105 replies to this topic

[Northern Sol]

So in days of yore when Huddersfield won everything it was perfect, then again Widnes (the cup Kings) and Hull in the good old days just shared the spoils,

Bradford are now, it seems, out for a while and another team will step up.

I wasn't contrasting SL with "the good old days". I was contrasting it with the Championship(s). Some folk think SL rugby is the be-all and end-all, I don't. The Championship may not have the crowds but it does have more variety than SL.

[Dave T]

I think it odd to argue that Wigan and Leeds winning trophies doesn't represent "business as usual". Sl has been utterly dominated by four clubs to the extent that there have only ever been two losing finalists from outside these four. And of those four, Bradford are screwed and no better than Huddersfield and Saints are off the boil.

Wire might win SL but it would be a breakthrough if they did, not "just another season".

SL has had 6 different teams in the GF - thats almost half of the teams.
There have been some extraordinary records (Leeds) but the fact they have done it from 5th shows the unpredictability when nobody could look past Wire and Wigan for the last two years.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I think it odd to argue that Wigan and Leeds winning trophies doesn't represent "business as usual". Sl has been utterly dominated by four clubs to the extent that there have only ever been two losing finalists from outside these four. And of those four, Bradford are screwed and no better than Huddersfield and Saints are off the boil.

Wire might win SL but it would be a breakthrough if they did, not "just another season".

I can argue that Wigan in the Grand Final or winning trophies wouldn't be business as usual.

In 10 years they've only made it to 2 GFs.
They've won the LLS twice, SL once and CC once. Hardly a dynasty of trophies in recent years.

[Northern Sol]

SL has had 6 different teams in the GF - thats almost half of the teams.
There have been some extraordinary records (Leeds) but the fact they have done it from 5th shows the unpredictability when nobody could look past Wire and Wigan for the last two years.

It is most definitely not "almost half the teams" when you include teams that have been in SL but aren't currently such as Gateshead, Crusaders, Leigh, Sheffield etc

[Robin Evans]

We aren't the problem though are we, we will support our clubs come what may. We will go the extra mile, sponsorships, season tickets, lottery, ISA etc

We know we watch a great comp, we know Thursdays/Premier contract are a joke, but how do we attract new/lapsed fans who say 'whats the point when you win it and go nowhere?'

bang on owd cocker!

[Dave T]

It is most definitely not "almost half the teams" when you include teams that have been in SL but aren't currently such as Gateshead, Crusaders, Leigh, Sheffield etc

You can make up whatever criteria you want to suit your argument. There are 14 teams in SL - almost half of them have been in the Grand Final - irrespective of what you say.

[keighley]

thats ok mate nothing wrong with going into detail to make your point, but you reaching to make a point. Those supposedly conference level teams are professional outfits playing in pretty large cities. They are excluded because they can't satisfy purely financial considerations. The system doesn't care about tradition, passion or a sense of a team belonging to a place. The fact that the rfl have adopted elements is hardly a strong endorsement! I love Yankee sports but apart from some elements of revenue sharing its a vicious unsentimental one that I rather we leave to our cousins!

I take your point but surely the continued denial of p and r to SL and the very slow and difficult licencing process is a vicious and unsentimental method of keeping the CC clubs from joining the SL party as nasty as anything the Americans have done. At least, under the American system the league can be expanded without existing teams becoming casualties. For instance baseball never used to be further West than St Louis but when the Pacific Coast and other mid west and southern teams wanted to join the party, they allowed them in and went to conferences to solve the numerical and geographic problems this entailed.

As an aside, in your earlier post you mentioned the many cities with 100, to 150,000 populations which are too small to sustain American major league teams. I think those places are an opportunity for American RL to move in and kick start the game in the US. Our expenses and wages would not be in the mega millions range of big time US sports and such cities should be able to sustain a semi pro RL side. In the area I am most familiar with, New Engfland I can think of Providence, Hartford, Worcester, Springfield, New Haven, Portland and Manchester and Fall River all in that range and within easy distance of each other, perfect for a conference type of league. Soccer has gone this route somewhat with franchises like Columbus, San Jose, Salt Lake City etc.

[keighley]

Not all teams were yo-yo, but even if they were, so what? It was far better to be a fan of a youo team back then, than be forever stuck in the second division nowadays

I remember Fulham and York winning promotion from 1st or 2nd place, and a few others, who eventually were relegated in the 4th from bottom spot in the top division. This set them back big time. If they had been promoted as one of two teams they would have survived if they had finished in that position, although I recognise there would not have been two other teams who were promoted along with them to keep them out of the bottom two.

[Lobbygobbler]

I remember Fulham and York winning promotion from 1st or 2nd place, and a few others, who eventually were relegated in the 4th from bottom spot in the top division. This set them back big time. If they had been promoted as one of two teams they would have survived if they had finished in that position, although I recognise there would not have been two other teams who were promoted along with them to keep them out of the bottom two.

Two things:

1/ Some teams went up in third or fourth and stayed up. Sheffield are one example
2/ The benefit of 4 up meant that if you went down in 4th from bottom you had a great chance of bouncing back the year after. This made relegation sad but tolerable back then. Fulham did actually bounce back the year after they were relegated first time. It is a shame they didnt manage to stay up but that was part of the excitement. Many new teams actually got a taste of life in div 1 because we had 4up 4down and this probably attracted a lot of new fans who are still supporting RL to this day. I cannot see the new teams having mass appeal unless we widen the promotion spots to SL in the next few years

[jannerboyuk]

I take your point but surely the continued denial of p and r to SL and the very slow and difficult licencing process is a vicious and unsentimental method of keeping the CC clubs from joining the SL party as nasty as anything the Americans have done. At least, under the American system the league can be expanded without existing teams becoming casualties. For instance baseball never used to be further West than St Louis but when the Pacific Coast and other mid west and southern teams wanted to join the party, they allowed them in and went to conferences to solve the numerical and geographic problems this entailed.

As an aside, in your earlier post you mentioned the many cities with 100, to 150,000 populations which are too small to sustain American major league teams. I think those places are an opportunity for American RL to move in and kick start the game in the US. Our expenses and wages would not be in the mega millions range of big time US sports and such cities should be able to sustain a semi pro RL side. In the area I am most familiar with, New Engfland I can think of Providence, Hartford, Worcester, Springfield, New Haven, Portland and Manchester and Fall River all in that range and within easy distance of each other, perfect for a conference type of league. Soccer has gone this route somewhat with franchises like Columbus, San Jose, Salt Lake City etc.

as I've said many times I support p and r, I'd be happy to see it back next season. Thought the champ grand final before licensing came along were developing into an amazing event but I understand why they moved away from it, nothing pernicious just a strategy which I think is mistaken.
I think the usarl are showing how to develop in the states, a long hard slog but with plenty of potential. But as I've said it's worth understanding that where we see gaps may be filled by college/minor league, even high school sport which enjoys a large amount of support and operates very professionally.

[Northern Sol]

You can make up whatever criteria you want to suit your argument. There are 14 teams in SL - almost half of them have been in the Grand Final - irrespective of what you say.

Now compare how many sides have won NFP / NL1 / CC.

1996 Salford
1997 Hull
1998 Wakey
1999 Hunslet
2000 Dewsbury
2001 Widnes
2002 Huddersfield
2003 Salford
2004 Leigh
2005 Cas
2006 Hull KR
2007 Cas
2008 Salford
2009 Barrow
2010 Halifax
2011 Fev
2012 Sheffield

Rather more than just four winners, isn't it?

Edited by Northern Sol, 26 January 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[Dave T]

Now compare how many sides have won NFP / NL1 / CC.

1996 Salford
1997 Hull
1998 Wakey
1999 Hunslet
2000 Dewsbury
2001 Widnes
2002 Huddersfield
2003 Salford
2004 Leigh
2005 Cas
2006 Hull KR
2007 Cas
2008 Salford
2009 Barrow
2010 Halifax
2011 Fev
2012 Sheffield

Rather more than just four winners, isn't it?

Not really comparing like for like though. Championship has had teams winning the league and then moving out of that league. Id suggest that had Hull stayed in the Championship after 1997 then we may have seen them dominate the league like Saints, Bulls and Leeds have in SL.
When a team was dominant in div 1 they were taken out of that league. When a team was dominant in SL they were in there again the next year.

Btw - none of this is a criticism of the Championship, its great that its competitive, but we dont need to praise one division by criticising another.

[keighley]

Two things:

1/ Some teams went up in third or fourth and stayed up. Sheffield are one example
2/ The benefit of 4 up meant that if you went down in 4th from bottom you had a great chance of bouncing back the year after. This made relegation sad but tolerable back then. Fulham did actually bounce back the year after they were relegated first time. It is a shame they didnt manage to stay up but that was part of the excitement. Many new teams actually got a taste of life in div 1 because we had 4up 4down and this probably attracted a lot of new fans who are still supporting RL to this day. I cannot see the new teams having mass appeal unless we widen the promotion spots to SL in the next few years

We can't even get the powers that be to agree to one uo, one down. I can't see them even discussing 4 up 4 down.

[Northern Sol]

@DaveT

I know it is not like for like and never could be. I am also not particularly criticising SL; it is varied and interesting if you compare it to the EPL. I'm just saying that it is very odd to claim that CC is like groundhog day - always the same when there have been so many different winners. Even when the winner hasn't been promoted, they have never retained their title.

Edited by Northern Sol, 26 January 2013 - 02:54 PM.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

Not really comparing like for like though. Championship has had teams winning the league and then moving out of that league. Id suggest that had Hull stayed in the Championship after 1997 then we may have seen them dominate the league like Saints, Bulls and Leeds have in SL.
When a team was dominant in div 1 they were taken out of that league. When a team was dominant in SL they were in there again the next year.

Btw - none of this is a criticism of the Championship, its great that its competitive, but we dont need to praise one division by criticising another.

You mean they didn't get relegated the following season? After all we're constantly being told that clubs can't step up from the Championship to SL.

Edited by Les Tonks Sidestep, 26 January 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[keighley]

Not really comparing like for like though. Championship has had teams winning the league and then moving out of that league. Id suggest that had Hull stayed in the Championship after 1997 then we may have seen them dominate the league like Saints, Bulls and Leeds have in SL.
When a team was dominant in div 1 they were taken out of that league. When a team was dominant in SL they were in there again the next year.

Btw - none of this is a criticism of the Championship, its great that its competitive, but we dont need to praise one division by criticising another.

In addition Oldham, Barrow , Whitehaven, Leigh and Crusaders have been in the final.

Now p and r has been removed, however, dominant teams will not be removed so we will see if that theory holds water going forward.

[Methven Hornet]

It was fun I remember it very well, it shook everyone up.

The good old days.

Hope your not suggesting it for today when clubs will have to unload the re-buy whole squads year by year and some clubs wouldn't win a game in SL, and take 90 point hidings.

It was sh***! 4 up and 4 down (a quarter of div one teams were relegated!) was a disaster for the game. I watched Hornets during that yo-yo period and I think it knocked the stuffing out of the club (and I don't think it really ever recovered). It was a constant chasing promotion, battling relegation, chasing promotion - no development as a club, dispiriting for the fans, and, financially, very costly.

[Dave T]

@DaveT

I know it is not like for like and never could be. I am also not particularly criticising SL; it is varied and interesting if you compare it to the EPL. I'm just saying that it is very odd to claim that CC is like groundhog day - always the same when there have been so many different winners. Even when the winner hasn't been promoted, they have never retained their title.

I agree that it is a very odd claim about the Championships - but lets be honest here, nobody is saying that because of what actually happens, they say it because it suits their P&R agenda.

[keighley]

It was sh***! 4 up and 4 down (a quarter of div one teams were relegated!) was a disaster for the game. I watched Hornets during that yo-yo period and I think it knocked the stuffing out of the club (and I don't think it really ever recovered). It was a constant chasing promotion, battling relegation, chasing promotion - no development as a club, dispiriting for the fans, and, financially, very costly.

I totally agree but one up one down would give clubs hope without devastating the SL too much.

[Dave T]

You mean they didn't get relegated the following season? After all we're constantly being told that clubs can't step up from the Championship to SL.

Not by me you're not - speak to the person who claims that.