Archived

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

foozler

Oldham

403 posts in this topic

97 (apparently)

No it was 95 Watersheddings was sold, 97 was when we were relegated from SL and went bust, after playing two seasons at Boundary Park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gateshead were not "a smaller club who got to play with the big boys". They were dropped into SL without having been a lower-league side.

Cougars never did get to play with the big boys. They were denied promotion and the bubble burst.

Are not Gateshead a smaller club who once were in SL Mr. Pedant?

Are not Keighley a smaller club who aspired to play with the big boys and did so in a famous RLCC game?

No points for nitpicking here........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference from (1) having to build a SL team after promotion to (2) building one after being awarded a SL licence.

(1) in this P & R scenario unless you have pots of money you have no chance of building a side to kep you up in the one year you have to stay up, given you have to dismiss the part time players, and then have to recruit from a market in which SL clubs already have had first pick.

(2) In this scenario no hopers don't get a licence, but clubs with money do. They then get three years so they can have a realistic chance of building a pro team and surviving in SL.

The difference is massive, but hey let's bring back P & R because dreams are made of such stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) in this P & R scenario unless you have pots of money you have no chance of building a side to kep you up in the one year you have to stay up, given you have to dismiss the part time players, and then have to recruit from a market in which SL clubs already have had first pick.

(2) In this scenario no hopers don't get a licence, but clubs with money do. They then get three years so they can have a realistic chance of building a pro team and surviving in SL.

The difference is massive, but hey let's bring back P & R because dreams are made of such stuff.

THe evidence is that both licencing and p and r, as a method of selecting teams for SL have both had their successes and failures. For Leigh, as an example of a failed p and r team, you have Crusaders, Paris and Gateshead as examples of failed teams who were appointed to SL.

For Catalans, as an example of a successful appointed team in SL, you have Huddersfield and Wakefield as examples of succesful p and r entrants to SL.

For an example of a moderately successful appointed team in SL you have Salford and London. For examples of moderately successful p and r teams in SL you have Hull KR and Castleford.

So the evidence is that neither method of selecting members of SL has been any more of a failure, a success or somewhere in between than the other.

The reason why p and r is the better method of selecting the members of SL is because it gives every team a chance to be there if they get things right and is not a subjective popularity contest voted on by exisiting members based on phoney conditions which produces farcical results like the Crusaders and Bradford.

Now, as you like to end your posts with a belligerent statement,I will reciprorate nin kind and I will invite you to deal with that and explain why appointed SL members have no better of a track record in Sl than those in there as a result of p and r.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence is that neither method of selecting members of SL has been any more of a failure, a success or somewhere in between than the other.

The reason why p and r is the better method of selecting the members of SL is because it gives every team a chance to be there.

You conveniently confuse the failure of individual clubs, with an alleged failure of the system for selecting and creating the strongest division.

Relegating clubs automatically forces them to fail as Professional clubs, promoting skint clubs does the same.

Licensing does not provide any guarantees that clubs will succeed in SL, it merely picks the 14 clubs with the best chance of surviving. You won't engage in this point because it doesn't suit you.

It doesn't fail because clubs like Wakefield or Bradford fail.

It actually limits failure, whilst P & R promotes it.

Had P & R been in this year a rich club would have been forced into a league with a £300K cap and a poor club would have been set up to struggle badly.

Good old P & R - gives everyone a dogs chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe evidence is that both licencing and p and r, as a method of selecting teams for SL have both had their successes and failures. For Leigh, as an example of a failed p and r team, you have Crusaders, Paris and Gateshead as examples of failed teams who were appointed to SL.

For Catalans, as an example of a successful appointed team in SL, you have Huddersfield and Wakefield as examples of succesful p and r entrants to SL.

For an example of a moderately successful appointed team in SL you have Salford and London. For examples of moderately successful p and r teams in SL you have Hull KR and Castleford.

So the evidence is that neither method of selecting members of SL has been any more of a failure, a success or somewhere in between than the other.

The reason why p and r is the better method of selecting the members of SL is because it gives every team a chance to be there if they get things right and is not a subjective popularity contest voted on by exisiting members based on phoney conditions which produces farcical results like the Crusaders and Bradford.

Now, as you like to end your posts with a belligerent statement,I will reciprorate nin kind and I will invite you to deal with that and explain why appointed SL members have no better of a track record in Sl than those in there as a result of p and r.

crusaders, gateshead and paris failed once and were out. They failed because they were ill judged projects

Leigh, Oldham and the rest failed repeatedly over a period of 23 years. They were tied into a system that ensured that this would happen, and was exacerbated by the incompetence, lack of foresight, and lack of acumen of those running the clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The failure of Oldham to use an example and the success of Castleford on the flip side. Oldham were relegated and could not afford the squad wages they had to play in SL. Cas were given a parachute payment to accommodate this. If Oldham had have been given a parachute payment, we would have probably gone on to compete after being relegated. remember in 97 when Oldham went bust, the proviso for our re-entry to the league was that we competed for our first season with no money whatsoever from the RFL. I cannot ever remember this being inflicted on any club, before or since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The failure of Oldham to use an example and the success of Castleford on the flip side. Oldham were relegated and could not afford the squad wages they had to play in SL. Cas were given a parachute payment to accommodate this. If Oldham had have been given a parachute payment, we would have probably gone on to compete after being relegated. remember in 97 when Oldham went bust, the proviso for our re-entry to the league was that we competed for our first season with no money whatsoever from the RFL. I cannot ever remember this being inflicted on any club, before or since.

were there parachute payments when Oldham and other notorious yo yo teams did exactly the same thing diring 22 years of automatic prom and reg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

were there parachute payments when Oldham and other notorious yo yo teams did exactly the same thing during 22 years of automatic prom and reg?

No there was not. But they were not needed, as in those days the money was distributed evenly from top to bottom, so you did not have this massive void between divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The failure of Oldham to use an example and the success of Castleford on the flip side. Oldham were relegated and could not afford the squad wages they had to play in SL. Cas were given a parachute payment to accommodate this. If Oldham had have been given a parachute payment, we would have probably gone on to compete after being relegated. remember in 97 when Oldham went bust, the proviso for our re-entry to the league was that we competed for our first season with no money whatsoever from the RFL. I cannot ever remember this being inflicted on any club, before or since.

Workington town also operated under those conditions that Oldham did plus more.

Were also relgated with expensive contracts in place and no parachute monies. No Sky or RFL monies either for at least 2 seasons possibly longer.

I'll also add that Town were also subject of a vote to kick them out of the RL family altogether for going into admin. Prescot were kicked out Keighley and Town were granted a pardon.

No other club has had all 3 scenarios and survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The failure of Oldham to use an example and the success of Castleford on the flip side. Oldham were relegated and could not afford the squad wages they had to play in SL. Cas were given a parachute payment to accommodate this. If Oldham had have been given a parachute payment, we would have probably gone on to compete after being relegated.

Sadly and with respect I am not sure that is fair.

Yes Castleford failed in Superleague and went down to the championship where finances allowed them to storm straight back to Superleague far too strong for the Championship.

But the story after that has been one of struggle and decline on larger gates than oldham ever got and with significant £££ help from Mr. Fulton which oldham could not find, and a very successful record on quality local professional players turning out greater numbers than Oldham.

Cas could not be more rock bottom than they are now with the best players being picked off and crisis talks. Using the self same comparison I'd have to conclude Oldham would be in worse straights.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A man with money is not always the answer. They do not give it away. The benefit of having rich Directors is they can underpin the business with their own financial clout. The money they dole out comes at a cost and usually has massive interest attached to it. So when said rich director gets bored and goes, the debt owed is often quite larger than it would have been.

I know Hull KR have a backer, but you could see when they were in the Championship that they were gearing up for SL and this was done on a sound business plan more than the financial backing of a director. I can't remember if I stated this on the current thread or another. But I think they should bring 1 up 1 down promotion back, with the caveat that if the team finishing in the promotion spot does not meet ground criteria. Then they should remain in the lower division, but should receive 50% of the should have been relegated clubs funding for the next season. Only to be spent under supervision of the RFL on the aspects were they did not meet the criteria. Therefore bringing them closer to the standards for another attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You conveniently confuse the failure of individual clubs, with an alleged failure of the system for selecting and creating the strongest division.

Relegating clubs automatically forces them to fail as Professional clubs, promoting skint clubs does the same.

Licensing does not provide any guarantees that clubs will succeed in SL, it merely picks the 14 clubs with the best chance of surviving. You won't engage in this point because it doesn't suit you.

It doesn't fail because clubs like Wakefield or Bradford fail.

It actually limits failure, whilst P & R promotes it.

Had P & R been in this year a rich club would have been forced into a league with a £300K cap and a poor club would have been set up to struggle badly.

Good old P & R - gives everyone a dogs chance.

I have no idea what your first paragraph means. Sounds like business speak gobbledegook to me.

The evidence is that licencing does not pick the best teams to suceed. Just look at the failures.

The evidence is that p and r has produced more SL clubs that have survived than licencing.

The evidence that relegating them forces failure is also sketchy as Salford, Castleford, Huddersfield, would seem to refute that theory.

If Widnes had been relegated, they would only have themselves to blame. They had two to three years when they knew they were virtually guaranteed a licence and did nothing to set up a team capable of competing in SL. This licencing guaranteed for 3 years promotes complacancy and a sense of entitlement without the requisite effort being put into preparing a team.

If Sheffield had been in the frame for promotion, then they would have A) found the financing and players to compete in SL OR B) Not done so, failed the standards required and not been promoted or C ) have voluntarily declined a SL place as did Gateshead in the Championship. It would have been up to the Sheffield club to decide which course of action they wanted to take.

Soccer, RU, Cricket, even Scottish soccer which is practically poorer than RL can and do operate p and r systems but we can't.

Are we that inept?

I know you are of the " Business is business" viewpoint whereby everything is fair if it safeguards the organisation but sport, whilst it is still business, has another element to it, which should reward sporting success and punish sporting failure if the financial side can also be accomodated.

People with your point of view constantly deride the state of the game when p and r was the norm but conveniently forget to include in tjhis derision the fact that the game at that time was operating without Sky money. In the few seasons we had with p and r with Sky money, it worked just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No there was not. But they were not needed, as in those days the money was distributed evenly from top to bottom, so you did not have this massive void between divisions.

so notorious yo yo teams like leigh Oldham and others weren't being financially ruined by going up one year and down the next over the 22 years of auto p and r, and it was ok because all cluns got the same money. Would you say that the money spent on Chorley, Springfield, Prescott, Carlisle, Kent, Doncaster and others during the years of the money being 'evenly distributed' was money well spent? What did Rugby League as a sport get in return for it's massive investment?

This was one of the reasons why there was a breakaway Super League getting ready to be formed by the big clubs several years before the SKY version.

What do non SL clubs sget now from central funding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Widnes had been relegated, they would only have themselves to blame. They had two to three years when they knew they were virtually guaranteed a licence and did nothing to set up a team capable of competing in SL. This licencing guaranteed for 3 years promotes complacancy and a sense of entitlement without the requisite effort being put into preparing a team.

As a Widnes fan I am happy that the club owners have decided to take a sustainable route to SL survival rather than a boom and bust scenario by seeking stability in playing personel, developing a youth system and only paying what can be covered by income streams. Somebody has to finish bottom. But will we next year? (At least there is a next year!)

Obviously the franchise system has allowed Widnes RLFC to cut their cloth accordingly with some degree of certainty as to what level they will be operating at and that I applaud!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what your first paragraph means. Sounds like business speak gobbledegook to me.

The evidence is that licencing does not pick the best teams to suceed. Just look at the failures.

The evidence is that p and r has produced more SL clubs that have survived than licencing.

The evidence that relegating them forces failure is also sketchy as Salford, Castleford, Huddersfield, would seem to refute that theory.

If Widnes had been relegated, they would only have themselves to blame. They had two to three years when they knew they were virtually guaranteed a licence and did nothing to set up a team capable of competing in SL. This licencing guaranteed for 3 years promotes complacancy and a sense of entitlement without the requisite effort being put into preparing a team.

If Sheffield had been in the frame for promotion, then they would have A) found the financing and players to compete in SL OR B) Not done so, failed the standards required and not been promoted or C ) have voluntarily declined a SL place as did Gateshead in the Championship. It would have been up to the Sheffield club to decide which course of action they wanted to take.

Soccer, RU, Cricket, even Scottish soccer which is practically poorer than RL can and do operate p and r systems but we can't.

Are we that inept?

I know you are of the " Business is business" viewpoint whereby everything is fair if it safeguards the organisation but sport, whilst it is still business, has another element to it, which should reward sporting success and punish sporting failure if the financial side can also be accomodated.

People with your point of view constantly deride the state of the game when p and r was the norm but conveniently forget to include in tjhis derision the fact that the game at that time was operating without Sky money. In the few seasons we had with p and r with Sky money, it worked just fine.

if Parky will allow me:

put it this way-what caused the recent problems of clubs like Salford and Bradford were caused by the way the game is structured nowadays, or by particular circumstances relating to the clubs?

soccer is the biggest, richest t most powerful sport in the world: English soccer with its wealth and national spread of big clubs is one of the most rich and powerful members of that community.

soccer is Scotland's national sport

how comparable is that to UK Rugby League?

p and r isn't automatic anyway.

county cricket has auto prom and reg. How many people go to county cricket games? A few hundred? If that's what yhou want, then fine. County cricket is subsidised by the other versions of the game that attract big crowds and sponsors as well as TV money.

Rugby Union is far richer and more widespread than Rugby League. It doesn't have auto prom and reg to the top competition-clubs have been denied admission, and London Welsh only managed to get promotion(I wonder how long they will last) after an expensive legal battle.

For what seems like the thousandth time Rugby League doesn't have to face the same challenges and issues as other sports. so comparison is invidious-but hey carry on, and on with the notion that we are like premiership soccer and the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Parky will allow me:

put it this way-what caused the recent problems of clubs like Salford and Bradford were caused by the way the game is structured nowadays, or by particular circumstances relating to the clubs?

soccer is the biggest, richest t most powerful sport in the world: English soccer with its wealth and national spread of big clubs is one of the most rich and powerful members of that community.

soccer is Scotland's national sport

how comparable is that to UK Rugby League?

p and r isn't automatic anyway.

county cricket has auto prom and reg. How many people go to county cricket games? A few hundred? If that's what yhou want, then fine. County cricket is subsidised by the other versions of the game that attract big crowds and sponsors as well as TV money.

Rugby Union is far richer and more widespread than Rugby League. It doesn't have auto prom and reg to the top competition-clubs have been denied admission, and London Welsh only managed to get promotion(I wonder how long they will last) after an expensive legal battle.

For what seems like the thousandth time Rugby League doesn't have to face the same challenges and issues as other sports. so comparison is invidious-but hey carry on, and on with the notion that we are like premiership soccer and the rest.

Fine, let the lower teams wither and die from lack of opportunity and lack of finances. Good luck with your ten team SL, two of whom are from France. The total strength of British Rugby League at senior level will be eight clubs. Someone will finish bottom of that lot and gradually sink to a lower level than the rest. get rid of them too, go to 7 british teams. Good luck with the England team picking from that small base. Good luck with producing players from the juniors with such a very few playing spots available

Do you really think Featherstone, Halifax, Leigh and others will last very long if they are in he CC forevermore.. Do you really think the SL will award any of them a SL licence?

Do you really think the limit of ambition for the new teams in CC1 is CC? A ring fenced SL will be the death of the game in this hemisphere.

There must either be p and r OR an expanded SL. The present status quo is unsustainable long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so notorious yo yo teams like leigh Oldham and others weren't being financially ruined by going up one year and down the next over the 22 years of auto p and r, and it was ok because all cluns got the same money. Would you say that the money spent on Chorley, Springfield, Prescott, Carlisle, Kent, Doncaster and others during the years of the money being 'evenly distributed' was money well spent? What did Rugby League as a sport get in return for it's massive investment?

This was one of the reasons why there was a breakaway Super League getting ready to be formed by the big clubs several years before the SKY version.

What do non SL clubs sget now from central funding?

YO YO teams were sustained, as after relegation they knew they were going to be involved in a promotion battle the season after. This was helped by the fact that in those days players were contracted to a club for a lot longer than one season, therefore the team you had was only changed gradually.

Wanderer please do not offer up Widnes up as an example. In my view they like Bradford and Wakefield, should not be were they are. When Widnes played Castleford at Headingley for promotion they had a planned move that if they lost they would go into receivership and wipe out all their debts. If they would have had as good a planned move on the field against Cas, they may have stood a better chance of winning the game. At the time this happened, the league constitution rules stated any team that entered receivership would be kick out and have to re-apply, therby entering at the bottom division. This in my opinion is what should have happened. But because Mr O'Neill came along with his wad the RFL changed the rules to accommodate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, let the lower teams wither and die from lack of opportunity and lack of finances. Good luck with your ten team SL, two of whom are from France. The total strength of British Rugby League at senior level will be eight clubs. Someone will finish bottom of that lot and gradually sink to a lower level than the rest. get rid of them too, go to 7 british teams. Good luck with the England team picking from that small base. Good luck with producing players from the juniors with such a very few playing spots available

Do you really think Featherstone, Halifax, Leigh and others will last very long if they are in he CC forevermore.. Do you really think the SL will award any of them a SL licence?

Do you really think the limit of ambition for the new teams in CC1 is CC? A ring fenced SL will be the death of the game in this hemisphere.

Hoe did GB fare against Southern Hemisphere teams between 1973-95? What spread of clubs supplied GB with the vast majotity of its players during this period?

There must either be p and r OR an expanded SL. The present status quo is unsustainable long term.

what opportrunity?

The only team I can think of that took the opportunity and made something of it in the entire 22 years of auto p and r was Wigan in their one seaason out of the top flight.

So it's all about Featherstone, Halifax and Leigh is it? Should all three of them be in Super League? All had some success pre SL, but all had major problems for most of the time with Halifax at one time trying to break the yo yo cycle by playing teams almost entirely of overseas players, and Leigh being the mosst notorious yo yo side of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what opportrunity?

The only team I can think of that took the opportunity and made something of it in the entire 22 years of auto p and r was Wigan in their one seaason out of the top flight.

So it's all about Featherstone, Halifax and Leigh is it? Should all three of them be in Super League? All had some success pre SL, but all had major problems for most of the time with Halifax at one time trying to break the yo yo cycle by playing teams almost entirely of overseas players, and Leigh being the mosst notorious yo yo side of all.

As I recall, Hull, Hull KR, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Castleford, Salford and indeed Keighley for two seasons, got promoted and stayed up. Wigan are not the only success.

The trouble is the yo yo is stuck at the bottom of the string and there seems to be no repairing it because no one will take it to the repair shop. At least if you are yo yoing between the divisions there is a chance you can stop that cycle like Huddersfield did.

No, it's not all about the three clubs mentioned but they are the most likely candidates as we speak. The beauty of p and r is that none of those teams might win. It might be a complete surprise, as it was this season when Sheffield won it all.

Now you in particular get hung up on the concept of automatic promotion. Most supporters of the the process no longer support this. Most people accept that together with victory on the field, there is a necessity to meet some basic standards as well. This concept has been around for some time. Both Dewsbury and Hunslet for sure and Keighley, maybe were refused promotion because of failure to meet minimum ground standards. There are other criteria as well as you know.

If you kill the roots, the tree will die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what your first paragraph means. Sounds like business speak gobbledegook to me.

The evidence is that licensing does not pick the best teams to suceed. Just look at the failures.

Let's try to stick to one point until we agree or agree to disagree. This is what I mean.......

Wakefield were selected to be in Superleague 2009-2011 over Leigh.

The reasons were Wakefield had 7,000 crowds and the playing squad was on the up. in 2009 they finished 5th. and they had a series of great young GB born talents in their ranks. Ted Richardson was still keeping the finances going and they were a much better bet to operate in Superleague on a £4M+ turnover, and compete than.....

Leigh who had 2,400 crowds and had failed badly in Superleague only three years earlier. They lost 8 out of 18 games in the CC and the licensing commitee found they were well short of the money required to get into Superleague.

This was the right decision. Events saw Richardsons business collapse and Wakefield go into administration. The only way you can say the licensing committtee got it wrong is to explain how Leigh would have done better than Wakefield given their situation.

After all they spent every penny they had coming bottom of SL in 2005 with only two wins. Had the licensing commitee put them in again in 2009 why do you assume they'd have done any better?? It's not unreasonable to assume they'd have done even worse in 2010 and 2011 especially as their own "sugar daddy" ended up leaving just like Richardson.

Now in 2011 Bradford were selected to be in Superleague 2012-2014 over Haifax.

The reasons were Bradford had 14,000 crowds and the playing squad was introducing players like Addy, Bateman, Burgess, Whitehead, Kopzac, etc into Superleague. Whilst the committee said that they saw "challenges" for the Bulls financially........

They saw an "inadequate and incomplete" business plan at Halifax where the club were on gates of only 2,000. Halifax's last sojourn in SL with inadequate funding had seen the club come bottom in 2003 with no points. What was the licensing commitee supposed to do? Risk the same again for three years in a row?

They were forced to take Bradford and the challenge became overwhelming when the fans abandoned the club due to it's slide down the league. Even so this was the right decision.

Where you go wrong is arguing because two clubs could not manage to compete in a professional league of £4,000,000 turnovers the licensing committee should have not picked them for SL.

This is with respect wrong, the licensing commitee HAD TO PICK THEM because as I set out above the alternatives were far far worse.

Now I know you and others have often said that Bradford and Wakefield should have simply run to a policy of not spending beyond their income. That is again with respect simplistic and makes no sense at all. If clubs in financial trouble just cut their cloth radically then what happens is.........

They may end up with no points and their gates halved like Halifax 2003 who continued to slide towards administration anyway. Face the facts.

Or they may end up with 4 points and totally skint by the end of year one like Leigh 2005.

With respect I hope you can take the point this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Widnes fan I am happy that the club owners have decided to take a sustainable route to SL survival rather than a boom and bust scenario by seeking stability in playing personnel, developing a youth system and only paying what can be covered by income streams. That I applaud!

I do not applaud it. Like Mike Stephenson I condemn it.

The essence of Superleague is clear. It's an elite league now designed such that all clubs can spend the maximum cap and so compete evenly to throw up a variety of winners and losers over the years, and keep interest in the game up. It's based on the Australian model and that policy was confirmed by Hetherington the other month.

If Widnes fail to compete because they are not prepared to spend full cap then what are they doing in Superleague?

Padge got it right when he pointed to people who had riches and took their clubs into Superleague but baulked at the wage bill and were not prepared to cover it. It begs the question "if you cannot stand the heat stay out of the kitchen".

But before people start with the "you spilled my pint/had a go at my club" rubbish Mr. O'Connor has pledged to try to get Widnes operating to full cap from the clubs own income rather than his pocket over the three years of the licence. This is why licenses are GOOD. They give clubs time to develop.

They give smart businessmen the chance to make a business out of failed Rugby league Clubs.

C'MON YOU SMELLIES........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people accept that together with victory on the field, there is a necessity to meet some basic standards as well.

Yes that's absolutely true and guess what - only about 11 can do this, and when some Superleague clubs go bust (Wakey and Bradford), and other Superleague clubs have to commit the cardinal sin of failing to meet the salary cap in SL (HKR, Cas, Salford) it just goes to show you that the Championship clubs you keep harping on about for Superleague have no chance at all to meet the "standards" as they are currently set.

If bigger SL clubs cannot hack Superleague then why do you keep going on about smaller Championship clubs doing it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, Hull, Hull KR, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Castleford, Salford and indeed Keighley for two seasons, got promoted and stayed up. Wigan are not the only success.

The trouble is the yo yo is stuck at the bottom of the string and there seems to be no repairing it because no one will take it to the repair shop. At least if you are yo yoing between the divisions there is a chance you can stop that cycle like Huddersfield did.

No, it's not all about the three clubs mentioned but they are the most likely candidates as we speak. The beauty of p and r is that none of those teams might win. It might be a complete surprise, as it was this season when Sheffield won it all.

Now you in particular get hung up on the concept of automatic promotion. Most supporters of the the process no longer support this. Most people accept that together with victory on the field, there is a necessity to meet some basic standards as well. This concept has been around for some time. Both Dewsbury and Hunslet for sure and Keighley, maybe were refused promotion because of failure to meet minimum ground standards. There are other criteria as well as you know.

If you kill the roots, the tree will die.

castleford were never relegated pre SL, the favt that Keighley went bdown again after two years kind of supports my case.

I alsao suggest you check the records of the other clubs you mention also.

I'm glad you have come to terms with your club's non admission to Super League. I think you'll find that there is a largish vociferous constituency for the reintroduction of auto prom and reg- and you yourself have given examples of other sports that you erroneously claim to have it.

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