Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres 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
- - - - -

Salford Trouble/Salford Takeover


  • Please log in to reply
533 replies to this topic

#501 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 02:40 PM

Would your strategic club include the likes of Workington or Whitehaven to give a Cumbrian expansion to SL? Why can't one of those two clubs be centrally funded then, would that not be top down? Don't let us forget that "London" in whatever form has been around for over 30 years in professional (or semi) RL and managed to write off £2 - £3 million worth of debt from one of their guises.


Keith. your at it now. Your having a go at London for plenty of things M62 clubs have done.

Yes I have always supported a Cumbria side for SL for the geographical spread and the possibility a large junior production system may evolve (are there enough kids up there?)

However i think you discussed some of the logistical problems

#502 Keith T

Keith T
  • Coach
  • 8,911 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 02:46 PM

Sorry, Parky I am not having a go at London and you haven't answered my question re. central funding.

I know you say that M62 clubs and no doubt Cumbrian clubs have wasted money in the past and that is the only reason I mentioned the debts at London trying to balance things up.

So, does your support go as far as to say that, say, Workington, if they wanted to apply for SL, should get central funding?

I remember when .............................

"It is impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Workington Town, the fall guys this season for the Super League's determination to retain it's European dimension, in the shape of Paris. While the French have had every assistance to survive, the importance of having a flagship in a heartland area like West Cumbria has been conveniently forgotten." - Dave Hadfield - Independent 25th August 1996.


#503 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:00 PM

I know you say that M62 clubs and no doubt Cumbrian clubs have wasted money in the past and that is the only reason I mentioned the debts at London trying to balance things up.

So, does your support go as far as to say that, say, Workington, if they wanted to apply for SL, should get central funding?


I think the people who run clubs waste the money, I don't think we should blame "clubs" per se. Especially after those who wasted the money or got up to various tricks are long gone.

My "support" is fairly irrelevant, but I do think it would be a good idea to use SKY money to try to get a strategic spread of clubs, and a better idea to convince SKY to buy into it not that I think they will.

I think ideally clubs need a large catchment area of fans and players to be successful professionally. I see Saints sitting on merseyside, Wire on Cheshire and Wigan on greater Manchester for instance. Once you have more than one club in an area it gets counter productive so I'd have loved to have seen SL clubs sat on the north east, Wales, cumbria, london, catalans, Toulouse.

Workington? Why not I'd love to see a Superleague club in Workington but one that appeals across the county and attracts fans from all over and is a club RL kids all over Cumbria will one day aspire to play for so Yes.

But as central funding would be limited I'd guess RFL would prefer if that money existed to spend it on London and wales first.

#504 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,921 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 05:03 PM

Meanwhile, back to talking about Salford...

Is it overly cynical of me to wonder if on some level there is also a caculation that if the worst happens they are a more attractive proposition to buy from an administrator if season ticket money hasn't been swallowed by the debts of the old busines

Could they not just go into administration now? Or do they have to wait until the windup order?
Posted Image

#505 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,534 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 05:51 PM

Is it overly cynical of me to wonder if on some level there is also a caculation that if the worst happens they are a more attractive proposition to buy from an administrator if season ticket money hasn't been swallowed by the debts of the old busines


I'd say that would be pretty smart thinking, although I'd like to believe the first motivation would be to protect the fans.

#506 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,988 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 05:54 PM

Meanwhile, back to talking about Salford...


Could they not just go into administration now? Or do they have to wait until the windup order?


I'm not sure, but I suppose they could declare themselves bankrupt now and get it over with. However, ...

IF there really is a buyer in the wings, they might need to rescue the existing club in order to retain SL status, they might want to do this because starting afresh has its own problems (no players, no infrastructure, no ground, no league to play in, ...), they might just want to do the "right thing". There could be lots of reasons. Or it could just be the practical reason that it is Christmas and nothing much is going to change in the next fortnight. (except players not being paid for December :( )

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


#507 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,229 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:03 PM

Yes.



Not sure I entirely understand what you are asking. I would not actively seek to avoid having Cas, Fev and Wakey in SL together if all three were amongst the strongest 10,12,14 teams by whatever the applicable measure is/was. If London or Catalan were not among the strongest 10,12,14 then I could live with it. It wouldn't be ideal but if after taking into account whatever weighting we as a game choose to place upon 'expansion status' they were still not among the strongest teams, tough.




How long is a piece of string? I suspect you may be falling into the same trap as parksider in assuming I'm arguing for a return to 30 years ago. I've no particular objection to fast tracking its just that I think we should have a reasonable expectation of success before we afford a team that privilege, regardless of geography.

If we genuinely and reasonably believe that by elevating Skolars to SL they will become, rather than already being, a viable SL club and would not cease to exist as a viable SL entity at the withdrawal of one source of finance then great, put 'em in. Preferably in addition to the existing clubs rather than as a replacement. If like Paris, Gateshead, Crusaders, Hull KR, Huddersfield....(get my drift? not just expansion teams) they appear to be reliant on a single source of finance and/or imported players who are about to become significantly more expensive then no, no special privileges. work your way through the pyramid, however long it takes. A desire to expand shouldn't blind us to the likelihood of its success.

Thanks for the reply, I've been a bit tied up with other things. I'll ponder your well considered response and get back.

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.


#508 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:32 PM

1. I suspect you may be falling into the same trap as parksider in assuming I'm arguing for a return to 30 years ago.

2. I've no particular objection to fast tracking its just that I think we should have a reasonable expectation of success before we afford a team that privilege, regardless of geography. If we genuinely and reasonably believe that by elevating Skolars to SL they will become, rather than already being, a viable SL club and would not cease to exist as a viable SL entity at the withdrawal of one source of finance then great, put 'em in. Preferably in addition to the existing clubs rather than as a replacement. If like Paris, Gateshead, Crusaders, Hull KR, Huddersfield....(get my drift? not just expansion teams) they appear to be reliant on a single source of finance and/or imported players who are about to become significantly more expensive then no, no special privileges. work your way through the pyramid, however long it takes. A desire to expand shouldn't blind us to the likelihood of its success.


1. It wasn't an assumption just a fear.......

2. :( Yes I get your drift point taken absolutely.

I'm still not sure of what your saying, when you refer to the "withdrawal of one source of income" what does this mean? Skolars as the example would get £1.2M from SKY which would not make then an SL club. Skolars may also get £1.2M from a Hughes type character which would make them an SL club along with the SKY money. Same as Broncos....

For any expansion club to succeed in SL in the current circumstances they need SKY money (as an equal share) and substantial extra investment from a private source. withdraw either and they are dead??.

Forgive and please correct me if I am being thick, but my point is that smaller clubs can succeed in time if they have both the SKY money as it stands and significant private investment to get them on the same standing as top SL clubs. From that point things can develop as enough people (whether fans or players) take notice.

Salford failed because Mr. Wilkinson provided just enough financial backing to get the club in SL, but not enough to be able to mix it with the true elite. This is why I think Broncos have something when they put 60 past Warrington with a lot of home grown players.

#509 intheshed

intheshed
  • Coach
  • 408 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 12:42 AM

still not sure of what your saying, when you refer to the "withdrawal of one source of income" what does this mean? Skolars as the example would get £1.2M from SKY which would not make then an SL club. Skolars may also get £1.2M from a Hughes type character which would make them an SL club along with the SKY money. Same as Broncos....

For any expansion club to succeed in SL in the current circumstances they need SKY money (as an equal share) and substantial extra investment from a private source. withdraw either and they are dead??.


OK, I'm repeating myself to an extent but its worth saying again to avoid confusion, David Hughes, Ian Leneghan et al are deserving of our admiration and gratitude for putting their money where our mouths are and keeping London going and I have no desire to see them kicked out, I'm arguing for finding a better way not giving up.

When I speak of the withdrawal of one source of income or backing I am to an extent arguing against relying on a David Hughes type figure to make a club viable. Perhaps its a point better illustrated if I say I'm arguing against relying on the support of a Leighton Samuels or Jacques Fouroux type figure because as we saw with Paris and Crusaders when their support was withdrawn the clubs collapsed. I don't argue that we should actively try to stop any individual who wishes to own a team(heartlands or expansion) from doing so or investing his/her money in it nor should we actively try to stop them reaching SL but if there is nothing to prop that club up other than that individual we should not afford them special privileges such as immediate entry to SL.

I argue this because I think experience should teach us that if/when the investor/owner is no longer willing or able to support the club the chances of finding a replacement, particularly in expansion areas, is very slim. I have no problem with, for example, splitting the tv money 16 ways instead of 15 and allocating the 16th share specifically to the goal of creating an expansion club but not simply by giving it to one club or owner. That's eggs in one basket stuff and a basket that appears to have a hole in based on previous experience. It might not be the instant gratification of the immediate manifestation of an expansion club in SL but if it avoids Barcelona Whatevers being the latest in the depressingly long list of former RL teams in a couple of years time, it is, to my mind, the lesser of two evils.

The other thing that I think an advocate of top down, straight into SL needs to consider is, where are the players going to come from? Historically our quick fix answer has been a relaxed quota. I'm not a great fan of it but setting aside personal preferences the new TV deal and increased cap in Aus must compromise this option. Either the quality of player will be less or the cost greater.

Forgive and please correct me if I am being thick, but my point is that smaller clubs can succeed in time if they have both the SKY money as it stands and significant private investment to get them on the same standing as top SL clubs. From that point things can develop as enough people (whether fans or players) take notice


I suspect you're right but the key question is how do we either keep the private investment interested long enough for that to happen or have private investors willing to take over if the initial one drops out? The investors in Paris and Celtic had gone before the 2nd year in SL was up, Gateshead only lasted one. I don't know but I suspect they quickly realised that the cost of running a SL club with limited support and interest from spectators and sponsors was not small change and that the situation was not going to improve in the short term.

I'm at risk of the cheap, supporter of champs club after more money for his club, type response here but I'll take the chance and hope what I'm about to say is taken in the spirit intended. Perhaps one avenue that needs to be at least considered is seeking a way to make the 2nd tier better funded and higher profile, actually making it a place where a club can build towards SL, but crucially where the investor input would be measured in the £100,000s rather than millions? Allowing an expansion club time to grow spectator & sponsor interest but crucially allowing the RFL/SLE to spend its money not on propping up the club but on developing the game in that area generally. Development officers, funding for youth and amateur clubs/leagues, on the road fixtures etc...

Salford failed because Mr. Wilkinson provided just enough financial backing to get the club in SL, but not enough to be able to mix it with the true elite. This is why I think Broncos have something when they put 60 past Warrington with a lot of home grown players.


The number of clubs and people playing RL in London & the SE is great, I don't want to get rid of them but I don't think they are by any stretch of the imagination an example we should seek to replicate, that they are still around is something of a minor miracle.

#510 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 08:34 AM

When I speak of the withdrawal of one source of income or backing I am to an extent arguing against relying on a David Hughes type figure to make a club viable. Perhaps its a point better illustrated if I say I'm arguing against relying on the support of a Leighton Samuels or Jacques Fouroux type figure because as we saw with Paris and Crusaders when their support was withdrawn the clubs collapsed. I don't argue that we should actively try to stop any individual who wishes to own a team(heartlands or expansion) from doing so or investing his/her money in it nor should we actively try to stop them reaching SL but if there is nothing to prop that club up other than that individual we should not afford them special privileges such as immediate entry to SL.I argue this because I think experience should teach us that if/when the investor/owner is no longer willing or able to support the club the chances of finding a replacement, particularly in expansion areas, is very slim.


Would you consider the point that yes it's not the best way to build an SL club by relying on a rich man to bankroll a club to a Superleague standard, but take private investment away from the game this last 17 years and at what level would the game be operating at now how many players may have left, how many fans would not be watching? How many tens of millions or even more has gone into Superleague from private pockets?? where would we be without it??

Padge says it's always about "more money" refusing private money is about less.

Yes its the case that some private owners are seen to be "flakey" what happens when they leave? What happens when they stop putting money in. But like RL clubs are RL clubs so owners are owners and if Davey left Fartown I fear for Huddersfield, Mr. Wilkinson HAS stopped putting money in and Salford face oblivion, Hudgell has stopped putting money in so HKR face a very tough ride. Richardson walked away - Trinity in adminstration.

If there are less rich owners available to expansion clubs then of course that's because the game has it's roots in northern business, but I've not seen a rich owner at Castleford, nobody has yet taken over from Mr. Wilkinson, no rich owner wanted Bradford, but a second set of rich owners tried to make Crusaders work, and hughes took over fully from Lenegan and has a very loyal record with London........ and so I would suggest to you that you maybe should not differentiate between rich owners owning traditional clubs and rich owners owning expansion clubs??

Interested in your thoughts......

Edited by The Parksider, 23 December 2012 - 09:33 AM.


#511 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 09:24 AM

The other thing that I think an advocate of top down, straight into SL needs to consider is, where are the players going to come from? Historically our quick fix answer has been a relaxed quota. I'm not a great fan of it but setting aside personal preferences the new TV deal and increased cap in Aus must compromise this option.


The player question is a good one, but professional RL clubs can attract players from a distance because they pay professional wages. Leon Pryce plays in France and plenty of English players play for the Broncos, in fact if you go back about 4 years London played Wigan and in that match London had more British born players in their team - Wigan were full of Aussies- that was very significant that day.

Crusaders particularly stuffed themselves full of Aussies and were berated for that, but they did facilitate/enthuse a rise in RL in the principality and Welsh lads did still start to come through, some very good ones are up north now but most significantly the RFL along with Wigan are attempting to keep that welsh player development going for very good reasons none the least International RL.

Down in London as RL world showed us The Broncos sit on top of a pyramid of junior clubs (many whose formation was not created by London but the free gangway, but whose growth has the be part down to an SL presence nowadays) so that's ultimately where more players will come from to augment those already there and my point is that we have a serious player shortage and the return on centrally backing a Wales or a London is the creation of new player pools.

For Crusaders read Hull Kingston rovers referred to on here as "Hull Eastern suburbs". The problem of finding players is not restricted to expansion clubs it's alive and well in east Hull, a hotbed of Rugby League. The difference here is that HKR find getting quality players tough because Hull are taking them first. This is a reason why RFL want to see the player base expand because let's say we shut out expansion clubs because there's a shortage of players and the owners are flakey.......

And don't forget HKR are short of quality players and the owner has flakily given up bankrolling the club.......

Then as it stands we'd have 13 northern clubs all literally chasing the same small pool of professional quality players. Look at Widnes, there was a time they were churning out internationals from just down the road as Featherstone used to do. Times change and back in SL Widnes are having a tough time player wise, but maybe over a run of several years they can find a good player production line in Widnes. Will it be as productive as a south wales or a London player production line with a successful SL club above it?

I do doubt it, and you should also look at Salford - what is their record of producing RL professionals from Salford against London's record and Wales' record? I do feel you can't discriminate between M62 clubs and expansion clubs on the basis of where will the players come from, they all have their "where will the players come from" problem and as with HKR and Salford it may be more of a problem in the north? And the solution may well lie away from the north.

Edited by The Parksider, 23 December 2012 - 09:39 AM.


#512 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 09:32 AM

I'll try not to be abusive, but I want to make a point about Parksider and his posts.

Back in post 469, about halfway down, you state "My point is simple". If it is simple, why is that post (along with many others of yours) so long? It is so long that I can't be bothered to read it all. I did start, but I lost the will after a couple of paragraphs.

If you really do have a point to make, can I respectfully ask that you make it and move on? Please? Oh, btw, you are not alone in the "magazine article impersonating a message board post" stakes.


Where does the question of abuse come into it Tony? it's a fair enquiry?

If you can't be bothered to read a post mate don't. You can put me on ignore so it reduces the stuff you have to wade through, I've put Northern Sol on ignore to cut out all the nonsense posts we create so I am trying to cut it down.

I disagree it's a message board, it's a forum for discussion and debate, and as above Mr. Shed raises some excellent points I am bound to answer, not ignore him, and I've answered them in full (keeping on topic as Salford are part of the points I make) and split the replies into two because I take what you say.

I also keep off the majority of threads. RL's development/superleague/P & R/the fate of CC clubs is my big area of interest so I enjoy posting and reading posts on this. Some of the "overlong" ones from others being great reading (like Mr. Shed's, Lizzy's, Red Roosters etc etc) even if I don't agree with them.

I'd best leave it at that :)

Edited by The Parksider, 23 December 2012 - 09:41 AM.


#513 Chronicler of Chiswick

Chronicler of Chiswick
  • Coach
  • 2,523 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 10:36 AM

And the clock keeps remorselessly ticking down to 20.00 hours, five weeks on Friday when Salford are due to play their first game of the new season at home to Wigan.

#514 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,591 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 02:56 PM

I do doubt it, and you should also look at Salford - what is their record of producing RL professionals from Salford against London's record and Wales' record? I do feel you can't discriminate between M62 clubs and expansion clubs on the basis of where will the players come from, they all have their "where will the players come from" problem and as with HKR and Salford it may be more of a problem in the north? And the solution may well lie away from the north.


The failure of Salford to produce many professionals from their area is, I think, directly linked to the subject we have discussed before of the decline of Rugby League in Manchester. I have a very good friend who hails from Salford and in the 1960's used to play for Langworthy ARLFC and, according to him, they were a massive club in Lancashire amateur rugby league circles. There were other big clubs from that area , Folly Lane, from Swinton being one. Today I think the amateur game in Swinton and Salford is very much reduced from its former prominence.

The whole subject of why RL has declined so much in Manchester would make an interesting research topic for some aspiring student, maybe of professor Tony Collins. I think your post was excellent but I think the lack of production of players by Salford and the Manchester area, with the exception of Oldham, is a special case linked directly to the decline in importance of the game in Manchester in contrast for instance to the players produced from Castleford or Leeds, where the amateur game has remained bouyant.

#515 thundergaz

thundergaz
  • Coach
  • 2,857 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:27 PM

The failure of Salford to produce many professionals from their area is, I think, directly linked to the subject we have discussed before of the decline of Rugby League in Manchester. I have a very good friend who hails from Salford and in the 1960's used to play for Langworthy ARLFC and, according to him, they were a massive club in Lancashire amateur rugby league circles. There were other big clubs from that area , Folly Lane, from Swinton being one. Today I think the amateur game in Swinton and Salford is very much reduced from its former prominence.

The whole subject of why RL has declined so much in Manchester would make an interesting research topic for some aspiring student, maybe of professor Tony Collins. I think your post was excellent but I think the lack of production of players by Salford and the Manchester area, with the exception of Oldham, is a special case linked directly to the decline in importance of the game in Manchester in contrast for instance to the players produced from Castleford or Leeds, where the amateur game has remained bouyant.


The problem in Manchester is the football teams a kid growing up in Manchester today more than likely will support the Manchester clubs unless a family member is a big Salford. Oldham or swinton fan. The Manchester football clubs get far more publicity than say Salford etc. Competeing with football today is very hard especially when the Manchester area as the best 2 footy teams at present too. The kids at school will talk about Rooney. Aguero etc not luke pattern etc. which IMO RL will always struggle where football is concerned. I know Leeds and Wigan do well but their crowds are no where near the footy teams crowds. It's too hard today for RL clubs to get priority publication over football.

Edited by thundergaz, 23 December 2012 - 03:29 PM.


#516 duffymoon

duffymoon
  • Coach
  • 2,591 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:33 PM

Swinton have played out of town for over twenty years and at present do very little to promote the club in M27.Hopefully if the new stadium at Agecroft gets the go ahead things will improve.

#517 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,591 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:36 PM

The problem in Manchester is the football teams a kid growing up in Manchester today more than likely will support the Manchester clubs unless a family member is a big Salford. Oldham or swinton fan. The Manchester football clubs get far more publicity than say Salford etc. Competeing with football today is very hard especially when the Manchester area as the best 2 footy teams at present too. The kids at school will talk about Rooney. Aguero etc not luke pattern etc. which IMO RL will always struggle where football is concerned. I know Leeds and Wigan do well but their crowds are no where near the footy teams crowds. It's too hard today for RL clubs to get priority publication over football.


You are right about the football but Man U and Man C were always big soccer clubs and RL was quite successful in Manchester in the past. Maybe the soccer clubs are now just so huge that RL cannot compete. There are other reasons as well for RL's decline but it's a complex topic and would derail the thread if I went off on that tangent.

#518 41hound

41hound
  • Coach
  • 171 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:40 PM

And the clock keeps remorselessly ticking down to 20.00 hours, five weeks on Friday when Salford are due to play their first game of the new season at home to Wigan.


I think we are all aware of that. :unsure: :lol: - I dont think it is going to happen.

At the moment - It is just a question of if we go out of business and reform in the bargain basement or fold and dissappear completely. We have half a team, no money to pay them and no help in sight.

Edited by 41hound, 23 December 2012 - 03:41 PM.


#519 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,591 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:45 PM

Swinton have played out of town for over twenty years and at present do very little to promote the club in M27.Hopefully if the new stadium at Agecroft gets the go ahead things will improve.


How far is Barton from Swinton ?. There might be an opportunity to move to a brand new stadium opening up soon. <_<

#520 41hound

41hound
  • Coach
  • 171 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:07 PM

How far is Barton from Swinton ?. There might be an opportunity to move to a brand new stadium opening up soon. <_<


I think they are still planning the stadium? They should be submitting a planning application soon. It is a few years away from being reality - I hope it does come off for them as they need to be in their home area and not in Leigh.