Archived

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

The Daddy_merged

The demise in fortunes of Bradford Bulls reflect that of the Super League concept

30 posts in this topic

Was just thinking how important a strong Bradford Bulls club is to the health of Super League. When Bullmania was at it's peak and you had characters like Vaikona, Vainakola, Lowes, & the Paul brothers the Super League concept was at it's pinnacle in regards to sponsorship, crowds and feel good factor. Leeds V Bradford crowds were up to 25,000. 

 

No surprises that since the bubble burst on bullmania, there are calls for change of format, sponsorship issues or lack of etc. I'm not saying its the only reason but we underestimate the impact of Bradford during this time, they embraced summer rugby and its just a shame a lot of that has been lost. i hope they can recover and get back to where they were. 

 

We need a strong Bradford as much as a London, Catalan, Salford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting dragged to court by another team in your league won't have helped. Hetherington should have been banned from the game for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting dragged to court by another team in your league won't have helped. Hetherington should have been banned from the game for life.

Utter tosh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utter tosh.

Why is it? He took a team to court over a player that was neither needed nor wanted at the time. He nearly destroyed an RL club in the process along with the local derby. His short term greed outshine any long term gain, I bet he would love a full house at Headingley once a season but he killed any chance of that happening.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only they embraced paying their taxes.

They are far from the only ones here, even now, believe me.

Personally I don't enjoy seeing Bradford slide down but it's only temporary and part of a cycle, not necessarily an indication that SL is going down the pan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP is utter tosh so the rest of the thread might as well be

Super league crowds have risen steadily - apart from this season

We've been in the longest & deepest recession in history for the last 5 years

The Aus$ is stronger that its ever been against Sterling making it more expensive to tempt players from Aus at the highest level

The HMRC have closed those tax loopholes that helped bring big names Kiwis over

The Kiwi test team has stopped selecting uk based players

Yeah, clearly the Superleague concept has waned, and its probably the RFLs fault. Don't they also run RBS? Same first letter, it must be their fault too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...not necessarily an indication that SL is going down the pan.

Now that certainly is Leeds' fault...

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP had a point. Putting aside all the financial and political manoeuvering, the peak of interest and confidence in SL was when Bradford were at the top.

 

Since then although crowds have grown, the same interests, confidence and enthusiasm has gone the same direction as the Bulls. Backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP had a point. Putting aside all the financial and political manoeuvering, the peak of interest and confidence in SL was when Bradford were at the top.

 

Since then although crowds have grown, the same interests, confidence and enthusiasm has gone the same direction as the Bulls. Backwards.

 

I think it's an interesting mirror, but I don't think the two are particularly linked as the Bulls' spiral into misfortune has a different set of circumstances to that of the "struggling" Super League (which I don't fully buy into). I think the OP is massively overstating the case, and if the Bulls were still at the top of their game and getting to finals etc, I don't particularly think Super League would be in any better position for it.

 

As Hindle says, this one is better left alone - what more can really be said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's an interesting mirror, but I don't think the two are particularly linked as the Bulls' spiral into misfortune has a different set of circumstances to that of the "struggling" Super League (which I don't fully buy into). I think the OP is massively overstating the case, and if the Bulls were still at the top of their game and getting to finals etc, I don't particularly think Super League would be in any better position for it.

 

As Hindle says, this one is better left alone - what more can really be said?

I agree it's a parallel rather than evidence. But did interest wane in SL to create the problems we have, or did the clubs/ SL's decision making create the problems?

 

It's easy to say it's outside influence such as the recession but RL has historically done well in bad times.

 

I believe it is reasonable to suggest the decisions made at clubs like Bradford caused a broader lack of confidence in the SL product. A string of arrogant decisions, such as the Harris one, causes sponsors etc to stay clear. Is that how we attract investment when 2 clubs doing rather well out of the system can't get round a table?

 

Only last week at a rather small club, a fan openly criticised a sponsors man of the match decision, to wit the sponsor decides he's not in it for that level of criticism. These investors are precious commodities.

 

And with reference to fans, Bradford built a supporter base that wanted to watch a winning side rather than support the club. The job was far from done but the club acted like it had made it.

 

So IMO the demise of SL and Bradford, although possibly only being a parallel, actually do go hand in hand, but I believe it was the club and the SL way of doing things that caused the rot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the "Super League" way of doing things, out of interest? At a guess, can it really be anything that different than any other professional sport has done over the past 10/15 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bradford may have lost a few fans since those days but they have actually gained several thousand actual supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it? He took a team to court over a player that was neither needed nor wanted at the time. He nearly destroyed an RL club in the process along with the local derby. His short term greed outshine any long term gain, I bet he would love a full house at Headingley once a season but he killed any chance of that happening.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification

 

 

This has been discussed to death, Hetherington warned Bradford at the time. So why has Hetherington killed the game...... He's been the driving force of the most successful club in Super League history.

 

No further comment from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever your views of the rights and wrongs of the Harris saga, in terms of the financial impact on the Bulls, it was revealed last year it was the tip of the iceberg so any arguments about that alone destroying the club is a bit much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting dragged to court by another team in your league won't have helped. Hetherington should have been banned from the game for life.

The usual anti Leeds rhetoric,try establishing the facts before you post baseless nonsense.As PMJ has stated it's been done to death.That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP had a point. Putting aside all the financial and political manoeuvering, the peak of interest and confidence in SL was when Bradford were at the top. Since then although crowds have grown, the same interests, confidence and enthusiasm has gone the same direction as the Bulls. Backwards.

 

2003 Bradford were double winners on 15,000 crowds with Superleague averaging 8,200. Last year Superleague had two more clubs and yet averages 9400. Yes I agree crowds have grown.

 

I don't understand your point on "Interests" "confidence" and "enthusiasm" though.

 

Since Bradford were at the top we have seen Warrington, Hull Catalans and Huddersfield rise to join the likes of Leeds, Wigan and Saints as big clubs. So more fans more big clubs and Bradfords fall is another clubs rise. Despite Bradford's weaknesses being exposed in recent years (no investment, poor ground) that hasn't dragged Superleague down.

 

The op doesn't IMHO have a point as regards Bradford and singling them out only causes posts attacking Bradford all over again.

 

However where you Mr. Daddy state "We need a strong Bradford as much as a London, Catalan, Salford" you have probably rescued your point with a valid statement. To have the Superleague that was planned for 17 years ago all clubs should be striving to take their businesses forward under the guidance and security of the licensing process.

 

!7 long and maybe wasted years piddling about with no effective policies, inadequate SKY money and relying on random rich investors to take the game forward has seen Superleage hit a barrier of sorts. IMHO the barrier is a collective giving up of half the Chairmen in Superleague in terms of investment including Richardson, Wilkinson, Fulton, Hudgell, Hood, Hughes next and possibly O'Connor.

 

Out of the replacements so far two have stated they are not there to invest into the club, but have taken over the running in the absence of any investor. Only Dr. Koukash bucks the trend of an extensive abandonment of ambition that leaves a 14 club Superleague and it's associated licensing system in tatters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's an interesting mirror, but I don't think the two are particularly linked as the Bulls' spiral into misfortune has a different set of circumstances to that of the "struggling" Super League (which I don't fully buy into).

 

I agree there's no link.

 

Do you buy into the stated intention of half a dozen club chairmen not to invest in their clubs and the resultant picking off of their best players by the top Superleague clubs as factors that will destroy the Superleague concept?

 

If we see Superleague as the Old First Division with TV money then it's a success?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP had a point. Putting aside all the financial and political manoeuvering, the peak of interest and confidence in SL was when Bradford were at the top.

 

Since then although crowds have grown, the same interests, confidence and enthusiasm has gone the same direction as the Bulls. Backwards.

 

 

Do you regard this as cause or effect?

 

 

Shaking the trees doesn't make the wind stronger.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you regard this as cause or effect?

 

 

Shaking the trees doesn't make the wind stronger.

 

 

.

I made my case with a later post. In a nutshell I believe clubs got over confident and behaved in an arrogant fashion making too many assumptions about future success coupled with an expectation customers don't go away when you've got them. This leads to the comment by Jonoco regarding supporters and fans at Bradford, I deleted the very same comment before I posted. I also believe the Bulls have improved the supporter base. However the work should have been started when the club was successful and not as a reaction to failure.

 

I would like to point out that I don't want to get caught up in how many fans Bradford have/had as this thread. The context in which I find a parallel is based on commercial and corporate interest in SL and the lack of development of key relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made my case with a later post. In a nutshell I believe clubs got over confident and behaved in an arrogant fashion making too many assumptions about future success coupled with an expectation customers don't go away when you've got them. This leads to the comment by Jonoco regarding supporters and fans at Bradford, I deleted the very same comment before I posted. I also believe the Bulls have improved the supporter base. However the work should have been started when the club was successful and not as a reaction to failure

 

This is a pretty decent point to be fair and it boils down to a lack of foresight. This is a problem that has plagued the whole of the sport at one time or another - maybe now more than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Embracing it as you call it sent them into administration

Having 194 staff on the payroll was what tipped the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made my case with a later post. In a nutshell I believe clubs got over confident and behaved in an arrogant fashion making too many assumptions about future success coupled with an expectation customers don't go away when you've got them. This leads to the comment by Jonoco regarding supporters and fans at Bradford, I deleted the very same comment before I posted. I also believe the Bulls have improved the supporter base. However the work should have been started when the club was successful and not as a reaction to failure.

 

They were growing the fan base when they were successful, it's just that some of them were only interested temporarily. The core base of fairly dedicated fans has grown by quite a few thousand since pre SL. A lot of those sponge finger wavers that are decried by people like Lobbygobbler have actually turned out to be pretty dedicated supporters and are still here supporting the club. And it will get worse before it gets better IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.