84 replies to this topic

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Glad the Leeds and Fev link up missed from the OP was brought up.

it's been in place for quite some time
I blame hetherington.

having a joint lottery and sponsoring the Rovers is a crafty way of shafting them and selling them down the river: makes you sick.

[marklaspalmas]

it's been in place for quite some time
I blame hetherington.

having a joint lottery and sponsoring the Rovers is a crafty way of shafting them and selling them down the river: makes you sick.

Yearrrah.

A joint lottery isn't exactly the kind of link up the thread is about. It's more about the sharing of players and how that will work.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Yearrrah.

A joint lottery isn't exactly the kind of link up the thread is about. It's more about the sharing of players and how that will work.

my original post was in response to this by T mullaney:

"It's a SL money saving exercise first and foremost, you're absolutely right. When did the SL clubs ever show the slightest concern for the plight of the Championship? If they don't get exactly what they want out of this they'll drop their subservient 'partners' like a ton of bricks."

when did Rovers show the slightest concern for the plight of clubs below them? Their conduct regarding recompensing amateur clubs for talented players is a clue.

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 21 November 2012 - 10:39 AM.

[marklaspalmas]

my original post was in response to this by T mullaney:

Yes, I do know about your dislike of certian phraseology connected with the subject at hand.

I don't think that should detract from general point which, for mine, is that no-one really knows how it's all going to pan out.

Therefore questions about the real motives behind it all, and questions about information gaps in how the scheme works seem valid.

[sweaty craiq]

Fev have a closer link up to Leeds than we do with Wigan, yet that link was not included initially. Pontificating with dual standards is always amusing.
The fact of the matter is that most non SL clubs will only survive if they are taken over by a SL club this way. Leigh, Fax, Fev and Sheffield have avoided the takeover as they have ambition and varying potential to realise it, but working with and learning from a bigger neighbour has potential benefits for both clubs.
I am uneasy with our links with Wigan, due to our SL ambition next time, but time will tell if it is a good partnership or not.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Fev have a closer link up to Leeds than we do with Wigan, yet that link was not included initially. Pontificating with dual standards is always amusing.

there's a lot of it about qv , although to be fair mark wasn't doing that

[shaun mc]

What I can't square is that the SL clubs with all the finances at their disposal, commercial acumen, hard-nosed businessmen, plus the countries best coaches, plus antipodean coaches and methods, plus youth, academy and player development pathways, plus scouting networks and link-ups with places outside the heartlands, plus all the other aspects of RL that are involved with being at the pinnacle of the game in this country - why the hell could they only organise a second team/academy structure that was deemed to be not fit for purpose??

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Yes, I do know about your dislike of certian phraseology connected with the subject at hand.

I don't think that should detract from general point which, for mine, is that no-one really knows how it's all going to pan out.

Therefore questions about the real motives behind it all, and questions about information gaps in how the scheme works seem valid.

wise words mark, although it isn't just the phraseology, it's the whingeing and the double standards.

[The Parksider]

I don't get the Domesday scenario you paint. This is about player development not club development. They may not be mutually exclusive but they are different subjects.

Fair enough, thank you for your answer. However in the Hunslet-Leeds link up the subject matter is indeed player development for both clubs, and it is an interesting thought to ponder on how Hunslet replacing Leeds U23's will work in terms of player development.

If it works so well that Hunslet (or Batley or Dewsbury) rise up the championship to the top it may block the ambition of the independent clubs. That's a big issue in terms of club development, and fair game to ponder on too.

[The Parksider]

One other thing. Where does he say that? All I can find is your interpretation.

"We want to create a player pathway for both Leeds clubs ultimately Leeds will get the better players because we play in the championship and they are in Superleague. This whole arrangement can make us a bigger and better championship club".

So Leeds dominate and Hunslet take best of the rest with a view to being top dogs in the Championship. If the latter comes to pass...........

[The Parksider]

When you have your "BIG TEAM" competition of 8 British clubs,

You might think your dream of a big time SL and sod the rest is nirvana for the game,

If you start your reply by typing absolute garbage and making it an attack on me rather than discussing the reality then alas we can go no further.

[The Parksider]

So if one big SL club exists in the Calder area at some time in the future are you saying that the other two will eventually be left with next to no fans in say 10 or 20 years time? With respect, all three clubs in the Wakefield area have strong fan bases, Fev for instance increased their attendances last season by 38% despite not being in SL. No indication of any sort of defection to either of the SL clubs there then. So when do you reckon the drift towards the bigger clubs might take a grip? SL is approaching its 18th season. Comparing the rest with what's happened to Hunslet is a mistake.

Well it may suit your argument to say what happened to Bramley and Hunslet in Leeds cannot happen in the Wakefield area.

When I started watching RL in Leeds Leeds were big and won trophies, none of the Wakey three win anything so the conditions are not yet there to see one club dominate the other two for a sustained period of time. However if ever one of the clubs ends up being a far bigger attraction then that process may begin. It all depends on one of these three loss making clubs starting to turn in a profit and starting to be able to compete with the big clubs. There's no sign of Newmarket yet as Kenny points out.

Despite not being in the first division Hunslet increased their 267 crowd against Huyton in 1972/3 to 4,000 in 1973/4 how many percent is that and what did it matter when eventually Leeds total domination saw us end up at 150 fans a couple of years back.

Around 1974 Bramley had a strong base of 1,500 fans at matches 38 years on they are gone.

It's great you can draw 2,000 fans Terry going forwards, but when you went backwards the crowds dropped to 800 IIRC, you just cannot dismiss the correlation between success and failure and fanbases, how about Bradford Northern 1947 to 1964.

How about HKR's demise to 1,000 fans in the second division. If Hudgell had not come along where would that "strong fan base" of the early 1980's be now? Without success fans disappear very quickly leaving clubs needing rescuing. Eventually nobody wants to rescue them like Bramley, or rescue comes in the form of playing in CC1 before a few hundred fans until one has to tie up with an SL club like Hunslet has with Leeds "for survival".

Had either of the "Rovers" not been rescued and revived they could have been the ones doing the link ups with Hull and Wakefield.

It's not a mistake to reflect on what's happened in Leeds, exactly the same conditions can come about anywhere and have done, only today the situation is accentuated as the have's and have not's are poles apart.

Edited by The Parksider, 21 November 2012 - 03:34 PM.

[del capo]

I may be reading these arrangements wrong but isn't the integrity of the Championship competition being protected by limiting the number of SL potential dual registered / loan players who can be included in the match day 17 to 5?

Those Championship sides that do not have a formal arrangement cannot have dual registered players but can still have up to 5 loan players from SL or other CC clubs in their matchday 17. That seems to provide a sort of 'levelish ' playing field.

What I haven't got my head around yet is who is actually paying these players for their matchday efforts . Presumably that is a matter of negotiation between the individual and clubs concerned. Do the CC clubs pay enough for it ever to become a Salary Cap issue for them ?

[keighley]

If you start your reply by typing absolute garbage and making it an attack on me rather than discussing the reality then alas we can go no further.

Touchy, touchy. Any perceived attack on you is verboten but you can throw around phrases like "absolute garbage" with impunity.

So lets take the personal "you" out of the discussion and phrase it like this to make the same point

" When SL has reduced it's numbers to the much discussed 10 teams and when two of those teams are in France and one is in London with no fans, then maybe those in charge think it will be nirvana for the game but I don't think so." then the rest of my post follows on as typed,perceived garbage or not.

[keighley]

Well it may suit your argument to say what happened to Bramley and Hunslet in Leeds cannot happen in the Wakefield area.

When I started watching RL in Leeds Leeds were big and won trophies, none of the Wakey three win anything so the conditions are not yet there to see one club dominate the other two for a sustained period of time. However if ever one of the clubs ends up being a far bigger attraction then that process may begin. It all depends on one of these three loss making clubs starting to turn in a profit and starting to be able to compete with the big clubs. There's no sign of Newmarket yet as Kenny points out.

Despite not being in the first division Hunslet increased their 267 crowd against Huyton in 1972/3 to 4,000 in 1973/4 how many percent is that and what did it matter when eventually Leeds total domination saw us end up at 150 fans a couple of years back.

Around 1974 Bramley had a strong base of 1,500 fans at matches 38 years on they are gone.

It's great you can draw 2,000 fans Terry going forwards, but when you went backwards the crowds dropped to 800 IIRC, you just cannot dismiss the correlation between success and failure and fanbases, how about Bradford Northern 1947 to 1964.

How about HKR's demise to 1,000 fans in the second division. If Hudgell had not come along where would that "strong fan base" of the early 1980's be now? Without success fans disappear very quickly leaving clubs needing rescuing. Eventually nobody wants to rescue them like Bramley, or rescue comes in the form of playing in CC1 before a few hundred fans until one has to tie up with an SL club like Hunslet has with Leeds "for survival".

Had either of the "Rovers" not been rescued and revived they could have been the ones doing the link ups with Hull and Wakefield.

It's not a mistake to reflect on what's happened in Leeds, exactly the same conditions can come about anywhere and have done, only today the situation is accentuated as the have's and have not's are poles apart.

Two points

1. Whilst you can use the Leeds city example for the decline scenario when one team dominates, it must be qualified. Hunslet were unique in that their very town/suburb was practically destroyed and their ground was disposed of in some kind of surreptitious fashion Bramley also had a decent little ground with a "only for sports" clause in the deed of gift and that was circumvented and the ground disposed of. These circumstances did not exist in the Calder area.

2. You are totally correct that there is a direct correlation between success and attendances.

Even more reason therefore to not ring fence SL. The stymied CC clubs should reap the reward of their succeses on the field with the increased crowds they would get once promoted or granted a licence.

[The Parksider]

So lets take the personal "you" out of the discussion and phrase it like this to make the same point

" When SL has reduced it's numbers to the much discussed 10 teams and when two of those teams are in France and one is in London with no fans, then maybe those in charge think it will be nirvana for the game but I don't think so."

That's a lot better and far more civil, and a better platform for a debate.

However it's 12 teams that is the most discussed situation not 10

And your post actually said 8 British teams.

So what is your point based on?

Edited by The Parksider, 21 November 2012 - 06:22 PM.

[The Parksider]

Two points

1. Hunslet were unique in that their very town/suburb was practically destroyed and their ground was disposed. Bramley also had a decent little ground with a "only for sports" clause in the deed of gift and that was circumvented and the ground disposed of. These circumstances did not exist in the Calder area.

2. You are totally correct that there is a direct correlation between success and attendances.

3 Even more reason therefore to not ring fence SL. The stymied CC clubs should reap the reward of their succeses on the field with the increased crowds they would get once promoted or granted a licence.

1. The grounds were lost due to the demise of these clubs. The demise of these clubs came first. Your point is irrelevent.

2. Glad we agree

3. More dreams and fantasies

Open your eyes, look it up and see what "increased crowds" "CC Clubs" "reaped from success on the field" "Once promoted or granted a licence".

1999 Wakefield promoted - reaped 4250 crowds
2003 Fartown promoted - reaped 4722 crowds
2004 salford promoted - reaped 3994 crowds
2005 leigh promoted - reaped 4750 crowds
2006 HKR promoted - reaped 7160 crowds
2007 Cas promoted reaped 7501 crowds
2012 Widnes - license - reaped 5.800 crowds

Five of these clubs ran into serious financial difficulties as would the other two without millionaires at the helm.

Common denominator for every man jack of them. NOT enough fans to survive Superleague.

[Ackydave]

What I can't square is that the SL clubs with all the finances at their disposal, commercial acumen, hard-nosed businessmen, plus the countries best coaches, plus antipodean coaches and methods, plus youth, academy and player development pathways, plus scouting networks and link-ups with places outside the heartlands, plus all the other aspects of RL that are involved with being at the pinnacle of the game in this country - why the hell could they only organise a second team/academy structure that was deemed to be not fit for purpose??

Very good point shaun.

And yet people keep on justifying these "links" by stating that the non SL clubs will benefit from the SL clubs business acumen and apparent superior organisational expertise........?

[Terry Mullaney]

Well it may suit your argument to say what happened to Bramley and Hunslet in Leeds cannot happen in the Wakefield area.

When I started watching RL in Leeds Leeds were big and won trophies, none of the Wakey three win anything so the conditions are not yet there to see one club dominate the other two for a sustained period of time. However if ever one of the clubs ends up being a far bigger attraction then that process may begin. It all depends on one of these three loss making clubs starting to turn in a profit and starting to be able to compete with the big clubs. There's no sign of Newmarket yet as Kenny points out.

Despite not being in the first division Hunslet increased their 267 crowd against Huyton in 1972/3 to 4,000 in 1973/4 how many percent is that and what did it matter when eventually Leeds total domination saw us end up at 150 fans a couple of years back.

Around 1974 Bramley had a strong base of 1,500 fans at matches 38 years on they are gone.

It's great you can draw 2,000 fans Terry going forwards, but when you went backwards the crowds dropped to 800 IIRC, you just cannot dismiss the correlation between success and failure and fanbases, how about Bradford Northern 1947 to 1964.

How about HKR's demise to 1,000 fans in the second division. If Hudgell had not come along where would that "strong fan base" of the early 1980's be now? Without success fans disappear very quickly leaving clubs needing rescuing. Eventually nobody wants to rescue them like Bramley, or rescue comes in the form of playing in CC1 before a few hundred fans until one has to tie up with an SL club like Hunslet has with Leeds "for survival".

Had either of the "Rovers" not been rescued and revived they could have been the ones doing the link ups with Hull and Wakefield.

It's not a mistake to reflect on what's happened in Leeds, exactly the same conditions can come about anywhere and have done, only today the situation is accentuated as the have's and have not's are poles apart.

I take your points Parky and of course a certain amount of success ensures a steady crowd. I can't, however see the day when any of the three clubs from the rhubarb triangle would ever suffer the demise of either Hunslet or Bramley. By the way, when did Rovers average crowds of 800? Not during my lifetime.

[Terry Mullaney]

Yeah, I left out all the imaginary ones. Sorry.

Joint lottery Mark? A business initiative by Leeds which obviously benefits them as well as Rovers if not more so hence the annual match day sponsorship. Hardly a benevolent gesture as some would like to argue. As you say, it's a bit different to the rather more serious subject of the topic at hand. It's just a pity that honest opinions can't be aired on here without targeted aggression and ill mannered retort.