300 replies to this topic

[keighley]

Very simple and very true.

In theory just cut your player spend and balance the books.

However results dip and crowds dip with them.

So just cut and cut and eventually you have Halifax 2003.

1. No points
2. Crowds lower than London's (YES THAT LOW)
3. No money

This is why Bradford could not just cut and cut - they knew what happened next door.....

Do you think that the strategy employed by Halifax back then would have worked today.? They would have cut their costs, righted the financial ship and been in a position to regroup and improve but they got relegated. Today they would not.

[keighley]

No. Nor are they an epidemic. Nor are they insoluble. But the situation is far far better than had Sky not come along. Sure, I'd like to see a few more Glasers, Abramoviches, Crowes in our game but in the meantime.....

You are talking to the wrong poster. I have not ever said that we should not have taken the Sky money.Just the opposite. I think we should ask them for more. I didn't say the 50% of the league who have had serious financial problems coulddn't sort out their companies either. Parksider agues that they can. I have said that at present the way half the clubs are operating, SL cannot sustain full time professionalism. IF it can then the league as a whole and the clubs as seperate entities need to get on with it, cut their costs to what they can afford and prove me wrong.

[The Parksider]

Do you think that the strategy employed by Halifax back then would have worked today.? They would have cut their costs, righted the financial ship and been in a position to regroup and improve but they got relegated. Today they would not.

You have no place in an elite doing that sort of thing.

It's unfair to the paying customers of Fax and their opponents

How does a club "re-group" what does this mean?

[Padge]

Again you are confusing individuals and individual unions with the IRB.

The RFU voted against professionalism so picking out two chairman as saying that rugby union needed to respond to the SL is meaningless. That may have been their opinion but the RFU wasn't moved. It doesn't explain the IRB's change of heart because we know that the RFU maintained their opinion.

Again the southern hemisphere unions cited SL but there is no date on their comments. The IRB vote was taken months later by which time the SL threat had turned out not to exist. The WRC similarly may not have existed when these comments were made so there was no need to mention them. There is no reason to think that the SRU, IRFU, WRU etc would have suddenly changed their opposition to professionalism just because the Aussies and Kiwis were worried about losing a few players. The Welsh had lost hundreds and nobody had cared.

You seem to see the different unions as a monolith of amateurism, in fact there had always been a north vs south split on the issue. England was strongly against and the Celts plus Italy benefitted from the shamateur system as they could afford boot money payments but couldn't afford a pro league (and still can't), on the other side the SANZAR nations wanted professionalism. The NSWRU believed in professionalism long before 1995, it's not like their opinion changed. What changed is that the northern unions (bar England) saw the threat from the WRC.

You have no explanation for why South Africa was the first to sign up players with paid contracts when they weren't worried about SL (a lack of quotes on your part). No smoking gun.

I think the Chairman of NZ rugby union, QRU Cheif Exec and the NSWRU Chairman are a bit above being a couple of club Chairman.

When the SL cat was out of the bag, the Aussies jumped to declare themselves pro, if that isn't responding then I don't know what is. SA didn't need to respond because they effectively signd up all the springboks on pro contracts earlier when Packer was sniffing around, the money from their current Murdoch deal meant they could easily do it, again a reaction to what was happening.

It didn't matter how the RFU voted in the least, they were in no position to either stop the game going pro or be party to another split. They knew they had lost.

Edited by Padge, 14 December 2012 - 12:54 AM.

[keighley]

see post #204

As you know very well, without Sky there would now be no SL clubs to go out of existence..and in my opinion, no Championship clubs either. With the absence of an elite competition to inspire young players, then the game would have faded into oblivion in the SEVENTEEN years since 1995. Union would have completely wiped the floor with us and there is the game they'd be playing now in your old school.

Remind me again who from SuperLeage has gone out of existence? Bradford, Salford, Crusaders, Wakefield, Paris, Castleford, Gateshead, maybe Hull KR Oops , there is three in 17 years, the rest is down to your wishful thinking.

Firstly, as with the other posts, I never, ever said that we should have refused Sky's money. There would have been some kind of top division to inspire players even without Sky money, but I am not advocating that. Paupers don't look at winning the lottery and refuse the money.

I think the Championships have benefitted very little from the Sky money and appear to have cut their cloth to the realities of their financial situation, which is more than can be said of the so very ELITE clubs.

Just for your information my school never ever left playing RU, more's the pity.

Finally, play all the silly typing games you want and put lines through things but you need to read the posts before you jump into false answers. I never said ANY SL clubs had gone out of existence although some have. What I said was those listed clubs were incapable of sustaining full time professionalism and their various bankruptcies, mergers, financial crises and indeed extinctions prove that to be so. So it's 8 clubs who have been unable to hack full time professionalism in 17 years and if you throw in the earlier failures of Oldham, Halifax and Workington it's 11. So if you had read what I had written and not jumped to conclusions you would not have been accusing me of wishful thinking, but then again......

Several posters have speculated that it is bad management that resulted in these failures, that the Sky money is enough and that the SL ship can be righted and sail away on calm serene seas. I am not in a position to deny that that is true and I hope it is but, as of this moment it is not. The SL and it's clubs need to take the actions to prove they can sustain full time professionalism before I will be convinced.

[JohnM]

You wrote, "we know Sky money cannot sustain a fully pro competition,"

The Parksider replied, " Jeez it's sustained one for 17 years no sign of it packing up.."

You responded, "Bradford, Salford, Crusaders, Wakefield, Paris, Castleford, Gateshead, maybe Hull KR. Jeez how many more cases do you need?

I corrected you," Bradford, Salford, Crusaders, Wakefield, Paris, Castleford, Gateshead, maybe Hull KR "

Finally, you wrote, t's clubs need to take the actions to prove they can sustain full time professionalism before I will be convinced.

Neither you nor I need to be convinced. Its the paying fans, either in the crowd or on TV that need convincing. You know what? I think they are convinced. Attendances up, viewers up, game up!

Edited by JohnM, 13 December 2012 - 09:26 PM.

[Trojan]

Please engage with the point.

As longs as SKY provide £17,000,000 a year to clubs we can run a professional league.

It needs to be a league that is run collectively, for the good of all Leeds, Wigan Wire and Saints and runs to some sensible principles.

I see there's now a proposal for a 10 team Super League on here with no P &R. An enormous gulf would then be allowed to develop between this "elite" and the rest. Surely this is the final nail in the coffin of the game's pretentions to be a "National Sport" and it can be relegated to the second (third?) tier along with basketball, ice hockey and speedway. Another 15 years of Super League "success" and we'll be on a par with knur & spell, crown green bowls and beach volleyball!

[Johnoco]

The claims to being a national sport are nothing to do with the top flight. It is.

Or is it ok for CC fans to trash smaller clubs than them because they are not 'traditional'?

[The Parksider]

I see there's now a proposal for a 10 team Super League on here with no P &R. An enormous gulf would then be allowed to develop between this "elite" and the rest. Surely this is the final nail in the coffin of the game's pretentions to be a "National Sport" and it can be relegated to the second (third?) tier along with basketball, ice hockey and speedway. Another 15 years of Super League "success" and we'll be on a par with knur & spell, crown green bowls and beach volleyball!

Well played for being flushed out as someone who reckons Superleague is evil and no good for the sport but daredn't debate this. Up to now........

The 10 club SL is from a poster. Equally you can propose a 5 club SL playing each other six times a season and the use that as justification that superleague is not a success at all.

The reality is SL can return to being a 12 club competition to balance the books. It was 12 clubs for many years and on several occasions there was no P & R.

You stand as a prime example of those who contrive an extreme argument from a personal bias.

Edited by The Parksider, 14 December 2012 - 01:35 PM.

[keighley]

Well played for being flushed out as someone who reckons Superleague is evil and no good for the sport but daredn't debate this. Up to now........

The 10 club SL is from a poster. Equally you can propose a 5 club SL playing each other six times a season and the use that as justification that superleague is not a success at all.

The reality is SL can return to being a 12 club competition to balance the books. It was 12 clubs for many years and on several occasions there was no P & R.

You stand as a prime example of those who contrive an extreme argument from a personal bias.

Of which group you are the aplha male.

[keighley]

You wrote, "we know Sky money cannot sustain a fully pro competition,"

The Parksider replied, " Jeez it's sustained one for 17 years no sign of it packing up.."

You responded, "Bradford, Salford, Crusaders, Wakefield, Paris, Castleford, Gateshead, maybe Hull KR. Jeez how many more cases do you need?

I corrected you," Bradford, Salford, Crusaders, Wakefield, Paris, Castleford, Gateshead, maybe Hull KR "

Finally, you wrote, t's clubs need to take the actions to prove they can sustain full time professionalism before I will be convinced.

Neither you nor I need to be convinced. Its the paying fans, either in the crowd or on TV that need convincing. You know what? I think they are convinced. Attendances up, viewers up, game up!

Whilst attendances, viewership are all up as you rightly say, the fact remains that many of the teams in SL cannot sustain full time professionalism hence at the financial crises and outright failures.
Stringent financial restructuring at these troubled clubs or many more cashed up investors or a susbstantial increase in the Sky money will have to ensue to enable full time professionalism to be sustained. To say otherwise is to fly in the face of the reality of the financial state of these troubled clubs.

[Celtic Rooster]

I have no doubt that Rugby League is the greatest sport on earth, but Super League is a different game to Rugby League, with its own laws, even unwritten ones like you can pass the ball forward as long as its not too obvious.There are 250,000 Rugby League players, officials and supporters in the Country, just my opinion. The game can't afford to be full time. Sky are only interested in Super Greed and even those clubs can't manage themselves on the Sky money. The rest of Rugby League has suffered since the inception of Super League. I gave up watching my team after about the first 4 years of Super greed and now I love watching Rugby League. I would like to see Sky pull the plug and lets see who is managing their business well. Sits back and waits for all the dinosaur taunts but its water off a ducks back. I will always be able to watch Eccles ARLFC!

[keighley]

You have no place in an elite doing that sort of thing.

It's unfair to the paying customers of Fax and their opponents

How does a club "re-group" what does this mean?

Widnes, this season, only got 5 more wins than Halifax did and they were financed by a big investor, so the performamnce wasn't that bad in retrospect.

Halifax, having rid themselves of their debts or made a big dent in them due to their cost cutting measures, would have been in a position to take the next years Sky money and recruit a better team and thereby get better results. If they had done that, other forms of finance , investors, sponsors, increased gates etc might have further stabilised their position.

That was what I meant by regroup.

Anywhay, it didn't happen. They were relegated and deservedly so. That's the scenario facing SL though if they finally cut off the other tiers and go to an isolated fortress mode. Their worst teams, no matter what, will stay in the competiton. They would not be in any position to reduce the numbers. Sky wouldn't go for it.Not a healthy situation.

[Johnoco]

I have no doubt that Rugby League is the greatest sport on earth, but Super League is a different game to Rugby League, with its own laws, even unwritten ones like you can pass the ball forward as long as its not too obvious.There are 250,000 Rugby League players, officials and supporters in the Country, just my opinion. The game can't afford to be full time. Sky are only interested in Super Greed and even those clubs can't manage themselves on the Sky money. The rest of Rugby League has suffered since the inception of Super League. I gave up watching my team after about the first 4 years of Super greed and now I love watching Rugby League. I would like to see Sky pull the plug and lets see who is managing their business well. Sits back and waits for all the dinosaur taunts but its water off a ducks back. I will always be able to watch Eccles ARLFC!

So as long as you can watch Eccles everyone else can go hang? Not so much a dinosaur as simply ludicrous.

[The Parksider]

I would like to see Sky pull the plug and lets see who is managing their business well. Sits back and waits for all the dinosaur taunts but its water off a ducks back. I will always be able to watch Eccles ARLFC!

No dinosaur taunts from me Sir.

Good honest post. No axe to grind.

Enjoyed it, hope you'll pop in again.....

[The Parksider]

1. Widnes, this season, only got 5 more wins than Halifax did and they were financed by a big investor, so the performance wasn't that bad in retrospect.

2. Halifax, having rid themselves of their debts or made a big dent in them due to their cost cutting measures, would have been in a position to take the next years Sky money and recruit a better team and thereby get better results. If they had done that, other forms of finance , investors, sponsors, increased gates etc might have further stabilised their position.

3. Anyway, it didn't happen.

1. Jeez.... You have contrived to argue that no points in a season in SL "wasn't that bad".

2. OK so now you are suggesting that somehow the only way was up for Halifax once that season was over?

Seriously are you making this up??

Have you not read up on the facts??

Or don't the facts suit???

3. Too right it didn't happen in reality. In your dreams it may have.

[shaun mc]

He's entitled to his opinion and post on here. If he's happy supporting Eccles and only Eccles so be it. If SL has turned him off then that his choice.
This type of post isn't the only one I've seen by a long way in the same manner.

[Johnoco]

He's entitled to his opinion and post on here. If he's happy supporting Eccles and only Eccles so be it. If SL has turned him off then that his choice.
This type of post isn't the only one I've seen by a long way in the same manner.

He's entitled to support who the hell he wants. There's absolutely nothing wrong with following any club you so desire. I also reserve the right to follow who I want and also laugh at the ludicrous mentality that thinks he can do what he wants and it is somehow 'real' whilst others who may follow 'super greed' clubs (hilarious) are somehow not. To me, that attitude can XXXX right off. Puritanical snobbery BS.

[shaun mc]

He's entitled to support who the hell he wants. There's absolutely nothing wrong with following any club you so desire. I also reserve the right to follow who I want and also laugh at the ludicrous mentality that thinks he can do what he wants and it is somehow 'real' whilst others who may follow 'super greed' clubs (hilarious) are somehow not. To me, that attitude can XXXX right off. Puritanical snobbery BS.

Its a free world and forum J
Not bothered if he supports Eccles and Eccles only. He's still supporting a great amateur RL club, that his choice. If he falls out with SL, so be it.

[Padge]

Its a free world and forum J
Not bothered if he supports Eccles and Eccles only. He's still supporting a great amateur RL club, that his choice. If he falls out with SL, so be it.

I think you missed the point