Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Oldham


  • Please log in to reply
402 replies to this topic

#141 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,175 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:33 PM

I could not let this one go by. Firstly no interest in Oldham when you were schooled there in 1964-68.
Let me bring your attention to the 1963/64 Challenge Cup semi v HullKR, drawn once, then abandoned second game whilst infront and finally beaten in the third game with attendances of 28,556, 27,209 and 33.003 respectively. 1966/67 Lancashire Cup Final against Wigan Att 14,193. So without digging out more facts, i would say there was interest in RL in the town then. Oldham did not ask for a bail out and then sell their ground in 87. That may have been the time when they sold their training ground, but the club was still thriving having got to another CC Cup semi the season before and made it to Old Trafford the year after to beat Fev in a divisional play off final. Watersheddings was eventually sold to a council holding company in 1995, for a much reduced price, under the promise of a new stadium for joint use with Oldham Athletic or a single use Stadium if they did not come on board. We Oldham fans are still waiting or did the council deliver with Whitebank?


97 (apparently)

#142 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,175 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:37 PM

Here's my list of smaller clubs who got to "play with the big boys" Barrow (won the lancs cup 1983) Sheffield (won the RL cup) Fev (won all sorts!!) Gateshead ( played superleague) Leigh (won cup and league under Murphy) Donny (first division) Dewsbury (were champs in 1973) Keighley (Cougarmania years) York (made an RLCC semi against Wigan) Blackpool (got to division one and beat leeds at headingley) Hunslet (twice in the top division) Workington (played Superleague) Oldham (played superleague)


Gateshead were not "a smaller club who got to play with the big boys". They were dropped into SL without having been a lower-league side.

Cougars never did get to play with the big boys. They were denied promotion and the bubble burst.

#143 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,800 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:53 PM

1. I know you don't.

2. Oldham born but won't be listed as oldham internationals in the records

3. Had a look - nothing major in over 60 years.

Last time Oldham won anything major people didn't have TV's.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/rugby-league-cup-final-2
Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#144 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,393 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:35 PM

My thoughts entirely.


+1

#145 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,393 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 05:54 PM

Gateshead were not "a smaller club who got to play with the big boys". They were dropped into SL without having been a lower-league side.

Cougars never did get to play with the big boys. They were denied promotion and the bubble burst.


Not only did Gateshead get dropped in to SL but I think I am right in that they did not get any Sky Funding. So much for the expansionist altruistic all for the good of the game SL powerbrokers.

Cougars, don't go there Northern Sol, that brings out the fangs, ground razor sharp, from the anti promotion, only the anointed in SL crowd.

#146 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,393 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 05:59 PM

97 (apparently)


And this left them homeless and wandering in the wilderness like Moses in the desert for about 15 years. It's a miracle of similar biblical proportions that they survived at all.

Now they are back in the promised land of Oldham Borough and hopefully on their way back as a club.

#147 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,942 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 06:04 PM

And this left them homeless and wandering in the wilderness like Moses in the desert for about 15 years. It's a miracle of similar biblical proportions that they survived at all.

Now they are back in the promised land of Oldham Borough and hopefully on their way back as a club.


what do you think got them into that mess?
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#148 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,393 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 06:20 PM

Well look at how it works in RL not soccer where there are no player shortages and standards between divisions are not as stark.

2003 Halifax could only afford £400k for wages so that's roughly what they spent. They beat London and didn't win another game after that, and crowds went down and down.

2005 Leigh could not afford full cap and spent what they could, they won two games and went down penniless.

Both clubs survived - nobody died.

Those who support P & R say what's wrong with that. Clubs earn the right to play in SL and if they don't do anything so what, they go down, and another club has a go.

The problem is that the second division RL clubs don't have a professional team like Blackpol FC had when they were promoted nor access to quality professionals they can sign on for a season to add to that strong base.

So anyone promoted have to largely change their team and build a whole new side in a matter of weeks when there aren't the quality players to build it with.

It all becomes a pointless excersise in a way. the other thing to look at is who goes down??

This year Sheffield would have gone up and would have needed a lot of money to build a competetive side and who is there to buy who'd want a one year contract? Widnes would have gone down just as they are trying to build an SL side undoing all the work O'Connor has done. If London or catalans come bottom the RFL won't want to relegate them for sure.

It's not soccer BRK and so to make the transition succesfully you do need a lot of money. Having said that both Crusaders and Wakefield built scratch sides and went well to the shame of established SL clubs who didn't.


What is the difference from having to build a SL team after promotion to building one after being awarded a SL licence. Widnes were awarded a licence and finished bottom. Catalans were awarded a licence and finished bottom.

Hull KR were promoted and stayed up, also Huddesrfield, Wakefield and Castleford. What is the difference.?

Huddersfield and Castleford ( twice) went down but came back and survived.

If Widnes had have gone down this year, then it would be their own fault for recruiting a sub standard team and a poor coaching staff after coasting through their last season in CC and making no effort to recruit properly. They would have survived if O,Connor was the true fan/owner he seems to be and had stuck with them to rebuild for another crack at promotion.

If London had gone down this might not have been a bad thing. The juniors that you rightly laud as having been London born and bred in their team are clearly, talented though they might be, finding it too much of a jump from london amateur RL to SL. A season in CC would be a better fit for them to acclimatise to pro rugby before a leap to SL if the broncos got promotion. They would lose the Sky funding but the reduction in wages expenses and the possible increase in attendances from having, finally, a successful team might well have compensated for that. This would also be a true test of Hughes and his loyalty to the club. If he bailed it would only be a taste of what is to come in any case.

If we ever went back to p and r the status of the French club(s) would have to be thrashed out. If they are relegated, where to, CC or LER for example but it is not an unresolvable problem. The precedent for a French team to operate in CC has already been set with Toulouse's participation at that level for instance.

Finally, that you need money to be in SL is undeniable but, from the state of several existing members of SL, it would appear that the amount of money needed is going to have to be reduced for them to survive. This would make it easier for any promoted club to compete.

#149 The Art of Hand and Foot

The Art of Hand and Foot
  • Coach
  • 591 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 06:28 PM

what do you think got them into that mess?

Who the Isrealites?

Or did you mean God's chosen people!? Who, as we all know are from Oldham!!! Heh heh heh!

Edited by The Art of Hand and Foot, 01 November 2012 - 06:31 PM.


#150 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,393 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 07:06 PM

what do you think got them into that mess?


Well, from what I have read on here, if they were promised a ground by the council if they sold Watersheddings and it didn't materialise, I suspect that would have been a big part of their downfall. i don't know the ins and outs of their demise. I am sure there was also bad management.

I know it was bad for RL. They had been a 1st Div/SL club for a few years before they got into trouble. I remember seeing them play Leeds at Headingley when Hussein M'Barki was one of their backs.

#151 saints10coach

saints10coach
  • Moderator
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 07:09 PM

97 (apparently)

No it was 95 Watersheddings was sold, 97 was when we were relegated from SL and went bust, after playing two seasons at Boundary Park.

#152 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,189 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:36 AM

Gateshead were not "a smaller club who got to play with the big boys". They were dropped into SL without having been a lower-league side.

Cougars never did get to play with the big boys. They were denied promotion and the bubble burst.


Are not Gateshead a smaller club who once were in SL Mr. Pedant?

Are not Keighley a smaller club who aspired to play with the big boys and did so in a famous RLCC game?

No points for nitpicking here........

Edited by The Parksider, 02 November 2012 - 06:04 AM.


#153 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,189 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:37 AM

97 (apparently)


more nitpicking gone wrong......

#154 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,189 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:43 AM

What is the difference from (1) having to build a SL team after promotion to (2) building one after being awarded a SL licence.


(1) in this P & R scenario unless you have pots of money you have no chance of building a side to kep you up in the one year you have to stay up, given you have to dismiss the part time players, and then have to recruit from a market in which SL clubs already have had first pick.

(2) In this scenario no hopers don't get a licence, but clubs with money do. They then get three years so they can have a realistic chance of building a pro team and surviving in SL.

The difference is massive, but hey let's bring back P & R because dreams are made of such stuff.

#155 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,393 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 02:58 AM

(1) in this P & R scenario unless you have pots of money you have no chance of building a side to kep you up in the one year you have to stay up, given you have to dismiss the part time players, and then have to recruit from a market in which SL clubs already have had first pick.

(2) In this scenario no hopers don't get a licence, but clubs with money do. They then get three years so they can have a realistic chance of building a pro team and surviving in SL.

The difference is massive, but hey let's bring back P & R because dreams are made of such stuff.


THe evidence is that both licencing and p and r, as a method of selecting teams for SL have both had their successes and failures. For Leigh, as an example of a failed p and r team, you have Crusaders, Paris and Gateshead as examples of failed teams who were appointed to SL.

For Catalans, as an example of a successful appointed team in SL, you have Huddersfield and Wakefield as examples of succesful p and r entrants to SL.

For an example of a moderately successful appointed team in SL you have Salford and London. For examples of moderately successful p and r teams in SL you have Hull KR and Castleford.

So the evidence is that neither method of selecting members of SL has been any more of a failure, a success or somewhere in between than the other.

The reason why p and r is the better method of selecting the members of SL is because it gives every team a chance to be there if they get things right and is not a subjective popularity contest voted on by exisiting members based on phoney conditions which produces farcical results like the Crusaders and Bradford.

Now, as you like to end your posts with a belligerent statement,I will reciprorate nin kind and I will invite you to deal with that and explain why appointed SL members have no better of a track record in Sl than those in there as a result of p and r.

#156 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,189 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:17 AM

The evidence is that neither method of selecting members of SL has been any more of a failure, a success or somewhere in between than the other.

The reason why p and r is the better method of selecting the members of SL is because it gives every team a chance to be there.


You conveniently confuse the failure of individual clubs, with an alleged failure of the system for selecting and creating the strongest division.

Relegating clubs automatically forces them to fail as Professional clubs, promoting skint clubs does the same.

Licensing does not provide any guarantees that clubs will succeed in SL, it merely picks the 14 clubs with the best chance of surviving. You won't engage in this point because it doesn't suit you.

It doesn't fail because clubs like Wakefield or Bradford fail.

It actually limits failure, whilst P & R promotes it.

Had P & R been in this year a rich club would have been forced into a league with a £300K cap and a poor club would have been set up to struggle badly.

Good old P & R - gives everyone a dogs chance.

#157 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,942 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:30 AM

THe evidence is that both licencing and p and r, as a method of selecting teams for SL have both had their successes and failures. For Leigh, as an example of a failed p and r team, you have Crusaders, Paris and Gateshead as examples of failed teams who were appointed to SL.

For Catalans, as an example of a successful appointed team in SL, you have Huddersfield and Wakefield as examples of succesful p and r entrants to SL.

For an example of a moderately successful appointed team in SL you have Salford and London. For examples of moderately successful p and r teams in SL you have Hull KR and Castleford.

So the evidence is that neither method of selecting members of SL has been any more of a failure, a success or somewhere in between than the other.

The reason why p and r is the better method of selecting the members of SL is because it gives every team a chance to be there if they get things right and is not a subjective popularity contest voted on by exisiting members based on phoney conditions which produces farcical results like the Crusaders and Bradford.

Now, as you like to end your posts with a belligerent statement,I will reciprorate nin kind and I will invite you to deal with that and explain why appointed SL members have no better of a track record in Sl than those in there as a result of p and r.

crusaders, gateshead and paris failed once and were out. They failed because they were ill judged projects
Leigh, Oldham and the rest failed repeatedly over a period of 23 years. They were tied into a system that ensured that this would happen, and was exacerbated by the incompetence, lack of foresight, and lack of acumen of those running the clubs.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#158 saints10coach

saints10coach
  • Moderator
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:40 AM

The failure of Oldham to use an example and the success of Castleford on the flip side. Oldham were relegated and could not afford the squad wages they had to play in SL. Cas were given a parachute payment to accommodate this. If Oldham had have been given a parachute payment, we would have probably gone on to compete after being relegated. remember in 97 when Oldham went bust, the proviso for our re-entry to the league was that we competed for our first season with no money whatsoever from the RFL. I cannot ever remember this being inflicted on any club, before or since.

#159 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,942 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:54 AM

The failure of Oldham to use an example and the success of Castleford on the flip side. Oldham were relegated and could not afford the squad wages they had to play in SL. Cas were given a parachute payment to accommodate this. If Oldham had have been given a parachute payment, we would have probably gone on to compete after being relegated. remember in 97 when Oldham went bust, the proviso for our re-entry to the league was that we competed for our first season with no money whatsoever from the RFL. I cannot ever remember this being inflicted on any club, before or since.


were there parachute payments when Oldham and other notorious yo yo teams did exactly the same thing diring 22 years of automatic prom and reg?
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#160 saints10coach

saints10coach
  • Moderator
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:56 PM

were there parachute payments when Oldham and other notorious yo yo teams did exactly the same thing during 22 years of automatic prom and reg?

No there was not. But they were not needed, as in those days the money was distributed evenly from top to bottom, so you did not have this massive void between divisions.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users