Archived

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

flyingking

Nigel Wood- London must improve

355 posts in this topic

If you can't see the advantages then you are not looking for them. I would say a clear majority are in favour and you very rarely hear a view that wishes us to to go back to playing in winter.

The governing bodies job is not to do what the fans want but to do what is best for the game. There are many walks of life where we aren't consulted because that isn't how life works. Leadership and vision is what is important especially because people are naturally conservative and dislike uncertainty.

i wonder how many fans were consulted when they brought the play the ball in, the 6 tackle rule or reduced the number of players to 13? How many were consulted when they split into 2 divisions and brought in promotion and relegation? I suspect that you are only annoyed because it is something you disagree with, which you clearly do despite claiming to be ambivalent.

I preferred Winter rugby as well. Crowd increases since 1996 have not been that great considering:

1/ the game went fully pro in 1996

2/ most clubs have had new stadia since then

Perhaps crowds would have been much bigger if we'd stayed in winter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder how many fans were consulted when they brought the play the ball in, the 6 tackle rule or reduced the number of players to 13? How many were consulted when they split into 2 divisions and brought in promotion and relegation? I suspect that you are only annoyed because it is something you disagree with, which you clearly do despite claiming to be ambivalent.

Isnt this lack of consultation a big problem with RL in a way. Whilst some changes were good ones, others have not been. We should thoroughly trial out big rule changes and study what the effects would be at all levels of the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt this lack of consultation a big problem with RL in a way. Whilst some changes were good ones, others have not been. We should thoroughly trial out big rule changes and study what the effects would be at all levels of the game

how would this consultation work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I preferred Winter rugby as well. Crowd increases since 1996 have not been that great considering:

1/ the game went fully pro in 1996

2/ most clubs have had new stadia since then

Perhaps crowds would have been much bigger if we'd stayed in winter?

I still think as a whole that the game is poorly marketed. A hell of a lot more could be done on match day marketing for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No not as a condition. Wakeling said London were one of Sky's preferred teams but there was no compulsion on the RFL to include them. However, just to clarify, he was clear that London were only of any real value to Sky as a successful club, so it doesnt neccessarily apply to the current situation.

I am deeply indebted to you for clearing this up for me. The anti-london brigade peddle a myth that London have no value to SKY at all and SKY are completely ambivolent towards the capital and would not bat an eyelid if the RFL/SLE simply ejected London from the competition.

Sure SKY don't want a failing London but only this month Nigel Wood was talking about how important it was for the game to London to succeed in the capital. Wakelins comments and Wood's comments have many years between them but the record of the RFL persisting with London (probably for more reasons than just to please SKY) is clear and warrants some sort of explanation.

Again thanks for this, I'll seek out the book. In the meantime hopefully the anti-London brigade will stop repeating how worthless London's presence is as though if they say it enough it must therefore be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A referendum with parallel trials

amongst who?

when would these referenda be invoked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If rfl are serious about london they need to man up. In fact the rugby football league need to come clean on its agenda. Talk of the two tier super league seems to be gathering pace . We need a statement from the rfl to sort this out. If we did have the two tier ten team super league surely london should be given a team in the top league and one in the second league if we are serious about league and london.Stadium for the broncos is an issue I would look at getting a smaller stadium I quite like the new river stadium where the skolars play .If both were to share that stadium and work slowly together to develop and improve its facilities. Branding both sides is another issue I would change the broncos to the london roos and the skolars to the london kiwis. If both in the two tier set up im sure these two names could attratch more fans and crucially more sponsorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If rfl are serious about london they need to man up. In fact the rugby football league need to come clean on its agenda. Talk of the two tier super league seems to be gathering pace . We need a statement from the rfl to sort this out. If we did have the two tier ten team super league surely london should be given a team in the top league and one in the second league if we are serious about league and london.Stadium for the broncos is an issue I would look at getting a smaller stadium I quite like the new river stadium where the skolars play .If both were to share that stadium and work slowly together to develop and improve its facilities. Branding both sides is another issue I would change the broncos to the london roos and the skolars to the london kiwis. If both in the two tier set up im sure these two names could attratch more fans and crucially more sponsorship.

No - would be better if the RFL bought a joint share in Lionel Road AND bought the new River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Branding both sides is another issue I would change the broncos to the london roos and the skolars to the london kiwis. If both in the two tier set up im sure these two names could attratch more fans and crucially more sponsorship.

I had to check my calendar when I read this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again thanks for this, I'll seek out the book. In the meantime hopefully the anti-London brigade will stop repeating how worthless London's presence is as though if they say it enough it must therefore be true.

I'm not anti London by any stretch of the imagination but the current club does nothing for the sport of RL other than be a flagship for the game in London. In fact I'd go so far as to say in their present incarnation they are worthless. A dying club that will shuffle off this mortal coil if nothing is done sooner rather than later to revive it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - would be better if the RFL bought a joint share in Lionel Road AND bought the new River

so these referenda then. How would it work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not anti London by any stretch of the imagination but the current club does nothing for the sport of RL other than be a flagship for the game in London. In fact I'd go so far as to say in their present incarnation they are worthless. A dying club that will shuffle off this mortal coil if nothing is done sooner rather than later to revive it.

it's hard to think any different. What' most galling is the huge potential that is not being made the most of.

I think Superten's idea has lot of merit

The New River stadium with some investment could be a belting Rugby, although it's multi use and has an athletics track. Combined investment between League and the uniojn club that plays there-both hav facilities funds, in patrtnership with the council benefit everyone. Putting money into a facility you don't own is a major issue though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am deeply indebted to you for clearing this up for me. The anti-london brigade peddle a myth that London have no value to SKY at all and SKY are completely ambivolent towards the capital and would not bat an eyelid if the RFL/SLE simply ejected London from the competition.

Sure SKY don't want a failing London but only this month Nigel Wood was talking about how important it was for the game to London to succeed in the capital. Wakelins comments and Wood's comments have many years between them but the record of the RFL persisting with London (probably for more reasons than just to please SKY) is clear and warrants some sort of explanation.

Again thanks for this, I'll seek out the book. In the meantime hopefully the anti-London brigade will stop repeating how worthless London's presence is as though if they say it enough it must therefore be true.

Only you could interpret Derwent's statement that way. It's clear that he said that London is only worth something if they are successful and that Sky never had them as a prerequisite.

You have twisted his words to mean that Sky want London at any costs and the RFL are happy to accommodate. But who is surprised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If rfl are serious about london they need to man up. In fact the rugby football league need to come clean on its agenda. Talk of the two tier super league seems to be gathering pace . We need a statement from the rfl to sort this out. If we did have the two tier ten team super league surely london should be given a team in the top league and one in the second league if we are serious about league and london.Stadium for the broncos is an issue I would look at getting a smaller stadium I quite like the new river stadium where the skolars play .If both were to share that stadium and work slowly together to develop and improve its facilities. Branding both sides is another issue I would change the broncos to the london roos and the skolars to the london kiwis. If both in the two tier set up im sure these two names could attratch more fans and crucially more sponsorship.

No.

Broncos are one club, Skolars are another.

They already have dual registered players, if they actually played at the same stadium then Skolars would be Broncos A.

Skolars are a successful side, why drag them down to being the A-team of a failing side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not anti London by any stretch of the imagination but the current club does nothing for the sport of RL other than be a flagship for the game in London. In fact I'd go so far as to say in their present incarnation they are worthless. A dying club that will shuffle off this mortal coil if nothing is done sooner rather than later to revive it.

Well, we are all entitled to our opinion and that one's fair enough. My view is merely shaped by events and comments from the power brokers. SKY did prefer London in SL, they did/do want it to be successful, Lewis pushed so hard for the Broncos it was said that it could have been a point for him to resign on, regardless of anything they always appear to be first pick by the licensing commitee, when Hughes said things were getting too much the RFL stepped in, Hudgell predicted central funding and RL world did an extensive article on how it was primarily expanding the player pool that was important to the game before Nigel Wood came out the other week and underlined how important the capital is.

That's enough for me to form an opinion that the people who run the game see the club as important to the game. Individuals may not like this and explain away all the events and comments above. Variously they are explained away as untrue, myths, never happened, not what was meant etc etc. Looking at it my "humble opinion" is that the game would be a lot better off making London sucesfull rather than just rejecting them.

Where there's a will there's a way and the will may come if Hughes forces the issue by walking away. The RFL/SLE/SKY will have to decide if they want a London, and if so how to make it successful. For me this is a contrived made for TV sport and it should be no problem to contrive to ensure the club has a full salary cap spend and a good coaching team. Where will the money come from?

Well the favourite for 2015 is 12 clubs, so maybe two club will have to stop throwing away money on lost M62 causes and throw it away on a lost southern cause instead :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Broncos are one club, Skolars are another.

They already have dual registered players, if they actually played at the same stadium then Skolars would be Broncos A.

Skolars are a successful side, why drag them down to being the A-team of a failing side?

I see what you mean, but I still think the idea shouldn't be dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so these referenda then. How would it work?

Free vote (fans and players). Bit like voting for someone in a major trade union

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free vote (fans and players). Bit like voting for someone in a major trade union

how do you qualify as a fan?

There are people wo put huge ammounts of money and have massive ammounts of responsibility within the game, surely that should mean that they should call the shots.

On what occassions should this plebiscite be invoked?

How will it be organised and overseen and where will the personnel and finance come from to put it into practice?

wat about age-will children who are fans(whatever your definition is) be allowed to vote?

will all registred players be alloweed to vote?

Who will decide when there is to be one?

How will the all too important wording of the plebiscite be organised and who will do it?

We have a governing body of professional sports administrators in place. getting rid of tem, or circumventing them, even if it were practical(see above for just a few reasons why it isn'), just because they take decisions you don't like is well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free vote (fans and players). Bit like voting for someone in a major trade union

it's a very small bit since votes in trade unions are:

for the election of officials

for industrial action

strictly governed by law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am deeply indebted to you for clearing this up for me. The anti-london brigade peddle a myth that London have no value to SKY at all and SKY are completely ambivolent towards the capital and would not bat an eyelid if the RFL/SLE simply ejected London from the competition.

Sure SKY don't want a failing London but only this month Nigel Wood was talking about how important it was for the game to London to succeed in the capital. Wakelins comments and Wood's comments have many years between them but the record of the RFL persisting with London (probably for more reasons than just to please SKY) is clear and warrants some sort of explanation.

Again thanks for this, I'll seek out the book. In the meantime hopefully the anti-London brigade will stop repeating how worthless London's presence is as though if they say it enough it must therefore be true.

I will save you the problem - Dertwent's is referring to the second paragraph on page 131 of Super League the first 10 years by Phil Caplan and Jonathan R Doidge published in 2006 - Seven years ago.

The canon text on SKY wanting a London club referred to by the Chronicler comes from 153 of Simon Kelners To Jerusalem and Back Published in 1996 - Seventeen years ago

Those who quote BARB stats on here are referring to a sport that only has the minimum requisite two London games per year named early on to get the club out of the way. SKY SPORTS pays for atmosphere for itrs product, hence one of the reasons given by Keith Hogg for herding all fans into the Etihad stand a couple of years ago was at the request of SKY to make it look as if there was a crowd at the game (a request made of certain soccer clubs too according to Keith). SKY wants It's viewer to get caught up in the atmosphere of say a Hull derby, not a 4/5ths empty Twickenham stoop.

So the SKY viewing figurtes - loudly trumpeted on here - are a reflection of the games selling point based on matches between the big M62 clubs not the Broncos. Again I will use the American football analogy which also draws well on SKY but does not encourage people to flock to see the local amateur London Blitz club who are successful

So I think the "London must be in superleague because SKY want it" card somewhat out of date. SKY desired a successful club to broaden the games footprint and that's not what we have and I cannot think SKY would insist on London now that it has a bigger sporting portfolio than 17 years ago for what is to them a regional "filler" sport which does reasonable business in viewing figures as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I think the "London must be in superleague because SKY want it" card somewhat out of date. SKY desired a successful club to broaden the games footprint and that's not what we have and I cannot think SKY would insist on London now that it has a bigger sporting portfolio than 17 years ago for what is to them a regional "filler" sport which does reasonable business in viewing figures as it is.

Indeed, that is the position we have got to but what SKY wanted to see happen with London was still a driving factor in the RFL's attitude to keeping them in. The justification for keeping them in has gone in terms of that aspect of the club. Now the RFL and others point to the importance of the "player pool" and of course the anti-London brigade will scoff at that.

Sky may be disappointed at the events of the last 17 years and given up on London as any sort of a requirement, but you can't look at these things in isolation IMHO. As Canetman comments, big sponsors look at RL as a regional game and often make their choices about RL's value in the sponsorship market place based on how it's just a regional oddity. SKY see it as filler only, Sponsors see it as having no national never mind international depth.

So by all means we can boot London out, we can find another M62 club to replace them, who will do just as badly but at least do it up north. It doesn't personally matter to me but I can't get away from the idea that if it would be good for the game for it to be seen in what is our shop window, to be doing something beyond the M62. The last throw of the dice is yet to come and may not come, but Hudgell suggested central funding, maybe central control.

Questions still remain about what value London still could be if they could compete and get some sort of a crowd in. But for me there is no question that abandoning the capital would be a bad thing for the game. It may be the case that if the Broncos go the SKY contract will not alter, but the effects of pulling the pro club out of the capital in other areas have to be considered as do the knock on effects. It's not a matter of London are completely worthless let's get rid (personal hatred then satisfied). We have a dozen worthless clubs up north on those parameters.

If people disagree with that then why not contact the RFL because they still see mileage in doing as much as they can in London, and were very voiciferous about that earlier this month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last throw of the dice is yet to come and may not come, but Hudgell suggested central funding, maybe central control.

Fantasy land again.

This was already ruled out by Nigel Wood this month but evidently something said by Hudgell last year is more important!

And the words that you forgot to include were "I am sorry for talking bolox about Sky wanting London as a prerequisite for a TV deal in each and every one of my posts and for arrogantly dismissing the opinions of those who said otherwise".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Broncos are one club, Skolars are another.

They already have dual registered players, if they actually played at the same stadium then Skolars would be Broncos A.

Skolars are a successful side, why drag them down to being the A-team of a failing side?

If we put both in super league how would one become a feeder for the other ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we put both in super league how would one become a feeder for the other ?

This is Parky-level of delusion.

a/ there isn't support in the area for one SL side let alone two

b/ Skolars currently average about 300 fans per game, do you think this is enough for SL?

c/ the stadium capacity is only about 1,500

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