Jump to content

Rugby League World
League Express

Rugby League Yearbook 2014-15

The Parksider

Member Since 06 Oct 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 07:16 AM

#3081050 The latest DR twist

Posted by The Parksider on Yesterday, 05:46 PM

I see that your argument, like most on here, is purely from a SL perspective, ergo if it benefits us then it will benefit the sport as a whole.


Today Keinhorst, Yates and Walters played for Hunslet and helped us to a win.


It shouldn't be conveniently forgotten that the move wasn't about developing players per se but was about taking the financial pressure off SL clubs.


Why have a reserve side when you can use an CC club who have no real choice and can't afford to say no to DR.


Darryl Powell was on the radio against it, and pointing out the integrity element once championship clubs start meeting SL clubs for the right to be promoted to or retained in SL.


I'd guess that the RFL/SLE don't really care, all will be Ok as long as the two northern professional CC clubs don't do DR and play out their two horse race and be the only challengers to the SL clubs.


The rest of the Championship can continue to be used.

#3081003 Catalans. Pity.

Posted by The Parksider on Yesterday, 05:17 PM

As strong as they have ever been. But very liitle French.


19 French lads turned out for them last year.


They must however field the best side they can find from anywhere like the clubs they play against.


The stronger the first team is the more they will attract and promote French lads playing pro RL.


They have an excellent junior set up from this as well.


AND French players find their way into the English game now too


What is it people want from them??

#3079670 Promotion and relegation

Posted by The Parksider on 27 February 2015 - 01:43 PM

People say that without relegation there is no incentive to improve but full time professional sports tams should be striving to be the best they can be as a matter of course, as winning more games and finishing higher up the league will attract more spectators and off the back of that more sponsors. If a SL club really needs more motivation from trying to avoid being the worst rather than trying to be the best than it should be questioning whether they should be a Super League club anymore.


Well it doesn't make sense does it, everyone from Chairman to kit man wants their club to win from professionals to under 10's. SL clubs who don't win are simply short of resources, not short of ambition.


It's just an argument that comes from fans who understandably want/support such arguments to promote the use of leave it to luck P & R rather than any sort of business planning to "keep their dream alive".


As always and with respect to all if your club is in the Championship your more likely to make this argument then if your club were in SL.

#3079131 WCS: Overall impressions, conclusions and bonkers theorising

Posted by The Parksider on 26 February 2015 - 03:57 PM

So which owners aren't fans ?


There's fans and fans and owners who will pour it down a drain and owners who will invest and get a return so they don't have to pour it down a drain any more.


Had Koukash bought into Bulls as he later tried to do instead of the scarlet turkey then Superleague may have been a better place.

#3078432 WCS: Overall impressions, conclusions and bonkers theorising

Posted by The Parksider on 25 February 2015 - 01:22 PM

How does a six point win and then a bonus point win translate to a gulf in standards?


This is another example of the perverse logic we seem to be inundated with when discussing the relative strength of the NRL and the SL




Don't forget away from home, in pre-season mode and coming from the sides who finished 11th and 8th respectively playing top 4 SL sides.


It is one hell of a case for the prosecution.


Well I suppose we would know the gulf in standards if we now organised a return competition in a month or so.


Souths (champs).v.Saints(champs) in Australia

Sydney Roosters (Ist. in NRL) to play our eighth club Widnes in Australia

Manley(2nd. in NRL) to play our eleventh placed club Hull in Australia 


The games would then be evened up in terms of similar league positions, travelling, preparation etc.

Then we could see the gulf in standards that may exist when neither side is given advantages to even the contest.


We just need to be honest about this, and rather than contriving points take a pragmatic view. There's a daft idea we should merge SLE with NRL. Where have we not been before???


1997 WCC.....


Bradford lose six out of six to Aussie teams home and away conceding 64 in one game

Leeds lose three out of four to Aussie clubs conceding 40 odd twice to North Queensland

Wigan lose four out of six to Aussie clubs conceding 50 twice

Saints lose six out of six conceding 70 points to Auckland.


That competition was also bent in favour of British clubs, Penrith won all six of their qualifiers but did not make the quarter-finals, where Saints conceded another whopping 66 and Bradford lost their seventh out of seven conceding 62.


Be careful what you wish for or fantasise about because THAT is the "nature of professional sport". 

#3078409 The NRL take control of the Gold Coast Titans.

Posted by The Parksider on 25 February 2015 - 12:54 PM

Did anyone ever say it was? Did anyone ever believe it was? I'm an Australian NRL fan and I'm fully aware of many aspects of the NRL which generate differences of opinion. Differences of opinion which, I might add, are regularly aired in the OZ media.


To me, your comment seems nothing more than a pathetic, desperate, transparent attempt at Aussie/NRL bashing.


Well I can assure you it's not that. Mr. Kryten (with respect to him) is bashing your system in which you licence the clubs into a closed professional league, including big traditional clubs, merged clubs and expansion clubs, to a strategic plan, then centrally control that league to maintain stability amongst the chosen clubs, because it frightens him that the adoption of that system here would spell decline for the smaller clubs not chosen, into smaller supporters run clubs. Many supporters of the small clubs over here have views coloured by self interest.


Not at all , just pointing out to those ' over here ' that claim it is the only way and how they use it as an example to prove their point


It's certainly not the "only way" there is of course straight P & R, non strategic licensing in which clubs do not get central control, or play off P & R in which second tier clubs have to beat first tier clubs for entry to Superleague.


It remains open to European Super League to pick clubs via licensing on a strategic basis looking at growth rather than scoring clubs against each other in the here and now. That may borrow parts of the Aussie system, that may add things like extra funding for strategic clubs like London. 


For me the current choice of system is designed to rescue the Championship clubs from a slow decline into supporters run clubs, whilst taking the financial pressures off the Superleague clubs.


But I don't think a debate over what system is best for the game is the topic here. But nor is it "what system suits my club", and the ironic thing is my suggested one up one down is the one that will suit Leigh best.

#3078248 The NRL take control of the Gold Coast Titans.

Posted by The Parksider on 25 February 2015 - 07:25 AM

The NRL has gone on the front foot by terminating the club's license and taking control.

They have decided a Gold Coast-based club is part of the long-term plan and for that to be rock solid, they have stepped in.


Contrast that with the RFL/SLE going on the back foot and deciding Bradford Bulls are expendable and terminating the clubs SL place.


2004 Bulls 22.v.Penrith 4 19,000.


Good governing bodies "Take control"

#3078238 The NRL take control of the Gold Coast Titans.

Posted by The Parksider on 25 February 2015 - 06:42 AM

So the NRL ' model ' has its flaws as well ?


It doesn't look like it does it?


All pro sports clubs are prone to problems when finances are always stretched and there are no reserves of profits to fall back on.


So to keep a good solid league of competitive clubs positive intervention by the governing body is good business, and we get that in the NRL as you can surely see.


We don't get that in RFL/SLE where one minute the RFL assist Bulls and the next are financially penalising a club with no money and allowing their squad to be dismantled before sending them into freefall via relegation.


Clearly like Gold Coast, the Bulls could have been steadied and retained in SL, where their pulling power (which your club have just benefited from) and player development could have remained a big asset to the British game.


Do you really think the British model should be applied to Gold Coast, and that the best "feeder" club outside the NRL (whoever they are) should come into the NRL to replace the Gold Coast??


DSK is not "Crazy" it's a shame your back to name calling again, but it is crazy to think that the NRL should apply the British "model" here.

#3073719 Promotion and relegation

Posted by The Parksider on 17 February 2015 - 03:15 PM

True. I disagree that a strong Super League needs the likes of Cas in it, or even as part of a system of promotion-relegation, but since there isn't as yet a strong Newcastle, London, Birmingham, etcetera, to displace the smaller cities, they are necessary. That's what opening up the league structure is about, I would hope. It is not to give Halifax a chance of playing in the top flight, but to encourage the big cities that can make a real difference to the league to get there. 


A strong Superleague must have a Calder team, if there was one club only from there in SL for a sustained period of time it could grow to as big a size as a number of SL clubs. It could be Cas with new ground and investment but the general feeling is Wakefield are that club.


As I say Newcastle, London and Toulouse could be knocking at the SL door in a couple of years and yet they would be hamstrung on a £1M salary cap trying to find decent players most of whom would want to stick along the M62 or if imports would not come for the lower money.


To encourage the big cities would be to give them the same cap as Superleague at least and provide a pathway not a fixed play off. 


I think if we were doing that. There would be a lot more going on around it. There isn't really is there. That's why I think this change is one to hive off the big clubs. Give them their small super league cushion the fall for the middle ones and dangle the carrot for the championships. But there is no real growth in that. It makes in harder for a middle SL club to become a big one, harder for a lower SL club to be a middle one. The only thing it makes easier is for a top championship to become a lesser SL club. But that doesn't really help us.


They must really have done it on a calculation of votes. The top SL clubs get a better fixture list so more money and fans, the lower SL clubs are not at much risk of relegation against Championship clubs with hands tied behind their backs on the disparate cap, and the Championship clubs can sell season tickets and big games on the P & R is back ticket.


What is constantly written is about how now there is a clear pathway to the top. There isn't, but as long as the fans think there is then they may well respond and up the coffers of the hard up championship clubs. Whilst it looks likely that P & R won't happen - Mr. Sadlers first worry about this system the moment the vote went through everybody has settled down to getting the money in and for three clubs seeing if they can beat the odds.


It will become intolerable if in time there's a queue for Superleague forming up at the top of the Championship containing names like Toulouse, London and Newcastle, just what those who want to see the game expand cry out for, and that is certainly a distinct possibility. 


Short term panic?

#3073542 Promotion and relegation

Posted by The Parksider on 17 February 2015 - 11:02 AM

True. I disagree that a strong Super League needs the likes of Cas in it, or even as part of a system of promotion-relegation, but since there isn't as yet a strong Newcastle, London, Birmingham, etcetera, to displace the smaller cities, they are necessary. That's what opening up the league structure is about, I would hope. 


Well we are all hoping that it is opened up. After all licensing opened up for Widnes.


However as there is no guaranteed promotion and a massive gap between salary spends it looks like a Leigh.v.Wakefield £1M match could be a damp squib.


If Newcastle and Toulouse enter and climb to the top of the Championship that door may easily not open for them either. That would be massive egg on RL face time.  


The failure to put in automatic promotion may well haunt the game for years to come. A very very bad short term decision.

#3073326 Promotion and relegation

Posted by The Parksider on 16 February 2015 - 08:03 PM

I questioned 4 of Parkys ' Super ' 10 , the answer I got back ? , yes Bradford brought around 2,300 to Leigh yesterday , but quite simply they only average anywhere near 10 K when they are winning everything or are offering totally unrealistic ST s

So apart from that all we saw was people mentioning Leigh , why ? Why do we see this need when discussing subjects others bring up and then questioned certain posters look to belittle clubs that were not part of the discussion ?


Scotchy has it right, you belittle clubs because it suits your Leigh agenda. You aren't the only one, all clubs but Leeds were recently belittled in this thread to suit a Featherstone agenda, before you came along Bradford's relegation was hailed as proof positive all clubs were the same and Keighley could replace the Bulls. Another bellittlement came from a Dewsbury supporter who when reminded of what Bulls had achieved merely said that is irrelevant as it is all in the past".


Standing on the sidelines I see it again and again, a desire to see failure and hail failure because it will be good for your club. But when you and others denegrate clubs like this you only turn the spotlight on your own club. people are going to answer back.  

#3069613 Promotion and relegation

Posted by The Parksider on 10 February 2015 - 10:09 AM

There have to be losers in order for there to be winners.  


Well accept Featherstone lost against Leeds in that 1995 semi, accept Fev and Leigh  lose out to bigger clubs in the make up of SL.

#3069002 Crowd watch - 1st week

Posted by The Parksider on 09 February 2015 - 12:11 AM

I'm not.  It's a long game,  I expected the crowds to go up this year.  It's whether the structure actually meets expectations.  


At the moment there is a lot of optimism for all the clubs, a new start and all that.  Once the reality beds in will it meet the expectations??


I think it has to deliver actual P & R. and as Mr. Sadler said immediately the new structure was approved that dice was heavily loaded.


The Championship clubs need a lame SL duck to devour and Wakefield proved today not to be that.

Under six years of  licensing crowds in the championship fell from an average of 2047 to 1095 P & R had to come back, but in the form it is it's a risk and a miscalculated one for me. 


The new structure could be worse then licensing at shutting clubs out of SL. People keep ignoring that arguing the promotion door is open again. It's not.


Imagine if the SL clubs win the play off match six times in a row and nobody ever goes up.


Now is the time to shout "fix" for me.

#3068868 Promotion and relegation

Posted by The Parksider on 08 February 2015 - 08:30 PM

There's no point at the moment in rehashing the P&R argument until the current formula has been tried. 


OK Tro, I won't post again on this thread and discuss the organisation of the game, a massive subject.


What would they achieve as mere feeders for Super League?  Who'd want to watch them?  What sort of crowds do the current SL Academy sides get now?  There is no future for the clubs lower down the league or for their supporters if you remove the incentive of one day playing in the top flight. 


Hang on I thought you said we should not re-hash the argument??


No you're wrong I'm not keen on it, I'm saying what the consequences of your plan could be.  All the clubs agreed to SL in 1995, but the rich clubs screwed the Championship clubs and the gulf gradually widened.  In 1995 Featherstone Rovers were in the semi final of the Challenge Cup.  They had internationals in their side.  As a biased fan I felt they were unlucky to lose that day.  


Oh my lord. Are you having a laugh?


Since you raise it Rovers nemesis was that semi final, Leeds blew Rovers away 39-22 in a game that saw only one local lad in Rovers team Martin Pearson. The production line had stopped.


Sure Rovers had ""Internationals""" in their side that day, but Freddie Banquet, Brendan Tuuta and Brett Rodger were the sort of imports many clubs had. 


Rovers didn't have the juniors any more, and din't have the funds to compete any more. It was your swan song and I was there, so you can't fool an old fool.

#3068012 An Evening with Bradford Bulls - lots of positive news

Posted by The Parksider on 07 February 2015 - 11:02 AM

I'd suggest your perspective needs to change , you are where you are because thats where you deserve to be , the past is the past , it wont have a bearing on your future


Bradford are where they are partly because of penalties imposed on them by fellow SL clubs that were unfair, but that's done. It was debatable that the club "deserved it" those who dragged them down were long gone by the time of the penalties imposed. Maybe they deserved it, but I guess we aren't interested in running that again............


The past for Bradford was a 15,000 average crowds and a productive academy, it's not as if the club have lost the potential recover that. You seem to want to paint all clubs the same, I know exactly why, but it isn't like that.


Bradford are a big club rebuilding back to it's original potential and greater things under Mr. Green. Great news for the game.