Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
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
* - - - - 1 votes

RIP Hull KR?


  • Please log in to reply
282 replies to this topic

#81 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,058 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:48 AM

The problem is the teams at the lower end can't afford to maintain competitiveness with the top team AND market themselves

Not remaining competitive is tantamount to a quick scuicide while not marketing without success is a slow wasting disease

A competitive well marketed super league (and RFL in general) benefits all its members - hence a need for collectivism

The Superleague of the Extraordinary is one example of good collectivism benefiting all clubs, I think we need more.

We've tried the rampant selfishness for years and its got us here.

#82 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,549 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:50 AM

The problem is the teams at the lower end can't afford to maintain competitiveness with the top team AND market themselves

Not remaining competitive is tantamount to a quick scuicide while not marketing without success is a slow wasting disease

A competitive well marketed super league (and RFL in general) benefits all its members - hence a need for collectivism

The Superleague of the Extraordinary is one example of good collectivism benefiting all clubs, I think we need more.

We've tried the rampant selfishness for years and its got us here.

 

 

I'm with you on the collectiveness sentiment Ant.


rldfsignature.jpg


#83 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:51 AM

I don't have a problem with collective ad's after all thats the RFL marketting IT's product. However, the entire licensing plan was so that teams would have to go for glory or bust and could build a sustainable plan. Sadly few have done it, Warrington being the best achiever.



#84 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,058 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:56 AM

On the back of massive success which in itself was built on the back of some hefty speculation

Would wire be in the same place had they not snared Johns? Or not won the cup v Hudds


Indeed would Hudds now be in the place of Wire had they won that CC final?

The licensing helps but isn't the be all and end all
It's also a long term solution to sustainability that is measured over perhaps decades - the stability brought by it is only now paying dividends in terms of youth development

Edited by Ant, 09 April 2013 - 10:57 AM.


#85 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:36 AM

Again I can’t quote so ref: Just To Be Clear.

San Antonio is - by any measure you wish to apply – a very small US sports market. The Spurs compete against the much better supported Dallas Mavericks and Houston Rockets in Texas alone. For all of their "excellent management" that Gary Hetherington would no doubt approve of, their current owner (whose name escapes me and I’m fairly sure has been there through all of their remarkable success of the last 20 years) is the first to admit that it would count for nothing were it not for the fact that they landed the first overall draft pick twice in the 90s and were thus able to pair superstars David Robinson and Tim Duncan in their front court. This along with the other general leveling measures (the cap, luxury tax etc.) that the NBA employ have meant that they can compete for and retain the best players and backroom staff, like any other NBA side.

There can be little doubt that if the NBA operated a free market P&R system or something more like Super League licensing, a side like San Antonio Spurs would hit the same "glass ceiling" that Hudgell speaks of. The 4 NBA titles they've won since 1999 would be a pipe dream.

The fact is that any prospective owner of an NBA side has 30 viable options to choose from. Sure an LA Lakers or NY Knicks is most desirable as they’re a licence to print money on the attendance and merchandise front. However, if your only goal is to win a title or titles (ie “do a Dr Koukash”) you are only a little worse off taking on the much smaller, less fashionable Milwaukee Bucks or Charlotte Bobcats. Super League is nowhere near being able to claim the same.

Edited by DeadShotKeen, 09 April 2013 - 11:39 AM.


#86 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,181 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:36 PM

This wishful thinking stuff really gets my goat.

 

This regress to a 10 team league, pull up the drawbridge even higher, and shrink the game stuff gets my goat, kills it and eats it.



#87 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:39 PM

For all of their "excellent management" that Gary Hetherington would no doubt approve of, their current owner (whose name escapes me and I’m fairly sure has been there through all of their remarkable success of the last 20 years) is the first to admit that it would count for nothing were it not for the fact that they landed the first overall draft pick twice in the 90s and were thus able to pair superstars David Robinson and Tim Duncan in their front court. This along with the other general leveling measures (the cap, luxury tax etc.) that the NBA employ have meant that they can compete for and retain the best players and backroom staff, like any other NBA side.

 

Just to be clear, I agree, they are successful for those reasons and not because of a generous benefactor model.



#88 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,181 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:39 PM

So what would be the motivation for Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Warrington to bring extra revenue in to their club, when they'd only get, what 7p for every pound extra they bring in?

 

Communism doesn't work it doesn't make businesses want to make money, it removes the reward, but doesn't remove the risk, and tends to leave things in a downward spiral. I've frequently said all clubs need to up their game in terms of how they market themselves. This is sadly still true. We need the clubs to be run by people who understand business and people and how to get them involved.

 

See the NFL. exhibit A as to how it does, in fact, actually work.



#89 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,935 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:42 PM

Just how far is "too close" and "fighting for the same fans and players" Parky because Google tells me it's fifteen miles from Bradford to Huddersfield. Bradford to Leeds is a darn sight shorter but that seems to be OK by you. Why is that?

Because Leeds pull a healthy 15,000 crowd from the City and have disposed of their two neighbours.

Check out Bradford and Huddersfield's crowds.

At times they're half of what Leeds get.

So what you have is two loss making businesses next to each other vying for the same resources.

I'd back two clubs in Hull all day if both pulled 12,000 crowds say and both were profitable.

It's not JUST two clubs are close and chasing the same fans and players. It that they are close and there's not enough to sustain both businesses as profitable and competitive businesses.

In "Calder" ones in the championship one went bust and the other is financially crippled.

I'd have them all in Superleague if they all pulled the crowds and competed.

Saints and Wigan are close but they attract profitable crowds.

So it's Partly how close clubs are but mainly the effect of that, sometimes it's detrimental to one, sometimes to both sometimes to neither.

#90 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,181 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:52 PM

Because Leeds pull a healthy 15,000 crowd from the City and have disposed of their two neighbours.

Check out Bradford and Huddersfield's crowds.

At times they're half of what Leeds get.

So what you have is two loss making businesses next to each other vying for the same resources.

I'd back two clubs in Hull all day if both pulled 12,000 crowds say and both were profitable.

It's not JUST two clubs are close and chasing the same fans and players. It that they are close and there's not enough to sustain both businesses as profitable and competitive businesses.

In "Calder" ones in the championship one went bust and the other is financially crippled.

I'd have them all in Superleague if they all pulled the crowds and competed.

Saints and Wigan are close but they attract profitable crowds.

So it's Partly how close clubs are but mainly the effect of that, sometimes it's detrimental to one, sometimes to both sometimes to neither.

 

 

So the closeness argument has no prooft and each case must be taken on it's individual merits and factors such as on field success, investors, marketing and player and coaching recruitment all come into play and, depending on the sucess or not of such facets negates the too close argument so why do you keep repeating it ad nauseam?



#91 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,935 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:59 PM

So the closeness argument has no prooft and each case must be taken on it's individual merits and factors such as on field success, investors, marketing and player and coaching recruitment all come into play and, depending on the sucess or not of such facets negates the too close argument so why do you keep repeating it ad nauseam?

Because you refuse to accept it/don't get it.

There's three clubs in the Calder area none of whom can pull enough fans or build a team good enough to compete with Leeds and Wigan.

There's enough fans in that area to support a successful team, and enough players to build a quality side like Wigan and Leeds do.

Try opening your eyes.

Hull were building to 13,000 crowds when Rovers came along, don't you think that the best players of both clubs would probably make a formidable team rather than two perpetual also rans who don't stimulate fan growth??

I reckon you can work this one out but you refuse to get it "ad nauseum" probably because your a wishful thinker that thinks a bus load of quality players and a few thousand new fans are around every corner.

Edited by The Parksider, 09 April 2013 - 03:00 PM.


#92 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,058 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:10 PM

Is this 1996 again?

#93 Ullman

Ullman
  • Coach
  • 7,372 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:12 PM

Is this 1996 again?

It's the forum equivalent of Groundhog Day.


"I own up. I am a serial risk taker. I live in a flood zone, cycle without a helmet, drink alcohol and on Sunday I had bacon for breakfast."


#94 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,935 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:20 PM

Is this 1996 again?

IMHO no not at all, the 1996 script was mergers.

If HKR & Cas went I'd expect Hull and Wakey to do well on the back of that.

Wouldn't you?

#95 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:23 PM

See the NFL. exhibit A as to how it does, in fact, actually work.


Slightly odd comparison. In the NFL all teams are fully funded. Player trading still happens and there is a HUGE ameture scene of clubs from which a draft can draw, unless of course you're suggesting we up the drawbridge and make the championship in that model.

The draft system also stinks due to how it can be abused. Lets not forget that in the NHL the Ottawa Senators purposefully lost matches so they could finish bottom and sign a player for next year. Yep that's the sort of race to the bottom that everyone wants in RL.

Here's a suggestion. Instead of pegging the bigger teams back, lets try and push the little teams forward.

#96 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,058 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:31 PM

Been there done that
It led to Clubs going bust in an effort to keep up or gain success - up to and including Bradford Bulls

Maybe they shouldn't have been allowed back into Superleague as a newco? Their demise after all would have benefited Huddersfield greaty, apparently

#97 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:41 PM

Been there done that
It led to Clubs going bust in an effort to keep up or gain success - up to and including Bradford Bulls

Maybe they shouldn't have been allowed back into Superleague as a newco? Their demise after all would have benefited Huddersfield greaty, apparently


We've not really done that though. We've been half hearted in our attempts. We didn't attempt to implement framing the future. We pandered to the people who pretty much still hold the sport back.

Actually I agree that the newco's shouldn't have been allowed back in to SL straight away, and said so at the time (if they went bust of course, Salford, here all creditors will be fully paid would be ok on that one)

#98 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,058 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:47 PM

Who were holding the sport back though and why didn't "framing the future" work?

#99 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:50 PM

Framing the future didn't work because it was never implemented.

Or are you implying that it really was implemented.

Edited by RidingPie, 09 April 2013 - 03:51 PM.


#100 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,058 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:56 PM

No I'm asking why you think it didnt get implemented?

Edited by Ant, 09 April 2013 - 03:57 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users