Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

DR The fightback?


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#41 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,991 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:41 AM

What on earth is up with you? What your club has strived to do has been applauded universally even by it's detractors on here.

The RFL are fully supportive and your ticking boxes whilst struggling SL clubs are unticking them

Why do you care what the "A" teams are up to? Rovers focus must be on Superleague and NOT the Championship.

Why do I care what the A teams do? I can't believe you're asking that question. I care because I want to see a league full of clubs that are striving to be as good as they can be through their own rigorous endeavours instead of what we have now regardless of whether Fev end up in SL or not. You know... A league that's worthy of being called the Championship.
Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

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

#42 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,049 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:42 AM

I support Keighley Cougars.

I have been to two games this season. One home one away.

This DR system is against the whole ethos of what i believe about the game.

Cant see me going to another game.

#43 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,719 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:48 AM

To be fair to Fev and Sheffield in particular, they are two clubs who have invested heavily (by Championship standards, at least) in running Academy sides - against the wishes of the RFL and some Super League clubs. They are coached by people who believe that for their clubs to be a success in the long term, and RL in general in this country, then we should be producing and developing more players, not less. Both have also signed young players from SL clubs - not on dual reg agreements (though I seem to recall Fev did use them in the past with Leeds, but I may be wrong on that), but on season loans or when SL clubs don't want them. Yes, they may feel threatened, but that's only because they're trying to do things "properly", to develop into potential SL clubs in future. They also have a point about the way the system is being abused by SL clubs, as a cheap alternative to running more Academy teams/under 23s/a second team league.


By the very fact that they are running a full junior system they are setting themselves up to be a strong consideration for Super League entry. They have both declared an intention to get into Superleague and are acting as Superleague clubs, I am sure partly for the noble purpose of helping develop kids for the game as a whole, but also for helping their applications to SL.

In what mix that is we will never know. If Featherstone were rejected for Superleague in a fashion that made them believe they would never get in again, would they continue with the junior development? We do not know.

But that isn't the point I make, it seems Featherstone at least are worrying about something they are breaking their necks to leave behind, and are strong favourites to leave behind..

Sheffield may be a different matter. They must see that London who have few fans like Sheffield have an SL license based wholly on a junior development system that is outside the M62 corridor. The Junior system is essential to any SL bid for Sheffield to show that can increase the player pool in non RL heartlands.

In both cases however the point may be made that paying out for such systems is questionable if all that happens is SL clubs take the best kids off Shefield and Fev. So far I only know of "Zac" being taken in this way but Rovers got £80,000 for him (so I heard) so maybe their system isn't all about "for the good of the game"

#44 Keith T

Keith T
  • Coach
  • 9,007 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:48 AM

You mean the self interest of marketing their clubs and going out and raising money so that they can sign the 'better' players?

One club that's gone down the DR path apparently only had 17 players signed on at the start of the season - if that's true you've got to ask whether they should be in the Championship (or any league for that matter) at all.


My answer to that one would be that they probably knew what was going to happen and had already had talks with Warrington prior to the September meeting of Championship clubs. Leeds and Hunslet announced their partnership prior to that meeting!!!

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.


#45 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,719 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:59 AM

Why do I care what the A teams do? I can't believe you're asking that question. I care because I want to see a league full of clubs that are striving to be as good as they can be through their own rigorous endeavours.......


Well we know where semi pro championship clubs end up in terms of "rigorous endeavours" leaving the league like York and Bramley did, going bust like several of them have, and drifting along because fewer and fewer people want to watch Semi pro anymore.

Your in danger of being a bit holier than though here Terry. Just remember how much money Mr. Campbell brought into the club, and how much Mr. Nahaboo is putting in and proposing to put in.

You may be mistaking all of you clubs progress as being on "honest endeavour" when in fact a large amount is on hard injections of cash.

This is what I don't like about the argument that clubs are worried for the game, worried for youth development, worried about each other etc etc. This game is a game primarily based on money and self interest.

Edited by The Parksider, 28 February 2013 - 12:02 PM.


#46 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,913 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:02 PM

But the top four clubs are not trying to dictate to the others. Where do you get that idea from?


I think they are, Terry. They have no intention of submitting to DR so the proposed restrictions won't affect them at all. They want the others to sign up and restrict the usefulness of DR so that they (the top four) can carry on being the top four.

That's why I would have invited all 14 of the Championship Clubs.

It's poor PR - just makes them look self interested.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#47 dkw

dkw
  • Workington
  • 4,881 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:26 PM

But the top four clubs are not trying to dictate to the others. Where do you get that idea from? They've made an agreement between themselves and are hoping that the others will follow suit and use the DR system in the spirit intended.

So why didnt they invite all the other championship clubs to their lovely little tea party?

#48 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,913 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:29 PM

So why didnt they invite all the other championship clubs to their lovely little tea party?


Nail, head.,
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#49 Tonka

Tonka
  • Coach
  • 718 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:52 PM

I am really not seeing what the big problem with DR is.

#50 Les Tonks Sidestep

Les Tonks Sidestep
  • Coach
  • 1,584 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:56 PM

So why didnt they invite all the other championship clubs to their lovely little tea party?



Wasn't there a meeting of all Championship clubs a couple of weeks ago where DR (amongst other things) was discussed? I'd guess the 'other' clubs made their views clear at that meeting and didn't want to discuss any further. Wouldn't be much point inviting them then would it?

#51 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,913 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:08 PM

Wasn't there a meeting of all Championship clubs a couple of weeks ago where DR (amongst other things) was discussed? I'd guess the 'other' clubs made their views clear at that meeting and didn't want to discuss any further. Wouldn't be much point inviting them then would it?


Yes - PR.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#52 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,991 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:10 PM

So why didnt they invite all the other championship clubs to their lovely little tea party?

Obviously it was a meeting of like minded clubs with the objective of coming up with a formula which might persuade the rest to realise the error of their ways. The York CEO appears to have some sympathy. How could they hope to get clear thinking on any new proposals with a room full of people who at present are poles apart?
Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

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

#53 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,913 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:13 PM

I am really not seeing what the big problem with DR is.


It's all what ifs.

There are no safeguards to prevent a team including a bunch of DR stars in the play-off games - after their $uperleague partners have finished their season.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#54 dkw

dkw
  • Workington
  • 4,881 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:13 PM

So instead of talking to the other clubs and trying to come up with an agreed way of implementing DR, they chose to to he closed meeting between the 4 clubs with the most to lose and came up with a way of keeping everything the same? Ah, democracy at its finest.

#55 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,913 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:14 PM

Obviously it was a meeting of like minded clubs with the objective of coming up with a formula which might persuade the rest to realise the error of their ways. The York CEO appears to have some sympathy. How could they hope to get clear thinking on any new proposals with a room full of people who at present are poles apart?


If they're not there, how can you persuade them to do what you want ?
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#56 Terry Mullaney

Terry Mullaney
  • Coach
  • 1,991 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:37 PM

If they're not there, how can you persuade them to do what you want ?

Well obviously that's the next step now that they've got their proposed scheme into place.
Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture House
Free Showreel DVD On Request

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

#57 jpmc

jpmc
  • Coach
  • 577 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:44 PM

Well obviously that's the next step now that they've got their proposed scheme into place.


Correct.

Iv'e no doubt the 4 or 5 clubs that have signed this memorandum are asking the other clubs to consider signing, as nothing can change until they do.

#58 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,913 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:46 PM

And, if the twinned clubs had had a meeting and come up with an "agreement" for the others to sign, saying they had to play DR players, they'd all have said "Yay, let's do it", eh ?

No - I think the four have just managed to antagonise them and make their position more entrenched.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#59 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,913 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:47 PM

Correct.

Iv'e no doubt the 4 or 5 clubs that have signed this memorandum are asking the other clubs to consider signing, as nothing can change until they do.


And why would they ? - just because Fev, Sheffield, Fax and Leigh say they have to ?
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#60 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,719 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:48 PM

So instead of talking to the other clubs and trying to come up with an agreed way of implementing DR, they chose to to he closed meeting between the 4 clubs with the most to lose and came up with a way of keeping everything the same? Ah, democracy at its finest.


That's the nonsense of it.

The thing that the top CC clubs need to do is discuss Super League entry criteria with the RFL.

The qualification that you have to win the NRC or reach the grand final could in theory be blocked by strong "A" teams in the play off phase.

Losing to clubs like Hunslet :lol: may turn fans off and the 2,500 criteria is harder to achieve.

None of my business but all I observe is clubs signing up to a fairly open ended DR which is what they want to do for survival. If other clubs don't want to do it because they have hopes of Superleague one day then fine - change the SL entry rules so that 9 clubs get what they want and the other 5 have a fair chance to get what they want.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users