Exiled Wiganer
-
Posts
10,074 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Exiled Wiganer
-
-
That was comfortable enough. I think the serious injury after the Leigh crusher tackle took the edge off the rest of our performance. Astonishingly the perpetrator continued to stand over Zak for minutes as he was being put on a stretcher. Was he waiting for another go?
All thoughts are with Eckersley. A talented young man finding his way.
-
Leigh have a very strong squad - pretty much their strongest by the looks of it. With us missing Havard and Miski, they have more of their 1-13 than we do. I expect us to be 100% focussed after they nilled us last time out. It will be very difficult indeed, but with home advantage and a high level of motivation we can prevail.
-
5 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:
Only the directors of SRD or a court can close them down it's nothing to do with the RFL.
Incidentally while you have expectations that the rugby community should be rallying around SRD think about how many community officers could have been employed by the money that's gone into the SRD black hole. Think about how many league 1 clubs it could have supported properly. Think about how many people will lose their jobs as a result of that mismanagement and think about the local business that will undoubtedly also fail while the directors will likely get off scot free. All because the directors in charge were incompetent or too ego driven to properly manage their finances.
I feel for fans and genuine staff at the club but fail to see why everyone else should pick up the tab for SRD. This isn't cash flow problems it's complete financial mismanagement over a sustained period of time.
Exactly right.
And the clubs/RFL had the unique opportunity to make sure they weren’t in SL this year. It beggars belief that they actually looked into SRD’s financial standing and awarded them a licence, when nothing has fundamentally changed - no major sponsor has defaulted and they didn’t have a deep pocketed benefactor able to meet their liabilities. And awarded them a licence (applying the rules at the time, potentially), and have not seemingly changed the rules to stop it happeneing again. We could have stopped this from ever happening. It’s a tragedy.
-
To paraphrase Ray French, Vaughan is a mobile tank!
-
1
-
-
-
57 minutes ago, George Watt said:
Haven't worn a watch since I left England back in the mid 60's AT.
Time is indeed meaningless once you leave old Blighty behind.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Celtic Roosters said:
Good point, although if you look into the historicity of place names there are usually good geographical, natural or historical reasons why the names they were given were given. I will stick with what I was born into thanks. If somebody at the town hall decides to call the City Narnia tomorrow I will probably stick with Salford 5 Lancashire.
Narnia is a realm not a city.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, LeeF said:
It was just one of those things.
The referee was in a good position and obviously didn’t block Thewlis deliberately so just a clash. It happens and has probably happened to all referees at some stage. Play on was the correct decision
Plus, we all know how that story was always going to end.
-
There was a good article on the BBC website about this. Jepson was talking a good game. Great to see one of the clubs who have year in and year contributed so much to the top tier getting a new lease of life. We couldn’t touch them when I first started watching the game, and they have always had their own classy style, built on some of the best junior production lines in the world.
-
2
-
-
I think having it in Newcastle every year is a brilliant idea. It feels like an event, and is building into a tradition. Plus, the game has amateur and junior roots alongside the Thunder which deserve continued support from the game. Sure, there are other places which might make sense, if we had to move, but I see no compelling push factors.
-
3
-
-
I would ditch the captain’s challenge, as we don’t have the skilled people and the technology to carry out checks on anything quickly enough, and it’s dire having 60 minute halves.
I thought it was a cracking, though flawed, game. Wire stepped up. For some reason our timing was really off - I thought French was very ordinary indeed in that respect.
To get 4 from 4 in this block of fixtures: Saints, both Hulls away and Wire on neutral territory is a fantastic achievement. I think the name of the game for us is to be in the top 2 at the end of the year. That is a massive advantage. That looks achievable, especially if Leigh/HKR get to Wembley.
-
1 hour ago, sweaty craiq said:
Fixtures play a huge role Wigan ( great to see those numbers btw) benefited from Saints and Leigh games at home, Leigh have only had Wire as an ‘attractive’ fixture and have had little away support from Hudds/wakey/Cats as the other 3 home games. Hull have had the derby etc
SL and RL is definitely on the up again - and will continue to rise after what will be a record Ashes series on free to air but please import Aussie commentators for it
All this puts us in a good place to negotiate a tv deal NOW using the NRL rumours/threats to drive the deal back to where it should be or lose it.
The sport would be insane to lock in a deal before hearing what the NRL are offering, if anything. If, as rumoured, they are interested in major investment with a few tweaks to the structure then a comparison between the respective TV deals available would be a key factor.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, RayCee said:
By replacing Wakefield's first four games with London's first four from 2024, the total goes down from 17.0% to 13.7%.
Thanks for showing the interest in the subject in a positive way, in wanting more detail. Some can be superficially quick to see negatives with a 'glass half empty' attitude.
Thanks a million for your work. This is of course only a snapshot, and includes what are likely to be the 3 biggest home crowds of the year, and the loaded Good Friday fixture list. Which is good PR, but may give a misleading impression as to where we might end up. We shall see!
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the link to Rhodri’s comments. Over 30k this far out is superb.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Ethereal said:
Great work as usual.
If you remove London/Wakefield's figured and the Vegas game, do you know what the like for like averages would be?
I think the average drops about 1k if you lose the frankly ridiculous Vegas figure they have included for Wigan. So, still good.
However, it deserves a much deeper dive. For instance, how skewed is it by FC having had 2 home derbies, and, as you say, to what extent is the increase simply a result of Trinity for London?
-
Apologies if this has been done to death elsewhere, but, having read the Warrington Guardian injury summary it includes players out with a fractured eye socket, a broken jaw and a failed HIA. All incurred in matches against Saints.
Is it me or is that ridiculous? I assume some bans have been served as a result?
-
6 minutes ago, RP London said:
How is what is happening at Salford anything to do with IMG if they have nothing to do with the licensing process anymore?
Salford arguably wouldn't be in super league if the original criteria set out by IMG and the original weightings had been agreed to.
Or are you saying that IMG should have stepped in and said "you know they're a basket case don't you? can you just kick them out otherwise our job or marketing this league is going to be much harder?" I mean I could understand that position a lot more as what you would like to happen, even though it would massivly overstep their remit.
You mentioned IMG in response to a post which didn’t mention them. On this thread. I referred to advisers, as I had been told that IMG had nothing to do with the financial criteria. I then broadened the debate, in response to your impassioned defence of IMG. Go back and read your own words. As for your quote, that is exactly what they should have said. And that is exactly what they should be saying now. If I was being paid to increase TV income, then I would consider that to be front and centre to my brief. They may indeed have done that and said that. I hope they have.
You have reached the point where you leap to IMG’s defence when they weren’t even being mentioned. And I am a massive fan of the overall idea and direction of travel, which I assume means we are on the same page.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Worzel said:
"Marketing agency that the RFL have on a retainer checks marketing data for their marketing client, but not the totally unrelated financial data"... shock, horror, hold the front page!! 🫨🫨🫨🫨
And yet, if you take the “what happens to Salford is nothing to do with IMG” to your extreme, they have seemingly no interest in making Super League marketable. I do accept that if they have so limited the scope of their work that counting Facebook posts matters, and Salford’s implosion doesn’t then kudos to them for that. But for those of us hoping that this time we can do the hard work as a game to realise our infinite potential then that is shock horror hold the front page.
-
5 minutes ago, RP London said:
IIRC IMG do an initial "sanity check" of the data for the social media and, I think, the other interweb stuff so that there is one common reporting set up using data that is equal across the board. That is then submitted to the audit team.
The Audit team, which I think is independent, then audits all the data that is sent to them to make sure it is correct and therefore the scores are correct at the end. This is an absolute box tick, they do not have influence on anything they are just checking that 25m clicks which equals 1 point (for example, cant remember what the actual points are awarded for) is actually what is on the spreadsheet etc.. (a bit like votes on britains got talent are independently audited).. they are just following the criteria that is given to them by the RFL and the clubs who voted for them (and changed them from the initial IMG ones).
Oh, so it’s not a “nothing to do with us, how very dare you”, it’s a sanity check? Mmm.
-
25 minutes ago, RP London said:
I've been in plenty of these types of meetings with advisors and no matter the advice that is given, no matter the information that is given not everyone follows the sensible advice.. If you think they do you need to give your head a wobble.
IMG came out with a set of proposals that were sensible and worked. These were changed by the clubs.. those are the facts.. the fact there was already a good set of grading criteria that did a better job than this does, including the grade demotion for financial issues (something you want) shows that they had a better grasp of this... then the clubs changed it.. it wasnt at that stage about advice, they gave them the criteria which the clubs then changed!
IMG can only work with what the clubs give them at any moment.. the CLUBS gave them this issue with Salford becuase the CLUBS changed the criteria and then the RFL marked to that criteria.
I am not defending the people that gave the reports on SRD... I dont understand where on earth you can get that picture from... for the 1 millionth time.. IMG ARE NOT THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE THEY DID NOT DO THE ASSESMENT.
Those that are responsible are the RFL FFS! If we are here again next year its because the clubs and the RFL watered down the penalties that IMG PUT IN PLACE for financial misconduct.
However many times you want to attack IMG for preparing the reports on SRD, you will always be wrong.
My oh my that is some defence. You have not persuaded me, but clearly you feel very strongly about it. As it happens in the post that you initially responded to I didn’t mention IMG, though I am happy to discuss that at any time, as I am a staunch supporter of theirs, and believe that the overall direction of travel is not only a good thing but the ONLY way in which the game has to go. If the RFL ditches them then they are insane.
To pick up the narrow point at issue here, I have spent my entire working life over 3 decades either giving or fielding or interpreting advice. I would be prepared to wager massive sums that the clubs didn’t realise how Salford would pan out before giving them a licence, and that to be here again next year would be a dereliction of duty by their advisers. Those advisers may be the RFL/accountants, and not IMG at all, which is why I referred to them as advisers in my comment you responded to.
I would have thought that we are on the same page that if we end up here again next year then this assessment system has failed.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, RP London said:
The experts did, even had a rule which catered for chucking a team out for financial issues (automatically a grade lower)... guess what THE GAME changed it.
You can berate IMG all you want, you can hold the opinion that they don't know what they are doing, but you would be wrong. They set up a system, the clubs voted for changes that made the system unbalanced and toothless, that is on them no matter how many times you want to say "the experts don't know what they're doing" its the clubs that changed it to be like this.
Have you seen the actual advice? Were you at the meetings? Did you see the minutes? Did they make this decision fully appraised of the risks? If you honestly think that an adviser is doing their job well in these circumstances, then there is nothing down for you. I do have some sympathy with the proposition that IMG may not have been the people carrying out the financial review.
IMG’s job is to make the game more marketable. The inevitable consequence of this process was that this year would be over shadowed by these entirely predictable financial woes, and is a catastrophic look. In contrast the clubs organised Vegas and are steering the Ashes ticket sales, so we have had some good news and the RFL is getting some income. Now, there may have been some backward looking errors on both sides, but the context in which I am making this particular point is the suggestion that we could be here again next year because “computer says…”.
However many times you defend the people who prepared the reports on SRD, you will always be wrong.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Anita Bath said:
1973 tour 1st test at 100,000 capacity Wembley. Attendance 9800.
When did Sydney last get a 67k crowd for an international?
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:
Let's not forget as well that 8 out of the top 10 England attendances were all in London. Whenever we play in London we get a decent crowd.
Indeed, It isn’t at all a speculative proposition. There is a track record of huge interest. The key questions are whether we will raise awareness generally and then push it as a must see. Everything I have seen and heard thus far suggests we will succeed on both of those fronts.
-
38 minutes ago, WN83 said:
Nostalgia can play tricks and while we did get some good crowds in London when I was a kid, they were not the regular 70-80,000 my mate said we used to get yesterday, when I said in excess of 50-55k would class as acceptable.
I had a look at the 4 big games I can recall, which were the 1990 test, the 1992 World cup final, the 1994 test and the 1995 World Cup final and the crowds were 54k, 73k, 57k and 66k. Now people aren't going to the Wembley final in numbers like they used to and I don't think the numbers have been huge in terms of people from the heartlands travelling to London for tests in recent years, so I certainly wouldn't be getting upset at any crowd in excess of that 50k mark. I'd love to think we can get to 70+ but history seems to be against us.
We got over 67k in 2013 and weren’t playing the Aussies. That’s by far the most relevant comparison.
I have been to pretty much all the internationals down here in the last 35 years and I see no reason at all why we can’t smash the 2013 figure, given the quality of Moran’s team.
Pretty much all of the relatively poorly attended ones had subterranean marketing. This one is clearly being done by professionals.
I would be astonished if it comes in less than 60k. 70k would be par and a new record for any Ashes series anywhere would be a very good result.
There is a market and there is a team which knows how to reach it. All will be well.
-
2
-
Fri 16th May: SL: Wigan Warriors v Leigh Leopards KO 20:00 (Sky)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted · Edited by Exiled Wiganer
Watch it again. Perhaps with the sound off so you don’t have to hear the Leigh fans initially booing Eckersley. Classy.