Adeybull

Coach
  • Content count

    1,540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Adeybull last won the day on June 12

Adeybull had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

917 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    At the Gates of Delirium

Recent Profile Visitors

3,376 profile views
  1. "Cabal" - A cabal is a small group of people united in some close design, usually to promote their private views of or interests in an ideology, state, or other community, often by intrigue and usually unbeknownst to those outside their group. Hardly "prejudicial" - seems a pretty objective description of that group to me? Other, maybe, than the final "usually..." point since we already knew they were plotting.
  2. Which vote? There were several. Seems the protagonists are quoting whichever vote gave them the biggest margin, regardless of subject?
  3. In fairness, and as I said earlier, I found a fair bit of detail that had not actually been referred to on here. Hence my drawing attention to it. From both sides of the argument.
  4. Lenagan confirms some of the votes were 10-2, not 11-1. He does not acknowledge that any of the votes were 7-5, as Hetherington states they were. LE has the likely voting in RFL Council as 28-22 to the objectors. Although this takes no account of any clubs not having a vote at Council.
  5. For the remainder of this contract, the SL clubs are bound by the contract they agreed to. If they try to abrogate any of those contractual terms unilaterally, they will be in breach of contract and liable to be litigated - possibly for specific performance of the contract, possibly injuncted against doing anything different. Once this contract is completed, I fully expect SLE to break away financially, although stay committed to the RFL where it suits them - i.e. in all the boring or expensive bits that they do not want to take on themselves. A "having your cake and eat it" approach. The RFL will need to make sure that the SL clubs take on obligations to the game commensurate with the rights that they will be appropriating.
  6. I don't recall saying ANY of them were "honest"? Since they will each have been putting their own slant on the situation - and understandably so. I labelled Lenagan disingenuous, because I can see a goodly number of times he puts a very selective and misleading spin on something. I gave a couple of examples above, and could list more. By contrast, I struggled to see much that was disingenuous in what McManus said, beyond his strange reference to "about 50%", nor in what Hetherington said. I don't see either of them seeking to mislead, although Hetherington is instead maybe looking to grind folk down with listing "facts" and extolling the virtues of following the process... I did not label Lenagan's comments disingenuous because I disagree with his arguments. Indeed, I am far from in disagreement with much of the argument - if this game is not radically rejuvenated soon, it will fade into insignificance (I am 100% with what Giant Srides says in that respect) . And I have argued for years that the RFL and the game needs competent leaders. What I AM in disagreement with is how they chose to seemingly ride roughshod over the process all the parties had seemingly agreed to follow; in the way they presented their arguments as if they were a done, agreed deal - when they were anything but; and in how Lenagan presented the "facts", especially as regards non-SL clubs.
  7. Is he? Which one of the main protagonists said this in an interview after the debacle last week? " You've got to create the wealth before you decide how to distribute it". Clue: it was NOT Lenagan. In fact it was McManus - and I would trust him - and his track record - FAR more to be that man.
  8. Regarding P&R/Licensing, depends what the RFL board decide, and what is presented to the RFL council meeting on 25 July. And, if they decide to agree with the cabal's proposals, as doubtless they will IMO, what the result of the vote of the clubs will be. Assuming that the aggrieved constituency puts it to a vote. Pretty clear to me the cabal want licensing by any other name, and to ensure they can never beo obliged in future to have to involve Championship clubs in a y TV rights deal. Also pretty clear that the cabal recognises the can't abrogate the current contractual agreements - with the non-SL clubs - during the currency of the current Sky contract. But that, for any new contract, they will go it alone and no TV monies will find their way to the Championship and L1, unless the latter can cut their own deal. One reason why the cabal have to see the end of the Qualifying 8s. I saw Lenagan stating that "...we believe the vast majority of clubs, fans and media support the direction for Rugby League outlined last week". His definition of "vast majority" is clearly a little different to mine, but I guess we will have a clearer idea after the impending meeting of Championship and L1 clubs. He also said "We copuld have waited another month until everything was signed, but the collective support of Broian Barwick and the non-executive directors is strong." So strong, that Barwick found it necesary to contradict him in his own subsequent statement? This is disingenuous bullpoo of the highest degree, IMO. And then yet more bullpoo "..but since SL has agreed to maintain exactly the same amount of funding to Championship and Championship 1 (sic) and prefers to see promotipon and relegation, it is dificult to see how anything can be reasonably objected to". Disineguous bullpoo. They have no chuffing choice but to comply with the contractual commitments to the end of the current deal, so this is a total red herring that commits to NOTHING they are not already obligated to do. And trying unilaterally scrap the 8s and replace it with P&R on THEIR terms is clearly something that more than a few people have found they CAN reasonably obgect to. One of his further gripes is that the funding of Championship clubs is tiered, and very much favours the highest-placed clubs. Unlike SL and L1, where each club gets the same. I tend to agree here, on most levels. But I am sure the tiered funding was intended to give the best-performing Championship clubs at least a chance of not getting absolutely mullered in the 8s. Whereas the SL clubs will have assumed at inception that there was little chance of any Championship club ever coming close. Equal funding would weaken the SL contenders...funny that? That, and the raising of the Championship salary cap transformed the chances of a Championship contender succeeding in the 8s. And, surely, if such a contender proves better on the park than an incumbent - despite the latter receiving far more cenbtral funding, he would welcome the replacement of a weak club by a stronger one? Instead of giving the relegated club a parachute payment, to help them in regaining their SL status...? Hetherington says the various votes at that SL meeting ranged from 7-5 to 10-2 to 11-1. Lenagan says t was 10-2 and sometimes 11-1. Shame we do not get to see a lits of the resolutions, the for and against, and which clubs voted which way? So we may better judge to what extent te various protagonists are putting thgeir own spin on the figures. Reading Lenagan, McManus and Hetherington's comments in LE, I found Lenagan's frequently to be highly disingenuous and sometimes personal; McManus' to be reasoned and generally sensible (as usual) - although he then appears to talk garbage when he says SL clubs get about 50% of the Sky money; and Hetherington's to be generally reasoned and prima facie sensible - and at times contradicting what the cabal said - but also very resistant to radical change, when surely something radical is now needed? McManus says SL clubs get About 50% of the Sky money. Lenagan says they get 65%, the Championship 12% and the RFL keeps the rest. Hetherington does not quote any figures. Any advances on those positions...? All in all, a total chuffing mess. Something a certain editor of this parish implied could have been avoided had the cabal "...instead simply said that a majority of the SL clubs would like to change the structure, and they are urging the RFL directors to see their point of view". An I am in violent agreement with that.
  9. Quite a lot of material in LE, the gist of not all of which by any means looks to have made it onto this thread. And a fair bt of which provides (apparent) clarity on various issues where folk have been interpereting on here what was said. And opinion, or course!
  10. Bradford receive a very modest £75k central funding, which given the cost of running the Bradford club, must be pretty modest element of its income. And given the club survived with effectively no central funding LAST year, and given it currently heads the L1 table and appears to be financially stable as well as running an academy, reserve team and women's team, I don't think the parts I have highlighted are particularly applicable to or particularly fair on Bradford. We all know why Bradford are where they are now - ad chuffing nauseum - but remember a pretty major reason was that they and London just happened to be the bottom two, in the one-off year two clubs were ejected from SL. Had it been any other year before, and possibly since, justifiably or otherwise they would still be in SL.
  11. Adeybull

    Fewer than 17 players

    If it is nonsense that it is ultimately down to money, then why don’t they then? Are they deliberately running with such small squads, paying no heed to player welfare? Are they happy to go into games at a disadvantage? It’s pretty irrelevant what the central distribution is, if your total income is insufficient. For whatever reason. As it clearly must be for too many clubs.
  12. Adeybull

    Fewer than 17 players

    Deride all you want on your own time. No doubt somewhere you will have some meaningful contribution to make to the debate. Mine was in my final paragraph, and what went before was in explanation.
  13. Adeybull

    Fewer than 17 players

    It is all down to money. Or lack of. A situation that surely looks set to get much worse after 2021, now we have a new power seizing control of the game. What price player welfare then? Do other sports have this issue? i was just thinking back to when I was in my early 20s...I think we had just got electricity in Yorkshire then. I remember taking a work colleague and mate to to another colleague and mate's stag do, at Morley RUFC. The mate whose stag do it was (decent, sound guy btw - even if he played for the dark side) played for their third team, I rermember him saying. Third team? Many of our "elite" clubs cannot even manage a Reserves team, let alone a third team. The guy whose stag do it was was soon financial director where he worked (as was I...). The guy I took (and who kipped on my bedsit floor that night) ended up chairman of a FTSE-100 company. Surely that sums up the problem? Can you imagine something similar happening if it was a League player's stag do? Its money, for sure. But also contacts, influence and clout. We somehow need a shedload more of that in RL. And not just on the SLE executive, to benefit just SL.
  14. No often I stick up for JohnM (indeed, have I ever..?) but on this occasion I feel you are being a bit harsh? I have referred to those who have professed overt support for Lenagan's actions and statements on here, especially those who I feel are doing so more because he is Wigan, as "Lenagan's Cheerleaders". Several times. I was not seeking to be petty, just finding what seemed a simple yet appropriate description for that particular constituency! I'd also add that some of the comments on here, and some of the comments others have made that have been discused on here, have given me considerable food for thought - especially about the 8s. Some of my own opinions have evolved as a result. I guess that suggests that, overall (at least until it degenerated into a debate about comaprative populations and catchment areas, anyway... 😜 ) the debate on this thread has been generally decent-quality? ps. Seeing JohnM's reply to you below, I wonder if my interpretation of his comments may have been a tad premature... 😒
  15. I don't recall I ever said there should be no debate about the issues? Nor that there is any one right answer (indeed, my own thoughts on several of the issues have evolved during the course of this debate). Nor, I think, is Chalmers suggesting any such thing? he is, after alll, expressing his opinion. Yes, he has specifically challenged Lenagan and McManus, biut he has not gone ad hominem in any way. They are the guys who have staged this atempted coup (for most people I think recognise it for what it is?) and so it is legitimate and fair to challenge them personally. And if he has conflated two issues (and he has), it is only because so did Lenagan & co in their declaration. They chose to conflate the two issues, one by implication, one overtly, so how else could anyone respond effectively? If anyone seeks merely to challenge what they propose "because they did not follow procedure", far fewer folk would be interested. Indeed, we saw some initial comments on here asking why it was such a big deal just because "they did not follow process". But, otherwise, I am in pretty violent agreement with what you said.