838 replies to this topic

[Ackroman]

I think he's just a very uncomplicated person who just says it how it is.

Barry Eaton can see an improvement in his squad. Which coach wouldn't be happy with that?

Don't get sucked in by the propaganda by the way. If Leeds have bought the Hunslet club then show me the evidence. Also show me where Barry Eaton is quoted as admiting the Hunslet club is a feeder for Leeds or Leeds' A team?

[Northern Sol]

You can't operate an SL club based on the hope that away support is going to pay your bills. Away support should never be considered a main income stream it should be considered a bonus.

In which dream world?

We've seen names as big as Bradford come close to folding. Are you telling me that if there was no away support then this wouldn't make any difference to them?

[Johnoco]

Noooo! Don't turn into one of them! They're like infectious moaning zombies!

No danger of that Gav because if I was a quarter as disillusioned about RL as some of this mob seem to be, there's no way I'd be anywhere near it, let alone wasting my life slating it on internet messageboards.

[Johnoco]

I understand your frustration and I understand Dave T's frustration.

But it's not half as frustrating as seeing the changes to the modern game slowly take away your clubs independence and ambition, and your own dreams for your club.

Given that since I have been into RL, people have been moaning about the state of the game and how 'sooper dooper league' is stealing all the billions and acres of media spotlight, how am I to know if this is genuine grievance or yet more whinging?

I honestly believe, and I'm being serious here, that if Bill Gates announced tomorrow that he was a RL fan and wanted to sponsor SL for £10Million per season, there would be complaints from some people about him not being a true RL person or some such similar tosh.

[Johnoco]

Aye.

If I'm honest, the only thing keeping me going with RL is next year's World Cup.

I live far enough away that to attend and support the game it takes real effort, both time-wise and financial - and tbh I spend a fair bit of time feeling really rather depressed about the game.

In fact, the most refreshing discussions I have about the sport of Rugby League are from non-RL fans here in Scotland who appear to really appreciate the sport. My most recent experience like this was last weekend, sat in the oldest Inn in Scotland in a tiny village called Kenmore in Perthshire, talking proudly about our sport with a bloke from just outside London and his friend from Fife. It was an entertaining and enjoyable discussion - much unlike most I have with many RL 'fans'.

Yes, you could be forgiven for thinking that RL fans don't actually like the game.

[roughyedspud]

Given that since I have been into RL, people have been moaning about the state of the game and how 'sooper dooper league' is stealing all the billions and acres of media spotlight, how am I to know if this is genuine grievance or yet more whinging?

I honestly believe, and I'm being serious here, that if Bill Gates announced tomorrow that he was a RL fan and wanted to sponsor SL for £10Million per season, there would be complaints from some people about him not being a true RL person or some such similar tosh.

lol.....you're not wrong though

[Johnoco]

lol.....you're not wrong though

You'll be pleased to know I don't include you in that lot. As far as I can see you are a concerned fan, not a serial moaner.

Bet you feel 10ft tall now.

[Hornetto]

Bet you feel 10ft tall now.

Which you need to be to get a decent view at Whitebank.

[The Parksider]

I'm sorry but generally speaking conspiracy theorists need evidence to prove there's at least some collusion.

You have no evidence to prove any of the above rubbish and repeating the same thing time and again does not make it true!!

"A teams"! You are an utter fool on the wind up. You know you have a captive audience for this bulls h it but it doesn't make it true.

The only fact is that throughout time, in most if not all professional sports in this country, the bigger, richer clubs could afford the better players. Also sometimes these clubs have loaned out players to lower league clubs who often rely on these players to improve their rostas. Sometimes on a week by week basis, sometimes for a season.

What exactly is different now? What evidence is there that the current set up is creating a relationship between teams that hasn't already existed?

Why is it that you ignore the possibility that by removing academies we should see an overall increase in playing standards across all divisions?

Why is it that you can't extrapolate this idea to see better relationships between semi pro and amateur teams?

Instead why don't you carry on prodding what is already an open sore regarding the differences in funding, and continue making accusations about collusion between administrators, coaches, club owners and players without evidence. Also why don't you carry on miss quoting these very same people to satisfy your own needs.

This obsession with playing thread tennis to derail the real arguments is why people switch off.

What evidence is there that people are "switching off" because of me and my views?

The anecdotal witness evidence you can clearly see above but wish to ignore is that those threatening to switch off are wanting to do so in the face of a small number of axe grinders like you who do not like the way things are going.

Collusion you say??

Eaton is clear, Leeds and Hunslet are colluding to run the clubs jointly for the benefit of Leeds as a Superleague fixture, and Hunslet as a Championship club to feed off the scraps. What he said.

There's no question of Superleague for Hunslet. But then there's no question of SL for anyone else in the Championship unless you have the "evidence" to show me otherwise???

If you are old enough to remember "A" teams you will know what their point and purpose was - exactly the purpose that they are to be used for now, somewhere for budding young lads to ply their trade before promotion to the first team.

That's exactly what Eaton has said will happen, that's how it will work at all the other tie ups. Saints are sending their coaches to Rochdale - miss that "evidence"? Wigan are tied up with south wales for Wigan to get players off them - miss that?

For a conspiracy theory to exist there has to be something eventful happen. Sorry, did you miss the mass tying up of clubs one by one over a period of weeks???

Have you missed the evidence of witness statements aplenty on these threads that themselves pass the opinion this is far more than a few loanees?

Because if it is nothing more than what's already happening then why all the formal tie ups and announcements???

You give me the evidence to prove there's nowt to see here, move along, how about that???

[keighley]

No it can’t. Cougarmania raised the expectations of the fans who thought Keighley were heading for a long life in the top division. Instead they were heading for financial meltdown because they could not back those expectations up.

You yourself said they could because there was someone rich waiting in the wings, but we have seen how SL clubs on here are being berated for only being SL clubs because there’s a rich man propping it all up.

More to the point you yourself said that the Cougars were stuffed by Mo and Bradford Bulls who “stole Cougarmania” for themselves. The record is clear that they made a success of it and they backed it up taking crowds to 15,000.

But where did it end. As you yourself said it ended in a “basket case” of a club.

Cougarmania failed and so did Bullmania. Other clubs copied the “mania” thing too but today that has all gone because it won’t wash anymore and it won’t work. The kids of today are different to the kids of 20 years ago, living in a different age.

I was a kid once and me and several mates found it great to leave our boring council houses and go follow a failing second division club. I have kids now and my lad and his mates are happy to go watch Superleague RL, but anything less and they can find a dozen exciting things to do than watch a second rate team with a bunch of old fogies.

Oh alright then, all those kids who went to watch the Cougards who weren't watching keighley prior to that are a figment of my imagination.

[The Parksider]

Barry Eaton can see an improvement in his squad. Which coach wouldn't be happy with that?

Don't get sucked in by the propaganda by the way. If Leeds have bought the Hunslet club then show me the evidence. Also show me where Barry Eaton is quoted as admiting the Hunslet club is a feeder for Leeds or Leeds' A team?

No Barry Eaton can see himself developing the best kids for Leeds to take into their first team - read his article.

Barry Eaton wants to take the best of the rest from Leeds to improve his team - read the article.

Barry Eaton wants Leeds fans to start going to watch Hunslet on sundays and Hunslet fans Leeds on Fridays.

Eaton of course does not admit to being a feeder team, the local amateurs feed the players into the club so you have that wrong.

The set up mirrors the way "A" teams work, who said anything about Leeds "buying" Hunslet? Try reading up on these things. as Blackpool Hawks says without this there will be no Hunslet.

And you still think these clubs still retain their independance.

Stop spreading propoganda that all is well in the Championship.

Show me evidence it's "business as usual"

[keighley]

At the moment every SL club can take as many players out of Oldham as they want to, as it is not designated as a SL teams catchment area. If it does get designated as Salford's area then other clubs are restricted to how many they can take. As it stands scouts from Wigan etc see Oldham as an area with rich pickings.

Not according to Parksider they don't. Areas like Oldham produce next to no SL players.

[The Parksider]

Oh alright then, all those kids who went to watch the Cougards who weren't watching keighley prior to that are a figment of my imagination.

They were very real - who says they weren't.

What I am saying is in the end Cougarmania failed as bid all the "manias".

Yet you want to bring it back, but then again you want to bring 1952 back.

[Johnoco]

Which you need to be to get a decent view at Whitebank.

[keighley]

No it can’t. Cougarmania raised the expectations of the fans who thought Keighley were heading for a long life in the top division. Instead they were heading for financial meltdown because they could not back those expectations up.

You yourself said they could because there was someone rich waiting in the wings, but we have seen how SL clubs on here are being berated for only being SL clubs because there’s a rich man propping it all up.

More to the point you yourself said that the Cougars were stuffed by Mo and Bradford Bulls who “stole Cougarmania” for themselves. The record is clear that they made a success of it and they backed it up taking crowds to 15,000.

But where did it end. As you yourself said it ended in a “basket case” of a club.

Cougarmania failed and so did Bullmania. Other clubs copied the “mania” thing too but today that has all gone because it won’t wash anymore and it won’t work. The kids of today are different to the kids of 20 years ago, living in a different age.

I was a kid once and me and several mates found it great to leave our boring council houses and go follow a failing second division club. I have kids now and my lad and his mates are happy to go watch Superleague RL, but anything less and they can find a dozen exciting things to do than watch a second rate team with a bunch of old fogies.

I would suggest to you that because Bullmania was more successful than Cougarmania and lasted longer that it attracted children in big numbers for several years and that these same children are now adults and are the supporter base of the Bulls today about whom you constantly wax lyrical.

Don't forget the Bulls built that 10,000 plus average from a base figure of about 5 to 6,000 in the 1990's. They must have managed to appeal to kids and their parents to grow their crowds the way they did.

[The Parksider]

Not according to Parksider they don't. Areas like Oldham produce next to no SL players.

Another silly little dig.

Oldham have produced 4 Superleague players who are in the first 17's of Superleague sides.

How about you or Saints10coach naming me the players who Wigan have richly picked from the Oldham area and turned into a current Wigan professional??

NAME THOSE PLAYERS COME ON.....

Wigan don't need Oldham they produce more than enough full time pros from their own service area.

[The Parksider]

I would suggest to you that because Bullmania was more successful than Cougarmania and lasted longer that it attracted children in big numbers for several years

Yes agreed

But "mania" is old hat as a marketing tool and is no longer is use.

Ever wondered why?

[saints10coach]

Another silly little dig.

Oldham have produced 4 Superleague players who are in the first 17's of Superleague sides.

How about you or Saints10coach naming me the players who Wigan have richly picked from the Oldham area and turned into a current Wigan professional??

NAME THOSE PLAYERS COME ON.....

Wigan don't need Oldham they produce more than enough full time pros from their own service area.

They have just taken four members of an Oldham under 14's side on scholarship, and I am not sure if they have had any from the other Oldham sides. Time only will tell if they make it into SL. The highest ranking at the moment is probably James Greenwood in their under 20's. Jack Roden is a regular visitor to the Oldham area.

[intheshed]

I'm sorry but generally speaking conspiracy theorists need evidence to prove there's at least some collusion.

You have no evidence to prove any of the above rubbish and repeating the same thing time and again does not make it true!!

"A teams"! You are an utter fool on the wind up. You know you have a captive audience for this bulls h it but it doesn't make it true.

The only fact is that throughout time, in most if not all professional sports in this country, the bigger, richer clubs could afford the better players. Also sometimes these clubs have loaned out players to lower league clubs who often rely on these players to improve their rostas. Sometimes on a week by week basis, sometimes for a season.

What exactly is different now? What evidence is there that the current set up is creating a relationship between teams that hasn't already existed?

Why is it that you ignore the possibility that by removing academies we should see an overall increase in playing standards across all divisions?

Why is it that you can't extrapolate this idea to see better relationships between semi pro and amateur teams?

Instead why don't you carry on prodding what is already an open sore regarding the differences in funding, and continue making accusations about collusion between administrators, coaches, club owners and players without evidence. Also why don't you carry on miss quoting these very same people to satisfy your own needs.

This obsession with playing thread tennis to derail the real arguments is why people switch off.

In terms of hard evidence you are of course correct, there is very little currently, that may be because there is nothing to see or it may be because very little information has been released to date. There are however some fairly obvious, to me at any rate, unanswered questions which could plausibly lead you to the type of conclusions Parksider has reached.

Take the Hull/York partnership as an example. Hull have just announced a first team squad of 32 players of which at least 26 appear to be too old for u19s, the age of 6 of them is not listed but most appear to have played u20s last year so will either be too old for u19s or it would be a backward step for their development anyway. Is it not reasonable to ask why Hull appear unconcerned at the prospect of some of their fringe and/or developing young players having nowhere to play next season? One possible answer is that there is an agreement or an understanding that ALL Hull squad players need game time and York will give that need due consideration. There may be other explanations and if there are it would be useful to have them for it is by no means obvious how the partnership system, as currently presented, will ensure that fringe senior players get enough games to stay match fit and the 19/20 etc.. yr olds get sufficient games to continue their development. It would be a disaster for player development if a Champs club chose to simply use 2/3 of the more senior squad players regularly and younger players found their development thwarted by lack of games. I've chosen Hull/York simply because Hull have just confirmed their squad and the exact number of players is known.

Secondly, why have the majority of SL teams felt the need to sweeten the deal by providing access to some or all of, facilities, coaching, conditioning, physiotherapy and health insurance? If champs clubs retain absolute control over which dr players are used and when, why go to the expense of sweetening the deal? Simply making the players available would produce the same results for the SL clubs. Incurring additional costs, particularly when on of your objectives is to reduce them, for no additional benefit would be bizarre. One answer would be that this is the 'payoff' for accepting that decisions around team selection will sometimes need to take account of more than simply what is the best team to win any given match.

Hard evidence of collusion or a change in the relationship between teams? Absolutely not, but in the absence of answers or evidence to the contrary the pathway to that conclusion seems to me to be not entirely unrealistic or the realm of the wild conspiracy theorist.

Edited by intheshed, 28 November 2012 - 03:29 PM.

[keighley]

Cut your posts down for expedience, hope that's OK.

1. Your analysis of superleague is spot on, but it's one side of the coin. The other side is what professional RL has done to boost the game. We have 40,000 plus new fans thanks to Superleague, we have tens of millions of pounds worth of TV contracts thanks to Superleague. We have a large player development system thanks to Superleague, we have millionaires prepared to invest in the game thanks to Superleague.

I'm not having a go at you now, you made your stance clear, but it's an utter nonsense to paint Superleague as any sort of failure and people should forget their petty jealousies and try to engage in the realities now. Superleague has done a heck of a lot for the game, and it has probably saved it.

The anti superleague parody has to be "what did the Romans ever do for us"????

Superleague delivers loads of money, loads of fans and loads of home grown pro players

What more do we want from it????

2. Your analysis of bad management is true, as is the effects of it, but to try to declare the whole thing a mess is nonsense. YES Superleague is probably pitched at a level where only half a dozen clubs can compete.

17 years on this should all have been sorted out but of course all the clubs wanted to do was grab what they could for themselves and fail to recognise the greater good and fail to plan for that. I have to dismiss your attack on the RFL which is same old same old, but will heartily agree that SLE and the clubs have failed miserably to look to the greater good, and the same goes for the championship clubs too - they have been just as bad, they just wanted to do what the SL clubs want to do - to just get in SL wether they can afford it or not, and to recreate the old first and division faiilure. Don't give me the "well run" stuff. The well run halifax was a disaster in SL, Well run Leigh bombed in a year, well run Sheffield went defunct and well run Fev can't make a profit in the Championship.

As for Salford and your attack on them if they sign up with Peel they'll do more years in SL than that lot will have managed between them. As for Saints not making it pay? I thought McManus had won an award for doing just that?

SL management by SL has been rather appalling, but they are waking up and smelling the coffee. Bradford and Wakefield are stabilised as will be Salford. Yes Davey O'Connor and Hughes's money is not guaranteed forever but nor is SKY money and as long as it is delivered it should be factored in. It's silly to criticise and dismiss the private money, Super league attracts millionaires, rejoice in it for gawds sake.

The ability to compete has various management mechanisms to create a situation where all clubs can do this, Reduce to 12 clubs, share the surplus SKY money out, use the Championship as part of the player development system, adjust the salary cap etc.

Clubs still have some way to go - no excuse after 17 years - but to dismiss the possibility Wakefield will get Newmarket, to forget that the RFL Odsal deal will help Bradford, to forget London are now bringing through players in numbers, to forget Peel will save Salford for the next decade, to forget O'Connor is rebuilding Widnes to past glories, to forget that even if Davy departs this mortal coin investment goes on at Fartown, To forget if Wakefield and Hull become the only SL clubs in their area they will prosper on this, is to paint such a one sided picture that the value of your post becomes nothing.

We all know the problems you point out, but why ignore the solutions??

Why use such a one sided one-eyed argument to then go on to say.......

3. "the future doesn't look good". The future of the game IS GOOD look at what Superleague has done for us, look at the growth of the game across the country, look at the wonderful Amateur clubs we have in their own facilities.

All these arguments that I do not recognise as being fair, or balanced or factual are coming from Championship supporters grinding big fat axes. Times change, and events conspire to change things.

The future HAS to be viable professional RL clubs - this has already given us so much more in terms of money, fans, players and private investment.

The future HAS to be viable amateur clubs in modern facilities running clubs with players of both sexes and all ages from toddlers to veterans.- I started out playing in 1974 and my word how massively has our amateur game has grown and blossomed since then.

I just do not recognise the black picture you paint.....

But the reality is the dark clouds have descended on the Championship clubs. Today the fans want Pro Rugby, they want SL. The players want to play SL, the investors only want SL. The pro clubs don't need the semi pros.

Leeds don't need Hunslet of Bramley, they need Hunslet Warriors and Stanningley.

The Championship clubs are becoming redundant and they know it, so the only thing to do has been for them to throw in their lot in and be a part of Superleague and help to make it a bigger success rather then sit on the sidelines boo-hooing.

When in Rome, do what the Romans do......

You were doing well until your last three paragraphs and then you couldn't but help but put on your 'Super league rules forever" hat.

The reality is that fans, players and clubs want SL and the other reality is that those in SL are determined to see that they don't get it.

There are some weak sisters in SL and you know it but probably the weakest with the bleakest future is London but there is no one deemed fit enough to compare with them in the Championships. What do their accounts reveal ? They must lose hundeds of thousands and are propped up by one old rich man but they are indispensable because of their geographical location. What if he dies tomorrow, what if any of them die or walk away. What if Lenagahn is not in the picture at Wigan.? Well, when the finances do not get fixed you get the Crusaders and you get Paris and you very nearly got Wakefield.

The SL has been very successful as you have shown but they are also teetering on the edge of crisis.

The evidence is that whilst some SL clubs are in trouble, most CC clubs have really pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.

Featherstone, annual losses or no, are light years ahead of where they were some few short years ago when they were in CC1. They have doubled their crowds, they have resurrected their team on the field, they have improved ( or are improving) their stadium to SL standards. They are dabbling with the Probiz guy for financial aid.

Halifax have stemmed their losses.They make a profit. Their stadium is completed and better than a few SL ones. They are successful on the field. They are light years ahead of where they were when they were relegated from SL.Their crowds have slowly grown in recent seasons

Leigh have a decent team, they have a SL standard stadium. They have survived the loss of an investor. They seem stable after all the turmoil which almost saw them in CC1.

Sheffield have worked wonders of an almost miraculous sort, to re emerge from the ashes of their death to the point where they make a profit and are CC Champions.

Dewsbury have their own stadium and are improving it as I type. They are in CC. they are recruiting a strong team even before the loanees are there. A few years ago they were groundless and moribound after the loss of Crown Flatt. The future looks good for them. I don't think they are redundant.

Batley have developed their ground, won trophies, make a profit and are a very competent CC outfit.

York have come back from the dead. They are in the championship. There is a new ground on the horizon. Considering where they were, they are doing well.

Doncaster have a SL standard stadium. They just won the double in CC1. They seem to have stabilised their management and finances. Not so long ago they had multiple bankuptcies and were playing in a no stand greyhound stadium in Stainforth. Lazarus should be their mascot but the future seems good for them.

Workington make a profit, they got promoted after years of failure. Their ground is being upgraded for the RLWC fixtures.

Whitehaven got promoted. Pow beck is still a dream. They too survived bankruptcy. They are still alive and kicking.

Barrow have come a long way from the bottom of CC1 with crowds in the hundreds. They too have survived the loss of an investor and just got promoted on the back of an almost all local team. They haved a new stand and plans to refurbish their ground ( I think)

Even the really small clubs are survivors. Keighley have got past two bankruptcies, got promoted ( twice) and made the playoffs last season in CC. I think their head is above water.

The subject of this thread Oldham have survived the loss of a ground, extinction, a longer exodus from their base than the Israelites and more unfortunate promotion final losses than is fair but are still alive, recruiting for a promotion push again, have a ground of their own. They are putting up Salford's old main stand and have other ground improvement initiatives on tap.

Even Gateshead have survived the loss of two sets of investors, one in SL and one that won them the CC1 championship but led to a self imposed relegation but have hung on and have recruited well for the upcoming CC1 season.

London Skolars are durable, profitable and improving their playing standards. I would say they are more stable than the Broncos who are so very dependent on one man.

Hemel have been around for 20 to 30 years and have developed the youth rugby in their town, have secured a ground and are developing it into a decent CC1 level stadium and are jumping into the semi pro league this next season.

Professional Rugby League in Wales seems to have been saved from total annihilation following the Crusaders SL collapse and death. The North Wales team in particular have a good stadium, decent crowds, a great coach and good management team. The South Wales club seems to be surviving. I don't know too much about them really apart from a tie up with Wigan.

Even Hornets, who were at deaths door have resurfaced as a supporters Trust club and are in a decent stadium. The World Cup game in Rochdale might just rekindle any latent interest left in the town for the Hornets club.

Swinton, like Oldham and Hunslet, have been on a not yet finished odysey since they sold Station Road but even they have stabilised, won CC1, got promoted and are well on course to get a new stadium back in their ancestral home. That would be a real fillip for them if it comes off.

Of course the new clubs are a gamble and we will have to see how they go but I have to believe that the RFL would not have championed these expansionary moves if they thought CC Rugby was redundant as you claim. I do not either think they are supporting these new clubs just to make them feeder clubs. That would be a cynical slap in the face for those behind these clubs.

So all in all I don't think this feeder club arrangement is a one way street of desperation on the part of the CC clubs. I think the profligate SL clubs, who can no longer prop up their own player development systems due to the cost, need these arrangements as much if not more than the CC clubs need them. It could just be a win win situation PROVIDED the CC clubs do not completely surrender their independence and are not just 'A" teams at the beck and call of the senior SL partner.

The return of p and r with the requisite conditions met, hopefully,would let the top echelon of the CC complete their plans for SL and encourage investors and sponsors to partner them in their ambitions. If the opportunity was there I am sure, as was the case with Hull KR, Widnes, Huddersfield and Catalans then money would be maybe materialise. If not and the financial conditions were not met then no promotion.

If no p and r then the licencing system must really encourage the admission of fully qualified applicants and not perpetuate an ossified top tier with no new teams ever and no penalties for failure.
You berate Cc clubs for not accepting change but there is no such reciprocal support for any needed changes to SL.

The CC clubs need support if possible from central funding and they need a path to the top as a carrot to tempt the money men.


I am sorry to go on at length. To summarise, I agree with your well written assessment of the SL situation. I disagree with your characterisation of the CC clubs as redundant, obsolete relics of a bygome age. As I have tried to show, most of then are doing quite well compared with their death or near death histories. The jury is out of these feeder club deals. I hope it works out for both sides of the equation. What about the 12 CC clubs for whom there is not an available SL team to team up with?
What is their future ?