Jump to content

TBone

Coach
  • Content Count

    367
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

155 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. whatever happens to the ‘normal’ fixtures there will be a grand final! It brings in too much revenue and is a major tv event.
  2. Yes, you can play for £0 but your cap value would be the minimum wage, £15000, if you make an appearance in a single qualifying game (see long drawn out thread on Gigot). By reducing the minimum they reduce the cap value which means that more players on < £15000 can play in a season per club.
  3. I doubt many have enough players of SL standard. Another thing to bear in mind is that the players will have had a long lay off so few, if any, will be in peak condition to start with.
  4. Will many spectators actually want to turn out for 3 games a week? If not then that revenue stream will be eaten up by the costs of putting the games on.That’s assuming that they can actually get the medical/security cover that is needed. If, however, the games are played behind closed doors then the only games that will be seen will be the TV games. In which case why not play 9s, 7s or even tiddlywinks to decide the rest, hold them all on the same day, and save the players from broken bodies?
  5. Three games a week with current squads is not sustainable over more than maybe a couple of weeks. The damage done to players will in some cases be irrevocable and may led to hefty law suits from players who can no longer make a living. As the players get fatigued there will be more and more sloppy tackle, more head injuries, more broken bones, etc, etc. To harp back to a time when two/three games a week was acceptable is to deny that the modern game has changed from the time when players went for fish and chips, a fag, and a few pints after training. The modern player is bigger, faster and stronger; the rules have been changed to create high energy collisions and to increase the time the ball is in play; making the game more physically demanding. Playing 3 games a week is just a dumb idea unless you have much larger squads.
  6. andy and mike gregory (warrington) btw, whoever it was who earlier put daryl and jason clark - they aren’t related.
  7. Yes, must've been a shock to the modellers when they found out that the NHS has almost 0 surge capacity instead of the assumption that they were given for their initial analysis. Hence the curve had to be flattened almost immediately. The restrictions might ease off a bit if they manage to actually buy extra equipment, etc, to build additional surge capacity. But, there is an international shortage of ventilators, etc, right now and Trump is likely offering top $ to get them to meet the US's needs. However there are people trying alternate ideas like Forbes article so there maybe some hope.
  8. what might be good is a section on tactics, a sort of more in depth version of the stuff Wells usually goes through when he interviews a player at the big screen after a game. They could also do either regular or occasional sections on: rules and interpretations maybe based on a controversial incident or two from the last round (maybe even test the odd pundit now and then) the injury list, a summary of who is out and maybe even how one or two are getting on recovery wise a skills based competition with a player from each team going through some tests each week run a fantasy league for viewers/players/coaches with a review session each week (with pundits/players explaining how/why their entry is made up/progressing) a quick ‘highlights’ section of some of the players that were awarded max MoS points during the last round, or, maybe the points winners from a specific game ... But, most importantly, IMPROVE THE SOUND QUALITY!!!!
  9. Why can't Ottawa, and for that matter, TWP taking a closer look at RU sevens? That's where Hull FC got Ratu Naulago from and he seems to be turning in SL performances despite, seemingly, not previously having played league.
  10. Not at all, I want a sport that I can continue to support. Pro RL is not strong enough to support the financial consequences of clubs tearing themselves to pieces to achieve the holy grail of staying in SL. Why do you think P&R makes the game any better - are the players better because of P&R? No, because, by and large the same players are just recycled into the team coming up. What if every team was of the same high quality - a team still has to go down even if they are vastly superior to the team coming up! Or maybe it is that you only enjoy sports where the only thrill is really that of defying death at the end of the season? IMO RL missed its chance when SL was created - they should have formed a growth strategy for the sport and regularly measured the clubs against it. Those criteria should've included improving the player pool, increasing the number of participants at all levels, increasing gates and increasing revenue streams. I did some work on sponsorship for the Olympics in London and it was eye opening seeing how much effort was put into maximising the attractiveness to the media, the impact of the games on sport in the host country, and increasing the revenues from each games. That's what RL should do, and it shouldn't let lethargic clubs that do little to further the future of pro-RL off the hook just because they manage to avoid last place.
  11. No P&R but rigorously enforced criteria required to be met to get/stay in SL, with a full review of each club's performance (on and off field) every 2 or 3 years. If the club doesn't make the grade - they're out or at least put on notice.
  12. I have no idea which players were available when they were doing their planning for the season (or maybe when someone had the bright idea of signing SBW,). And, frankly, I can't be bothered looking too hard. The problem boils down to mounting a successful campaign to get into SL as quickly as possible (no matter the cost?) without, seemingly, also having a plan to make sure that you stay there.
  13. That cannot be right because they had to move a marquee signing into the cap so they must've been able to accommodate over 150k (there is no point in counting a 150k cap value as a marquee). So the space they had is at least what that players full cap value is.
  14. But at the point prior to signing SBW they had cap space! They signed him knowing that it would cause problems, problems that they couldn't easily fix after the'd put in their initial cap assessment on Nov 1st.
×
×
  • Create New...