Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

20,000 + For Lancashire v Yorkshire?


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#141 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 10:16 PM

Sorry but the Super League wasn't about expansion. The NSWRL and The ARL had already expanded by 1996. The Super League war was about money, TV rights and political control. Murdoch was trying to seize the TV rights and the control of Rugby League away from the ARL and Packer.

The NRL mergers worked because it was in the clubs interests to merge. Wests and Balmain were uncompetitive and too small on their own and St George and Illawarra meshed nicely with each other. St George had the prestige, money and brand whilst Illawarra had the community base, junior and reserves grade and the player production line. It should be remembered that St George Illawarra play half of their games in Illawarra. Both have thrived since.

Also the Queensland Rugby League also sanctioned the creation of the Broncos and effectively signed the death warrant of the BRL. The Australian game is much more forward looking and progressive. In the England we are still arguing over the first grade status of a like Featherstone for heaven's sake. Ridiculous.

#142 redjonn

redjonn
  • Coach
  • 1,056 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 06:30 PM

Strategically we need a strong international game Otherwise we will forever continue as we are and forever discussing the lack of monies to enable the game to fully grab the opportunities - union's big advantage is the international game from which they are able to back and support whatever strategic directions they wish to take.

 

The obvious is to manufacture a stronger competitive home international game with England France being the icing on the cake.   Of course to get it competitive we have to fiddle initially with allowing the "exile players" in super league able to play for the French and Welsh teams to make them stronger - for example those teams could be allowed to include up to say 6 "exile player" in their team. This can be reduced if Wales or France become stronger with own grown local talent.   Thus it may be possible to have at least three way tournament with an additional x2 test tour to France.   

 

Anyway as daft as idea is it would seem to me to be better than England v Exiles. Plus in reality if one looks at a lot of international union or cricket teams they all have players that have "dubious" home country credentials.  That is nobody worries about it.  I mean not that long ago England cricket had quite a few South African when we managed to win back the ashes after so long - nobody cared.

 

We of course have to be patient in allowing it to develop and to help have tickets at minimum cost to just cover costs, i.e. a loss leader.  Not like RFL seeing the England v Exiles as a premium product and hence not being realistic in realising that the fans see the exile game as just training games for England and hence ticket price should have to reflected this.

 

Anyway maybe a daft idea but we have to do something to get a "domestic" representative game.



#143 808tone

808tone
  • Coach
  • 746 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:54 PM

Sorry but the Super League wasn't about expansion. The NSWRL and The ARL had already expanded by 1996. The Super League war was about money, TV rights and political control. Murdoch was trying to seize the TV rights and the control of Rugby League away from the ARL and Packer.

The NRL mergers worked because it was in the clubs interests to merge. Wests and Balmain were uncompetitive and too small on their own and St George and Illawarra meshed nicely with each other. St George had the prestige, money and brand whilst Illawarra had the community base, junior and reserves grade and the player production line. It should be remembered that St George Illawarra play half of their games in Illawarra. Both have thrived since.

Also the Queensland Rugby League also sanctioned the creation of the Broncos and effectively signed the death warrant of the BRL. The Australian game is much more forward looking and progressive. In the England we are still arguing over the first grade status of a like Featherstone for heaven's sake. Ridiculous.

 

At the mo the NRL ain't looking that great despite SOO.



#144 Blue Monkey

Blue Monkey
  • Coach
  • 1,764 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:03 PM

I think its a great idea. At most games where a team from Lancashire plays a Yorkshire team you here either Yorkshire Yorkshire or Lancashire Lancashire. This IMO would get the crowds flocking in. It would also be more popular I think than the England against the exiles game.

 

Totally agree, the Roses battles (any sport) will always appeal to eager crowds both side of the Pennines. No matter how much the pen-pushers in government tinker with county boundaries people instinctively know where their natural and historic sporting rivalries lie. For a very long time (centuries perhaps) Lancastrians & Yorkists have understood just which inter-county sporting match generates the most excitement of all, i.e., Lancashire v Yorkshire, the Red rose v the White rose.

 

:onthequiet:    :tease:   :yahoo:   


  • nec likes this

#145 SE4Wire

SE4Wire
  • Coach
  • 659 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:32 PM

Yeah, the Lancs v Yorks football game is massive...

#146 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:06 PM

Sorry but the Super League wasn't about expansion. The NSWRL and The ARL had already expanded by 1996. The Super League war was about money, TV rights and political control. Murdoch was trying to seize the TV rights and the control of Rugby League away from the ARL and Packer.

The NRL mergers worked because it was in the clubs interests to merge. Wests and Balmain were uncompetitive and too small on their own and St George and Illawarra meshed nicely with each other. St George had the prestige, money and brand whilst Illawarra had the community base, junior and reserves grade and the player production line. It should be remembered that St George Illawarra play half of their games in Illawarra. Both have thrived since.

Also the Queensland Rugby League also sanctioned the creation of the Broncos and effectively signed the death warrant of the BRL. The Australian game is much more forward looking and progressive. In the England we are still arguing over the first grade status of a like Featherstone for heaven's sake. Ridiculous.


I'm sorry but this is again just wrong, you conveniently gloss over any controversies or opposition to any of these policies and make out like the current situation is the result of a consistent policy over a period of years. It isn't, is it simply the result of their own individual challenges.

The Queensland RL didn't originally sanction the creation of the Broncos and there was much opposition to it. Newcastle RL didn't originally sanction the Newcastle Knights because they were worried it would weaken their local competition. They eventually had to accept it to sustain the sport in those areas. We have no parallel with this situation because we didn't have regional leagues in this way. How is their local opposition any different to the opposition that we have faced?

Being forced to accept something or face death is hardly progressive. Australian clubs had to accept mergers or die, there was no system for a return to the NRL if they rejected it. Our clubs didn't have to accept it because we had promotion and relegation and clubs like Featherstone (which you continually patronise) had as legitimate a claim to the top as did other clubs. You cannot simply write off situations that are individual to the sport in this country.

Like it or not but since the war we have had approximately 30 clubs that have seen their ultimate goal as being champions of British Rugby League. As you say many of these are too small but you are talking about telling around 18 clubs that they can no longer have this goal and they have to become a permanent second tier club. Of the 12 NSWRL clubs that contested the 1980 season, 3 are partners in mergers, 7 are still there and only 2 have been dropped. 1 of these 2 is bidding for a return. So you have 18 clubs being 'dropped' compared to 2, is it any wonder we have had bigger problems?

You can criticise the governing body but you cannot say they haven't been progressive. Let's look at just some of the changes since 1995:

We moved our whole professional game to Summer.
We turned full-time professional.
We changed 100 years of tradition by adopting American style nicknames.
We moved a London club straight into the top division.
We split the Great Britain Lions up to develop the sport in other countries.
We tried to expand to Paris, Gateshead and Wales (twice).
We invited and sustained a team from another international competition.
We introduced a radical system of licensing for European clubs.
We look about set to introduce a radical system of P&R unprecedented in British sport.

I'm not saying they didn't have opposition, of course they did but so did the big Australian decisions. When I was in Australia I worked with an old North Sydney Bears fan who never intended to go to another Rugby League game in his life. However, to imply that we are not forward-thinking or progressive is just to ignore the past.

We have (and look set to again) made some bad decisions of course we have but we have done all this with far lesser resources and greatly worse conditions than those in Australia.

Australia on the other hand continally stalls in its expansion to Perth and has no plans to Adelaide and pulled the plug on both in double quick time. They repeatedly drag their heels over an expanded WCC, killed off tours played against club sides and have been a drag on the international game for years, last year refusing to take part in any end of year tournament to let their players have a year off international duty. What country in what sport actually does that?

Anyway back to the original point that you have moved away from. State of Origin was in no way a forward thinking, progressive move. It was an adjustment to the rules of a historic series that had taken place since 1910. The previous guise wasn't perfect but it was a damn site more successful than the Roses clashes ever were.

#147 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:07 PM

Totally agree, the Roses battles (any sport) will always appeal to eager crowds both side of the Pennines. No matter how much the pen-pushers in government tinker with county boundaries people instinctively know where their natural and historic sporting rivalries lie. For a very long time (centuries perhaps) Lancastrians & Yorkists have understood just which inter-county sporting match generates the most excitement of all, i.e., Lancashire v Yorkshire, the Red rose v the White rose.
 
:onthequiet:    :tease:   :yahoo:


Thats why in the 89 games we tried they were always successful, passionate games with big crowds...

#148 nec

nec
  • Coach
  • 2,380 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 07:11 PM

Thats why in the 89 games we tried they were always successful, passionate games with big crowds...

If it wasn't for that pesky lack of promotion and marketing they'd 'be been huge, huge I tell thee
Rugby League is a sport that desperately needs to expand its geographical supporter base and its player base. This imperative means that all other requirements are secondary until this is done.

All power in the game should be with governing bodies, especially international governing bodies.

Without these actions we will remain a minor sport internationally and nationally.

#149 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:29 AM

Let's all just pack up and not bother, leave it for Union and Soccer to fight over!

#150 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:32 AM

Let's all just pack up and not bother, leave it for Union and Soccer to fight over!


I'm struggling to equate the idea of bringing back a series that has never worked in RL with packing up the whole game. The current state of the game is not a plus point for any bad concept.

Unless of course you are talking about Union and Soccer fighting over Roses clashes, yeh leave it to them, let's see how long before they decide that this is a good idea.

#151 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:35 AM

If it wasn't for that pesky lack of promotion and marketing they'd 'be been huge, huge I tell thee


True, I remember the huge national marketing campaigns we used to have in the early 1900's for all the other successful RL events.

#152 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,454 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 12:25 PM

True, I remember the huge national marketing campaigns we used to have in the early 1900's for all the other successful RL events.

 

Very innovative use of the telegraph system.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#153 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 04:21 PM

Very innovative use of the telegraph system.


It's a little known fact that the only reason the RFL changed the name from Northern Union is because of the difficulty in coming up with new Radio advertising jingles to rhyme with Union.

After you've took your weekly Holy Communion*, come and watch a game of Northern Union!

*I am aware that games used to be played on a Saturday.

#154 808tone

808tone
  • Coach
  • 746 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 11:25 AM

The ARL used to also play there games back in the day on a sunday and wednesday.



#155 redjonn

redjonn
  • Coach
  • 1,056 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 07:02 PM

A county origin is still better than the exile game. Just because it wasn't as successful when previously tried it doesn't mean it won't be successful the next time.   Nothing worse in business when somebody new comes onto the board and suggests something, only for the die in wool old timers who have lost all drive to say...mmm tried that before and won't work again me laddie giving him a gentle pat of the head... always a sign to shift off the board that ole timer...



#156 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,786 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 07:51 PM

A county origin is still better than the exile game. Just because it wasn't as successful when previously tried it doesn't mean it won't be successful the next time.   Nothing worse in business when somebody new comes onto the board and suggests something, only for the die in wool old timers who have lost all drive to say...mmm tried that before and won't work again me laddie giving him a gentle pat of the head... always a sign to shift off the board that ole timer...

It's not just 'old timers' who think it won't work.  I've not been a fan of the sport for many years but I can't see Lancs -v- Yorks working.  I don't have any animosity even of a sporting kind towards Yorkshire but if a Saints -v- Wigan match was proposed then I'd be up for that!

 

Besides, where exactly would the boundary for Lancashire be?  These days Wigan, Salford, Leigh and Oldham are in Greater Manchester, St Helens is in Merseyside (even though it doesn't exist except in the minds of Liverpudlians), Warrington and Widnes are in Cheshire and Barrow is in Cumbria.  I suppose Rochdale could provide the players!


Edited by Saintslass, 26 August 2013 - 07:51 PM.


#157 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 08:45 PM

It's not just 'old timers' who think it won't work.  I've not been a fan of the sport for many years but I can't see Lancs -v- Yorks working.  I don't have any animosity even of a sporting kind towards Yorkshire but if a Saints -v- Wigan match was proposed then I'd be up for that!

 

Besides, where exactly would the boundary for Lancashire be?  These days Wigan, Salford, Leigh and Oldham are in Greater Manchester, St Helens is in Merseyside (even though it doesn't exist except in the minds of Liverpudlians), Warrington and Widnes are in Cheshire and Barrow is in Cumbria.  I suppose Rochdale could provide the players!

 

Rochdale is also in Greater Manchester! You're left with amateur clubs such as Accrington, Whitworth and whatever exists in Blackpool these days.


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#158 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,786 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:04 PM

Rochdale is also in Greater Manchester! You're left with amateur clubs such as Accrington, Whitworth and whatever exists in Blackpool these days.

Oh is it?  Ha!  I didn't know that. 

 

Does anything exist in Blackpool these days?



#159 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,347 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:21 PM

A county origin is still better than the exile game. Just because it wasn't as successful when previously tried it doesn't mean it won't be successful the next time.   Nothing worse in business when somebody new comes onto the board and suggests something, only for the die in wool old timers who have lost all drive to say...mmm tried that before and won't work again me laddie giving him a gentle pat of the head... always a sign to shift off the board that ole timer...

 

Eienstein defined Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.



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.


#160 redjonn

redjonn
  • Coach
  • 1,056 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:19 AM

Eienstein defined Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

Yep, but implementation can be different so that results differ although the concept remains intact..   






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users