Dirk Diggler

Coach
  • Content count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Dirk Diggler

  • Birthday
  1. Perhaps the first thing to say is that the question is on its way to being a historical one any way. The printed media is on its way down the toilet at this point in history. Extinction beckons. RL should be thinking more about how it gets its face on the media of the future. The current situation is, probably, based on the idea that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. I doubt that anyone really knows how many people will read a report on an RU game versus an RL game or indeed how many are actually interested. It is a perception that people will read the former more than the latter whereas people will probably read what ever you put in. If the RU/RL coverage in, say, The Independent were inverted to 1 column of the former and 4 pages of the latter then it would change the sales figure hardly at all. It would affect advertising very little I think. The Independent just hear the same lie as has always been told and hear it as the truth. I think it takes a big incident (The Sun/Hillsborough/Merseyside) to make a big difference in sales of printed media these days and replacing Leicester v Wasps with Wigan v Hull KR just isn't that big an incident. RL will outlast The Guardian, may be the last issue will include the thought that more RL coverage would have been a good idea.
  2. Perhaps the solution is to nail down the play offs next year as a six team comp. A Hull derby, Wigan v Saints and Leeds v Wire. The games could then be included in season tickets and will probably sell out and everyone will be happy. its the uncertainty and lack of planning that spoiling the thing. If things carry on like they are now we will all have to forget about what's going on in the stands and just concentrate on what's happening on the pitch.
  3. "HM Revenue and Customs have in house lawyers anyway." which is the people I would rather not have on the payroll if they are not needed. In house is not the same as free or even cheap. Sometimes in house can be very expensive.
  4. Well as a taxpayer I have to be happy that HMRC are serious about collecting our money from whom so ever. Obviously I would prefer them to get it right first time rather than wasting our money correcting their own foul ups. But I am starting to worry about the amount we, as tax payers, are spending on (not usually cheap) lawyers in what seems to be an increasing amount of brinkmanship played out in court. Presumeably the various sports clubs/businesses are also incurring costs in defending these actions and again that will have an impact on their ability to pay. It could be that HMRC push this case through and get a result only to be told that they get nowt at the end of the day because some lawyer has just taken the money that was left for defending the case he just lost. Whatever the rights of the case it seems to me that the only way HMRC are going to get anything out of Wakefield Trinity is if the business gets to take its share from SKY next year and that won't happen in adminstration. We, as tax payers, might soon be witnessing HMRC trumpetting its victory over the folding Wildcats with no mention of any money recovered and only the lawyers getting well on the experience. If Wakefield's directors have fouled up the business then so be it but I do get the feeling that our supposedly skint government is spending too much of what little we have on posturing and lawyers.
  5. The analogy with Tesco and beans is invalid because no one is a Tesco fan. No one would stop shopping if their Tesco shut. Your club does not play RL 24 hours a day and sell you a ticket to watch 80 minutes of it at a time of your chosing. Your RL club is a business working on a small turnover so cash flow is the killer. You will have noticed that players get contracts which entitle them to be paid regularly. You will know that HMRC are no longer prepared to accept their due when you have the money but want it on time now. Banks & suppliers are the same. Clubs will like the flexi ticket idea when they have players and suppliers on flexi deals and can go back to flexi tax/NI and flexi loans. It obviously seems that season tickets work against the loyal fan but that is part of being a fan rather than a customer. Fans may like the flexibility of cost but when the 13 on the paddock reflects that flexibility and the scoreboard/league table reflects it they may be less than happy. A club that is a play thing might be able to trial this based on someone's willingness to underwrite the risk and plug the cash flow gaps but no club that is actually a standalone business will take the chance.
  6. It is a significant point of the season ticket that it is paid for during the off season when other revenue streams dry up but many bills still come in. Clubs will also use sales as a pointer to overall income when budgetting so there are good reasons why this type of business will not suit the proposal. Clubs need to be more flexible and innovative in how they make their money so it will be interesting to see if this scheme improves the overall cash flow or not. It is not just about making more money it is about having the money at the right time. Does anyone know if this idea has come from the fans or not?
  7. Perhaps there will be some CCTV footage so Ganson can send it up stairs for a second opinion.
  8. One of the things that people don't seem to get with the licencing system is that it fundamentally changes the definition of success. Widnes are currently in the position of only needing to avoid relegation each year. Winning games is nice but not important, it does not change their licence score which (rather than the game score) is the one that matters. If playing 13 rubbin' rags from Widnes gets them a licence point and a beating each week then that is what they will do. Widnes are probably a big supporter of dropping the cap level in NL1 because money on players is money wasted for them. They need to keep the gates up above the limit for licence qualification and if everyone pays less they can charge less which encourages walk ups. When they get their licence the money they might save now can be spent scoring licence points in SL.
  9. Of course he would mention it if he was running council policy to suit his own hobbies/interests because politicians are just honest like that. What he actually said was that a feasibility study, based on unspecified terms of reference, would justify the council's decision to pull out of one development and pile into the other one with all the money available. I cannot imagine why Wakefield would think that a very dangerous road to go down. Perhaps you have a copy of the proposed terms of reference for the feasibility study to share for our enlightenment.
  10. It is a point often over-looked that Castleford have had outline permission for many years now for their project but still have no plans to run with for a detailed approval. I think Cas fans ought to know what has been going on for the last few years since it seems to be possible to move from one planning stage to the next in less time. the general view that Wakefield are years behind Castleford does seem to assume that the two are moving at the same pace and this might not be so. But I still would not be suprised to see both clubs tossed at the next licencing round.
  11. Well do you know what? Castleford and Wakefield have the potential to destroy the current Castleford and Wakefield average crowds as well. Perhaps you can help yourself out by listing all the clubs who can make the same boast. Holding on to two ideas at once can be difficult can't it.
  12. Are you sure there is only one difference? Give us your suggestion and we might be able to get a list together.
  13. In the modern era I think three matches is about right. It is/should be an indefensible act to use your elbow on a guy who is basically defenceless in the act of catching a kick. But Ablett does not have the same history as some of his team mates/fellow professionals so he is entitled to have that considered. It is bizare how Bailey gets on report so often and yet nothing ever happens. I reckon he is overdue a ban and leading with your knee in that manner really ought to have kopped for one.
  14. Of course there was the kerfuffle about going to the VR for something he couldn't check but that apart I thought Terry was okay. He is not alone in standing for the Saints chelp. I think it would help refs a lot if tantrums like that on saturday were reviewed in the same way as foul play. Graham ought to kop a fine and a warning about a ban next time for that sort of ****. It does more harm to the game than a swinging arm etc. I agree about the guy who did Fax/Widnes as well. I would be happy to see him get a few SL games next year.
  15. Why is it a gamble? Wakefield are odds on to get a kicking so what is the worst that can happen? As long as the lad understands the situation and takes it in his stride it is a positive step to give a player his debut and to give a guy in the last weeks of his contract a pointer to his future.