Archived

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

The Daddy

Martyn Sadler and Andy Wilson hint at behind the scenes restructure of Super League

210 posts in this topic

Probably not because of myopic self interest. If they had a broader vision than MY  TEAM RLFC then they would see that a wider spread of clubs over a wider area all being solid on a smaller operating budget would be better than a reduced rump competition which, due to two French Clubs, would lead to a general reduction in gates, even more so if London were retained.

 

They should examine the workings of the NFL and even the NRL whereby expansion is not shunned, reducing numbers is not now the policy and sharing revenues for the greater good leads to more prosperity for all..

 

However, as you rightly say, don't hold ypur breath

Your club is as myopic as any other,  when they were throwing £thousands at buying promotion, how many £thousands did they throw to other clubs to help them join your three wheeled bandwagon.

 

The Cougars are as mercenary as all other clubs, sod off with your holey than thou  claptrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. IIRC they turned a £30K profit recently on a what? £900K turnover?. That leaves them £millions short of the money needed to be a Super League club. Just how it is - not having a go at a fine club.

2. That certain team was IMHO being pressurised by the RFL (who sorted the ground out) and Superleague (who would have bought Bradford and I think encouraged the embargo on signing their players).

No point having a go at Bradford clearly the RFL/SL were behind their rehabilitation because had Bradford gone there but for the grace of god would go the other top clubs above Mr. Hudgells "glass ceiling".

You can learn a lot when men in top positions in the game are open and honest....

 

 Re point one,obviously if they were in SL they would have a million plus to add to those figures so their turnover would be in the 2 million range, so not as bad as you are making out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The RFL are not about to introduce new clubs into SL areas."

But by introducing a second tier to the competition, that is exactly what Super League would be doing. Not that it would do such a thing, but could you imagine the NRL introducing a second tier, made up of Sydney clubs, and then re-directing funding from existing NRL clubs to this second-tier?

 

Are there not plans to do exactly that with the North Sydney bears at Gosford?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your club is as myopic as any other,  when they were throwing £thousands at buying promotion, how many £thousands did they throw to other clubs to help them join your three wheeled bandwagon.

 

The Cougars are as mercenary as all other clubs, sod off with your holey than thou  claptrap.

 

I think that post is the very definition of myopic not to mention parochial and small minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that post is the very definition of myopic not to mention parochial and small minded.

Dude, please don't forget that he's a wise old sage of this board, and as such is permitted to post any old drivel and we should take it as received wisdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that post is the very definition of myopic not to mention parochial and small minded.

But he'll get away with it because he is part of the click on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he'll get away with it because he is part of the click on this forum.

 a few of us were discussing this via PMs earlier..... :O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and we all agreed that the rhubarb triangle flat-earth CLIQUE does exist!!! :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and we all agreed that the rhubarb triangle flat-earth CLIQUE does exist!!! :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

I see you are easily pleased but there again any who thinks the RFL are doing a great job is easily pleased. OK Padge got away with it so I will have a try, SOD OFF with your I'm all right jack claptrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, it just doesn't carry the same authority when written with a Yorkshire accent. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been that much thread drift that I have no idea what this thread is about anymore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, it just doesn't carry the same authority when written with a Yorkshire accent. :P

Can't be assed to argue with thi my owd cocker. Offt to big fellas to watch to reet honest RL clubs slug it art. Will be a reet game and thel be more fans there than at London n Salford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear.  After a Sunday morning meeting of the TRL clique, we spent two hours doing the obligatory grumbling about the state of the world, RL, referees, gurning managers and why RL internationals are so poorly attended while giving our excuses for not attending the next 10 years worth of them.  Once done, we covered the subjects above and came to the following conclusions:

 

- telling someone to sod off isn't exactly serious abuse and is borderline acceptable, depending on context.  It's the subjective opinion of the TRL moderating clique if we decide that it's not acceptable on an individual basis.

- just because someone doesn't agree with you and others agree with them doesn't make a clique, conspiracy theories are generally just that.  There's a reason why forums work, it's usually because like-minded individuals decide to hang around.  They don't have to agree all the time and can have some pretty serious disagreements but generally it's like real life; it'd be boring to agree with everyone on everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. After a Sunday morning meeting of the TRL clique, we spent two hours doing the obligatory grumbling about the state of the world, RL, referees, gurning managers and why RL internationals are so poorly attended while giving our excuses for not attending the next 10 years worth of them. Once done, we covered the subjects above and came to the following conclusions:

- telling someone to sod off isn't exactly serious abuse and is borderline acceptable, depending on context. It's the subjective opinion of the TRL moderating clique if we decide that it's not acceptable on an individual basis.

- just because someone doesn't agree with you and others agree with them doesn't make a clique, conspiracy theories are generally just that. There's a reason why forums work, it's usually because like-minded individuals decide to hang around. They don't have to agree all the time and can have some pretty serious disagreements but generally it's like real life; it'd be boring to agree with everyone on everything.

Well said, but by agreeing with you does that make me part of "the clique"?

I think it's time some people stopped being so precious and just continue to argue their point if they think it's good enough. None of this sidetracking.

Now can someone tell me where we bloody are in this topic?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said, but by agreeing with you does that make me part of "the clique"?

I think it's time some people stopped being so precious and just continue to argue their point if they think it's good enough. None of this sidetracking.

Now can someone tell me where we bloody are in this topic?!

 

I think we are at the point where the irresistable force of the "Let's downsize so we can get more of the pie for the top echelon" clique meets the immoveable object of the " Lets make operating a SL club less expensive by reducing wage expenses so that more teams can be stable and maybe just maybe we can expand the game a little" clique.

 

This is in answer to the original post which was about re organization of the game rumours emanating from Martyn Sadler and Andy Wilson.

 

Of course everybody thinks they are right  and this is just a message board and nothing can be done by us all. Suggestions to have some kind of revenue sharing as practiced by the very successful American sports leagues have met with ridicule and abuse from a supporter of one of the teams who would have to give a little for the greater good. No surprise there then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are at the point where the irresistable force of the "Let's downsize so we can get more of the pie for the top echelon" clique meets the immoveable object of the " Lets make operating a SL club less expensive by reducing wage expenses so that more teams can be stable and maybe just maybe we can expand the game a little" clique.

 

This is in answer to the original post which was about re organization of the game rumours emanating from Martyn Sadler and Andy Wilson.

 

Of course everybody thinks they are right  and this is just a message board and nothing can be done by us all. Suggestions to have some kind of revenue sharing as practiced by the very successful American sports leagues have met with ridicule and abuse from a supporter of one of the teams who would have to give a little for the greater good. No surprise there then.

Trouble with the bit in bold is that the game in England is going to lose its best players. The discussion on Sky alluded to the fact when there was speculation about a whole England squad being based in the NRL before too long. While that would probably be good for the England team it doesn't do much for the selling of Super League in its own market.

There is a league competition for those clubs that want a lower operating budget, and that is the Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are at the point where the irresistable force of the "Let's downsize so we can get more of the pie for the top echelon" clique meets the immoveable object of the " Lets make operating a SL club less expensive by reducing wage expenses so that more teams can be stable and maybe just maybe we can expand the game a little" clique.

This is in answer to the original post which was about re organization of the game rumours emanating from Martyn Sadler and Andy Wilson.

Of course everybody thinks they are right and this is just a message board and nothing can be done by us all. Suggestions to have some kind of revenue sharing as practiced by the very successful American sports leagues have met with ridicule and abuse from a supporter of one of the teams who would have to give a little for the greater good. No surprise there then.

I certainly disagree with anyone that thinks that's the way forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble with the bit in bold is that the game in England is going to lose its best players. The discussion on Sky alluded to the fact when there was speculation about a whole England squad being based in the NRL before too long. While that would probably be good for the England team it doesn't do much for the selling of Super League in its own market.

There is a league competition for those clubs that want a lower operating budget, and that is the Championship.

The argument goes that the game is going to lose it's best players anyway.

If clubs then simply raised the wages of existing pro players, and brought in players on pro-contracts that could not get a pro-contract before then the clubs would be creating a form of wage inflation.

I haven't a clue how many players will go in time, but there is something to be said for an adjustment of the cap down if the best players go in significant numbers.

Exactly what I dunno, but there's a fair principle in there.

As you intimate if the fans sense the best players have gone abroad, and crowds drop there's another reason to look at the cap.

Isn't the principle here that we cannot afford (due to the cap)to pay the wages that would keep the best players here unless we allowed anyone rich enough to break the cap considerably.

Then what - a two or three team uncompetitive league?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re point one,obviously if they were in SL they would have a million plus to add to those figures so their turnover would be in the 2 million range, so not as bad as you are making out.

The turnover of Superleague clubs at the top end is £6,000,000 plus.

HKR on 8,000 gates could only compete to the "glass ceiling" by Mr. Hudgell putting half a million a year in.

A turnover of £2,000.000 won't buy the Halifax club the players they'll need, and the club then won't get the crowds.

There are cold hard monetary facts out there to back the argument, can we stick to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to join my local Photographic Society, CAMRA, and Supporters Club because they are in my mind run by a clique, I'm hardly likely to become a member of one on here.

 

Anyone who thinks I am part of a clique on here is just proving themselves to be a complete numpty without an argument other than 'you would say that wouldn't you'.

 

If that applies and it offends, tough.

 

I don't do cliques, of ANY kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3700 at Fev today. I think we should be part of the SL clique. Bearing in mind the absolute obsession on here of demographics what right have we to pull in such a good crowd for second rate RL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to join my local Photographic Society, CAMRA, and Supporters Club because they are in my mind run by a clique, I'm hardly likely to become a member of one on here.

 

Anyone who thinks I am part of a clique on here is just proving themselves to be a complete numpty without an argument other than 'you would say that wouldn't you'.

 

If that applies and it offends, tough.

 

I don't do cliques, of ANY kind.

 

I thought you were the founding patron and CEO of the "I support Wigan and we're alright Jack because we have money" clique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument goes that the game is going to lose it's best players anyway.

If clubs then simply raised the wages of existing pro players, and brought in players on pro-contracts that could not get a pro-contract before then the clubs would be creating a form of wage inflation.

I haven't a clue how many players will go in time, but there is something to be said for an adjustment of the cap down if the best players go in significant numbers.

Exactly what I dunno, but there's a fair principle in there.

As you intimate if the fans sense the best players have gone abroad, and crowds drop there's another reason to look at the cap.

Isn't the principle here that we cannot afford (due to the cap)to pay the wages that would keep the best players here unless we allowed anyone rich enough to break the cap considerably.

Then what - a two or three team uncompetitive league?

 

One solution mentioned was to allow each club a 'marquee' signing, but one point would be that concentrating resources on fewer clubs would possibly allow the SL clubs to retain their players. Also, reducing the league by three English clubs (bringing Toulouse in) would compensate for the players lost to NRL, thus negating the need to bring in the part-time quality players on full-time contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. One solution mentioned was to allow each club a 'marquee' signing,

2. But one point would be that concentrating resources on fewer clubs would possibly allow the SL clubs to retain their players. Also, reducing the league by three English clubs (bringing Toulouse in) would compensate for the players lost to NRL, thus negating the need to bring in the part-time quality players on full-time contracts.

1. I've seen that again and again, but never reasoned out. Do these players get Rugby Union or NRL level salaries whilst their team mates get ordinary money? Would they be resented? Who would these players be?? Does Tomkins and other top stars refuse a move to a bigger stage to earn the same money staying in Superleague? The assumption is that they go only for the money and will therefore stay for the same money? Will they? Don't they also have ambition for stardom, the International stage and travel? Which clubs can and will afford heavily overpaid top players and which clubs can't/won't? Did Leeds and Wigan pre-1996 actually have all the marquee players because they could outspend the rest? Will the games top 10 stars all be happy to do this? Will top stars sign for a bottom SL club because that club is the only one with a "marquee" place open?

2. Logically dropping the league to match the drop in quality of player and to get more fans into less clubs is a thought, but practically we can work that one out - 12 clubs would get an extra £200K each a season. Given the disparity between Superleague cap and NRL/RU premiership spending does that bridge it? Does an extra say 1000 fans onto each SL clubs gates generate the money to bridge the gap?

Or is the gap only bridged where the crowds actually go up significantly, because even with 12 clubs some won't be getting 10,000 averages and some won't have the rich men to fund the marquee players?

There's dozens of ideas floated on here but hardly any are actually analysed/costed?

The game has a strength in the quality of the top players, but there's also a strength in the game itself and how exciting it can be when clubs compete on an even keel. Is throwing money we don't have at players to stay the best policy or creating a truly competitive and level playing field 14 club SL???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017