Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Salford Trouble/Salford Takeover


  • Please log in to reply
533 replies to this topic

#21 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,365 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:02 AM

So were Oldham, so where Halifax, Leigh, Workington, Sheffield. I don't believe you support the promotion of aforementioned pathetic clubs (some if not all) back into SL.

The M.E.N. report was more than likely written/encouraged or assisted by Swanny.


And thank you for proving my point that it takes years to sort out. And most them clubs have dropped out of SL and been rebuilt and ran in a better way now than in SL. Whether them clubs are ready for SL is open to question. Likely not but then maybe its best not being in Super League running up big debts when you can make small profits and have success in the championship. SL is a utopia that is ruining clubs. But clowns like you think its so good for the game as a whole that SL is encouraging clubs to waste money. SL is where loads of money from the RFL has been thrown in to help poorly managed clubs. That money could have been better spent on development offficers and the like. I dont personally see how thats so good for the whole game. But keep dreaming away and twisting things to fit your own opinion

#22 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,865 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:49 AM

Salford are a joke sadly who dont deserve to be in SL. With clubs like Salford, London, Castleford etc there is a strong case for less clubs in SL OR be replaced IF Championship clubs are meeting the minimum standards set out.


The minimum standards??

Which ones? Those applied to SL clubs who need a business plan to turn over £4,000,000 plus a year and 8,000 to 10,000 crowds to fund it or the highly relaxed standards applied to "one championship club will be guaranteed a place subject to minimum standards" of a turnover of at least £1,000,000 (wow!) and 2,500 crowds (breathtaking).

What you miss is your championship darlings currently don't even meet the latter standards, but Castleford, Salford and even London beat them by a mile.

You also raise the silly old chestnut of telling us a club who is not under pressure to compete in the lower division making a few grand on a small turnover is "well managed" and those badly stretched to compete, and pushed to compete against the biggest clubs in Britain are "badly managed".

That is so simplistic it does you no favours.

#23 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,865 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:29 AM

1. And thank you for proving my point that it takes years to sort out. And most them (championship) clubs have dropped out of SL and been rebuilt and ran in a better way now than in SL.

2. Whether them clubs are ready for SL is open to question.

3. SL is a utopia that is ruining clubs. But clowns like you think its so good for the game as a whole that SL is encouraging clubs to waste money. SL is where loads of money from the RFL has been thrown in to help poorly managed clubs. That money could have been better spent on development offficers and the like. I dont personally see how thats so good for the whole game. But keep dreaming away and twisting things to fit your own opinion


1. Oh my! You have to be joking? Oldham have re-built? Workington have re-built?

This is another old chestnut that you can re-build in the Championship, a league in which crowds actually go nowhere and stay the same as they have always been for years, unless you do well in the league which pulls a few hundred more in. A league in which you feed of the Superleague scraps when it comes to players and if you develop your own you get the lads who couldn't make SL academy. Anyone who slips the net gets picked up by SL. A league in which rich men show no interest in being in.

Is the championship really somewhere where you can build a playing squad build a crowd and build up a large pot of money?

You accuse Padge of "twisting things" but to reason that the Championship is a great place to re-build for Superleague is strangling logic never mind twisting it?

2. You now prove my point. 15 & 16 years on and Oldham and Workington are "not ready". Halifax crashed out 10 years ago.

3. SL has attracted £250,000,000 into the game in SKY contracts and investments from rich businessmen, that's a quarter of a Billion pounds isn't it? I'm not surprised the RFL bend over backwards to shore SL up. I don't see how that's "bad" for the game.

I challenge you and all the other posters on here condemning Superleague to set out a vision for the games future success without this evil thing called SKY that so consumes the game by it's demands?

Edited by The Parksider, 05 December 2012 - 07:32 AM.


#24 Red Willow

Red Willow
  • Coach
  • 4,670 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:19 PM

Yet another topic derailed and covering the same ground as the Oldham/Salford thread. The people involved are entrenched in their views and yet have the same debate. I admire your patience guys.

The loan from the council is anything but a done deal with the Tory Karen Garrido saying she will write to the District Auditor and that it is morally wrong.

And so the drama continues.

#25 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,865 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:33 PM

Yet another topic derailed and covering the same ground as the Oldham/Salford thread.


Why not? it's about Salfords troubles which naturally lead on to how they have failed to compete in Superleague and what should be done about it.

I'd love to dicuss Salford but RJW said that we were all barking up the wrong tree and must wait until the facts come out, so that pretty much suspended that part of the thread.

If you don't allow threads to develop and keep the content strictly narrow then you'll just end up with three times as many threads.

How do you get on at dinner parties if nobody can develop the conversation, or take an interesting tangent?

Nowt wrong with a conversation going off in another direction - you can always pull it back on track by telling us what RJW will not reveal :lol:

#26 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,567 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:42 PM

The minimum standards??

Which ones? Those applied to SL clubs who need a business plan to turn over £4,000,000 plus a year and 8,000 to 10,000 crowds to fund it or the highly relaxed standards applied to "one championship club will be guaranteed a place subject to minimum standards" of a turnover of at least £1,000,000 (wow!) and 2,500 crowds (breathtaking).

What you miss is your championship darlings currently don't even meet the latter standards, but Castleford, Salford and even London beat them by a mile.

You also raise the silly old chestnut of telling us a club who is not under pressure to compete in the lower division making a few grand on a small turnover is "well managed" and those badly stretched to compete, and pushed to compete against the biggest clubs in Britain are "badly managed".

That is so simplistic it does you no favours.


There are no minimum standards that you describe above regarding revenue and crowds that are
applied to clubs in SL through any RFL or SL governance documents. No standards of revenue or attendances are enforced by either governing body.
These are your standards that you have developed over your posts in the past 2 - 3 months and they have been repeated so often that they may seem to some like the SL standards!

#27 Red Willow

Red Willow
  • Coach
  • 4,670 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:52 PM

I have no problem with a conversation developing but that's not what is happening. Every topic of conversation is being steered back to the same subject, with the same arguments.

Develop away on the Oldham/Salford one to your hearts content.

Leave this for rumour and conjecture. ;)

Edited by Red Willow, 05 December 2012 - 01:54 PM.


#28 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,957 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:15 PM

I hope we can pull through, but it seems increasingly unlikely that we can pull a rabbit out of the hat in time to allow us to be anything other than whipping boys next year. I don't want that. I'd rather we accepted that the impossible dream is over and drop back down to the championship. It is only a game, when all is said and done.

I wonder where I will be watching my rugby next year? The KC? Odsal? Headingley? Nooooooo! I might just start watching York again after a gap of 30+ years.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#29 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,865 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:33 PM

There are no minimum standards that you describe above regarding revenue and crowds


Read it more carefully. I'm saying these are the sort of sums and attendances clubs need to finance a competitive Superleague club. This is the sort of thing the adequate business plan (which IS a standard) needs to add up to.

This is why (to keep it to Salford :lol: )

They are in schtuk, because they don't get those sort of attendances. They said it themselves.

Their 5,800 is not good enough.

#30 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,567 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:45 PM

Read it more carefully. I'm saying these are the sort of sums and attendances clubs need to finance a competitive Superleague club. This is the sort of thing the adequate business plan (which IS a standard) needs to add up to.

This is why (to keep it to Salford :lol: )

They are in schtuk, because they don't get those sort of attendances. They said it themselves.

Their 5,800 is not good enough.


"Those applied to SL clubs" implies a bit more than the numbers that may or may not be in a business plan........

#31 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,865 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:51 PM

"Those applied to SL clubs" implies a bit more than the numbers that may or may not be in a business plan........


My clumsy phrasiology.

#32 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,865 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:49 PM

Leave this for rumour and conjecture. ;)


I would if only we could get a rumour.

First RJW comes on to tell us he knows something but won't say, now Canetman does it.

So what else do you want to talk about given nobody's saying nowt?

#33 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,471 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:33 AM

Padge I hope some day life improves for you and science finds a way to stop the turds exiting your mouth.
Huddersfield were promoted averaging less than 2500 not too long ago, same with Salford and Crusaders. We know minimum standards are selective otherwise Cas wouldn't have got back in or HKR at all.
The fact is that we have 2 divisions within SL and 3/4 clubs stranded within the desert island that is the Championship, but the structural gap between part time and top SL is huge and cannot be bridged with our current set up. If we had a two tier FT set up Salford could get relegated, regroup within a FT structure and potentially grow as a newly defined Manchester brand.
Our current structures breed a mixture desperation and apathy, change and vision are needed.

#34 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,939 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:53 AM

Padge I hope some day life improves for you and science finds a way to stop the turds exiting your mouth.
Huddersfield were promoted averaging less than 2500 not too long ago, same with Salford and Crusaders. We know minimum standards are selective otherwise Cas wouldn't have got back in or HKR at all.
The fact is that we have 2 divisions within SL and 3/4 clubs stranded within the desert island that is the Championship, but the structural gap between part time and top SL is huge and cannot be bridged with our current set up. If we had a two tier FT set up Salford could get relegated, regroup within a FT structure and potentially grow as a newly defined Manchester brand.
Our current structures breed a mixture desperation and apathy, change and vision are needed.


I'll ignore your first line of abuse.

Huddersfield where promoted in to SL in 1998 with an average crowd for 1997 in div2 of 3,723, in 2002 they got 2,570 which is actually more than 2,500 by my maths, do you want to go away and check some facts before you continue.

Edited by Padge, 06 December 2012 - 11:00 AM.


Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#35 KISS

KISS
  • Players
  • 92 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:59 AM

I hope we can pull through, but it seems increasingly unlikely that we can pull a rabbit out of the hat in time to allow us to be anything other than whipping boys next year. I don't want that. I'd rather we accepted that the impossible dream is over and drop back down to the championship. It is only a game, when all is said and done.

I wonder where I will be watching my rugby next year? The KC? Odsal? Headingley? Nooooooo! I might just start watching York again after a gap of 30+ years.


You will be made very welcome at Huntington Stadium.

#36 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,471 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:25 PM

I'll ignore your first line of abuse.

Huddersfield where promoted in to SL in 1998 with an average crowd for 1997 in div2 of 3,723, in 2002 they got 2,570 which is actually more than 2,500 by my maths, do you want to go away and check some facts before you continue.


Your choice to ignore, my hope is for the cure.

I am glad you have access to that data and the time to look for it, was it just for league games or did it include the 5500 play off gate?

#37 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,882 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:43 PM

If Salford have to drop to he CC and Oldham get promoted to the CC, who will be the feeder club for whom?

#38 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,666 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:28 PM

You would assume that both clubs would walk away at that stage, the arrangement now being of little value to either side

Edited by Amber Avenger, 06 December 2012 - 02:28 PM.

SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#39 foozler

foozler
  • Coach
  • 955 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 03:12 PM

Whichever way you look at it several SL clubs seem to be in meltdown and i know of one other (Not including Reds/Tigers) that is seriously in the poo (And before anyone asks its not the Dragons or London or Hull KR)

CM


Would this be the source of your 'seriously in the poo' knowledge?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...league/20598218

It's no real surprise to read this, only doing what is prudent.

#40 R J Wagsmith

R J Wagsmith
  • Coach
  • 171 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

This whole thread has become silly, ill-informed nonsense.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users