Jump to content

Hela Wigmen

Coach
  • Posts

    5,756
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by Hela Wigmen

  1. 1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

    I think you need to re-read many of your own posts, in which you have constantly and presumably knowingly misrepresented me.

    I don't mind that occasionally. On a forum like this it is inevitable.

    But when it is constantly repeated I have to wonder about your agenda.

    I’m happy to leave it John, who unfortunately will have to address it, not like he’s busy enough. 

    I genuinely have no idea what you’re on about.  

  2. 2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

    I wasn't "slagging off" @Hela Wigmen.

    I was criticising him and explaining why, because of his wilful misrepresentation of something I posted.

    I would regard "slagging off" as making derogatory remarks about someone that are ad hominem.

     

    12 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

    Do you realise that when you make such an utterly stupid comment that shows your basic inability to understand the construction of and the principles underlying the English language, in particular the use of analogies, then the rest of what you post is tarred by association with that idiocy.

    A hat tip to @fighting irishfor pointing out the same thing in a marginally less diplomatic way than I did that met with the disapproval of the moderators.

    I think you need a re-read of your post, Martyn. 

     

  3. 6 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

    Do you realise that when you make such an utterly stupid comment that shows your basic inability to understand the construction of and the principles underlying the English language, in particular the use of analogies, then the rest of what you post is tarred by association with that idiocy.

    A hat tip to @fighting irishfor pointing out the same thing in a marginally less diplomatic way than I did that met with the disapproval of the moderators.

    Your analogy, much like your doubling down despite many far better constructed, realistic and thought provoking posts from people here explaining how poor the idea actually was, was beyond daft. 

    You’ve really not come across very well here and now congratulating someone for violating the rules here whilst suggesting someone else suffered substance abuse and/or a learning difficultly is another low point for yourself in a week of many, many low points. 

    • Like 3
  4. 2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

    Sure, the success or not of the Hundred won't be known for a while, but the problem it was designed to deal with has been studied by the cricket authorities for years, and shares many similarities with rugby league's challenges. 

    ie how to break out of the usual demographics and flogging the same old fans for more, in a the wider context of a rapidly changing economic and social backdrop. 

    (And like RL, the existing fans - by definition - don't see the need for change) 

    Obv there are lots of differences between cricket and RL too, and time will tell whether their attempt will work. 

    But at least they're trying something. 

    Yes, they’re trying something based on market research. We’ve (or to be precise Pearson) seen The Hundred and has declared it the saviour of Rugby League without any research behind his claim. Sure, the market research in Rugby League could well be very similar to the research undertaken by cricket and there may well be similarities between the two sports but without any research, to proclaim saviours of the sport of Rugby League is premature and ill-judged right now and just comes across as a very Rugby League thing to do as we never have a strategic plan for anything. 

    • Like 1
  5. 4 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

    I haven't watched more than a few minutes of the hundred. But what I do know is that it's receiving 100x more publicity and FTA coverage than RL has had, well, ever.

    To this end, it hardly matters if the crowd are newbies or life long fans. But RL fans see fit to look down their nose at it? Lol

    The Hundred has painted itself as attracting new fans rather than engaging and attracting a decent portion of their existing fanbase. 

     

  6. 18 minutes ago, JF1 said:

    I watched the Hundred tonight for the first time and found it ok watching. The,extremely mixed and quite numerous,crowd,seemed to be enjoying it immensely as well.

    This form of cricket,although a team game,is presented as a gladiatorial battle between two individuals,namely the batsman and the bowler. (Sorry,can't stomach the word batter,except in a fish and chips context)

    I really don't see how the Hundred could be translated into a rugby league game,but we sure could use the crowds,excitement and,most importantly,massive publicity.

    I’m guessing that we’d end up with some gimmick ridden 9s tournament that would combine the worst bits of The Hundred and the Auckland 9s. 

  7. I’ve never quite understood the urgency for a “level playing field” or the need for more clubs of an alleged certain size. Rugby League hasn’t ever been a level playing field and each era has had a dominant side(s) going back to Oldham in the early 1900’s through to the Leeds side who won Grand Final after Grand Final. Sport isn’t a level playing field either. Financial power, whether it’s through clubs being able to buy the best players, others investing into their infrastructure or a combination of the two, paints the story of sport and also that of Rugby League. I think we’re far too bothered about the opinions of people who don’t have an opinion and worried too much, as fans, about people that don’t like Rugby League and probably won’t ever like Rugby League. Let’s be honest, whether Saints go and do the “threepeat” this year or whether Warrington or Catalans get a first Super League crown, it’s not going to have a huge effect on the sport. A new name on the trophy isn’t going to suddenly fill the emptying stands, it’s not going to wrestle some more column inches in 2022 away from other sports, billionaires aren’t going to buy up the teams or the competition and we won’t suddenly be awash with new fans of the sport across the country here or in France. 

    We get far too hung up on how many teams have won Super League. Since 1996, Football’s Premier League has had six different winners. Since 1996, Super League has had seven different teams who have ended the season as league leaders. Even if we open it to include every Premier League season, it only increases to seven different winners. For the most part, people aren’t that bothered that the “title race”, at very, very best, four teams have a serious chance of winning the competition and most seasons, there’s a clear gap between 1st and 2nd or 1st and 3rd. There’s much more to play for in football mind but anyone with an interest in that league aren’t shouting for Everton or West Ham United (unless they support them) to win the league, however, that’s the case in Rugby League. To compare with Rugby Union, who have had Grand Finals since 2003, we have had four winners of our Grand Final since 2003, whereas Union has had seven different winners. Even then, like Super League and like the Premier League, Wasps have won 4, Leicester have won 4, Saracens have won 5 (I don’t know if they were stripped, mind) and Harlequins and Exeter have won 2 apiece, so there’s definite signs of dominant clubs there, too. I’m not the person to ask here because I’ve had to look all of that up in regards to Union as I’m not a fan but I can’t imagine that fans or journalists are particularly stamping their feet for Gloucester or Worcester to win their Grand Final, either. Are we really that bad in comparison? We’ve had eight Grand Finalists since RU copied us and started having Grand Finals, RU has had eleven. 

    I support a football team that’s spent the twenty-three years I’ve supported them flitting between the fifth and sixth tier, so pretty comparable to some teams outside of Super League and probably bigger than some too. I don’t expect nor want the same funding or Sky money as Manchester City, I’m not sure why anyone with a straight face or any level of seriousness would suggest we must do that in Rugby League or put part-time teams into the same league or ‘conference’ and double down on it, too, especially a journalist in the sport, who’s now compared himself to Bill Gates. It’s abundantly clear that what is good for St Helens isn’t what is good for Widnes or what is good for Swinton or West Wales, sorting a strategy that suits everyone is impossible and there’ll be some “losers” from any strategy or structure change. Any new structure has to allow the current best to take off whilst also offering opportunities to everyone else, regardless of their level and what their relative idea of opportunity is. 

    I don’t think we particularly need anything that radical or daft. I certainly don’t see how you can put teams on the same pitch with such vast financial and physical disparities and call it level or a league structure, as Sadler has suggested. I certainly don’t think we need to overcomplicate things in terms of how a league table lies or how winners are determined (please for the love of God not ‘Club Call’ again). Personally, I think there’s more to Rugby League than domestic league games and I’d like to see fewer league games whilst either attempting the rejuvenation of the Challenge Cup in the form of group games or more importance shown to it or through any other tournament or format that someone sees fit, whilst doing it properly by giving it time to actually grow into something and for the finances required to push the sport as a whole. 

    • Like 2
  8. 5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

    Which of course, will never happen as in a world where everyone is paid a pittance, you may as well play for a team that win. And so Wigan, Leeds and Saints will still be the strongest clubs.

    I think we’re already starting to see the drag down effect take hold, the way it’s going, clubs will be much of a muchness without the income generated previously but some will proclaim that as a saviour of the sport when in reality very few eyes will appear on the game the following year after a Warrington or Catalans Grand Final win. 

    • Confused 1
  9. 4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

    What I am suggesting is a way to perhap's entice individuals or groups of rich people to invest in Rugby League clubs,  I think all you wish for is to maintain Saints position at the very top of a sport where the financial standing is very low, you may have no desire for very wealthy to join the frame.

    And by raising/abolishing the salary cap, you’re instantly more enticing than dragging clubs down to a poorer level, as we already do now. How do you sell your club or your sport to a wealthy person to then say “yeah, but you can only spend this amount”? What incentive is there to invest then?

    Conversely, I think you want all clubs to be tied down to float around the levels of your club and other water treading clubs in the vein hope you drag them down enough that they stick to your level and you may one day then be deemed a “successful” club. 

  10. 8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

    Warrington, Leigh, Huddersfield, Hull, Catalans, and (once upon a time) Salford and Toronto all have/had owners with capital to spend to overcome the inherent advantages to the big clubs, but are unable to do so because of the cap.

    That is the restructure that is needed more than anything to shake up the competitiveness of the Sport. Release the shackles, within reason, and let clubs try their hand.

    Exactly this. 

    Holding teams back is illogical and a bizarre stance to strangle clubs rather than growing clubs and subsequently, the sport. 

    If Wakefield wanted to spend £1m on Cam Munster, I’m going to make a (more) conscious effort to watch Wakefield against Saints. Wakefield signing Liam Hood just makes me shrug my shoulders and is instantly forgettable. 

    • Like 3
  11. We should win, really, but there’s always that sense of doubt in a derby, though I think that comes from watching us lose to Wigan sides with injuries under Wane, who could get a Wigan side up for any game and what should look like a Wigan defeat wouldn’t always be the case. Lam doesn’t seem to have that about him and he looks out of his depth. That said, discipline is key for us. Last week we were terrible in that regard and eventually got stung by Cas. 

  12. 5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

    This was the big lesson of Super League for the past 25 years.

    In the first 15 years, Wigan, Leeds, Saints and particularly Bradford really took the concept on and pushed hard. Increasing crowds by significant amounts. Whilst Bradford's star faded, Warrington and to a certain extent Hull FC carried on in their place and we've had the addition of Catalans doing the same in France. 

    Behind that however, growth stumbled. Cas, Huddersfield and Hull KR (for various reasons) haven't kicked on as hoped and made the jump from 7k on a good day crowds to 5 figure regulars with the top clubs. The first 2 have dropped off those figures and KR were relegated so have done well to maintain them. Leigh could potentially be included in this group, though in this current predicament they are slipping away.

    Then we have the likes of Salford, Wakefield, Widnes and London Broncos who have been unable to grow at all in the past 15 years despite extended spells in Super League in that time. 

    When seen like that you can appreciate why the whole game now seems stumbling and without momentum. Perhaps these other clubs were never capable of kicking on to join the big boys and we should have been looking elsewhere all along, but it is undeniable that in the past 10 years the momentum of Super League has stalled.

    Ideally we want more clubs to grow to the size of the first group, even overtaking them if possible. The only thing the structure has to do is facilitate that.

    As an aside to the above, from the “clubs who haven’t kicked on”, all three have been relegated and then promoted again in the past twenty years and those “unable to grow”, Salford, Widnes and London have been relegated and promoted in the past fifteen or so years. Can we expect clubs to “kick on” or “grow” when there is a trap door and subsequent reduction in central funding should they be relegated? 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...