Martyn Sadler - Talking Rugby League

[League Express]

Last Saturday afternoon I was at Huddersfield's Challenge Cup-tie against Leeds at the John Smith's Stadium.

It was a tremendous match, played in front of a terrific crowd, and must have created a very positive impression for the audience watching the BBC's coverage of the game.

After the match, and the media conference, I went upstairs into the lounge in which Giants supporters and players congregate, and I was assailed with people asking me about the RFL's proposals for changing the structure of the league competitions.

It's fair to say that I didn't find anyone who was in favour of the proposed changes, and many supporters couldn't understand why the changes were being proposed.

So it's hardly surprising that the RFL chief executive Nigel Wood and his fellow RFL director Ralph Rimmer should have taken to the Twittersphere today to try to explain their proposals to an audience that has been fairly sceptical about them so far.

Click here to view the article

[Doghead]

My experience is the opposite, most fans I know are warming to the idea.

[Saintslass]

My experience is the opposite, most fans I know are warming to the idea.

Same here. 

 

Martyn, I think we would have been better served if you'd explained the potential benefits and pitfalls of option 3, since that is the proposal most being discussed, rather than take the approach you did. 

[the phoenix]

the current poll on the forum has at the moment 52% of people favouring the 2x12 then 8x3 format  how can you say that supporters arent in favour ?

[Gruff]

Yep,  The poll states 52% are in favour of the 3x8.  Similarly everyone I know that gives a fig thinks it is a good idea as well.

 

Once again, we see personal agenda's/opinions being spouted as "FACT" by journo's when they should remain unbiased and report pro's and cons for all options.

 

With regards to the other thread - this is the main reason we are seen to "undersell" ourselves.

[Larry the Leit]

I think it's an awful idea (3x8). It'll stregnthen the top, and weaken the lower half of superleague to championship levels.  Then before you know it Hetherington and co will be after a reduced top tier with all the money to them.  Richard Agar's views on it https://soundcloud.com/wakefield-trinity-wildcat/agar-gives-opinion-on-proposed

[Amber Avenger]

Yep,  The poll states 52% are in favour of the 3x8.  Similarly everyone I know that gives a fig thinks it is a good idea as well.

 

Once again, we see personal agenda's/opinions being spouted as "FACT" by journo's when they should remain unbiased and report pro's and cons for all options.

 

With regards to the other thread - this is the main reason we are seen to "undersell" ourselves.

It's an editorial piece though not a news report.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Amber Avenger

[Martyn Sadler]

Same here. 

 

Martyn, I think we would have been better served if you'd explained the potential benefits and pitfalls of option 3, since that is the proposal most being discussed, rather than take the approach you did. 

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

Looking at the effects of option 3 is precisely what I've done.

[Saintslass]

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

Looking at the effects of option 3 is precisely what I've done.

In my post that you quoted I referred to 'benefits and pitfalls'.  All you've talked about is pitfalls, as you perceive them.  You haven't referred to any benefits so far as I can see.  And you have even mentioned the disruption to the Challenge Cup.  There has been absolutely no mention of the Challenge Cup - or for that matter the Northern Rail Cup - in discussions so far and so to include that as a negative before you even know what is planned for it or being discussed, is not what I would call discussing the 'benefits and pitfalls'.

[Ackroman]

I went to the Reform Club to see if they were in favour of letting some poor working class northerners in as an act of charity. To a man they were against it. Not one proposer could be found.

Next week I'll see what the Masons think of letting the riff raff in instead.

Standards must be kept.

[the phoenix]

larry - cant see how it will weaken the bottom teams in S/L , they will be playing teams quite close to them in performances as oppossed to getting trounced by certain teams 

that should give them a grounding for the following season unless they underperform then they dont then deserve the S/L opportunity 

also some of those teams have stay away fans as they are fed up of week in week out hidings which isnt good , games that they are competative in will bring back these fans increasing gate and general turnover giving better financial stability 

add in the fact that the top teams will then be looking over their shoulder desperate not to drop down a level and we have a serious competition again which is far more marketable that what we have now

[the phoenix]

martin - poll is now showing almost 55% in favour 

[Martyn Sadler]

martin - poll is now showing almost 55% in favour 

 

Only 77 votes so far, and there isn't a status quo option.

 

If the new structure delivered what it's proponents claim, then I would vote for it too.

 

The problem is that it won't, and my article explains some of the reasons why.

[Ullman]

Same here. 

 

Martyn, I think we would have been better served if you'd explained the potential benefits and pitfalls of option 3, since that is the proposal most being discussed, rather than take the approach you did. 

I thought it was a fairly decent critique.

 

The whole thing is about as appealing as the other crackpot ideas to come out of the Nigel Wood stable.

[the phoenix]

 but some of your opinions are flawed anyway and as pointed out you are only reporting negatives , if you say that you vote for the new structure if the claims are correct , surely in your position you should be pressing for these claims to work if you support them 

you arent coming across as someone welcoming the idea with your negativity 

[Martyn Sadler]

 but some of your opinions are flawed anyway and as pointed out you are only reporting negatives , if you say that you vote for the new structure if the claims are correct , surely in your position you should be pressing for these claims to work if you support them 

you arent coming across as someone welcoming the idea with your negativity 

Let me know where my opinions are flawed.

 

I don't think the claims for the proposed structure can work - that's the whole point.

 

I don't welcome these ideas because I am very positive about our game and I don't think it needs gimmicky structures to succeed.

[The Parksider]

Only 77 votes so far, and there isn't a status quo option.

 

If the new structure delivered what it's proponents claim, then I would vote for it too.

 

The problem is that it won't, and my article explains some of the reasons why.

I liked the article, I resent the idea in a post above that you have a "personal agenda" and I appreciate what you say.

But listening to the RFL trying to sell the idea is almost like listening to any press release, you get all the information you don't want and the key questions remain unanswered.

It's said the clubs are likely to vote heavily in favour of the idea. RL Express surely has enough access to enough people at clubs to find out if that is actually so??

Tony Smith seems against it so are Warrington voting no?

Gary hetherington has some things to say to you - are Leeds a no vote then??

Down the other end the Featherstone Chairman has commented in a fashion that looks like a "yes"

Down London is this a way for Hughes to keep London going on the cheap is that a "yes" for him?

Up at Wigan they'll only have to play once against the failing clubs and get extra fixtures against the top SL clubs - has that made them a yes?

Over at HKR Superleague is too rich for mr. Hudgell but is a middle 8 competition affordable for him - another yes??

The very idea any of them will vote the system in because it's good for everyone else doesn't seem to me to be consistent with how clubs vote. If it suits them it's a yes.

I'd like to see the clubs to be asked to comment directly......

[the phoenix]

not sure how you can have a status quo option when the RFL will be making changes , its just what changes they make not shall we change or not

[Martyn Sadler]

In my post that you quoted I referred to 'benefits and pitfalls'.  All you've talked about is pitfalls, as you perceive them.  You haven't referred to any benefits so far as I can see.  And you have even mentioned the disruption to the Challenge Cup.  There has been absolutely no mention of the Challenge Cup - or for that matter the Northern Rail Cup - in discussions so far and so to include that as a negative before you even know what is planned for it or being discussed, is not what I would call discussing the 'benefits and pitfalls'.

I'm perfectly happy for you to tell us what the benefits will be.

 

Do you disagree with my assessment of how the new structure will impact on the Challenge Cup, when you bear in mind what will be at stake for the Super League clubs next year, and their desire not to finish in the bottom two. Do you really think the Challenge Cup will matter to them?

[Saintslass]

Only 77 votes so far, and there isn't a status quo option.

 

If the new structure delivered what it's proponents claim, then I would vote for it too.

 

The problem is that it won't, and my article explains some of the reasons why.

Was there an Option 3 option in the poll by LE last week?

[Saintslass]

I liked the article, I resent the idea in a post above that you have a "personal agenda" and I appreciate what you say.

...

But Martyn has just admitted to having a 'personal agenda'.  He has just said he doesn't like the idea.  Ergo, his personal agenda.

[bewareshadows]

Well it's fair to say the article certainly shows which camp Martyn sits in, and that is fine, everyone is allowed an opinion.

 

I would argue that some of the assumptions made in the article are flawed or not very well explained.  

 

For example the effect on the challenge cup, it maybe that Martyn knows more about the set up of the competition, but I can't see why it should be effected by the option 3 structure.

 

In fact I would say option 3 allows for a revamp of the CC into a more condensed competition.  Currently the CC is spread over a huge chunk of the season, meaning that our national TV coverage free to air has no consistency and does not allow for a period of concentrated coverage.  If you place the CC between the split period, you allow it week to week coverage so something for the Beeb to sink their teeth into, like they can with the 6 nations.  But also clubs knocked out, will get that recovery period, which will be helpful to the players, and clubs to recuperate.

 

There is a good point about the playoffs lacking meaning for the middle 8, however it does not cover the fact that it should provide a boost to the middle 8 clubs for the other 14 games as they jostle for position.

[Saintslass]

I'm perfectly happy for you to tell us what the benefits will be.

 

Do you disagree with my assessment of how the new structure will impact on the Challenge Cup, when you bear in mind what will be at stake for the Super League clubs next year, and their desire not to finish in the bottom two. Do you really think the Challenge Cup will matter to them?

I have no idea how Option 3 would impact upon the Challenge Cup as that area has not yet been discussed.  Since the RFL has stated quite clearly that the review is 'whole game' then I would assume - and it is only an assumption - that the Challenge Cup (and the Northern Rail Cup, which may also be affected) will also come under scrutiny.  However, it is quite possible that the Challenge Cup won't be affected at all since which league a team plays in does not impact on a team's eligibility for the Challenge Cup.  Given that we are now up to the quarter final stage in the competition and under Option 3 we would just be moving into the split tier phase of the season then why would the Challenge Cup need to be changed at all?

Edited May 17, 2013 by Saintslass

[The Parksider]

But Martyn has just admitted to having a 'personal agenda'.  He has just said he doesn't like the idea.  Ergo, his personal agenda.

Oh come on, he doesn't like the idea because he sees it detrimental to the game, that's a personal opinion not an "agenda".

[bewareshadows]

In the end would it not like all decisions come down to SL chairmen. So surely only their opinion matters.

 

That being the case which way would they vote???