Archived

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

The Parksider

The SKY contract for RL - good or bad?

300 posts in this topic

Wakefield could not possibly have been about to be booted out, you have posted time and again that this doesn't happen. So were Wakey about to be booted out or not. If they were, as you kindly pointed out to us, then your argument that nobody will ever have a licence revoked, and Halifax would never have been relegated, is null and void.

Has it ever happened, yes or no? The answer is "No". It may well have happened if Crusaders did not withdraw, but it didn't. I am sure it could happen, but it's going to take a lot before it does. Bradford weren't kicked out even. Salford, well, maybe, but I doubt it. Castleford, we'll see but to date NO ONE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it ever happened, yes or no? The answer is "No". It may well have happened if Crusaders did not withdraw, but it didn't. I am sure it could happen, but it's going to take a lot before it does. Bradford weren't kicked out even. Salford, well, maybe, but I doubt it. Castleford, we'll see but to date NO ONE.

Well you are telling us nothing new are you, but your argument was based on Wakefield were about to be kicked out and elsewhere within this thread you claimed that Halifax wouldn't be kicked out. You can't have it both ways.

Which argument are you going to use, it can't be both, it must be one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you are telling us nothing new are you, but your argument was based on Wakefield were about to be kicked out and elsewhere within this thread you claimed that Halifax wouldn't be kicked out. You can't have it both ways.

Which argument are you going to use, it can't be both, it must be one or the other.

Wakefield were already on a warning that they could possibly lose their licence, I don't believe that was the case with Halifax.

Disappointed with Parky who is always asking others to prove points but when asked in this thread doesn't have anything to prove his point other than another question!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wakefield were already on a warning that they could possibly lose their licence, I don't believe that was the case with Halifax.

Sorry but that is irrelevant to Keighley's stance, on one hand he says nobody will ever lose their license on the other he says if the Crusaders hadn't pulled out of SL Wakefield would have been kicked out.

He wants to argue both ways and he ain't getting away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since a centenary only happens every 100 years I don't think any of us will be around to find out the answer to that one. That has got to be the silliest example ever.

There have been other significant anniversaries and events in the sport and no series of stamps. Indeed not many sports get this accolade. I somehow doubt that those who decide these matters would think the game warranted such treatment at the moment. Let's see what the world cup throws up shall we. There was certainly a series of stamps for the 1966 soccer world cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wakefield could not possibly have been about to be booted out, you have posted time and again that this doesn't happen. So were Wakey about to be booted out or not. If they were, as you kindly pointed out to us, then your argument that nobody will ever have a licence revoked, and Halifax would never have been relegated, is null and void.

Rubbish. The entire game including the media had been tipped off weeks in advance, Wakey were out, Widnes were in, Crusaders didn't even come into the equation. I remember the Wakey and Cas fans listening to the news accompanied by Radio Leeds who also clearly thought the same. Journalists don't normally go out on a limb like that unless they have been given "off the record" information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish. The entire game including the media had been tipped off weeks in advance, Wakey were out, Widnes were in, Crusaders didn't even come into the equation. I remember the Wakey and Cas fans listening to the news accompanied by Radio Leeds who also clearly thought the same. Journalists don't normally go out on a limb like that unless they have been given "off the record" information.

To be honest I think the next club to get the boot will be one of the 2 Calder clubs. Unless a club goes belly up before the next licensing comes into play. My money is on c@s though as they don't look like getting a new stadium anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How representative is that though of the 70,000 or so a week who attend SL games and the hundreds and thousands who watch on TV?

Run a poll.

I'm sure the RFL have taken into account that there are large numbers of RL fans, players., coaches and journalists (including SL fans) who favour a return to P&R. If there wasn't such a groundswell why on earth would they be considering it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I think the next club to get the boot will be one of the 2 Calder clubs. Unless a club goes belly up before the next licensing comes into play. My money is on c@s though as they don't look like getting a new stadium anytime soon.

I'm a Fev fan but I'd be sorry to see any club go unless they failed on the field of play which is where such matters should ultimately be decided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Fev fan but I'd be sorry to see any club go unless they failed on the field of play which is where such matters should ultimately be decided.

I agree but that isn't the case anymore. It's based on your stadium and how many fans you have and how big your wallet is which IMO isn't the way our sport or any sport should be run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Parky the game's going to hell in a hand cart!

And we are both careering towards the flames together, who's gonna jump handcart first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trojan:- "I'm a Fev fan but I'd be sorry to see any club go unless they failed on the field of play which is where such matters should ultimately be decided"

Thundregaz:- "I agree but that isn't the case anymore. It's based on how big your wallet is which IMO isn't the way our sport or any sport should be run.

OK............

Have you two noticed that the game is a pro game and the bigger your wallet the more you succeed on the field of play??

Can you both PM each other to sort this ambiguity out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been other significant anniversaries and events in the sport and no series of stamps. Indeed not many sports get this accolade. I somehow doubt that those who decide these matters would think the game warranted such treatment at the moment. Let's see what the world cup throws up shall we. There was certainly a series of stamps for the 1966 soccer world cup.

Have any other RL world cups other than the centenary (which had special significance, being as you say a centenary) been recognosed by a set of stamps.

Was any other anniversary during the previous 100 years offered such an accolade surely your stamp collection must be huge with all these events that the post office issued special editions for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but that isn't the case anymore. It's based on your stadium and how many fans you have and how big your wallet is which IMO isn't the way our sport or any sport should be run.

The game has always been decided on how big your wallet is, the problem has always been big wallets with no cash in.

If you believe before SL the game wasn't based on cash then you need to go away and check a few facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the RFL have taken into account that there are large numbers of RL fans, players., coaches and journalists (including SL fans) who favour a return to P&R. If there wasn't such a groundswell why on earth would they be considering it?

Have you thought of entering that post for the Man-Booker Prize?

I'm considering asking Kathleen Jenkins for a date. In the end I probably won#t as its pointless asking, but I am considering it.

Run a poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Fev fan but I'd be sorry to see any club go unless they failed on the field of play which is where such matters should ultimately be decided.

Not quite with you What would you pay your players with? Or will they play for nothing? Or will you conscript players from the locality? Why would anyone go to watch if off-field items like ..well.. er..a decent stadium with working toilets and floodlights etc was not an issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rugby League was created over money issues but is now the reason it isn't like it used to be when it wasn't driven by money? When wasn't it driven by money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the documentary about the game in which the noted Union star Cliff Morgan contrasted the two codes and said (without a cone of silence descending) the he doubted (at that time) if any of the current 5 nations internationals would be good enough to get into a RL 1st division side. The games centenary was even important enough to justify a set of stamps from the Post Office. I doubt very much that this would be the case today.

so what did you mean when you said about the bbc's coverage?

Why did you make stuff up? Unless a few games televised is good to you. Or do you perhaps have an agenda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite with you What would you pay your players with? Or will they play for nothing? Or will you conscript players from the locality? Why would anyone go to watch if off-field items like ..well.. er..a decent stadium with working toilets and floodlights etc was not an issue?

I think the qualifying adverb "ultimately" answers your question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what did you mean when you said about the bbc's coverage?

Why did you make stuff up? Unless a few games televised is good to you. Or do you perhaps have an agenda?

Most of the games were televised in some form or other. I thought the Beeb's treatment of the 1995 WC (given what had just happened) was very good, compared to Sky's treatment of the 2000 effort - compelling KO times to suit their soccer schedule.

I mean who thought up 6 o' clock kick off at Twickenham for the opening game? Given the antipathy towards Twickenham by many RL fans, the difficulty in getting to and away from the ground, and the difficult time. Even then the fans half filled the stadium! Obviously the crowd was also affected by the adverse weather and the unforeseen diffulties on the railways. I went to that game. We drove and parked at Staines. Got the train to Twickenham. The game finished at 7-45, it was 10-00pm before we got back to our car because of the chaotic arrangements for fans.

That would not have happened had the game been played elsewhere at a civilised time - 3-00pm, But Sky wanted it at 6-00 and so that's when it was played. IMO it ruined the entire series. This sort of thing is what I mean about Sky. Games rescheduled with no thought for the fans. Games between South West Lancashire clubs and Humberside clubs on Friday night, once again with no thought for the fans or the size of the crowd. Sky pay up but by god they get their pound of flesh. But there's no way back we are where we are. But let's not pretend that money apart Sky has been good for the game because in my opinion and that of many fans it hasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But let's not pretend that money apart Sky has been good for the game because in my opinion and that of many fans it hasn't.

still don't see who these "many fans" are..unless you include the increasing numbers of paying spectators and subscribing viewers.

run a poll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An agenda?

I think people do have an agenda at times and they are perfectly free to have one and hold opinions that suit it. Sometimes to support such opinions it can be neccessary to argue black is white hence I wanted to isolate the idea Superleague is somehow a bad thing for the game.

I say for the game because the big difference is that Superleague can be VERY BAD indeed for individuals, who do not like aspects of it. When it first came out I worked with a Batley fan who had never had any illusions of grandeur for his club and had no care they never got anywhere near promotion, and although SL would not affect his club (and his club have become a better club in the SL years) he just thought all the razzamatazz was BS (an apt turn of phrase at the time) and he abandoned RL.

I can't say that I was sad about that as personally I welcomed what Superleague did for the game in my opinion. I think it's been very good for the game and without it there's a weight of opinion that the game could seriously die out as a MAJOR sport (I attended the Leeds.v.Sheffield Lacrosse game the other week, that game hasn't died out).

I don't know if what attracted many people to RL were the aspects of the game that were in one way it's downfall - regional, heavy in local rivalries, traditional, insular, northern identity, not liked and supressed by RU, the siege mentality etc. Once free of that of course those who liked the game for those qualities would not be happy. Of course they may then not have a good word to say about it.

Anyway I'm clear the weight of unbiased opinion is that even if you don't like Superleague it's been very good for the game in the most trying of circumstances i.e. the rise of pro RU and maga rich socccer, unless you like your sport on the level of Lacrosse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the games were televised in some form or other. I thought the Beeb's treatment of the 1995 WC (given what had just happened) was very good, compared to Sky's treatment of the 2000 effort - compelling KO times to suit their soccer schedule.

I mean who thought up 6 o' clock kick off at Twickenham for the opening game? Given the antipathy towards Twickenham by many RL fans, the difficulty in getting to and away from the ground, and the difficult time. Even then the fans half filled the stadium! Obviously the crowd was also affected by the adverse weather and the unforeseen diffulties on the railways. I went to that game. We drove and parked at Staines. Got the train to Twickenham. The game finished at 7-45, it was 10-00pm before we got back to our car because of the chaotic arrangements for fans.

That would not have happened had the game been played elsewhere at a civilised time - 3-00pm, But Sky wanted it at 6-00 and so that's when it was played. IMO it ruined the entire series. This sort of thing is what I mean about Sky. Games rescheduled with no thought for the fans. Games between South West Lancashire clubs and Humberside clubs on Friday night, once again with no thought for the fans or the size of the crowd. Sky pay up but by god they get their pound of flesh. But there's no way back we are where we are. But let's not pretend that money apart Sky has been good for the game because in my opinion and that of many fans it hasn't.

Anybody other than the BBC needs to make money from televising things like the Rugby League.. (programmes as a whole infact)... their money comes from people watching it and "watching" the adverts.. as such thier priority without damaging the game too much is to get people to watch it on the telebox which means having scheduling as they need it... sad but true and would be the way of things with everyone except the BBC.... and even then you wonder whether they would want things on at certain times to fit into their schedule.. i say wonder i really mean i would expect they would want things on at certain times to fit their schedule..

Times have changed and if TV pay that money they do get a say. The spectators at the game are not their target audience so the TV companies dont care... and we would all be up in arms if the RFL spurned TV money of any sort becuase they wanted to keep the KO times when they wanted them for the pleasure of the spectators on the gates..

cake and eating it springs to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the games were televised in some form or other. I thought the Beeb's treatment of the 1995 WC (given what had just happened) was very good, compared to Sky's treatment of the 2000 effort - compelling KO times to suit their soccer schedule.

I mean who thought up 6 o' clock kick off at Twickenham for the opening game? Given the antipathy towards Twickenham by many RL fans, the difficulty in getting to and away from the ground, and the difficult time. Even then the fans half filled the stadium! Obviously the crowd was also affected by the adverse weather and the unforeseen diffulties on the railways. I went to that game. We drove and parked at Staines. Got the train to Twickenham. The game finished at 7-45, it was 10-00pm before we got back to our car because of the chaotic arrangements for fans.

That would not have happened had the game been played elsewhere at a civilised time - 3-00pm, But Sky wanted it at 6-00 and so that's when it was played. IMO it ruined the entire series. This sort of thing is what I mean about Sky. Games rescheduled with no thought for the fans. Games between South West Lancashire clubs and Humberside clubs on Friday night, once again with no thought for the fans or the size of the crowd. Sky pay up but by god they get their pound of flesh. But there's no way back we are where we are. But let's not pretend that money apart Sky has been good for the game because in my opinion and that of many fans it hasn't.

The BBC televised only four games Live! It was a pathetic level of coverage and a last minute deal with cable channel Live TV (IIRC) saw some of the other games televised, including the brilliant Wales v Western Samoa game.

Now tbh, I don't really blame the BBC for not covering the tournament as international RL at this level was a pretty new thing, but it is wrong to state that they covered the 1995 tournament well.

As for your comments about Sky, I'm not sure what you want. They pay to have games played at different times to suit their schedules, not sure why you brought soccer into it as they also move that sport around, Saturday Lunch, Evening and Monday Night now being regular slots for them (they get on with it).

The BBC have televised RU 6N games on Friday evenings and now regularly have games on Saturday Evenings.

Not sure why Sky came in for criticism of the 2000 tournament, they (and the BBC) did a great job of televising most games.

If you want to give the BBC praise for covering a tournament, then it really should be the 2000 WC, which saw them broadcast more games including a game from Belfast, as well as the Final which was broadcast by both channels in a Saturday afternoon slot (so much for those blasted Sky soccer schedules eh?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.