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
- - - - -

Martyn Sadler - Talking Rugby League


  • Please log in to reply
449 replies to this topic

#1 League Express

League Express
  • Moderator
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 01:53 PM

Last Saturday afternoon I was at Huddersfield's Challenge Cup-tie against Leeds at the John Smith's Stadium.
It was a tremendous match, played in front of a terrific crowd, and must have created a very positive impression for the audience watching the BBC's coverage of the game.
After the match, and the media conference, I went upstairs into the lounge in which Giants supporters and players congregate, and I was assailed with people asking me about the RFL's proposals for changing the structure of the league competitions.
It's fair to say that I didn't find anyone who was in favour of the proposed changes, and many supporters couldn't understand why the changes were being proposed.
So it's hardly surprising that the RFL chief executive Nigel Wood and his fellow RFL director Ralph Rimmer should have taken to the Twittersphere today to try to explain their proposals to an audience that has been fairly sceptical about them so far.

Click here to view the article
League Express is Britain's biggest selling Rugby League publication
On sale every Monday, in shops, on subscription and online for PC/MAC, iPad, iPhone, Android & Kindle Fire.
Follow us on Twitter @leagueexpress
Like us on Facebook - www.facebook.com/rugbyleagueexpress

#2 Doghead

Doghead
  • Coach
  • 1,044 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:27 PM

My experience is the opposite, most fans I know are warming to the idea.

#3 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:30 PM

My experience is the opposite, most fans I know are warming to the idea.

Same here. 

 

Martyn, I think we would have been better served if you'd explained the potential benefits and pitfalls of option 3, since that is the proposal most being discussed, rather than take the approach you did. 



#4 the phoenix

the phoenix
  • Coach
  • 123 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:38 PM

the current poll on the forum has at the moment 52% of people favouring the 2x12 then 8x3 format  how can you say that supporters arent in favour ?



#5 Gruff

Gruff
  • Coach
  • 642 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:42 PM

Yep,  The poll states 52% are in favour of the 3x8.  Similarly everyone I know that gives a fig thinks it is a good idea as well.

 

Once again, we see personal agenda's/opinions being spouted as "FACT" by journo's when they should remain unbiased and report pro's and cons for all options.

 

With regards to the other thread - this is the main reason we are seen to "undersell" ourselves.



#6 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:47 PM

I think it's an awful idea (3x8). It'll stregnthen the top, and weaken the lower half of superleague to championship levels.  Then before you know it Hetherington and co will be after a reduced top tier with all the money to them.  Richard Agar's views on it https://soundcloud.c...ion-on-proposed



#7 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,694 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:47 PM

Yep,  The poll states 52% are in favour of the 3x8.  Similarly everyone I know that gives a fig thinks it is a good idea as well.

 

Once again, we see personal agenda's/opinions being spouted as "FACT" by journo's when they should remain unbiased and report pro's and cons for all options.

 

With regards to the other thread - this is the main reason we are seen to "undersell" ourselves.

It's an editorial piece though not a news report.


Edited by Amber Avenger, 17 May 2013 - 02:47 PM.

SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#8 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,773 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:03 PM

Same here. 

 

Martyn, I think we would have been better served if you'd explained the potential benefits and pitfalls of option 3, since that is the proposal most being discussed, rather than take the approach you did. 

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

Looking at the effects of option 3 is precisely what I've done.



#9 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:09 PM

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

Looking at the effects of option 3 is precisely what I've done.

In my post that you quoted I referred to 'benefits and pitfalls'.  All you've talked about is pitfalls, as you perceive them.  You haven't referred to any benefits so far as I can see.  And you have even mentioned the disruption to the Challenge Cup.  There has been absolutely no mention of the Challenge Cup - or for that matter the Northern Rail Cup - in discussions so far and so to include that as a negative before you even know what is planned for it or being discussed, is not what I would call discussing the 'benefits and pitfalls'.



#10 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,816 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:13 PM

I went to the Reform Club to see if they were in favour of letting some poor working class northerners in as an act of charity. To a man they were against it. Not one proposer could be found.

Next week I'll see what the Masons think of letting the riff raff in instead.

Standards must be kept.

#11 the phoenix

the phoenix
  • Coach
  • 123 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:13 PM

larry - cant see how it will weaken the bottom teams in S/L , they will be playing teams quite close to them in performances as oppossed to getting trounced by certain teams 

that should give them a grounding for the following season unless they underperform then they dont then deserve the S/L opportunity 

also some of those teams have stay away fans as they are fed up of week in week out hidings which isnt good , games that they are competative in will bring back these fans increasing gate and general turnover giving better financial stability 

add in the fact that the top teams will then be looking over their shoulder desperate not to drop down a level and we have a serious competition again which is far more marketable that what we have now



#12 the phoenix

the phoenix
  • Coach
  • 123 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:14 PM

martin - poll is now showing almost 55% in favour 



#13 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,773 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:22 PM

martin - poll is now showing almost 55% in favour 

 

Only 77 votes so far, and there isn't a status quo option.

 

If the new structure delivered what it's proponents claim, then I would vote for it too.

 

The problem is that it won't, and my article explains some of the reasons why.



#14 Ullman

Ullman
  • Coach
  • 7,374 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:25 PM

Same here. 

 

Martyn, I think we would have been better served if you'd explained the potential benefits and pitfalls of option 3, since that is the proposal most being discussed, rather than take the approach you did. 

I thought it was a fairly decent critique.

 

The whole thing is about as appealing as the other crackpot ideas to come out of the Nigel Wood stable.


"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."


#15 the phoenix

the phoenix
  • Coach
  • 123 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:37 PM

 but some of your opinions are flawed anyway and as pointed out you are only reporting negatives , if you say that you vote for the new structure if the claims are correct , surely in your position you should be pressing for these claims to work if you support them 

you arent coming across as someone welcoming the idea with your negativity 



#16 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,773 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:40 PM

 but some of your opinions are flawed anyway and as pointed out you are only reporting negatives , if you say that you vote for the new structure if the claims are correct , surely in your position you should be pressing for these claims to work if you support them 

you arent coming across as someone welcoming the idea with your negativity 

Let me know where my opinions are flawed.

 

I don't think the claims for the proposed structure can work - that's the whole point.

 

I don't welcome these ideas because I am very positive about our game and I don't think it needs gimmicky structures to succeed.



#17 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,935 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:40 PM

Only 77 votes so far, and there isn't a status quo option.
 
If the new structure delivered what it's proponents claim, then I would vote for it too.
 
The problem is that it won't, and my article explains some of the reasons why.

I liked the article, I resent the idea in a post above that you have a "personal agenda" and I appreciate what you say.

But listening to the RFL trying to sell the idea is almost like listening to any press release, you get all the information you don't want and the key questions remain unanswered.

It's said the clubs are likely to vote heavily in favour of the idea. RL Express surely has enough access to enough people at clubs to find out if that is actually so??

Tony Smith seems against it so are Warrington voting no?

Gary hetherington has some things to say to you - are Leeds a no vote then??

Down the other end the Featherstone Chairman has commented in a fashion that looks like a "yes"

Down London is this a way for Hughes to keep London going on the cheap is that a "yes" for him?

Up at Wigan they'll only have to play once against the failing clubs and get extra fixtures against the top SL clubs - has that made them a yes?

Over at HKR Superleague is too rich for mr. Hudgell but is a middle 8 competition affordable for him - another yes??

The very idea any of them will vote the system in because it's good for everyone else doesn't seem to me to be consistent with how clubs vote. If it suits them it's a yes.

I'd like to see the clubs to be asked to comment directly......

#18 the phoenix

the phoenix
  • Coach
  • 123 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:40 PM

not sure how you can have a status quo option when the RFL will be making changes , its just what changes they make not shall we change or not



#19 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,773 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:42 PM

In my post that you quoted I referred to 'benefits and pitfalls'.  All you've talked about is pitfalls, as you perceive them.  You haven't referred to any benefits so far as I can see.  And you have even mentioned the disruption to the Challenge Cup.  There has been absolutely no mention of the Challenge Cup - or for that matter the Northern Rail Cup - in discussions so far and so to include that as a negative before you even know what is planned for it or being discussed, is not what I would call discussing the 'benefits and pitfalls'.

I'm perfectly happy for you to tell us what the benefits will be.

 

Do you disagree with my assessment of how the new structure will impact on the Challenge Cup, when you bear in mind what will be at stake for the Super League clubs next year, and their desire not to finish in the bottom two. Do you really think the Challenge Cup will matter to them?



#20 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:43 PM

Only 77 votes so far, and there isn't a status quo option.

 

If the new structure delivered what it's proponents claim, then I would vote for it too.

 

The problem is that it won't, and my article explains some of the reasons why.

Was there an Option 3 option in the poll by LE last week?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users