Jump to content

Dave T

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Dave T

  1. 21 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

    Dave, I was involved in the various arrangements for Wakey first buying back the ground and then the current redevelopment. 

    Ask Mr Carter or Mr Minards their opinion on why they were doing it, and why the Council became so forthcoming with support in recent years, and its because they believed that without the improvements they would be thrown out of the League when a non straight p/r structure returned. 

    But that backdrop has been around for decades. Wire used the same arguments when campaigning for theirs. I expect every other development has had this basis as part of the discussions for the last 30 years. 

  2. 12 minutes ago, redjonn said:

    I guess as SLE see the benefit of those lower league clubs to benefit the sport.

    The question then is how much should be shared, assuming the premise that they see value.  I'm guess in they see little value given the little amount. I would suggest that is not a fair reflection of what they offer. 


    What is the amount? 

  3. 1 minute ago, redjonn said:

    I guess its done to help the weaker clubs... One reason to provide some sort of fairness across that competition. Isn't that top level argument what some are saying that should be considered across the league structure.

    The lower division clubs getting even a single penny of SLE's TV deal is done to help the lower teams. 

    • Sad 1
  4. 2 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

    yes or at least not as bad as it is  2m - ?? - 20k

    It's a terrible idea.

    But I'm sure you'd just complain that it is still unfair because clubs get bigger crowds because they play the bigger teams, and Sky show these games, so they get more sponsors. 

    There will always be excuses. 

    • Like 3
  5. 1 minute ago, Derwent Parker said:

    Because of the money and parachute payments

    You'll always just put it down to being one of the chosen 12. Yet a while ago, Bradford were at the top of that table - but now they see themselves as one of the hard done to 2nd tier. And Widnes, and London. 

    There is no chosen few. Clubs are broadly where you would expect them to be. There are no sleeping giants being suppressed. 

    • Like 4
    • Sad 1
  6. 9 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

    Some clubs were successful during Licensing when promotion was not allowed.

    That's one read. New clubs were admitted, clubs have moved out since. 

    Again, if we look back at that period, the likes of London, Bradford, Crusaders, Widnes have moved out of SL despite all these benefits they apparently were given. 

    • Like 1
  7. 2 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

    They are NOT all there just because they are the strongest clubs.

    The Big ones like are Saints, Wigan etc are.

    But the lower half of SL have a Financial advantage over the Top of Champ, and have had for years.

    This is exactly the griping I refer to. 

    Halifax, Oldham, London, and Workington were in SL1, Hull and Hull KR weren't. Salford and Cas have been relegated, amongst others. 

    The likes of Halifax and Fev haven't taken over these weaker clubs. Why not? 

    Hull KR are in SL and Fev are not for a reason 

    • Like 1
    • Confused 1
  8. We do like to protray SL as a bit of a closed shop and existing clubs having a huge advantage etc. 

    I would absolutely challenge this. The ones there and doing well are there because they are the strongest clubs. Broadly speaking we have had relatively open P&R. 

    Out of the current 12 clubs, 7 of them have spent time outside of Super League I believe. Neither Hull club was included at the start. 

    Of course there are some cases where clubs may feel hard done to, with Keighley being a clear case of that 28 years ago, but broadly speaking, clubs have had plenty of opportunity to get into SL and establish themselves. 

    • Like 4
  9. 9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

    Obviously this is for adults only, but from eyeballing it, I don't see anything that suggests we over-index in older populations. 

    For years we have had dirt cheap tickets for kids too, and those 18-35 year old are coming through the pipeline from somewhere. I do see a problem with strategy around kids tho - cheap tickets, family game, yet heavy alcohol use and Thursday/Friday night games. We need to be careful. 

    • Like 1
  10. 59 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

    Which is not quite the same as post after post saying things like "Let's call our sport Rugby Plus and that way rugby union will seem like Rugby Minus".

    We surrendered football as a name, we surrendered rugby and league is meaningless as a term so we are a bit stuck but any suggestion that we define ourselves against what rugby union is or isn't will be rightly doomed.

    I also think people are overthinking the name tbh. Most names are not trying to make any kind of point, they are just giving their comp a catchy/classy name and a decent logo. 

    In reality, it doesn't really matter whether it is called Ultimate League, Brilliant League or Splendid League. Personal opinion will come into it. 

    Delivering the quality of rebrand really well is I portant, and that can be done with pretty much any name. 

    We see that with the variety of names around the world of sport, Premier League, NFL, NRL (Telstra Premiership), Big Bash League, Elite One, Top 14, The Hundred and so on. 

  11. 7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

    That’s awesome and with this crowd figure against Leigh, it kind of reinforces my opinion that Warrington really should be pulling in 10k plus each weekend. What do you reckon @Dave T?

    It's a good crowd, and ideally we'd be at this level every week. I expect we hit 10k+ home fans this week but if we look at the factors at play - not on Sky, unbeaten start, not on a Thursday, local team with a decent narrative making the game interesting. 

    So yes, I agree we should be hitting the 10k every week, and there are some really encouraging crowds this year, but still work to be done. 

    The added bonus is that the HJ really is great for that kind of crowd. 

    • Like 1
  12. 5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

    The whole field of race, identity and inclusion is so immeasurably complex at the moment.  More complex than ever before because even people who have the same goals disagree passionately about how to achieve them.

    What I will say on the subject of a Pride round in the NRL specifically though is this.

    We all watch on with wonder and say what a marvellous spectacle it is when the PI Nations say their communal prayers before a match as a team or together with the opposition at the end.  We are full of praise for their spirit and their sense of identity. 

    But it is that very identity as a Christian culture that means the Pride round will not be played.  Let's not kid ourselves that the only reason why it will not be considered is the large number of players (Manly players times 17) who will refuse to play if they are asked to wear a symbol representing something they don't support.

    Whatever deep rooted beliefs they may genuinely hold, I find any form of intolerance or lack of acceptance a huge shame and something that as a species we have to evolve away from.

    And, to be absolutely clear, I don't blame the players for their Christian beliefs, I blame Christianity (in this specific context, and all religions in general) for how they corrupt human decency. 

    The religion point is interesting. There is far more religion on an RL field than things about LGBTQ+ for example. 

    I must admit to beibg a touch uncomfortable about the reaction to the Fiji hymn because of some of the things you raise above. 

    • Like 1
  13. 2 minutes ago, Damien said:

    The succession plan is another contradiction to me. A worldwide search but there was a succession plan in place for an internal candidate, who was interim CEO anyway, to take over doesn't really tally to me.

    I suspect in reality, we are now paying way down the expected salary scale, meaning that it is more likely that a worldwide search brought zero better candidates for the money we were prepared to pay. So technically it's all true - we searched worldwide for a cheap exec, and realised we had a decent cheap exec! 😆

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  14. 4 hours ago, Damien said:

    It's always the same spiel with these appointments, theres been a comprehensive worldwide search, he's already made improvements, he'll set about creating a great culture and high performing organisation etc. It's the same with every RFL appointment.

    The trouble is these people have been part of the RFL for years and have been part of the very organisation where all these improvements are needed. If all of these improvements were made so quickly, and were needed in the first place, then why did Rimmer remain in post for so long? Why did Wood? Why is the sport appointing people from within such a failing organisation? 

    One thing I would say on this one, is that this is possibly the only change where there maybe was an actual succession plan, as the moving out of Rimmer was done in a much more managed way than some of the others. 

    I agree about the culture pieces - tbh, shouldn't a lot of the positive cultures be in place?

  15. 37 minutes ago, mrfranco said:

    Sounds like we're copying that other rugby. Maybe we should just copy the French instead...

    so how about: Elite Rugby League ?


    That is a challenge. RU have done a decent job of replicating the English football branding to an extent. Their top division is Premier League-esque. Their Champions Cup is an absolute copy of the Champions league. They have clearly tapped into the familiarity point, so that it is clear that casual fans will understand what these comps represent.

    • Like 3
  • Create New...