Jump to content

Wellsy4HullFC

Coach
  • Posts

    11,454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Wellsy4HullFC

  1. I would far rather England play in a competitive, meaningful match. If they can't do that, I don't want them to play as it cheapens the brand. That's my biggest issue. England in tinpot matches missing half of their available players in front of a crowd not befitting an international event serves no purpose for the players (of both teams), the sport or the fans. If this is all we can get mid-season, I'd rather we didn't use the England monicker and saved it for proper internationals at the end of the season. I want England to be a big deal and it's matches like this that make it less so. If we can't do it right, do something else. I'd rather an All Stars game than a match that damages the viewing of international rugby league.
  2. There's never been "loads of marketing" for anything in rugby league except for finals and end of season internationals. It was marketed as County of Origin, but other than a name and a logo, what else did they do? Even with the England brand advantage, you can't get anyone to go to a mid-season drubbing with half the team playing at the other side of the world. It's very close to reserve international standard. The fact that you think there's not much of a difference between playing on a Wednesday night and playing on a Saturday evening is laughable by the way. You surely don't mean that.
  3. There's no other way? You mean a Wednesday night in Bradford is better than a Saturday in Leigh or Warrington? There's loads of other ways that could have done it better, and I'm not sure where this "had far more marketing" line is coming from. What was this marketing that I missed?
  4. England v France mid-season has never broken 9k, and that's with the luxury of being played on the weekend. Roses matches in the summer era broke that twice with midweek fixtures. It wouldn't be a proper England camp though. It would be missing many of the top players from NRL, played at the intensity of a game with lower SL opposition. If you're not going to have a proper camp, might as well give more English players a go with a higher intensity.
  5. The bar is "better than what we currently have." I believe in many areas, it would be. An international has the bar of being an international-calibre event, of which none of the mid-season tests have been.
  6. The vast majority of people I've spoken to would prefer it over a game v France or Exile. But admittedly, that's from a Yorkshire perspective.
  7. It's been done 3 seasons in the full time summer era. Only one game was on a Friday/weekend. Rest midweek. And still had better crowds than England v France on a Saturday mid season.
  8. If they can't do it in a credible way due to matters out of their control (releasing of NRL players, credible competition, etc), I don't think they should prioritise it at all. It's not a proper international, and those that perceive it as being one are more likely to be put off future internationals. Beyond our control due to the NRL. Only way it would work would be over there. You ain't getting them to send a team, their English-based NRL players won't come for a nothing fixture, there's no credible competition over here except France and they can't put out a decent side due to players being pulled. I think it would be supported better than a nothing fixture against France personally. Also, we need to stop being ashamed of our Northern roots. There's nothing wrong with specifically celebrating them at least once!
  9. One harms the brand we're trying to develop for international fixtures. The other doesn't. That's why I'm more inclined to go for the Roses. The only credible England international fixture we could arrange would have to be Down Under due to the logistics of having credible opposition (not getting it over here mid-season). I reckon you could send a small group Down Under (we've got a lot of NRL talent now) and have enough hungry fringe players left here to have a Roses match trying to fight their way into selection for the end of the season if we needed to host something here every year.
  10. "Badly" is subjective, and both the parameters used to measure what badly is are different for an international fixture and a non-international rep fixture. The international is done badly when compared to other international competition. The Roses fixture has no comparison here. It's its own entity. That's my point really. One is 'done badly' and harms the building of interest for the international brand rather than adds to it. The other is just 'done'.
  11. I don't expect it to have more money for commitment. But at least it will achieve similar (if not more) than the current internationals we put on (i.e. a competitive match, and not an event that is an embarrassment to the idea of international sport).
  12. When people can saying WotR "failed", what measure are we using here? Crowd-wise, it did ok with very little promotion. The result wasn't predictable. It gave lots of players a run-out in a rep environment. It produced some great merchandise (I'm literally sat with my Yorkshire shirt on from 2003). Currently, any mid-season international ends up either being predictable, doesn't bring in the best players available, or has such a poor turnout that it damages international RL's credibility. Either do it properly, or if you can't then do something else. We can't, so do something else until we can. (At least we're finally playing the mid-season game in France).
  13. Confirmed by Rovers. I heard on Humberside they're digging Tom Davies next year, so this makes sense now.
  14. By identifying all of those roles, you've pretty much done the job of the Director of Rugby.
  15. Despite having many rugby league friends, I often find football is the more prevalent topic of conversation. It's the most watched in pubs when I play darts around the city in the Thursday (even European games). It's unprecedentedly more popular amongst young people from when I was teaching. There's just no question. City get a higher combined attendance currently. Even if many are from out of town, think how many Leeds fans, Man City fans, Man Utd fans, Liverpool fans, Arsenal fans, Chelsea fans, etc. there are. Football is just so much more inclusive due to how easy it is to play, how accessible it is follow, watch and play. You can't get away from it. It'll always be more widely followed here.
  16. No Saudi oil money for us. The dream was funny whilst it lasted
  17. Absolutely nothing of note came out of that. "We've hopefully got some investors. They're not from Hull." "We've been working with the new DoR for a while. Can't name him though."
  18. One thing you could never knock Radford for. Always quick-witted.
  19. Hope you're right. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/hull-fc-verge-fresh-investment-9219523
  20. Like I've said, there's definitely more to it than just coaching. But that doesn't mean it's not coaching also. 4 drubbings on the bounce and only 1 win (just) since August tells a lot.
  21. I'm hearing there's more news to come. I hope so. We've gone backwards in pretty much every metric in the last year and a bit. On the field has been the worst it's been since we moved to the new stadium. For those that say you can't blame the coach for that, I say you can't not blame him for any of it. He's still got to get the players playing, and he's just not done that in spectacular fashion. There's a lot of people that need to leave our club, and a lot that need to come in. That won't happen unless the people coming in first are new investors. Please, let the new people coming in be new investors!
  22. It's a shame Moi Moi was greedy and wanted his name repeating otherwise he could have been in such esteemed company.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.