Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

fredm

Rams and Bulls announce link-up (merged threads)

282 posts in this topic

I appreciate what you are saying and agree that the decision is GM's. What I am uneasy about is the number allowed being 5. I was happy to accommodate 3 in a matchday squad of 18 as the ones missing out would probably get a chance in the near future but to put it up to 5, I believe, is a step too far. We shall just have to wait and see I suppose.

Personally i would not allow more than two. My main concern still remains that the system is open to abuse. Let us say that the last game of the season involved a relegation clash with the rams and somebody else - winner stays up. Now what if the bulls didn't have a match that weekend - the temptation would surely be for glenn to ask FC for five of his top players, and that would be wrong. I think the ground rules should be laid out and strictly policed. I have some sympathy with the fax, fev and eagles supporters who are going it alone, because the way things stand, they could be playing a hunslet side containing half the rhinos squad one week, while their closest rivals could be playing them with a much weaker squad the week after. I think the best bet would be to get rid of DR, and to allow just two first team squad players from the parent club to be borrowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would have been better than some championship clubs linking with SL teams would have been the Chsmpionship clubs sticking together and setting up a league totally unassociated with SL.

Do we still have neanderthals looking for a breakaway ?

Leave behind Sky, the Challenge Cup, Government derived development money - amongst others ?

Just what our sport needs - another ********* breakaway ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i would not allow more than two. My main concern still remains that the system is open to abuse. Let us say that the last game of the season involved a relegation clash with the rams and somebody else - winner stays up. Now what if the bulls didn't have a match that weekend - the temptation would surely be for glenn to ask FC for five of his top players, and that would be wrong. I think the ground rules should be laid out and strictly policed. I have some sympathy with the fax, fev and eagles supporters who are going it alone, because the way things stand, they could be playing a hunslet side containing half the rhinos squad one week, while their closest rivals could be playing them with a much weaker squad the week after. I think the best bet would be to get rid of DR, and to allow just two first team squad players from the parent club to be borrowed.

Excellent point GOR, nail on the head. Maybe Tom can answer that one? Is there anything to stop this from happening? Probably not, knowing the RFL. Even if they had thought of it, they wouldn't be able to stop it, I mean it is not like they have been able to sort the pathetically managed salary cap scheme out, to stop there flagship clubs from going in to administration is it.

Maybe, the best bet for all Championship club's is to sell their souls to a SL team just outside the play-off's, one with no chance of winning anything. That way, when the SL club have given up believing they can compete, approximately halfway through the season and they truly have nothing left to play for, GM can take whichever stars he wants and you can watch them in a Dewsbury shirt for 2/3's of the cost of going to watch them in SL, brilliant. We can all forget the fact that it turns the championship from a once great competition in to a farcical lottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read that the plans are to give each SL player a value for the purposes of the championship salary cap which should in theory anyway stop this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point GOR, nail on the head. Maybe Tom can answer that one? Is there anything to stop this from happening? Probably not, knowing the RFL. Even if they had thought of it, they wouldn't be able to stop it, I mean it is not like they have been able to sort the pathetically managed salary cap scheme out, to stop there flagship clubs from going in to administration is it.

Maybe, the best bet for all Championship club's is to sell their souls to a SL team just outside the play-off's, one with no chance of winning anything. That way, when the SL club have given up believing they can compete, approximately halfway through the season and they truly have nothing left to play for, GM can take whichever stars he wants and you can watch them in a Dewsbury shirt for 2/3's of the cost of going to watch them in SL, brilliant. We can all forget the fact that it turns the championship from a once great competition in to a farcical lottery.

No bitterness then P&H?

B)

I know facts can get in the way of a good prejudice but Bradford's woes weren't associated with maladministration of the salary cap by the RFL. Let's not stop them being whipping boys though eh? It's much easier than trying to understand things properly I always say.

Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe bitterness is one word for it, I suffer with this,erm... love I suppose you'd call it of RL. It is by far the best game in the world in my humble opinion, and when someone wants to spoil it and turn it in to a farce, I tend to turn from a very laid back individual in to a rather emotional person about the whole affair.

I hate the fact that the powers that be would want to ruin my beloved club and it's opponents (as there's no point having a Batley, if there is nobody else to play against) through a misguided belief that by taking the game to places that doesn't share my feelings towards the game and greed is in the best interest of the game rather than just the best interests of a greedy select few,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't mention Bradford in my post, if you could point it out, I would be most grateful My feelings towards the RFL's inability to manage the salary cap comes from.... ...ooh I suppose you'd call them facts and past track record on being unable to organise a pea soup in a brewery.

The RFL brought the salary cap in to ensure the long term security of clubs and ensure they did not find themselves in financial difficulties in the future, would you agree or was that just a bad joke issued by the RFL at the time??? Now since the salary cap was introduced, Salford and Castleford most recently, but add Wakefield, Leigh, London, Crusaders, Bradford and others have all had financial trouble, something the salary cap was brought in to stop. They also missed the fact Barrow were spending far more than was in the rules until after the season had finished, when anyone with even half a brain could work out you could not get the side they had for £300k a season.

This link-up fiasco is just another nail in the coffin, with the SL clubs and RFL hammering the nails in to kill the game below SL, simply due to money and greed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

............I mean it is not like they have been able to sort the pathetically managed salary cap scheme out, to stop there flagship clubs from going in to administration is it..

Clearly I misinterpreted this to include Bradford.

Oddly enough I tend to believe that the ultimate responsibility for managing a business lies with the clubs themselves rather than the RFL. This is a bit like blaming the FSO for all the banks being a set of crooks or the police for there being too many thieves. If the clubs aren't willing to adhere to the rulles, with which they have agreed in advance, then the RFL can only be reactive. To expect them to have a presence in every club watching how every penny is being spent is a bit naive, don't you think. the salary cap rules for CC clubs are riddled with holes and almost impossible to apply, as I'm sure you know as you clearly look into these things in detail.

I am also troubled by the links being established between SL and CC clubs but I fail to understand how it is a "fiasco", unless my grasp of language is failing me.

Finally, what evidence do you have that "the powers that be want to ruin your club" ? This is news to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bradford didnt walk away from negotiations with a reasonable expectation that their players would be accomadated in your matchday squads what are they getting from the deal?

Dewsbury get use of players when they want them for negligable cost, use of Bradfords facilities, access to coaching & business best practice. Bradford get next to nothing, the picture being painted is of a fantastically one-sided deal. I sincerely hope its an accurate one but im struggling to see why Bradford would give up so much and apparently ask for so little in return.

it balances up for the one sided partnership that weve had over the last years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bradford didnt walk away from negotiations with a reasonable expectation that their players would be accomadated in your matchday squads what are they getting from the deal?

Dewsbury get use of players when they want them for negligable cost, use of Bradfords facilities, access to coaching & business best practice. Bradford get next to nothing, the picture being painted is of a fantastically one-sided deal. I sincerely hope its an accurate one but im struggling to see why Bradford would give up so much and apparently ask for so little in return.

Perhaps they want to give back to the Rugby League Community who saved them from the brink of extinction not once but several times ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly I misinterpreted this to include Bradford.

Oddly enough I tend to believe that the ultimate responsibility for managing a business lies with the clubs themselves rather than the RFL. This is a bit like blaming the FSO for all the banks being a set of crooks or the police for there being too many thieves.

Do you mean FOS or the FSA?

If the clubs aren't willing to adhere to the rules, with which they have agreed in advance, then the RFL can only be reactive. To expect them to have a presence in every club watching how every penny is being spent is a bit naive, don't you think. the salary cap rules for CC clubs are riddled with holes and almost impossible to apply, as I'm sure you know as you clearly look into these things in detail.

Surely even the most naive of organisations should be expected to adequately police a system or rule they have introduced? Before introducing a rule, it is not unreasonable to think that it would be thought through enough to expect it to be adequately monitored. Part of business 101 teaches S.M.A.R.T. objectives, when introducing any scheme or objective, the "M" standing for measurable? Especially for such an important rule, which if broken, would give such an unfair competitive advantage on the playing field. The RFL brought in the licencing system, I'd have thought that it was partly designed to administer the salary cap rules and to supposedly see how clubs finances are being managed? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect the powers that be to have an inkling that the rules were being broken at Barrow at the start of the season and to investigate a bit?

I am also troubled by the links being established between SL and CC clubs but I fail to understand how it is a "fiasco", unless my grasp of language is failing me.

Main Entry:

fiasco[fee-as-koh or, especially for 2,-ah-skoh] blunder, botched situation, breakdown, debacle, disaster, dumb thing to do, dumb trick, embarrassment, error, failure, farce, flap, flop,mess, miscarriage, route, ruin, screwup, stunt,washout

Definition: catastrophe

Finally, what evidence do you have that "the powers that be want to ruin your club" ? This is news to me.

Come on BSJ, they have been trying to kill the lower ranks off since the inception of SL. Why else would they take away P&R and with it, any real chance of supposed smaller clubs bettering themselves and competing at the top level. Why else would the SL clubs get 2 votes to 1 in matters relating to all thing RL. I cannot believe it is for the benefit of the CH clubs? When the RFL were handing parachute payments out to clubs relegated from the top flight, it would have been better to make those payments to the club who was promoted, giving them a real chance of recruiting well enough to remain in the top flight. Do you not think it is very naive to believe these things were brought in for the benefit of the clubs like Dewsbury and Batley etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean FOS or the FSA?

Surely even the most naive of organisations should be expected to adequately police a system or rule they have introduced? Before introducing a rule, it is not unreasonable to think that it would be thought through enough to expect it to be adequately monitored. Part of business 101 teaches S.M.A.R.T. objectives, when introducing any scheme or objective, the "M" standing for measurable? Especially for such an important rule, which if broken, would give such an unfair competitive advantage on the playing field. The RFL brought in the licencing system, I'd have thought that it was partly designed to administer the salary cap rules and to supposedly see how clubs finances are being managed? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect the powers that be to have an inkling that the rules were being broken at Barrow at the start of the season and to investigate a bit?

Main Entry:

fiasco[fee-as-koh or, especially for 2,-ah-skoh] blunder, botched situation, breakdown, debacle, disaster, dumb thing to do, dumb trick, embarrassment, error, failure, farce, flap, flop,mess, miscarriage, route, ruin, screwup, stunt,washout

Definition: catastrophe

Come on BSJ, they have been trying to kill the lower ranks off since the inception of SL. Why else would they take away P&R and with it, any real chance of supposed smaller clubs bettering themselves and competing at the top level. Why else would the SL clubs get 2 votes to 1 in matters relating to all thing RL

. Those parachute payments were a real bugbear of mine - they allowed clubs be relegated, retain top players and go straight back up again. I think just one club used the money to pay off outstanding debts (can't remember who - might have been leigh) and they didn't bounce back up. If that money had been given to those clubs with a right to promotion (I suppose hunslet and dewsbury spring to mind), they might have been able to assemble a business plan and a team that could compete. Have to admit though, the club administrators of the day would have botched it anyway :rolleyes:I cannot believe it is for the benefit of the CH clubs? When the RFL were handing parachute payments out to clubs relegated from the top flight, it would have been better to make those payments to the club who was promoted, giving them a real chance of recruiting well enough to remain in the top flight. Do you not think it is very naive to believe these things were brought in for the benefit of the clubs like Dewsbury and Batley etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean FOS or the FSA?

Surely even the most naive of organisations should be expected to adequately police a system or rule they have introduced? Before introducing a rule, it is not unreasonable to think that it would be thought through enough to expect it to be adequately monitored. Part of business 101 teaches S.M.A.R.T. objectives, when introducing any scheme or objective, the "M" standing for measurable? Especially for such an important rule, which if broken, would give such an unfair competitive advantage on the playing field. The RFL brought in the licencing system, I'd have thought that it was partly designed to administer the salary cap rules and to supposedly see how clubs finances are being managed? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect the powers that be to have an inkling that the rules were being broken at Barrow at the start of the season and to investigate a bit?

The point that many people choose to overlook is that the RFL isn't an independent governing body but a representative body of all of the components of the gae, in particular the professional clubs. The rules were formulated by the SL club chairmen in the first instance so, yes, I would expect them to be largely self-governed. Participating in some QA courses doesn't give people much of an insight into the running of a business by the way.

Main Entry:

fiasco[fee-as-koh or, especially for 2,-ah-skoh] blunder, botched situation, breakdown, debacle, disaster, dumb thing to do, dumb trick, embarrassment, error, failure, farce, flap, flop,mess, miscarriage, route, ruin, screwup, stunt,washout

Definition: catastrophe

So how is the introduction of a scheme agreed upon by the member clubs a fiasco?

Come on BSJ, they have been trying to kill the lower ranks off since the inception of SL. Why else would they take away P&R and with it, any real chance of supposed smaller clubs bettering themselves and competing at the top level. Why else would the SL clubs get 2 votes to 1 in matters relating to all thing RL. I cannot believe it is for the benefit of the CH clubs? When the RFL were handing parachute payments out to clubs relegated from the top flight, it would have been better to make those payments to the club who was promoted, giving them a real chance of recruiting well enough to remain in the top flight. Do you not think it is very naive to believe these things were brought in for the benefit of the clubs like Dewsbury and Batley etc.

You were almost edging towards logic until this rant. Who have been trying to kill off the lower ranks? Have you spoken to any chairmen of CC clubs in order to arrive at this conclusion? I advise you to do so and then come back and say you were right.

Stay cool. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on BSJ, they have been trying to kill the lower ranks off since the inception of SL. Why else would they take away P&R and with it, any real chance of supposed smaller clubs bettering themselves and competing at the top level.

I stopped reading at this point. I can't take someone with so much bitterness and paranoia built up in them seriously. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point that many people choose to overlook is that the RFL isn't an independent governing body but a representative body of all of the components of the gae, in particular the professional clubs. The rules were formulated by the SL club chairmen in the first instance so, yes, I would expect them to be largely self-governed. Participating in some QA courses doesn't give people much of an insight into the running of a business by the way.

So how is the introduction of a scheme agreed upon by the member clubs a fiasco?

You were almost edging towards logic until this rant. Who have been trying to kill off the lower ranks? Have you spoken to any chairmen of CC clubs in order to arrive at this conclusion? I advise you to do so and then come back and say you were right.

Stay cool. B)

No need to ask club chairmen, logic and looking at the facts it doesn't take Einstein to work out what is happening in the game. Please advise which part of my rant was untrue or not based on fact? Please let me know what I am missing here, I simply do not see see how allowing the SL votes count more than those from teams in the Championship can be a positive thing for Championship clubs? As you correctly point out, the RFL are a representative body and not independent, all I ask is, who is pulling the strings? With SL clubs getting 2 votes to 1, whatever SL want they will get. I may be wrong but, by my reckoning, that makes 28 votes for the 14 SL clubs and to 20 for the rest of the teams combined? Am I missing something, maybe adding 2 and 2 doesn't always equal 4, I thought it did?

Are we supposed to believe that the rules of nature regarding self interest, will not, and are not followed in RL circles? We are supposed to believe that every club in SL make there decisions without any self interest at all, and do what is for the good of the game as a whole?

Looking towards the end of next season when relegation is a threat again, I think it would be pretty naive to expect every club to play by the rules when faced with playing in the bottom division the year after and likely financial ruin. Is it only logical to think that one or two clubs might try to bend a few rules to avoid the drop, especially given the RFL's past record of administering things like the salary cap. and the licensing system which awarded a club who had budgeted to lose £1 million last year a grade B license? I admire your confidence in them given there record. I also look forward to seeing Dewsbury's or any of the teams with a link up's team list in the last couple of rounds of the season, especially if they are facing relegation. You can bet your bottom dollar if the partner clubs gives 2 hoots for them, that they will not be going in to the last couple of rounds without at least a couple of star players who are miraculously returning from injury at the same time, to try and get them out of the mire. I ask would that be fair or in the spirit of the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped reading at this point. I can't take someone with so much bitterness and paranoia built up in them seriously. Sorry.

Pity, I thought with your journalistic slant you'd have seen the logic behind the rant and looked at the facts? Maybe I gave you more credit than was due. Then you'd have seen that it is not paranoia or bitterness, but real concern about how the game in the lower reaches will survive long term, when clubs like Dewsbury might be used as a play thing for a SL partner to keep there stars match fit, regardless of what it does to them as a club or to there gates as people get bored of seeing a stream of players who as soon as they show any form or real ability will be playing in SL for a different club than the one that gave them the chance to shine. I hope it works out for them and for the good of the game, but I really cannot see it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity, I thought with your journalistic slant you'd have seen the logic behind the rant and looked at the facts? Maybe I gave you more credit than was due. Then you'd have seen that it is not paranoia or bitterness, but real concern about how the game in the lower reaches will survive long term, when clubs like Dewsbury might be used as a play thing for a SL partner to keep there stars match fit, regardless of what it does to them as a club or to there gates as people get bored of seeing a stream of players who as soon as they show any form or real ability will be playing in SL for a different club than the one that gave them the chance to shine. I hope it works out for them and for the good of the game, but I really cannot see it,

You don't get it though do you? Your bitter agenda won't let you get it.

Dewsbury are not Bradford's 'play thing. Dewsbury will not be getting any 'Stars'. Dewsbury will be getting fringe first team players who may or may not improve their own squad of very capable Championship players. If in Glenn Morrison's opinion they do not improve Dewsbury's very capable squad of Championship players, they won't play, its as simple as that.

Looking towards the end of next season when relegation is a threat again, I think it would be pretty naive to expect every club to play by the rules when faced with playing in the bottom division the year after and likely financial ruin.

There is a beautiful irony of bitter Championship fans hating SuperLeague clubs for their perceived snobbery towards them, while at the same time showing the exact same snobbery towards Championship 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't get it though do you? Your bitter agenda won't let you get it.

Dewsbury are not Bradford's 'play thing. Dewsbury will not be getting any 'Stars'. Dewsbury will be getting fringe first team players who may or may not improve their own squad of very capable Championship players. If in Glenn Morrison's opinion they do not improve Dewsbury's very capable squad of Championship players, they won't play, its as simple as that.

I did state MIGHT BE Bradford's play thing, and who dictates who is truly a "fringe" player? Towards the end of the season when relegation is in the offing for the CH club, how, and who decides who is a fringe player? I certainly haven't seen it published anywhere as to what constitutes a "fringe" player. Maybe you could enlighten me?

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that Cummins at Bradford who may have nothing to play for at the end of the season and GM at Dews is fighting relegation or for the playoffs and asks Bradford for a bit of help; who could argue if Cummins says Sammutt and Manuokafoa are not in the best of form at the moment and are therefore fringe players, so I'll let them go to the Rams and regain some form and help Dews out of the relegation zone or in to the play-offs? Is it impossible for this to happen?

There is a beautiful irony of bitter Championship fans hating SuperLeague clubs for their perceived snobbery towards them, while at the same time showing the exact same snobbery towards Championship 1.

No irony or snobbery, just simple logistics and common sense. How many away fans will the new clubs or London, South Wales or Gateshead bring to help pay the bills for the likes of Rochdale or Oldham next season? Especially if they are getting thumped every week? Not many is the answer, if London Scholars are any sort of guide. I'd take playing against Leigh, Featherstone, Dewsbury and Halifax any day, over playing at Hemel and South Wales Scorpions. If you were a fan of either Oldham or Rochdale next year, would you rather be playing away every other week travelling to places such as Gateshead, London, Hemel, Gloucester and South Wales etc, or would it be cheaper and easier to watch your team away at a more local venue costing you much less time and less travelling expenses to say the likes of Swinton, Leigh and Halifax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jarrad Sammut plays for Dewsbury or Gareth Ellis plays for York next season, I will happily donate £500 to the BISSA squadbuilder fund.

You are painting bleak pictures of these partnerships to suit your agenda that just simply aren't going to happen.

As for your other question, if a club is budgeting a season based on income from away fans, then they are clearly doing it wrong. Income from away fans should always be a welcome bonus, nothing more.

And if a teams fanbase doesn't want to travel more than 50 miles to a game, then you have to ask yourself why are they supporting a supposedly 'professional' club instead of their local North West Counties or Yorkshire league team...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your other question, if a club is budgeting a season based on income from away fans, then they are clearly doing it wrong. Income from away fans should always be a welcome bonus, nothing more.

call me a cynic, but don't you think this is the reason superleague clubs voted for bradford to stay in superleague next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity, I thought with your journalistic slant you'd have seen the logic behind the rant and looked at the facts? Maybe I gave you more credit than was due. Then you'd have seen that it is not paranoia or bitterness, but real concern about how the game in the lower reaches will survive long term, when clubs like Dewsbury might be used as a play thing for a SL partner to keep there stars match fit, regardless of what it does to them as a club or to there gates as people get bored of seeing a stream of players who as soon as they show any form or real ability will be playing in SL for a different club than the one that gave them the chance to shine. I hope it works out for them and for the good of the game, but I really cannot see it,

And whose play thing are your team going to be.Forgot the feeder club deal thats going to blow us out of the water dont count since its the mighty one cup in 80 years famouse bulldogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

call me a cynic, but don't you think this is the reason superleague clubs voted for bradford to stay in superleague next season.

You're a cynic. They voted to keep Bradford in for many reasons.

(I'm not saying I agree with that decision mind you...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jarrad Sammut plays for Dewsbury or Gareth Ellis plays for York next season, I will happily donate £500 to the BISSA squadbuilder fund.

You are painting bleak pictures of these partnerships to suit your agenda that just simply aren't going to happen.

As for your other question, if a club is budgeting a season based on income from away fans, then they are clearly doing it wrong. Income from away fans should always be a welcome bonus, nothing more.

And if a teams fanbase doesn't want to travel more than 50 miles to a game, then you have to ask yourself why are they supporting a supposedly 'professional' club instead of their local North West Counties or Yorkshire league team...?

does this also go for squadbuilder ? £500 ?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does this also go for squadbuilder ? £500 ?????

No. If I'm forking out next year that means you lot have already had Jarrad Sammutt... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And whose play thing are your team going to be.Forgot the feeder club deal thats going to blow us out of the water dont count since its the mighty one cup in 80 years famouse bulldogs.

Hey Equalizer, I don't agree with it full stop whether it be Batley, Dewsbury or whoever, the whole thing stinks IMO. It is not a pop at the Rams, it is a pop at the nails being driven in to the CH coffin and the thought of turning our competition in to a potential farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Equalizer, I don't agree with it full stop whether it be Batley, Dewsbury or whoever, the whole thing stinks IMO. It is not a pop at the Rams, it is a pop at the nails being driven in to the CH coffin and the thought of turning our competition in to a potential farce.

Which it isn't going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017