Jump to content

nadera78

Coach
  • Posts

    3,319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by nadera78

  1. 1 hour ago, M j M said:

    Is it fair to say that lapsed fans would want a comprehensive clear out of the senior back office staff before being even willing to listen to this sort of stuff?

    On another forum some fans were discussing the possible reasons why they have not been receiving the few random emails the club bothers to send out. One of them asked the club directly and received a response from the commercial manager (who has hardly covered himself in glory previously) saying, effectively, "we've seen the comments you've made on social media and assumed you wouldn't be interested in renewing your season ticket".

    I was one of those wondering why club emails were no longer arriving in my inbox, not that I have any intention of returning. I guess I have my answer.

    Anyone expecting the club to perform some kind of outreach programme for lapsed fans (average attendance over 4,000 when Hughes took over, remember, so there are a lot of us) needs to look at the personnel involved and assess the likelihood of such an effort being undertaken. 

    • Sad 1
  2. 17 hours ago, Chris22 said:

    Whilst I appreciate the debate has been done to death, I think its important to look at the present too.

    I don't think Scotland playing home internationals in Featherstone benefits anyone.

    I think it's a hard sell to say "Come and watch great players like Morgan Knowles play for Wales, but he'll drop us in a flash once he's good enough to play for England".

    From England's perspective, I agree there is little difference in the branding.

    I mean, we have set that situation up ourselves by making it so blindingly obvious that GB was just another name for England - hence Regan Grace being ignored so we could play English half backs on the wing. What is Knowles supposed to think as a consequence of that? He knows the only way to get on that GB tour is to play for England because Welsh players aren't going to be picked.

    As to Irish players appearing for GB, well that's a whole other issue - and one we continue to ignore.

    • Like 3
  3. 1 hour ago, Chris22 said:

    When it comes to GB, I'd be tempted to bring it back just so we can play matches in places like Wales and give them a strong national team to support.

    I don't think Wales, Ireland and Scotland being used as stepping stones (which they are now) to England (or for English players who aren't good enough) is going to sell the sport.

    In the entire history of our sport, GB never played a game in Wales. 

    The resurrection of that brand was just old men doing old men things. Leave it in the past, where it belongs.

    • Like 6
  4. 11 minutes ago, Scubby said:

    Those were adjusted to 5000 because of London playing at Barnet after nearly going bust IIRC. Licensing was 10k capacity.

    I thought it was more that Nigel Wood, as is usual for an accountant, saw a way to reduce RFL spending by removing/reducing the requirements. Fewer standards = fewer audits = fewer salaried employees needed. Similar to his refrain "we don't run the clubs, it's up to them" whenever a club got into trouble.

    • Like 2
  5. 5 hours ago, Phil said:

    I was talking to Jason Robinson a few weeks ago, he’s keen to see if a West Indies competition can be developed and then compete internationally 

    He might want to talk to the Jamaican RL about that. They've been pretty clear that they are working to develop the game in their own country and, whilst it would be great to see other Caribbean nations playing the game, they're not interested in a West Indies team.

    I've been getting the feeling that the Jamaican team has become much more influenced from northern England since the RLWC Qualifiers. No doubt that's partially due to the pandemic preventing the domestic players travelling to play games for two years, but it also coincides with Jason Robinson and Alex Simmons becoming involved. Need to be careful about that, we saw with Ireland a couple of years back that the English-based players got a little too controlling of the national team.

    • Like 4
  6. We don't actually need French TV to be interested in showing games played in England to generate additional income, depending on our negotiating skills. If a French Co wanted to show the 26 Catalans/Toulouse home games, and paid for the broadcast costs, SL could retain the UK rights to them and then on-sell those games to Sky. At £100,000 a pop (far less than Sky pay for each SL game they currently show), that's £2.6m new income - more or less the central funding the two French clubs will receive. If Sky don't want a weekly Saturday evening game for that price (which is cheap for live sport) then offer them elsewhere, and if no-one takes them then go down the OurLeague route for a couple of quid per game. We can generate money from this, even if the French broadcaster just pays the costs and not a fee.

    • Like 4
  7. You're right it is appalling. I've never been a referee but I coached youth sports for 15 years and saw some abysmal behaviour from coaches and parents.. Even had to intervene a couple of times to support the ref. Governing bodies in all sports need to do an awful lot more to support the men and women who make competitive community sport possible.

    • Like 2
  8. 6 hours ago, meast said:

    We are the landlords, or we are one of 3 owners of the stadium, we aren't tenants.. yet!

    The support for rugby league in Huddersfield has never really been there, apart from a post war boom, even in their most successful times, Huddersfield have never historically attracted big support, in these times of not supporting local teams as much there's little chance of Huddersfield attracting casual fans until we become consistently successful, even the likes of Wigan, Saints and Leeds are just about pulling in 5 figure crowds, so it's not just a Huddersfield problem.

    We don't necessarily have a catchment area either, save for one or two smaller market towns around the West/South Yorkshire borders, most other areas surrounding Huddersfield aren't catchment areas for the Giants at all.

    A lot of locals came out of the woodwork when Huddersfield Town had some relative success, but it's easy and easily acceptable to jump on a soccer bandwagon I suppose.

    Just reading around this, the KSDL (owned 40/40/20 split) had no money coming in for 18 months and needs to pay out approximately £10m for repairs in coming years which it can't afford. So the stadium ownership is going to be placed into a community trust, and a licence to run the stadium awarded to the football club. The Giants will then become tenants of the football club. 

    Is that correct? Because we've seen elsewhere what happens when RL clubs find themselves in this situation, and it isn't good news.

  9. We play too many club games as it is and, as a result, can't seem to find any space for internationals. Why would we react to that by re-introducing a parochial fixture that excludes most of the country and has been tried and failed several times previously? Even worse, is to do this at a time when the game outside the heartlands feels like it is in serious peril.

    • Like 3
  10. 5 hours ago, Eddie said:

    10x2 would be excruciatingly dull, there are already too many repeat fixtures with 12 teams.
     

    The only benefits I can think of are if 20 teams get a decent slice of the pie instead of 11, there is 2 up 2 down rather than 1, and ‘SL2’ games also get shown on Sky. I’d also want P&R with the third tier, however that looks. 

    We have few financial resources as it is, and they're about to be reduced substantially. In that context, spreading them over 20 clubs instead of 12 is insane. We are actively choosing to make our elite competition poorer.

  11. 6 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

    It doesn't matter how big London is. It's a question of where are you getting the players from? 

    Part time in London means players only from in and around the M25 and the Skolars largely get the best part time players in that area. From now on, anyone good enough to play full time will go up north. 

    There isn't a pool of untapped PT players better than the Skolars existing players, so that's as good as Broncos can hope for. 

    And before people say "but what about the academy" that takes years to come to fruition, and Broncos need players now. 

    Exactly right. I'd be amazed if the best young players - the likes of Leyland, Horsman, Hodgson - stick around next season. If you're a SL club why would you not offer them a contract? They've got ability (Leyland for eg played for Lancashire alongside Pearce-Paul) they just need time and a good structure to develop. And in future years the best academy graduates won't ever play for the first team, they'll go north as soon as they're 18. 

    That leaves the Broncos and Skolars fighting over the players who are; not good enough for SL, prepared to play PT, and not interested in playing union. That's a tiny group of people, not enough for one club never mind two. 

    The monkey running the Broncos thinks the club can copy Fev, Fax, etc by going PT (although I'm willing to bet he'll still be FT) which completely ignores the inbuilt advantages those clubs have being based in the heartlands.

  12. 18 hours ago, gingerjon said:

    How on earth is a league supposed to be competitive, and clubs develop and improve themselves, with those at the top receiving six times as much as those at the bottom?

    It's an absolute madness.

    For perhaps a decade now every change the sport has made has been focussed on the clubs at the bottom of SL and the top of the Championship. This is just a continuation of that, and it's utterly ludicrous.

    • Like 6
×
×
  • Create New...