redjonn

Coach
  • Content count

    1,720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

268 Excellent

About redjonn

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,497 profile views
  1. The problem I have with this type of article and similar commentary is to compare with previous situations. The negative commentaries tend not to have any comparative information to gauge whether things are better or worse today... they just expect us to have a rosy picture of some idyllic yesteryear. It seems to me that in my living memory of watching the sport (approx late 60's on-wards) we are probably in a stronger situation overall than we were. No evidence to back that up just a sentiment. Of course their are issues to address and sometimes a good thing to bring in new leadership to re-invigorate, look to prevent staleness and take a fresh inquisitive honest non-protecting look at things. Whether the existing leadership has been for good or not fresh thinking should always be sought.
  2. Is it guidance for the length of time as distinct that their should be a fixed period of some length? Are the RFL like a business where the Chairmen should be deciding whether the CEO needs changing?
  3. Common courtesy for sure but more importantly foresight - given the relative frequency of RL clubs struggling to survive then keeping prospective investors onside would make sense. I mean in my business career we would have sat down with failed bidders, gave lots of feedback where work was required on the bid and those that seemed more sustainable kept in touch building an ongoing relationship. Just common sense really and surprising how it benefits subsequently.
  4. I look at admittedly a different sport and different factors but similar circumstances and it seems to me what happened with Rangers when they liquidated would be correct outcome. Although it seems that couldn't happen here because of some good will within RL based on recent history of Bradford and hence trying to square a circle - that is punishment but allowing club to remain in current league position if possible. Of course we could argue what good-will but it seems their must be some as otherwise Bradford would not be in championship. Anyway what ever final outcome we hope for an eventually successful Bradford club. Successful as in a sustainable long lasting new club.
  5. Maybe nonsense but then again if a new and innocent club then no need for any punishment if they started where all new clubs should start - outside of league and making an application to join the bottom tier.
  6. It seems to me a good, nay I would say great, opportunity that has been presented to RL given his high profile. How well we use it will depend upon how well we put together a plan to maximise the opportunity which of course includes understanding how his schedule works and whom you need to build relationships with in order to optimise his patron status. The success or failure of him being patron is dependent upon RL, by which I guess the RL "establishment".
  7. Stick a weighting factor in... that is to qualify you have to be within % points of top 4 or whatever position you wish to use. Weighting to ensure teams in 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th have to be close enough to be in real contention otherwise they don't participate.
  8. Would be nice if journalist did more checking and challenge whatever figures someone presents as facts. I agree in general it is rather BS the whole commentary. One of his points Dubai - On the one hand I see potential cost of previously planned Dubai trip worthy of query, but then do we never get the England team together again outside of competition. What is say the difference in cost of going to Dubai against say getting whole team together in UK or Australia. Then again have no get together and what is the cost to overall game of not doing as much as possible to help England. My point being he needs to quantify the perceived extra cost against what he thinks should be done. I don't know what the difference may be but I wouldn't make a strong comment unless a)i gave preferred option and b)give comparative costs.
  9. I agree with those that say Bradford should not be in Championship. Yes I understand the fixture issue. Never-the-less the RFL should have contingency plans for any scenario. If said contingency plans have a timeline that shows that at a certain closeness to start of season then any club is allowed to still where they are I would be placated to a small degree, as I would not think it was a) easiest option and b)not special treatment. For me its simple, club is liquidated and consequence thrown out of league. They can re=apply to the bottom league as in Championship 1 and if as a consequence of timing they miss out on a season until able to apply so be it. Otherwise any club in similar position knows to prolong administration until RFL just give up, keep them in same league with a points deduction. The best of situations that the club could have hoped for.
  10. I'm with Dave T comments, in that their is a larger population or demographic of people even in heartlands that show no interest in attending. It is understanding why that will determine if our sport/game has a future as a professional sport at the highest level. We, as in RL fans, tend to say its the "greatest game" and I think many believe it - ignoring evidence that many don't attend or continue attending and hence must disagree. I sometimes think our administrators believe it as distinct from just seeing it as a marketing message. The whole experience is key, not just the 80 mins of the game you view. In fact the 80 mins is probably not the major aspect that determines someone attending a match outside of die-hard fans. Gosh our overall population has been growing yet diminishing RL wise. Until the whole experience is improved and able to compete with other entertainment experiences to a better degree (note better not identically) then we will not be addressing the issues. Unfortunately ignoring the experience for so long means we have a cash problem in fixing the experience to suit the 21st century growing population.
  11. Surely that would only be a potential good thing if it was because all teams had improved towards the strongest, which includes how well those clubs are run. As distinct from finding an artificial means of ensuring that the strongest clubs are brought down to the lowest level. It seems to me that soccer as you said before is not diminished by the same set of clubs being at the top almost every year or that the glamour of the Champions League/European cup is diminished because more or less the same teams contest the finals. Where similar teams over a period dominant a competition or sport than their is nothing better for the non fancied teams beating the dominant team. That potential in itself generates excitement and attract fans to watch. The dominant teams attract greater numbers of fans as seen in attendance and not just because of away fans of those teams. This shouldn't be forgotten. Until all teams are equally run, attracting equal incomes then only forcing those financially stronger clubs to be weaker will achieve equality. That is I guess part of keeping the salary cap so low - that in itself harms SL for the sake of trying to create equal competition. The glamour of some clubs over others will tend to have players more likely to be attracted to those glamour clubs. So even salary cap fails on that point. I guess penalising the successful will eventually achieve equal spread of silver-ware.
  12. Whether location was ideal or not, what location would those that complain about it suggest to get players from both NRL and SL together. As some say it doesn't matter where, their will be complaints. Personally given the lack of preparation I would think any coach would consider resigning. The head coach position should have been given at the start of the NZ tour here. To have not done so left the situation that any new head coach only had a limited number of games before opening game of world cup. Otherwise should have left it with Mcnamara. That is where the poorest of decisions was made. That is the change of coach should have been made sooner otherwise I think it was dithering.
  13. I accept what you say and hope Bradford continue to be a viable club. In the same way that I hope all clubs are sustainable at some level with no special support if any from a central body - an unlikely circumstance for sure. I acknowledge that some central funding was withheld (not that I know just based on everybody's assertion) but I assume that followed some objective and justifiable reason as distinct from just vindictiveness. To honest I can't understand any objective business rational as why anyone wants to own Bradford Bulls given recent history and looking at longer term demographics of the City and hence interest in RL. Never-the-less good luck to anyone prepared to take it on. Just that it is in one's back of mind that a new owner sniff's owning a lease and subsequently potentially the land leading to a development opportunity. A risk prepared to take given what I would imagine will be a give away cost for the club that has no asset worth much if anything. Anyway reading subsequent comments it seems their is hope of a brighter future. Mind you I thought that when I dug in my pocket and contributed to the save Bradford fund of yesteryear - a lesson learnt and not to be repeated by myself.
  14. Given acceptance of all risk then I wouldn't think that was a good return. Especially when you factor in what other things that monies could have been used for instead. They could end up leasing a hole in the ground with nobody using it yet having to pay maintance and safety for as long as the lease. They where daft to take it on.
  15. I would have thought that legal counsel will be looking at how NRL handles dangerous plays as distinct from just this incident. That is whether NRL are in some way complicit in not doing enough to minimize chances of accidents and that it applies in this case that sufficient actions haven't been taken in the past to minimize likelihood of injury in playing the sport. That is what disciplinary actions and education programmes have been taken previous for similar offences, irrespective of how a player reacts to the specific. That is accidents do happen but also circumstances can make accidents more likely to happen than not. In this case how a sports organisation does all it can to stamp out any factors that can potentially cause injury to happen more likely than not. That is of course within the nature of a physical sport.