Kear sees the light on franchising

[Pride & Heritage]

the clubs that arent in SL deserve to be where they are

if you average 2000 or less and have been around for a century or more, then that is pathetic

the RFL shouldnt kill off its expansion plans for clubs like this

Why because expansion has been such a rip roaring success? Are you really so blind that you cannot see what a joke expansion has been? Gateshead, London, Celtic which one has been a success? Prior to them Bridgend and Kent Invicta, where are they now? Celtic pulling under 3000 fans for the Bradford, Wakefield and Catalans, if Batley were in SL, I'd bet we'd get more than 3000 fans every week! Wake up and take the blinkers off and don't believe the hype spouted by the RFL. I'll bet you think the Magic Weekends are a success too!

If you take away the dream of playing in the top tier then the fans disappear too. Our attendances halved over night when we were denied promotion at the inception of SL. We realised there was no way of us ever entering the top tier of the game once that decision was made, and that is what all sport is about isn't it, chasing the dream to be the best? Where would your team be in the lower divisions with nothing left to play for, no dream to chase and how many fans do think you'd be pulling every week?

Edited July 1, 2010 by Pride & Heritage

[Trojan]

To all of the pro franchise people. I can see your argument about the promoted team not being competitive enough etc. but this has been caused by the larger clubs in SL who are running the game getting away with feathering there own nests for years. Remember Gateshull and Shuddersfield mergers, the rules have been consistantly bent to favour the select few since the inception of SL. Why should the bigger clubs get 2 votes to 1??? Could you imagine it in any other walk of life? Like a general election for example? The game is a farce at the moment and needs to be run independently of the likes of Mr Hetherington at Leeds with vested interests in what decisions are made for the game as a whole.

Why not set a pool of cash aside from all of the SL clubs to finance the promotion of a team? Like the parachute payment made to Castleford when they were last relegated, but this time give the newly promoted team the cash to be competitive? Surely that is the best solution and will without doubt strengthen that club for the future. The greater the number of strong teams in the game the better the game will be!

Surely the answer is to make the gap between the top clubs and the bottom smaller not bigger, which has been the case for years. Yes, I'm a Batley supporter, a very small club, but it isn't that long ago we drew with St. Helens in the Challenge Cup and would have won it if it wasn't for a last minute touchline goal by Bobby Goulding to get them the draw. Can you imagine that happening in any sort of competition now between SL and the CH's? Don't you think that is why the attendances for the Challenge cup have dropped? Who the hell wants to watch a game where the result is a dead cert before a ball is kicked? Is the game any better for this gulf in class between all of the divisions? I know the arguement for continually strengthening the top tier is to make the international GB/England team stronger, but has this happened in the last 20 years? Can any of you give me any proof that this has worked in any way? I think not, we are no closer now than we were in the 80's to toppling the Aussies, it could even be argued after the last internationals we are now further away than we were. Have we even looked like winning a Tri Nations tournament or World Cup in the last few years?

How good is it for the sport to be dominated by 2 or 3 clubs for decades on end, is that an exciting prospect for enticing new fans to a minority sport? Wigan dominated in the 80's, Leeds and St. Helens almost exclusively ever since with the exception of an odd couple of years of Bradford doing well? We need to get the balance right and have 14 equally matched teams in SL with promotion and relegation brought back in, giving everyone something to play for, and without doubt this boys club smokescreen, known as the franchised system has to be scrapped. Please pull your heads out of the sand and realise that this franchise system is just a smokescreen to protect the few at the cost of all the others! It is not good for the game. That is the only way to strengthen the international game, by making players play to the best of their ability every week, as you would have a few stars in all of the SL clubs rather than the likes of Leeds, St. Helens etc. dominating the talent pool with enough strength in depth to fill 2 1st teams capable of finishing in the top 4 of SL.

If you think that the game is balanced at the moment, and everyone has a good chance of winning, I ask you how many of you would be willing to bet

[dallymessenger]

Why because expansion has been such a rip roaring success? Are you really so blind that you cannot see what a joke expansion has been? Gateshead, London, Celtic which one has been a success? Prior to them Bridgend and Kent Invicta, where are they now? Celtic pulling under 3000 fans for the Bradford, Wakefield and Catalans, if Batley were in SL, I'd bet we'd get more than 3000 fans every week! Wake up and take the blinkers off and don't believe the hype spouted by the RFL. I'll bet you think the Magic Weekends are a success too!

If you take away the dream of playing in the top tier then the fans disappear too. Our attendances halved over night when we were denied promotion at the inception of SL. We realised their was no way of us ever entering the top tier of the game once that decision was made, and that is what all sport is about isn't it, chasing the dream to be the best? Where would your team be in the lower divisions with nothing left to play for, no dream to chase and how many fans do think you'd be pulling every week?

the most succesful RL competition in the world was built on a closed shop.

the NFL has no P&R.

RL in england cant afford P&R either.

for P&R to work you need lots of well funded and widely supported clubs

RL doesnt have it

[dallymessenger]

clubs just have to realize that to enter SL now they have to do more than have 1 good season on the field and win the Championship GF.

on field success is only a small part of the franchise criteria.

[Pride & Heritage]

the most succesful RL competition in the world was built on a closed shop.

the NFL has no P&R.

RL in england cant afford P&R either.

for P&R to work you need lots of well funded and widely supported clubs

RL doesnt have it

Why does it need to be well funded? Why not just have 14 teams with the same budget and therefore almost guaranteeing that 1 team will not dominate for decades? Does the best sport have to be played by the absolute best and skillful players, or is the best sport played out by equally skilled teams? Is it better to watch say St. Helens with a team full of internationals from around the world stuffing say Castleford or Catalan by 60 points every week? Or would you rather watch a game like the recent Huddersfield and Hull KR game which was in doubt until the last kick of the game? No contest IMO, nobody wants to watch sport that is a dead cert.

Why do we have this obsession with Austrailia, it is their national sport, so it is an entirely different situation and just because something works in one country doesn't mean it will work in another. Take the NFL American football, which has had millions pumped in to it over here and has it taken off? Because it doesn't fit our sporting needs. Has soccer in Austrailia taken off, and is it regularly pulling the same gates as the NRL? No, it is a different culture down under so we should not do what the Aussies do, as it will never guarantee success here as it is an entirely different market and situation. We need to do what is right for us in this country.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Pride & Heritage

[dallymessenger]

Why does it need to be well funded? Why not just have 14 teams with the same budget and therefore almost guaranteeing that 1 team will not dominate for decades? Does the best sport have to be played by the absolute best and skillful players, or is the best sport played out by equally skilled teams? Is it better to watch say St. Helens with a team full of internationals from around the world stuffing say Castleford or Catalan by 60 points every week? Or would you rather watch a game like the recent Huddersfield and Hull KR which was in doubt until the lasty kick of the game? No contest IMO

Why do we have this obsession with Austrailia it is there national sport, so it is an entirely different situation and just because something works in one country doesn't mean it will work in another. Take the NFL American football, which has had millions pumped in to it here and has it taken off? Has soccer in Austrailia taken off and is it regularly pulling the same gates as the NRL? No, it is a different culture down under so we should not do what the Aussies do, as it will never guarantee success here as it is an entirely different market and situation. We need to do what is right for us in this country.

yeah lets have english RL stay a small sport ignored by the major media because of forlorn notion the sport has as much money as soccer

the boss of sale was quoted as saying he feared for their clubs future if they were relegated. this in a sport with millions more than league.

if clubs cant get more than 800 to their home games that says how little people care about the game in their town

[Terry Mullaney]

To all of the pro franchise people. I can see your argument about the promoted team not being competitive enough etc. but this has been caused by the larger clubs in SL who are running the game getting away with feathering there own nests for years. Remember Gateshull and Shuddersfield mergers, the rules have been consistantly bent to favour the select few since the inception of SL. Why should the bigger clubs get 2 votes to 1??? Could you imagine it in any other walk of life? Like a general election for example? The game is a farce at the moment and needs to be run independently of the likes of Mr Hetherington at Leeds with vested interests in what decisions are made for the game as a whole.

Why not set a pool of cash aside from all of the SL clubs to finance the promotion of a team? Like the parachute payment made to Castleford when they were last relegated, but this time give the newly promoted team the cash to be competitive? Surely that is the best solution and will without doubt strengthen that club for the future. The greater the number of strong teams in the game the better the game will be!

Surely the answer is to make the gap between the top clubs and the bottom smaller not bigger, which has been the case for years. Yes, I'm a Batley supporter, a very small club, but it isn't that long ago we drew with St. Helens in the Challenge Cup and would have won it if it wasn't for a last minute touchline goal by Bobby Goulding to get them the draw. Can you imagine that happening in any sort of competition now between SL and the CH's? Don't you think that is why the attendances for the Challenge cup have dropped? Who the hell wants to watch a game where the result is a dead cert before a ball is kicked? Is the game any better for this gulf in class between all of the divisions? I know the arguement for continually strengthening the top tier is to make the international GB/England team stronger, but has this happened in the last 20 years? Can any of you give me any proof that this has worked in any way? I think not, we are no closer now than we were in the 80's to toppling the Aussies, it could even be argued after the last internationals we are now further away than we were. Have we even looked like winning a Tri Nations tournament or World Cup in the last few years?

How good is it for the sport to be dominated by 2 or 3 clubs for decades on end, is that an exciting prospect for enticing new fans to a minority sport? Wigan dominated in the 80's, Leeds and St. Helens almost exclusively ever since with the exception of an odd couple of years of Bradford doing well? We need to get the balance right and have 14 equally matched teams in SL with promotion and relegation brought back in, giving everyone something to play for, and without doubt this boys club smokescreen, known as the franchised system has to be scrapped. Please pull your heads out of the sand and realise that this franchise system is just a smokescreen to protect the few at the cost of all the others! It is not good for the game. That is the only way to strengthen the international game, by making players play to the best of their ability every week, as you would have a few stars in all of the SL clubs rather than the likes of Leeds, St. Helens etc. dominating the talent pool with enough strength in depth to fill 2 1st teams capable of finishing in the top 4 of SL.

If you think that the game is balanced at the moment, and everyone has a good chance of winning, I ask you how many of you would be willing to bet

[Dave T]

The fact is we had P&R for a decent spell, and it hasn't exactly set the world on fire, so trying something new (which is actually P&R over 3 years rather than 1 year) is worth a go in my book.

[Pride & Heritage]

yeah lets have english RL stay a small sport ignored by the major media because of forlorn notion the sport has as much money as soccer

the boss of sale was quoted as saying he feared for their clubs future if they were relegated. this in a sport with millions more than league.

if clubs cant get more than 800 to their home games that says how little people care about the game in their town

But you are missing whole point, the game is a joke because too many results are easy to predict, and too many teams are not in with a shout of winning anything and never will because of the closed shop mentality. Most of the teams in the country have absolutely no dream to chase. The gap gets wider every year between top and bottom and you could ask what is the point of playing at all, if you are guaranteeing no matter how good a team is on the field that they can never play in the top division because you are smaller club and therefore can never strive to be any better?

Sport is about uncertainty and shock results. Having a dream to chase that no matter how small you are you can reach the top and be the best in the country. We do not have that in the RFL and that is why we are a minority sport. How perocial is it that best team doesn't get in because there face doesn't fit. If football was run by that logic Blackpool , Burnley and Bolton would never be admitted in to the Premiership. Would that make football a better sport? No of course it wouldn't, you'd have a situation like the Scottish FA where eventually you'll just have 2 teams who are the only ones left with anything to play for in a few years, like Rangers and Celtic. Because everyone else is so financially far away from the big 2 that the competition is decided before a ball is kicked. The 2 good teams will slowly get worse year on year because the opposition is getting worse due to a lack of interest by fans of smaller clubs who are sick of knowing what will happen prior to seeing the game, and therefore less investment will be made by smaller clubs in players as there are less fans. It is just a downward spiral that will eventually kill the game off. That is what the Aussies realised with there franchise system, they made the playing field even for all of the teams in the league. Ensuring all clubs keep investing in talent as there is always the dream to chase as all teams can only spend the same amount of money as each other, and there are can be no Leeds, Wigan or Saints dominating the game just because they happen to have more cash than the others at any particular time.

Has Scottish international football improved since the 2 club domination? When was the last time they qualified for a World Cup/European Championship?

In short t was the Aussie salary cap which has sorted the game out and kept it competitive, not the franchise closed shop system.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Pride & Heritage

[Terry Mullaney]

if clubs cant get more than 800 to their home games that says how little people care about the game in their town

So which ambitious Championship clubs can't get more than 800 to their home games?

[Dave T]

Whilst you make some valid points in some of your other posts, I do need to pick you up on some things here:

But you are missing whole point, the game is a joke because too many results are easy to predict, and too many teams are not in with a shout of winning anything and never will because of the closed shop mentality.

The results are no more predictable nowadays than they have ever been, even when we had P&R. We have seen bottom teams win at top teams this year, just as every other year. Nothing to do with a closed shop.

Most of the teams in the country have absolutely no dream to chase. The gap gets wider every year between top and bottom and you could ask what is the point of playing at all, if you are guaranteeing no matter how good a team is on the field that they can never play in the top division because you are smaller club and therefore can never strive to be any better?

Why do teams have no dream to chase? That dream may be a bit harder to achieve now (ie you need to build up your club rather than going for a sh!t or bust approach on the field).

All clubs are eligible for SL if they get the facilities and setup right, that hasn't changed, however has become more difficult to achieve.

[shrek]

Personally I'd hold up the English Premier league in soccer as a great example as to why P&R is a very risky business, it creates unsustainable clubs, 3 of which will drop down each year and a good number of those must go into administration and it can't be long before we see the first liquidation.

On the flip side, we deal with much smaller numbers in Rugby, so if we could ever get the the Championship to a point clubs were spending 60 to 70% of the lower spending clubs in Super League on salaries and playing out of decent facilities with solid foundations I'd love to see P&R back. At the moment though I just don't see it as being viable.

[Pride & Heritage]

Whilst you make some valid points in some of your other posts, I do need to pick you up on some things here:

The results are no more predictable nowadays than they have ever been, even when we had P&R. We have seen bottom teams win at top teams this year, just as every other year. Nothing to do with a closed shop.

Why do teams have no dream to chase? That dream may be a bit harder to achieve now (ie you need to build up your club rather than going for a sh!t or bust approach on the field).

All clubs are eligible for SL if they get the facilities and setup right, that hasn't changed, however has become more difficult to achieve.

So Celtic got in to SL based on facilities at The Brewery Field, infrastructure and youth talent, or set up as you call it?

The inter divisional games have all become a joke other than the Barrow v Cas cup game, the others were settled by upwards of 40 points in the main between each of the 3 divisions, that is hardly competitive is it?

Brewery Field was a far worse ground than any I have ever visited in 30 years of watching rugby; McLaren Field, Bramley, even the current Barrow ground were like Wembley compared to that. But that was o.k. for them to get in. How many young players has Nobby played this year from the junior ranks of Celtic that was deemed good enough for them in their franchise application to SL? Not even mentioning the infrastructure that was so solid that the club moved 150 miles north in search of fans. They went bust and were bought out by a new company just like the reasons given to Widnes when there application was rejected, but were Crusaders/Celtic kicked out of the league or deducted points? No, they got to carry on regardless without punishment. How other than location can Celtic's application be deemed any better than either Leigh's, Widnes' or even Halifax's? When you look at fans, ground etc.

It is also things like that that make our game look a joke to the rest of sporting world, and why we struggle to get fans interested and national press coverage. I could go further and mention the expansion plans and relegation fiasco of Leigh and Gateshead last year too.

We know at Batley, as most of other Championship clubs do, that we will never get in to SL under the current regime. We earned the right, met the criteria as it was, as did Keighley in the same season only for the rules to be changed after the season had ended to stop us getting in. Hence, we know the dream of playing top flight rugby has gone along with upwards of half of our support, who then went to watch the Bulls, Rhino's and Huddersfield who were aloud to chase the dream to become the best, and none of whom have been seen again at the mount.

In regard to Sh!t or bust promotion campaigns, surely that is what the salary cap is for? To ensure that there can no longer be a sh!t or bust approach. I thought it was designed to make sure clubs could not overspend on players and therefore down to sensible investment and infrastructure of the club to ensure they are the best in the league?

Edited July 1, 2010 by Pride & Heritage

[Pride & Heritage]

On the flip side, we deal with much smaller numbers in Rugby, so if we could ever get the the Championship to a point clubs were spending 60 to 70% of the lower spending clubs in Super League on salaries and playing out of decent facilities with solid foundations I'd love to see P&R back. At the moment though I just don't see it as being viable.

That is kind of my point Shrek, we need to get the smaller clubs up by investing in them, to get them to a state where the gap between all of the divisions in minimal. That will mean taking Sky money etc. off the SL teams and investing it in the smaller clubs, which won't happen because the SL clubs have 2 votes to 1. But that is the best future for the sport IMO. We also need everyone in each division to have the same budget as each other. That would mean cutting the salary cap in SL to say

[Dave T]

So Celtic got in to SL based on facilities at The Brewery Field, infrastructure and youth talent, or set up as you call it?

There are quite a few clubs that got in at this first stage that don't necessarily have the right setup. Most clubs who applied for a license got a C grade. It was then up to the RFL to decide which clubs got in, and it is clear that Crusaders had a big advantage by being in a promotional area.

The inter divisional games have all become a joke other than the Barrow v Cas cup game, the others were settled by upwards of 40 points in the main between each of the 3 divisions, that is hardly competitive is it?

What do you expect, they are between teams in different divisions, this has pretty much always been the case!

Brewery Field...

I'm not here to defend Crusaders, this has been discussed to death.

We know at Batley, as most of other Championship clubs do, that we will never get in to SL under the current regime. We earned the right, met the criteria as it was, as did Keighley in the same season only for the rules to be changed after the season had ended to stop us getting in. Hence, we know the dream of playing top flight rugby has gone along with upwards of half of our support, who then went to watch the Bulls, Rhino's and Huddersfield who were aloud to chase the dream to become the best, and none of whom have been seen again at the mount.

Would it do Batley any good going up to SL in their current form? What kind of investment could they attract in SL? If they can get investment and the interest is there, then why are they any different to Fev, Barrow, Widnes and Leigh who do have ambitions of promotion. If you are saying you can't get to their level, then, well I'm sorry, you don't deserve a SL spot.

In regard to Sh!t or bust promotion campaigns, surely that is what the salary cap is for? To ensure that there can no longer be a sh!t or bust approach. I thought it was designed to make sure clubs could not overspend on players and therefore down to sensible investment and infrastructure of the club to ensure they are the best in the league?

Even though the SC has been reduced, it is still too high for many clubs, as the income just doesn't cover it.

In a P&R situation you then have to increase from around

[shrek]

That is kind of my point Shrek, we need to get the smaller clubs up by investing in them, to get them to a state where the gap between all of the divisions in minimal. That will mean taking Sky money etc. off the SL teams and investing it in the smaller clubs, which won't happen because the SL clubs have 2 votes to 1. But that is the best future for the sport IMO. We also need everyone in each division to have the same budget as each other. That would mean cutting the salary cap in SL to say

[Keith T]

To all of the pro franchise people. I can see your argument about the promoted team not being competitive enough etc. but this has been caused by the larger clubs in SL who are running the game getting away with feathering there own nests for years. Remember Gateshull and Shuddersfield mergers, the rules have been consistantly bent to favour the select few since the inception of SL. Why should the bigger clubs get 2 votes to 1??? Could you imagine it in any other walk of life? Like a general election for example? The game is a farce at the moment and needs to be run independently of the likes of Mr Hetherington at Leeds with vested interests in what decisions are made for the game as a whole.

Why not set a pool of cash aside from all of the SL clubs to finance the promotion of a team? Like the parachute payment made to Castleford when they were last relegated, but this time give the newly promoted team the cash to be competitive? Surely that is the best solution and will without doubt strengthen that club for the future. The greater the number of strong teams in the game the better the game will be!

Surely the answer is to make the gap between the top clubs and the bottom smaller not bigger, which has been the case for years. Yes, I'm a Batley supporter, a very small club, but it isn't that long ago we drew with St. Helens in the Challenge Cup and would have won it if it wasn't for a last minute touchline goal by Bobby Goulding to get them the draw. Can you imagine that happening in any sort of competition now between SL and the CH's? Don't you think that is why the attendances for the Challenge cup have dropped? Who the hell wants to watch a game where the result is a dead cert before a ball is kicked? Is the game any better for this gulf in class between all of the divisions? I know the arguement for continually strengthening the top tier is to make the international GB/England team stronger, but has this happened in the last 20 years? Can any of you give me any proof that this has worked in any way? I think not, we are no closer now than we were in the 80's to toppling the Aussies, it could even be argued after the last internationals we are now further away than we were. Have we even looked like winning a Tri Nations tournament or World Cup in the last few years?

How good is it for the sport to be dominated by 2 or 3 clubs for decades on end, is that an exciting prospect for enticing new fans to a minority sport? Wigan dominated in the 80's, Leeds and St. Helens almost exclusively ever since with the exception of an odd couple of years of Bradford doing well? We need to get the balance right and have 14 equally matched teams in SL with promotion and relegation brought back in, giving everyone something to play for, and without doubt this boys club smokescreen, known as the franchised system has to be scrapped. Please pull your heads out of the sand and realise that this franchise system is just a smokescreen to protect the few at the cost of all the others! It is not good for the game. That is the only way to strengthen the international game, by making players play to the best of their ability every week, as you would have a few stars in all of the SL clubs rather than the likes of Leeds, St. Helens etc. dominating the talent pool with enough strength in depth to fill 2 1st teams capable of finishing in the top 4 of SL.

If you think that the game is balanced at the moment, and everyone has a good chance of winning, I ask you how many of you would be willing to bet

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I give up. Your last post bears out all that I've said. Attendances were lower generally then than they are now so logically clubs such as Rovers could expect proportionate increases if allowed access to SL. John Kear has realised that Licensing is not the way forward and good on him for admitting he was mistaken. Thanks for your efforts in supplying the figures.

as you said it is all relative

rovers had everything you require to be amongst the top attended clubs-rekegation battles, cup winning but they were nowhere near.

their crowds didn't get bigger towards the end of the season, which one would have thought they would.

I suspect the voice of the vested interest in Kear's comments.

[Keith T]

As the Chief Executive of the RFL commented, "At a time when other major spectator sports are facing falling attendances, it is most encouraging to see our gates rising significantly once again. This surely demonstrates that however hard the times, people will always turn up to support a game which offers skill, excitement, commitment, self-discipline, and value for money.

However we musn't be complacent. Much remains to be done and it is particularly pleasingto find that many Rugby League clubs are at last paying attention to the vital need to improve spectators' facilities and comfort. The battle for people's time, attention, and money has never been tougher but the latest figures confirm my conviction that our game is marching inexorably forward to the ultimate goal, which will see Rugby League firmly established as a leading national spectator sport during the course of the current decade".

Mmmmmmmmm.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Its like having a conversation with a young child this is. The crowds Fev got in 83 is irrelevant maybe if there was no relegation they would of been lower. Im saying the last 3 crowds Cas have had would of been significantly higher had relegation been at stake probably by 2k a game and at

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Spot on mate. That old saying "there's none so blind as those that don't want to see" c

To suggest that people who don't share your views fall into this category, says a lot about about the depth and breadth of your own vision. How does merely harbouring such thoughts and attempting to back them up equate to blindness

Edited July 1, 2010 by l'angelo mysterioso

[Trojan]

The fact that we're still having this argument three years down the line surely illustrates that large numbers of RL fans are unhappy with the type of game franchising has produced - a game with no "edge" to it.

How would it be if at Wimbledon they'd said to Venus Williams's (or Federer for that matter) opponent, "Sorry kid, but Venus is a regular here, so until you win a few more semi finals we're not letting you play the big one, we're letting her (him) play it instead" Effectively that's what franchising does.

[Pride & Heritage]

This will be were we differ then!

I don't see the benefit to the sport at all by cutting the salary cap, its down to those who are hovering around the

Edited July 1, 2010 by Pride & Heritage

[Keith T]

To suggest that people who don't share your views fall into this category, says a lot about about the depth and breadth of your vision. Or maybe these people are using 'twisted logic' or are a 'disgrace', for merely harbouring such thoughts and attempting to back them up.

And you also speak for everyone who share your "twisted" view I take it. SL is a closed shop and the majority of fans that are already in it want it to stay that way in order that some of their weak clubs, both financially and on the filed, can stay there and pick up the nice fat cheques from Sky. Many couldn't give a toss about what is happening outside their tight little circle. How much depth and vision is that?

[l'angelo mysterioso]

And you also speak for everyone who share your "twisted" view I take it. SL is a closed shop and the majority of fans that are already in it want it to stay that way in order that some of their weak clubs, both financially and on the filed, can stay there and pick up the nice fat cheques from Sky. Many couldn't give a toss about what is happening outside their tight little circle. How much depth and vision is that?

I speak for myself.