DOGFATHER

Gledhill Moore Manning

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/mar/23/batley-bulldogs-castleford-tigers-challenge-cup-rugby-league?CMP=share_btn_url&fbclid=IwAR2MQbpMOw976qMXS4b2Ky-lE9IwaysxESfshClcCBhPrq9F0SxJ3-FP5bU

Ihttps://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/mar/23/batley-bulldogs-castleford-tigers-challenge-cup-rugby-league?CMP=share_btn_url&fbclid=IwAR2MQbpMOw976qMXS4b2Ky-lE9IwaysxESfshClcCBhPrq9F0SxJ3-FP5bU Absolutely spot on article.

Yes George played.

A tactical masterclass by Moxon, who saved the big forwards until the last 15-20 mins and Widnes couldn't cope with them as they tired.

1. Kear 2. Leak 3. Walshaw

J. Burton Manning Woods

Woods Ward White

I certainly hope they can, we need them to. I'm also hoping Woods can regain some of the form he had all those years ago when he played for Swinton against us.

I agree with you too. What I couldn't understand was, why the Dewsbury players didn't learn from the penalties? I could understand getting caught a couple of times early on, but surely the message should have sunk in after the first couple, but alas it didn't. I actually applaud Kendall (for once) for sticking to it for the full 80 minutes. He blew them all for both teams, it is then up to the players to get it right. It isn't hard to play the ball with your foot. It has annoyed me for years, when refs will blow something up once or twice early on, then forget about it for the rest of the game. However, I thought it spoiled the game, and cost you a very comfortable win. Dewsbury were much the better side on the day IMO. You moved up in defense far better than we did, and ran with more purpose whilst attacking, and created the only clean breaks in the game. I'm sincerely hoping Woods, Walshaw and Flynn can come in and produce miracles, because on that performance, both sides look like they are in for a very long season. Considering the amount of position and possession we had, and could only muster 2 tries, one off a kick and barge over from close range is very concerning. We never really looked like creating an opening. Of course, credit must go to the defense, but we didn't look like we could open a bag of crisps, never mind a defense. There was no movement off the ball to distract defenders, or provide options for the ball carrier. But the season is a good while off yet, and there's time for both teams to improve.

Why would we be due something from London? I assume there was a clause in his contract, that allowed him to sign for a SL club if one offered to sign him, without the requirement to pay a transfer fee. Most championship players will have something similar in place. Santi, who was at Keighley, had a clause in his contract, that effectively made him a free agent if the coach left. The coach left/ was relieved of his duties, and shortly afterwards, Santi signed for York. I'm pretty sure no transfer fee was payable, as the clause said he could leave. This isn't uncommon. The exact same thing happened to Widnes with Dupree, (as previously brought to your attention). I think the only game he played for Widnes, was in the friendly against us. Players with the talent and ambition to play at the highest level, are extremely unlikely to sign for anyone in the Championship without a release clause, or an extremely high contract, which, we, and most other Championship teams are unlikely to be able to afford. The same clause was likely to be in Kibula's contract too.

Luke Gale last season. There was something funny with the Tee Ritson signing at Saints, he was on loan from Barrow initially, but then signed permanently at Saints. I've a feeling Leeds did it with Briscoe at Featherstone a couple of seasons back too. Tyler Dupree went from Widnes to Salford is another, without really thinking about it...

I believe it is pretty much standard practice now, for players to have a release clause built in to contracts, I would be amazed if they are not, on the size of contracts we are likely to offer.

I'm not sure the catchment area has much relevance TBH. When you look at the attendances at clubs, has catchment area been a major factor over the last 25-30 years? Take Sheffield, London, Newcastle, NW Crusaders and Fev as examples. Sheffield, Newcastle, NWC and London have massive catchment areas, but very low attendances. Fev has a very small catchment in comparison, but much higher attendances than any of them. Salford has a population of circa 270k, St Helens has a population of 180k, Castleford 46k (according to Google) yet the gates at the respective clubs does not correlate to the population sizes. There are far more factors that affect attendances other than population/catchment area. Therefore, why is catchment used as a metric, rather than club sustainability/ability to live within its means for example?

I heard a rumour that next season's squad size is likely to be just 17, as a few of the lads we have already announced, have since been signed by SL clubs or lost the will to live after reading this thread. But that number is entirely reliant on the number of times you can ask the same question every time we announce a signing. If I have read the IMG document correctly, I think we get an additional point for each time either you or PD can repeat the same question, and at the last count, we've climbed the gradings table to just below Warrington. Well done mate

Joe is a back rower, Dave is a halfback I think.

It means, the IMG system is severely flawed and not fit for purpose. Newcastle - The 18th best club according to the IMG rankings. Despite the fact they were not sustainable and have packed up, this speaks volumes and tells you all you need to know about the rankings. Salford 8th??? Sustainable? I doubt it, given the financial plight that has seen several high profile players being offloaded and seen as a better prospect than Huddersfield? Oldham - A higher ranked club than Dewsbury, that strolled through L1 last season at a canter, own there own ground, are not at the whim of somebody else when they play, really?!? London Bronco's - Good enough to out-perform the big spending Toulouse and Fev, have earned the right to be in SL next year, but ranked 24th and way below Newcastle. How has this information been audited/verified? What is to stop clubs:- Giving out 10000 free tickets to every home game, even if none of them are used, what is to stop a club counting them as attended, like they do for season tickets, ensuring a sell out every week? Employing kids on work experience to click on the clubs social media content for 8 hours per day 5 days a week to increase the social media clicks to ensure a top score.

Yes, the Ch do all receive equal funding. But, your point is what exactly? Are you suggesting that the 14 Ch clubs keep what they get between themselves? Or, are you suggesting all club's outside SL, should pool everything they get, and share it equally? If it is the latter, my point stands. Where is the upside for the current Ch clubs? There is absolutely no benefit to them. They will be voting to essentially split the majority of the money 22 ways instead of 14, meaning less money for themselves. Also adding journey's to Workington and Cornwall and lower average attendances.

You seem to assume that the clubs outside of SL will get a decent amount of funding to share, that it will make a significant difference. I'm not convinced there will be enough scraps thrown down from SL to do so. Regardless of that, I fail to see any benefit in merging, from the CH club's point of view. Less money, more travelling, increased costs, lower gates and more competition for a dwindling player base. Had the clubs stuck together back when it mattered, then absolutely, I'd be all for pulling together as a "rugby league family" and all that.. The fact remains, that certain clubs didn't stick together when it mattered, and now want everyone else to look after them, now they are in trouble. If I was a club, I would vote to merge the league's, for the good of the game, but only keep the clubs that voted for the good of the game last time

RFL accused of trying to ‘cajole’ smaller clubs over Super League reform vote | RFL | The Guardian If I recall it correctly, Doncaster, Rochdale, Swinton and Oldham were all amongst those clubs that were "cajoled" and voted in favour of changing the funding structure. Which gave Lenagan and SL, the majority they needed to effectively kill the lower divisions. At the time, anyone with half an ounce of common sense knew this was the beginning of the end for the lower divisions. Now, some of the clubs that voted with self interest, are requesting other clubs should not do what they did, and pull together and help to fix the mess they allowed to happen?!?! Sadly, the Championship as it is, won't survive for many more years, regardless of whether they merge with L1. If they decide to merge, it will just speed up the process.

Are you suggesting it will be a Fev v Bulls final, then IMG will make it a 14 team SL, and promoting both finalists?

I heard we made him an offer, but he had been offered more money by Keighley and was likely to sign for them. However, that was before Keighley were relegated.

I personally think the best option for the game, would be to combine the divisions and have 2 leagues of 12. The top 4 from each, form an 8 team playoff for the end of season Championship. I would also like to see a total salary cap of £500k, no dispensation, no marquee players costing less than face value, and everyone on a clubs books should count towards it. None of this top 25 earners type of loophole, and it would also include all backroom staff and not just players. Keep it simple. This would reward the better supported/funded teams, so they could spend up to the cap, but not put them out of sight of teams that can't. However, I'm not a Fev fan, and with my tinfoil hat on, I firmly believe Fev will go up this year, and will come straight back down, being replaced by Wakefield. IMG will pull up the SL draw bridge and we will be back to a closed shop. Therefore, there would be no need to spend £2M on the squad getting the nucleus of the side ready for SL the following year.

Meadows Manning McGowan