Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Chairman speaks about DR


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 Anita Bath

Anita Bath
  • Coach
  • 505 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:47 PM

Unfortunately I for one was guilty of thinking the grass would be greener on the other side, but it is not. Promises that were made have not been converted. Infact I know less now as a member than I did as a shareholder.


According to he club website under membership it says

"Your input is vital to helping Rochdale Hornets grow and if you take out co-ownership, for as little as Β£20 per season, you have a chance to drive the club forward and get your ideas listened to, and adopted. As a Club co-owner/member you will have a say in how it's run, submit suggestions, discuss these at members meetings where everyone's opinions are debated and voted on, and therefore influence the direction the club takes and, if you want to, even stand for election onto the club Board. Everyone has an opinion, and all are equally valued here at Hornets. As a member driven club no-one member has more say than another, whatever membership you have taken out for the season you have an equal say in members meetings where club policies are decided."

Does anyone know at which members meeting was the policy of the DR link up with Saints decided?

#22 Lakeside

Lakeside
  • Players
  • 92 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 09:02 PM

Membership numbers may well drop due to it being pointless other than a funding stream, more involvement is required

#23 no1 saints fan

no1 saints fan
  • Players
  • 39 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 09:52 PM

Whether a cooperative or not the board is given a mandate by its fans because they are ulitmately the customers... Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the people running the Hornets are the wrong people or even that this is the wrong decision, what i am saying is that I'm staggered that as a fans owned club you didn't have a direct input into what is undoubtedly the biggest decision since you set up as a co-op!

You've got rid of your coach in Stankevitch, installed a Coach who is 'co-incidentally' a full time employee for St Helen's, moved all your training to St Helens training ground, signed a host of ex Saints academy players to Rochdales books, got staff on the day wearing St Helen's branded clothing and then playing whoever Nathan Brown sees fit on match day!!!

And all of this without any kind of vote or discussion on whether its the right thing!!!

Who pays Ian Talbot? Does he get a realistic salary from Rochdale or a token few grand so he can go down as on the books? Who gets the say on which SL players come in and out?

Please, guys - see this for what is..... The whole DR situation is a debacle but the biggest risks here are Hornets and Swinton who are so no engrained with their SL counterparts there is a real real danger that there will be very little left when SL pull out. Training at their grounds, coached by their staff.... A risky situation...

I find it ironic I watched boots and all and the Saints Academy manager says as a club they don't want DR! They want to go back to the way it was. If I was involved with Hornets or Swinton as a fan, I'd be forcing the board to take back the reigns ASAP !!


You are right to say that Ian Talbot is a full time employee for St Helens. But do you actually know what his job entails? I suspect you don't have a clue. But, just to inform you, he is our community coach. He works with all of the schools and amateur clubs in the area to help improve the participation and quality of rugby league in the town. I don't see any conflict at all between this role and the work he does at Rochdale. So what if he still works at Saints?

Regards the issue of training and the decision to move it over to St Helens training ground, let me quote Ian Talbot for you:

"Last year's squad was already largely recruited from the Leigh, Widnes, Warrington, Wigan and St Helens area, so the move made sense".

By having them train at our place does not mean that there is some sort of secret take over plan taking place. It is just a sensible and practical decision. Move on.

You say Rochdale have signed a host of ex Saints academy players to Rochdales books. So what? There are plenty ex Saints academy players playing in the lower divisions. They are now Rochdale players, so whats the problem.

Who pays Ian Talbot? Well, I imagine that Rochdale pay him for the work he does at Rochdale (head coach) and St Helens pay him for the work he does at St Helens (community coach). Simples!!!

You have made a pretty strong and certain statement when you said, and I quote, "playing whoever Nathan Brown sees fit on match day!!!". And then just two paragraphs later, you ask the question "who gets the say on which SL players come in and out?". It seems pretty obvious to me that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and have no evidence to back up your ridiclous statements.

It is easy to understand if you take the time to actually think about it (you should try it sometime). Saints name their 19 man squad on Wednesday's at 2pm. The rest of the first team is then made available for dual registration with either Rochdale or Whitehaven. The coaches (Ian Talbot and Dave Woods) speak with Nathan Brown about who is available. They can then choose who to take. They don't have to take anyone if they don't want. It is their decision. The decisions they make will change week by week. They may have injuries and therefore need cover for specific positions. They may want to play a certain style of play and so therefore require a different type of player.

Like I said, there is no evidence of Nathan Brown picking the Rochdale team or the Whitehaven team. There has been NO take over and there will be NO take over.

Finally, regarding your last point, you seem to have been surprised to hear Mike Rush on Boots 'n' all say that Saints don't want DR. You say we want to go back to the way it was. We never wanted this system in the first place. We voted against it. We haven't changed our mind after a few weeks. How is that ironic?

#24 AlwaysCru

AlwaysCru
  • Players
  • 50 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 10:47 PM

The irony is that for a club that is so against a system you've very quickly adopted it more than most!

If you believe that Ian Talbot was appointed because he was the best candidate for the job out of all applicants, I suggest that at the very least that is a REMARKABLE coincidence that he so happens to be a full time employee at Saints!

What I do know is that I attended a fans meeting with the Cru Board last October which principally discussed DR.

They had been asked to enter a partnership with St Helen's but rejected it because

1. It was a stipulation that a St Helen's coach MUST be appointed to our Coaching staff to make sure players were coached in the St. Helens ethos and

2. If St Helen's decided a SL player needed game time, he was playing. No ifs or buts, he was playing.

Our Board and coaching staff reported that they had rejected the offer as it gave away the identity and control of the club too much. They also reported they had received an alternative approach from Widnes based around a development of players in North Wales but after feedback and protestations from Cru fans that was shelved too about a week later....

That was a considerable amount of time before Rochdale entered partnership with Saints - and lo and behold a Saints coach is appointed and established people at Hornets head for the door in frustration Stankevitch being one of them who was trying to push your club forward....

You have to admit that the comments that Ian Talbot is 'his own man' are at best hopeful.... He even used dual reg players in per-season friendlies when you have a first team squad of THIRTY FIVE players. How can he turn to Sants players for a friendly and leave 20 odd players without a game?

It is niaeve in the extreme to imagine that Ian Talbots selection isn't influenced by his bosses who want to ensure game time for their SL players.... I totally get why you wouldn't want to accept that but it's a fact in this type of DR agreement....

Edited by AlwaysCru, 25 March 2013 - 10:49 PM.


#25 no1 saints fan

no1 saints fan
  • Players
  • 39 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 01:11 AM

The irony is that for a club that is so against a system you've very quickly adopted it more than most!

If you believe that Ian Talbot was appointed because he was the best candidate for the job out of all applicants, I suggest that at the very least that is a REMARKABLE coincidence that he so happens to be a full time employee at Saints!

What I do know is that I attended a fans meeting with the Cru Board last October which principally discussed DR.

They had been asked to enter a partnership with St Helen's but rejected it because

1. It was a stipulation that a St Helen's coach MUST be appointed to our Coaching staff to make sure players were coached in the St. Helens ethos and

2. If St Helen's decided a SL player needed game time, he was playing. No ifs or buts, he was playing.

Our Board and coaching staff reported that they had rejected the offer as it gave away the identity and control of the club too much. They also reported they had received an alternative approach from Widnes based around a development of players in North Wales but after feedback and protestations from Cru fans that was shelved too about a week later....

That was a considerable amount of time before Rochdale entered partnership with Saints - and lo and behold a Saints coach is appointed and established people at Hornets head for the door in frustration Stankevitch being one of them who was trying to push your club forward....

You have to admit that the comments that Ian Talbot is 'his own man' are at best hopeful.... He even used dual reg players in per-season friendlies when you have a first team squad of THIRTY FIVE players. How can he turn to Sants players for a friendly and leave 20 odd players without a game?

It is niaeve in the extreme to imagine that Ian Talbots selection isn't influenced by his bosses who want to ensure game time for their SL players.... I totally get why you wouldn't want to accept that but it's a fact in this type of DR agreement....


We didn't quickly adopt it more than most. The SL clubs voted for this system. As I have already said, Saints voted against it. But as soon as the DR partnership system was given the green light, Saints had no choice but to adopt it and start the process of forging a partnership. Why stand around and wait? We just got on with it.

We had to enter into a partnership because if we didn't then we would be at a serious disadvantage. Last year our fringe first teamers could play in the under 20's. This year there is no under 20's. The only way they can get game time is on DR.

As regards to Ian Talbot, have you ever met him? He is someone with a very good record. He's been at Saints for many years and has coached and brought through a lot of good young players. But the fact is that the u20's was scrapped and so he had no team to coach. Saints recommended him to Rochdale who at the time were looking for a new coach. I can confidently say that if Rochdale had decided not to appoint him, then he would have had no problem finding another coaching position.

As for the 2 points that you made, what a load of b******s. As well as Rochdale, we entered into a partnership with Whitehaven. Lets examine yours 2 points and see if they hold water:

1. It was a stipulation that a St Helen's coach MUST be appointed to our Coaching staff to make sure players were coached in the St. Helens ethos

No St Helens coach has been appointed to Whitehaven's coaching staff.

2. If St Helen's decided a SL player needed game time, he was playing. No ifs or buts, he was playing.

Whitehaven have been offered Saints players numerous times this season. On quite a few occasions they have turned them down. They have said this in public. They said they wanted to give their own players a chance first.

If what you are saying is true, and that Saints insisted on the 2 points above, then surely they would have asked Whitehaven to do the same. But as I have just demonstrated, they did not. As I said, it is utter nonsense.

From my view point, it seems that the "Cru Board" just do not like this system full stop. Would it be naughty of me to suggest that they may have made up these "stipulations" to ensure that the fans would be on their side? Surely they wouldn't do that would they!!! ha ha

#26 fillipo del toro

fillipo del toro
  • Coach
  • 257 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:40 AM

The irony is that for a club that is so against a system you've very quickly adopted it more than most!

If you believe that Ian Talbot was appointed because he was the best candidate for the job out of all applicants, I suggest that at the very least that is a REMARKABLE coincidence that he so happens to be a full time employee at Saints!

What I do know is that I attended a fans meeting with the Cru Board last October which principally discussed DR.

They had been asked to enter a partnership with St Helen's but rejected it because

1. It was a stipulation that a St Helen's coach MUST be appointed to our Coaching staff to make sure players were coached in the St. Helens ethos and

2. If St Helen's decided a SL player needed game time, he was playing. No ifs or buts, he was playing.

Our Board and coaching staff reported that they had rejected the offer as it gave away the identity and control of the club too much. They also reported they had received an alternative approach from Widnes based around a development of players in North Wales but after feedback and protestations from Cru fans that was shelved too about a week later....

That was a considerable amount of time before Rochdale entered partnership with Saints - and lo and behold a Saints coach is appointed and established people at Hornets head for the door in frustration Stankevitch being one of them who was trying to push your club forward....

You have to admit that the comments that Ian Talbot is 'his own man' are at best hopeful.... He even used dual reg players in per-season friendlies when you have a first team squad of THIRTY FIVE players. How can he turn to Sants players for a friendly and leave 20 odd players without a game?

It is niaeve in the extreme to imagine that Ian Talbots selection isn't influenced by his bosses who want to ensure game time for their SL players.... I totally get why you wouldn't want to accept that but it's a fact in this type of DR agreement....

With regards to the Stanky bit, the link up with Saints had nothing whatsoever to do with John leaving the club. John resigned from the head coach role to take up a role at Hornets.
Not long after his start as chief executive it was made pretty clear that the role didn't warrant a full time position. I guess Stanky found this restricting. So I've no idea why the saints link would affect his decision?

Other players that left. Leather, Bloomfield, Middlehurst, Hobson where all offered terms of some sort, I suspect reduced as Hornets had there eye on replacements who again & I'm sorry to dissapoint had nothing to do with St Helens Sutton, Langley, Thompson etc.


Again I said in an earlier post. I think this is a case of Always Cru having a small amount of info and now he's expert.

Edited by Pugwash, 16 April 2013 - 05:38 PM.

Phil Bull.

Hopefully my post are viewed as positive, and I cannot be held responsible for causing any offence to anyone associated with this message board

#27 AlwaysCru

AlwaysCru
  • Players
  • 50 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:49 PM



Who said anything about Whitehaven? Clearly they couldn't take them over, they're two and a half hours away!!!

Far easier to take over the weaker club that's just down the road... Come on Rochdale, grow a pair and stand on your own two feet!

If you can't do it in Chamoionship One with players on a couple of hundred quid a game what ON EARTH are you trying to get in the Championship for?










#28 fillipo del toro

fillipo del toro
  • Coach
  • 257 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 06:10 AM

Who said anything about Whitehaven? Clearly they couldn't take them over, they're two and a half hours away!!!

Far easier to take over the weaker club that's just down the road... Come on Rochdale, grow a pair and stand on your own two feet!

If you can't do it in Chamoionship One with players on a couple of hundred quid a game what ON EARTH are you trying to get in the Championship for?



πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’πŸ˜’
Phil Bull.

Hopefully my post are viewed as positive, and I cannot be held responsible for causing any offence to anyone associated with this message board

#29 Lakeside

Lakeside
  • Players
  • 92 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:26 PM

I get the feeeling that we all wont look back on this piece of Hornets history with much fondness in future years. Lets scrub the co-operative and ask Local Businesses to set up a limited company. If its not working its not working lets find something that will.

#30 no1 saints fan

no1 saints fan
  • Players
  • 39 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 03:40 PM

Who said anything about Whitehaven? Clearly they couldn't take them over, they're two and a half hours away!!!

Far easier to take over the weaker club that's just down the road... Come on Rochdale, grow a pair and stand on your own two feet!

If you can't do it in Chamoionship One with players on a couple of hundred quid a game what ON EARTH are you trying to get in the Championship for?


What has distance got to do with it?

You said that if Saints were to enter into a partnership and if they decided that a SL player needed game time, then he was playing. No ifs or buts.

I mentioned Whitehaven because we have a partnership with them.

If Saints felt so strongly about insisting that Saints players should be automatically picked, then why did they not include this in the agreement with Whitehaven? Why do it with one club and not the other. Its got nothing to do with being a weak or a strong club. Surely the stipulation would be an underlying principle of any partnership agreement regardless of who the club is. We didn't do it with Whitehaven and we didn't do it with Rochdale either.

I am sorry that your club lied to you over this issue. I can see why your pretty worked up over the whole thing. :)

#31 boro hornet

boro hornet
  • Coach
  • 775 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 04:04 PM

I get the feeeling that we all wont look back on this piece of Hornets history with much fondness in future years. Lets scrub the co-operative and ask Local Businesses to set up a limited company. If its not working its not working lets find something that will.

because last time there was a really long queue waiting to get involved the co operative model does work and local business can still get involved if they wish
Success does not consists in never making blunders,but in never making the same one the second time.

#32 Anita Bath

Anita Bath
  • Coach
  • 505 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 05:13 PM

I rerpeat,according to he club website under membership it says

"Your input is vital to helping Rochdale Hornets grow and if you take out co-ownership, for as little as Β£20 per season, you have a chance to drive the club forward and get your ideas listened to, and adopted. As a Club co-owner/member you will have a say in how it's run, submit suggestions, discuss these at members meetings where everyone's opinions are debated and voted on, and therefore influence the direction the club takes and, if you want to, even stand for election onto the club Board. Everyone has an opinion, and all are equally valued here at Hornets. As a member driven club no-one member has more say than another, whatever membership you have taken out for the season you have an equal say in members meetings where club policies are decided."

Edited by Pugwash, 02 April 2013 - 07:11 PM.
You may not accuse the board of what you did anonymously. Get your name on it first!


#33 Lakeside

Lakeside
  • Players
  • 92 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 05:18 PM

because last time there was a really long queue waiting to get involved the co operative model does work and local business can still get involved if they wish


Although the concept is nice - a group of supporters running their club it is unsustainable - Supporters Clubs are there for that. Getting involved in making sandwiches, selling programmes, raffle tickets and such like. One thing that does not happen is the large influx of cash - vital.

Other RL clubs won’t touch our model with a barge pole - unless I can be proved wrong. I openly admit I thought it was a good idea but I dont now, as the model cannot fund ambition but it does massage ego's.

List me issues I've had the chance to vote on apart from Board members - policy ones?

#34 PooingDog

PooingDog
  • Coach
  • 985 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 09:18 PM

Although the concept is nice - a group of supporters running their club it is unsustainable - Supporters Clubs are there for that. Getting involved in making sandwiches, selling programmes, raffle tickets and such like. One thing that does not happen is the large influx of cash - vital.

Other RL clubs won’t touch our model with a barge pole - unless I can be proved wrong. I openly admit I thought it was a good idea but I dont now, as the model cannot fund ambition but it does massage ego's.

List me issues I've had the chance to vote on apart from Board members - policy ones?



.
Hunslet are run by the fans for sure and and I think Hemel.

Edited by PooingDog, 28 March 2013 - 09:29 PM.

Memento mori

Who cares -Wins!!!

Carpe Cerevisi

AKA. Winston Smith

Give 'em a fair trial..........and then hang 'em"

#35 CAMS

CAMS
  • Players
  • 29 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 09:49 PM

With regards to the Stanky bit, the link up with Saints had nothing whatsoever to do with John leaving the club. John resigned from the head coach role to take up a role at Hornets.

Just for clarity purposes, I just thought I'd confirm that I WAS always going to take a break from coaching this season, at any Rugby League club, and I made the decision at the beginning of the 2012 season.

Having been involved in the Professional game for 17 years as a player and coach, myself and my family felt it was the right time for me to freshen my mind and spend time on other projects, otherwise I was in danger of losing the plot!

I was doing some work for the club away from the lads, but that didn't work out and after a month or so, it was clear that I needed to take a complete break.

I didn't have anything at all to do with the appointment of the coaching staff or the contracting of players (other than giving my opinions of each of the 2012 squad, to the new coaches)

From the horses mouth as they say ;)

Edited by Pugwash, 16 April 2013 - 05:39 PM.

See how CAMS can benefit you and your club!

Complete Athlete Management Solutions

www.cams-sport.com


#36 Lakeside

Lakeside
  • Players
  • 92 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 12:01 AM

.
Hunslet are run by the fans for sure and and I think Hemel.


Cheers PD thanks for the info, perhaps its about time we find out how they are running their model, ours is run by people who always wanted to be Directors but did'nt actually have the money so perhaps their is where the flaw is. Lets find out. If they wanted to run the club they could have bought Rochdale Hornets 1871 for about 20k but instead they sent it bust. Lets do some digging,

#37 boro hornet

boro hornet
  • Coach
  • 775 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 05:06 AM

not sure any of the current directors sent the old club bust has none were involved in an official capacity at the time if this model fails (I don't think it will) then there will be no Rochdale Hornets but I suspect that's what you and your like would want
Success does not consists in never making blunders,but in never making the same one the second time.

#38 StarfireHypervixen

StarfireHypervixen
  • Coach
  • 108 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 05:19 AM

Lakeside: if ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man alive.
Living life in such a way, that when my feet hit the floor in the morning, Satan says "Oh *@$^! She's awake!"

#39 Lakeside

Lakeside
  • Players
  • 92 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 08:32 AM

Lakeside: if ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man alive.


What a silly post, you maybe in favor of the set up... so tell us why instead of posting childish stuff.

#40 PooingDog

PooingDog
  • Coach
  • 985 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 11:27 AM

Lakeside. Bit strong claiming that the current board sent the old club bust.
As I remember it was the directors of Hornets 1871 that put it into administration after they couldn't pay a Β£55k tax bill, nothing to do with the current setup. It actually transpired that they'd actually run up debts if a whopping Β£190k again nothing to do with the current setup.
The current board were also not responsible for what effectively turned out to be selling Hornets biggest asset, their share if Spotland, possibly worth in the millions of pounds for fifty thousand.
If that all amounts to good business from so called business men/women then I'll stick with the Co-op if its all the same.
Memento mori

Who cares -Wins!!!

Carpe Cerevisi

AKA. Winston Smith

Give 'em a fair trial..........and then hang 'em"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users