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 /Salford


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
835 replies to this topic

#481 davewd

davewd
  • Facebook
  • 83 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:32 AM

I always enjoyed the ups and downs of P&R at Oldham , you had a poor season results wise got relegated then a good season , lower down. The clubs who suffered for many years used to love Oldham games because they knew their home games would be a nice earner . Unfortunately there are a damn sight more clubs in the same predicament Oldham included.

#482 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,883 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:37 AM

Care to share reasoning behind your answer? Will a businessman with no passion for RL put millions into a club before SL or would he prefer to do it after receivong a million sky money, extra media coverage and having a better product to sell too fans? Its obviously going to be the latter.

Unless he thought it through properly and realised that the former would be more sustainable, but then again he will of probably realised that there is many more better ways of investing a few million.


To get into SL all you need to do is buy the rump of an SL club after it's failed. No need to bother building a championship club, it's too expensive.

If I had the money I would buy Salford and move it to Darlington so I could watch SL. I wouldn't bother ####### about with poxy rules.

#483 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,179 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:05 PM

1. How much of the £250,000,000 you keep banging on about has been directed towards making Batley, Halifax, Sheffield, Yorks, Leigh etc. the equals of the chosen few in Super League

2. Rugby League is not the winner at all, SUPER LEAGUE ELITE is a winner.

3. Are the RFL setting the bar too high to be healthy for the whole game.


1. Steady Mr. M. I'm allowed to bang on about what I want. Not like you to get tetchy.

The answer is NONE. The reason is SKY won't allow the money to go to anyone but the top division and the private investors won't allow their money to go anywhere but their club.

You need to deal with that fact not berate me for repeating it. Remember it's not my fault.

2. Superleague is a big winner and the Championship clubs are the losers. As for the "game" being a winner, I'd say on balance it's a winner.

What people need to do if they disagree is tell me wether the game would be a winner by rejecting all this one sided money on principle???

Or tell me how SKY/Private business can be made to share the money?

What do you think?

3. I think so, I discussed this with Keighley in a all too rare moment when we actually debated it sensibly. We thought a 16 club SL with a £1M salary cap would be an interesting idea with P & R of course.

What do you think.

That I "bang on" too much? ;)

Edited by The Parksider, 03 December 2012 - 12:08 PM.


#484 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,179 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:17 PM

I accept the fact that money men have come in and underpinned certain clubs but the Sky money has not made the sport a winner as there's not enough of it compared to what the major sports receive. Therefore we've been forced into abandoning P & R because there's not enough cash to go around. That, in my opinion, is a very bad thing and has removed much excitement and enjoyment from the pro game. Attendances might be up at the better clubs but at the lower end there's not much incentive to go watch Salford v Cas for example or Widnes v London and its a shame.


That's a pretty fair analysis Terry.

Could we afford to reject "one sided money" on principle though?? Where would the game be then?

The only way to share the money better would seem to be push out to 16 SL clubs reduce the salary cap and go for P & R, and if clubs yo-yo then they yo-yo.

I'm not sure I can find too many holes in that idea, the obvious one may be players drifting away to RU, but SKY money to secure our best professionals remains the same wether 12 or 16 clubs.

I know those most fed up are from clubs like Fax, Leigh Fev and Sheffield. Seems to me there's about 20 clubs to satisfy. All would be satisfied by a 16 club SL.

The only other downer would probably be that the top clubs - those "six or seven" would be secure forever more, whilst the rest played "changing places" building up, going up and being knocked down again in turns.

I could not see anyone growing to challenge Leeds, Hull, Catalans, Saints, Wigan and Wire under thoose conditions. i.e. one minute your a pro club the next your back to semi pro. Imagine the upheaval!!!

HOWEVER I'm sure i'd enjoy it, because those problems won't be mine!

Thoughts....

Edited by The Parksider, 03 December 2012 - 12:30 PM.


#485 saints10coach

saints10coach
  • Moderator
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:28 PM

If SKY won't allow the money to go down to the Championship clubs. The governing body should retain most of the money. Thereby making the SL clubs to adjust their budgets accordingly, probably using more players that have come through the development system and putting less money into 2nd rate imports pockets.

#486 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,069 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:28 PM

yo-yo clubs fail from spending money they don't have. Can't agree with your second statement, either and really don't see how that conclusion could be reached.

#487 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,383 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:33 PM

Oldham will be an "A" team. I'd say the £250,000,000 Superleague has attracted in TV revenues and private finance has been a winner for the game.

Don't you like the game, don't you want it to attract riches??


I love the game, the whole game, not just the top echelon. I love the money that was given to SL to keep Packer down in Australia. SL didn't initially attract anything.

The problem I have is the successful attempts to limit the distribution of that money to the 14 soon to be 10 or 12 unchanging teams and sod the rest. No amount of stadia improvement, junior development, on field success or achieving financial stability counts. It's the "what I have, I hold" strategy of retrenchment and ultimately disaster for the wider game. No one in their right mind can think that going from 37 clubs to 12 is a recipe for success.

#488 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,383 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:51 PM

I've done that and they did it by getting a multi-millionaire to fund them.

Now what???


Obviously they need to find some financing. They had one in the man Quinn who got into some dispute with Hamilton and walked. At least that's what i remember happened. The Oldham fans will have the story.

Now they need to do it again plus start gradual improvement on their own. I think they have started back on the path to respectability. Remember when they were playing at Ashton, relying on the genorousity of a minor non league soccer team out of their town.

Well now they are back in Oldham in their own ground, however humble, and have plans to erect a stand they obtained from the Willows and improve terracing etc etc. They have employed an ambitious young coach, who is recruiting a new team and will attempt to start their climb back up the ladder by getting promoted from CC1.

If they achieve that, hopefully the attendances will start to climb. Featherstone, Halifax, Leigh, Barrow and even Keighley have shown improvement following promotion or on field sucess.

To me that would be step one. The management of Oldham will then need to step up their efforts to find an investor or sponsor or a lottery scheme or whatever. That's for them to sort out. Featherstone seem to have figured it out.I have said several times that all this could take years and maybe never but it can be done as Hull KR, Huddersfield etc have proven.

#489 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,383 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 02:03 PM

1. Steady Mr. M. I'm allowed to bang on about what I want. Not like you to get tetchy.

The answer is NONE. The reason is SKY won't allow the money to go to anyone but the top division and the private investors won't allow their money to go anywhere but their club.

You need to deal with that fact not berate me for repeating it. Remember it's not my fault.

2. Superleague is a big winner and the Championship clubs are the losers. As for the "game" being a winner, I'd say on balance it's a winner.

What people need to do if they disagree is tell me wether the game would be a winner by rejecting all this one sided money on principle???

Or tell me how SKY/Private business can be made to share the money?

What do you think?

3. I think so, I discussed this with Keighley in a all too rare moment when we actually debated it sensibly. We thought a 16 club SL with a £1M salary cap would be an interesting idea with P & R of course.

What do you think.

That I "bang on" too much? ;)


I think Sky need us almost as much as we need them these days. their soccer content has been cut, RL is one of their top sports for viewership.

I think they would seriously consider a different distribution pattern for their money if the RFL were to grow some cojones and hold out for what they want. Is it a risk? Yes, but he who dares wins. It's nowhere near the risk it was. They need us, I really believe that.

#490 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,179 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 02:18 PM

Obviously they need to find some financing. They had one in the man Quinn who got into some dispute with Hamilton and walked. At least that's what i remember happened. The Oldham fans will have the story.

Now they need to do it again plus start gradual improvement on their own. I think they have started back on the path to respectability. Remember when they were playing at Ashton, relying on the genorousity of a minor non league soccer team out of their town.

Well now they are back in Oldham in their own ground, however humble, and have plans to erect a stand they obtained from the Willows and improve terracing etc etc. They have employed an ambitious young coach, who is recruiting a new team and will attempt to start their climb back up the ladder by getting promoted from CC1.

If they achieve that, hopefully the attendances will start to climb. Featherstone, Halifax, Leigh, Barrow and even Keighley have shown improvement following promotion or on field sucess.

To me that would be step one. The management of Oldham will then need to step up their efforts to find an investor or sponsor or a lottery scheme or whatever. That's for them to sort out. Featherstone seem to have figured it out.I have said several times that all this could take years and maybe never but it can be done as Hull KR, Huddersfield etc have proven.


It can be done of course but only up to a point that Featherstone are probably at as you say. I don't know whether the link ups signal an abandonment of SL ambition. I do know that some fans don't appreciate you championing their club for SL and some clubs choose not to have any SL ambitions, so some clubs may well not want to do what you suggest.

For the clubs who genuinely have SL ambitions there needs to be an accommodation for them, and we discussed a 16 club Superleague with annual P & R based on a lower salary cap. This was because if a CC club cannot find a big investor, there will still be that massive financial gulf to cross that needs to be narrowed for P & R to work.

Your examples Huddersfield and HKR only crossed that gulf with big big investor.

So I still don't really recognise this slow growth virtuous cycle in which canny clubs make all the right decisions of which the effect is they end up being "ready" for Superleague. There's always a gulf to cross between semi-pro and pro.

Edited by The Parksider, 03 December 2012 - 02:25 PM.


#491 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,179 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 02:41 PM

I think SKY would seriously consider a different distribution pattern for their money if the RFL were to grow some cojones and hold out for what they want. Is it a risk? Yes,


You can of course EMail the RFL and ask them if they have put this to SKY? You may also ask them if they are prepared to be awkward with SKY for the sake of allocating more money to the CC clubs.

I see no purpose in giving unambitious CC clubs SKY money - they will just mostly waste it. Obviously many SL clubs are equally good at wasting it so don't bother telling me that.

I'm in total agreement with helping any TRULY ambitious Superleague club to not just get into Superleague, but to stay there. I Think they should have every chance to do so. P & R's one season guarantee is not fair on anyone.

If they have not got money they won't stay up anyway, if they have got money and they get SKY money too then they need some extra help to build themselves up in Superleague. I'd suggest they need maybe time more than anything - say a stay of execution for 3 years even if they come bottom of SL. It's only fair.

#492 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,383 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 02:41 PM

It can be done of course but only up to a point that Featherstone are probably at as you say. I don't know whether the link ups signal an abandonment of SL ambition. I do know that some fans don't appreciate you championing their club for SL and some clubs choose not to have any SL ambitions, so some clubs may well not want to do what you suggest.

For the clubs who genuinely have SL ambitions there needs to be an accommodation for them, and we discussed a 16 club Superleague with annual P & R based on a lower salary cap. This was because if a CC club cannot find a big investor, there will still be that massive financial gulf to cross that needs to be narrowed for P & R to work.

Your examples Huddersfield and HKR only crossed that gulf with big big investor.

So I still don't really recognise this slow growth virtuous cycle in which canny clubs make all the right decisions of which the effect is they end up being "ready" for Superleague. There's always a gulf to cross between semi-pro and pro.


I don't see why slow growth cannot be a policy until such times as an investor is found. The two policies are not mutually exclusive. Most of the current CC clubs are on the slow growth path from necessity and most of them have improved in many areas as a result of that. If they cannot meet SL criteria as a result of that, then they will not be promoted. If they get the financing and win on the field with an adequate stadium etc etc then they would get promoted.

I think that in quite a few seasons there would be no promotion because of failure to meet standards or that you would get some yo yoing. The thing which I think would be a factor is that, if it were known that promotion was a guaranteed option for a winning CC team who met standards, then investors would be much more likely to support such teams either because of lifelong fandom for a particular club or as a gamble to an ambitious money person.

Fans can get upset if they like if I state that some clubs have the potential to be SL clubs. That's their right but my right is to disagree. It's only an internet forum for Pete's sake. I am not actually committing their teams to anything.


I am not championing any clubs for SL. I am saying that several clubs

#493 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,179 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 02:49 PM

1. The problem I have is the successful attempts to limit the distribution of that money to the 14 soon to be 12 unchanging teams and sod the rest. No amount of stadia improvement, junior development, on field success or achieving financial stability counts.

2. No one in their right mind can think that going from 37 clubs to 12 is a recipe for success.


1. What we need is a system where stadia improvement, junior development, on field success or achieving financial stability counts. In the new 12 club league all clubs should be required to reapply for Superleague every couple of years or so.

Should a club outside Superleague have better stadia improvement, better junior development, on field success, and are achieving financial stability, they should replace any SL club that is failing in those areas.

This would satisfy your concerns surely?

2. What we need to do is look at any RL league in the world where entry is limited to a chosen few and the rest acts as feeder clubs and see for ourselves how such a policy is doomed to failure.

Again hope this helps

#494 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,800 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 02:50 PM

1/ That solves the problem of why the haves have and the have not’s will never catch up.

2/ Super League is a winner but the game in general is not, we’ve now withdrawn the game into a 12/14 team fortress and the plan is now to protect them at all costs, and it seems that the next step is to use the championship & NCL clubs as the outer perimeter.

Have we become so depended on Sky money that we can’t look at another route, are we not worth more from Sky, do we believe we are worth more, would going to another TV company for less money but more national exposure be better for the game, would more exposure bring the game to more potential money men/women, would a floodlight trophy type competition with a different broadcaster be an extra source of income for the championship sides?

I do believe we need a minimum of two divisions with clubs receiving equal funding that’s regulated by the RFL to stop squandering, the extra revenue the clubs can produce (I dare say the clubs at the top now will still be the same) would obviously give more spending power above the funding from the SKY.


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



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

#495 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,179 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

I don't see why slow growth cannot be a policy until such times as an investor is found. The two policies are not mutually exclusive. Most of the current CC clubs are on the slow growth path from necessity and most of them have improved in many areas as a result of that.


I didn't disagree with you, I didn't say it should not be the policy. I'm happy for clubs to slowly grow crowds, stadium, facilities, business, youth development etc and when they hit a certain standard then be considered for SL. Good idea there, I agree.

However what your now saying seems to be in support of minimum standards P & R. We have that now??

#496 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,883 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

Have we become so depended on Sky money that we can’t look at another route,



"who moved my cheese" is a good book and sum's up what is likely to happen if this is allowed to become entrenched.

#497 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,797 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

I don’t really understand that the game in general is not better off.

What is the criteria for judging this?

1 - Are there more fans overall?
2 – Is the combined turnover higher than previously?
3 – Is the financial position better or worse (combined profit and loss)?
4 – Is participation up or down?
5 – Are facilities better or worse?

Do people answer these kind of questions when they judge whether the game is in better shape or not, or do they look at their individual club and local area?

#498 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,800 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:02 PM

"who moved my cheese" is a good book and sum's up what is likely to happen if this is allowed to become entrenched.

Hybrid game
Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



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

#499 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,179 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:19 PM

Do people answer these kind of questions when they judge whether the game is in better shape or not, or do they look at their individual club and local area?


The ones I end up arguing with in eternal circles all seem to place promotion of their favoured team above the general good of the game.

Had their clubs had the fortune to have found such as Hughes, Davey, and O'Connor, etc I wonder if they would argue the same way?

Edited by The Parksider, 03 December 2012 - 03:20 PM.


#500 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,797 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:29 PM

The ones I end up arguing with in eternal circles all seem to place promotion of their favoured team above the general good of the game.

Had their clubs had the fortune to have found such as Hughes, Davey, and O'Connor, etc I wonder if they would argue the same way?

I dunno about that, as that suggests that everybody simply puts their club first, and I know that isn't the case, but when people make statements about the overall game, I do wonder what exactly they have looked at to make that call.

If I'm honest I don't know enough about all areas of the game to make a call on it. I do see more areas apparently playing the sport, I see larger crowds at a fair few teams, including my own, but then I also see plenty of challenges within the game too.

One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that teams will always have ups and downs, we have a history of successful teams going down the pan - maybe Oldham is just one of the next in line. Ultimately for all it's strength in amateur players, maybe there just isn't the interest from a supporter or investor level. It's very sad to see a great name struggle, but then other clubs have grown over the same period that Oldham have declined, and had Oldham not declined, then it would be another great historic club we were talking about.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users