Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum

scotchy1

Coach
  • Content Count

    8,234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

scotchy1 last won the day on June 27

scotchy1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,058 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That isn't what I said. Hudds have invested millions in their off-field stuff, Hull KR too. Both needed to not only be promoted but an investment of millions to get to where they are. Which according to some (not me) is no further forward than a club like Leigh. But their argument is that Hudds et al aren't super clubs, why would we care if a championship club could get to the level they are arguing isn't enough? If SL is to grow then one of two things needs to happen. Either the clubs in SL grow or we replace those who don't/cant with ones who are/can. P+R does nothing to create either of those situations and in fact makes it more difficult for those in SL to grow and creates a situation where we could very easily see a club who are and can grow the competition replaced by one who isn't and cant and we end up seeing both go bust.
  2. Many championship clubs without the off field structure to survive in SL have been promoted. They get relegated and go pop. In fact even the ones that dont like Hudds and Hull Kr are used by P+R advocates as an argument that the bottom of SL isnt 'super'enough. It cant be both
  3. Are you serious? Bradford went bust in SL and were in financial difficulties for years before hand. Leigh have spent a grand total of 2 years in SL both of which were followed by serious financial difficulties and for some reason you want Salford et al to do the same and this is your argument in favour of P+R? That we will see more clubs suffer the problems Leigh and widnes have
  4. There was no trick. But it seems nonsensical to argue that P+R is necessary for those things in this country when you also argue those things are present in the NRL. There is also the idea that the 'relegation Battle' adds interest, did it in 2014? 2007? 2005? 2003? Or the many other years where the relegation battle was more of a walk over? That relegation adds some interest to some neutrals (not those involved as attendances will attest) for some games in some years seems an awfully big price to pay for the negatives it introduces
  5. It seems silly for you to start your post pretend professional and semi professional are the same, then finish it by accepting they are different.
  6. Do you watch the NRL or is it too sterile for you
  7. There are only so many times you can play dumb before people believe you are who you say you are
  8. We arent that far away from having a single division of professional clubs right now. Expand SL to 14 and we are pretty much there
  9. They are quite comfortable with what they are missing. As are the NRL and the PRO14 and lots and lots and lots of other sports far more successful than RL.
  10. And look at the damage it's doing to australasian rugby league! Oh...
  11. European basketball and ice hockey are far far bigger sports than RL
  12. No we arent. Many many many sports dont have promotion and relegation. It's just wrong to say taking it away is on the road to sterility.
  13. Yes, the limiter of the size of SL is the value of the clubs in SL. Have as many as justify their position
×
×
  • Create New...