Archived

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

saints10coach

Oldham /Salford

836 posts in this topic

I don't know Terry, the correct answer is wait and see what the review brings.

RL is a massive winner in accepting the SKY money and allowing very rich people to come in at clubs, do you not accept this has happened Terry? I await the day certain people tell me where we would be without this money??

You then link this fact that the game has received millions thanks to RFL policies, to the review.

On what basis do you link the two?

You seem to be saying "SL is NOT a massive winner for the game hence the review" Surely this cannot be your stance?

Anyway let me know. The results of the review MAY at one end of the scale show a desire to re-incorporate championship clubs into the competetive side of the semi pro/pro game, auto P & R could even come back. If it did it would not be anything to do with the game NOT being a massive winner of SKY contracts and rich mens money would it?

At the other end of the scale the review MAY dismiss and excuse any positive moves towards inclusiveness and deeply disapoint the independant championship clubs.

As an unbiased fact hungry student of our game, it's history and it's development, I await with great fascination as to what the review decides. Should it not be to the satisfaction of several championship fans on here they can always take it out on me :lol:

I accept the fact that money men have come in and underpinned certain clubs but the Sky money has not made the sport a winner as there's not enough of it compared to what the major sports receive. Therefore we've been forced into abandoning P & R because there's not enough cash to go around. That, in my opinion, is a very bad thing and has removed much excitement and enjoyment from the pro game. Attendances might be up at the better clubs but at the lower end there's not much incentive to go watch Salford v Cas for example or Widnes v London and its a shame. Bradford sold 10,000 season tickets at ridiculous prices and counted them all in their declared attendances and I suspect the same goes on at most other SL clubs, so not an entirely true picture I'd suggest. It will be interesting to see the Bulls season ticket strategy this year under new management.

Hopefully the Watkins review will somehow address this P & R situation for the better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree this whole process of what is effectively feeder clubs seems wrong. If I was an Oldham fan I'd be pretty disheartened as well when you couple the Salford agreement with being in one of the shakiest, weakest divisions of recent times. The only positive being they should defo finish near the top!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People should not assume that the results of the "review" will signal a return to the bad old days.of of yo-yo clubs and spending money clubs don't have just for one season of "glory" in the top tier. It is sensible and standard practice in well run organisations to have a "review" even when as now, things are going well, as things call always be better. Its pragmatic too, not a word normally associated with our code.

As for the "Oldham" question, I wish the club well as it strives to rebuild and re-establish. As for a sustainable presence in SuperLeague, no only do fans not seem to want that, is is just not going to happen in this, the 2nd decade of the 21st century, when so much has changed in people's lives and lifestyles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've had a good look at this. I've studied the last 17 years.

What I found was that the "system" which we cant change without SKY agreement has brought £250,000,000 into the game at top level, and attracted several thousand more fans to the top level, and created an academy system for developing pro players.

It can't all be roses so I checked the championship. Not much has changed there - a series of semi pro clubs averaging 1500 fans.

Couldn't find any "self-suffocation"

I can't find a problem Marauder, it seems when you add up all the plusses and the odd minus Rugby league is a massive winner.

But let's be honest, there's a few fans of championship clubs who have had their dreams rained on.

That's the downside.

Rugby League is not the winner at all, SUPER LEAGUE ELITE is a winner, SKY SPORTS is a winner simply because it has a product that in OUR eyes is far better than Union or Association Football for a far less amount.

How much of the £250,000,000 you keep banging on about has been directed towards making Batley, Halifax, Sheffield, Yorks, Leigh etc. the equals of the chosen few in Super League (None because they give just enough chicken feed to keep them alive).

Are the RFL setting the bar too high to be healthy for the whole game, IMO looking at the financial troubles just about every Super League club has been finding themselves in it seems to point that they are.

I suppose it's easy to say championship clubs should raise their game but when you look at Super League clubs who also can’t raise their game to sustain the criteria set down by the RFL you have to wonder, the latest restructuring of the pyramid system is designed to sure up a failing system and is in my eyes just simply hijacking championship and NCL clubs to try and fulfil the dream of the few.

I’m worried what will happen next if this like all the other systems fail, where do we go then (SKY SPORTS HYBRID GAME for the chosen few leaving Rugby League in a right old pickle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People should not assume that the results of the "review" will signal a return to the bad old days.of of yo-yo clubs and spending money clubs don't have just for one season of "glory" in the top tier. It is sensible and standard practice in well run organisations to have a "review" even when as now, things are going well, as things call always be better. Its pragmatic too, not a word normally associated with our code.

As for the "Oldham" question, I wish the club well as it strives to rebuild and re-establish. As for a sustainable presence in SuperLeague, no only do fans not seem to want that, is is just not going to happen in this, the 2nd decade of the 21st century, when so much has changed in people's lives and lifestyles.

Whats was wrong with being a Yo Yo club, their supporters could look forward to the excitement of chasing the dream every other season, which is more than can be said for the bottom half of the Super League.

Makes me wonder if the same type of people who stopped having winners at school sports days are now in charge at the RFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always enjoyed the ups and downs of P&R at Oldham , you had a poor season results wise got relegated then a good season , lower down. The clubs who suffered for many years used to love Oldham games because they knew their home games would be a nice earner . Unfortunately there are a damn sight more clubs in the same predicament Oldham included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to share reasoning behind your answer? Will a businessman with no passion for RL put millions into a club before SL or would he prefer to do it after receivong a million sky money, extra media coverage and having a better product to sell too fans? Its obviously going to be the latter.

Unless he thought it through properly and realised that the former would be more sustainable, but then again he will of probably realised that there is many more better ways of investing a few million.

To get into SL all you need to do is buy the rump of an SL club after it's failed. No need to bother building a championship club, it's too expensive.

If I had the money I would buy Salford and move it to Darlington so I could watch SL. I wouldn't bother ####### about with poxy rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. How much of the £250,000,000 you keep banging on about has been directed towards making Batley, Halifax, Sheffield, Yorks, Leigh etc. the equals of the chosen few in Super League

2. Rugby League is not the winner at all, SUPER LEAGUE ELITE is a winner.

3. Are the RFL setting the bar too high to be healthy for the whole game.

1. Steady Mr. M. I'm allowed to bang on about what I want. Not like you to get tetchy.

The answer is NONE. The reason is SKY won't allow the money to go to anyone but the top division and the private investors won't allow their money to go anywhere but their club.

You need to deal with that fact not berate me for repeating it. Remember it's not my fault.

2. Superleague is a big winner and the Championship clubs are the losers. As for the "game" being a winner, I'd say on balance it's a winner.

What people need to do if they disagree is tell me wether the game would be a winner by rejecting all this one sided money on principle???

Or tell me how SKY/Private business can be made to share the money?

What do you think?

3. I think so, I discussed this with Keighley in a all too rare moment when we actually debated it sensibly. We thought a 16 club SL with a £1M salary cap would be an interesting idea with P & R of course.

What do you think.

That I "bang on" too much? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept the fact that money men have come in and underpinned certain clubs but the Sky money has not made the sport a winner as there's not enough of it compared to what the major sports receive. Therefore we've been forced into abandoning P & R because there's not enough cash to go around. That, in my opinion, is a very bad thing and has removed much excitement and enjoyment from the pro game. Attendances might be up at the better clubs but at the lower end there's not much incentive to go watch Salford v Cas for example or Widnes v London and its a shame.

That's a pretty fair analysis Terry.

Could we afford to reject "one sided money" on principle though?? Where would the game be then?

The only way to share the money better would seem to be push out to 16 SL clubs reduce the salary cap and go for P & R, and if clubs yo-yo then they yo-yo.

I'm not sure I can find too many holes in that idea, the obvious one may be players drifting away to RU, but SKY money to secure our best professionals remains the same wether 12 or 16 clubs.

I know those most fed up are from clubs like Fax, Leigh Fev and Sheffield. Seems to me there's about 20 clubs to satisfy. All would be satisfied by a 16 club SL.

The only other downer would probably be that the top clubs - those "six or seven" would be secure forever more, whilst the rest played "changing places" building up, going up and being knocked down again in turns.

I could not see anyone growing to challenge Leeds, Hull, Catalans, Saints, Wigan and Wire under thoose conditions. i.e. one minute your a pro club the next your back to semi pro. Imagine the upheaval!!!

HOWEVER I'm sure i'd enjoy it, because those problems won't be mine!

Thoughts....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If SKY won't allow the money to go down to the Championship clubs. The governing body should retain most of the money. Thereby making the SL clubs to adjust their budgets accordingly, probably using more players that have come through the development system and putting less money into 2nd rate imports pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yo-yo clubs fail from spending money they don't have. Can't agree with your second statement, either and really don't see how that conclusion could be reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldham will be an "A" team. I'd say the £250,000,000 Superleague has attracted in TV revenues and private finance has been a winner for the game.

Don't you like the game, don't you want it to attract riches??

I love the game, the whole game, not just the top echelon. I love the money that was given to SL to keep Packer down in Australia. SL didn't initially attract anything.

The problem I have is the successful attempts to limit the distribution of that money to the 14 soon to be 10 or 12 unchanging teams and sod the rest. No amount of stadia improvement, junior development, on field success or achieving financial stability counts. It's the "what I have, I hold" strategy of retrenchment and ultimately disaster for the wider game. No one in their right mind can think that going from 37 clubs to 12 is a recipe for success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done that and they did it by getting a multi-millionaire to fund them.

Now what???

Obviously they need to find some financing. They had one in the man Quinn who got into some dispute with Hamilton and walked. At least that's what i remember happened. The Oldham fans will have the story.

Now they need to do it again plus start gradual improvement on their own. I think they have started back on the path to respectability. Remember when they were playing at Ashton, relying on the genorousity of a minor non league soccer team out of their town.

Well now they are back in Oldham in their own ground, however humble, and have plans to erect a stand they obtained from the Willows and improve terracing etc etc. They have employed an ambitious young coach, who is recruiting a new team and will attempt to start their climb back up the ladder by getting promoted from CC1.

If they achieve that, hopefully the attendances will start to climb. Featherstone, Halifax, Leigh, Barrow and even Keighley have shown improvement following promotion or on field sucess.

To me that would be step one. The management of Oldham will then need to step up their efforts to find an investor or sponsor or a lottery scheme or whatever. That's for them to sort out. Featherstone seem to have figured it out.I have said several times that all this could take years and maybe never but it can be done as Hull KR, Huddersfield etc have proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Steady Mr. M. I'm allowed to bang on about what I want. Not like you to get tetchy.

The answer is NONE. The reason is SKY won't allow the money to go to anyone but the top division and the private investors won't allow their money to go anywhere but their club.

You need to deal with that fact not berate me for repeating it. Remember it's not my fault.

2. Superleague is a big winner and the Championship clubs are the losers. As for the "game" being a winner, I'd say on balance it's a winner.

What people need to do if they disagree is tell me wether the game would be a winner by rejecting all this one sided money on principle???

Or tell me how SKY/Private business can be made to share the money?

What do you think?

3. I think so, I discussed this with Keighley in a all too rare moment when we actually debated it sensibly. We thought a 16 club SL with a £1M salary cap would be an interesting idea with P & R of course.

What do you think.

That I "bang on" too much? ;)

I think Sky need us almost as much as we need them these days. their soccer content has been cut, RL is one of their top sports for viewership.

I think they would seriously consider a different distribution pattern for their money if the RFL were to grow some cojones and hold out for what they want. Is it a risk? Yes, but he who dares wins. It's nowhere near the risk it was. They need us, I really believe that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously they need to find some financing. They had one in the man Quinn who got into some dispute with Hamilton and walked. At least that's what i remember happened. The Oldham fans will have the story.

Now they need to do it again plus start gradual improvement on their own. I think they have started back on the path to respectability. Remember when they were playing at Ashton, relying on the genorousity of a minor non league soccer team out of their town.

Well now they are back in Oldham in their own ground, however humble, and have plans to erect a stand they obtained from the Willows and improve terracing etc etc. They have employed an ambitious young coach, who is recruiting a new team and will attempt to start their climb back up the ladder by getting promoted from CC1.

If they achieve that, hopefully the attendances will start to climb. Featherstone, Halifax, Leigh, Barrow and even Keighley have shown improvement following promotion or on field sucess.

To me that would be step one. The management of Oldham will then need to step up their efforts to find an investor or sponsor or a lottery scheme or whatever. That's for them to sort out. Featherstone seem to have figured it out.I have said several times that all this could take years and maybe never but it can be done as Hull KR, Huddersfield etc have proven.

It can be done of course but only up to a point that Featherstone are probably at as you say. I don't know whether the link ups signal an abandonment of SL ambition. I do know that some fans don't appreciate you championing their club for SL and some clubs choose not to have any SL ambitions, so some clubs may well not want to do what you suggest.

For the clubs who genuinely have SL ambitions there needs to be an accommodation for them, and we discussed a 16 club Superleague with annual P & R based on a lower salary cap. This was because if a CC club cannot find a big investor, there will still be that massive financial gulf to cross that needs to be narrowed for P & R to work.

Your examples Huddersfield and HKR only crossed that gulf with big big investor.

So I still don't really recognise this slow growth virtuous cycle in which canny clubs make all the right decisions of which the effect is they end up being "ready" for Superleague. There's always a gulf to cross between semi-pro and pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think SKY would seriously consider a different distribution pattern for their money if the RFL were to grow some cojones and hold out for what they want. Is it a risk? Yes,

You can of course EMail the RFL and ask them if they have put this to SKY? You may also ask them if they are prepared to be awkward with SKY for the sake of allocating more money to the CC clubs.

I see no purpose in giving unambitious CC clubs SKY money - they will just mostly waste it. Obviously many SL clubs are equally good at wasting it so don't bother telling me that.

I'm in total agreement with helping any TRULY ambitious Superleague club to not just get into Superleague, but to stay there. I Think they should have every chance to do so. P & R's one season guarantee is not fair on anyone.

If they have not got money they won't stay up anyway, if they have got money and they get SKY money too then they need some extra help to build themselves up in Superleague. I'd suggest they need maybe time more than anything - say a stay of execution for 3 years even if they come bottom of SL. It's only fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be done of course but only up to a point that Featherstone are probably at as you say. I don't know whether the link ups signal an abandonment of SL ambition. I do know that some fans don't appreciate you championing their club for SL and some clubs choose not to have any SL ambitions, so some clubs may well not want to do what you suggest.

For the clubs who genuinely have SL ambitions there needs to be an accommodation for them, and we discussed a 16 club Superleague with annual P & R based on a lower salary cap. This was because if a CC club cannot find a big investor, there will still be that massive financial gulf to cross that needs to be narrowed for P & R to work.

Your examples Huddersfield and HKR only crossed that gulf with big big investor.

So I still don't really recognise this slow growth virtuous cycle in which canny clubs make all the right decisions of which the effect is they end up being "ready" for Superleague. There's always a gulf to cross between semi-pro and pro.

I don't see why slow growth cannot be a policy until such times as an investor is found. The two policies are not mutually exclusive. Most of the current CC clubs are on the slow growth path from necessity and most of them have improved in many areas as a result of that. If they cannot meet SL criteria as a result of that, then they will not be promoted. If they get the financing and win on the field with an adequate stadium etc etc then they would get promoted.

I think that in quite a few seasons there would be no promotion because of failure to meet standards or that you would get some yo yoing. The thing which I think would be a factor is that, if it were known that promotion was a guaranteed option for a winning CC team who met standards, then investors would be much more likely to support such teams either because of lifelong fandom for a particular club or as a gamble to an ambitious money person.

Fans can get upset if they like if I state that some clubs have the potential to be SL clubs. That's their right but my right is to disagree. It's only an internet forum for Pete's sake. I am not actually committing their teams to anything.

I am not championing any clubs for SL. I am saying that several clubs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The problem I have is the successful attempts to limit the distribution of that money to the 14 soon to be 12 unchanging teams and sod the rest. No amount of stadia improvement, junior development, on field success or achieving financial stability counts.

2. No one in their right mind can think that going from 37 clubs to 12 is a recipe for success.

1. What we need is a system where stadia improvement, junior development, on field success or achieving financial stability counts. In the new 12 club league all clubs should be required to reapply for Superleague every couple of years or so.

Should a club outside Superleague have better stadia improvement, better junior development, on field success, and are achieving financial stability, they should replace any SL club that is failing in those areas.

This would satisfy your concerns surely?

2. What we need to do is look at any RL league in the world where entry is limited to a chosen few and the rest acts as feeder clubs and see for ourselves how such a policy is doomed to failure.

Again hope this helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1/ That solves the problem of why the haves have and the have not’s will never catch up.

2/ Super League is a winner but the game in general is not, we’ve now withdrawn the game into a 12/14 team fortress and the plan is now to protect them at all costs, and it seems that the next step is to use the championship & NCL clubs as the outer perimeter.

Have we become so depended on Sky money that we can’t look at another route, are we not worth more from Sky, do we believe we are worth more, would going to another TV company for less money but more national exposure be better for the game, would more exposure bring the game to more potential money men/women, would a floodlight trophy type competition with a different broadcaster be an extra source of income for the championship sides?

I do believe we need a minimum of two divisions with clubs receiving equal funding that’s regulated by the RFL to stop squandering, the extra revenue the clubs can produce (I dare say the clubs at the top now will still be the same) would obviously give more spending power above the funding from the SKY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why slow growth cannot be a policy until such times as an investor is found. The two policies are not mutually exclusive. Most of the current CC clubs are on the slow growth path from necessity and most of them have improved in many areas as a result of that.

I didn't disagree with you, I didn't say it should not be the policy. I'm happy for clubs to slowly grow crowds, stadium, facilities, business, youth development etc and when they hit a certain standard then be considered for SL. Good idea there, I agree.

However what your now saying seems to be in support of minimum standards P & R. We have that now??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we become so depended on Sky money that we can’t look at another route,

"who moved my cheese" is a good book and sum's up what is likely to happen if this is allowed to become entrenched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t really understand that the game in general is not better off.

What is the criteria for judging this?

1 - Are there more fans overall?

2 – Is the combined turnover higher than previously?

3 – Is the financial position better or worse (combined profit and loss)?

4 – Is participation up or down?

5 – Are facilities better or worse?

Do people answer these kind of questions when they judge whether the game is in better shape or not, or do they look at their individual club and local area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"who moved my cheese" is a good book and sum's up what is likely to happen if this is allowed to become entrenched.

Hybrid game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people answer these kind of questions when they judge whether the game is in better shape or not, or do they look at their individual club and local area?

The ones I end up arguing with in eternal circles all seem to place promotion of their favoured team above the general good of the game.

Had their clubs had the fortune to have found such as Hughes, Davey, and O'Connor, etc I wonder if they would argue the same way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones I end up arguing with in eternal circles all seem to place promotion of their favoured team above the general good of the game.

Had their clubs had the fortune to have found such as Hughes, Davey, and O'Connor, etc I wonder if they would argue the same way?

I dunno about that, as that suggests that everybody simply puts their club first, and I know that isn't the case, but when people make statements about the overall game, I do wonder what exactly they have looked at to make that call.

If I'm honest I don't know enough about all areas of the game to make a call on it. I do see more areas apparently playing the sport, I see larger crowds at a fair few teams, including my own, but then I also see plenty of challenges within the game too.

One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that teams will always have ups and downs, we have a history of successful teams going down the pan - maybe Oldham is just one of the next in line. Ultimately for all it's strength in amateur players, maybe there just isn't the interest from a supporter or investor level. It's very sad to see a great name struggle, but then other clubs have grown over the same period that Oldham have declined, and had Oldham not declined, then it would be another great historic club we were talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017