Archived

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

saints10coach

Oldham /Salford

836 posts in this topic

Maybe a comparison between the last 17 years and the previous 17 will tell you how entrenched SL is becoming. Only 4 clubs have won the SL title but 8 won in the previous equivalent period.

Only 4 teams have one it in the last 22 years!! Which other sport has a record as bad as that other than the Scottish premier league? The other thread is already scoffing at what they're up to but we have only had 2 more winners of the league in the last 22 years.

It will be 50 years since Warrington won it, 37 years Salford, 30 years Hull, 28 years Hull KR, 24 years for Widnes, etc etc etc. A number of Championship clubs have managed it in the meantime so what exactly then is a big club? What exactly is the SL all about?

Carry on regardless by all means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A measly 5 teams have won the Premier League in the last 20 years. And that's with all their billions of pounds and thousands of players to pick from.

They have all that wealth and global fame and yet only one more team have won it than a comp like SL, which struggles for money and coverage. It's rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, it is becoming a nationwide sport. It just takes more than 5 minutes.

Becoming nationwide by having 14 chosen clubs in the top division 12 of which are close to the m62? Doesn't sound very nationwide personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a comparison between the last 17 years and the previous 17 will tell you how entrenched SL is becoming. Only 4 clubs have won the SL title but 8 won in the previous equivalent period.

Only 4 teams have one it in the last 22 years!! Which other sport has a record as bad as that other than the Scottish premier league? The other thread is already scoffing at what they're up to but we have only had 2 more winners of the league in the last 22 years.

It will be 50 years since Warrington won it, 37 years Salford, 30 years Hull, 28 years Hull KR, 24 years for Widnes, etc etc etc. A number of Championship clubs have managed it in the meantime so what exactly then is a big club? What exactly is the SL all about?

Carry on regardless by all means.

To be fair, we can spin things how we like.

In the last 17 years football has had 4 champions. In the previous 17 years they had 7. This is out of 20 teams, 4 out of 20 is worse than 4 out of 12/14 that SL has had. Sport is much more about money nowadays, times have changed.

We should also consider that Wire have also finished top of the league during this period.

Our record of 5 different league leaders from 12/14, or 4 different Champions is ok. Could be better if Leeds didn’t have this freak GF record of theirs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Becoming nationwide by having 14 chosen clubs in the top division 12 of which are close to the m62? Doesn't sound very nationwide personally.

No, but that isn't going to change in the next ten years. There has been a lot of progress outside the heartlands in everything bar the top flight though. We're talking amateur rugby, the univeristy game, schools, youth representative teams, and latterly semi-pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, it is becoming a nationwide sport. It just takes more than 5 minutes.

So a league of 14, with 1 team in France, a very weak team in London and the rest in Yorkshire and Lancashire. That's nationwide. How many minutes or years do they need to expand nationwide.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that the new teams in new areas in the CC1 have only been created to act as feeder clubs for the SL in the North so we cabn't expect any nationwide spread from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As people are fond of saying on here, there's more to RL than the top flight. Just because the top flight is still northern dominated, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As people are fond of saying on here, there's more to RL than the top flight. Just because the top flight is still northern dominated, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Oh, that's Ok then. I will look for massive nationwide coverage of the Devon V Cornwall match and the massive Swidon v Southampton mega match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As people are fond of saying on here, there's more to RL than the top flight. Just because the top flight is still northern dominated, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Indeed.

People change their argument to suit. On one hand they want all clubs to be included - yet want to exclude some clubs when making other points.

It's like saying Rugby Union is not a national sport because it is generally a Southern sport apart from Sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This being the Salford / Oldham thread er Salford with money problems asking Salford City Council for 1.5 million bailout/loan thats a good linkup isnt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24-07-2010121748.jpg

Something for the Oldham Fans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

End of year 2 - due to Fev's success at both levels, the first team and academy have trouble holding on to their better players. There are a lot of offers on the table for full-time contracts at various SL clubs and their academies. Fev lose 50-60% of their playing roster.

So Featherstone Rovers produce both senior and academy professionals for Superleague do they?

So successful are they that by this time next year Fev will lose over a whole team or more to Superleague clubs?.

What earthly evidence is there?

Oh yes I forgot - Zac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone answer me this then? Why did RL not thrive and become a nationwide sport during the many years when everything was decided on the pitch? (even allowing for RU bans)

Why did the serious money men not come forward instead of the chancers that (in general) appeared? Why did someone like Batley or Rochdale never become big teams?

Why isn't it thriving and becoming a world wide game now? One reason why it didn't thrive in the past was the lack of mass communication like this forum. As things stand at the moment the rest of the media regard RL as being part of Sky, so we get limited pubilcity in competitive media. Ok the Sky coverage is good and the money's good, but it's a ghetto. We have all our eggs in the Sky basket. When they say jump we say how high?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24-07-2010121748.jpg

Something for the Oldham Fans

Watersheddings my favourite ground on the dark side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trojan's point was that "the fans will tire of the same old same old winning every year." My contention is that it is not true.

On your completely separate point of fans deserting relegated teams, that certainly was not the case with Wigan RLFC nor with Manu and Man C

It's not a contention as far as Wigan fans go. Until 2009 I worked in Wigan and most of my workmates were Wigan fans, one was a former Wigan 'A' team player. In the early nineties many of them were fed up of Wigan's domination - it was as boring for them as it was for the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't it thriving and becoming a world wide game now? One reason why it didn't thrive in the past was the lack of mass communication like this forum. As things stand at the moment the rest of the media regard RL as being part of Sky, so we get limited pubilcity in competitive media. Ok the Sky coverage is good and the money's good, but it's a ghetto. We have all our eggs in the Sky basket. When they say jump we say how high?

No. Back then more people were likely to follow their local team as there was not a lot else to do entertainment wise so they had a captive audience - unlike today.

You also keep claiming that SKY is a ghetto...but more people have SKY than not these days. Its not like the early 90's. Believe it or not PL soccer is on SKY and the media don't ignore that.

And whilst RL is not taking over the world just yet, it is being played in countries unimaginable even 10 years ago. Its not doing bad RL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a comparison between the last 17 years and the previous 17 will tell you how entrenched SL is becoming. Only 4 clubs have won the SL title but 8 won in the previous equivalent period.

Only 4 teams have one it in the last 22 years!! Which other sport has a record as bad as that other than the Scottish premier league?

Carry on regardless by all means.

Leicester and Wasps have pretty much dominated Union's elite division and they have more money amongst their clubs. So your wrong.

Nobody is "carrying on regardless" Hetherington is tabling the problem of the same clubs winning all the time and RFL/SL are looking at it in their review.

Why this happens is obvious, too much money/top players and consequently fans are concentrated in the top four clubs.

But as you point out this problem was with us years before Superleague came along, but carry on blaming Superleague regardless anyway.

The plan always was to get all clubs on an even keel money wise and player wise, this certainly isn't going to happen by bringing back P & R. Maybe it can happen if we can get 12 solvent clubs all spending the same cap. Perhaps this is what you are proposing?

You don't actually say??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like saying Rugby Union is not a national sport because it is generally a Southern sport apart from Sale.

That would be wrong of course, but Union is successful at pro level mainly in it's midlands/southern homelands with one northern outpost whilst RL is sucessful at pro level mainly in it's northern homelands with one southern outpost.

It too suffers from the same clubs winning their league, so these comparisons are valuable when people say Superleague is a failure. The other code suffers the same problems with more money at their disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be wrong of course, but Union is successful at pro level mainly in it's midlands/southern homelands with one northern outpost whilst RL is sucessful at pro level mainly in it's northern homelands with one southern outpost.

It too suffers from the same clubs winning their league, so these comparisons are valuable when people say Superleague is a failure. The other code suffers the same problems with more money at their disposal.

Except of course their representative side seem to stand more chance of beating or at least competing with the best. Whereas despite all the claims over the life of SL that it would make us more competitive internationally, if anything the reverse is the case with ours.

Face it although the Sky money has been welcome, generally it's been bad for the game. We are up a cul de sac with no easy way out. We'd have been better to bite the bullet in 1995 but we didn't presumably because the likes of Wigan, Leeds, Bradford and Saints had too much to lose. If you substitute Wire for the Bull the same situatin pertains in the game today. They are the rich boys and they're not going to allow anyone else the chance to displace them, so we have what we've got. Until of course when sooner or later Sky tire of RL and the whole edifice collapses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except of course their representative side seem to stand more chance of beating or at least competing with the best. Whereas despite all the claims over the life of SL that it would make us more competitive internationally, if anything the reverse is the case with ours.

Face it although the Sky money has been welcome, generally it's been bad for the game. We are up a cul de sac with no easy way out. We'd have been better to bite the bullet in 1995 but we didn't presumably because the likes of Wigan, Leeds, Bradford and Saints had too much to lose. If you substitute Wire for the Bull the same situatin pertains in the game today. They are the rich boys and they're not going to allow anyone else the chance to displace them, so we have what we've got. Until of course when sooner or later Sky tire of RL and the whole edifice collapses.

There's not actually any substance in your post. Its just waffle. Basically you're not happy with no p&r, why not just stick to that rather than trying to link things together and bring greed into it.

The success of the national team is quite different to the success of the top league. NZ is a perfect demonstration of this. Of course a strong league can assist but it isnt a direct correlation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Face it although the Sky money has been welcome, generally it's been bad for the game. We are up a cul de sac with no easy way out. We'd have been better to bite the bullet in 1995 but we didn't presumably because the likes of Wigan, Leeds, Bradford and Saints had too much to lose. If you substitute Wire for the Bull the same situatin pertains in the game today. They are the rich boys and they're not going to allow anyone else the chance to displace them, so we have what we've got. Until of course when sooner or later Sky tire of RL and the whole edifice collapses.

I certainly like your analysis of the problem with Superleague. Those at the top seem to be rather intransigent towards the changes that could make superleague a much much better competition. I think Hetherington recognises this - wether he can get people to do anything about it is another matter.

He'll certainly use your analysis that SL could collapse if things just drift on (albeit I'm not sure SKY care about what people say SKY see as "filler"). We know there'll be no "even competition" anymore, unless there are changes, now that we have seen over the last 12 months how SL clubs have struggled and few rich people have bothered to come in to help.

I'm not sure what bullet should have been bit in 1995 Tro? Mergers?? or the rejection of SKY's demands for an elite competition to take all of the TV money?

Mergers (of all the new fans, money, sponsors and best players) by stealth continue to very slowly come about. The collapse of cas and HKR can advance Wakefield and Hull's cause, but after 17 years it's a shame on SLE that they do not have their house in any sort of order.

As for a rejection of the SKY demands/money I do challenge anyone to set out how that would have done anything but sent the game into a busted regional oddity, therefore i disagree SKY money has been bad for the game.

It has however been very badly used.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except of course their representative side seem to stand more chance of beating or at least competing with the best. Whereas despite all the claims over the life of SL that it would make us more competitive internationally, if anything the reverse is the case with ours.

Which begs the questions that I trust you will answer..

1. How competetive would we be today internationally without SKY money??

2. Will P & R improve international competetiveness??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain that if RL had rejected the SKY money, Australian clubs would also have rejected theirs and would not have advanced one inch from that point. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not really sure how having money has made things worse.

Sure, make the argument that money could have been spent better, but i see no evidence or logic as to how the money has put us in a worse spot.

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.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017