Exiled Wiganer
-
Posts
10,083 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Exiled Wiganer
-
-
10 hours ago, Tommygilf said:
They're consultants, they were consulted.
Do you think that they:
- held themselves out as people who knew what they were doing when devising the criteria/process and
- spotted and/or pointed out that their system would not flag up someone having no money in the account
I suspect that 1) they held themselves as having come up with a fit for purpose test, and 2) that the clubs reasonably did not anticipate that the system would not be designed to pick up the reality that a club unable to pay its players could get a licence because it is so bleeding obviously a catastrophic event which should prevent someone getting a licence.
This is clearly not how the system was understood by the clubs to work. Forget the stuff around they signed off on it. They relied on the people who put the test together to design and implement one that worked. This fiasco is on whoever designed or implemented the test, or Salford if they lied. Because the clubs were not advised to approve Salford’s place with full knowledge of what was coming next.
-
Looks like we have a game - they have named 16. We have included O’Neill and Field.
-
I think you are answering a different question. My assumption was that there might be players who would demonstrably add to the team. If say, we had a 3 year “residency” rule, then French (the man not the country) could play for England. I might think it a bit odd, but is there any actual evidence that seeing him playing for England would reduce the attendance or viewing figures?
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:
You’d hope they’d have a contingency plan ready to go at a moments notice if Salford can’t fulfil their fixtures.
I had it drilled into me on day 1 of my working life - never rely on hope.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:
What if Bradford got a load of extra cash out of replacing Salford late notice and some special dispensation on the IMG gradings for the 2025 season?
Totally understand that Bradford would need some compensation and reward to do this.
Or anyone else.
In an ideal world, they could merge Salford and Bradford? I seem to recall a Gateshead FC merger which lead to FC getting everything and Gateshead getting nothing… though I would get someone who can do add’s and take’s to make sure people can get paid this time.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Jonty58 said:
You know when this game fills out it teams with “ Heritage players “ particularly a tier 1 nation like England it puts a lot of fans of being interested in the International game.
I have no interest in watching a Test match if England wants to use Australian born and bred players through some grandparent rule.
I don’t care what other sports like Union and Cricket do.
It sends a poor message to the fans and any young players coming through.
I do not understand why a player would choose to represent another country because a parent was born there other than they think they are unlikely to be picked to represent the country of their birth so it’s a second choice.
If they were that passionate perhaps they would choose to live there as well as play for that country.
Is there any actual evidence for that assertion? I think the evidence from other sports is compelling. Some league purists may be put off, but as we are seeing from the enthusiasm for the Ashes series there are 10s of thousands of people motivated by seeing an event. And a competitive England side would make the event bigger.
I am happy to be persuaded if there is any evidence of support dropping for a more successful team using a few qualified in dodgy ways players.
-
1
-
-
If we promote the 13th club will someone check that that club has any actual money, or will we go with the “it’s a wonderful process look at the scores!” approach again and not bother?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:
They don't really want the club, they have been sold an investment opportunity with the land and are waiting on the finance company to approve that. The council have insisted that to buy the land they must take the club too. Without that finance though they don't really have the serious cash needed it seems.
The way Salford have been managed over the past 2 years at least has been a joke and made them almost unsellable at this point. They haven't operated within their means and they have, by their deception, brought the RFL administration who were on their side down with them too. Several on here have tried to defend the previous leaders at the club but its clear whilst they loved the club, they ran it in a way that was dishonest to the core. They weren't honest with fans about the challenge, nor were they honest with the wider sport about their predicament, they haven't even been honest with the new owners!
I wouldn't be surprised if at this point the new owners claim this wasn't their plan, then let SRD either go to the wall or have a SL bailout till the end of the season. If there is a club at the end then they may do something with it, if not I doubt it will be a great loss in their eyes.
They were awarded a licence in SL after an evaluation process.
For one of the few times in the history of our top tier, we actually had the opportunity to do something about a club with no money to pay the players. And failed to do so.
I am not surprised the other owners are apoplectic with rage.
-
I don’t deliberately watch kick and clap but when I overhear the commentary on internationals there always seem to be loads of unexpected names playing for home nations.
At this stage, I just want to see us to win a series once before I pop my clogs. I would leave no stone unturned to see who might be available who might improve us. If there is any prospect of a player increasing our chances I would look into it. But, in a home series in the autumn I would leave the spine we have blooded in the last 2 years intact.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:
Agreed. Focus on selling out the bottom tier as quickly as possible. Gives the RFL more power when opening the top tier, rather than begging or gifting upgrades late September.
We could learn lessons from the AFL approach to internationals.
-
As a southerner through exile, the pricing looks fine. People almost always comment how cheap as chips watching league is compared to other sports in London, so there is definitely a lot of headroom. Having been to every major league event in the south over the last 35 years, cost has never been a reason for people turning down the opportunity for a big event. The south will turn out in force as we always do. You’re welcome.
-
3
-
-
We are a leaguie family, with a broad range from fanatics to big events only. The level of enthusiasm for these matches - well, the first 2 at least - is through the roof. Great to see this club lead initiative. It backs up one of McManus’ points last week, and builds on the clubs driven success in Vegas. A very welcome counter balance to Salford’s inclusion in SL this year. Take a bow, Mr Moran.
-
1
-
-
I have read that Wigan are allowing Chan to play, even though he would normally stand down, being on loan to them from us. That is a magnanimous gesture from our club.
-
1
-
-
We have had some terrific games with Salford over the last few years. Goodness knows who we will be playing on Sunday, but I think we will step up after we recover a bit more from our. post Vegas hangover. Be good to see O’Neill back. He will bring some welcome aggression and dynamism.
Great to see that Field was only mildly injured against FC. I wonder if Peet might wait until we understand better who Salford can pick before deciding whether to give him a run out.
-
13 hours ago, Worzel said:
I don’t conclude that at all. I just understand that the responsibility is ours as a sport, whereas you seem desperate to deliberately misrepresent who conducts the assessment in order to blame someone else. That’s not a matter of opinion. The clubs chose the methodology, the RFL conducted last year’s assessment. That’s indisputable.
I am not at all desperate to make any point. That is your opinion, as clearly you have no idea what my motivation is for anything I write, which you then state is not a matter of opinion. You seem really to struggle with the whole facts/opinion line.
There are 2 facts:
- Salford were assessed and awarded a licence
- Salford had no financial means to pay their players
These actual facts show either that the assessment failed to pick up Salford’s complete inability to field a side, or else it did and Salford were waved through. There is no third option. This is very important. I am not sure you have been following the story, but it has been a daily drag on the entire competition. That is a fact.
You are clinging to your line that the clubs are at fault for approving the assessment methodology. If I employ an accountant, I will outline my goals/outline scope of work. The accountant will then present a proposal. In accepting their proposal I am relying on the accountant to know what they are doing to achieve those goals/meet that scope of work.
If the end result is deficient, then the idea that I should have become sufficiently qualified as an accountant to appreciate that the methodology was rubbish would constitute a laughable defence to my negligence claim.
I accept that my assumption that IMG played some part in either designing this part of the process, or carrying it out may be incorrect, in which case they are not to blame. I also accept that it is possible that the clubs/RFL didn’t ask the people putting the assessment together to make sure that the selected teams could actually play rugby league, or went further and made it clear they didn’t care whether or not they could field a team, but I find it incredible that someone asked to do this job wouldn’t have realised that the entire purpose of the exercise was to find clubs who could compete in SL. It is also possible that the people carrying out the assessment flagged up that they had enough points but, by the way, they won’t be able to play matches, and the clubs waved it through anyway, in which case the clubs are to blame. It is also possible that Salford lied, in which case they are to blame (though I would have expected that to have come out by now). I also accept that the test may have been properly designed but was incorrectly carried out, in which case the blame squarely lies with the people carrying out the test.
-
2 hours ago, londonbronco said:
There’s been no official word from Nigel Wood on whether he’s for or against NRL involvement, but if you read between the lines (as a London-based RL supporter) he’s almost certainly not a fan! Wood is a staunch traditionalist and his whole tenure at the RFL was about keeping the game under UK control, even when Super League was making noises about breaking away. He was part of the old-school brigade that resisted too much external influence, preferring to keep rugby league’s governance in-house rather than risk becoming a smaller player in a larger, Aussie-dominated system. This is why I guess many of the M62 club’s Chairmen voted for him.
His track record suggests he’d see NRL involvement as a threat to the RFL’s independence. When Toronto and Toulouse were trying to push the game into a more global direction, Wood wasn’t exactly rolling out the red carpet. His approach was all about keeping the heartlands onside, rather than embracing expansionism. The fact that he took over Bradford Bulls, arguably the symbol of rugby league’s struggles, rather than pursuing a role in any of the newer, bolder projects shows where his loyalties lie: local, not global.
If he does end up back in the hot seat, expect more of the same parochial mindset. His return would probably slam the brakes on any potential NRL influence. Whether you see that as protecting the game’s heritage or blocking much-needed progress depends on your perspective. Either way, Wood is unlikely to be leading any charge to hand over the keys to anyone else.
He was a supporter of Toronto.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Worzel said:
I'm not entirely sure how many more times this needs to be stated: IMG did not conduct the assessments. The RFL did. This idea that the failure to flag Salford's impending financial collapse was the work of a 3rd party is just classic rugby league "othering". It wasn't somebody else, it was us.
You could argue that the financial component should have had a greater weighting in the scoring system. You could argue that the financial component could have looked at different financial metrics. But the clubs and RFL chose and agreed the model that we have in place, and then the RFL did the measurements. It's on us.
There's no doubt about this. It's just the facts.
There are 2 facts: 1) a system was designed and implemented which gave Salford a licence; and 2) they had no money.
The rest is opinion. If you like, to stop your fixation with IMG getting in the way of the point, I will leave aside the blame for who came up with the financial test. It was demonstrably unfit for purpose, as the 2 facts illustrate.
The idea that you pay people/“experts” to produce an evaluation system because that is their area of expertis, and by accepting it you are responsible for fundamental flaws in it is absurd at every level.
They were awarded a licence and had no money, and the season is lurching from crisis to crisis as a consequence. You may conclude that it was a great system perfectly executed. I beg to differ because of facts. -
1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:
They are consultants, they've been consulted and the clubs decided this is what they wanted to take from it - the clubs changed parts of it since too (including the measures reducing the punishment for financial problems!).
If you had windows fitted but insisted that they didn't use the proper adhesives you'd be more akin with your example.
If I hire a consultant to carry out am appraisal of the suitability of clubs to take part in SL, and they come up with a process which fails to spot this it is the fault of either the system, or its application. Of course if you can point me to the instructions to IMG to ignore whether or not a team can actually take the field, or are confident that IMG flagged up in its report “well, technically they got a good enough score, but by the way they will run out of money in a couple of weeks” and the clubs still waved it through, then your point is a good one. It would be fascinating to read IMG’s Salford report, perhaps one day…
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with dusting off and updating Maurice’s framing the future approach. It was the right way to go back in the day and it is still right. Long term measurements against important targets, encouraging focussed investment and hard work is absolutely what our game needs. As part of that progress, this failure of process and/or application can and must be remedied, so that we don’t find ourselves here again.
-
59 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Which the clubs were consulted on and approved, indeed they revised it too!
Perhaps the clubs assumed that the “experts” advising them were proposing something which was fit for purpose. The “experts” are, after all being paid to come up with something that works. The process failed. Abjectly.
We had some windows fitted last week. If they fall out this week, I will not be particularly impressed if the fitters argue that I signed off on those windows and those fittings.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:
But nor do they seem to be interested in making the sport rich. They are an odd bunch of insecure fellas prone to Trumpian blame projection. As a group, they also seem to be suspicious of anyone not in their image - women, folks with PhDs, quiet achievers, etc. And now they seem to think they own the actual sport. McManus's attempts to grab my, your, our £5m (if I have understood him) is just outrageous.
Re. Salford - to get this back on topic - the failure is actually one of both process (executive) and governance (non-executive). Whilst governance is indeed a mess, processes must also have failed in getting us here. And yet all the guns are aimed at the part-time NEDs.
Indeed. The process that failed was the one which looked at them and said “here you go, have a SL licence”.
-
1
-
-
There is a very significant short term risk associated with bringing Wood back, of course. The noises from the Aussies suggest they neither like nor rate him. The RFL desperately needs the Ashes tour to be a success. The Aussies are looking at a multi billion dollar TV deal. We need them far more than they need us.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JohnM said:
.if you want to have a product that people want to buy we have to stick with this for the long haul....
Exactly that is so why abandon it only 1/4 of the way through?
I am advocating the opposite. I didn’t see in McManus’ article anything about that. Which is why I was suggesting it is possible that that is not on the agenda, as opposed to replacing the current management at the RFL with people who can save and generate money in the meantime. It seems fair to me to acknowledge that it might take years for improvements from devil take the hindmost (though not seemingly if that hindmost was clearly Salford) and to try to decrease exposure in the interim.
-
1 hour ago, Dave T said:
Auto-p&r - rejected
Licensing- rejected
Super 8s - rejected
Grading - tbc
RFL in charge - rejected
SLE in charge - rejected
RLCom in charge - tbc
I'm not sure where we go next tbh.
How about - the tbc turning into: if you want to have a product that people want to buy we have to stick with this for the long haul. Plus, we can’t wait forever, we have to find a way somehow to bring in money until the effects of grading drive up the value? It is possible to read McManus’ missive in that light. The owners, above all else, want to spend less of their own money, and so I would not despair just yet.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, Alan Robertson said:
Very few things would make me happier than witnessing England beat Australia in a series and/or a World Cup Final. Similarly, dozens of English players dominating in the NRL would be great too.
Have 'superior' England/GB players simply been 'letting' the 'Aussie weaklings' consistently beat them for the last several decades?
(If - for example - England are considered to be 'level pegging' with the Aussies, again, why have they/GB not beaten them in a single 'meaningful match' at any point since the 1970s?)
Or, as painful as it might be, are the top Australian players consistently better than the vast majority of English players?
Feel free to regard the questions as rhetorical. It will probably make some of you feel better if you don't have to attempt to justify your responses.
You are asking and answering a different question from the one being discussed. It is entirely possible to argue that players benefit massively from being in full time professional environments, and having good coaching, to the extent that a league like SL could produce 100 genuinely top class players.
It is also impossible to ignore the pyramid effect of having hundreds of thousands playing TGG, as opposed to 10s of thousands and thus the near certainty that the cream of that crop will always be better than the one from the smaller player pool.
We need far more people playing our game over here before we can consistently go toe to toe with the Aussies. Maybe we can get there over time - maybe the framing the future hard work could lead to it.
As for the All NRL players are Gods versus reality argument, that doesn’t hold water, as we see when our players go up against one another.
I feel fine, by the way, thanks for asking.
Salford financial issues(again…)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
There are some who think that the sun coming up is down to IMG. Trinity have shrunk their ground so it’s now small enough only to accommodate at most crowds below the average SL crowds for many years pre IMG. Which is apparently both a triumph and a sign of IMG genius.