Archived

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

flyingking

Nigel Wood- London must improve

355 posts in this topic

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, March 14, 2013 - No reason given

I've no idea who Old Rover or Lowfields are apart from the fact that they post on here and on the Fev site - where if you check I haven't posted for months.

If you'd read my post you'd see that I include Catalan in the "heartlands" because they are from an area where the game is strong - a heatland in other words - hardly parochial Chris - although I do admit to having been to Perignan, indeed I've spent many holidays in Catalunya. I'm a big advocate of Rugby League with non RL fans - but you wouldn't know that when making generalisations about someone you've never met. As I said earlier if we can't have an honest disagreement about the way the game is run without insults then it's a poor do. BTW you've never had a gratuitous insult from me - don't get me started.

As I said if the cap fits wear it

old rover the guy with the ###### in a swimming pool as his avatar: he posts on this forum as well.

Guess whom his avatar refers to

I've been on the end of abuse from these individuals and others for years not months: low field has even done it by pm

Share this post


Link to post

Assuming that Sky would agree to pay the same for a 12-club league as it would for a 14-club league you mean.

If London are vital to the sky tv contract and expansion of the game then this is just an idea that would guarantee there continued presence in sl and possibly give them a good chance of attaining some success on the field

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt that! I watched the game and the contingent from Hull was small, tucked away in one corner of the main stand. I'd say London's home support increased from the previous week so it was even worse that they performed to the standard of a pub team. There are a number of London players who deserve nothing but the sack.

Were you at the game? I was and Trojan's assessment is not far off the mark. Most of the East stand had Hull KR fans in it, it was just that sky showed the small pocket of Rovers fans who chose to sat at the end.

Whats worse about the home support is that it was made up to a significant extent of young lads in tracksuits from various youth teams - obviously on freebies.

The club is managed very badly. They should have moved grounds and had a fresh start.

Interestingly, i have also noticed that every single club is bringing much less away fans to London than say 10 years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, March 14, 2013 - No reason given

As I said if the cap fits wear it

old rover the guy with the ###### in a swimming pool as his avatar: he posts on this forum as well.

Guess whom his avatar refers to

I've been on the end of abuse from these individuals and others for years not months: low field has even done it by pm

Have you had any abuse from me Chris? No! But I've had plenty of name calling from you - I think you should a abide by your own maxim - I believe the Fev shop sells flat caps!

Share this post


Link to post

I was agreeing with you.

I suspect many fans have no clue what Wood has done, and if they were responsible for his appraisal would have something like:

"stop being nasty to my club and stop eating pies..."

understood. apologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, March 14, 2013 - No reason given

Have you had any abuse from me Chris? No! But I've had plenty of name calling from you - I think you should a abide by your own maxim - I believe the Fev shop sells flat caps!

no you haven't

Share this post


Link to post

Because with 14 clubs, there are 14 sets of fans buying subscriptions plus they get to pick two games out of seven not six. Not to mention that 12 means the return of loop fixtures.

I really don't think it works like that, but even if it did then losing two clubs who average 5,000 home fans would mean Sky losing about 2,000 subscribers. I don't think that would worry them too much.

IIRC the SL clubs receive 1.2m p/a so losing two clubs would mean you could distribute an extra 180k to each of the 12 remaining clubs, with London picking up the remaining 240k. So there'd be no need for the extra rounds. You've then got four spare weekends so you could hold England v Exiles / Wales v France on two of them so Sky get some games, and then shorten the season with the other two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think it works like that, but even if it did then losing two clubs who average 5,000 home fans would mean Sky losing about 2,000 subscribers. I don't think that would worry them too much.

People don't buy SKY subscriptions to watch just RL, therefore reducing the number of teams in a competition does not have a direct loss of subscribers.

if I could afford SKY I would buy it regardless and I'm sure most people would react the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, March 14, 2013 - No reason given

I've been on the end of abuse from these individuals and others for years not months: low field has even done it by pm

Then you must post even more, report abuse and delete these people's PM's.

I'm a stickler for the rules :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, March 14, 2013 - No reason given

Then you must post even more, report abuse and delete these people's PM's.

I'm a stickler for the rules :lol:

Done it although the avatar remains

Share this post


Link to post

If London are vital to the sky tv contract and expansion of the game then this is just an idea that would guarantee there continued presence in sl and possibly give them a good chance of attaining some success on the field

I doubt London are vital or Woods would hardly have said what he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think it works like that, but even if it did then losing two clubs who average 5,000 home fans would mean Sky losing about 2,000 subscribers. I don't think that would worry them too much.

IIRC the SL clubs receive 1.2m p/a so losing two clubs would mean you could distribute an extra 180k to each of the 12 remaining clubs, with London picking up the remaining 240k. So there'd be no need for the extra rounds. You've then got four spare weekends so you could hold England v Exiles / Wales v France on two of them so Sky get some games, and then shorten the season with the other two.

You have forgotten that losing two clubs means losing two home games.

The thing is with just the one bidder for SL, Sky pay whatever they want for SL. Every company in such a position pays the minimum that they have to. In the case of Sky that is the minimum needed to run a full time league. Now they might choose to keep paying the same if London meant all that much to them but I've seen nothing in the last 6-7 years that makes me think that they care about London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that reason really stacks up.

Do Sky sell many subscriptions in France based on Catalans being in SuperLeague? Or in London because of the Broncos?

No, but we wouldn't be getting rid of either Catalans or Broncos. We'd probably cut Wakey and Cas. Now those clubs do sell subscriptions, probably not a huge amount but more than the side that we would be sacrificing them for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, i have also noticed that every single club is bringing much less away fans to London than say 10 years ago

I'm sure that is not a surprise to any individual at all.

Saints brought a hell of a lot less to the HJ last Friday night, so the numbers travelling to London will clearly be affected if people are struggling to afford to travel 7 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, March 14, 2013 - No reason given

Then you must post even more, report abuse and delete these people's PM's.

I'm a stickler for the rules :lol:

just so you know,he was never named in the swimming pool post, he deecided that the cap fitted and he's still wearing it. also , if he would like to take a proper look at my avatar he will see a chocolate bar and discarded wrapper. he sees what he wants to see. i'll leave you to it now.

Share this post


Link to post

You have forgotten that losing two clubs means losing two home games.

The thing is with just the one bidder for SL, Sky pay whatever they want for SL. Every company in such a position pays the minimum that they have to. In the case of Sky that is the minimum needed to run a full time league. Now they might choose to keep paying the same if London meant all that much to them but I've seen nothing in the last 6-7 years that makes me think that they care about London.

I haven't forgotten anything. I explained that each club would get more central funding, and that the spare weekends could be better used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't forgotten anything. I explained that each club would get more central funding, and that the spare weekends could be better used.

More funding (assuming that Sky didn't cut the funds#) but less gate receipts. What's the point?

# You are suggesting not only that Sky accept a league with fewer clubs and thus fewer subscribers, less choice of games to show and now four fewer rounds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, March 14, 2013 - No reason given

just so you know,he was never named in the swimming pool post, he deecided that the cap fitted and he's still wearing it. also , if he would like to take a proper look at my avatar he will see a chocolate bar and discarded wrapper. he sees what he wants to see. i'll leave you to it now.

Disingenuous at best downright dishonest at worst

You know damn well what you said and what your moronic avatar refers to

Share this post


Link to post

More funding (assuming that Sky didn't cut the funds#) but less gate receipts. What's the point?

# You are suggesting not only that Sky accept a league with fewer clubs and thus fewer subscribers, less choice of games to show and now four fewer rounds!

2 fewer teams means nothing to Sky because it's extremely doubtful that anyone would cancel their subscriptions. Less choice of games? Sky go out of their way to pick games they think will be competitive, which is even more true of a 12 team league. Yes, four fewer rounds of SL, but two of those weekends will be filled with internationals instead. So only two fewer weeks of games for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 fewer teams means nothing to Sky because it's extremely doubtful that anyone would cancel their subscriptions. Less choice of games? Sky go out of their way to pick games they think will be competitive, which is even more true of a 12 team league. Yes, four fewer rounds of SL, but two of those weekends will be filled with internationals instead. So only two fewer weeks of games for them.

You might think that the above constitutes such an obvious improvement that Sky would be happy about it but you can't know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might think that the above constitutes such an obvious improvement that Sky would be happy about it but you can't know that.

Same as you can't know that they'll lose subscribers, etc. I do believe that's why boards like this exist: to throw ideas around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as you can't know that they'll lose subscribers, etc. I do believe that's why boards like this exist: to throw ideas around.

I don't claim to know that I said that you can't just assume that you can reduce the league to 12 clubs without effecting the value of the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, March 14, 2013 - No reason given

no you haven't

Chris that's what you do with anyone you disagree with. Last year I posted that Garry Schofield thought that the game should return to P&R. A view I know you don't agree with, so did you do a forensic deconstruction of his argument? No you said roughly "what does he know he's been done for drink driving!"

You supported the stupid Sobart deal by saying you thought is was a great deal - so great that the RFL abandoned it ASAP.

It's you that's narrow minded because you're neve prepared to admit when you're wrong.

You accuse me of being narrow minded, when all I am is realistic. The game is 118 years old this summer, and in all that time it has tried to expand outside its traditional areas, and all that time (as far as the pro game goes) it has failed. There was a Not the Nine O'clock News song "failed in Wales" that could have been applied to RL it's been tried so many times there. WE've tried in the North East and in London, in Kent, Essex, Nottingham, we haven't really made a go of it in Sheffield. I hope Hemel are a succes because for gods sake they've really shown some enthusiasm and deserve it. But I reckon London is a drain on the game - a drain the game can't afford. The game grew strong when we had a siege mentality against Union, unfortunately that seige mentality, and Union's increased canniness after 1895 has meant that their game is established in most of the UK and almost impossible to compete with - because of tribal loyalties - that must be the explanation because what I've seen recently on the field has been ######. Our game is brilliant. But we are ####### into wind IMO trying to force it on areas where there is no real market.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, March 14, 2013 - No reason given

Chris that's what you do with anyone you disagree with. Last year I posted that Garry Schofield thought that the game should return to P&R. A view I know you don't agree with, so did you do a forensic deconstruction of his argument? No you said roughly "what does he know he's been done for drink driving!"

You supported the stupid Sobart deal by saying you thought is was a great deal - so great that the RFL abandoned it ASAP.

It's you that's narrow minded because you're neve prepared to admit when you're wrong.

You accuse me of being narrow minded, when all I am is realistic. The game is 118 years old this summer, and in all that time it has tried to expand outside its traditional areas, and all that time (as far as the pro game goes) it has failed. There was a Not the Nine O'clock News song "failed in Wales" that could have been applied to RL it's been tried so many times there. WE've tried in the North East and in London, in Kent, Essex, Nottingham, we haven't really made a go of it in Sheffield. I hope Hemel are a succes because for gods sake they've really shown some enthusiasm and deserve it. But I reckon London is a drain on the game - a drain the game can't afford. The game grew strong when we had a siege mentality against Union, unfortunately that seige mentality, and Union's increased canniness after 1895 has meant that their game is established in most of the UK and almost impossible to compete with - because of tribal loyalties - that must be the explanation because what I've seen recently on the field has been ######. Our game is brilliant. But we are ####### into wind IMO trying to force it on areas where there is no real market.

Geoff what has this stuff got to do with me being personally abusive to you? I haven't been, but I have disagreed strongly with you on various subjects. Your allegation is groundless.

You and I have a fair bit in common IMHO but I'm not going to say what you want to hear on the basis of that. I'll put forward my genuinely held views.

I thought the Stobart deal was an interesting innovation in the traditions of the game and that it had a lot going for it. It didn't work out. Sometimes things don't work out, there are no guarantees.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad someone has finally come out and said this, but I don't honestly believe the RFL would ever throw them out of the league unless they opted to go like Crusaders.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017