Archived

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

GeordieSaint

Eagles for SL

550 posts in this topic

1. Wakefield have always had many players and potential support but also a long history of consistent under achievement (in my lifetime anyway)....so far from convinced on that one Parky.

2. There are other 'traditional areas' that won't have SL, and SL areas that are not RL areas......so what? You can't have it always.....if crowds, turnover is the key criteria, so be it.....let's be open about it and get on with it!

1. I have a bee in my bonnet about how Wakefield get ignored so please excuse me pushing this and do stay unconvinced if you wish.

The level of support for RL in the wakefield postcodes area can be added up easily enough, and that support is massive without a successful club to boost it. One Superleague club would have a massive support base to go at.

The level of quality player is there to see from any period of history.

You cite "under achievement" but this merely comes from the area not having the money to keep the players. In 1981 Hull bought up all the best players from that area and shot to the top of the league. The area was so strong in players Cas still went on to win the cup and Wakey and fev still had stints in the top division.

It's the Lyndsay argument. Tremendous rescources in one area but all split between three clubs. Result three clubs losing money, three grounds crumbling, richer clubs moving in for the players more under achievement.

2. Crowds/players are the criteria and there's nowhere stronger than the wakefield postcode district. SL needs to play to it's strengths and that is "natural resources" not a rich mans wallet.

Wakefield would be miles ahead of Bradford and Fartown, one of them would have to go. Or merge!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wakefield would be miles ahead of Bradford and Fartown, one of them would have to go. Or merge!!!

But they aren't miles ahead and haven't been in the last 50 years......

Huddersfield have attracted a backer and without one you can't survive in SL.

Remember, its not about personal preferences but for the greater good of SL and the game.

Championship for me I'm afraid Parky!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't "advovate" anything. Explain what you are on about please.

Seems to me when reading through these pages that the Parksider v. Keighley argument is about a smaller 12 team league or an enlarged division with a smaller sky handout per club and hence a smaller total spend per club (status quo seems to be 4mill v 1 mill - ballpark figures I know... anyway, either of these options would in my opinion result in a "contraction" - fewer super, high profile clubs or clubs with a lessor profile albeit in more areas and a stronger rugby union may become more difficult to fend off, which has apparently happened since 1996 so far. The game is not in as healthy a position as many believe.

What I was doing in my mind was extending the argument for a 12 team SL which seems to be focusing upon large single area clubs providing a wide national (and international) geographic spread, 10000 plus crowds, ability to spend a larger salary cap due to sugar daddies and better sponsorship to another potential challenge from Union clubs . Even if all super league clubs can achieve all of the above, it already exists in Union and their turnover is a step up again (Leicester tigers nearly £20 million in 2010-11 -http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/17160.php#.UIezS2_oTAQ).

Already I see Sale taking the initiative at Barton and when I am at parents in Widnes at weekends I see the Union clubs offering a more structured and organised environment for young players to enjoy Rugby - the battle is only just beginning I believe and a new financial driven order will prevail (amateur, championship, sl, union) driven by larger salaries and greater playing opportunities being offered elsewhere (obviously some players will ply their trade down under).

As a grass roots rugby league supporter I would go for a larger super league with a GREATER SPREAD OF THE SKY MONEY rather than give fewer teams the chance at a bigger level, because Union is waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting for what ?

Steal our players ?

One of the threats is that our players will turn to Union if we don't offer high enough wages. Spreading the Sky money more thinly won't help this at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me when reading through these pages that the Parksider v. Keighley argument is about a smaller 12 team league or an enlarged division with a smaller sky handout per club and hence a smaller total spend per club (status quo seems to be 4mill v 1 mill - ballpark figures I know... anyway, either of these options would in my opinion result in a "contraction" - fewer super, high profile clubs or clubs with a lessor profile albeit in more areas and a stronger rugby union may become more difficult to fend off, which has apparently happened since 1996 so far. The game is not in as healthy a position as many believe.

What I was doing in my mind was extending the argument for a 12 team SL which seems to be focusing upon large single area clubs providing a wide national (and international) geographic spread, 10000 plus crowds, ability to spend a larger salary cap due to sugar daddies and better sponsorship to another potential challenge from Union clubs . Even if all super league clubs can achieve all of the above, it already exists in Union and their turnover is a step up again (Leicester tigers nearly £20 million in 2010-11 -http://www.premiersh...hp#.UIezS2_oTAQ).

Already I see Sale taking the initiative at Barton and when I am at parents in Widnes at weekends I see the Union clubs offering a more structured and organised environment for young players to enjoy Rugby - the battle is only just beginning I believe and a new financial driven order will prevail (amateur, championship, sl, union) driven by larger salaries and greater playing opportunities being offered elsewhere (obviously some players will ply their trade down under).

As a grass roots rugby league supporter I would go for a larger super league with a GREATER SPREAD OF THE SKY MONEY rather than give fewer teams the chance at a bigger level, because Union is waiting

Thanks very much for a very very interesting post. Points taken.

Will Union move in on league? Well it hasn't really so far (the government through sport England will not countenance this apparently) but will kids in future continue to be attracted to league or turn more to union.

As a wild guess I'd say that an impressive 12 team SL will inspire people towards League

A 20 club Championship/SL paying lower wages (probably half the salary cap or less) will not attract any great interest from new generations IMHO. The first image I have is top RL players leaving in numbers....

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a wild guess I'd say that an impressive 12 team SL will inspire people towards League

A 20 club Championship/SL paying lower wages (probably half the salary cap or less) will not attract any great interest from new generations IMHO. The first image I have is top RL players leaving in numbers....

What do you think?

I think you are right about the 12 team SL potentially inspiring the next generation but my worry is about what lies beneath it and at the moment it seems the two competitions are drifting apart and creating an unbridgeable divide which has a number of effects - two examples being the elite competion runs the risk of becoming stale and the challenge cup becomes devalued due to its predictability. And, if in my model we are going to become a player nursery for Union (which is far from a certainty) then a wider semi-pro competion would be more attractive to me. Ideally I would like to see two strong integrated competitions and the RL family is united again :D:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think that the threat from Union is grossly exagerated. I quite sure that if they really wanted some of our players, they'd find a work-round in their 'salary cap' to get them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right about the 12 team SL potentially inspiring the next generation but my worry is about what lies beneath it and at the moment it seems the two competitions are drifting apart and creating an unbridgeable divide which has a number of effects - two examples being the elite competion runs the risk of becoming stale and the challenge cup becomes devalued due to its predictability. And, if in my model we are going to become a player nursery for Union (which is far from a certainty) then a wider semi-pro competion would be more attractive to me. Ideally I would like to see two strong integrated competitions and the RL family is united again :D:lol:

I think you are right about the 12 team SL potentially inspiring the next generation but my worry is about what lies beneath it and at the moment it seems the two competitions are drifting apart and creating an unbridgeable divide which has a number of effects - two examples being the elite competion runs the risk of becoming stale and the challenge cup becomes devalued due to its predictability. And, if in my model we are going to become a player nursery for Union (which is far from a certainty) then a wider semi-pro competion would be more attractive to me. Ideally I would like to see two strong integrated competitions and the RL family is united again :D:lol:

Two great points about a stale competition (which is guaranteed unless the 12 clubs can compete such that they are up one year and down another - something Hetherington spoke about a few weeks back) and the cup.

For me Union has it's massive financial strength, but I do believe League has a strength in the game itself. Whether it's a better game than Union or not who knows as long as enough people prefer to watch and play it. Certainly people outside M62 land find it attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Union wont/cant move on League especially in Yorkshire as it doesnt have the money really and I know very few people who play/follow League that have that much of an interest in Union. Union is going backwards in the North really and you can see this by the strength of Yorkshire teams and how many play the game compared to say 1995 or even 2002. Most kids are Soccer fans and Soccer is the main problem as it has so much money and exposure and the power it has on kids. I doubt our game will ever lose that many players to Union, even if SL ended up Part time. The Northern clubs dont have the money really to take on many fulltime players except Sale and maybe Newcastle if that. Union certainly does not have the money it once did- look at how many clubs lose money for instance. A couple of the top players maybe, but then I could see more going to the NRL. The fans wouldnt watch switch to watching Union. Most I know would just follow Soccer in some way and keep an eye out maybe for Rugby or just drop it all together and forget about it- I know many who have done this. The biggest threat to League ( and Union etc) is and always will be Soccer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Union clubs have a salary cap (loosely appiled) of upwards of £3m? The French clubs spend even more and many UK players now play union in France. To me, if union wanted to raid Rugby's top players it would have made a better fist of it by now both here and in France. Our game can easily cope with the odd raid every season.

I'd be more worried if suddenly union's junior and academy teams were swallowing up whole teams and areas where Rugby is strong. We couldn't suddenly lose an area like the Leeds or Oldham for example and then expect Cornwall and Lincolnshire to take up developing the player pool.

My concern is over the size of the player pool, which to me, has developed into a policy to shrink it by stealth - reduce SL teams and push players further down the ladder, cast them off if they don't make it, disenfranchise others, make the running of academy and junior teams more difficult at levels below SL, reduction in Sport England monies and redundancies of Development Officers, etc. Its not a great picture for the player pool. This will happen over the next few years and other areas will not immedialtely refresh the player pool, no matter how much effort and vision clubs and individuals bring to RL. Once juniors are gone, the structures and interest will take longer to return.

To lose all of that for the upside of a 5% increase in attendances at SL games and a few thousand extra viewers to satisfy the paymasters is incomparable IMO.

The earlier poster makes a good point about sterility of the top level. The Challenge Cup has to come back to prominence, but if the gap between top level SL and the rest continues to grow, well thats another negative that the Challenge Cup will have to cope with. I hope that the 2013 World Cup provides some positivity and broadens RL's appeal and influence within UK and elsewhere, beyond its current, shrinking footprint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting for what ?

Steal our players ?

One of the threats is that our players will turn to Union if we don't offer high enough wages. Spreading the Sky money more thinly won't help this at all.

The game is between a rock and a hard place on that one. If we contract to ten teams, thats 120 top level players cut adrift who will be targets for Union. If we reduce wages and stay at 14 teams, then we might also lose players due to lower wages.

My hope would be that any wage reductions would be temporary whilst the lower teams stabilise and move to profitabilty. Once that is achieved, further progress might be able to be made to higher the wage scale but this time in a manner that the clubs can afford.

For instance, if we dump Salford, Sale will take over the players and the area and the whole game will suffer.

If we dump Castleford, Leeds RU could strengthen from taking the ex Cas players.

If we dump London, all the juniors being produced in London by the amateur teams there will likely be picked up by the London Area RU teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It's been a huge success for the game and saved the game of course it has. Oddly the only ones who disagree avidly support clubs disenfranchised by "greedy 'n' 'Orrible" Superleague.

2. This is why player production costs have been moved on to the CC, this is why two or three big loss making SL clubs whose loss making activities throttle their near neighbours progress towards the top of SL will IMHO be cut. The extra SKY funds released will cut losses/increase profits at other clubs. This is why the RFL/SLE are taking a chance on Toulouse having the money and generating a French TV contract. If that's not enough either SKY funds can be distributed according to need or the salary cap can go down £100K.

3. No I'm not an accountant, but I am in and amongst business so know the realities.

Superleague clubs turn over over £4,000,000 a year several WELL OVER that

Championship clubs turn over less than £1,000,000 a year. The level of cost cutting will not bridge that gap at all because it is likely the clubs with the three worst turnovers will be dumped anyway.

4. Superleague then may retain the opportunity for clubs like Hull (look closely at what Pearson is doing) to get crowds back to 14,000, and Wakefield to get up to 10,000 into Newmarket. Over the remaining clubs you would find the average crowd would shoot well over 10,000. Again their turnovers would remain high if not higher.

Moving back to 12 clubs is a logical and workable plan not because I wishfully think it is, but because the figures stack up. If you disagree do your own figures and logic and show me where I am wrong.

As for the idea RL needs all it's clubs, then you need to explain why? Whats the logic??

Many CC clubs don't produce players any more, many don't attract fans and lurch from crisis to crisis. You dreamt of Oldham yet Sheddings will tell you it's St.Annes, Waterhead whoever that are the vibrant clubs producing the players, from the schools where they learn the game. We have more clubs than ever of the vibrant type who are the roots of our game. As sheddings says the local amateurs even pay the players more than the senior club.

I'd like you to look at the figures again for SL and tell me why it's so important to keep the small trad semi pro clubs alive.

Firstly, neither CC clubs or SL clubs produce the players. All the players start out their rugby league life at an amateur club. SL picks off the best, except when their scouting system messes up, but the rest either go to CC clubs or open age amateur clubs.So the player production argument is a non sequitur.

Now, when the children grow up and are not professional players or amateur players but are teenagers with limited disposable income, they should become fans of the game. If they live in a SL club area, fine this is what will happen.

If they live in a CC club area they should go to see their local club. If the club is too weak or dead this will not happen. They will walk away from the game. Soccer is everywhere. They will not flock miles away to the nearest SL club. If the CC club dies altogether this will accelerate this trend. The whole footprint of the game will decrease. The area will cease to be RL orientated. I and several of my friends played junior rugby league but many many more went to support Keighley, who did not play at all. If Keighley had died they would have been lost to the game. They will not flock to Bradford to watch the Bulls.

The game is not so strong that it can afford this. The CC clubs are needed to be the focal point of the game in their area.The CC clubs have sunk to a low ebb almost to the point where they do not attract the local population.The game cannot afford this.

I believe there is light at the end of the tunnel. The three Cumbrian clubs are all on the up and slowly increasing their attendances ( By the way, which SL club should they support in your theory of regional superpowers ).

The South Yorkshire clubs have both been successful, made a profit, and are slowly increasing their support.

London Skolars continue to beat the odds and will have company next season from Hemel and Oxford.

The Welsh teams are also making ecouraging progress. Which SL club should their supporters flock to.

Gateshead have arisen from the dead and seem to be strengthening and have been playing local players. Which SL club should their supporters go to watch and where should these kids from the strong amateur team look to for a pro opportunity if they shoild fold.

The heavy woollen duo are thriving. Are you advocating they should fold to boost Huddersfield or Wakefield.? It would lose the game players, coaches, administrators and yes supporters.

The big three Leigh, Halifax and Featherstone are slowly getting bigger and better.Keighley are trying hard to get to their level.

All these clubs are the focal point of RL in their respective areas. It is regressive to lose them. They are important and valuable. They need more success and progress and hopefully it will happen.

All the CC clubs are valuable. They are all part of the larger RL disapora.

Hopefully the feeder clubs will also strengthen and not fade away as parasitic A teams.

There is strength to be had from all parts of the fabric of the game. If all the lower teams died, I think all the components these areas bring to the game would be lost. It is not all about SL. Nor in my opinion is it about contracting SL so we can support an eight team rump competition, ( given that two teams will be from France )

If there was nothing left of the game but SL teams, I think we would become marginalised, too small to matter.

The examples from the most successful game in the country, soccer, is that the lower leagues have value, even the non league teams are in the hierachal pyramid. Not only that there is advancement on merit. Bradford, Barnsley, Blackpool, Stoke, West Brom etc etc can have their moment in the sun. Some, like Sunderland and Newcastle and Stoke even manage to stay there.

We would be foolish to dilute and downsize and destroy our game until there were only 8 profesional teams in the whole of the country. The lower level teams are important and an integral part of the whole that constitues Rugby League in this country. They need mofre support, not a death sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Firstly, neither CC clubs or SL clubs produce the players. All the players start out their rugby league life at an amateur club. So the player production argument is a non sequitur.

2. Now, when the children grow up they should become fans of the game. If they live in a SL club area, fine this is what will happen. If they live in a CC club area they should go to see their local club. If the club is too weak or dead this will not happen. They will walk away from the game.

3. If there was nothing left of the game but SL teams, I think we would become marginalised, too small to matter.

1. Quite the opposite. Say it to yourself again "Championship Clubs do not produce players the amateur game does"

Therefore Championship clubs are not important to player production. The amateur game is.

Nor are they contributing to attracting paying fans beyond the average of 1,000 a club they do get through the gates.

2, Simplistic and totally inaccurate. You can't put people in boxes and you can't say people will be made to like soccer.

If they live in Leigh, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale and they want to follow RL they can and do go to Wigan

If they live in Shipley, Baildon, Leeds, Batley, Dewsbury or wherever and they want to follow RL they can and do go to Bradford

If they live in Wetherby, Harrogate, Barnsley, Dewsbury, Hunslet, or York they can and do go to Leeds

If they live in Blackpool, Halifax, Wakefield, Leeds, or Bradford they can and do go to Hunslet....

If they live anywhere but Castleford they can and do go to castleford as Cas Vegas outlined on this board when he discussed all the people he knew that supported Castleford.

3. We are ALREADY marginalised. Get a map of Britain and felt tip pen any county (split Yorkshire into ridings) and colour in the places where more than 3,000 people pay to watch RL.

You will get three places only.

We're doing fantastically well for a game that is marginalised at pro level.

3. Your statement is a nonsense and makes no commercial or sporting sense. Here's the facts to chew on......

a. People are attracted to sport by the sports being played at a high level. People go on tennis courts because Andy Murray wins at Wimbledon, Because they want to be Bradley Wiggins, because they want to be Wayne Rooney, because they want to be Sam Tomkins. They want to watch the best as well.

Rugby League needs a strong superleague.

b. Rugby league needs semi pro clubs in places that have a market for it isolated because of distances to SL clubs so we need our clubs in West Cumbria, Barrow, North London, Gloucester, Hemel, Coventry, Gateshead, South Wales etc.

If we ever had the money to subsidise clubs these would be the ones we must give the money to so one day they may become SL clubs if the games fortunes ever changed dramatically.

c. Regardless of your assertions the figures stack up.

Since RL has concentrated the money on an elite number of big clubs attendances have risen 50%

You plans to reverse this would ruin the game......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. if we dump Salford, Sale will take over the players and the area and the whole game will suffer.

2. If we dump Castleford, Leeds RU could strengthen from taking the ex Cas players.

3. If we dump London, all the juniors being produced in London by the amateur teams there will likely be picked up by the London Area RU teams.

1. If we dump Salford we'll cut SL's losses and BTW Sale don't buy jorneymen RL players

2. If we dump castleford again losses will be cut. Other clubs already take the best Cas players, Wakefield will grow and profit as the only SL club in the area.

3. They won't dump London

4. If they dump HKR, Hull will be able to prosper and grow. as the only SL club in town.

Dump is a horrible word. It's not mine it's yours and probably the SL bosses, as are the thoughts above so don't have a go at me.....But the SL bosses would be right to take this view and I believe they do,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Quite the opposite. Say it to yourself again "Championship Clubs do not produce players the amateur game does"

Therefore Championship clubs are not important to player production. The amateur game is.

Nor are they contributing to attracting paying fans beyond the average of 1,000 a club they do get through the gates.

2, Simplistic and totally inaccurate. You can't put people in boxes and you can't say people will be made to like soccer.

If they live in Leigh, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale and they want to follow RL they can and do go to Wigan

If they live in Shipley, Baildon, Leeds, Batley, Dewsbury or wherever and they want to follow RL they can and do go to Bradford

If they live in Wetherby, Harrogate, Barnsley, Dewsbury, Hunslet, or York they can and do go to Leeds

If they live in Blackpool, Halifax, Wakefield, Leeds, or Bradford they can and do go to Hunslet....

If they live anywhere but Castleford they can and do go to castleford as Cas Vegas outlined on this board when he discussed all the people he knew that supported Castleford.

3. We are ALREADY marginalised. Get a map of Britain and felt tip pen any county (split Yorkshire into ridings) and colour in the places where more than 3,000 people pay to watch RL.

You will get three places only.

We're doing fantastically well for a game that is marginalised at pro level.

3. Your statement is a nonsense and makes no commercial or sporting sense. Here's the facts to chew on......

a. People are attracted to sport by the sports being played at a high level. People go on tennis courts because Andy Murray wins at Wimbledon, Because they want to be Bradley Wiggins, because they want to be Wayne Rooney, because they want to be Sam Tomkins. They want to watch the best as well.

Rugby League needs a strong superleague.

b. Rugby league needs semi pro clubs in places that have a market for it isolated because of distances to SL clubs so we need our clubs in West Cumbria, Barrow, North London, Gloucester, Hemel, Coventry, Gateshead, South Wales etc.

If we ever had the money to subsidise clubs these would be the ones we must give the money to so one day they may become SL clubs if the games fortunes ever changed dramatically.

c. Regardless of your assertions the figures stack up.

Since RL has concentrated the money on an elite number of big clubs attendances have risen 50%

You plans to reverse this would ruin the game......

1. That s what I did say. You are getting confused. I also said SL don t produce players either, amateur clubs do.The fact that neither produce players is therefore not an argument pro or con the small clubs whose existence you asked me to justify. There needs to be no rebuttal of this point as it is not even relevant to the discussion in the first place. Have you got that now ?.

2. That s your considered opinion, dogmatically proferred that my point is simplistic. I disagree. Nature abhors a vacuum. If you create a RL vacuum by killing off small clubs, the youth of the area will gravitate to another sport, probably soccer, if not then they will find other interests but that will not be RL.I agree they cannot be made to like anything but they will attach themselves voluntarily to new sports or interests in the absence of RL. Your long meandering litany of towns and places likely to provide catchment areas to distant SL teams is simplistic and only supported by a few anecdotal posts from other forum members and your own wildly innacurate and now discredited assertion that 200 fans would travel from Oldham to Salford if there were no senior club in the town.

It is my contention that a vibrant, successful local club would attract many more fans to the game from their area than if they were left to travel to rival towns with a SL club in it in the absence of a local club.

3.I get six areas East Yorks, West Yorks, greater Manchester, Cheshire, Merseyside and Greater London but, no matter, yes the game is marginalised. If the smaller teams all die, it will be more than marginalised it will be minimalised.

3 a from your post.

You are talking rubbish. people play sport because they like the sport and want to enjoy playing it, be it tennis, rugby or tiddlewinks. No young child takes up sport because he wants to be Andy Murray or Wayne Rooney or Sam Tomkins for that matter except for a small few like yourself who are besotted with adoration of the top strata and think that nothing else has any right or purpose for existence.

3b from your post.

It needs these distant clubs and also the not so distant clubs to provide a focal point of the game for the people. Some neighbouring colossus with no affinity to the area is not that necessary focal point.

It also needs some of these clubs both local to the heartlands and from farther afield to be given the opportunity to get to SL when and if they get the famous turnover numbers for the spread and advancement of the game but the power elite don t want that. They want to contract until we only need the stub of your famous crayon to colour in the whole geographical footprint of the game.

3c

Firstly, the game needs a strong SL, you assert that I don t want that, but you are wrong.

The increased numbers you speak of are not new. We have had these kinds of numbers before. The game, including the SL elite, had fallen to such a low ebb that the only way for the numbers to go was up and these increases were brought about by the injection of Sky money, which gave the game the impetus to regain past glories.

The tradgedy of it was that the greed at the top ring fenced all the money for themselves otherwise we might have a bigger better league than we have.

What are my plans to reverse? To reverse what ? I have only suggested a withdrawal from the insane levels of spending which are sending much of the SL into debt and bankruptcy. Anyway, they are not my plans. Who am I, some commissar, some great controllor with a magic wand? you flatter me, Sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game, including the SL elite, had fallen to such a low ebb that the only way for the numbers to go was up and these increases were brought about by the injection of Sky money, which gave the game the impetus to regain past glories.

The tragedy of it was that the greed at the top ring fenced all the money for themselves otherwise we might have a bigger better league than we have.

What are my plans? I have only suggested a "withdrawal from the insane levels of spending which are sending much of the SL into debt and bankruptcy".

Go on then. The figures are there in attendances, SKY money, salary caps etc etc.

set out in detail your model for change from what we have now and show how you feel that will benefit the game.

Picking holes in my posts and sloganising is easy.

Your turn, what exactly do you think the RFL should do??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on then. The figures are there in attendances, SKY money, salary caps etc etc.

set out in detail your model for change from what we have now and show how you feel that will benefit the game.

Picking holes in my posts and sloganising is easy.

Your turn, what exactly do you think the RFL should do??

I do not think the RFL should do anything.

I do think that clubs on the edge of financial meltdown should reduce their wages bill to a level which makes them able to remain solvent and not sustain these crippling losses which have resulted, so far, in crises at Bradford, Castleford and Salford.

The reduction of expensive overseas recruits is the first place to start.

You talk of the vital necessity of a successful SL and I agree with you. However, its not a successful SL if many of the clubs are facing financial meltdown.

The major source on expenditure is on wages,so,that is where I would prune were I in charge of a struggling club. Other remedies are, if you can find it, extra investment and/or recruitment of extra investors. Salford and Castleford seem to be trying to take this path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like that Warrington Chief Exec favours a move to two 10 team leagues with promotion and relegation between the two

http://www.warringto...wo_tiers_of_10/

I absolutely agree with that. Will there also be p and r between SL2 and the CC also.?

The question of how to finance it is also not postulated. Maybe he is in the know and Sky will increase their contract payments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always liked Gatcliffe and it is nice and refreshing to read an article that suggests change, but does not trash the current product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he is in the know and Sky will increase their contract payments.

Or he could be flying a kite.

Believe it when you see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it'll depend on Sky - did someone post on here a while back that their contract was dependent on a certain number of games or am I hallucinating due to a dangerously low tea level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think the RFL should do anything.

I do think that clubs on the edge of financial meltdown should reduce their wages bill to a level which makes them able to remain solvent and not sustain these crippling losses which have resulted, so far, in crises at Bradford, Castleford and Salford.

The reduction of expensive overseas recruits is the first place to start.

You talk of the vital necessity of a successful SL and I agree with you. However, its not a successful SL if many of the clubs are facing financial meltdown.

The major source on expenditure is on wages,so,that is where I would prune were I in charge of a struggling club. Other remedies are, if you can find it, extra investment and/or recruitment of extra investors. Salford and Castleford seem to be trying to take this path.

After all this time we are close to agreeing!

Don't you think cutting wages only creates a downward spiral for an SL club?

Lose more games, lose more fans cut wages further??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017