Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Toulouse think they will hear about Superleague decision soon


  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#101 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 07:52 AM

It's all well and good to say you want them both in. That's my preferred option also, but you have also pushed the view that SL should be cut to 12 or less clubs. The two propositions would seem to be mutually exclusive.

Toulouse offer the investment whilst three SL chairmen clubs have pulled investment, and new chairmen at two SL clubs have said they will run their clubs as best they can as businesses but do not look to them for investment as they only sell curries and double glazing. That leaves nine clubs who have strong businesses or benevolent chairmen. Room for three clubs who will invest. This is the real world.

I've always said Featherstone should get their chance regardless. If they have the money let them invest and succeed. If they don't let them at least have their chance, as everyone else who wanted SL has and if they fail at least they have tried, one more SL failure will do no harm. There's been many of them. An M62 failure leads to tears, outside the M62 a London failure will sadly lead to cheers.

The "real world" hipocracy is the idea of M62 clubs being let in on a wing and a prayer, but Toulouse having to offer cast iron monetary guarantee according to some.

There's also some doubts as to whether they will have the players. You see they are only semi pro at the moment. That Leigh, Sheffield, Fev and Halifax are semi pro and will need 25 man professional squads when we have a large player drain is whoosh... above the heads of those who apply double standards.

You don't subscribe to this but in the real world you need investment to create SL clubs, if you have access to a lot of support and good players then you need less money than clubs away from the M62 who do not have these resources and need more investment money to create them. To create an SL club may cost anything from half a million a year investment to two million a year.

Lack of it leads to "basket cases" whether they be in Wakefield or London, Bradford or Gateshead, Salford or South Wales, Hull Sharks (remember them) or Paris. There's no need to discriminate RL is RL.

So if Toulouse offer more investment than other clubs they should be in, it's quite simple as the pro game is all about investment. It's a nice "dreamworld" to think clubs can just organically grow from nothing to SL clubs but there's no record of this at all in over 60 years.

The other pressure on any club wanting to grow their business is that you may be stuck next door to another club chasing the same players and fans. Whether Featherstone can succeed of course depends on investment, but if they were heavily cashed up and the only SL club in the Wakefield MDC they could be the ones to deliver in that scenario as their money would go a lot further without opposition from neighbours for the available resources.

So no problem Toulouse and Fev in a 12 club SL.

It may be (as your an old sentimentalist) you may reckon it's unthinkable some big names would go from SL if Fev and Toulouse came in, but you yourself can point to many a big name powerhouse from the past languishing in the championships. RL clubs are RL clubs and whether it's Bradford or Wakefield, Crusaders or London failing it's "really" equally sad for the game, but the game is bigger than all these names and will only stay big via investment.

So the real world is we forget names and we look purely at where the money can come from, firstly that's the SKY contract so that is essential to service and look after as much as you resent SKY, secondly its clubs with the money and resources (half a dozen eh?) after that it's who can promise the most money from their own pocket. I hear more from Fev and Toulouse than most clubs on this count, this is the real world...

Edited by The Parksider, 09 June 2013 - 07:59 AM.


#102 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,021 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 08:21 AM

Some people don't appear to understand what an investment actually is, and to criticise new chairmen or wanting I run their clubs as businesses is bizarre.
The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#103 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,921 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 08:52 AM

I never suggested that you had any anti-salford bias, and I don't need to ask you whether you have that bias or not, you're quite capable of fighting your own corner with anyone that accuses you of anything. I don't need to extend any courtesy to ask you about that, I was making no accusation as is perfectly clear. It is my considered opinion that you seek to create and elongate debate on all manner of threads and topics, often ignoring points which are difficult to argue against, and being deliberately provocative at times – for instance taking swipes at the clubs' your debating opponents support that have no relevance to the threads where you're debating.

It's my view that you at times argue whatever you feel will get under the skin of those you are debating with. You've been full of praise for many clubs and individuals, but if a fan of those clubs is posting something that you do not agree with, that praise can often turn to an out and out attack on those clubs that have been working hard to better themselves.

If you find my previous comment rude, then I suggest that the internet is not the best place for you to engage in debate.


Larry, you've got Parky's arguing techniques summed up pretty much in your post, although you've missed a few. He uses a lot of dishonest and fallacious arguing tactics to stretch out an argument to the point where the original point is lost. You've talked about "elongating the point", there are many others: changing the subject, argument if repetition (say it enough times it'll be one fact), portraying opinion as fact, arguing with selective information whilst dismissing information which challenges his viewpoint. There are others.

But when you point out that he uses these dishonest arguing techniques, you then get the next one "Appealling to Pity", where he'll play the victim of a melodramatic personal attack. It's funny because he's right on cue and not without it's fair share if immediate hypocrisy:

Instead you switched the debate to calling me names like silly before escalating it to a full blown personal attack on me. Believe me it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is you can't stick to the debate and have to use the silly tactic of switching it to how awful I am, and guess what I agree with you - I'm a shocker!!!

Pot calling the kettle black there.

Complaining about being called silly, then uses it to describe the person he's talking about two sentences later. Brilliant.

You'll notice the switching tactic of playing the victim again apparently doesn't count, either.

This isn't a personal attack on Parky. This is a summary of some of the dishonest tactics people use in their arguments to compensate actually arguing facts and logic. I'm not sure if it's a case of him not realising he does it or if it's just an attention seeking exercise, but I choose not to get involved in "The Parky Show" anymore when he's using these tactics as there is little to be gained.
Posted Image

#104 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 09:01 AM

Post reported

Note the moderators warnings everyone...

#105 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,921 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 09:20 AM

It's all well and good to say you want them both in. That's my preferred option also, but you have also pushed the view that SL should be cut to 12 or less clubs. The two propositions would seem to be mutually exclusive.

That's the thing with these new systems they're proposing. I love P&R as a sporting system and think we should have it. But as a developing sport that's trying to expand it doesn't offer that security to them. There needs to be a best if both. Union has it with their Magners/Celtic/whatever it's called League for Irish, Scottish, Welsh and now Italian franchises alongside the English Premiership.

Unfortunately we don't have the numbers to split them so surely there must be another system we can adopt to get the best of both worlds?

My main fear is that Toulouse come in during this system change to P&R and then become an instant failure as they aren't afforded the same time as Catalans (a proven model) to build. We have one genuine bit of success and then ignore how we achieved it!
Posted Image

#106 RS

RS
  • Coach
  • 611 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 09:21 AM

Any update on Toulouse?

#107 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 09:42 AM

*sigh*

 

Here's what I'd like from the rest of this thread please:

 

1.  If you don't like Parky's debating techniques, ignore him.  There's also the more extreme option of using the permanent ignore function.

2.  Keep it on topic.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#108 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,595 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 11:26 PM

All very interesting. Thank you for the effort you put into that post. However who is going to vote for the removal of teams from Sl to accommodate Fev and Toulouse. The SL clubs have the decision making on these matter as was revealed in the long thread on whether or not the new Bradford should be admitted to the league. Turkeys don't vote for  Xmas. Nobody has ever been thrown out of Sl yet. This could get interesting.

 

Then there is the question of the new league format and the apparent return of p and r under whatever format. Will a Frenc team be given exemption from relegation ? 

 

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

When is the re organisation of the league structure to be announced. What clubs, including Fev and Toulouse can make any concrete plans with such uncertainty as to the future structure of the League.

 

As to why Toulouse should have to back up their claims of big TV deals and multi mega investors. I fail to see what's wrong with that. Without proof, these claims are paper tigers which may or may not be for real. it should be just a minor inconvenience to the Toulouse club if their application is all that they claim it to be.

 

I apologise that my reply appears before you quoted post. I keep making this mistake but I can't fix it and I'm not retyping my post

 

 

 

Toulouse offer the investment whilst three SL chairmen clubs have pulled investment, and new chairmen at two SL clubs have said they will run their clubs as best they can as businesses but do not look to them for investment as they only sell curries and double glazing. That leaves nine clubs who have strong businesses or benevolent chairmen. Room for three clubs who will invest. This is the real world.

I've always said Featherstone should get their chance regardless. If they have the money let them invest and succeed. If they don't let them at least have their chance, as everyone else who wanted SL has and if they fail at least they have tried, one more SL failure will do no harm. There's been many of them. An M62 failure leads to tears, outside the M62 a London failure will sadly lead to cheers.

The "real world" hipocracy is the idea of M62 clubs being let in on a wing and a prayer, but Toulouse having to offer cast iron monetary guarantee according to some.

There's also some doubts as to whether they will have the players. You see they are only semi pro at the moment. That Leigh, Sheffield, Fev and Halifax are semi pro and will need 25 man professional squads when we have a large player drain is whoosh... above the heads of those who apply double standards.

You don't subscribe to this but in the real world you need investment to create SL clubs, if you have access to a lot of support and good players then you need less money than clubs away from the M62 who do not have these resources and need more investment money to create them. To create an SL club may cost anything from half a million a year investment to two million a year.

Lack of it leads to "basket cases" whether they be in Wakefield or London, Bradford or Gateshead, Salford or South Wales, Hull Sharks (remember them) or Paris. There's no need to discriminate RL is RL.

So if Toulouse offer more investment than other clubs they should be in, it's quite simple as the pro game is all about investment. It's a nice "dreamworld" to think clubs can just organically grow from nothing to SL clubs but there's no record of this at all in over 60 years.

The other pressure on any club wanting to grow their business is that you may be stuck next door to another club chasing the same players and fans. Whether Featherstone can succeed of course depends on investment, but if they were heavily cashed up and the only SL club in the Wakefield MDC they could be the ones to deliver in that scenario as their money would go a lot further without opposition from neighbours for the available resources.

So no problem Toulouse and Fev in a 12 club SL.

It may be (as your an old sentimentalist) you may reckon it's unthinkable some big names would go from SL if Fev and Toulouse came in, but you yourself can point to many a big name powerhouse from the past languishing in the championships. RL clubs are RL clubs and whether it's Bradford or Wakefield, Crusaders or London failing it's "really" equally sad for the game, but the game is bigger than all these names and will only stay big via investment.

So the real world is we forget names and we look purely at where the money can come from, firstly that's the SKY contract so that is essential to service and look after as much as you resent SKY, secondly its clubs with the money and resources (half a dozen eh?) after that it's who can promise the most money from their own pocket. I hear more from Fev and Toulouse than most clubs on this count, this is the real world...

 



#109 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 05:59 AM

All very interesting. Thank you for the effort you put into that post. However who is going to vote for the removal of teams from Sl to accommodate Fev and Toulouse. The SL clubs have the decision making on these matter as was revealed in the long thread on whether or not the new Bradford should be admitted to the league. Turkeys don't vote for  Xmas. Nobody has ever been thrown out of Sl yet. This could get interesting.
 
Then there is the question of the new league format and the apparent return of p and r under whatever format. Will a Frenc team be given exemption from relegation ? 
 
Enquiring minds want to know.
 
When is the re organisation of the league structure to be announced. What clubs, including Fev and Toulouse can make any concrete plans with such uncertainty as to the future structure of the League.
 
As to why Toulouse should have to back up their claims of big TV deals and multi mega investors. I fail to see what's wrong with that. Without proof, these claims are paper tigers which may or may not be for real. it should be just a minor inconvenience to the Toulouse club if their application is all that they claim it to be.
 
I apologise that my reply appears before you quoted post. I keep making this mistake but I can't fix it and I'm not retyping my post

No need to apologise. no problem.

Indeed the coming events will be very interesting.

AFAIK Toulouse say that SL status would get them their local sponsors and backers, I don't think it's that easy to just go get letters from such people promising funds in writing, even if it is did we get letters from Neil Hudgell, Jack Fulton, Jack Wilkinson and Steve O'Connor when they were wanting SL places.

What value are such letters? Are the RFL to sue for breach of promise if Toulouses backers fail to deliver? Have Fulton, Hudgell and O'Connnor failed to deliver by standing down from their boards? Didn't Wilkinson leave Salford penniless part through an SL licence.

I see no reason or logic to clamour for a cast iron promise from Toulouse and yet accept a gentlemen's word when it comes to an M62 club.

That's the point I make and I hope you can deal with the point itself which is how the forum should work.

#110 RS

RS
  • Coach
  • 611 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 06:43 AM

O'Connor has not stepped down from the Board at Widnes and I suspect by the time he wrote his letter to support the application that failed to match Celtic Crusaders he had put in over a million which hugely corroborated his intentions in the letter he did send .

#111 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 07:01 AM

O'Connor has not stepped down from the Board at Widnes and I suspect by the time he wrote his letter to support the application that failed to match Celtic Crusaders he had put in over a million which hugely corroborated his intentions in the letter he did send .

Sorry, he stepped down from the chairmanship? We can look it up but it doesn't change the fundamental point, why do Toulouse have to guarantee SL funding whilst M62 clubs don't?

#112 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,289 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 08:23 AM

No need to apologise. no problem.

Indeed the coming events will be very interesting.

AFAIK Toulouse say that SL status would get them their local sponsors and backers, I don't think it's that easy to just go get letters from such people promising funds in writing, even if it is did we get letters from Neil Hudgell, Jack Fulton, Jack Wilkinson and Steve O'Connor when they were wanting SL places.

What value are such letters? Are the RFL to sue for breach of promise if Toulouses backers fail to deliver? Have Fulton, Hudgell and O'Connnor failed to deliver by standing down from their boards? Didn't Wilkinson leave Salford penniless part through an SL licence.

I see no reason or logic to clamour for a cast iron promise from Toulouse and yet accept a gentlemen's word when it comes to an M62 club.

That's the point I make and I hope you can deal with the point itself which is how the forum should work.

The point that you seem desperate to avoid is that Toulouse are a new side and nobody knows whether they will average 2,000 or 10,000 hence the need for guarantees. Salford, Widnes, Hul KR are "returning sides" and we know more or less what their financial situation will be. They have not been asked for guarantees but then Catalans have not either. So no bias to M62 sides just caution in expansion.



#113 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 08:44 AM

1,. The only problem with that is in meeting the criteria it leaves clubs with literally nothing. Sheffield, Halifax and Leigh are miles behind Featherstone who are meeting the criteria because they have funds, some from their directors. Those funds happily are reported as not guaranteed against the ground either.



2, Halifax even their own fans say that to get round the debacle of their business being adjudged as"falling below the standards" it needs Mr. Abbot and others to stump up riches.






1- In what areas other than the crowds this year are the clubs you have stated "miles behind" Featherstone?

2, Where have they Fax fans stated this?

#114 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 09:02 AM

1- In what areas other than the crowds this year are the clubs you have stated "miles behind" Featherstone?

2, Where have they Fax fans stated this?

1. Take your pick but Hetherington singled out Featherstone Rovers today as having invested in their business and grown it considerably to over a £1,000,000 a year business.Having said thet he then said Rovers "community" was too small for it to grow the "next step" into a competitive Superleague club.

Take your pick on which areas Featherstone are in front of the rest on wether investment, crowds or player development. I think you will accept Featherstone are well in front of Sheffield who can't grow their crowds or develop sheffield players into SL players, and well in front of leigh who are skint and a feeder club.

As for how far Featherstone are in front of Halifax I reckon this is your problem, as Fax are your team. I'd certainly welcome your analysis in the various areas of the licensing criteria where your clubs stand againnst featherstone??

You have already made a start by telling me that Halifax's crowds are going down and featherstones going up, so Fax are miles behind there. care to fill in the gaps beyond that most important of points?

2. We discussed the situation CC clubs have of having all on to make the £1,000,000 turnover criteria for Superleague. I suggested Rovers would be stuck going up becaise £1M of turnover plus £1.2M of SKY money only comes to £2.2M.

CKN suggests you need £3.2M just to hang on to the bottom rung of Superleague and you certainly need
£6M to compete with the big boys of SL.

When I suggested that the answer was Mr. Nahaboos promise to "spend full cap year on year" IIRC you spoke about how this was not guaranteed and that Mr. Abbot and other potential investors may also be able to match that, so I was not to discount Halifax. You felt they were equal contenders to Featherstone even though both applications would be based on a big fat "financial promise"

And back on topic a promise that Toulouse are't allowed to make for some reason. They have to open the suitcase and show the bundles....

#115 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,021 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 09:49 AM

Who made Hetherington the boss?


The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#116 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 09:53 AM

Here's how I'd expect it to be run if I were assessing SL franchise applications: 

 

1.  Do you meet enough of the franchise criteria to get at least a C license?  Yay!  Welcome to the SL qualified group of clubs, proceed to the club picking stage.

 

2.  Don't quite make a C license but aren't that far off?  Prove that you have enough guaranteed investment coming in if we give you a SL license.  Can't do that, show me firm statements of intent from major investors and other organisations that you say will help you attain that C license.  If we accept your evidence then we'll give you a temporary C license to get into the club picking stage.  If you pass through that into a picked SL then you are given one season to reach 90% of that C license, and the license period to reach a full C license, fail and you're gone.  This is to ensure that we're letting in clubs that aren't that far away and can stand on their own feet with a C license after only one year of investment, if they need longer than that one year then they're not close enough.

 

3.  Don't make a C license and aren't really close?  Ask us to assess your proposals, we'll grade you according to your proposals and reassess you after one year, if you've made enough quantifiable progress to get within one more year of investment from a C license then we'll guarantee you a slot in the next SL club pick.  Don't quite make it at the reassessment then we'll come back in a year.  This is to reward clubs that are investing but can't really prove big money sugar daddies or large scale corporate investment.

 

4.  Don't make a C license and can't prove you have sufficient investment?  Thank you for trying, please come back in 3 years for the next assessment.

 

I don't care if you're Toulouse, Featherstone, Halifax or anyone else.  One process for all clubs, regardless of how special they think they are.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#117 Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior
  • Coach
  • 5,184 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 09:54 AM

spare a thought for the other french clubs which by all accounts from audois are in ###### street................
"Why is Napoleon crying ?" said one sailor to the other, "poor ###### thinks he's being exiled to st helens" came the reply.



https://scontent-a-l...276002364_n.jpg

#118 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,289 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 10:12 AM

Here's how I'd expect it to be run if I were assessing SL franchise applications: 

 

1.  Do you meet enough of the franchise criteria to get at least a C license?  Yay!  Welcome to the SL qualified group of clubs, proceed to the club picking stage.

 

2.  Don't quite make a C license but aren't that far off?  Prove that you have enough guaranteed investment coming in if we give you a SL license.  Can't do that, show me firm statements of intent from major investors and other organisations that you say will help you attain that C license.  If we accept your evidence then we'll give you a temporary C license to get into the club picking stage.  If you pass through that into a picked SL then you are given one season to reach 90% of that C license, and the license period to reach a full C license, fail and you're gone.  This is to ensure that we're letting in clubs that aren't that far away and can stand on their own feet with a C license after only one year of investment, if they need longer than that one year then they're not close enough.

 

3.  Don't make a C license and aren't really close?  Ask us to assess your proposals, we'll grade you according to your proposals and reassess you after one year, if you've made enough quantifiable progress to get within one more year of investment from a C license then we'll guarantee you a slot in the next SL club pick.  Don't quite make it at the reassessment then we'll come back in a year.  This is to reward clubs that are investing but can't really prove big money sugar daddies or large scale corporate investment.

 

4.  Don't make a C license and can't prove you have sufficient investment?  Thank you for trying, please come back in 3 years for the next assessment.

 

I don't care if you're Toulouse, Featherstone, Halifax or anyone else.  One process for all clubs, regardless of how special they think they are.

Indeed.

 

The process is much the same. It's just that established clubs can point to their crowds and revenues as "proof" of what they can do in SL. A new club can only point to projected crowd figures based on guesses - not "proof" in anyone serious' eyes. Hence it is harder for a club with no history of SL to join. Having financial guarantees is one way that they can try to overcome this.

 

Cas, Wakey, Salford might not be giants of the game but at least they can show that they aren't Crusaders or Broncos either. Toulouse are a bit of a risk (one that I think will come off but still a risk).


Edited by Northern Sol, 10 June 2013 - 10:14 AM.


#119 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 11:08 AM

Who made Hetherington the boss?

Nobody, he's just been there done that for 17 years so I do take notice of him......

#120 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 11:22 AM

1. Can't prove you have sufficient investment?  Thank you for trying, please come back in 3 years for the next assessment.
 
2. I don't care if you're Toulouse, Featherstone, Halifax or anyone else.  One process for all clubs, regardless of how special they think they are.

1. Sorry CKN still don't understand how you make anyone prove they will make the investments. I suppose the Maire of Toulouse can show a big budget for local sports promotion, French aerospace giants may say they will consider investing in Toulouse if they get in Superleague and flash their latest xmillion of profits, and Dr. Koukash's accountant can show his estimated worth, but they can pull out anytime and I do not see how they can be held to their promises. Mr. Hudgell could have shown his worth in 2012 but this year he's announced he'll pull the funding, what price money and promises?.

I think the logical way to deal with the issue is to do what the RFL once threatened - to remove the licence. However when that has been a possibility e.g. Bradford, i didn't see anyone chomping at the bit to come in, based on having to join mid licence. Could it work by any replacement club automatically getting a minimum of 3 years if they deliver promises? e.g. London finish this year and Fev get next year and the next license round.

2. Absolutely and so treat Toulouse as they are which is an RL heartland club not an expansion club, when were they formed - anyone know??

Edited by The Parksider, 10 June 2013 - 11:28 AM.