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
- - - - -

The all-new never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
759 replies to this topic

#741 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,461 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 01:05 PM

bang goes my will to live

 

I know I could ignore the thread, but I do happen to be interested in the topic


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#742 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 02:53 PM

where are the mods these days eh?



#743 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,919 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 03:26 PM

bang goes my will to live

I know I could ignore the thread, but I do happen to be interested in the topic

What's the problem? We're discussing the league restructure now.
Can't bloody win!
Posted Image

#744 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,919 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 04:12 PM

but there is no evidence that the alternative would have taken them out of SL by this point, there is even less evidence that this would have been beneficial for them. The question isnt would licensing have made London a success (because no system can guarantee that) but would it give them the best chance to make a success of themselves.

The alternative for london may very well be the death of them, it may have been far worse for them having been relegated to the championship.

Licensing gives the clubs selected more chances. I don't think it gives them the best chances (the league becoming boring and stake at the bottom).

Relegation might have given them a chance of stability. A chance to find their level and build, giving another club a chance in the process.

You can flog a dead donkey for as long as you like, but it won't bring it back to life. Sometimes you need to get a new one.

considering the last 10 pages that seems a strange thing for you to assume. putting to one side the previous argument, then yes they had finished in relegation spots. This is no guarantee however that they would have been relegated. Leaving aside re-running seasons. Even had London finished in a relegation spot in a relegation season they werent guaranteed to do this. This being the case P+R doesnt guarantee a club like London is relegated, they would have stayed up in most seasons and everyone bar this under 1 up 1 down.

Just remember that there is a difference between saying "under P&R they would go down" and "if there was P&R that season and they finished in a relegation spot, they would go down." It's not a strange assumption at all.

It's all hypothetical whether they would have performed this poorly under P&R or not. What's not hypothetical is they have performed poorly and they had more success under the old P&R system. I'm not saying that's why they they succeeded, I'm just saying that they've achieved more under P&R than they did licensing.

On top of this, their licensing period is coming to an end. Do you think, had it continued, that the RFL would have granted this failing London club another license?

So to take your premise further, it has taken 16 years for London to finish in a relegation spot. Thats not a great hit rate for P+R. Meanwhile we would have also seen Widnes, Salford, and Cas relegated in the past 4 years instead. That would be 3 'non failling under licensing' clubs hugely damaged by Relegation.

But you've got to see balance. It's not just "R" it's "P&R". Clubs like Halifax, Featherstone, Leigh etc have had their chances taken away, as have others who may have found investment to make a charge at SL. Gateshead for example have just found new investment, and stated that it's because P&R has returned, and even stated that they wouldn't have invested under the old system (which dispels the myth that people wouldn't invest under the perilous P&R system and turns it on it's head against licensing).

There are pros and cons to both. Some will come for one, some for the other. Some will grow in one. Some in the other. Some will adapt to one. Some the other.

Hull KR also lost a boat load of money in their first season and continue to do so, had no youth development programme to speak of and were quite open on prioritising overseas players over investments in youth development and necessary stadium improvements. They had to, otherwise they would have been relegated. As a club Hull KR were entirely unprepared and unsuitable for SL it is only the largess of their owners which has kept them in business. As an actual company their balance sheet would be horrifying.

Huddersfields resurgence has less to with being relegated and much more to do with ken davy making £75m in 2001 and deciding to spend it.

it is nonsense, you dont need conclusive proof dismiss a theory has no real logic behind or evidence in its favour.

Most clubs in SL are losing a boat load of money. Whether they were given a license or promoted, they'd likely lose a boat load of money to start with. It's investment. You can't use it to argue against one and not the other.

The owner of most clubs is the reason why most clubs are in SL. How many self sustaining clubs are there?

And Hull KR achieved more in stadium developments in one off season of P&R than Castleford and Bradford did over the entire licensing period. I think it's unfair to say they skipped out on stadium improvements.

You may not agree with my logic or my evidence or my conclusions, that's free for you to do, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.
Posted Image

#745 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,461 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 04:27 PM

Licensing gives the clubs selected more chances. I don't think it gives them the best chances (the league becoming boring and stake at the bottom).

Relegation might have given them a chance of stability. A chance to find their level and build, giving another club a chance in the process.

You can flog a dead donkey for as long as you like, but it won't bring it back to life. Sometimes you need to get a new one.

Just remember that there is a difference between saying "under P&R they would go down" and "if there was P&R that season and they finished in a relegation spot, they would go down." It's not a strange assumption at all.

It's all hypothetical whether they would have performed this poorly under P&R or not. What's not hypothetical is they have performed poorly and they had more success under the old P&R system. I'm not saying that's why they they succeeded, I'm just saying that they've achieved more under P&R than they did licensing.

On top of this, their licensing period is coming to an end. Do you think, had it continued, that the RFL would have granted this failing London club another license?

But you've got to see balance. It's not just "R" it's "P&R". Clubs like Halifax, Featherstone, Leigh etc have had their chances taken away, as have others who may have found investment to make a charge at SL. Gateshead for example have just found new investment, and stated that it's because P&R has returned, and even stated that they wouldn't have invested under the old system (which dispels the myth that people wouldn't invest under the perilous P&R system and turns it on it's head against licensing).

There are pros and cons to both. Some will come for one, some for the other. Some will grow in one. Some in the other. Some will adapt to one. Some the other.

Most clubs in SL are losing a boat load of money. Whether they were given a license or promoted, they'd likely lose a boat load of money to start with. It's investment. You can't use it to argue against one and not the other.

The owner of most clubs is the reason why most clubs are in SL. How many self sustaining clubs are there?

And Hull KR achieved more in stadium developments in one off season of P&R than Castleford and Bradford did over the entire licensing period. I think it's unfair to say they skipped out on stadium improvements.

You may not agree with my logic or my evidence or my conclusions, that's free for you to do, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

this is what's wrong


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#746 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,919 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 06:35 PM

this is what's wrong

Discussing the topic?
Posted Image

#747 Mumby Magic

Mumby Magic
  • Coach
  • 3,167 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 06:48 PM

At what stage are you classed as Winners of the Championship.


Lilly, Jacob and Isaac, what my life is about. Although our route through life is not how it should be, I am a blessed man.


#748 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,919 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 08:38 PM

At what stage are you classed as Winners of the Championship.

I don't think it's been announced, but you'd imagine it would be after the regular season is over as there are no further games involving just the top Championship teams after that.
Posted Image

#749 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,461 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 09:03 PM

Discussing the topic?

it's not you mate it's me

 

I just find myself glazing over 


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#750 scotchy

scotchy
  • Coach
  • 643 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 10:09 AM

Licensing gives the clubs selected more chances. I don't think it gives them the best chances (the league becoming boring and stake at the bottom).

Relegation might have given them a chance of stability. A chance to find their level and build, giving another club a chance in the process.

You can flog a dead donkey for as long as you like, but it won't bring it back to life. Sometimes you need to get a new one.

Just remember that there is a difference between saying "under P&R they would go down" and "if there was P&R that season and they finished in a relegation spot, they would go down." It's not a strange assumption at all.

It's all hypothetical whether they would have performed this poorly under P&R or not. What's not hypothetical is they have performed poorly and they had more success under the old P&R system. I'm not saying that's why they they succeeded, I'm just saying that they've achieved more under P&R than they did licensing.

On top of this, their licensing period is coming to an end. Do you think, had it continued, that the RFL would have granted this failing London club another license?

But you've got to see balance. It's not just "R" it's "P&R". Clubs like Halifax, Featherstone, Leigh etc have had their chances taken away, as have others who may have found investment to make a charge at SL. Gateshead for example have just found new investment, and stated that it's because P&R has returned, and even stated that they wouldn't have invested under the old system (which dispels the myth that people wouldn't invest under the perilous P&R system and turns it on it's head against licensing).

There are pros and cons to both. Some will come for one, some for the other. Some will grow in one. Some in the other. Some will adapt to one. Some the other.

Most clubs in SL are losing a boat load of money. Whether they were given a license or promoted, they'd likely lose a boat load of money to start with. It's investment. You can't use it to argue against one and not the other.

The owner of most clubs is the reason why most clubs are in SL. How many self sustaining clubs are there?

And Hull KR achieved more in stadium developments in one off season of P&R than Castleford and Bradford did over the entire licensing period. I think it's unfair to say they skipped out on stadium improvements.

You may not agree with my logic or my evidence or my conclusions, that's free for you to do, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

if relegation gives london the chance to find their level and stability in the lower leagues, couldnt the argument be made the promotion takes away the chance for Fax, Leigh and Fev to find their level and stability in the lower leagues? You assume promotion is beneficial, but as many clubs have proved, including Fax and Leigh, SL can be hugely damaging to them.

 

Most clubs do lose money, but surely the point of any changes we make is to change that?

 

Hull KR did ignore their stadium, they ignored their youth development to the extend of central grants being removed from them. They did this because spending as much as possible on the players on the field to get and keep them up was their only priority. Its the same reason that Wakefield ended up fielding 15 overseas players in the original million pound game. There are costs specifically associated with P+R that could be better utilised elsewhere in the game. 

 

I dont know what Nigel Wood would have done, i expect its whatever benefits him and secures his powerbase so i expect London wouldnt have been given another licence. I wouldnt have given them one bar a Koukash style intervention. 

 

You say the league becomes boring with clubs bouncing along the bottom. Yet this hasnt happened. The top 12 in the league this year are incredibly close and all bar Widnes (currently 8th) have already qualified for the play-offs. 

 

You stated in your previous post that clubs were coasting and not trying, making the league boring, I asked you to give us some examples of that and you havent.

 

You cant claim that your argument is based in logic and evidence and i should accept that if you simply ignore the questions you dont like or cant provide evidence for (or even examples) The reason why arguing that clubs are coasting can be dismissed is that it just isnt happening.You also chose not to explain how struggling clubs would benefit from P+R.


Edited by scotchy, 07 August 2014 - 10:10 AM.


#751 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 11:25 AM

if relegation gives london the chance to find their level and stability in the lower leagues, couldnt the argument be made the promotion takes away the chance for Fax, Leigh and Fev to find their level and stability in the lower leagues? You assume promotion is beneficial, but as many clubs have proved, including Fax and Leigh, SL can be hugely damaging to them.

 

Most clubs do lose money, but surely the point of any changes we make is to change that?

 

Hull KR did ignore their stadium, they ignored their youth development to the extend of central grants being removed from them. They did this because spending as much as possible on the players on the field to get and keep them up was their only priority. Its the same reason that Wakefield ended up fielding 15 overseas players in the original million pound game. There are costs specifically associated with P+R that could be better utilised elsewhere in the game. 

 

I dont know what Nigel Wood would have done, i expect its whatever benefits him and secures his powerbase so i expect London wouldnt have been given another licence. I wouldnt have given them one bar a Koukash style intervention. 

 

You say the league becomes boring with clubs bouncing along the bottom. Yet this hasnt happened. The top 12 in the league this year are incredibly close and all bar Widnes (currently 8th) have already qualified for the play-offs. 

 

You stated in your previous post that clubs were coasting and not trying, making the league boring, I asked you to give us some examples of that and you havent.

 

You cant claim that your argument is based in logic and evidence and i should accept that if you simply ignore the questions you dont like or cant provide evidence for (or even examples) The reason why arguing that clubs are coasting can be dismissed is that it just isnt happening.You also chose not to explain how struggling clubs would benefit from P+R.

 

I wonder if that is a problem with the clubs rather than the system per se? What's wrong with going up for a season, keeping costs down, potentially going back down and potentially staying up - but if you go down you wind up with a lot more in the coffers to rebuild and make a better stab next time. So, see it more as a three year attempt to get up?



#752 scotchy

scotchy
  • Coach
  • 643 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:26 PM

I wonder if that is a problem with the clubs rather than the system per se? What's wrong with going up for a season, keeping costs down, potentially going back down and potentially staying up - but if you go down you wind up with a lot more in the coffers to rebuild and make a better stab next time. So, see it more as a three year attempt to get up?

Well whats wrong with doing that is what London are showing this season, Championship level squads cannot even compete at this level, people wont watch them, companies wont sponsor them. Your other issue is that even if they do that, there is no guarantee they would come back up in season 3 nor that despite 'saving up' for it, there is no guarantee you would stay up in season 4. 



#753 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,919 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 05:59 PM

if relegation gives london the chance to find their level and stability in the lower leagues, couldnt the argument be made the promotion takes away the chance for Fax, Leigh and Fev to find their level and stability in the lower leagues? You assume promotion is beneficial, but as many clubs have proved, including Fax and Leigh, SL can be hugely damaging to them.

Clubs have the option of opting out of promotion, so no I disagree that a P&R system denies clubs the chance to find their level in the way you say.

Also, I don't really see how promotion is the reason for Halifax getting into issues? Their issues happened many many years after that. Would licensing have been any different? They were even picked as a stand alone club in the original SL proposals.
Did Leigh get into issues after their SL stint?

Most clubs do lose money, but surely the point of any changes we make is to change that?

And isn't that what this one is trying to do? More money in the game through a TV contract that, for all we know, is because of this new system?

You can't argue that P&R loses money as a reason not to go to it when the alternative does the same.

Hull KR did ignore their stadium, they ignored their youth development to the extend of central grants being removed from them. They did this because spending as much as possible on the players on the field to get and keep them up was their only priority. Its the same reason that Wakefield ended up fielding 15 overseas players in the original million pound game. There are costs specifically associated with P+R that could be better utilised elsewhere in the game.

Many clubs stacked their players with overseas players then. Even SL champions Bradford had plenty. Surely that's something that could be avoided with the later-introduced federation trained system that replaced the quota system?

As for Hull KR, you have do have this tendency to argue your point by just repeating your original statement (and ironically later arguing that others don't give examples!).
Hull KR built a new stand immediately after being promoted, ready for the new SL season. The following off-season they extended another part of their ground. Even before they were promoted, they spent a six-figure sum on renewing their pitch and expanding the current stands they had slightly. They also got new floodlights.
So, you can keep repeating that statement all you like, but it's factual wrong. Again to quote you, "this is historical fact, these things happened, there's evidence of it!"

I dont know what Nigel Wood would have done, i expect its whatever benefits him and secures his powerbase so i expect London wouldnt have been given another licence. I wouldnt have given them one bar a Koukash style intervention.

So you wouldn't give London another license even though you've just been arguing that their best chance to grow would be in SL and that we should be protecting clubs?

You say the league becomes boring with clubs bouncing along the bottom. Yet this hasnt happened. The top 12 in the league this year are incredibly close and all bar Widnes (currently 8th) have already qualified for the play-offs.

The top 12 are close? No, the top 6 are close, then daylight, then the next 6 are playing for 2 spots in an over-expanded play off series that has lost intensity. One that was over expanded because they needed to give the clubs at the bottom something to play for.

You stated in your previous post that clubs were coasting and not trying, making the league boring, I asked you to give us some examples of that and you havent.

Hull FC coasted between 2009-2011.
Castleford coasted with mediocre coaches and signings. Harlequins/London haven't even tried. Bradford weren't always in financial strife and yet didn't build.
You may disagree, but many would agree.

You cant claim that your argument is based in logic and evidence and i should accept that if you simply ignore the questions you dont like or cant provide evidence for (or even examples) The reason why arguing that clubs are coasting can be dismissed is that it just isnt happening.

I have answered your questions and provided evidence. You have simply chosen to ignore or dismiss it outright. That's your choice, not mine.
Ironically, you haven't answered many of mine or addressed many of my points...

You also chose not to explain how struggling clubs would benefit from P+R.

An overall increases interest in the league? More TV money? Competition bringing out the best in businesses and forcing them to work harder?
Again, these are all theories. There is evidence to suggest that these could or do happen. You may dismiss them, but that doesn't mean I haven't provided an example or an answer.
Posted Image

#754 scotchy

scotchy
  • Coach
  • 643 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 09:03 PM

Clubs have the option of opting out of promotion, so no I disagree that a P&R system denies clubs the chance to find their level in the way you say.

Also, I don't really see how promotion is the reason for Halifax getting into issues? Their issues happened many many years after that. Would licensing have been any different? They were even picked as a stand alone club in the original SL proposals.
Did Leigh get into issues after their SL stint?

And isn't that what this one is trying to do? More money in the game through a TV contract that, for all we know, is because of this new system?

You can't argue that P&R loses money as a reason not to go to it when the alternative does the same.

Many clubs stacked their players with overseas players then. Even SL champions Bradford had plenty. Surely that's something that could be avoided with the later-introduced federation trained system that replaced the quota system?

As for Hull KR, you have do have this tendency to argue your point by just repeating your original statement (and ironically later arguing that others don't give examples!).
Hull KR built a new stand immediately after being promoted, ready for the new SL season. The following off-season they extended another part of their ground. Even before they were promoted, they spent a six-figure sum on renewing their pitch and expanding the current stands they had slightly. They also got new floodlights.
So, you can keep repeating that statement all you like, but it's factual wrong. Again to quote you, "this is historical fact, these things happened, there's evidence of it!"

So you wouldn't give London another license even though you've just been arguing that their best chance to grow would be in SL and that we should be protecting clubs?

The top 12 are close? No, the top 6 are close, then daylight, then the next 6 are playing for 2 spots in an over-expanded play off series that has lost intensity. One that was over expanded because they needed to give the clubs at the bottom something to play for.

Hull FC coasted between 2009-2011.
Castleford coasted with mediocre coaches and signings. Harlequins/London haven't even tried. Bradford weren't always in financial strife and yet didn't build.
You may disagree, but many would agree.

I have answered your questions and provided evidence. You have simply chosen to ignore or dismiss it outright. That's your choice, not mine.
Ironically, you haven't answered many of mine or addressed many of my points...

An overall increases interest in the league? More TV money? Competition bringing out the best in businesses and forcing them to work harder?
Again, these are all theories. There is evidence to suggest that these could or do happen. You may dismiss them, but that doesn't mean I haven't provided an example or an answer.

Halifax went bust whilst in SL and hold the current place for least points in SL. Leigh sit in 2nd place on that table. 

 

We know the additional money in SL is not because of P+R for the simple reason that fewer games involving clubs who could be relegated are to be shown, and only a small amount of games (1 round and the million pound game for a prize which isnt a million pounds) are to be shown. If P+R was the attraction then more of these games would be shown, Fact is more top end games are to be shown, which leaves the obvious conclusion that the value of our league isnt two small town teams battling for a season in the sun, nor two teams in 'jeopardy' of relegation. The value of our league is in the big sides competing at the top.

 

P&R loses more money than franchising for the reasons highlighted it also changes the priorities of where that money in spent. For a game like RL where many clubs play in awful facilites, where the marketing and visibility of the game struggles, and where youth development is almost none-existant in some places, prioritising chasing promotion or battling relegation is insane, You say that clubs wont go overseas and challenge the quota rules, we have seen time and time again that this isnt the case, we are years in to this attempt at limiting overseas players and every year they have changed because a club has wanted more overseas players. I find it ludicrous that you think under P+R when a clubs existence may very well be on the line that this will change .

 

I didnt repeat my original statement, i made a different one, that is that Hull KR improved their stadium because otherwise they wouldnt have gotten a licence. 

 

London as they are now are simply not a club set up to be sustainable. They have no plan and are scaling back for relegation. They wont be a success or sustainable at any level with what they are doing, Unless things drastically change they will be dead in a couple of years. 

 

I reject your premise that the play-offs are over expanded. They are of course, a smaller sample than what some have been saying will be the play-offs next year where 8 of 12 clubs will qualify for a longer play-off series, Some qualifying for that play-off series without a real chance of moving forward in that series. 

 

So you are saying that Hull FC who finished 12th, 6th, 8th, were coasting because of licensing. This year they arent then, because of P+R. They have played hell for leather and given their all to hit the dizzy heights of 11th? 

 

That would be Cas who coasted along with mediocre signings and coaches who have blooded numerous home grown players in to the side and are now having their best season in years. Cas are an example of a club that has built slowly but surely under franchising and now have a club on a sounder footing and a successful squad built of home grown talent. If that is coasting i hope to god we have a lot more clubs coasting. 

 

An overall interest in the league simply isnt true, more people watched SL in person and on tv in 2012 under franchising than in any year under P+R, Competition bringing out the best in business and forcing them to work harder is a laughable assertion. 

 

Your weird attempt to pretend that because you have answered questions now you had addressed them before is funny. 



#755 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,919 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 11:05 PM

Halifax went bust whilst in SL and hold the current place for least points in SL. Leigh sit in 2nd place on that table.

And what does that prove?

We know the additional money in SL is not because of P+R for the simple reason that fewer games involving clubs who could be relegated are to be shown, and only a small amount of games (1 round and the million pound game for a prize which isnt a million pounds) are to be shown. If P+R was the attraction then more of these games would be shown, Fact is more top end games are to be shown, which leaves the obvious conclusion that the value of our league isnt two small town teams battling for a season in the sun, nor two teams in 'jeopardy' of relegation. The value of our league is in the big sides competing at the top.

Would you like to show me next year's TV schedule?

P&R loses more money than franchising for the reasons highlighted it also changes the priorities of where that money in spent. For a game like RL where many clubs play in awful facilites, where the marketing and visibility of the game struggles, and where youth development is almost none-existant in some places, prioritising chasing promotion or battling relegation is insane, You say that clubs wont go overseas and challenge the quota rules, we have seen time and time again that this isnt the case, we are years in to this attempt at limiting overseas players and every year they have changed because a club has wanted more overseas players. I find it ludicrous that you think under P+R when a clubs existence may very well be on the line that this will change .

Yet the powers that be and the clubs have voted for this system? We must all be insane.
But I honestly don't care if you think that way.
I've justified my point, you don't agree. You're entitled to your view. In the absence of conclusive evidence (which I've said even before getting into this), everyone's entitled to their view and we might as well agree to disagree.
Or you can keep telling me why your opinion is definitely right and mine is definitely wrong.

I didnt repeat my original statement, i made a different one, that is that Hull KR improved their stadium because otherwise they wouldnt have gotten a licence.

So how did they ignore their stadium then?!
You've gone from saying they ignored their stadium to they improved it to get a license! That's a huge swing there!
In the offseason of 2005, they spent £200k to get the pitch done for the NL season.
In the offseason of 2006, they built a new stand before getting into SL.
How can you justify saying they ignored the stadium?

London as they are now are simply not a club set up to be sustainable. They have no plan and are scaling back for relegation. They wont be a success or sustainable at any level with what they are doing, Unless things drastically change they will be dead in a couple of years.

So licensing hasn't given them the best chance to grow their crowds then?

I reject your premise that the play-offs are over expanded. They are of course, a smaller sample than what some have been saying will be the play-offs next year where 8 of 12 clubs will qualify for a longer play-off series, Some qualifying for that play-off series without a real chance of moving forward in that series.

You can reject it, that's your entitlement. Just like I can reject your counter. Each to their own.
But the last part, teams aren't only playing to qualify for the playoffs, they're playing to avoid possible relegation. More on the line.

So you are saying that Hull FC who finished 12th, 6th, 8th, were coasting because of licensing. This year they arent then, because of P+R. They have played hell for leather and given their all to hit the dizzy heights of 11th?

Or you could say that they are still recovering from the years of coasting and lack of investment due to being safe in SL on the back of big crowds and a nice ground (something Hull fans have been saying for years).

That would be Cas who coasted along with mediocre signings and coaches who have blooded numerous home grown players in to the side and are now having their best season in years. Cas are an example of a club that has built slowly but surely under franchising and now have a club on a sounder footing and a successful squad built of home grown talent. If that is coasting i hope to god we have a lot more clubs coasting.

Or they're an example of what difference a good coach can bring to a club?

An overall interest in the league simply isnt true, more people watched SL in person and on tv in 2012 under franchising than in any year under P+R, Competition bringing out the best in business and forcing them to work harder is a laughable assertion.

That proves nothing.
More people watched SL because there were more clubs. Nearly every team that was in SL in 2007 had a bigger crowd than they did last year.

Your weird attempt to pretend that because you have answered questions now you had addressed them before is funny.

If you weren't to busy dismissing everything, you might find the answers.
Posted Image

#756 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,800 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:09 AM

You can flog a dead donkey for as long as you like ....
 

 

Never mind all this restructuring rubbish, Wellsy.  What are you asking for that dead donkey you're flogging ?


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#757 scotchy

scotchy
  • Coach
  • 643 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:21 AM

And what does that prove?

 

it proves that P+R can elevate a club beyond its level and that can be damaging for both the club and the league,

Would you like to show me next year's TV schedule?

 

Would you like to tell me why i would need to do that? What sky will show isnt a secret. 

Yet the powers that be and the clubs have voted for this system? We must all be insane.

did they really? 7 SL clubs voted for this. It would be naive in the extreme to think that there isnt politicking going on in RL governance and that maybe people do not always vote for what they actually want. 

But I honestly don't care if you think that way.

that does upset me
I've justified my point, you don't agree. You're entitled to your view. In the absence of conclusive evidence (which I've said even before getting into this), everyone's entitled to their view and we might as well agree to disagree.
Or you can keep telling me why your opinion is definitely right and mine is definitely wrong.

everyone is entitled to their view, however not all views have the same validity. Some are based on evidence and reasoning, some are circular and based on personal bias. You havent justified your point, you have simply hid behind an absence of conclusive evidence as somehow raising the validity of your argument. As if because it cannot be conclusively proved wrong, your argument should be accepted as valid even though you cannot provide good evidence or reasoning behind it beyond the statements you make. If you didnt want people of differing view points to elucidate you to their views and reasoning and point out where your conflicting reasoning fails, you would be much happier having this conversation with a mirror than a message board. 

So how did they ignore their stadium then?!
You've gone from saying they ignored their stadium to they improved it to get a license! That's a huge swing there!
In the offseason of 2005, they spent £200k to get the pitch done for the NL season.
In the offseason of 2006, they built a new stand before getting into SL.
How can you justify saying they ignored the stadium?
They spent £200k on a new pitch. A whole £200k? Big whoop. They built a new stand after being promoted to SL, a new stand that still didnt bring up their stadium to SL standard for a couple of years afterwards. In 2007 (when they were in SL) Craven Park fell so short of what was needed that HKR publicly discussed having to move to a new stadium, 

 

They had to purchase temporary seating (a wasted additional cost) to suffice their first seasons in SL. Hull KR and Neil Hudgell have publicly stated that they need 10k crowds to be sustainable, that without that the club exists only as long as he and Rob Crossland can fund it out of their personal wealth. They didnt get a 10k stadium until 2013. If you want to argue that HKR prepared themselves for SL whilst in the championship you can, it is  at odds with the facts though. 

 

So licensing hasn't given them the best chance to grow their crowds then?

How on earth did you conclude that from what i said? Licensing can give them the best chance to grow their crowds, if they are hamstrung by lack of investment or a scaling back by their owners,  or by poor management then they wont do so. It can still be the best chance.

You can reject it, that's your entitlement. Just like I can reject your counter. Each to their own.
But the last part, teams aren't only playing to qualify for the playoffs, they're playing to avoid possible relegation. More on the line.

again you arent making an argument here, you arent explaining reasoning or logic, simply stating your conclusion and expecting it to be given merit simply on the basis you have made a statement. There isnt more on the line, for those middle clubs there is very little on the line, they can either qualify for a comp they have no chance of winning or be relegated in to a comp they have very little chance of losing. Who is going to be excited by that?

Or you could say that they are still recovering from the years of coasting and lack of investment due to being safe in SL on the back of big crowds and a nice ground (something Hull fans have been saying for years).

their recovery being evidence by being worse? In the years you have given as coasting, Hull FC finished 12th 6th and 8th. Bar a very small period of time a couple of years in to this millenium those are good seasons for Hull FC, how arrogant is that you see that as coasting. Its laughable, who are Hull FC to see 6th as coasting, what right do they have to see that as anything less than a good achievement?

 

Hull FC's finishes in SL 9th, 13th, 7th, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 4th, 11th, 12th, 6th, 8th, 6th, 6th, Those years are pretty much in line with where Hull FC are as a club, if you averaged the points totals of SL clubs, Hull FC come in 6th. They are a mid table side. The evidence simply doesnt back up your claim, it refutes it. 

Or they're an example of what difference a good coach can bring to a club?

Either they were coasting with mediocre signings like you asserted before, or they were unlucky with landing on a poor coach like you are asserting now. You cant have it both ways. 

That proves nothing.

More people watched SL because there were more clubs. Nearly every team that was in SL in 2007 had a bigger crowd than they did last year.

 

well i dont know about you but 2013 wasnt 2012 to me. 

If you weren't to busy dismissing everything, you might find the answers.

if you were making reasoned evidenced arguments they wouldnt be as easy to dismiss



#758 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,919 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:18 AM

if you were making reasoned evidenced arguments they wouldnt be as easy to dismiss

Despite showing the contradictions and fallacies in your arguments on many occasions, you dismiss anything you don't agree with outright. There's just no counter argument brought back that you can either say definitely isn't true or doesn't apply to both systems. It's pointless debating with you any further.

You are incredibly closed minded to other people's opinions if you dismiss them without proof and don't apply the same rhetoric to your own opinions.
Posted Image

#759 scotchy

scotchy
  • Coach
  • 643 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:16 PM

Despite showing the contradictions and fallacies in your arguments on many occasions, you dismiss anything you don't agree with outright. There's just no counter argument brought back that you can either say definitely isn't true or doesn't apply to both systems. It's pointless debating with you any further.

You are incredibly closed minded to other people's opinions if you dismiss them without proof and don't apply the same rhetoric to your own opinions.

You havent shown any contradictions or fallacies, you have simply stated you have. 

 

I dont dismiss anything outright, i have repeatedly ask you to evidence and reason your arguments, that evidence either doesnt come or is poor.it is dismissed. 

 

You seem to think simply because you have stated it as an argument it should be accepted, you dont seem to accept the difference between everyone having the equal right to an opinion, and those opinions being equal.

 

Just because you have the equal right to state that Hull FC were coasting in those years, it doesnt mean it is an view of equal validity when the evidence disagrees so clearly.

 

It is not up to me to disprove your statement, it is up to you to validate your statements with cohesive evidenced arguments. You have failed to do that, there is next to no 'evidence' in any of your arguments and where there is it is flimsy at best.

 

The statement that clubs are coasting and your evidence being there is no conclusive proof they werent and it is your (convenient) opinion is an argument that deserves dismissing. That isnt closed minded, It is sensible.  



#760 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,688 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:25 PM

I think it's time to put this thread out of its misery.

 

The never-ending debate just ended. For now...

 

Locked.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com