838 replies to this topic

[Hornetto]

I could well be wrong here but I thought Rochdale had never won a trophy? And even if so, there's been plenty of time since the 1920's to develop.(not a dig at Rochdale this)

Batleys success came in a different world practically, although they had some recent silverware in the NRC.

Last winners of the 'Northern Union' Challenge Cup in 1922.

[saints10coach]

Leeds and Bradford had dominant soccer teams in town. In Bradfords case two.

I still would say that soccer is still dominant in at least Leeds. Remember there were 2 Rugby teams and one soccer team when Manningham were about.

[The Parksider]

What should have put you off was the tortuous process before the team you bought got into the top flight.

Still peddling that same old bike - If we had annual P & R more rich men would invest in CC clubs because they could be easily promoted?

What about the rich owners of SL clubs (who really exist) do they just accept being relegated then??

Because they can walk away.

Edited by The Parksider, 04 December 2012 - 01:49 PM.

[shaun mc]

3 years of licencing also allows the following scenario to happen.
The nearest club we have to this is Featherstone, so apologies to their supporters but its to emphasis the point.

Year 1 of Licencing - Fev win the League easily, run a SL club close in Challenge cup, academy team does well, attendances average 2,300 and they start to formulate plans to develop the ground on the back of their success.
Year 2 - Again the Championship comps are won easily, and Fev also take 2 SL scalps in the Challenge Cup, one of them screened by BBC. Academy replicates the success and hands out a number of beatings to SL academy teams. Crowds rise to a 2,800 average, the club lottery does well and three-quarters of the way through the year the club announce plans to put a roof on one end of the stadium and build a new stand in the off season.
End of year 2 - due to Fev's success at both levels, the first team and academy have trouble holding on to their better players. There are a lot of offers on the table for full-time contracts at various SL clubs and their academies. Fev lose 50-60% of their playing roster.
Year 3 - below average win/loss ratio, crowds down to 2,000. Academy team scratch a few fixtures. Fev lose by 70 points to Wakefield in the Challenge Cup (sorry!). SL licence application goes into the bin.

My point here is that the bar is being pushed very high for the Championship clubs to even make the application and their is a chasm between the levels of SL and CC. The Championship clubs will work very hard to improve the playing record, their back office and their facilities. Too much success (sometimes showing SL clubs up along the way) and the above can happen in a 3 year licencing period.

Should it be 2 years?

[intheshed]

3 years of licencing also allows the following scenario to happen.
The nearest club we have to this is Featherstone, so apologies to their supporters but its to emphasis the point.

Year 1 of Licencing - Fev win the League easily, run a SL club close in Challenge cup, academy team does well, attendances average 2,300 and they start to formulate plans to develop the ground on the back of their success.
Year 2 - Again the Championship comps are won easily, and Fev also take 2 SL scalps in the Challenge Cup, one of them screened by BBC. Academy replicates the success and hands out a number of beatings to SL academy teams. Crowds rise to a 2,800 average, the club lottery does well and three-quarters of the way through the year the club announce plans to put a roof on one end of the stadium and build a new stand in the off season.
End of year 2 - due to Fev's success at both levels, the first team and academy have trouble holding on to their better players. There are a lot of offers on the table for full-time contracts at various SL clubs and their academies. Fev lose 50-60% of their playing roster.
Year 3 - below average win/loss ratio, crowds down to 2,000. Academy team scratch a few fixtures. Fev lose by 70 points to Wakefield in the Challenge Cup (sorry!). SL licence application goes into the bin.

My point here is that the bar is being pushed very high for the Championship clubs to even make the application and their is a chasm between the levels of SL and CC. The Championship clubs will work very hard to improve the playing record, their back office and their facilities. Too much success (sometimes showing SL clubs up along the way) and the above can happen in a 3 year licencing period.

Should it be 2 years?

Do we get to win a sodding final, for a change?! I could be tempted

[keighley]

Soccer and RU have sporting communism?


I wonder if the Glazers know about this?

The Glazers own the Tampa Bay NFL franchise, one of the weakest in the league, and have greatly benefitted from the revenue sharing schemes, aka sporting communism, operated with humongous success by the NFL for many years.

[keighley]

Can someone answer me this then? Why did RL not thrive and become a nationwide sport during the many years when everything was decided on the pitch? (even allowing for RU bans)

Why did the serious money men not come forward instead of the chancers that (in general) appeared? Why did someone like Batley or Rochdale never become big teams?

You might well also also ask the question, why is RL not thriving and becoming a nationwide sport today, even in the absence of the RU ban ? Even with big money men, London has not become a big team.

[keighley]

I could well be wrong here but I thought Rochdale had never won a trophy? And even if so, there's been plenty of time since the 1920's to develop.(not a dig at Rochdale this)

Batleys success came in a different world practically, although they had some recent silverware in the NRC.

It's not really relevant to the discussion but you need to know your RL history a little before you jump into uncharted waters. Rochdale won the RL cup once. They were also in the 1st division in the past and got to the final of the Players no 6 cup competiton, a big deal in it's day.

Not only did batley win those first two Challenge Cups but in 1924 ( I think that's right) they won the RL Championship beating Wigan in the playoffs and in that same era attracted over 20,000 to Mount pleasant for a third round cup tie in the middle of the great Depression no less.

[Johnoco]

You might well also also ask the question, why is RL not thriving and becoming a nationwide sport today, even in the absence of the RU ban ? Even with big money men, London has not become a big team.

Er, it is becoming a nationwide sport. It just takes more than 5 minutes.

[Johnoco]

It's not really relevant to the discussion but you need to know your RL history a little before you jump into uncharted waters. Rochdale won the RL cup once. They were also in the 1st division in the past and got to the final of the Players no 6 cup competiton, a big deal in it's day.

Not only did batley win those first two Challenge Cups but in 1924 ( I think that's right) they won the RL Championship beating Wigan in the playoffs and in that same era attracted over 20,000 to Mount pleasant for a third round cup tie in the middle of the great Depression no less.

Sorry, did you not see the bit about 'I could be wrong...'?

The times you mention are so irrelevant it may as well happened on Mars. Anyway why didn't they kick on and become huge clubs after that? It wasn't due to other clubs having more money and paying more money to attract the best players was it? Not very communist like of them and jolly unfair.

[Ackroman]

Maybe a comparison between the last 17 years and the previous 17 will tell you how entrenched SL is becoming. Only 4 clubs have won the SL title but 8 won in the previous equivalent period.

Only 4 teams have one it in the last 22 years!! Which other sport has a record as bad as that other than the Scottish premier league? The other thread is already scoffing at what they're up to but we have only had 2 more winners of the league in the last 22 years.

It will be 50 years since Warrington won it, 37 years Salford, 30 years Hull, 28 years Hull KR, 24 years for Widnes, etc etc etc. A number of Championship clubs have managed it in the meantime so what exactly then is a big club? What exactly is the SL all about?

Carry on regardless by all means.

[Johnoco]

A measly 5 teams have won the Premier League in the last 20 years. And that's with all their billions of pounds and thousands of players to pick from.

They have all that wealth and global fame and yet only one more team have won it than a comp like SL, which struggles for money and coverage. It's rubbish.

[barrowraiderskid]

Er, it is becoming a nationwide sport. It just takes more than 5 minutes.

Becoming nationwide by having 14 chosen clubs in the top division 12 of which are close to the m62? Doesn't sound very nationwide personally.

[Dave T]

Maybe a comparison between the last 17 years and the previous 17 will tell you how entrenched SL is becoming. Only 4 clubs have won the SL title but 8 won in the previous equivalent period.

Only 4 teams have one it in the last 22 years!! Which other sport has a record as bad as that other than the Scottish premier league? The other thread is already scoffing at what they're up to but we have only had 2 more winners of the league in the last 22 years.

It will be 50 years since Warrington won it, 37 years Salford, 30 years Hull, 28 years Hull KR, 24 years for Widnes, etc etc etc. A number of Championship clubs have managed it in the meantime so what exactly then is a big club? What exactly is the SL all about?

Carry on regardless by all means.

To be fair, we can spin things how we like.

In the last 17 years football has had 4 champions. In the previous 17 years they had 7. This is out of 20 teams, 4 out of 20 is worse than 4 out of 12/14 that SL has had. Sport is much more about money nowadays, times have changed.

We should also consider that Wire have also finished top of the league during this period.

Our record of 5 different league leaders from 12/14, or 4 different Champions is ok. Could be better if Leeds didn’t have this freak GF record of theirs!

[Northern Sol]

Becoming nationwide by having 14 chosen clubs in the top division 12 of which are close to the m62? Doesn't sound very nationwide personally.

No, but that isn't going to change in the next ten years. There has been a lot of progress outside the heartlands in everything bar the top flight though. We're talking amateur rugby, the univeristy game, schools, youth representative teams, and latterly semi-pro.

[keighley]

Er, it is becoming a nationwide sport. It just takes more than 5 minutes.

So a league of 14, with 1 team in France, a very weak team in London and the rest in Yorkshire and Lancashire. That's nationwide. How many minutes or years do they need to expand nationwide.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that the new teams in new areas in the CC1 have only been created to act as feeder clubs for the SL in the North so we cabn't expect any nationwide spread from them.

[Johnoco]

As people are fond of saying on here, there's more to RL than the top flight. Just because the top flight is still northern dominated, doesn't mean that's all there is.

[keighley]

As people are fond of saying on here, there's more to RL than the top flight. Just because the top flight is still northern dominated, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Oh, that's Ok then. I will look for massive nationwide coverage of the Devon V Cornwall match and the massive Swidon v Southampton mega match.

[Johnoco]

And when, exactly, has RL had massive nationwide coverage? When?

[Dave T]

As people are fond of saying on here, there's more to RL than the top flight. Just because the top flight is still northern dominated, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Indeed.

People change their argument to suit. On one hand they want all clubs to be included - yet want to exclude some clubs when making other points.

It's like saying Rugby Union is not a national sport because it is generally a Southern sport apart from Sale.