222 replies to this topic

[thundergaz]

Robin and Lowfield are bang on the money gav you teams have sold your souls and are feeder clubs that's a fact and I would rather our team be relegated than link up with a SL club that's how much I feel a feeder club your teams are.Also the RFL would love a Wigan b team Leeds b etc in the championship now they have need I say anymore

Edited by thundergaz, 24 October 2012 - 12:30 AM.

[Ramite]

Gaz I think its abit easier in fevs position to say I'd rather be relegated when is very unlikely to happen. Maybe some fans have forgotten what it's like to struggle at the bottom of the table.

[Robin Evans]

I certainly haven't ramite. Clubs, like people must stand or fall by their decisions. I believe these "arrangements" are wrong for the game as a whole and does indeed make the host a feeder club. Call it what you will. Describe the arrangement how you want, but that's what they are.
The efficacy and ethics of these couplings will be borne out over time.
It just feels to me the champ clubs have bent over and taken what sl gives em. Again, time will tell if my histrionics are valid or just pish in the wind!!

Edited by Robin Evans, 24 October 2012 - 07:21 AM.

[distantdog]

Robin and Lowfield are bang on the money gav you teams have sold your souls and are feeder clubs that's a fact and I would rather our team be relegated than link up with a SL club that's how much I feel a feeder club your teams are.Also the RFL would love a Wigan b team Leeds b etc in the championship now they have need I say anymore

How judgemental of you, and the irony is unbelievable when you very publically decided to wander over to support a nearby local SL team. Stop talking about selling souls when you have utterly no idea what are the reasons behind the link-ups or partnerships or whatever these are called.

And how do you know that the RL would love a Wigan B team to be in the Championship. Presumably you have the ear of the RL hierarchy!!

Featherstone supporters should be happy to be where they are, but I am not really clear why they suddenly feel the need to pass judgement on the the actions of other clubs.

[Robin Evans]

It's not for me to judge distant one but I do think this direction will have a damaging effect on development and the game below sl and as that affects my club I reserve the right to make objective comment.
Like I said in my previous post time will be the greater judge but if the decisions to flog these arrangements are the wrong ones it will be the game below sl that will take the brunt........ again!

[distantdog]

It's not for me to judge distant one but I do think this direction will have a damaging effect on development and the game below sl and as that affects my club I reserve the right to make objective comment.
Like I said in my previous post time will be the greater judge but if the decisions to flog these arrangements are the wrong ones it will be the game below sl that will take the brunt........ again!

Of course time will tell, and I have previously stated I have an uneasy feeling about this myself, as I am concerned about the identity of my own club. However, I certainly did not feel the need to criticise Swinton, Hunslet et al for their connections. Surely it is up to those clubs to run their businesses as they see fit. Whether we agree with it really does not matter. I just find the statements about selling souls a little tiresome.

[Robin Evans]

Fair comment. I can live with that.
But., you do have to acknowledge that individual clubs decisions do have a knock on effect on the competition and the game in a wider sense. Those decisions then do affect my club so I can see why people proliferate such sound bites.
But yes I take your comment

[Tom Coates]

We seem to have reached the point in the debate where the response from the doubters is "you can say what you like but you're still a feeder club", and when that happens there is very little point in trying to argue logically using facts and evidence.

Although, I am keen to know how it is possible to "sell your soul" when the Championship club is free to pull out of the agreement at any point!

[oldrover]

if we were floundering at the bottom end of the division, then it's quite possible that fev might go for this option. but as a supporter for over 50 years i am not sure i could go along with them. it even bugs me that these days we have to go out of the area to find half backs. do people not remember what the objectives of s/l were at it's inception, and how does that compare with how it is now. as for tom saying "we can pull out at any time". i would like to see how many clubs have the nuts to do that.

[Gav Wilson]

We seem to have reached the point in the debate where the response from the doubters is "you can say what you like but you're still a feeder club", and when that happens there is very little point in trying to argue logically using facts and evidence.

Although, I am keen to know how it is possible to "sell your soul" when the Championship club is free to pull out of the agreement at any point!

I'm leaving them to it, I've had enough. There's no room for reasoned debate here. I'll just let them carry on believing that the game will be dead within 5 years, its the only thing that seems to make them truly happy.

In the meantime I'm off to go and support my team in the real world.

[Tom Coates]

It isn't really about "having the nuts" to pull out. It's about waiting to see how the partnership pans out, figuring out what benefits we're getting from it and then making a decision based on the conclusions we reach.

If it's clear that it's damaging our club then why would we continue?

We're all Championship clubs, but what works for Featherstone, Halifax and Sheffield doesn't work for everyone. It's important that people keep that in mind.

[oldrover]

It isn't really about "having the nuts" to pull out. It's about waiting to see how the partnership pans out, figuring out what benefits we're getting from it and then making a decision based on the conclusions we reach.

is that in the real world, or gavs version of it. i wait in anticipation to see who is the first club to pull out if it;s not going well. oh, bye gav.

[Griff]

So, essentially, what you are saying is that you are against all kinds of loans and dual-registration agreements where the parent club has the power to recall its own players.

Yes. We had a perfectly good loan system where you knew you would be able to call on a player for a fixed time. We've tried dual reg at Sheffield - it's fine if the players aren't called back but - with Kyle Briggs, for example - you never knew from one week to the next whether he'd play.

Not a headache I'd want or need if I were a head coach.

[Griff]

My eyes are open thanks. They will play if they have earned their spot.

.... and if the Superleague club lets them come out to play.

As discussed above.

[Griff]

Aye they are. We quibble over definition but that's what they are.
If you're happy with the "arrangement", however you wish to label it, fair do's. C'est la vie!

Damn. I agree with Robin.

[Robin Evans]

Damn. I agree with Robin.

It's a bug ger that init?

[intheshed]

It isn't really about "having the nuts" to pull out. It's about waiting to see how the partnership pans out, figuring out what benefits we're getting from it and then making a decision based on the conclusions we reach.

If it's clear that it's damaging our club then why would we continue?

We're all Championship clubs, but what works for Featherstone, Halifax and Sheffield doesn't work for everyone. It's important that people keep that in mind.

Again, its not about whether it benefits Dewsbury. Of course Dewsbury currently think it helps them and will only continue for as long as they believe that to be the case.

If its to the benefit of Dewsbury but to the detriment of the competitions integrity......

Individual clubs, championship or SL, will always represent their own best interests, of that i have no doubt. I want to know what protections are in place to prevent a championship club deciding their interests over the season are best served by twinning even if it means accepting occasional subservience that would be to the detriment of the competitions integrity.

I outlined earlier why i was asking about how the cap would work, to date no answer.

Keith T has brought up the issue of the impracticalities of twinning for Cumbrian, or indeed any other geographically isolated club, but again no meaningful answers.

[intheshed]

I'm leaving them to it, I've had enough. There's no room for reasoned debate here. I'll just let them carry on believing that the game will be dead within 5 years, its the only thing that seems to make them truly happy.

In the meantime I'm off to go and support my team in the real world.

Plenty of room for debate, how about this for starters:

The following statements are incompatible:

a) York's independance is in no way compromised by their twinning agreement with Hull.

Gary Thornton's final decision on selection of dr players will be informed by the opinion of Hulls coaching staff.

Discuss.

[Simon Hall]

If its to the benefit of Dewsbury but to the detriment of the competitions integrity......

There's quite a few benefits clubs like Fev get from the RFL that are "to the detriment of the competition's integrity" in my opinion (and that of some club's chairmen). So if we're on about clubs being treated fairly, regardless of location, then it's time some supporters looked a bit closer to home.

[Griff]

It's a bug ger that init?

Gutted, mate.