Archived

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

Blackpool Hawk

Hawks Prayers Answered with Achurch

234 posts in this topic

Well I agree with you that Hunslet is becoming an extension of Leeds, but so what? What is it to you Kid?

As a club they are down to about 400 fans interested in coming to games and paying to follow the team.

Last year we won TWO games, we are not strong enough to play Championship as an independent club.

If the club drop to Championship One the figures won't stack up and we will fold. The end chapter of our history can then be written and the book closed.

For ALL clubs ever since victorian days when they enticed ringers from the next town to play it's always been about doing what you can to climb up the ladder and climb over those above you and stand on the heads of those below you to get as far up as you can.

So over the years clubs have done anything they can to get the advantage. Enticing players with gifts and money, giving them jobs, looking to players from abroad, taking DR players, filling your team with Australians or Kiwis, and now doubling as an SL "A" team to get the advantage.

For those who fear they will be "climbed over" it's all so unfair, it's all so "boo hoo this isn't right". Out come the moralistic arguments about players noses being pushed out and them being left in the stands. Jeez when HKR went up a bunch of Aussies pushed half the team out. Then there's the "this isn't development" stuff. So what? Hood Watson Singleton and Kleinhorst WILL do well playing top championship sides, and if Richard Moore comes along too then great.

The plan of course is to get Hunslets crowds up to 500, 600 or whatever and maximise an income stream that Leeds can take advantage of. Certainly most of the fans who still follow Hunslet won't go to Leeds. Many don't live near Hunslet anyway, and so Hetherington can get the Hunslet support to benefit his club this other way. It's typical Hetherington and it's quite smart (and wether I like it or not it's really smart)

So all you clubs and fans that are scared the mighty Parksiders will be standing on your heads this time next year tough. It's no different to what all clubs have had to live and to compete with in various forms over the years, and don't expect others to shed any tears for you. I was there when Bramley died, I was there when York played their last game. I didn't see anyone bothered then, so don't expect "sympathy" this is pro sport.

Didn't state there was anything wrong with it, if its what you have to do to survive its what you've got to do. But Russ was putting statements claiming that the way DR is being used now is the same as it was used when it clearly isn't. If he ignores my points made and throws a cheeky irrelevant dig then I might as well tell him how it is.

As you pretty much state this whole exercise is to primarily benefit SL, the fact it helps floundering Championship clubs is just a bonus.

Personally I think this system blatantly points to a 2 tier 20 SL. Have the 5 independant clubs go up and then add another french team in there. Then have the reserve team style structure at clubs where necessary. Hopefully a club from another expansion area would be able to make the step up to semi pro level and have 2 divisions of 12 or one big division of 24. It would all have to be up to sky though I guess.

Surely a Championship club not being sustainable enough to survive shouldn't be a reason to hinder the progress of one which can, that surely doesn't sound right. Maybe the fact it benefits SL club probably makes it sound right in the heads of the RFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think this system blatantly points to a 2 tier 20 SL. Have the 5 independant clubs go up and then add another french team in there. Then have the reserve team style structure at clubs where necessary. Hopefully a club from another expansion area would be able to make the step up to semi pro level and have 2 divisions of 12 or one big division of 24. It would all have to be up to sky though I guess.

Surely a Championship club not being sustainable enough to survive shouldn't be a reason to hinder the progress of one which can, that surely doesn't sound right. Maybe the fact it benefits SL club probably makes it sound right in the heads of the RFL.

Very interesting thoughts indeed.

2 x 20 would be an incredible policy change, I'd find the whole thing fascinating.

Would it work? Does it sell the championship clubs down the River? Will a second tier of SL flounder for the same reasons that the championship AS a second tier to SL has floundered?

Will Barrow be Champions once more? It'd be nice.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting thoughts indeed.

2 x 20 would be an incredible policy change, I'd find the whole thing fascinating.

Would it work? Does it sell the championship clubs down the River? Will a second tier of SL flounder for the same reasons that the championship AS a second tier to SL has floundered?

Will Barrow be Champions once more? It'd be nice.......

There honestly isnt a way to predict if it would work or not.

The system would just seem to bridge a huge gap between SL and CC financially. I can't see how clubs coming from the Championship can start to turnover 4 - 5 million to be able to get a winning side and get gates up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's helping Hunslet.

Don't you listen?

Blackpool Hawk says it's this or it's die.

Yes the club has lost it's independence, because of how the game has gone.

It can't exist as an independent club any more.

So it can either fold, and I went to a meeting a few years back when Stephen Ball discussed with us whether the club should fold or try to carry on........

Or it can carry on with dependence on Leeds.

Personally I'd leave it to fold, but 400 people don't agree so that's me outvoted :D

I was at that meeting

I don't agree that the hawks shoulkd be allowed to fold, as long as there are people with theability and the cash(ha!) to keep the club competeing. The main issue for me is the 'so we shall again' mentality' which sets people up for disappoinntment. The Hawks wont again. The world has changed, the game has changed, the demography of Leeds changed years ago. I see more Hunslet fans in the Lawnswood arms(usually two or three than) I see on the streets of Beeston,most people haven't supported Hunslet on the basis of living in South Leeds since almost forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely its all about finding viable levels for clubs to exist and to compete on their own terms?? and not being forced into a thinly disguised "feeder club system" to help save the bigger clubs money...

surely the aim should be to make the championship & championship1 viable competitions in their own right and not something purely designed to serve the super league clubs??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't state there was anything wrong with it, if its what you have to do to survive its what you've got to do. But Russ was putting statements claiming that the way DR is being used now is the same as it was used when it clearly isn't. If he ignores my points made and throws a cheeky irrelevant dig then I might as well tell him how it is.

As you pretty much state this whole exercise is to primarily benefit SL, the fact it helps floundering Championship clubs is just a bonus.

Personally I think this system blatantly points to a 2 tier 20 SL. Have the 5 independant clubs go up and then add another french team in there. Then have the reserve team style structure at clubs where necessary. Hopefully a club from another expansion area would be able to make the step up to semi pro level and have 2 divisions of 12 or one big division of 24. It would all have to be up to sky though I guess.

Surely a Championship club not being sustainable enough to survive shouldn't be a reason to hinder the progress of one which can, that surely doesn't sound right. Maybe the fact it benefits SL club probably makes it sound right in the heads of the RFL.

I didnt mean to have a go at you as such but i really dont believe that Hunslet have lost their independence by using this system, the majority of Hunslets squad is made up of contracted Hunslet players and people saying Rhinos reserves are way off, apart from Moore what have Hunslet done any different this season to any other season when teams have used the system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt mean to have a go at you as such but i really dont believe that Hunslet have lost their independence by using this system, the majority of Hunslets squad is made up of contracted Hunslet players and people saying Rhinos reserves are way off, apart from Moore what have Hunslet done any different this season to any other season when teams have used the system?

i find it strange when people suggest having 5 dr players means a club is a sl reserve side when that ignores the fact that the remaining 12 are that club's own players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What will help Hunslet in the long term then Shaun???????.

Lizzy talks about good management and others talk about "hard work".

I suppose Lizzy thought York's 2002 board were "poor management" and just lazy when they folded the club mid season after a last home gate of 280 fans?

York came back with an enthusiastic new management who have applied drive and hard work to the club, York could have not been better blessed by these people, but after the initial surge forward, they ended last year below Hunslet in the table, with one win only

and an average crowd only 100 more than the part season when they folded.

The conditions under which championship clubs are trading today are very very very (and more veries) hard, and many of these clubs may have no long term future, and NO "good management" and "hard work" will NOT get many of these clubs out of the mire.

But those more fortunate who are lucky they still have chairmen with a few quid to stave off their clubs demise can criticise and moan all they want. The fact is this is about survival not growth.

To answer your point Hunslet envisage (and Eaton said this) Leeds signing the best players they can, and Hunslet being part of the Leeds development system. Ideally I assume the kids play scholarship, move to higher age academy teams then move on to Hunslet who also provide game time for the Leeds first team fringe players and either they then go to Leeds first team, sign for Hunslet or get struck off.

There's no "starting again" Hunslet are just part of a very successful player development system.

2. This is the key Shaun I posted some crowds for CC matches this year where you could see a drop in attendances for DR clubs this year, however it is early yet, and the weather may have been the problem.

Time will tell, but if Hunslet continue to pull 500 crowds and keep a decent deal going at SLS then with Leeds providing the players and some competitiveness then the club will be secure year on year.

Sure, if at some clubs attendances go so low they can't pay the bills then that will be the end of it. But please don't then go round saying that these tie ups killed the clubs, there was no such tie up when Bramley went, there were no such tie ups when York folded, there were no such tie ups when Hunslet very nearly called it a day.

Id recommend people read "RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD" this month. Hunslet make their current position (which shifted from the original one significantly :lol: :lol: :lol: ) clear.

Sheffield made their position clear. They don't want their fans to be offered fixtures against what he sees as SL "A" teams. I'm not sure Mr. Swire is worried about RL youth development so much as his gate receipts.

Hunslet would be better off going out with a bang than this long drawn whimper. A sad end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunslet would be better off going out with a bang than this long drawn whimper. A sad end.

tell te people who ae working their nads off at the SLS that they are whimpering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tell te people who ae working their nads off at the SLS that they are whimpering.

They are working their asses off for the benefit of the Rhinos and the Rhinos secongd team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely its all about finding viable levels for clubs to exist and to compete on their own terms?? and not being forced into a thinly disguised "feeder club system" to help save the bigger clubs money...

Good point Spud,

But remember what happened to Bramley trying to find their own level??

It has just about meant going back to amateur, but they can't operate as a top amateur club because it would damage the Stanningley club who run a full junior system.

Also as the CC clubs say to drop to CC1 level with long travel costs a short season and a fixture list that won't pull the fans will be disasterous.

They have rightly aimed to stay at the level they are at. Oldham are aiming for it too.

It's the right decision for these clubs and if the "Big Five" don't like it tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are working their asses off for the benefit of the Rhinos and the Rhinos secongd team.

tell them that as well whilst you're at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt mean to have a go at you as such but i really dont believe that Hunslet have lost their independence by using this system, the majority of Hunslets squad is made up of contracted Hunslet players and people saying Rhinos reserves are way off, apart from Moore what have Hunslet done any different this season to any other season when teams have used the system?

Russ,

We were offered 4 players and Hood, Watson and Kleinhorst signed.

Then we were asked to play Richard Moore and Kylie Leuluai.

Then we got Brad Singleton

Then Darryl Griffin was proposed for Hunslet.

Now jahmal Chisholm has signed on.

That's NINE players in all and we have only been going a few weeks so you can see why people talk about "losing independance" whatever that means.

Barry Eaton also envisages if any Leeds lad ends up good enough to play Championship but fails getting an SL contract (Like Dane Manning and Ben Kaye) they could stay and sign for us, so in a few years all the Hunslet squad could conceivably have come from Leeds.

But then Hunslet is in Leeds so that's fine by me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russ,

We were offered 4 players and Hood, Watson and Kleinhorst signed.

Then we were asked to play Richard Moore and Kylie Leuluai.

Then we got Brad Singleton

Then Darryl Griffin was proposed for Hunslet.

Now jahmal Chisholm has signed on.

That's NINE players in all and we have only been going a few weeks so you can see why people talk about "losing independance" whatever that means.

Barry Eaton also envisages if any Leeds lad ends up good enough to play Championship but fails getting an SL contract (Like Dane Manning and Ben Kaye) they could stay and sign for us, so in a few years all the Hunslet squad could conceivably have come from Leeds.

But then Hunslet is in Leeds so that's fine by me :)

Yes but what im saying is we can only use 5 at once which is around 30% of our matchday squad and so far have only used Richard Moore that has been a regular Super League player, Leuluai never happened which to be honest im quite glad about because it does nothing for the championship as that was only ever going to be one week. But i dont see why Hunslet using the like of Keinhorst,Hood,Singleton,Chisholm,Watson is making us a reserve team, we dont have to pick these players, surely a Rhinos reserve team wouldnt have the majority of its squad contracted to Hunslet? If the day comes when Hunslet do become a feeder club for Leeds then i will give up on the game, but to say that has happened now is way off the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the day comes when Hunslet do become a feeder club for Leeds then i will give up on the game, but to say that has happened now is way off the mark.

It hasn't happened now Russ, but all the indications are that Leeds and Barry Eaton would like it to happen.

I appreciate the restriction but why not "in for a penny in for a pound"??

Is there really any difference between five players or ten players say?

Either way the club signals an intent to be dependent on Leeds, and abandon any SL pretensions.

One of our Aussies on here spoke about the feeder clubs and the fans were OK with the idea. It may be it just needs "getting used to"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It hasn't happened now Russ, but all the indications are that Leeds and Barry Eaton would like it to happen.

I appreciate the restriction but why not "in for a penny in for a pound"??

Is there really any difference between five players or ten players say?

Either way the club signals an intent to be dependent on Leeds, and abandon any SL pretensions.

One of our Aussies on here spoke about the feeder clubs and the fans were OK with the idea. It may be it just needs "getting used to"

1.Does Baz really want that to happen?

2.Because that would signal the end of Hunslet RLFC

3.I understand what you are saying and if it shifted to ten players then that again would signal the end as far as im concerned.

4.Are we totally dependent on Leeds though? Granted the club has tried to make the playing staff more competitive but if this link up ceased would that be the end? could our current squad cope in the CC without these players?

5.Maybe you could be right there, for me though i could never get used to watching a reserve side so that would be the end for me, im a Leeds United supporter as well and wouldnt be bothered going to watch reserves at Elland Road.

I suppose that if we did away with DR altogether we may go back to the usual sides at the top of CC and usual suspects at the bottom, i have never been a fan of DR at all but i wouldnt want us to drop down to CC1 being the "heroes" like Barrow, thats not intended as a dig at Barrow either kid ;) but if its good enough for most of the teams in CC its good enough for Hunslet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. So Blackpool Hawk is a liar, and Stephen Ball hadn't a clue about finances.

2. Don't talk rubbish. "Good management" doesn't guarantee any commercial organisation success. The fact is fans don't want to watch the club losing all the time, sponsors won't sponsor Hunslet and decent players don't want to sign.

It's a lazy argument to just point to Skolars and Gateshead and say "they can do it". They exist away from the M62 and they have their own ways of surviving that can't always be emulated in places like Hunslet where the Warriors/Leeds can take support and can attract local sponsorship away from Hunslet.

Bramley were managed by businessmen who did all they could and had to give up. They weren't "poor managers", Ronnie Teeman went to great lengths to explain all the pressures that led to the clubs demise. Then in came management that worked very hard and very smart, but I haven't noticed Bramley back in the Championship have you??

3. Here's the short lazy way - find a rich man

Here's another short lazy way - sign a load of Aussies (erm with a rich man)

What is the noble hard working and long way Hunslet should take then??

Yours is a lazy post as you don't say, you just criticise?

You tell the club on here what they SHOULD be doing - go on I dare you :D

I feel Rugby League clubs have and still do waste too much money on players. I feel clubs need to be more realistic. Would Hunslet fold without Leeds "help"? Depends if they think they want to stay/push to be a Championship club. Hunslet cant afford that now. But maybe in 5 or 10 years they could depending on things. Maybe if they accepted that they cant really afford to play at Championship level and aim to be a well run Championship 1 club then they will survive but on less crowds and spend money or more money on pushing into schools or spending money on marketing.

Hunslet like all rugby league clubs have overspent on players and what the money they have had likely could have been better spent over the years. But if clubs are not in a position to currently be a SL or Championship level then they need to accept that and then work on a strategy which will help them try and get there in future. Featherstone a few years ago was on thier backside. Bust and with no future. relegated in 2005. Crowds of less than 1000. But they made some tough decisions. They brought in some good management to help turn things around. With help from the fan base they have turned things around big style and are not just one of the best run clubs outside SL but in the game as a whole. But Fev, after getting relegated or after going bust, didnt attempt to live in a world they didnt belong. They made the hard yards and made some harsh short term decisions which in the mid to long term has seen them come good. Now I dont expect Hunslet or any club to think they will automatically be rewarded with the success that Fev have if they made some tough decisuions like Fev did. But its about making things better in the long term and making certain decisions on how you will get there. Right now I dont think Hunslet have done that. I feel the decison to simply be a dumping ground for Leeds is short term thinking. I dont have a problem that Hood. Keinhorst etc are at Hunslet on DR. The problem is for me is when Achurch and Moore etc just come in and play one or two games then ###### off again. What exactly are Hunslet aiming to be in 5 or 10 years? For me they have just this short term thinking that they MUST be in the Championship at any cost. Is life in Championship 1 really that bad? How come gateshead and London Skolars survived on way lower gates and spent far more than Hunslet have on travelling all these years? I havent called anybody a liar but I will say that maybe they are over reacting and that Hunslet could survive without the link with Leeds. For me if that was my club I couldnt follow or put money its way as it has sold it soul and has no incentive to be a better club long term. As I said there is nothing wrong with having and using the DR system. But do it properly like Workington and give your players the chance to prove themselves. If i was a player i would rather join a club where I know I will be given a fair chance of getting regular game time and money rather than facing the prospect of being left out justbecause a Leeds players is dropped. Thats just my opinion but I hear a few players are not happy with things with the way certain clubs are doing things with the DR arrangement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Featherstone a few years ago was on thier backside. Bust and with no future. relegated in 2005. Crowds of less than 1000. But they made some tough decisions. They brought in some good management to help turn things around. With help from the fan base they have turned things around big style and are not just one of the best run clubs outside SL but in the game as a whole. But Fev, after getting relegated or after going bust, didnt attempt to live in a world they didnt belong. They made the hard yards and made some harsh short term decisions which in the mid to long term has seen them come good.

"tough decisions" "good management" "help from fans".....

You are ignoring the money Mr. Campbell bestowed on them, the money Mr. Nahaboo is bestowing on them and the debts they have run up in the accounts that Griff has spoken about so often.......

Once again you conveniently mistake gifts of money as "good management".

Nobody wanted to give Bramley or Hunslet the bundles of £20 notes you mistakenly call "good management".

I repeat myself so often on here because people don't want to accept the facts and many of the struggling Championship clubs have excellent businessmen behind them and if not superb supporters groups who work their socks off for their clubs as L'Angelo has had to remind people.

But the idea "hard work" and "good management" can raise the prospects of clubs heavily overshadowed by Superleague neighbours in a game where paying fans and quality players are in massive short supply is mere sloganising.

The people behind the York's Hunslet's, Swinton's and Rochdale's are not lazy, are not "bad managers" and do work very hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunslet cant afford (championship) now. But maybe in 5 or 10 years they could depending on things. Maybe if they accepted that they cant really afford to play at Championship level and aim to be a well run Championship 1 club then they will survive but on less crowds and spend money or more money on pushing into schools or spending money on marketing.

Just admit you are wrong here.

Kids don't want to know Hunslet with Leeds up the road. Across the piece they don't want to know small semi pro RL clubs that's why the Championship is getting known as an old mans league. What are Hunslet supposed to do in Schools? What is the club supposed to "Market" to people?

Third tier Rugby?? Again your living in a dreamworld where you think "marketing" can make people want to watch and aspire to play for a third rate club when there's the biggest club in Britain up the road.

The stuff about "spent too much money on players" is a nonsense.Was this the sparse budget we spent coming second to bottom in both divisions in recent years. If you don't spend money on players you don't get the results, if you don't get the results your crowds drop. How much less than next to nothing do you suggest we should have spent??

You suggest Hunslet should "aim to be a well run Championship 1 club then they will survive". Were you not listening to Blackpool Hawk who runs things who made it clear CC1 Rugby would kill the club?

It's no argument to say Skolars and Gateshead have survived, they are just as cash strapped and they too have gone down the DR road, so there's no difference here. If there is it may be that someone at Skolars has a bit of money to pay for the team coach, and Hunslet don't. It may be a director at Gateshead has a business and puts a few quid in.

The idea all these DR clubs should just "pull their socks up" remains a lazy post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Does Baz (Barry Eaton) really want that to happen because that would signal the end of Hunslet RLFC

2. Could our current squad cope in the CC without these players?

3. Are we totally dependent on Leeds though?

1. He was clear in his vision for a very close link up with Leeds in his interview by RL world. Hunslet were to be a integral part of a joint player pathway. Eaton is a professional RL coach not a Hunslet fan, so he's understandably want close links with the top club.

2. The squad last year only won two games, so far this one has only won one game with DR players of a decent quality. It's my mere opinion we would struggle badly if we went "independent" again. Best ask Blackpool Hawk.

3. It's all about money. The club loses games hand over fist and the fans don't turn up so there's no money and a wage bill to pay. The DR thing relieves the club of a wedge of the wage bill and gives them the competitiveness to possibly attract more fans, but DR may be a turn off for the fans anyway.

So this is a last throw of the dice, but BH is clear that dropping to CC1 will be a killer. How many fans would turn up for Hunslet.v.Gloucester university?

It wouldn't matter if Leeds were paying the wage bill in full though would it and that could be the extent of the dependance.

In 1973 we lost our fixtures against clubs like Leeds when we went to two divisions, it was a killer for such as Bramley. Losing fixtures to Batley and Dewsbury if we went down to the third tier would be a double killer for the club.

I can see how if this went too far it would turn you off watching the club, but the principle here is dependance, and not a "number of players". This red herring is an attempt by the top CC clubs not to be knocked off the top. We have Championship clubs coming to the end of a road, having to take a new path that fans may not go down. But as I say a Hunslet.v. Gloucester game next year could be attended by 100 fans, but as long as Leeds are paying the bill......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the the likes of Fev, Fax, Leigh and Sheff don't want to be knocked off their perch, and I can completely understand why.

You also continually leave Barrow out of the 'top 4' argument, maybe because it doesn't fit, but Barrow are in the same situation and were supposed to be at the same meeting, but the game on Thursday night meant they couldn't attend. Barrow are exactly the same as Fev, but they aren't at the top of the table, but their presence in the Championship this season is being compromised by DR.

They've set budgets and signed players with what they believe the playing field is in front of them for the coming season, and also knew they had to start the season with a number of players out through injuries.

Now with relatively few weeks to go before the start of the season, the whole economics and player roster dynamics has been blasted wide open and undermined by DR arrangements that are able to be exploited.

Clubs have 'signed' a number of players from SL clubs.

Other clubs have access to any number of SL standard players, SL squad players and SL quality youngsters.

I'm not a Barrow fan but I'd be extremely concerned. I'm not a Leigh fan but I'd be just as concerned. Clubs are trying to get results and build fanbases for the coming season.

And, we are not even at the crucial parts of the season where :

a. the Challenge Cup starts and there will be conflicts of interests between who is registered for which club for CC purposes. I hope the RFL are ready with the guidelines in place and checks ready to be made

b. injuries kick-in at both the SL and Champ club

c, the latter third of the season when jostling for position regarding relegation, play-offs and top of the table becomes more visible. IMO any game that is sufficiently influenced by a SL player just brought in for a single, crucial game then renders the end table/positions to be false.

Swinton v Barrow - penultimate game of the season perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the the likes of Fev, Fax, Leigh and Sheff don't want to be knocked off their perch, and I can completely understand why.

You also continually leave Barrow out of the 'top 4' argument, maybe because it doesn't fit, but Barrow are in the same situation.

I don't see that?

The top four independent clubs don't want DR to go so far as to affect their dominance in the Championship which in turn means that three of them dominate the crowds list.

Barrow in contrast have not gone along the route of DR and choose to be independent, and are prepared to risk relegation. Their record in the third tier last year was crowds of 1,400 and I'd guess they believe as a club they can go down and bounce back up again on half decent gates using the decent quality local semi pro players they have up there.

Hunslet is not Barrow, Swinton is not Barrow. Each of the clubs have their own unique circumstances in terms of fans, players, sponsors, money men etc etc. Each of the clubs must make their own choices, each club must do what it thinks best for itself.

But five clubs wish to impose their own choices on the other nine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see that?

The top four independent clubs don't want DR to go so far as to affect their dominance in the Championship which in turn means that three of them dominate the crowds list.

Barrow in contrast have not gone along the route of DR and choose to be independent, and are prepared to risk relegation. Their record in the third tier last year was crowds of 1,400 and I'd guess they believe as a club they can go down and bounce back up again on half decent gates using the decent quality local semi pro players they have up there.

Hunslet is not Barrow, Swinton is not Barrow. Each of the clubs have their own unique circumstances in terms of fans, players, sponsors, money men etc etc. Each of the clubs must make their own choices, each club must do what it thinks best for itself.

But five clubs wish to impose their own choices on the other nine.

Of course Swinton and Barrow and Hunslet are different.

However, there has to be guidance and rules and regulations about their inclusion and operation within the Championship structure. If there are exclusions and exceptional circumstances then these have to be explained and be transparent. All clubs must follow the guidelines. We don't make separate rules for Hunslet because of reason A nor Barrow because of reason B.

At the minute the RFL says it has all been agreed, we'll see how it goes and makes decisions later in the season. A bit too wishy-washy PR speak for me, no meat on the bones, allowing unrest or dissent amongst fans and clubs themselves to evolve, as we see in the '4 club document'.

I've just read it again. Nobody is being frog-marched into signing anything. There are no imposed rules here, its a proposal (that granted they feel strongly about, and is written in that manner) but only fools would sign it if either their board, officials and supporters did not agree with it. Clubs have a choice.

I agree with most of whats in that document.

I'd maybe have the top 20 salary cap players being excluded replaced by top 22?

Totally agree about the play-off eligibility and I'd hope that the RFL make clubs and supporters aware of what will happen to the play-off and Challenge Cup competitions before they start, and not let it happen and think about it later, as it seems now. The RFL are quite happy to say how they are investigating those players that have Visa's and how they can be DR'd, but not the integrity of competitions.

My club has a DR arrangement and I don't see them disagreeing with that document. I don't want to see an established SL player make a cameo/match fitness appearance, even if it puts a 100 on the gate.

The sustainability and future of clubs such as Hunslet and Swinton shouldn't be dictated to by how successful they can make the DR arrangement work this season. The RFL and the wider game should care enough to see what has happened to Championship clubs and how support has decreased for some. Supporters have banged on for a few seasons about the inadequacies of the fixture list for example - not enough home games and irregular fixtures, the SL clubs would never have stood for it, so why should Championship clubs have had to. This is another whole area for debate - the SL is the only comp that matters, etc, etc which IMO is one of the main drivers of the current scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sustainability and future of clubs such as Hunslet and Swinton shouldn't be dictated to by how successful they can make the DR arrangement work this season. The RFL and the wider game should care enough to see what has happened to Championship clubs and how support has decreased for some. Supporters have banged on for a few seasons about the inadequacies of the fixture list for example - not enough home games and irregular fixtures, the SL clubs would never have stood for it, so why should Championship clubs have had to. This is another whole area for debate - the SL is the only comp that matters, etc, etc which IMO is one of the main drivers of the current scenario.

It's an excellent summary. Champinship clubs are having to stand a lot because they are not SL clubs who attract the £90M contract that saves the game from possible death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Swinton and Barrow and Hunslet are different.

However, there has to be guidance and rules and regulations about their inclusion and operation within the Championship structure. If there are exclusions and exceptional circumstances then these have to be explained and be transparent. All clubs must follow the guidelines. We don't make separate rules for Hunslet because of reason A nor Barrow because of reason B.

At the minute the RFL says it has all been agreed, we'll see how it goes and makes decisions later in the season. A bit too wishy-washy PR speak for me, no meat on the bones, allowing unrest or dissent amongst fans and clubs themselves to evolve, as we see in the '4 club document'.

I've just read it again. Nobody is being frog-marched into signing anything. There are no imposed rules here, its a proposal (that granted they feel strongly about, and is written in that manner) but only fools would sign it if either their board, officials and supporters did not agree with it. Clubs have a choice.

I agree with most of whats in that document.

I'd maybe have the top 20 salary cap players being excluded replaced by top 22?

Totally agree about the play-off eligibility and I'd hope that the RFL make clubs and supporters aware of what will happen to the play-off and Challenge Cup competitions before they start, and not let it happen and think about it later, as it seems now. The RFL are quite happy to say how they are investigating those players that have Visa's and how they can be DR'd, but not the integrity of competitions.

My club has a DR arrangement and I don't see them disagreeing with that document. I don't want to see an established SL player make a cameo/match fitness appearance, even if it puts a 100 on the gate.

The sustainability and future of clubs such as Hunslet and Swinton shouldn't be dictated to by how successful they can make the DR arrangement work this season. The RFL and the wider game should care enough to see what has happened to Championship clubs and how support has decreased for some. Supporters have banged on for a few seasons about the inadequacies of the fixture list for example - not enough home games and irregular fixtures, the SL clubs would never have stood for it, so why should Championship clubs have had to. This is another whole area for debate - the SL is the only comp that matters, etc, etc which IMO is one of the main drivers of the current scenario.

Thats an excellent read Shaun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017