Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
League Express

The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)

4,790 posts in this topic

Because the clubs agree to abide by it

Read the post previous to yours regarding gentlemen's agreements

I'd be happy to explain what a gentleman's agreement is if you wish

 

I don't agree that it's just a gentlemen's agreement.  It's a rule of the competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the recession, or is it the fact that WMDC (and many others) spent most of the noughties spending money they didn't have.  Having worked at WMDC 2000-2007, I have massive sympathy with my former co-workers, but I also know that far too much money was wasted in that period.  Sadly the biggest cost is the wage bill, so it's sort of obvious where the axe must fall.

 

Budgets were already being cut from 2006 onwards (by as much as 10%), long before the "recession" started.  The penny dropped in 2005 that the then current level of spending was not sustainable.

 

I live in Ackworth (middle of the road) own businesses in South Elmsall (up and coming) and spend a lot of time in Pontefract (middle of the road).  There is no evidence of a recession in any of those places.

 

I still think you should look harder.  Maybe at the nuclear wasteland that Fev has been allowed to become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree that it's just a gentlemen's agreement.  It's a rule of the competition.

I'll go with that

I was just putting it into the context of a gentleman's agreement

 

It doesn't have to be 'legal'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'd followed the point in debate you may realise I am not trying to "prove" HKR are bad for Hull, I'm suggesting it, but if you believe they are good for each other you and others have my views - why not counter those views with your own. Why not set out the reasons why HKR are good for Hull. That's open to anyone to explain how HKR's entry to SL put up Hulls crowds outside the Derby, and to explain why the clubs are good for each other. I am sure DSK will oblige you.

 

All you have done is dismiss the statistics with an "It's the recession you know" answer. Without counting the "Derby" attendances Hull's crowds grew remarkably in 2007 as I have set out after they had been in the Grand Final, was that due to their competitiveness with the big boys or merely due to a surge of economic affluence that year? The latter as simplistic an answer as why crowds are now well down is due to "credit crunch".

 

To assist the actual point in debate was the idea that first and foremost Superleague needs profitability before bums on seats. Hull was an example, Calder and Pennine are others. In 2007 Hull had 13,000 crowds against all clubs other than Rovers.

 

Those crowds were profitable, the team was competitive. Today Hull as a city boasts a regular 18,700 bums on seats making the game supposedly "strong" in the city, and fans may be proud of that, but the underlying losses at Rovers were £500,000 a year, and as Pearson stated he put Hull F.C.(now on 11,000 crowds) into a loss situation this last year to spend money trying to dismantle Rovers team.

 

For Hull/HKR derby read Leeds/Hunslet, Swinton/Salford, Saints/Saints Recs Will there "always be 2 professional clubs" there?

 

One big success of Superleague is to have increased crowds in the elite from 5543 in 1996 to 9431 in 2012. But it's failure overshadowing that is the £68,000,000 loss in achieving that. So which IS more important? Merely the numbers of bums on seats (an approach Bradford took) or maximising profits to minimise losses??

 

You can't prove a point but can suggest it's correct with your own take on the facts. I disagree with your facts and I don't see the value in arguing whether SL is good or bad for Hull when the City has 2 clubs drawing in a combined attendance above that of any other domestic RL city/town.

 

IMO Sports are successful based on 1. participation, 2. supporter and member interest, and then by a long way in third place money. For that reason your point of view has the cart before the horse, just like many others. You even accept this by stating clearly that Toulouse can't put a side together for the Championship, never mind SL, so my suggestion is that the French should consider upping grass roots interest before anything else. This goes for London, South Wales, you name it, the game needs these things in this order. In Hull the level of participation is probably second to none, member and supporter interest, second to none. Money, well maybe they are a bit behind but the game is far and away better off with the status quo as it is in Hull.

 

So to answer your final question, it's bums on seats but in the context of Bradford your point ignores the very goals the club set itself that were beyond sustainable reach. These were exacerbated by a lack of points 1 and 2 to justify a Super League capable of attracting number 3 at a large enough level. Then you chuck a 3 year ball and chain into the mix, and it goes pop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you discount the long debate on this. Toulouse can't get a top side together playing in the Championship, conversely Les catalans have become one of the bigger more competitive sides being started straight in Superleague. Your quest for "fairness" gets in the way of good business sense and reality.

 

We have £68M losses to make up, Toulouse offer money in Superleague not out of it.

 

As for Hull/HKR maybe you'd be brave enough to suggest what the counter argument that Hull and HKR in SL are symbiotically good for both each other and Superleague is, because I aren't hearing any!!

I don't see why Featherstone, Halifax and Leigh or, in past seasons, Hull KR, Castleford and Huddersfield have had to or will have to get a top side together playing in the Championship but Toulouse can't. You constantly, and rightfully so, praise the contributions Mr Davy has made to Huddersfield in their march from the Championships to League leaders, but refute the idea that Toulouse could do the same.

Catalans finished bottom in their first season and somebody higher than them were relegated in their place ( Was it Widnes). This sort of thing should not be tolerated. That's the sort of thing Wells4HullFC and I are talking about when we quote fairness, decent behaviour and morals. Widnes are only fully recovering from that even now. Catalans and natural justice would have been better served if they had competed in and been promoted from the championships and established their SL place like Hull KR, Huddersfield had to do.

If we have a return to p and r, this should be the procedure this time around. No more unfair procedures. Widnes have their rights won on the field, i.e not finishing in a relegation spot and there should be no unfair juggling of league positions. this is a sports league where competition is key.

68 million or not, Featherstone offer money. We would have to wait for the Toulouse money to get into SL. if it's that substantial, it wouldn't take long.

I have to go out now so I don't have time to discuss the Hull scenario at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go with that

I was just putting it into the context of a gentleman's agreement

 

It doesn't have to be 'legal'

 

Oh, it has to be legal.  And, imho, it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

IMO Sports are successful based on 1. participation, 2. supporter and member interest, and then by a long way in third place money. For that reason your point of view has the cart before the horse, just like many others. You even accept this by stating clearly that Toulouse can't put a side together for the Championship, never mind SL, so my suggestion is that the French should consider upping grass roots interest before anything else. This goes for London, South Wales, you name it, the game needs these things in this order. In Hull the level of participation is probably second to none, member and supporter interest, second to none. Money, well maybe they are a bit behind but the game is far and away better off with the status quo as it is in Hull.

 

 

 

A very big thank you for your reply and interesting viewpoints.

 

We are poles apart, literally. My observations/conclusions are that "grass roots growth" is largely stimulated by Superleague clubs in an area, hence Toulouse should be in to become an SL club like Catalans. Outside that the growth of RL has more to do with the free gangway enabling people to play RL instead of RU. From what I can see grass roots growth is very difficult even in northern Championship areas.

 

For me the solution remains making the best we can out of Superleague. I believe it secures the money and underpins the game. To wait for grass roots growth in an era of declining participation is to wait forever IMHO.

Edited by The Parksider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two full time tens is how we should go, but if its not on the table we desperately need change so 12x2/8x3 it is

 

Toulouse should be in SL1 in a 2x10 structure, on the proviso they bring a TV deal with Cats, the central funding is then removed from these enabling the finance for a second full time tier with P&R. Toulouse exempt for 3 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could say that about any elite sport. Why is that unique to us? Why is it a problem?

Really annoys me when people use this as some kind of argument for the game being in trouble!

Completely disagree.

How is it that other sports have maintained a consistent fair league structure but we should just let anyone in because they have money and kick others out if they don't?

If you don't want our sport to have some kind of morals or fairness, that's your opinion. But it's certainly not mine, and certainly not anything to do with it not being the 1900s.

Money doesn't buy success all the time. Look at the image you're looking to promote for our sport. Look at the unrest it would cause. You're looking at money=success as a very linear process.

The damage and unrest caused to the game every time a decision like this is made could cost the game more overall than one man putting in a few extra quid and then pulling out a few years later (which history has shown happens more than not). What image does that then give the game?

Only the ignorant can be fooled by stats. Being fooled doesn't prove anything.

Why you feel the need to compare us to union is beyond me.

Some people want to see the best vs the best (your Wigans and Leeds'). Some people want to see rivalry or a story behind a game (derbies). Some want to see the underdog try to overcome a huge obstacle (last year's Wire vs Widnes). Some like to see up-and-coming sides do battle and see who can be next. Some even like to just see a team fail.

We all watch for different reasons. Just because you watch for one reason doesn't mean we all should, or do, and that Sky pay for that. If Sky only wanted to show the best then they wouldn't put on the derbies (unless it involves the best), or the lower teams.

And that's what's killing my interest and many others in the game. You're taking away reasons people watch the game for not much replacement. It's artificial and dull. I can't wait til P&R comes back. Breath some life into what has become an increasingly full year except for a few near the top.

Why do Leigh have to multiply by 4, yet there are 8 clubs that have never even achieved a 10k average in the SL era?

You can't hold an eternal judgement on Leigh for one year in the SL in a different ground with a different board nearly a decade ago. It's ridiculous! Do you judge everyone that way?

Imagine going for the job interview of your life, but the guy won't hire you because of a shocking year 10 years ago for a different company despite all the hard work you're doing now. Sounds awful way to go about business.

Just because that's what you see doesn't mean it's what everyone sees or wants to see.

And just because we have a fair system doesn't mean we won't see top games. I don't see how we wouldn't?

If you're putting on a show, people need a reason to watch the show. If you limit these reasons (which you are doing) then people won't watch in as great numbers.

 

 

 

 

You could say that about any elite sport. Why is that unique to us? Why is it a problem?

Really annoys me when people use this as some kind of argument for the game being in trouble!

 

 

Did i say anywhere it was unique to us ?  I am aware the game is in trouble, It was in a hell of a lot more trouble before Sky came along, And being played at a far lower level barring one club, Who won everything.

 

 

Completely disagree.

How is it that other sports have maintained a consistent fair league structure but we should just let anyone in because they have money and kick others out if they don't?

If you don't want our sport to have some kind of morals or fairness, that's your opinion. But it's certainly not mine, and certainly not anything to do with it not being the 1900s.

 

 

You ask why i compare League to Union and then start to talk about other sports are Fairer, I'm not bothered about other  sports, I would love us to be in this wonderfull world of fairness in League , Maybe someday we will get there , Survival is the first concern, Or have you forgotten the level the game had sunk to, What makes you think we could go back to that and make it work this time, In an even harsher climate ?

 

 

Money doesn't buy success all the time. Look at the image you're looking to promote for our sport. Look at the unrest it would cause. You're looking at money=success as a very linear process.

The damage and unrest caused to the game every time a decision like this is made could cost the game more overall than one man putting in a few extra quid and then pulling out a few years later (which history has shown happens more than not). What image does that then give the game?

 

 

I can't really believe you have written this, This game was born out of unrest and after over 100 years little has changed, If you think that rich men putting money into a poverty stricken game like our is going to cause more unrest than the RFL repeatedly coming up with new systems, that are really a futile attempt to save some clubs that can't be saved, I fail to see the reasoning,  If we don't have a strong vibrant elite league, we will just go back to what we had before, A semi pro second rate sport , if it survived, it may be fair, and would still have the image it had then, A second rate sport that nobody but the dwindling parochials had any interest in.

 

 

Why you feel the need to compare us to union is beyond me.

 

 

You want to compare us to other sports about fairness or when it suits. Why should i not compare us to Union, It is after all the most natural, They have been openly Pro for what 15 years or so and they have already left us for dead, despite having an inferior game, They are now looking to take all the best players that League can produce, But why worry about that, we will get used to being without them, It just so happens that i enjoy watching the likes of Tomkins, but i ain't going to be watching him for a year or two now .

 

 

Some people want to see the best vs the best (your Wigans and Leeds'). Some people want to see rivalry or a story behind a game (derbies). Some want to see the underdog try to overcome a huge obstacle (last year's Wire vs Widnes). Some like to see up-and-coming sides do battle and see who can be next. Some even like to just see a team fail.

 

 

I do get what you are saying here , People watch for there own reasons, Golf is a game i like to watch ( as well as play ), I go to Ryder cups when i can, I go to Opens when possible, any of the big comps if i can get to them, I don't go and watch the final of the Hudd's Fax league often, I want to watch the best in the sport, and i feel the same about League, Thats my reason and It's as valid as anyone else's, I can tell you that if Sky showed only CC league and county level golf, i would cancel it, That may not be what you would do, fair enough, but if enough people did Sky would pull the plug.

 

 

Why do Leigh have to multiply by 4, yet there are 8 clubs that have never even achieved a 10k average in the SL era?

You can't hold an eternal judgement on Leigh for one year in the SL in a different ground with a different board nearly a decade ago. It's ridiculous! Do you judge everyone that way?

Imagine going for the job interview of your life, but the guy won't hire you because of a shocking year 10 years ago for a different company despite all the hard work you're doing now. Sounds awful way to go about business.

 

 

I thought my comment on Leigh was that i didn't think they would ever make the grade again living with Wigan (so to speak) Again that's an opinion and i stick by it.  I don't have a downer on Leigh, or Fax or any other club, I am simply stating things as they are, If you can afford SL you will be in it (wherever the money comes from ) If you can't you will be out of it, One way or another.

 I don't know where all this fairness talk is supposed to be going, Nothing in life is fair, I'm told people in some area's are left to die because their post code doesn't fit the bill, Some old folks damn near freeze in winter while Millionairs draw the state pension, What's fair about that, What makes League any different to anything else. Sure it would be nice if it was , but it aint, It's not my fault or yours ,It's how it is.

  Regarding Fev I said they will have to increase their crowds by 4 to stay alive or pump in Millions ( like has happened at Hudd's )  maybe you see another way to do it ,  They need to get app £ 3 million pounds a year from somwhere, If there's some other way ,Tell the good Dr at Salford , he will be all Ears.

 

 

Just because that's what you see doesn't mean it's what everyone sees or wants to see.

And just because we have a fair system doesn't mean we won't see top games. I don't see how we wouldn't?

If you're putting on a show, people need a reason to watch the show. If you limit these reasons (which you are doing) then people won't watch in as great numbers.

 

 

I well remember seeing the Hull fans leaving the John Smiths stadium after the game was over in 15 minutes end of last season, why were they going, because who wants to see games like that, and yet we are saying that teams who have realistically no chance in SL must be stuck in there to get slaughtered in the name of fairness, Just the sort of thing people switch on to watch.

 

I do repect your opinion and your reasons for watching the game, It's just that they differ from mine, Myself i am more concerned with keeping the game alive and getting it to prosper at the moment than i am with the fairness of the sustem. 

I have one question for you. If you played HKR 3 times a year and they put 40/50 points on you almost every time, would you keep going in the hope of seeing it get turned round someday, or would you do like most people and say ###### it.

 

 

In case you have forgotten what it was like pre Summer Rugby. Wigan won everything for a decade, and if we lose Sky they will do it again,  How would you stop that happening again, Because within 5 Years they would most likely be the only full time pro club, Maybe Leeds as well, but the whole thing would be at a lower level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you discount the long debate on this. Toulouse can't get a top side together playing in the Championship, conversely Les catalans have become one of the bigger more competitive sides being started straight in Superleague. Your quest for "fairness" gets in the way of good business sense and reality.

 

We have £68M losses to make up, Toulouse offer money in Superleague not out of it.

 

As for Hull/HKR maybe you'd be brave enough to suggest what the counter argument that Hull and HKR in SL are symbiotically good for both each other and Superleague is, because I aren't hearing any!!

I agree with you on this, but I wonder if Hull City have had a larger effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why Featherstone, Halifax and Leigh or, in past seasons, Hull KR, Castleford and Huddersfield have had to or will have to get a top side together playing in the Championship but Toulouse can't. You constantly, and rightfully so, praise the contributions Mr Davy has made to Huddersfield in their march from the Championships to League leaders, but refute the idea that Toulouse could do the same.

Catalans finished bottom in their first season and somebody higher than them were relegated in their place ( Was it Widnes). This sort of thing should not be tolerated. That's the sort of thing Wells4HullFC and I are talking about when we quote fairness, decent behaviour and morals. Widnes are only fully recovering from that even now. Catalans and natural justice would have been better served if they had competed in and been promoted from the championships and established their SL place like Hull KR, Huddersfield had to do.

If we have a return to p and r, this should be the procedure this time around. No more unfair procedures. Widnes have their rights won on the field, i.e not finishing in a relegation spot and there should be no unfair juggling of league positions. this is a sports league where competition is key.

68 million or not, Featherstone offer money. We would have to wait for the Toulouse money to get into SL. if it's that substantial, it wouldn't take long.

I have to go out now so I don't have time to discuss the Hull scenario at present.

No it wasn't widnes it was cas who bounced back, widnes were relegated under your much treasured system, if widnes suffered it was because of P&R!

All clubs agreed to relegate 2 and promote 2 before the season began! Widnes finished within these 2 places, there was no juggling! And they hardly won promotion on the pitch either!

Ok catalans never came from the championship but they

Could have, its not really relevant to widnes being relegated and becoming a feeder club!

Now please stop spouting off nonsense!

Edited by yipyee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could say that about any elite sport. Why is that unique to us? Why is it a problem?

Really annoys me when people use this as some kind of argument for the game being in trouble!

 

 

Did i say anywhere it was unique to us ?  I am aware the game is in trouble, It was in a hell of a lot more trouble before Sky came along, And being played at a far lower level barring one club, Who won everything.

 

 

Completely disagree.

How is it that other sports have maintained a consistent fair league structure but we should just let anyone in because they have money and kick others out if they don't?

If you don't want our sport to have some kind of morals or fairness, that's your opinion. But it's certainly not mine, and certainly not anything to do with it not being the 1900s.

 

 

You ask why i compare League to Union and then start to talk about other sports are Fairer, I'm not bothered about other  sports, I would love us to be in this wonderfull world of fairness in League , Maybe someday we will get there , Survival is the first concern, Or have you forgotten the level the game had sunk to, What makes you think we could go back to that and make it work this time, In an even harsher climate ?

 

 

Money doesn't buy success all the time. Look at the image you're looking to promote for our sport. Look at the unrest it would cause. You're looking at money=success as a very linear process.

The damage and unrest caused to the game every time a decision like this is made could cost the game more overall than one man putting in a few extra quid and then pulling out a few years later (which history has shown happens more than not). What image does that then give the game?

 

 

I can't really believe you have written this, This game was born out of unrest and after over 100 years little has changed, If you think that rich men putting money into a poverty stricken game like our is going to cause more unrest than the RFL repeatedly coming up with new systems, that are really a futile attempt to save some clubs that can't be saved, I fail to see the reasoning,  If we don't have a strong vibrant elite league, we will just go back to what we had before, A semi pro second rate sport , if it survived, it may be fair, and would still have the image it had then, A second rate sport that nobody but the dwindling parochials had any interest in.

 

 

Why you feel the need to compare us to union is beyond me.

 

 

You want to compare us to other sports about fairness or when it suits. Why should i not compare us to Union, It is after all the most natural, They have been openly Pro for what 15 years or so and they have already left us for dead, despite having an inferior game, They are now looking to take all the best players that League can produce, But why worry about that, we will get used to being without them, It just so happens that i enjoy watching the likes of Tomkins, but i ain't going to be watching him for a year or two now .

 

 

Some people want to see the best vs the best (your Wigans and Leeds'). Some people want to see rivalry or a story behind a game (derbies). Some want to see the underdog try to overcome a huge obstacle (last year's Wire vs Widnes). Some like to see up-and-coming sides do battle and see who can be next. Some even like to just see a team fail.

 

 

I do get what you are saying here , People watch for there own reasons, Golf is a game i like to watch ( as well as play ), I go to Ryder cups when i can, I go to Opens when possible, any of the big comps if i can get to them, I don't go and watch the final of the Hudd's Fax league often, I want to watch the best in the sport, and i feel the same about League, Thats my reason and It's as valid as anyone else's, I can tell you that if Sky showed only CC league and county level golf, i would cancel it, That may not be what you would do, fair enough, but if enough people did Sky would pull the plug.

 

 

Why do Leigh have to multiply by 4, yet there are 8 clubs that have never even achieved a 10k average in the SL era?

You can't hold an eternal judgement on Leigh for one year in the SL in a different ground with a different board nearly a decade ago. It's ridiculous! Do you judge everyone that way?

Imagine going for the job interview of your life, but the guy won't hire you because of a shocking year 10 years ago for a different company despite all the hard work you're doing now. Sounds awful way to go about business.

 

 

I thought my comment on Leigh was that i didn't think they would ever make the grade again living with Wigan (so to speak) Again that's an opinion and i stick by it.  I don't have a downer on Leigh, or Fax or any other club, I am simply stating things as they are, If you can afford SL you will be in it (wherever the money comes from ) If you can't you will be out of it, One way or another.

 I don't know where all this fairness talk is supposed to be going, Nothing in life is fair, I'm told people in some area's are left to die because their post code doesn't fit the bill, Some old folks damn near freeze in winter while Millionairs draw the state pension, What's fair about that, What makes League any different to anything else. Sure it would be nice if it was , but it aint, It's not my fault or yours ,It's how it is.

  Regarding Fev I said they will have to increase their crowds by 4 to stay alive or pump in Millions ( like has happened at Hudd's )  maybe you see another way to do it ,  They need to get app £ 3 million pounds a year from somwhere, If there's some other way ,Tell the good Dr at Salford , he will be all Ears.

 

 

Just because that's what you see doesn't mean it's what everyone sees or wants to see.

And just because we have a fair system doesn't mean we won't see top games. I don't see how we wouldn't?

If you're putting on a show, people need a reason to watch the show. If you limit these reasons (which you are doing) then people won't watch in as great numbers.

 

 

I well remember seeing the Hull fans leaving the John Smiths stadium after the game was over in 15 minutes end of last season, why were they going, because who wants to see games like that, and yet we are saying that teams who have realistically no chance in SL must be stuck in there to get slaughtered in the name of fairness, Just the sort of thing people switch on to watch.

 

I do repect your opinion and your reasons for watching the game, It's just that they differ from mine, Myself i am more concerned with keeping the game alive and getting it to prosper at the moment than i am with the fairness of the sustem. 

I have one question for you. If you played HKR 3 times a year and they put 40/50 points on you almost every time, would you keep going in the hope of seeing it get turned round someday, or would you do like most people and say ###### it.

 

 

In case you have forgotten what it was like pre Summer Rugby. Wigan won everything for a decade, and if we lose Sky they will do it again,  How would you stop that happening again, Because within 5 Years they would most likely be the only full time pro club, Maybe Leeds as well, but the whole thing would be at a lower level.

Super League is not a closed shop, but it is an exclusive one and I am not sure they will want to let clubs in who do not benefit the mass.  Leigh would offer as much as many clubs in Super League, but as they are not they have to demonstrate that they are an asset.

 

They are not likely to bring in a new audience, increase TV revenue or substantially more sponsors.  Therefore, no entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two full time tens is how we should go, but if its not on the table we desperately need change so 12x2/8x3 it is

Toulouse should be in SL1 in a 2x10 structure, on the proviso they bring a TV deal with Cats, the central funding is then removed from these enabling the finance for a second full time tier with P&R. Toulouse exempt for 3 years

There is no need for radical change, a few tweaks to licencing would be best. ...look how the play offs have devalued due to constant change!,

Also if you remove the funding from catalan that will fund one more team, (Bradford) so that is the same as now? So where's the funding for a second tier ay?

Edited by yipyee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it has to be legal.  And, imho, it is.

Everything has to be legal

And there is nothing illegal about this

 

I agree with what you are saying 

I expressed myself badly in response to a comment about its 'illegality'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lose 5 clubs plus cats source there own tv deal with Toulouse, that creates £7.8m, extra 200k to 8 uk SL1 clubs and 700k per club in sl2 - no extra funding required

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catalans finished bottom in their first season and somebody higher than them were relegated in their place ( Was it Widnes). This sort of thing should not be tolerated. That's the sort of thing Wells4HullFC and I are talking about when we quote fairness, decent behaviour and morals. Widnes are only fully recovering from that even now. Catalans and natural justice would have been better served if they had competed in and been promoted from the championships and established their SL place like Hull KR, Huddersfield had to do.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on my take there.

I don't think there was anything unfair about the Catalan situation. It was clear cut that two would be relegated to accommodate them entering. Leigh & Widnes got the chop for being by far the two worst sides that year. Nothing unfair there.

It was also clear that Catalans had two years stay of execution. Again, everyone knew this and everyone agreed. Nothing untoward. Logistically, it's unfair for the French to work to the same systems as the British due to travel, so relegation to the NL wasn't an option. If we want to expand the SL to outside Britain, a different route would need to be taken. Whether this is the fairest way is another discussion, but I don't think there was anything unfair about the well known and agreed process of admitting and keeping Catalans in SL.

Widnes' problems had nothing to do with Catalans. It was bad management that saw them go bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keighley, we agree that the situation is unjust and uncorinthian.  A club that can come in and bring a new market to Super League, increase advertising revenue and TV revenue will be welcomed ahead of a team that finishes top of the Championship, but would be seen as taking revenue from an existing participant.  Is that so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super League is not a closed shop, but it is an exclusive one and I am not sure they will want to let clubs in who do not benefit the mass.  Leigh would offer as much as many clubs in Super League, but as they are not they have to demonstrate that they are an asset.

 

They are not likely to bring in a new audience, increase TV revenue or substantially more sponsors.  Therefore, no entry.

 

Absolutely, as far as i know it has never been a closed shop, And also as far as i know there is nothing or no one stopping any club from being as  successful as the so called big clubs.

 

Have Wigan, Warrington, Saints, Leeds, any of them got to their present position at the expense of the CC, I don't think so , But somehow the fact some  have rich men behind them seems to make them a target for all that's wrong in the game, My opinion for what it's worth is probably just the opposite.

 

When people get on about the unfairness of the game , and how nice it could be with all teams equal and all that , I can see what they are saying and i can agree to some extent, it would be nice to have 20 teams all with realistic chances of winning something every year,  We had that for 100 years and for a lot of that  some of it may well have been true, but the game has moved on since those days, When Summer Rugby came along the reality is that the game was at it's lowest ebb , with one club winning everything.

 

What i would like to hear is which money men were responsible for that, and what in the world is there to suggest it would be any different again now.

 

I know quite well that a lot of people don't like what i say, But at least i tell it like it is and not how it could be if only the greedy men ( who are putting Millions into the game ) would just be fair, I mean some of them calling them greedy and grasping and power mad ,have put all of £250 a year in for a few years.

 

So bring it on , lets give it a go and see what happens, I know what has happened in the past, some clubs are still trying to get back to an even keel. The whole country has ( and is going through a recession , Except in Pontefract apparently) but this time it's all going to work.

 

What in the world short of some extraordinary event, Leads people to the conclusion that Leigh will ever be able to compete with wigan beats me, I know they have to some extent in the past, But that is the key word the past, In those days you didn't need £3 million a year, Now you do and like it or not , the plain unvarnished truth is Wigan have it and Leigh don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it wasn't widnes it was cas who bounced back, widnes were relegated under your much treasured system, if widnes suffered it was because of P&R!

All clubs agreed to relegate 2 and promote 2 before the season began! Widnes finished within these 2 places, there was no juggling! And they hardly won promotion on the pitch either!

Ok catalans never came from the championship but they

Could have, its not really relevant to widnes being relegated and becoming a feeder club!

Now please stop spouting off nonsense!

Catalans finished rock bottom in their first SL season and a club above them, not in a relegation spot were demoted because Catalans were exempted from relegation. So you stop spouting rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did i say anywhere it was unique to us ? I am aware the game is in trouble, It was in a hell of a lot more trouble before Sky came along, And being played at a far lower level barring one club, Who won everything.

So why bring it up? We're not in danger of losing the Sky contract last time I checked. If anything, with BT coming along, we're in a far better position to negotiate.

Us losing Sky money is not on the agenda. Us relying on Sky money is not a problem for anyone else so shouldn't be for us. We might as well discuss the problems the game will have from the after effects of an asteroid hitting the Earth.

You ask why i compare League to Union and then start to talk about other sports are Fairer, I'm not bothered about other sports, I would love us to be in this wonderfull world of fairness in League , Maybe someday we will get there , Survival is the first concern, Or have you forgotten the level the game had sunk to, What makes you think we could go back to that and make it work this time, In an even harsher climate ?

I'm comparing to sport as a whole. You're comparing to one sport for no reason other than it's called rugby. It doesn't matter what union are doing. Concentrate on what we're doing. It's this chip on the shoulder that's holding us back.

I don't think survival is an issue. You have a huge doom-and-gloom mentality. The game will not die. Knee-jerk reactions are not going to help anything or anyone.

If the game was in serious trouble, there may still be reasonable, rational and fair ways to resolve it.

I can't really believe you have written this, This game was born out of unrest and after over 100 years little has changed, If you think that rich men putting money into a poverty stricken game like our is going to cause more unrest than the RFL repeatedly coming up with new systems, that are really a futile attempt to save some clubs that can't be saved, I fail to see the reasoning,

The unrest was due to unfairness. That strive for a better deal is what brought the game to where it is. That better deal doesn't mean abandoning your morals to get a quick buck.

Our game is not poverty stricken. Complete overreaction.

If we don't have a strong vibrant elite league, we will just go back to what we had before, A semi pro second rate sport , if it survived, it may be fair, and would still have the image it had then, A second rate sport that nobody but the dwindling parochials had any interest in.

Utter nonsense. So because we aren't letting anyone come in and dictate with their money, we will go backwards into oblivion?

We have a strong vibrant league. We are striving for it to be even stronger. It's not going forwards at the moment but that doesn't mean we're in danger of total collapse.

You can keep talking of impending doom to justify your over the top reactions, but I'm not buying into it. There's nothing to back that up at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to compare us to other sports about fairness or when it suits. Why should i not compare us to Union, It is after all the most natural, They have been openly Pro for what 15 years or so and they have already left us for dead, despite having an inferior game, They are now looking to take all the best players that League can produce, But why worry about that, we will get used to being without them, It just so happens that i enjoy watching the likes of Tomkins, but i ain't going to be watching him for a year or two now.

I'm comparing to other sports as a whole. You're looking over your shoulder at another sport with a chip on your shoulder.

They have more money and more investors. They're in a completely different situation to us. There's nothing we can gain from looking at them in envy. We can't replicate what they're doing. Look at sport as a whole and see what we can take to help us. Or innovate. We are the innovators after all, and many sports have looked at us to take themselves forward.

Tomkins has gone to another league. That happens in all sports. They don't panic about it. You can't expect to keep all the talent you produce. Keep producing it, like we are. Do what we can to keep them by all means, but it's not a disaster and it's not different to what happens in other games.

I do get what you are saying here , People watch for there own reasons, Golf is a game i like to watch ( as well as play ), I go to Ryder cups when i can, I go to Opens when possible, any of the big comps if i can get to them, I don't go and watch the final of the Hudd's Fax league often, I want to watch the best in the sport, and i feel the same about League, Thats my reason and It's as valid as anyone else's, I can tell you that if Sky showed only CC league and county level golf, i would cancel it, That may not be what you would do, fair enough, but if enough people did Sky would pull the plug.

Exactly. If enough people cancel then they'd pull the plug. What you're asking is the sport only concentrate on one thing that attracts fans, and take away the others. You're not broadening your horizons.

You're only looking to cater for your own needs but mascarading it as the needs of the majority. You can still see the best vs the best in a P&R system.

I thought my comment on Leigh was that i didn't think they would ever make the grade again living with Wigan (so to speak) Again that's an opinion and i stick by it. I don't have a downer on Leigh, or Fax or any other club, I am simply stating things as they are, If you can afford SL you will be in it (wherever the money comes from ) If you can't you will be out of it, One way or another.

I agree. But it just appears that you're putting an unrealistic target on Leigh that others don't need to achieve to prove a point. If other clubs can survive in SL on crowds less than 10k, why can't Leigh? You've answered this yourself now so I'll leave it at that.

I don't know where all this fairness talk is supposed to be going, Nothing in life is fair, I'm told people in some area's are left to die because their post code doesn't fit the bill, Some old folks damn near freeze in winter while Millionairs draw the state pension, What's fair about that, What makes League any different to anything else. Sure it would be nice if it was , but it aint, It's not my fault or yours ,It's how it is.

My God. What a terrible argument.

I'm sorry, but if you believe we should stop aspiring for fairness simply because there is unfairness in the world, you might as well just become a criminal. We might as well close the courts, sack the coppers and let the country run itself.

There is unfairness in the world. That doesn't mean we should accept it and it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire for it.

Regarding Fev I said they will have to increase their crowds by 4 to stay alive or pump in Millions ( like has happened at Hudd's ) maybe you see another way to do it , They need to get app £ 3 million pounds a year from somwhere, If there's some other way ,Tell the good Dr at Salford , he will be all Ears.

Should they be denied the opportunity to attempt it because their face doesn't fit?

I well remember seeing the Hull fans leaving the John Smiths stadium after the game was over in 15 minutes end of last season, why were they going, because who wants to see games like that, and yet we are saying that teams who have realistically no chance in SL must be stuck in there to get slaughtered in the name of fairness, Just the sort of thing people switch on to watch.

No, you're saying they realistically have no chance. That doesn't mean they don't. If the club themselves believe they have no chance, they can reject promotion. But they should have the right to do that.

You're also choosing one result where a top team have had a stinker to exaggerate a point.

I do repect your opinion and your reasons for watching the game, It's just that they differ from mine, Myself i am more concerned with keeping the game alive and getting it to prosper at the moment than i am with the fairness of the sustem.

The game isn't dying. I think you're concerning yourself you don't need to be concerned about. Overreacting won't achieve anything. It certainly won't help the game prosper.

And I am also of the impression that the hand won't prosper if there's no attempt to create fairness. It will switch many people off the game.

I have one question for you. If you played HKR 3 times a year and they put 40/50 points on you almost every time, would you keep going in the hope of seeing it get turned round someday, or would you do like most people and say ###### it.

I'd like to say I have a big enough allegiance to my club to keep going, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove?

In case you have forgotten what it was like pre Summer Rugby. Wigan won everything for a decade, and if we lose Sky they will do it again, How would you stop that happening again, Because within 5 Years they would most likely be the only full time pro club, Maybe Leeds as well, but the whole thing would be at a lower level.

We aren't in danger of losing TV money or going semi-pro. Why you keep banging this drum as a reason for change, I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catalans finished rock bottom in their first SL season and a club above them, not in a relegation spot were demoted because Catalans were exempted from relegation. So you stop spouting rubbish.

That team wasn't Widnes, which the other poster is saying.

The club above them were in a relegation spot. They had to finish above the rest of the English teams and they failed. They knew this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keighley, we agree that the situation is unjust and uncorinthian.  A club that can come in and bring a new market to Super League, increase advertising revenue and TV revenue will be welcomed ahead of a team that finishes top of the Championship, but would be seen as taking revenue from an existing participant.  Is that so?

That's what some people want but it's not sport, is it. I don't see why these new clubs can't work their way up the leagues or, if it absolutely necessary to admit them to SL, then just increase the size of SL and not remove an existing club just to accommodate them.

If any new club from a new area has so much money to offer the game hey will soon rise to the top. Fulham, a previous incarnation of London started life with a 10,000 attendance in their first ever match and had an average crowd above 5,000 in div 2. hey won their promotion but couldn't hold onto their first div spot. if the money had not run out they may well have stayed in the top tier.

Carlisle were similar and won promotion a the first attempt but couldn't sustain their 1st division place. Crusaders went the other route but went from div 3 to SL, then the money ran out.

Toulouse were in the championship but couldn't produce a winning team but it's a precedent for either new French teams or relegated ones that they can play in the lower level. I just don't see why there should be any special exemptions. it smacks of elitism and unfairness. It's like giving some untried new employee a job because daddy is loaded and dismissing a long serving worker or not hiring a better worker because he's not as well heeled.

If a new club has the rsources it will get to SL and stay there. Huddersfield and Hull KR fell so low they had to be virtually reformed from scratch but worked their way to SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what some people want but it's not sport, is it. I don't see why these new clubs can't work their way up the leagues or, if it absolutely necessary to admit them to SL, then just increase the size of SL and not remove an existing club just to accommodate them.

If any new club from a new area has so much money to offer the game hey will soon rise to the top. Fulham, a previous incarnation of London started life with a 10,000 attendance in their first ever match and had an average crowd above 5,000 in div 2. hey won their promotion but couldn't hold onto their first div spot. if the money had not run out they may well have stayed in the top tier.

Carlisle were similar and won promotion a the first attempt but couldn't sustain their 1st division place. Crusaders went the other route but went from div 3 to SL, then the money ran out.

Toulouse were in the championship but couldn't produce a winning team but it's a precedent for either new French teams or relegated ones that they can play in the lower level. I just don't see why there should be any special exemptions. it smacks of elitism and unfairness. It's like giving some untried new employee a job because daddy is loaded and dismissing a long serving worker or not hiring a better worker because he's not as well heeled.

If a new club has the rsources it will get to SL and stay there. Huddersfield and Hull KR fell so low they had to be virtually reformed from scratch but worked their way to SL.

I agree with your other points but not with the French point.

If anything, the Toulouse experiment proved the exact opposite that French teams in a British semi-pro league is unworkable. You can't expect players to go to work and play part-time rugby in another country. It's too much and handicaps teams from other countries entering a European SL. It weighs too much in favour of the British clubs. There's a perfectly good semi-pro league in France they can work their way up from to SL. There needs to be a (fair) alternative route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, as far as i know it has never been a closed shop, And also as far as i know there is nothing or no one stopping any club from being as  successful as the so called big clubs.

 

Have Wigan, Warrington, Saints, Leeds, any of them got to their present position at the expense of the CC, I don't think so , But somehow the fact some  have rich men behind them seems to make them a target for all that's wrong in the game, My opinion for what it's worth is probably just the opposite.

 

When people get on about the unfairness of the game , and how nice it could be with all teams equal and all that , I can see what they are saying and i can agree to some extent, it would be nice to have 20 teams all with realistic chances of winning something every year,  We had that for 100 years and for a lot of that  some of it may well have been true, but the game has moved on since those days, When Summer Rugby came along the reality is that the game was at it's lowest ebb , with one club winning everything.

 

What i would like to hear is which money men were responsible for that, and what in the world is there to suggest it would be any different again now.

 

I know quite well that a lot of people don't like what i say, But at least i tell it like it is and not how it could be if only the greedy men ( who are putting Millions into the game ) would just be fair, I mean some of them calling them greedy and grasping and power mad ,have put all of £250 a year in for a few years.

 

So bring it on , lets give it a go and see what happens, I know what has happened in the past, some clubs are still trying to get back to an even keel. The whole country has ( and is going through a recession , Except in Pontefract apparently) but this time it's all going to work.

 

What in the world short of some extraordinary event, Leads people to the conclusion that Leigh will ever be able to compete with wigan beats me, I know they have to some extent in the past, But that is the key word the past, In those days you didn't need £3 million a year, Now you do and like it or not , the plain unvarnished truth is Wigan have it and Leigh don't.

You are probably right that Leigh and others cannot compete with Wigan, not for long at least BUT if they win a place they should be allowed to try. if they fail and all back, so be it, but why should some failing organisations like London and even Castleford or Salford last season be perennially up their in the top tier at the expense of others who have worked long and hard both on and off the field to qualify for a tilt at the top level.

I know people don't like comparisons to soccer but the fact remains that Barnsley, Bradford City, Wigan, Blackpool, Blackburn, Charlton, Birmingham and probably some I can't remember have won their spot and had their chance in the premier league and soccer has no suffered as a result. I don't see why we can't do the same. Blackpool, Dewsbury, Hunslet, Swinton all three Cumbrian clubs, Doncaster, York, Bramley, Oldham, Rochdale,Leigh, Keighley as well as various Welsh clubs and Carlisle have won and competed in our top division. If they can put a team good enough on the field, which will cost money to do, and win promotion, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed a shot at it again. If they can't hack it in SL they will soon be relegated but they will have had their shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017