Dave T
-
Posts
47,860 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
334
Posts posted by Dave T
-
-
14 minutes ago, Worzel said:
Perhaps, but it depends on your definition of worse. By “worse” I include a junior English player not getting his debut, and then losing the future ability to develop from there, because the club chooses to pick a better (better today) player for that match.
We have to at least try to develop talent for the medium term. If we have too many imports, even if they are better than the domestic alternative right now, we may not develop some of that domestic talent for the long term.
This is what I touch on with regards to further problems, but in reality, our pathways as they are are very unlikely to deliver scores of.world class athletes.
Wire signed Russell this year who is probably an example of the kind of player we are talking about here. He has been deemed not good enough for Wire and the British lads have overtaken him.
I dont like the decision, but there is an argument that suggests this will make the on field game better right now. Whether that is worth it for the longer term impacts is the big issue, id argue no.
-
32 minutes ago, phiggins said:
Not if they're better than the players they are replacing.
Of course, we need to make sure player development systems are the best they can be, and we should be increasing dispensations for club trained, and even partially club trained (e.g. signed for a club at 19/20 and established themselves) on the salary cap. But if players being brought through aren't ready for Super League, then putting them in just because they're homegrown isn't going to improved the standard of the game.
I think this is right. It doesn't necessarily follow that these players will be worse than the alternatives. In fact there is argument that this will increase quality of players for less money that can be used on marquees etc.
Of.course there are all.psrts of other reasons as to why this is a bad idea, but not necessarily a standards thing.
-
1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:
Selling the Wembley Test in July with no marketing spend and no Eng or rep games as a taster is bound to see very slow sales. I'm not sure that anyone down here is much aware yet.
26 minutes ago, Damien said:Yeah, what we see so far is pretty much as I'd have expected. Of the people who do know about it, i.e RL fans, many of those that wish to go have said they will buy tickets closer to the time. This is entirely expected behaviour with Wembley holding 90k and no FOMO factor.
I think this is right. Where my worry comes in (and it may be unfounded) is that the first two Tests had unique elements that led to them selling out. Headingley is too small a ground and naturally sold out, and Everton had that new stadium element plus scarcity created by the Leeds venue. This became a bit of a phenomenon in the RL world and was unprecedented.
Wembley doesn't have any of the above elements - huge venue, not always viewed favourably by fans - and while I think the initial batch of sales was the benefit from the above - this does now mean that the rest of the sales will come from traditional sales and marketing by the RFL, rather than a viral thing. That doesn't fill me with confidence too much tbh. Hopefully the 30k is so far ahead of where we would normally be that if we do sell a standard 30k or so using traditional methods, then it equates to a good crowd.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Yorky said:
I would love to be proved wrong and this game be a sell out success,buy I just can't see it.
I felt before they announced the grounds that Wembley would be a mistake as its just too big and that a spurs/Emirates 60k stadium would be more appropriate.
I'm sure their will be a late surge In sales as the game gets closer and interest in the sport is high around grand final time (and i include myself in this as im just waiting to see how many of my friend group are confirming to attend before buying) but I just can't see them shifting anywhere close to the alleged remaining 60k tickets.
Fingers crossed it starts picking up soon and they can announcinh 40k 50k plus sold etc
Yeah, I share some of these concerns, but this could just be a reflection on how positive the initial sales were for the Ashes. I suppose it shouldn't be out of the question to sell 30k from now, and if we are genuinely over that 30k mark then mid-60k would be a record breaking crowd for this.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JM2010 said:
I wonder how many tickets have been sold now
Still looks pretty sluggish tbh (with the caveat that we are still 3m away).
There are huge blocks in the lower tier with barely a ticket sold. And some of those marked as sold out in the lower tier are sitting with companies like SportsBreaks etc.
It's noticeable that they used the 30k figure (which I expect to be PR guff) and have never released another number above that, despite apparently hitting that mark over 2 months ago and sales being so strong that they had to release more tickets (at cheaper prices).
-
1
-
-
I do fear we are looking at this the wrong way if we believe the solution is to focus on getting in schools in Runcorn and the likes. Of course we should be doing more and more where we currently are and broadening our activity there, but I worry that we are just playing round the edges with this. The amount of players we get from many smallish towns across the North of England is pretty staggering as it is, but we can't just keep bleeding this dry.
I think the reality of the situation is that to fix and widen our talent pool in the UK, we are going to need to invest in growth/expansion and it's gonna be hard and expensive. And RL as a sport just doesn't do very well when things are hard and expensive.
-
3
-
-
41 minutes ago, The Daddy said:
They can veto or advise entry being declined. Not sure of the technicalities, but being in the top 12 or 14 img ratings doesn't guarantee entry is my general understanding
Where is this from?
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Worzel said:
He's doing a good job of running offence for whoever is pulling his strings.
A real journalist would call out how vapourous all this stuff is. This story is just one side playing for time. The amusing thing is it's like two men with combovers deperately trying to convince some poor woman they have a full head of hair, and asking her to go on a date: In truth they're both bald... there's no NRL offer or serious proposal, and there's no other investment interest from these random countries named. It's all twaddle.
Yes, I do think it is hard not to be cynical of these reports. I'm a firm believer in "if something sounds too good to be true...". It just feels odd that we have interest from all over the world in investing in RL. We struggled to get investment when we touted for PE, certainly at any kind of decent level, I'm not sure why we would suddenly have a load of interest.
It's all the same tactic as claiming that Netflix/Prime/DAZN/BT Sports etc have been interested in our tv rights before we then re-sign with Sky Sports for half the price.
-
1
-
-
This situation is not comparable to any of the other situations that anyone cares to mention.
When we are in Rd 10 and a team has a cup final the week later, rotating your squad is a perfectly valid approach and is very easy to defend.
Probably the worst example last year was also by Salford who gave Wigan the game to take the LLS, giving a taster of Rowley's mentality, but despite being damaging for the game in what should have been a blockbuster finish to the season, it stays just on the right side of the rules.
When a club actively brings the game into disrepute and sticks their fingers up to the sport in this country in a high profile game because the coach wants to act like a stroppy teenager, then it doesn't work. Defences like injuries and squad rotation are not relevant here.
I wouldn't be surprised if they end up with a 2/4 pt deduction and a suspended fine which feels proportionate, we should remember that the process hasn't finished yet, its being reported halfway through as far as I understand.
What Salford did is not the same as others though. They made a political move and brought the game into disrepute at a time when the RFL were doing everything they could to help them.
-
6
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:
I'd much prefer any quota increases to be much more strategic than just a blanket increase, that will just seen a flood of players come over from the Queensland Cup.
For example, if one of the 14 for next season is London, I'd be perfectly fine with them having a more relaxed quota than the established heartland clubs. We know that it is difficult for London clubs to attract players when most of our talent pool lives in a much lower cost-of-living part of the country, and attracting overseas talent with a "sell" of a couple of years in London where they can travel around Europe is a good way to get around that issue.
But we won't be that pragmatic or sensible.
Yep, agreed. I'd also be happy if they took this further and it was all part of a strategic announcement which explained that we are i creasing in the short term but we will be investing £x in player pathways across the UK that will support the long term reduction.
An unsavoury short term fix is always more palatable with a proper plan behind it.
-
6 hours ago, eal said:
Apologies if I'm out of the loop with all of this, but what are the team owners doing exactly? Was the takeover approved? Do they have any money? If not, why was it approved? Why would someone takeover a club if they don't have money to do anything?
Good luck getting answers to any of that.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:
To be a devil's advocate...
If we're going to expand to 14, then the quota increase makes sense in the short run as the quality drop-off in the existing UK player pool when adding another 40 or so players is too sharp. An extra two quota spots across 14 clubs (plus existing quota for the newbies) basically covers that without shrinking the Fed trained player numbers overall. So I can live with it. I just wish they were honest that it's a direct knock on effect from the shotgun decision to go to 14.
And if I wanted to be glass half full, the plotters could argue that having Bradford, London and Toulouse in SL will boost local player development in the longer run.
All of this is not the model of growth if choose - it's still very much about local geography and does nothing to boost the perception and attraction of the game more widely. But we don't seem to have the patience for the bigger project, so this is the next best option for some limited gains.
I made a similar point earlier in the thread, but to expect to be able to provide enough world class athletes to fill 10-14 teams within the narrow confines of the North of England is flawed, and that's why we end up where we are.
I dont just go with the opinion that clubs can just make more effort and we can have full teams of English lads. Accepting that we can always do more.
In the past we had player pathways from Union, bringing players in from all over the UK. We've never replaced that, we've just kept talking about the Northern heartlands. Robust pathways in London, Wales etc are a must for the future of the game - expansionist agendas are not just for a laugh.
-
9
-
-
One of the challenges around time wasting is that you struggle to get much sympathy when as a tackler youve spent all the rest of the match making the play the ball as slow as possible.
-
6
-
-
23 minutes ago, dkw said:
Is there even any rule/law stating how quickly a ptb has to be?
Isn't it something vague like 'without delay' or something?
-
1
-
-
I do think people just need to chill. We dont need to kneejerk just because some people don't like a ptb taking 10 seconds instead of 3.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:
That maybe true, doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for the game.
The clubs having too much self interest is what the problem is
Indeed. Its almost like its the perfect t argument as to why the clubs shouldn't be the ones deciding stuff like this.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Damien said:
Great stuff. But jeez, that's an ugly graphic in that post.
-
30 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:
That may be well true Chris, but those elected or should I say promoted from within - jobs for the boys and girls - have not been very good have they?
Well, the last person who had proper control was Wood. There was an owners coup when he ousted them.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Gooleboy said:
Some of us have been saying for years that SL Chairmen running the show with their selfish idea's and an "I'm alright Jack attitude" has never been any good for the games well being.
Yup, its been a problem forever, but the evidence against it is coming thick and fast right now.
I dont even necessarily think its just an 'I'm alright Jack' problem, running things so complex by committee is impossible.
-
Just now, Harry Stottle said:
The 'Clubs' are the game as we know it, we can't survive without them and they will be here as long as the game is about, officers will come and go but the clubs are here to stay.
Club owners come and go.
-
1
-
-
Double post
-
59 minutes ago, SinBinSid said:
That is just lazy.
London were not “parachuted in” to Super League in 1996. They were founder members because they already had a functioning professional club and had been competing in the top two divisions for years. Are we rewriting history now?
It is fine to question expansion. But this idea that London have been spoon-fed or somehow parachuted in is pure fiction. If anything, they have had less help than most and are still here. That deserves a bit more respect.
Hmm.
You can't pull people for fiction and then deny what actually happened in 1995/6. London were parachuted into the new top flight for 1996. They did not earn on-field promotion, them and PSG benefited from being handpicked, everyone else was based on league rankings.
Now, I dont agree with the poster you are replying to, and am more in your camp that London needs far more support than they have. But we dont need to claim they werent parachuted into SL (or given overseas players dispensation).
I would argue that is the case for many areas, I notice you ask for London to receive the same patience and support that has been extended elsewhere - im not sure i see much patience and support for any clubs, we have a long history of throwing clubs under the bus. Catalans benefited from being handpicked, and protection for the first year or two, but outside of that nothing really. Let's be honest, if they were as bad as what London put on the field, theyd be left to the lower division.
Catalans first few years was fine, but after that they've been left to themselves, and let's be honest, the terms of their participation are worse than other clubs.
So we shouldn't really be looking for London to have similar support to others, we should be looking for expansion/special strategic clubs like this to have a hel of a lot more support than they have ever had.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Damien said:
I think in isolation its okay but also think France have had far better kits.
Yeah, its ok, but it looks a little Samoa-y
-
8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Negotiating a pay off has been mentioned on this thread.
If I was IMG I'd be getting out of here tbh.
-
2
-
What has the IMG System Actually Changed and what do Fans Think of it?
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
Everyone here loves it. Nothing else to say really...