481 replies to this topic

[gingerjon]

Can't agree Griff. Soccer looked after itself and got on with developing their game. It wasn't their job to help RL but they didn't actively try to kill it. They never banned RL clubs from using their grounds nor ban players. Whereas RU did and more besides.

No, soccer did more than just develop its own game. It went out of its way to restrict the growth of a new code of professional football, prevented the growth of the game outside the heartlands and actively sought the same spectators.

It's misguided to believe soccer to be blameless and lay all of our ills on the door of rugby union.

Of course, rugby league's biggest enemy was, and is, itself.

[Griff9of13]

No, soccer did more than just develop its own game. It went out of its way to restrict the growth of a new code of professional football, prevented the growth of the game outside the heartlands and actively sought the same spectators.

It's misguided to believe soccer to be blameless and lay all of our ills on the door of rugby union.

Of course, rugby league's biggest enemy was, and is, itself.

Can't argue with any of that.

Like I said in my earlier post, soccer poached an entire club, Manningham to form Bradford City so as to try and establish itself as the dominant code in the city. This was far from an isolated example. The team I once played for, St Helens (Pilkinktons) Recs went the same way in 1902. Fortunately they only stuck to soccer for a couple of years and came back.

Edited by Griff9of13, 24 January 2013 - 05:36 PM.

[Johnoco]

No, soccer did more than just develop its own game. It went out of its way to restrict the growth of a new code of professional football, prevented the growth of the game outside the heartlands and actively sought the same spectators.

It's misguided to believe soccer to be blameless and lay all of our ills on the door of rugby union.

Of course, rugby league's biggest enemy was, and is, itself.

As I said, it wasn't soccers job to promote/help RL or any other sport. They didn't ban RL. Players like Billy Batten (IIRC) had the option to join RL or Association clubs. In other words giving talented working class lads the chance to earn money from football. I'm not sure how soccer stopped RL outside its heartlands other than by being more popular.

Did RL go out of its way to help rival games?

Edited by Johnoco, 24 January 2013 - 05:57 PM.

[longboard]

Sounds pretty bad.

John, Phil Parkinson for the Huddersfield Town job?

[gingerjon]

They didn't ban RL.

They didn't have to.

Soccer actively sought to convert rugby clubs and prevent association clubs from playing rugby.

[Johnoco]

They didn't have to.

Soccer actively sought to convert rugby clubs and prevent association clubs from playing rugby.

As far as I know, no guns were held to heads or Vichy style collaboration occurred. If they switched it was because they voted to.

[Johnoco]

John, Phil Parkinson for the Huddersfield Town job?

Talking to a couple of City fans and whilst delighted with the cup run are fearful of what might happen next. ie losing players and manager and sliding down the table.

[gingerjon]

As far as I know, no guns were held to heads or Vichy style collaboration occurred. If they switched it was because they voted to.

That is true.

But in terms of the spread of a professional working class sport which do you think might have had the greater impact? A few clubbable chaps not wanting to professionalise themselves - or another professional working class sport going all out to win exactly the same market of spectators.

[Johnoco]

That is true.

But in terms of the spread of a professional working class sport which do you think might have had the greater impact? A few clubbable chaps not wanting to professionalise themselves - or another professional working class sport going all out to win exactly the same market of spectators.

They were just taking advantage of the situation whereby the RU would rather rugby died out than be dominated by the oiks.

[Futtocks]

Southampton FC bans reporters from talking to fans outside ground.

[gingerjon]

They were just taking advantage of the situation whereby the RU would rather rugby died out than be dominated by the oiks.

Yes, they were. But rugby league needed paying spectators to survive and grow, and soccer did not sit back and idly wait to see which side the working class public was going to support. (Obviously they acted in their own interests and didn't ban anyone but to pretend that only rugby union has been harmful, or to downplay what losing the fight with soccer meant (and continues to mean) is to ignore a major factor in rugby league's development.)

[Johnoco]

Yes, they were. But rugby league needed paying spectators to survive and grow, and soccer did not sit back and idly wait to see which side the working class public was going to support. (Obviously they acted in their own interests and didn't ban anyone but to pretend that only rugby union has been harmful, or to downplay what losing the fight with soccer meant (and continues to mean) is to ignore a major factor in rugby league's development.)

There's some truth in that but you can't expect a rival anything to help the opposition. They were pro soccer not (generally) anti RL. Whereas RU wanted to kill the code (not an exaggeration imo)

Its like someone unemployed berating you for having a job and providing for your family....yes, you feel sympathy but ateotd your priority is you and yours.

[gingerjon]

There's some truth in that but you can't expect a rival anything to help the opposition. They were pro soccer not (generally) anti RL. Whereas RU wanted to kill the code (not an exaggeration imo)

Certainly in the early days rugby union wanted to kill rugby league. After that, I think it was just pigheadedness and obstinacy.

Soccerball also had a problem with potential pro/am schisms up until the 1920s. The FA Cup was originally a challenge tournament for the amateur classes; the Amateur Football Alliance wanted to usurp the FA as the true custodian of the game.

[Johnoco]

Anyway.....just seen the prices of the tickets for Citys allocation of 31852.
£40 £56 £72 £90 and £100.

Not cheap but I bet they all go.

[gingerjon]

Anyway.....just seen the prices of the tickets for Citys allocation of 31852.
£40 £56 £72 £90 and £100.

Not cheap but I bet they all go.

I'm sure they will.

And nobody will complain about why it's not on the season ticket or that the kick off time means they'll miss Bullseye.

[Wolford6]

And nobody will complain about why it's not on the season ticket or that the kick off time means they'll miss Bullseye.

I'm going to complain because I'll probably have to look after my grandkids.


The two girls have City shirts and the boy will support them just to spite me.

[Wolford6]

Michael Chopra is a waste of talent and space.

[ArmchairRhino]

Luton aren't exactly Sutton but a non-league club beating a top flight club is still a big deal. Nice one.

[gingerjon]

just to spite me

Smart kids.

[JohnM]

You'll get a twenty page thread demanding to know why a rugby union journalist is using the word 'rugby' but you won't find anyone ever wondering why a soccer writer can use 'football'.

What's the F in RFL stand for?

Farce? Farrago? Farage?