Jump to content

The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)


Recommended Posts

 Huddersfield took the million pounds on offer from the RFl for mergers. How much of that went to the eagles?

 

None - it pretty much all went on paying off players' contracts.

 

Why should the new Eagles get it anyway ?  The money was for merging - not for setting up a new club.  I don't get your point here.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. If I have misplaced optimism then you're a pessimist 

 

2. I am completely at a loss as to your economic comparisons of 14 years ago. Were we in recession or not? Is it worse or not? well clearly it is worse, much, much worse than 1999.

 

3. Being a pessimist you can't grasp what a positive attitude can bring.

 

4. I didn't realise Sheffield's gates were 15,000 back then so maybe you have a point after all.

 

1. I'm not a pessimist - just a realist.

 

2. So now's the time to expect huge crowd increases ?

 

3. Why don't you come to Sheffield and have a go ?

 

4. Doh - dammed keyboards !

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You ignore the fact the Fev chairman put very large sums of money in to rescue Fev from CC1, now very large sums of money are going in to rescue them from CC.

 

2. The idea that there's a virtuous cycle in which a club attracts paying fans, buys betters players, attracts more paying fans buys even better players, attracts even more paying fans still and attracts even better players still is nonsense and has never happened.

 

3. Show me where it has?

 

1. Do I? Growth is a reaction to investment, and subsequent interest, then more investment, and further interest etc. At least I have an idea what it is.

 

2. I never said it was a virtuous cycle. But from a low base you can grow far quicker.

 

3. I don't have to answer questions I never posed in the first place, I never said it was a virtuous circle. I gave examples of clubs that can/have grown. They have invested, now they need to generate interest to evidence that they are growing. Some clubs have invested in facilities, some in fantastic coaching and players, the catalyst to growth, I believe, is the 3x8.

 

Pessimists think what we have had is what we will get but the socio-economic background to it is far different in our future than in our past. If you don't believe in the 3x8 then fine but don't use the past as an example for why it will fail when it has never been tried. The only other time where there was as much fluidity in the league structure was the 1 divisional structure and at that time there were many more clubs in and around the yo yo belt winning more of their matches than they do now. 

Edited by Ackroman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I'm not a pessimist - just a realist.

 

2. So now's the time to expect huge crowd increases ?

 

3. Why don't you come to Sheffield and have a go ?

 

4. Doh - dammed keyboards !

1. No a pessimist

2. I never said huge but I don't get the relevance. Interestingly enough RL has always done well out of a recession.

3. I'm from Dewsbury. I have little to be optimistic about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No a pessimist

2. I never said huge but I don't get the relevance. Interestingly enough RL has always done well out of a recession.

3. I'm from Dewsbury. I have little to be optimistic about.

 

1. The coming months will show whether optimism or pessimism to closer to realism.

 

2.  I didn't get yours either.  Hence the confusion all round.

 

3.  You'll have to clarify that too.  All I can interpret from that is you're a pessimist.   You could help Dewsbury out with your positive mental attitude.

 

I'm been at Sheffield for 30 years.   I've seen a lot of schemes come and go.  "Just get people to watch a game, they'll be hooked." "Cheap season tickets - that's the thing."  "Free season tickets for kids."  "Deals on the internet."  Meanwhile we've had two Chief Executives (or whatever the head honcho called himself at the time) for the vast bulk of those 30 years who could not have a more positive mental attitude in Gary Hetherington and Mark Aston.

 

Yet we have an average gate of less than 1000.  That's a growth of less than one person a week over 30 years.

 

Positive mental attitude isn't enough.

Edited by Griff

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to be a bit more selective than reading the honours board.

 

Oh really. well all those areas had champion teams with large attendances, decent sized junior games and, for the eras they were top teams playing in decent grounds.  

 

History is no predictor of future trends. Have you ever bought any shares and read the prospectus. Past results are no predictor of future growth. History can be used as a guide to what was and maybe what could be, but current realitlies dictate, not conditions from the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really. well all those areas had champion teams with large attendances, decent sized junior games and, for the eras they were top teams playing in decent grounds.  

 

History is no predictor of future trends. Have you ever bought any shares and read the prospectus. Past results are no predictor of future growth. History can be used as a guide to what was and maybe what could be, but current realitlies dictate, not conditions from the past.

 

Have it your own way.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put any club in SL and the gates go up significantly. Want a long list??

 

That's not the point. Without financing gates alone will not support a SL club. Do you want a long list including various defaulters and bankruptees.

 

Keighley went from div 3 to Div 2 and trebled their gates but without financing it was not sustainable. Financing is crucial at all levels of the game including the sainted SL and to throw those allegations soley at Championship clubs is to complain about the speck in their eye and ignore the planks in your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None - it pretty much all went on paying off players' contracts.

 

Why should the new Eagles get it anyway ?  The money was for merging - not for setting up a new club.  I don't get your point here.

 

Well there's a merger where two entities join on equal terms and there's a takeover disguised as a merger where one of the partners pockets the money. strips the assets and quits the location of the other party, in essence causing them to cease to exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there's a merger where two entities join on equal terms and there's a takeover disguised as a merger where one of the partners pockets the money. strips the assets and quits the location of the other party, in essence causing them to cease to exist. 

 

I'm pretty sure that the plan to play half the home games in Sheffield would have disappeared after a season, yes.  Pocketed the money? That's a distortion of the facts.  There were costs of the merger - mainly reducing the playing staff from 40 or 50 down to something more realistic.  Strips the assets ?  I'd hardly call taking on the playing staff "stripping the assets".  It was Ken Davy's money at the end of the day.  Paul Thompson wanted out.  Surely Ken gets to make a few decisions that suit him ?

 

Anyway, what's all this got to do with this thread ? :dry:

Edited by Griff

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that the plan to play half the home games in Sheffield would have disappeared after a season, yes.  Pocketed the money? That's a distortion of the facts.  There were costs of the merger - mainly reducing the playing staff from 40 or 50 down to something more realistic.  Strips the assets ?  I'd hardly call taking on the playing staff "stripping the assets".  It was Ken Davy's money at the end of the day.  Paul Thompson wanted out.  Surely Ken gets to make a few decisions that suit him ?

 

Anyway, what's all this got to do with this thread ? :dry:

 

It's to do with you denigrating Sheffield Eagles as not being fit for purpose for SL because of their previous failure when, in fact, Sheffield Eagles , mark 1, were thrown to the wolves in a shambolic fake merger carried out soley for the million pound bonus on offer and none of that went to the eagles and they were asset stripped and ceased to exist.

 

That the current mark 2 eagles are where they are is a testament to their success given their starting point and they are a good bet to suceed in SL given their track record to date and to throw the melt down of the mark 1 eagles at the current team as a reason for them not to be considered for SL is disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the current mark 2 eagles are where they are is a testament to their success given their starting point and they are a good bet to suceed in SL given their track record to date

 

1,000 crowds, no record of development of local lads into professionals, OK team easily beaten by useless Broncos.

 

Great record and "good bet to succeed in SL"???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1,000 crowds, no record of development of local lads into professionals, OK team easily beaten by useless Broncos.

 

Great record and "good bet to succeed in SL"???

 

Well, you've not been keeping up with the news. Crowds have risen by about 50% since the teams re incarnation. This gives them an average crowd of just about half of that pulled in by the Broncos and that is playing such leading lights as Hunslet and Keighley.

 They have a team in the amateur ranks chock full of Sheffield and midlands players, scouted and recruited by the club. They were beaten by the Broncos in a disappointing result, but the bright side of that was the attendance, which if I remember rightly, was over 2,000.

 

Their record is great. Defending champions, current league leaders.If they were to fold tomorrow, I'd bet the SL bloodhounds would be sniffing round several of their players..like dogs in a butcher's shop.

 

Given Mark Aston's track record since he reformed the Eagles, yes, I wouldn't bet on them not succeeding in SL. He seems to be an executive/player manager and coach with an extraordinary resume.

 

Don't forget Dr Khoukash, Mr Nahaboo, the gentleman at Halifax ( Brookes is it) and Mr Khan were unknown to RL and are now significant sponsors of teams. Sheffield is a big city. There could well be an investor lurking out there who could be interested in Sheffield.especially once p and r is in the equation

 

I would certainly bet on them making a success of SL if they got the nchance................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you've not been keeping up with the news. Crowds have risen by about 50% since the teams re incarnation. This gives them an average crowd of just about half of that pulled in by the Broncos and that is playing such leading lights as Hunslet and Keighley.

 They have a team in the amateur ranks chock full of Sheffield and midlands players, scouted and recruited by the club. They were beaten by the Broncos in a disappointing result, but the bright side of that was the attendance, which if I remember rightly, was over 2,000.

 

Their record is great. Defending champions, current league leaders.If they were to fold tomorrow, I'd bet the SL bloodhounds would be sniffing round several of their players..like dogs in a butcher's shop.

 

Given Mark Aston's track record since he reformed the Eagles, yes, I wouldn't bet on them not succeeding in SL. He seems to be an executive/player manager and coach with an extraordinary resume.

 

Don't forget Dr Khoukash, Mr Nahaboo, the gentleman at Halifax ( Brookes is it) and Mr Khan were unknown to RL and are now significant sponsors of teams. Sheffield is a big city. There could well be an investor lurking out there who could be interested in Sheffield.especially once p and r is in the equation

 

I would certainly bet on them making a success of SL if they got the nchance................

 

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's to do with you denigrating Sheffield Eagles as not being fit for purpose for SL because of their previous failure when, in fact, Sheffield Eagles , mark 1, were thrown to the wolves in a shambolic fake merger carried out soley for the million pound bonus on offer and none of that went to the eagles and they were asset stripped and ceased to exist.

 

That the current mark 2 eagles are where they are is a testament to their success given their starting point and they are a good bet to suceed in SL given their track record to date and to throw the melt down of the mark 1 eagles at the current team as a reason for them not to be considered for SL is disingenuous.

 

Denigrating ?  I was part of all that, thank you very much .......

 

None of that million went to Shuddersfield either.  The winners were the players.  Exactly what "assets" are we talking about here ? Players with unexpired contracts in post-Bosman days ?

 

Sheffield Eagles have done fantastically well pretty much over their 30 season history - except in the key area of building a customer base.   Everything is in place for $uperleague - except about 3000* fans.  Tell me about the size of the city and its potential and then tell me about London which is more than ten times as big.   It's not about the size of your catchment area, it's about how many come through the turnstiles.

 

The facts are that, in 1999, the crowds had dropped by around 1000 a match, the backer, who was putting in over £1m a year, had pulled the plug and the team was breaking up.   What would have been your plan ?

 

 

*3000 in Division 2, that is.  I'd expect some natural growth on promotion.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1,000 crowds, no record of development of local lads into professionals, OK team easily beaten by useless Broncos.

 

Great record and "good bet to succeed in SL"???

 

There's a few local kids coming through now, Parky.  At Championship level.

 

Eddie Battye's pretty much a regular choice at prop.  Cory Aston's played well in the three games he's had so far.   Lee Sanders and Connor Scott have played first team this year.

 

Little acorns ........

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting confusing now.  Are we really suggesting that Sheffield - sole Challenge Cup final appearance in the 1990s, loyal but small fanbase, big city potential never realised, handful of locals now making the team, don't have a ground to call their own - are the ideal candidates to replace London - sole Challenge Cup final appearance in the 1990s, loyal but small fanbase, big city potential never realised, handful of locals now making the team, don't have a ground to call their own?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting confusing now.  Are we really suggesting that Sheffield - sole Challenge Cup final appearance in the 1990s, loyal but small fanbase, big city potential never realised, handful of locals now making the team, don't have a ground to call their own - are the ideal candidates to replace London - sole Challenge Cup final appearance in the 1990s, loyal but small fanbase, big city potential never realised, handful of locals now making the team, don't have a ground to call their own?

 

Good summary of the situation.  When you put it like that, you could be right. ;)

Edited by Griff

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I'd hardly call taking on the playing staff "stripping the assets". 

 

 

As I recall it, you'd be pushing it to call that set of players "assets".

English, Irish, Brit, Yorkshire, European.  Citizen of the People's Republic of Yorkshire, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union.  Critical of all it.  Proud of all it.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall it, you'd be pushing it to call that set of players "assets".

 

Dunno about that - Big Keith had already gone but the 2000 Giants side was more Sheffield than Huddersfield.

 

Anyway, the point I was making, is they ended up with about 40 of these "assets", whereas they actually only needed about 25.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of that million went to Shuddersfield either.  The winners were the players.  Exactly what "assets" are we talking about here ? Players with unexpired contracts in post-Bosman days ?

 

The facts are that, in 1999, the crowds had dropped by around 1000 a match, the backer, who was putting in over £1m a year, had pulled the plug and the team was breaking up.   What would have been your plan ?

 

A lot of people seem to imagine that £1m is a lot of money.   It's interesting that the Eagle required external financing of £1m a year.    I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that Huddersfield require sums considerably larger than that on an annual basis.

 

It's clear then, that even if the £1m enticement to merge hadn't been swallowed up in paying off unneeded players, it would have only sustained the merged club for one season.  Then what would have happened?

 

This is what I don't get about the whole thing.  I can see why the senior people at the Eagles accepted the offer to merge - it was a way of getting out from a hopeless money pit relatively painlessly.  I can see why the people at Huddersfield took the offer - it was the only way to stay in SL at a time when it looked like the door in would be slammed shut permanently.  What I don't understand is the rationale from SLE to make the offer in the first place.   Why did they want it so badly that they paid a million pounds for it to happen, and then paid a similar amount out to Hull?

 

If they wanted a 12 team league, why didn't they just drop to 12 teams?

English, Irish, Brit, Yorkshire, European.  Citizen of the People's Republic of Yorkshire, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union.  Critical of all it.  Proud of all it.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people seem to imagine that £1m is a lot of money.   It's interesting that the Eagle required external financing of £1m a year.    I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that Huddersfield require sums considerably larger than that on an annual basis.

 

 

Actually I said "more than £1m a year".  It was about £4m over three seasons, as I recall.  Anyway, that was a long time ago and wages have moved on .

 

The latest Giants accounts to hand show that Mr Davy's loan increased by £1,204,988 during the year to £7,041,082.   So not all that different twelve years on.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I don't get about the whole thing.  I can see why the senior people at the Eagles accepted the offer to merge - it was a way of getting out from a hopeless money pit relatively painlessly.  I can see why the people at Huddersfield took the offer - it was the only way to stay in SL at a time when it looked like the door in would be slammed shut permanently.  What I don't understand is the rationale from SLE to make the offer in the first place.   Why did they want it so badly that they paid a million pounds for it to happen, and then paid a similar amount out to Hull?

 

If they wanted a 12 team league, why didn't they just drop to 12 teams?

 

No, I don't get that either.  I suspect there was some "behind the scenes" stuff we don't know about, with willing volunteers putting themselves forward.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno about that - Big Keith had already gone but the 2000 Giants side was more Sheffield than Huddersfield.

 

Anyway, the point I was making, is they ended up with about 40 of these "assets", whereas they actually only needed about 25.

 

Looking down the teamsheets and back at my memories of the period, I'd say from the combined two squads there were four players worth mentioning.  Paul Reilly, Danny Russell, Chris Thorman and Darren Turner.   All the rest were struggling to be SL quality players.  The only truly outstanding player worth mentioning from both squads was, as you rightly say, Keith Senior.  And he was long gone.

 

Combine two mediocre squads and you just end up with one mediocre squad full of cliques and some heavy payouts to get rid of the rest. 

 

Serious question - Gary Hetherington was the main man behind the scenes at Sheffield for years.  What financial exposure did he personally have at Sheffield towards the end?

English, Irish, Brit, Yorkshire, European.  Citizen of the People's Republic of Yorkshire, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union.  Critical of all it.  Proud of all it.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.