Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

01/04/13 - Hull Kingston Rovers v Wigan Warriors - KO 3pm


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

Poll: Who will win? (10 member(s) have cast votes)

Who will win?

  1. Hull Kingston Rovers (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. Wigan Warriors (9 votes [90.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 90.00%

  3. Draw (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#81 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:15 PM

How many neutrals go to any non-showpiece game anyway? In any sport?

How do you propose to do remove this disparity? Trading surely wouldn't work unless the bigger teams are willing to swap better players for lesser players. For example, Wigan obviously rate taylor, but not as highly as, say, Farrell. So Farrell would stay at Wigan and Taylor would come to Wigan for whoever it would have been sitting on the bench this year...


You trade salary value (see my example above). Both sides have to be agreeable to the trade so in the vast majority of cases, a trade benefits both sides. It's exactly how you would swap a player in your fantasy football side and clearly restores the competitive balance of the league. Teams will obviously - with hindsight - make what turn out to be good, bad and indifferent trades. That's the way it goes. As a fan though it means you can't be sold down the river and should always - in theory - have a "competitive" team to watch. Best of all, no-one gets to bully anyone else.

#82 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:16 PM

You do know that Leeds were virtually bankrupt when he took over,don't you?


Would you rather pump money into a bankrupt Leeds or a bankrupt Hull KR?

You do know Hull KR were in administration in 1997 don't you?

#83 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,921 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:16 PM

I think this is harsh. Hudgell I'm sure knew what he was up against but my point would be that if he had been fortunate enough to take over at Leeds or Wigan rather than HKR and spent exactly the same amount of money in exactly the same areas, he would be reaping the rewards of either sides' current success. I think the current system places an extra onus on owners to over-invest in previously failing sides, whereas by the same turn you could invest only modestly in Leeds and Wigan but still achieve, such is the strength of their infrastrusture, commercial investment, demographic reach etc. I think it's very disengenuous - for example - of Gary Hetherington to talk about "poor management" at the smaller sides. When he's achieved the same success at Wakefield I'll give him more time of day with that kind of statement. I fail to see what more Hudgell can or could do. We get 8K fans despite being at best average, we've paid full cap for the most part and our youth structure has over-achieved in just 7 or so years. I just think the tide that sides like HKR are up against is too strong and I say this without hint of bias as I really don't ask for anything more than a fair crack of the whip.

"Oh hi Wigan - you want Scott Taylor? OK we'll swap him for O'Loughlin and Goulding? No? OK nice talking to you"

This would be a tremendous move in the right direction. Then we should seriously think about a larger chunk of TV revenue for the small market sides. We need a better reason for people like Hudgell to invest in these sides going forward. When Hetherington et al sneer at him for the favours he gets at SL conventions or whatever, he can just politely remind him how much bigger the market Leeds operate in is and how much less he had to do at his own club to get it to its current level.


So Hudgell (HKR) is/are skint, and they can't sell a player unless they take on another massive wage bill. Well that's a sure fire way to being even more skint.

Have your really thought this one through, you are just lashing out in bitter disappointment.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#84 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,307 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:18 PM

"Oh hi Wigan - you want Scott Taylor? OK we'll swap him for O'Loughlin and Goulding? No? OK nice talking to you"

Did Wigan not pay for Taylor? If so, then they paid the amount that Hull KR thought was reasonable for him. Which clearly wasn't the amount to buy two players of that quality.

This would be a tremendous move in the right direction. Then we should seriously think about a larger chunk of TV revenue for the small market sides.

Seriously? Hull is a market of 250k. For arguments sake, lets call it 50:50 for fans with FC. So, 125k for Hull KR. Wigan is a market of 80k. Do Wigan get more money than Hull?

#85 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,079 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:19 PM

Would you rather pump money into a bankrupt Leeds or a bankrupt Hull KR?

You do know Hull KR were in administration in 1997 don't you?

Yet Leeds have improved and HKR haven't,hardly the fault of Leeds is it.Maybe,just maybe,it's because how HKR have and/or are being run.
As Padge has stated,your argument is poorly thought out.
Leeds realised that a strong youth policy was the way forward,as did Wigan and Saints and now Warrington are investing heavily in youth too.HKR decided to go the overpriced Aussie route.

Edited by terrywebbisgod, 01 April 2013 - 07:21 PM.

Founder of the convent pontoon team.

#86 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,307 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:21 PM

You trade salary value (see my example above). Both sides have to be agreeable to the trade so in the vast majority of cases, a trade benefits both sides. It's exactly how you would swap a player in your fantasy football side and clearly restores the competitive balance of the league. Teams will obviously - with hindsight - make what turn out to be good, bad and indifferent trades. That's the way it goes. As a fan though it means you can't be sold down the river and should always - in theory - have a "competitive" team to watch. Best of all, no-one gets to bully anyone else.


The other thing is, of course, what about the players. Who is to say that someone who grew up playing for Wigan would want to go to Hull on the same money? Apparently Hull KR are spending 2/3rds of the cap. So if Taylor was highly rated by KR, he's likely on 2/3rds of the wage that a highly rated Wigan player is on. So who do Hull get that is so good?

#87 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:21 PM

So Hudgell (HKR) is/are skint, and they can't sell a player unless they take on another massive wage bill. Well that's a sure fire way to being even more skint.

Have your really thought this one through, you are just lashing out in bitter disappointment.


So let me get this straight - we should support the selling of players and this will maintain SL as a competitive league? This is your stance?

You cannot have it both ways. Either there are buying/selling clubs (and thus a gulf) or there are not.

#88 Old Frightful

Old Frightful
  • Coach
  • 12,656 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:23 PM

It was April 1st today wasn't it?

Anybody got any good April Fo....

Uh oh, better not ask.

          NO BUTS IT'S GOT TO BE BUTTER......                                 Z1N2MybzplQR6XBrwB9egniMH8xqYQ5s.jpg                                                                                                                     


#89 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,307 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:24 PM

Every year there should just be a raffle of the players in super league.

#90 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:25 PM

The other thing is, of course, what about the players. Who is to say that someone who grew up playing for Wigan would want to go to Hull on the same money? Apparently Hull KR are spending 2/3rds of the cap. So if Taylor was highly rated by KR, he's likely on 2/3rds of the wage that a highly rated Wigan player is on. So who do Hull get that is so good?


The club decide, not the player. Taylor is from Hull but the current system dictates he play for Wigan. Swings and roundabouts.

The mechanics of how such trades work would be drawn up in agreement with the league, players body and the 14 (or however many) clubs. We're talking about handsomely paid sportsmen - it will be rough on them at times but it goes with the territory.

#91 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:26 PM

This whole thing is becoming yet another argument for dumbing down SL even further.

Why not put all the players names in a hat at the start of each season, and let the clubs draw them out?


It would be better than the muck we have now.

And yet - and I should say this - SL is getting just a little more interesting year after year. But it's a glacial movement.

#92 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,347 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:27 PM

Sometimes it's better just to say "my team's just copped a flogging", than to post endlessly on here about how everything in RL is to blame and needs changing, apart from my c rap coach and his c rap players.

Or better still just think it, and stay off the forum until you get over the defeat.

 

You Can't Buy Team Spirit

 

 

 

 


#93 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,307 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:30 PM

The club decide, not the player. Taylor is from Hull but the current system dictates he play for Wigan. Swings and roundabouts.

The mechanics of how such trades work would be drawn up in agreement with the league, players body and the 14 (or however many) clubs. We're talking about handsomely paid sportsmen - it will be rough on them at times but it goes with the territory.


I don't think so. Taylor must have agreed terms, or else Hull KR could not have just terminated his contract. These contracts are (in theory) just the same as any other. Wigan made an offer that Hull KR found acceptable, and then the player has to agree terms. Taylor realised that much better prospects for his career lie in a Wigan shirt.

What about the fact that Taylor was likely paid less than an 'equivalent' player at wigan? Would it be based on what percentage of the total salary bill the player is at the previous club? Would that not just drive players salaries down? It would certainly discourage Wigans and Leeds from paying out the full cap.

#94 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:31 PM

Seriously? Hull is a market of 250k. For arguments sake, lets call it 50:50 for fans with FC. So, 125k for Hull KR. Wigan is a market of 80k. Do Wigan get more money than Hull?


That's a very good point and you're right that Wigan do punch above their weight in terms of fanbase. My comments here were never any slight on them above and beyond that I object to them being able to use their financial acumen to buy players from sides below them.

Wigan may well qualify for more money than either Hull side, yes. I'm not about penalising their success, merely against them being able to sign more calibre players than they can field as it is bad for the league.

#95 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,307 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:34 PM

This whole thing is becoming yet another argument for dumbing down SL even further.

Why not put all the players names in a hat at the start of each season, and let the clubs draw them out?


Beat you to it :D

#96 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,921 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:34 PM

The club decide, not the player. Taylor is from Hull but the current system dictates he play for Wigan. Swings and roundabouts.

The mechanics of how such trades work would be drawn up in agreement with the league, players body and the 14 (or however many) clubs. We're talking about handsomely paid sportsmen - it will be rough on them at times but it goes with the territory.


How does the system DICTATE where Tatlor plays, your proposal is that players get dictated to where they play. Taylor and Hull KR had a choice, the choice was Wigan.

Your argument is getting more bizarre.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#97 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:39 PM

I don't think so. Taylor must have agreed terms, or else Hull KR could not have just terminated his contract. These contracts are (in theory) just the same as any other. Wigan made an offer that Hull KR found acceptable, and then the player has to agree terms. Taylor realised that much better prospects for his career lie in a Wigan shirt.

What about the fact that Taylor was likely paid less than an 'equivalent' player at wigan? Would it be based on what percentage of the total salary bill the player is at the previous club? Would that not just drive players salaries down? It would certainly discourage Wigans and Leeds from paying out the full cap.


When Taylor's contract is up he's obviously free to negotiate with anyone. If Rovers had cap space and were to offer him an increased salary but he still wanted to leave, one option would be a "sign and trade" with another team happy to match this new salary, eg Rovers offer him £80K a year, Wigan offer him the same and then agree to trade with Rovers for player or players under contract earning the same salary, which may, for the sake of argument, be O'Loughlin and Goulding. Possibly not but then I just plucked those names from thin air. But you get the drift.

The point is that players are either moving in free agency or being traded under contract. So no team can be asset stripped or bail on their fans to save a few quid.

If any club has financial difficulty they shouldn't be in the league in the first place. With this kind of equilibrium system in place such occasions would be considerably less likely as you would hope that the extra competition and unpredictability keeps bums on seats everywhere, not just at Leeds and Wigan. Allowing transfer fees is the wrong way to go about the issue of clubs in financial strife. It simply perpetuates failure.

Edited by DeadShotKeen, 01 April 2013 - 07:41 PM.


#98 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,079 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:41 PM

When Taylor's contract is up he's obviously free to negotiate with anyone. If Rovers had cap space and were to offer him an increased salary but he still wanted to leave, one option would be a "sign and trade" with another team happy to match this new salary, eg Rovers offer him £80K a year, Wigan offer him the same and then agree to trade with Rovers for player or players under contract earning the same salary, which may, for the sake of argument, be O'Loughlin and Goulding. Possibly not but then I just plucked those names from thin air. But you get the drift.

The point is that players are either moving in free agency or being traded under contract. So no team can be asset stripped or bail on their fans to save a few quid.

If any club has financial difficulty they shouldn't be in the league in the first place. With this kind of equilibrium system in place such occasions would be considerable less likely. Allowing transfer fees is the wrong way to go about the issue of clubs in financial strife. It simply perpetuates failure.

So are you saying HKR shouldn't be in SL.
Founder of the convent pontoon team.

#99 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,978 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:42 PM

Any proposal like this moves to the front door of Bryn Hargreaves' "peices of meat" analogy.

2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#100 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,921 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:42 PM

When Taylor's contract is up he's obviously free to negotiate with anyone. If Rovers had cap space and were to offer him an increased salary but he still wanted to leave, one option would be a "sign and trade" with another team happy to match this new salary, eg Rovers offer him £80K a year, Wigan offer him the same and then agree to trade with Rovers for player or players under contract earning the same salary, which may, for the sake of argument, be O'Loughlin and Goulding. Possibly not but then I just plucked those names from thin air. But you get the drift.

The point is that players are either moving in free agency or being traded under contract. So no team can be asset stripped or bail on their fans to save a few quid.

If any club has financial difficulty they shouldn't be in the league in the first place. With this kind of equilibrium system in place such occasions would be considerable less likely. Allowing transfer fees is the wrong way to go about the issue of clubs in financial strife. It simply perpetuates failure.


How do clubs not get into financial difficulty if every time they off-load a player to another club for a wedge they have to take on another player of equal value/cost.

Hull KR traded Taylor, they traded him for a wedge of cash.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users