with this also. It is not the number of clubs that is the problem, it is the level of finance and cash that is needed to successfully and, god willing, profitably operate.The bar has been set too high. We need to pay less so as to enable us to break even in more places. It's no good having 6 five star hotels when you can have a motel in every town in the country for less and still attract guests.Reducing the numbers to give more cash to Wigan, Leeds or Saints is not the answer. Reducing the numbers sends out a message of failure. Every mega business, Woolworth comes to mind, cuts out huge numbers of branches when they start to fail. We should not go down that road unless we really are seriously declining.

Maurice Lyndsay was a typical greedy, grasping business tycoon. He wanted to have less clubs so that there was more pie to divvy up with his cronies at the top clubs. He was not doing it to satisfy Murdoch. Murdoch wanted our game in his pocket to put Kerry Packer to the sword in the SL war back in Australia. He was so hot to do that that when the clubs initially balked, especially those who were going to be excluded from SL, he immediately, without a murmur, coughed up extra millions to placate the clubs and seal the deal.

Have you considered what you propose, i.e ditch two SL clubs, turn the championship clubs into parasites. In short, decimate the whole of width and breadth of RL to enable SL to spend more than it can afford or to enable it to function for the sake of 12 clubs. It took RU 50 years to claw back the losses form the great split. Casting teams out is a bad strategy. It is better to lower your expenses to enable existing clubs to function. Expansion and holding the line is good. Contraction is bad for the many for the benefit of the few.

I would be delighted if SKY coughed up more cash. I think they possibly could. However, whenever I have ever suggested this previously, you have strenuously argue that there was no way they would ever do so. You need to be consistent.

Lastly, nobody wants SL to collapse. It would be the death knell of the game. I don't think anyone on these boards wants that. It's to avoid that specifically that I am saying, if we can't afford to operate at current levels, we must reduce our costs to the point where we can at the very least break even. My feeling is that you are a professional in a financial field. If so, you should know very well that we cannot keep on vastly overspending and getting further into the mire year after year but you seem to advocate that. Cost cutting to save the game seems to be an anathma


Edited by keighley, 24 October 2012 - 05:36 AM.


#522 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,893 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 06:10 AM

1. You deny saying that you think all is well with SL but then in point 2 of your post, you list a litany of successes of SL. You apparently do think SL is a roaring success.

2. If we can't afford to operate at current levels, we must reduce our costs to the point where we can at the very least break even.

3. My feeling is that you are a professional in a financial field. If so, you should know very well that we cannot keep on vastly overspending and getting further into the mire year after year but you seem to advocate that.


1. It's been a huge success for the game and saved the game of course it has. Oddly the only ones who disagree avidly support clubs disenfranchised by "greedy 'n' 'Orrible" Superleague.

2. This is why player production costs have been moved on to the CC, this is why two or three big loss making SL clubs whose loss making activities throttle their near neighbours progress towards the top of SL will IMHO be cut. The extra SKY funds released will cut losses/increase profits at other clubs. This is why the RFL/SLE are taking a chance on Toulouse having the money and generating a French TV contract. If that's not enough either SKY funds can be distributed according to need or the salary cap can go down £100K.

3. No I'm not an accountant, but I am in and amongst business so know the realities.

Superleague clubs turn over over £4,000,000 a year several WELL OVER that

Championship clubs turn over less than £1,000,000 a year. The level of cost cutting will not bridge that gap at all because it is likely the clubs with the three worst turnovers will be dumped anyway.

4. Superleague then may retain the opportunity for clubs like Hull (look closely at what Pearson is doing) to get crowds back to 14,000, and Wakefield to get up to 10,000 into Newmarket. Over the remaining clubs you would find the average crowd would shoot well over 10,000. Again their turnovers would remain high if not higher.

Moving back to 12 clubs is a logical and workable plan not because I wishfully think it is, but because the figures stack up. If you disagree do your own figures and logic and show me where I am wrong.

As for the idea RL needs all it's clubs, then you need to explain why? Whats the logic??

Many CC clubs don't produce players any more, many don't attract fans and lurch from crisis to crisis. You dreamt of Oldham yet Sheddings will tell you it's St.Annes, Waterhead whoever that are the vibrant clubs producing the players, from the schools where they learn the game. We have more clubs than ever of the vibrant type who are the roots of our game. As sheddings says the local amateurs even pay the players more than the senior club.

I'd like you to look at the figures again for SL and tell me why it's so important to keep the small trad semi pro clubs alive.

#523 sheddings69

sheddings69
  • Coach
  • 786 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:34 AM

I say go the whole hog and reduce to 10 eams, namely Hull, Leeds, Bradford, Fartown, London, Wigan, Saints and Warrington, Toulouse and Catalans. Be honest about no P&R, get rid of the farce that is licensing.

That leaves us with a cracking Championship consisting of the likes of Wakefield, Cas, HKR, Salford, Widnes, Halifax, Leigh, Featherstone, Sheffield etc.

Job done - I'd love to be in that Championship!!

#524 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,893 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:47 AM

I say go the whole hog and reduce to 10 teams, namely Hull, Leeds, Bradford, Fartown, London, Wigan, Saints and Warrington, Toulouse and Catalans. Be honest about no P&R, get rid of the farce that is licensing.

That leaves us with a cracking Championship consisting of the likes of Wakefield, Cas, HKR, Salford, Widnes, Halifax, Leigh, Featherstone, Sheffield etc.

Job done - I'd love to be in that Championship!!


It's a great shout, just on the detail they will never not have a Superleague club in the cas/Fev/Wakefield area. This is arguably is the biggest area in the country for Rugby League with no soccer or union presense.

You pick a Superleague and of course it starts Leeds, Hull,Wigan.........But I can assure you Wakefield is next. there are more fans and quality players in the Wakefield postcode than just about anywhere.

#525 sheddings69

sheddings69
  • Coach
  • 786 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:57 AM

It's a great shout, just on the detail they will never not have a Superleague club in the cas/Fev/Wakefield area. This is arguably is the biggest area in the country for Rugby League with no soccer or union presense.

You pick a Superleague and of course it starts Leeds, Hull,Wigan.........But I can assure you Wakefield is next. there are more fans and quality players in the Wakefield postcode than just about anywhere.


Wakefield have always had many players and potential support but also a long history of consistent under achievement (in my lifetime anyway)....so far from convinced on that one Parky. There are other 'traditional areas' that won't have SL, and SL areas that are not RL areas......so what? You can't have it always.....if crowds, turnover is the key criteria, so be it.....let's be open about it and get on with it!

#526 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,893 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 08:22 AM

1. Wakefield have always had many players and potential support but also a long history of consistent under achievement (in my lifetime anyway)....so far from convinced on that one Parky.

2. There are other 'traditional areas' that won't have SL, and SL areas that are not RL areas......so what? You can't have it always.....if crowds, turnover is the key criteria, so be it.....let's be open about it and get on with it!


1. I have a bee in my bonnet about how Wakefield get ignored so please excuse me pushing this and do stay unconvinced if you wish.

The level of support for RL in the wakefield postcodes area can be added up easily enough, and that support is massive without a successful club to boost it. One Superleague club would have a massive support base to go at.

The level of quality player is there to see from any period of history.

You cite "under achievement" but this merely comes from the area not having the money to keep the players. In 1981 Hull bought up all the best players from that area and shot to the top of the league. The area was so strong in players Cas still went on to win the cup and Wakey and fev still had stints in the top division.

It's the Lyndsay argument. Tremendous rescources in one area but all split between three clubs. Result three clubs losing money, three grounds crumbling, richer clubs moving in for the players more under achievement.

2. Crowds/players are the criteria and there's nowhere stronger than the wakefield postcode district. SL needs to play to it's strengths and that is "natural resources" not a rich mans wallet.

Wakefield would be miles ahead of Bradford and Fartown, one of them would have to go. Or merge!!!

Edited by The Parksider, 24 October 2012 - 08:25 AM.


#527 sheddings69

sheddings69
  • Coach
  • 786 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:26 AM

Wakefield would be miles ahead of Bradford and Fartown, one of them would have to go. Or merge!!!


But they aren't miles ahead and haven't been in the last 50 years......

Huddersfield have attracted a backer and without one you can't survive in SL.

Remember, its not about personal preferences but for the greater good of SL and the game.

Championship for me I'm afraid Parky!

Edited by sheddings69, 24 October 2012 - 09:27 AM.


#528 Wanderer

Wanderer
  • Coach
  • 103 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:27 AM

I don't "advovate" anything. Explain what you are on about please.


Seems to me when reading through these pages that the Parksider v. Keighley argument is about a smaller 12 team league or an enlarged division with a smaller sky handout per club and hence a smaller total spend per club (status quo seems to be 4mill v 1 mill - ballpark figures I know... anyway, either of these options would in my opinion result in a "contraction" - fewer super, high profile clubs or clubs with a lessor profile albeit in more areas and a stronger rugby union may become more difficult to fend off, which has apparently happened since 1996 so far. The game is not in as healthy a position as many believe.

What I was doing in my mind was extending the argument for a 12 team SL which seems to be focusing upon large single area clubs providing a wide national (and international) geographic spread, 10000 plus crowds, ability to spend a larger salary cap due to sugar daddies and better sponsorship to another potential challenge from Union clubs . Even if all super league clubs can achieve all of the above, it already exists in Union and their turnover is a step up again (Leicester tigers nearly £20 million in 2010-11 -http://www.premiersh...hp#.UIezS2_oTAQ).

Already I see Sale taking the initiative at Barton and when I am at parents in Widnes at weekends I see the Union clubs offering a more structured and organised environment for young players to enjoy Rugby - the battle is only just beginning I believe and a new financial driven order will prevail (amateur, championship, sl, union) driven by larger salaries and greater playing opportunities being offered elsewhere (obviously some players will ply their trade down under).

As a grass roots rugby league supporter I would go for a larger super league with a GREATER SPREAD OF THE SKY MONEY rather than give fewer teams the chance at a bigger level, because Union is waiting

#529 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,487 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:37 AM

Waiting for what ?

Steal our players ?

One of the threats is that our players will turn to Union if we don't offer high enough wages. Spreading the Sky money more thinly won't help this at all.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#530 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,893 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:14 PM

Seems to me when reading through these pages that the Parksider v. Keighley argument is about a smaller 12 team league or an enlarged division with a smaller sky handout per club and hence a smaller total spend per club (status quo seems to be 4mill v 1 mill - ballpark figures I know... anyway, either of these options would in my opinion result in a "contraction" - fewer super, high profile clubs or clubs with a lessor profile albeit in more areas and a stronger rugby union may become more difficult to fend off, which has apparently happened since 1996 so far. The game is not in as healthy a position as many believe.

What I was doing in my mind was extending the argument for a 12 team SL which seems to be focusing upon large single area clubs providing a wide national (and international) geographic spread, 10000 plus crowds, ability to spend a larger salary cap due to sugar daddies and better sponsorship to another potential challenge from Union clubs . Even if all super league clubs can achieve all of the above, it already exists in Union and their turnover is a step up again (Leicester tigers nearly £20 million in 2010-11 -http://www.premiersh...hp#.UIezS2_oTAQ).

Already I see Sale taking the initiative at Barton and when I am at parents in Widnes at weekends I see the Union clubs offering a more structured and organised environment for young players to enjoy Rugby - the battle is only just beginning I believe and a new financial driven order will prevail (amateur, championship, sl, union) driven by larger salaries and greater playing opportunities being offered elsewhere (obviously some players will ply their trade down under).

As a grass roots rugby league supporter I would go for a larger super league with a GREATER SPREAD OF THE SKY MONEY rather than give fewer teams the chance at a bigger level, because Union is waiting


Thanks very much for a very very interesting post. Points taken.

Will Union move in on league? Well it hasn't really so far (the government through sport England will not countenance this apparently) but will kids in future continue to be attracted to league or turn more to union.

As a wild guess I'd say that an impressive 12 team SL will inspire people towards League

A 20 club Championship/SL paying lower wages (probably half the salary cap or less) will not attract any great interest from new generations IMHO. The first image I have is top RL players leaving in numbers....

What do you think?

Edited by The Parksider, 24 October 2012 - 01:14 PM.


#531 Wanderer

Wanderer
  • Coach
  • 103 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:54 PM

As a wild guess I'd say that an impressive 12 team SL will inspire people towards League

A 20 club Championship/SL paying lower wages (probably half the salary cap or less) will not attract any great interest from new generations IMHO. The first image I have is top RL players leaving in numbers....

What do you think?


I think you are right about the 12 team SL potentially inspiring the next generation but my worry is about what lies beneath it and at the moment it seems the two competitions are drifting apart and creating an unbridgeable divide which has a number of effects - two examples being the elite competion runs the risk of becoming stale and the challenge cup becomes devalued due to its predictability. And, if in my model we are going to become a player nursery for Union (which is far from a certainty) then a wider semi-pro competion would be more attractive to me. Ideally I would like to see two strong integrated competitions and the RL family is united again :D :lol:

#532 Chronicler of Chiswick

Chronicler of Chiswick
  • Coach
  • 2,381 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:05 PM

Personally, I think that the threat from Union is grossly exagerated. I quite sure that if they really wanted some of our players, they'd find a work-round in their 'salary cap' to get them.

#533 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,893 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:11 PM

I think you are right about the 12 team SL potentially inspiring the next generation but my worry is about what lies beneath it and at the moment it seems the two competitions are drifting apart and creating an unbridgeable divide which has a number of effects - two examples being the elite competion runs the risk of becoming stale and the challenge cup becomes devalued due to its predictability. And, if in my model we are going to become a player nursery for Union (which is far from a certainty) then a wider semi-pro competion would be more attractive to me. Ideally I would like to see two strong integrated competitions and the RL family is united again :D :lol:

I think you are right about the 12 team SL potentially inspiring the next generation but my worry is about what lies beneath it and at the moment it seems the two competitions are drifting apart and creating an unbridgeable divide which has a number of effects - two examples being the elite competion runs the risk of becoming stale and the challenge cup becomes devalued due to its predictability. And, if in my model we are going to become a player nursery for Union (which is far from a certainty) then a wider semi-pro competion would be more attractive to me. Ideally I would like to see two strong integrated competitions and the RL family is united again :D :lol:


Two great points about a stale competition (which is guaranteed unless the 12 clubs can compete such that they are up one year and down another - something Hetherington spoke about a few weeks back) and the cup.

For me Union has it's massive financial strength, but I do believe League has a strength in the game itself. Whether it's a better game than Union or not who knows as long as enough people prefer to watch and play it. Certainly people outside M62 land find it attractive.

#534 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,369 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 05:07 PM

Union wont/cant move on League especially in Yorkshire as it doesnt have the money really and I know very few people who play/follow League that have that much of an interest in Union. Union is going backwards in the North really and you can see this by the strength of Yorkshire teams and how many play the game compared to say 1995 or even 2002. Most kids are Soccer fans and Soccer is the main problem as it has so much money and exposure and the power it has on kids. I doubt our game will ever lose that many players to Union, even if SL ended up Part time. The Northern clubs dont have the money really to take on many fulltime players except Sale and maybe Newcastle if that. Union certainly does not have the money it once did- look at how many clubs lose money for instance. A couple of the top players maybe, but then I could see more going to the NRL. The fans wouldnt watch switch to watching Union. Most I know would just follow Soccer in some way and keep an eye out maybe for Rugby or just drop it all together and forget about it- I know many who have done this. The biggest threat to League ( and Union etc) is and always will be Soccer

#535 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,571 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 08:52 PM

Union clubs have a salary cap (loosely appiled) of upwards of £3m? The French clubs spend even more and many UK players now play union in France. To me, if union wanted to raid Rugby's top players it would have made a better fist of it by now both here and in France. Our game can easily cope with the odd raid every season.
I'd be more worried if suddenly union's junior and academy teams were swallowing up whole teams and areas where Rugby is strong. We couldn't suddenly lose an area like the Leeds or Oldham for example and then expect Cornwall and Lincolnshire to take up developing the player pool.
My concern is over the size of the player pool, which to me, has developed into a policy to shrink it by stealth - reduce SL teams and push players further down the ladder, cast them off if they don't make it, disenfranchise others, make the running of academy and junior teams more difficult at levels below SL, reduction in Sport England monies and redundancies of Development Officers, etc. Its not a great picture for the player pool. This will happen over the next few years and other areas will not immedialtely refresh the player pool, no matter how much effort and vision clubs and individuals bring to RL. Once juniors are gone, the structures and interest will take longer to return.
To lose all of that for the upside of a 5% increase in attendances at SL games and a few thousand extra viewers to satisfy the paymasters is incomparable IMO.
The earlier poster makes a good point about sterility of the top level. The Challenge Cup has to come back to prominence, but if the gap between top level SL and the rest continues to grow, well thats another negative that the Challenge Cup will have to cope with. I hope that the 2013 World Cup provides some positivity and broadens RL's appeal and influence within UK and elsewhere, beyond its current, shrinking footprint.

#536 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,907 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:20 AM

Waiting for what ?

Steal our players ?

One of the threats is that our players will turn to Union if we don't offer high enough wages. Spreading the Sky money more thinly won't help this at all.


The game is between a rock and a hard place on that one. If we contract to ten teams, thats 120 top level players cut adrift who will be targets for Union. If we reduce wages and stay at 14 teams, then we might also lose players due to lower wages.

My hope would be that any wage reductions would be temporary whilst the lower teams stabilise and move to profitabilty. Once that is achieved, further progress might be able to be made to higher the wage scale but this time in a manner that the clubs can afford.

For instance, if we dump Salford, Sale will take over the players and the area and the whole game will suffer.

If we dump Castleford, Leeds RU could strengthen from taking the ex Cas players.

If we dump London, all the juniors being produced in London by the amateur teams there will likely be picked up by the London Area RU teams.

#537 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,907 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:59 AM

1. It's been a huge success for the game and saved the game of course it has. Oddly the only ones who disagree avidly support clubs disenfranchised by "greedy 'n' 'Orrible" Superleague.

2. This is why player production costs have been moved on to the CC, this is why two or three big loss making SL clubs whose loss making activities throttle their near neighbours progress towards the top of SL will IMHO be cut. The extra SKY funds released will cut losses/increase profits at other clubs. This is why the RFL/SLE are taking a chance on Toulouse having the money and generating a French TV contract. If that's not enough either SKY funds can be distributed according to need or the salary cap can go down £100K.

3. No I'm not an accountant, but I am in and amongst business so know the realities.

Superleague clubs turn over over £4,000,000 a year several WELL OVER that

Championship clubs turn over less than £1,000,000 a year. The level of cost cutting will not bridge that gap at all because it is likely the clubs with the three worst turnovers will be dumped anyway.

4. Superleague then may retain the opportunity for clubs like Hull (look closely at what Pearson is doing) to get crowds back to 14,000, and Wakefield to get up to 10,000 into Newmarket. Over the remaining clubs you would find the average crowd would shoot well over 10,000. Again their turnovers would remain high if not higher.

Moving back to 12 clubs is a logical and workable plan not because I wishfully think it is, but because the figures stack up. If you disagree do your own figures and logic and show me where I am wrong.

As for the idea RL needs all it's clubs, then you need to explain why? Whats the logic??

Many CC clubs don't produce players any more, many don't attract fans and lurch from crisis to crisis. You dreamt of Oldham yet Sheddings will tell you it's St.Annes, Waterhead whoever that are the vibrant clubs producing the players, from the schools where they learn the game. We have more clubs than ever of the vibrant type who are the roots of our game. As sheddings says the local amateurs even pay the players more than the senior club.

I'd like you to look at the figures again for SL and tell me why it's so important to keep the small trad semi pro clubs alive.


Firstly, neither CC clubs or SL clubs produce the players. All the players start out their rugby league life at an amateur club. SL picks off the best, except when their scouting system messes up, but the rest either go to CC clubs or open age amateur clubs.So the player production argument is a non sequitur.

Now, when the children grow up and are not professional players or amateur players but are teenagers with limited disposable income, they should become fans of the game. If they live in a SL club area, fine this is what will happen.

If they live in a CC club area they should go to see their local club. If the club is too weak or dead this will not happen. They will walk away from the game. Soccer is everywhere. They will not flock miles away to the nearest SL club. If the CC club dies altogether this will accelerate this trend. The whole footprint of the game will decrease. The area will cease to be RL orientated. I and several of my friends played junior rugby league but many many more went to support Keighley, who did not play at all. If Keighley had died they would have been lost to the game. They will not flock to Bradford to watch the Bulls.

The game is not so strong that it can afford this. The CC clubs are needed to be the focal point of the game in their area.The CC clubs have sunk to a low ebb almost to the point where they do not attract the local population.The game cannot afford this.

I believe there is light at the end of the tunnel. The three Cumbrian clubs are all on the up and slowly increasing their attendances ( By the way, which SL club should they support in your theory of regional superpowers ).

The South Yorkshire clubs have both been successful, made a profit, and are slowly increasing their support.

London Skolars continue to beat the odds and will have company next season from Hemel and Oxford.

The Welsh teams are also making ecouraging progress. Which SL club should their supporters flock to.

Gateshead have arisen from the dead and seem to be strengthening and have been playing local players. Which SL club should their supporters go to watch and where should these kids from the strong amateur team look to for a pro opportunity if they shoild fold.

The heavy woollen duo are thriving. Are you advocating they should fold to boost Huddersfield or Wakefield.? It would lose the game players, coaches, administrators and yes supporters.

The big three Leigh, Halifax and Featherstone are slowly getting bigger and better.Keighley are trying hard to get to their level.

All these clubs are the focal point of RL in their respective areas. It is regressive to lose them. They are important and valuable. They need more success and progress and hopefully it will happen.

All the CC clubs are valuable. They are all part of the larger RL disapora.

Hopefully the feeder clubs will also strengthen and not fade away as parasitic A teams.

There is strength to be had from all parts of the fabric of the game. If all the lower teams died, I think all the components these areas bring to the game would be lost. It is not all about SL. Nor in my opinion is it about contracting SL so we can support an eight team rump competition, ( given that two teams will be from France )

If there was nothing left of the game but SL teams, I think we would become marginalised, too small to matter.

The examples from the most successful game in the country, soccer, is that the lower leagues have value, even the non league teams are in the hierachal pyramid. Not only that there is advancement on merit. Bradford, Barnsley, Blackpool, Stoke, West Brom etc etc can have their moment in the sun. Some, like Sunderland and Newcastle and Stoke even manage to stay there.

We would be foolish to dilute and downsize and destroy our game until there were only 8 profesional teams in the whole of the country. The lower level teams are important and an integral part of the whole that constitues Rugby League in this country. They need mofre support, not a death sentence.

#538 Wanderer

Wanderer
  • Coach
  • 103 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:36 AM

Well said keighley!

#539 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,893 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:00 AM

1. Firstly, neither CC clubs or SL clubs produce the players. All the players start out their rugby league life at an amateur club. So the player production argument is a non sequitur.

2. Now, when the children grow up they should become fans of the game. If they live in a SL club area, fine this is what will happen. If they live in a CC club area they should go to see their local club. If the club is too weak or dead this will not happen. They will walk away from the game.

3. If there was nothing left of the game but SL teams, I think we would become marginalised, too small to matter.


1. Quite the opposite. Say it to yourself again "Championship Clubs do not produce players the amateur game does"

Therefore Championship clubs are not important to player production. The amateur game is.

Nor are they contributing to attracting paying fans beyond the average of 1,000 a club they do get through the gates.

2, Simplistic and totally inaccurate. You can't put people in boxes and you can't say people will be made to like soccer.

If they live in Leigh, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale and they want to follow RL they can and do go to Wigan

If they live in Shipley, Baildon, Leeds, Batley, Dewsbury or wherever and they want to follow RL they can and do go to Bradford

If they live in Wetherby, Harrogate, Barnsley, Dewsbury, Hunslet, or York they can and do go to Leeds

If they live in Blackpool, Halifax, Wakefield, Leeds, or Bradford they can and do go to Hunslet....

If they live anywhere but Castleford they can and do go to castleford as Cas Vegas outlined on this board when he discussed all the people he knew that supported Castleford.

3. We are ALREADY marginalised. Get a map of Britain and felt tip pen any county (split Yorkshire into ridings) and colour in the places where more than 3,000 people pay to watch RL.

You will get three places only.

We're doing fantastically well for a game that is marginalised at pro level.

3. Your statement is a nonsense and makes no commercial or sporting sense. Here's the facts to chew on......

a. People are attracted to sport by the sports being played at a high level. People go on tennis courts because Andy Murray wins at Wimbledon, Because they want to be Bradley Wiggins, because they want to be Wayne Rooney, because they want to be Sam Tomkins. They want to watch the best as well.

Rugby League needs a strong superleague.

b. Rugby league needs semi pro clubs in places that have a market for it isolated because of distances to SL clubs so we need our clubs in West Cumbria, Barrow, North London, Gloucester, Hemel, Coventry, Gateshead, South Wales etc.

If we ever had the money to subsidise clubs these would be the ones we must give the money to so one day they may become SL clubs if the games fortunes ever changed dramatically.

c. Regardless of your assertions the figures stack up.

Since RL has concentrated the money on an elite number of big clubs attendances have risen 50%

You plans to reverse this would ruin the game......

Edited by The Parksider, 25 October 2012 - 01:39 PM.


#540 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,893 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:00 AM

Well said keighley!


Not at all.

Care to deal with the points?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users