Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world 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
- - - - -

Barrow Raiders and Darren Holt stand firm on DR

dual reg/twinning/feeder

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

Poll: Will this cost barrow a place in the championship? (31 member(s) have cast votes)

will barrow get relegated?

  1. Yes (6 votes [19.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.35%

  2. No (10 votes [32.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.26%

  3. To early in the season to tell (15 votes [48.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.39%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 jt

jt
  • Coach
  • 1,696 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 03:01 PM

There is a massive difference if Barrow loan players to the clubs that are on DR

If a Barrow gets injuries and need to bolster there squad for a month or longer they will Loan a player in from any club and he will be with them for a period of time

If they were on DR they would only come in when the SL club didn't pick them and then if they wanted them back the week after they would be taken back by the SL club that wouldn't help them at all to me that is a big difference

We have already seen experienced SL players play for the championship clubs do you think those players would of been allowed out on loan for a length of time I would think not

#22 alba

alba
  • Coach
  • 222 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:35 PM

I agree with Keith T, but what worries me are the teams that do both, loan players plus DR, this not only shuts the door to a lot of good lads, but will eventually kill the game.

#23 mick wilson

mick wilson
  • Coach
  • 4,474 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 11:29 PM

barrow are still suffering from the fallout of the dessie period..............


^^^This^^^ Plus add in that we are trying to raise 100 grand for replacement floodlights mean were strapped for cash, Barrow will be bottom of the league for a while as they adjust to the higher division but I think they will come good and avoid the drop and be far stronger for it next season.
The Donny game could have been won but the luck and rub of the green were against us on the day, Our home form will save us.

#24 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,991 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:37 AM

SL clubs are unashamedly using the Championship as a convenient vehicle for rehabilitating their first choice players when the whole purpose of this system was muted as being for the benefit of fringe first team players gaining experience at a higher level. They've abandoned their own reserve sides because of financial self interest and now have no qualms whatsoever about using the Championship and potentially destroying its credibility in the process so that they can save a few quid.

Annoyingly the RFL, the Championship clubs and SL clubs appear to be oblivious to the long term damage that this system will have on the professional game. What about the up and coming players at Championship level who have trained all week but don't know whether they're playing or not until a couple of days before a game because Brian Mac or Tony Smith haven't decided who to make available? I suppose the short term view of the club would be that they don't have to pay their wages if SL players replace them. A short term cost cutting triumph but at what cost, long term? Why would future young kids aspire to play Championship rugby under these conditions? They might as well stay where they are at amateur level or more worryingly decide to do something else instead.

Unless the ruling body of our game, if thats what they are, sort this mess out sooner rather than later, there will be long term disastrous and irretrievable consequences.

Edited by Terry Mullaney, 17 February 2013 - 02:45 AM.

Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

http://www.pictureho...ingfilms.co.uk/

#25 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,159 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:24 AM

SL clubs are unashamedly using the Championship as a convenient vehicle for rehabilitating their first choice players when the whole purpose of this system was muted as being for the benefit of fringe first team players gaining experience at a higher level. They've abandoned their own reserve sides because of financial self interest and now have no qualms whatsoever about using the Championship and potentially destroying its credibility in the process so that they can save a few quid.

Unless the ruling body of our game, if thats what they are, sort this mess out sooner rather than later, there will be long term disastrous and irretrievable consequences.


"Self interest"?? "saving a few quid"??.

Come on Terry get real here. The fact is Superleague underpins the whole game now so it is the interests of the game that Superleague is financially sound and it is not. This is why SL clubs are going bust and lending. This is where £68M in debts was quoted from.

The SKY contract does not fully fund a professional game which is what we have to deliver and so the Superleague clubs HAVE to take Zac Hardaker off you, Bulls HAVE to try to sell season tickets in Batley and Dewsbury, and Leeds HAVE to use Hunslet as an "A" team.

Lyndsay said merge as all the resources had to be channeled to Superleague but the clubs with fan pressure said no and so Superleague will take what it can from it's neighbours to stay alive and in turn keep the game alive.

The alternative is to ring fence the Championship, with SL clubs embargoing signing the CC clubs best kids, and not sending their season ticket buses into CC clubs "areas" so it's all very fair and proper and all the clubs can continue to compete evenly and "fairly" etc etc.

What's happening is not "unfair" it's not "to save a few quid" it's not "greed and self interest". That may suit the vocabulary of fans whose clubs are not in Superleague but it just isn't the case. It's pure economic neccessity for a game that is frankly starting to look a bit shakey again.

Edited by The Parksider, 17 February 2013 - 09:25 AM.


#26 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,991 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:12 AM

"Self interest"?? "saving a few quid"??.

Come on Terry get real here. The fact is Superleague underpins the whole game now so it is the interests of the game that Superleague is financially sound and it is not. This is why SL clubs are going bust and lending. This is where £68M in debts was quoted from.

The SKY contract does not fully fund a professional game which is what we have to deliver and so the Superleague clubs HAVE to take Zac Hardaker off you, Bulls HAVE to try to sell season tickets in Batley and Dewsbury, and Leeds HAVE to use Hunslet as an "A" team.

Lyndsay said merge as all the resources had to be channeled to Superleague but the clubs with fan pressure said no and so Superleague will take what it can from it's neighbours to stay alive and in turn keep the game alive.

The alternative is to ring fence the Championship, with SL clubs embargoing signing the CC clubs best kids, and not sending their season ticket buses into CC clubs "areas" so it's all very fair and proper and all the clubs can continue to compete evenly and "fairly" etc etc.

What's happening is not "unfair" it's not "to save a few quid" it's not "greed and self interest". That may suit the vocabulary of fans whose clubs are not in Superleague but it just isn't the case. It's pure economic neccessity for a game that is frankly starting to look a bit shakey again.

Economic necessity for clubs of the calibre of Leeds, Wigan, Warrington, Saints, Hull? But yet Fev, Sheffield and other Championship clubs do manage to fund full development pathways on vastly smaller income streams. It's not a necessity, its a cynical abuse of the Championship by SL clubs who are farming their players to a higher grade of football on the cheap.
Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

http://www.pictureho...ingfilms.co.uk/

#27 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,549 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:21 AM

Cannibalism is an economic necessity?

rldfsignature.jpg


#28 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:29 AM

It's not a necessity, Parky.

What should happen is that the clubs should pay for the things that the game needs then see how much they have left for what the game wants.

Which is not what's happening at the moment. Who bangs on about player production more than you ?
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#29 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,159 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:04 AM

Cannibalism is an economic necessity?


Leeds have eaten Bramley and Hunslet and grown very well on it.

I suspect other SL clubs fancy a taste of their own Rugby League flesh.

#30 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,549 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:05 AM

Leeds have eaten Bramley and Hunslet and grown very well on it.

I suspect other SL clubs fancy a taste of their own Rugby League flesh.


Sooner or later there's no-one left to eat except yourself.

Edited by deluded pom?, 17 February 2013 - 11:05 AM.

rldfsignature.jpg


#31 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,159 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:10 AM

Sooner or later there's no-one left to eat except yourself.


Well we'll have to see, but Superleague will devour anything outside superleague that will make it that bit more Super.

If we end up with only 14 clubs and then the economics dictate that has to go to 12 then 10 that will be a manifestation of the fact that less and less people don't want to watch, play or fund RL anymore.

I'm fine with that. If this country doesn't want Rugby League then fine. But as long as it does we need a Superleague as strong as possible to promote the game.

#32 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,549 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:15 AM

Well we'll have to see, but Superleague will devour anything outside superleague that will make it that bit more Super.

If we end up with only 14 clubs and then the economics dictate that has to go to 12 then 10 that will be a manifestation of the fact that less and less people don't want to watch, play or fund RL anymore.



Maybe people won't have the choice if the game's taken away from them.

rldfsignature.jpg


#33 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,159 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:27 AM

Maybe people won't have the choice if the game's taken away from them.


How would the game be taken away?

The point must be what's better for the game - all the resources into a televised professional league or a return to 30 odd clubs sharing everything?

IMHO those who run the game feel the former is the vehicle for growth.

I don't see the "Thin end of the wedge argument" where people say if one club goes then another and then another where does it stop? All businesses cull uneconomical parts of their whole and stop when the business achieves it's ultimate efficient form.

Seems obvious to me RFL/SL want 14 SL clubs and 24+ feeder small semi pro clubs all around the country.

This is why calls for the RFL to sort this DR thing out for the sake of the Championship's integrity may well fall on deaf ears.

This is an observation, not a personal desire to all those who want to have a go (not meaning you)

Edited by The Parksider, 17 February 2013 - 11:29 AM.


#34 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,549 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:36 AM

Well if your club becomes as good as a feeder team to a SL team then IMO the game's (or at least your club has) been taken away from you. You seem convinced that it has to be SL or a 30 team league like it used to be. As I said once all the minnows (for want of a better expression) have been devoured then where next? The obvious answer is the weaker links in the remaining SL. So then once the SL becomes a small entity the next place to cast an envious gaze is over to RU. This is just my take on things, it might never get that far but it looks like the journey has already begun. One good way to save the game some money and to increase competiveness in the SL might be to reduce the SC as it's obvious not enough clubs can afford to pay full SC and run a sound business. We might lose some players to other leagues or codes but what's better? Lose a club or lose a player?

rldfsignature.jpg


#35 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,159 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:39 AM

It's not a necessity, Parky.

What should happen is that the clubs should pay for the things that the game needs then see how much they have left for what the game wants.

Which is not what's happening at the moment. Who bangs on about player production more than you ?


It's not MY neccessity, but it appears to be SL's.

What SL/RFL also appears to need is to stop making losses in the SL flagship.

As for player production I do not understand your point?

My opinion on this is it isn't the system kids go through that matters anywhere near as much as the number of kids playing
the game in the first place. This is why I think they have set up all these new clubs not to rise to become Supeleague clubs which is just dreaming, but to promote the game being played by the local kids.

All the new clubs are linked straight to SL clubs. Most of the northern CC clubs are linking up as "A" teams

So to me its glaringly obvious what the RFL/SLE are trying to achieve, and only 5 independant CC clubs stand in the way of them achieving it.

Talking about "what the RFL should do" in terms of toning down DR seems to fly in the face of what the policy actually is which is to set up a massive country wide feeder system.

If you aren't in SL or part of that system your in limbo and this is the reality IMHO.

#36 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,159 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:43 AM

Well if your club becomes as good as a feeder team to a SL team then IMO the game's (or at least your club has) been taken away from you. You seem convinced that it has to be SL or a 30 team league like it used to be.


NO NO NO please don't make this about me, once again all I observe is the RFL/SLE setting up a feeder/"A" team system below Superleague.

I understand why they are doing it and I suggest why they are doing it.

But I'm not championing this, I'm just putting it up for debate.

#37 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,159 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:44 AM

One good way to save the game some money and to increase competiveness in the SL might be to reduce the SC as it's obvious not enough clubs can afford to pay full SC and run a sound business. We might lose some players to other leagues or codes but what's better? Lose a club or lose a player?


That is something I'd personally be behind.

#38 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:45 AM

Well if your club becomes as good as a feeder team to a SL team then IMO the game's (or at least your club has) been taken away from you. You seem convinced that it has to be SL or a 30 team league like it used to be. As I said once all the minnows (for want of a better expression) have been devoured then where next? The obvious answer is the weaker links in the remaining SL. So then once the SL becomes a small entity the next place to cast an envious gaze is over to RU. This is just my take on things, it might never get that far but it looks like the journey has already begun. One good way to save the game some money and to increase competiveness in the SL might be to reduce the SC as it's obvious not enough clubs can afford to pay full SC and run a sound business. We might lose some players to other leagues or codes but what's better? Lose a club or lose a player?


I agree, this scenario if allowed to carry on can only mean that the big cats keep devouring until they are 4 really big cats left and 2 strategic ones.
Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Hull, London & France.
I also agree with what a poster above said about spending their money on what is important and then see what is left. Its obvious players pathways are being compromised at the expense of Aussie pension pots.
How the SL clubs can't afford £1.4m between them I don't know. Also, according to LE the remaining SL clubs have divided Bradfords half of their Sky money between them. That means its only about £0.8m they are short between them - about £57k each!!!
Next year they've all signed up to put the proper structures in, so they will have to fund them.
Terry M - great point about Sheff and Fev providing these structures with no Sky monies, when the SL clubs can't or perhaps won't.

#39 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,549 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:47 AM

NO NO NO please don't make this about me, once again all I observe is the RFL/SLE setting up a feeder/"A" team system below Superleague.

I understand why they are doing it and I suggest why they are doing it.

But I'm not championing this, I'm just putting it up for debate.


It was a general 'you' not a specific 'you'. I understand why they are doing it too. To save money. Nothing more nothing less.

rldfsignature.jpg


#40 jpmc

jpmc
  • Coach
  • 501 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 01:23 PM

The 5 championship clubs that want to remain independent should be looking to get another 5 clubs to sign up 'NOW'to a ten club league, so that it can be implemented at the end of this season for 2014.And, although it goes against everything i believe in,maybe a licencing system between the two leagues should then introduced along the lines of sl to protect the championship clubs.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users