Jump to content

scotchy1

Coach
  • Content Count

    9,283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

scotchy1 last won the day on October 25 2019

scotchy1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,677 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You're right that someone alread owns the NA rights but I dont think its sky.
  2. Perhaps those clubs may regret getting what they wish for
  3. 1. I didn't say it was what you advocated. You made two.points First that treating them the same would be forcing them to operate under the current cap And secondly that we should have different rules. I'm saying your first point is wrong. 2. Both are right. Applying the same rules is treating them differently because of the disproportionate affect it would have.
  4. Hudgell is absolutely the biggest hypocrite in the game. Toronto shouldn't play this out in public but it's perfectly right for him to criticise Adam walker in public https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/37625807 Koukash, Salford and the RFL in public https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/hudgell-criticises-koukash-salford-damning-statement-4733/ Andrew Chalmers https://www.totalrl.com/neil-hudgell-issues-scathing-farewell-comment-to-ex-bradford-owner-andrew-chalmers/ Or being one of the vocal owners during the split from the RFL He had no problem with being cynical.in taking the RFL to.court through stanley gene to get his club extra quota spots, no problem with deregistering players to.get around the quota.for willie Mason no issue with being cynical in the signing of Paul Cooke, No problem with his own club receiving special dispensation to sign players over the quota
  5. It's not jumbled at all. It's perfectly simple and I dont know why you are pretending you cant understand. Its not the Toronto fans who are wrong. You're argument is incorrect. Your point that applying the same rules is treating them the same albeit unfairly is wrong. It is not a neutral position to enforce the rules the same. To enforce rules which disproportionately affect them is not treating them the same. To treat Toronto the same will require them to operate under different rules to what we have now. I'm not talking about fairness here, I'm talking about treating them the same. If a rule disproportionately affects one party, applying that rule cannot be said to treat that party the same. Toronto nor there fans are asking to be treated differently, they are asking to be treated the same. It was the current rules whose disproportionate affect that treated them differently
  6. No there isnt. You can apply the rules the same but you are still treating clubs differently. You could have a rule that said all games not played on your home continent give you a 40+ head start. You can apply that rule equally but It does not treat all clubs equally Applying the same rules, in the same way to all clubs is not a neutral position. It is not a position of equality. Ignoring structural bias that is created by the rules is a choice to benefit one side over another If clubs vote to ignore the bias created by the SC and not allow Toronto a dispensation they haven't voted to treat the clubs equally. They haven't voted to treat all clubs the same. they have voted in favour of disadvantaging one club through enacting a rule which disproportionately affects Toronto
  7. Any salary cap has inbuilt unfairness. That's my point A flat figure the same for everyone is unfair because it affects people in different ways. Include allowances and dispensations and you are benefiting some clubs. If you link it to turnover you entrench the current positions You cant apply the cap fairly because the point of it is to benefit some clubs over others.
  8. And shouldn't it? Why should leeds spending be dictated by Salfords affordability? Why should well run clubs be limited by ones that arent? Why should we argue for P+R to decide things on the pitch then in the same breath put in place rules that limit what goes on the pitch? Isnt it unfair that the Salary Cap dictates what Toronto can spend, but has no effect on what a club who cant afford it?
  9. I'm not sure it would be any fairer. The fact is we make these dispensations and allowances because of the unfairness of it as a blunt tool That makes it unfair in other ways but it's unfair and doesnt fit with the structure we have
  10. Well it was one of its stated aims to even up the competition. It can only do that if it acts as a brake on those who can spend more, to their detriment, and to the benefit of the ones who cant.
  11. The game is stuck trying to fit round pegs in square holes and constantly making changes and having to scramble and react because it isnt in any way shape or form set up for success. It just doesnt know what to do. It sees there opportunities but isnt in anyway set up to take advantage of them. It brings in the Les Catalans, wants a French tv deal. Offers nothing like a compelling product and wonders why no French broadcaster wants to pay good money for half les Catalans home games (the ones French RL fans can actually already watch) on a year by year basis with that investment possibly disappearing at the end of each year if they were relegated. Open the doors to Toronto the stand around scratching their heads at why a transatlantic sports franchise doesnt act the same as one bar 1 game away barely travel more than 100miles if that for a game. We now are needing to react with a salary cap dispensation because the SC isnt how you would set up the sport if you wanted growth. The game has spent the last 30 odd years setting itself up to protect the vested interests of heartland, all through the game. Everything is set up to protect a minority of clubs in those areas and when we need any change from the structural bias towards these clubs they start moaning that they are somehow being treated unfairly because of tiny steps to rebalance the privileged position they operate in and we are sacrificing huge amounts for the game for that. If clubs want promotion and relegation, if you want no judgement on what you contribute to the wider to game to form part of your admission to different levels of the game, if you want no criteria and standards to inform who plays in which comp then it is fundamentally unfair and biased to introduce any structural barriers. So that's no salary cap, no quota and let the chips fall where they may. Clubs that spend themselves in to oblivion and clubs that are left behind are where they deserve to be. While we take this adversarial approach then these barriers do nothing but protect failure and mediocrity.
  12. No it wouldnt. Structural bias means you can take a blanket approach to rules that treat clubs differently. I don't know why people are still pushing this strange argument that rules dont treat clubs differently even if they are applied equally. In fact that is literally the intention of the salary cap to start with. To restrict some clubs for the benefit of others.
  13. The salary cap.dispensation issue is never going to be solved. It really just wont work with the game as it is now The SC does disproportionately affect some clubs, and that is unfair. But a club being allowed to spend more is also unfair. Would you accept your team being relegated because of the SC creating unfairness? Because whether Toronto are or arent allowed a dispensation the salary cap will be unfair It's a symptom of how the game isnt set up for growth. Even in a best case scenario clubs cannot grow the game and we cannot take advantage of that growth. There are structural barriers to growth that exist in all aspects
  14. In most of the top teams players 23-30 are the best youngsters at different stages of their development, some will be ready to play 15-20games if necessary but will probably he closer to 5-10, others probably 1 or 2. Some of them will be good, some very good. Some will get an opportunity and take it and play lots of games. That's largely where the big clubs stay big clubs, cheap young players who come in and are quickly amongst the best in SL.
  15. It would be ridiculous to complain that Toronto haven't found Canadian players in the one year they have been allowed to. Just silly
×
×
  • Create New...