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

[Ponterover]

In your part of the world, your council workers at your district council have taken pay cuts to keep your council tax down.

 

Look harder.

 

Is that the recession, or is it the fact that WMDC (and many others) spent most of the noughties spending money they didn't have.  Having worked at WMDC 2000-2007, I have massive sympathy with my former co-workers, but I also know that far too much money was wasted in that period.  Sadly the biggest cost is the wage bill, so it's sort of obvious where the axe must fall.

 

Budgets were already being cut from 2006 onwards (by as much as 10%), long before the "recession" started.  The penny dropped in 2005 that the then current level of spending was not sustainable.

 

I live in Ackworth (middle of the road) own businesses in South Elmsall (up and coming) and spend a lot of time in Pontefract (middle of the road).  There is no evidence of a recession in any of those places.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

If it's not legal, how come sanctions can be invoked against non compliant clubs ?

Because the clubs agree to abide by it

Read the post previous to yours regarding gentlemen's agreements

I'd be happy to explain what a gentleman's agreement is if you wish

Edited December 27, 2013 by l'angelo mysterioso

[GIANTSTRIDES]

Statistics can only be valued against the breadth of socio and economic influences.

 

So to compare without considering the structure of the game in those 2 points in time, both previous and in that season as well as the credit crunch is to ignore one huge elephant.

 

Supposition for the rest as well. I can't for the life of me understand why you want to prove that the Hull clubs aren't good for one another? It is a pointless activity. You ignore the interwoven nature of RL at all levels throughout the East Riding, Hull and the wider game. It's variety that allows RL to exist as a sport. It's the reason why there's 2 professional clubs and always will be.

 

I don't particularly disagree with anything here, exept the bit about what allows Rugby league to exist, It may be a very desirable trait in many ways and may well have been a huge reason in the past, But it is not what allows League to exist today.  Take away Sky money and see how well League exists then, It may be unpalatable to some and i can well understand why, But is reality.

 

No amount of talk about fairness, desirable as it might be will make any difference, Until people finally grasp that we are not in the 1900s anymore, all the things that people are using for argument, that were very relevant in days gone are no longer so.

 

If a very wealthy man came along tomorrow and offered to fund , Say Keithley, to the tune of Millions a year provided they were guaranteed a SL place, Who in their right mind would tell him to clear off because it wouldn't be fair to A B C or whoever, Why would anyone want to promote any team instead, who will never in the foreseeable future be able to compete with the Saints ,Wolves exc, It would be sheer stupidity.

 

One thing this thread has shown is that you can indeed prove any argument any way you want to with Stats, You can argue them till Hell freezes over, It will make no difference at all, Spectators are a very desirable thing to have, every single pound they pay is needed by some club, But if people can't switch on their TV and see the amount of Union that is shown, and grasp which way sport is going, then i fear the sport is truly lost.

 

It is no longer about Derby's with the old enemy,( Unfortunately the Uncle Eddie style commentators are still with us )  Derby's mean most to the clubs who are playing them, and some of them at top level are as good as anything in the game, When i watch on Sky i don't care if It's a derby or not ,I want to see the game at the top level whoever the teams are, thats why i have sky, And that is what is responsible for the major part of the funding of League.

 

Someone on here one day suggested giving everyone the same chance and let them sink or swim, Fine that will just take us a few years to get to where we are now, A much better Idea for me is to say ,Right you would be  SL clubs,, Have you got the required 3 million, good you are in SL for as long as you can compete, I am aware how bad that sounds, but it is actually what happens, And when they no longer have the 3 million they get in deep trouble, IMO until SL has enough clubs run by people like IL and co , some clubs are worth Helping back , Which do you help ? for me you help the ones that have the potential or have proved they can do it, Rather than the ones who have never had a chance , but neither have they showed any potential to be able to hack it All very unfair , and yet exactly the choices that have to be made.

 

 Fev, Fax and Leigh are the candidates to be promoted to SL on the face of it, IMO Leigh will never succeed living with a Giant, Fax are a great area for League , They produce lots of youngsters, but failed badly in SL, dont see what's changed then to now, They are i understand a very well run debt free club, but have they got 3 Million, And then we have Fev , Working wonders at a very small town club, The favorite of them all to move up, I think i saw somewhere their crowds were around 2,500, They will have to multiply that by 4, just to hold their heads above the Water, Personally i dont think they can get anything like that support  ( but i would like to be wrong )  But as i understand it they have a wealthy man behind them, so that may well be the difference, Either way they can plan for a long steady climb up the table , If the past is anything to go by.

 

So all in the melting pot at the moment, For me League is no different that any other bussines in the end, It's survival of the fitest, We can hough and Puff as much as we like about fitness, if we try and run the game that fair it will go down the tubes, Because when Joe Bloggs turns on the TV on Friday night he doesn't worry about whats behind the teams ,he just wants to see a top game.

[GIANTSTRIDES]

Is that the recession, or is it the fact that WMDC (and many others) spent most of the noughties spending money they didn't have.  Having worked at WMDC 2000-2007, I have massive sympathy with my former co-workers, but I also know that far too much money was wasted in that period.  Sadly the biggest cost is the wage bill, so it's sort of obvious where the axe must fall.

 

Budgets were already being cut from 2006 onwards (by as much as 10%), long before the "recession" started.  The penny dropped in 2005 that the then current level of spending was not sustainable.

 

I live in Ackworth (middle of the road) own businesses in South Elmsall (up and coming) and spend a lot of time in Pontefract (middle of the road).  There is no evidence of a recession in any of those places.

 

How lucky you are , It's a wonder there hasn't been a masive growth in the poulation in Ackworth, But re reading your post it appears you have suffered all the same cuts as everone else, It's just that they have been down to the council not doing their job and nothing to do with reccession, 

 

I live in the Holme Valley , regarded by many as well above middle of the road, but i have to say there's plenty of signs of Reccesion, or the council not doing their job, if that's what it is.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

How lucky you are , It's a wonder there hasn't been a masive growth in the poulation in Ackworth, But re reading your post it appears you have suffered all the same cuts as everone else, It's just that they have been down to the council not doing their job and nothing to do with reccession,

I live in the Holme Valley , regarded by many as well above middle of the road, but i have to say there's plenty of signs of Reccesion, or the council not doing their job, if that's what it is.

Ackworth is a beautiful historic village, although it does have a council estate in it. It is almost exclusively residential, mainly high end housing mark campbell, Daryl Powell, John ledger of the rfl, and pete Smith the evening post 's rugby league writer all live there. It's a desirable spot.

I'm sure even this place has been hit by the recession and the idea that the surrounding areas havent is insulting to the victims if it who live in the area

Ackworth is also home to a public school run by the society if friends

Edited December 27, 2013 by l'angelo mysterioso

[Padge]

I don't particularly disagree with anything here, exept the bit about what allows Rugby league to exist, It may be a very desirable trait in many ways and may well have been a huge reason in the past, But it is not what allows League to exist today.  Take away Sky money and see how well League exists then, It may be unpalatable to some and i can well understand why, But is reality.

...

...

...

 

So all in the melting pot at the moment, For me League is no different that any other bussines in the end, It's survival of the fitest, We can hough and Puff as much as we like about fitness, if we try and run the game that fair it will go down the tubes, Because when Joe Bloggs turns on the TV on Friday night he doesn't worry about whats behind the teams ,he just wants to see a top game.

 

Brilliant post.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

OK some figures now. I think having another club i.e. Rovers in the city chasing the same audience and chasing the same juniors, and imports prepared to go to Hull, did affect Hull FC, that's my opinion. They were doing their best ever crowds wise for over 30 years in 2007 and the actual crowds for 2007 are listed below. In brackets are the same fixtures today:-

2007 crowds......................(2013 CROWDS)

CATALANS 12,673 (10,065)

WAKEFIELD 13,229 (10,488)

ST.HELENS 12,678 (11,250)

WIGAN 12,755 (11,433)

BRADFORD 12,767 (10,952)

LEEDS 14,256 (11,901)

FARTOWN 12,094 (10,986)

LONDON 12,270 (11,490)

SALFORD 13,378 (11,180)

WARRINGTON 13,404 (10,752)

BRADFORD (2) 14,402 (10,952)

Every last one of them down by an average of 2,000 a fixture.

It's hypothetical as all opinions of course are, but Justin Morgan was a good coach, attracted some quality overseas players inc half backs, and brought though a few good local young players. equally Neil Hudgell as a director (and Crossland) brought several million to the coffers of RL in Hull. If those resources had gone to Hull, and I appreciate it's hypothetical, then I don't think they'd be the sleeping giant and continual disappointment they have been this past 7 years.

Anyway as I say Mr. Pearson's actions lately attempting to dismantle HKR's team would point to the same attitude towards Rovers Leeds have to Hunslet or Wigan have to Leigh. He'd probably rather not be playing out the derby (in which last seasons crowd was 4,000 down) every year, and have the City to himself.

BTW the last time the clubs met in the top division in a Hull Derby, when neither were very competitive against the rest of the league only 7,212 bothered to turn up, and that's the danger in believing the clubs have a symbiotic relationship and the Derby is everything. History shows otherwise.

You do realise that 2007 was the year Hull KR entered Super League? And that that was the year Hull's attendances rose considerably? So to compare 2007 to 2013 doesn't prove your point at all.

Compare 2006 to 2013 (the year there was no Hull KR) and then maybe you could have a point. But you won't do that because it would prove you're speaking nonsense.

Hull's crowds rose the year Hull KR entered SL. That is a fact. They've never been lower. That is another fact.

How can comparing crowds from 2007 to 2013 (years that Hull KR were in SL) prove that Hull KR have had an effect?! The methodology is ridiculous.

[GIANTSTRIDES]

Ackworth is a beautiful historic village, although it does have a council estate in it. It is almost exclusively residential, mainly high end housing mark campbell, Daryl Powell, John ledger of the rfl, and pete Smith the evening post 's rugby league writer all live there. It's a desirable spot. 

I'm sure even this place has been hit by the recession and the idea that the surrounding areas attentive insulting to the victims if it who live in the area

 

There will be exclusive little enclaves in any area no doubt, What i found interesting in Ponte Rover's post was that all the cutbacks  were nothing to do with recession, I wondered what was different about Ponte that it should manage to avoid the recession, Bodes very well for Fev's season tickets.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

There will be exclusive little enclaves in any area no doubt, What i found interesting in Ponte Rover's post was that all the cutbacks were nothing to do with recession, I wondered what was different about Ponte that it should manage to avoid the recession, Bodes very well for Fev's season tickets.

They don't call it ponte Carlo for nothing

If you drive a jag you're a tramp

[GIANTSTRIDES]

They don't call it ponte Carlo for nothing

If you drive a jag you're a tramp

 

No wonder they have a race course, Wonder what they would make of me and the missus in the the old Minor 1,000, She would probably feel she fitted right in , Me i know my place.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

No wonder they have a race course, Wonder what they would make of me and the missus in the the old Minor 1,000, She would probably feel she fitted right in , Me i know my place.

You should see the new Harvey nicks in feverly hills

My parents and my brother live in the area

I must tell them the good news that there is no recession at the earliest opportunity

[GIANTSTRIDES]

You should see the new Harvey nicks in feverly hills

My parents and my brother live in the area

I must tell them the good news that there is no recession at the earliest opportunit

 

Do they sell Pomfret cakes. ?

[yipyee]

You do realise that 2007 was the year Hull KR entered Super League? And that that was the year Hull's attendances rose considerably? So to compare 2007 to 2013 doesn't prove your point at all.

Compare 2006 to 2013 (the year there was no Hull KR) and then maybe you could have a point. But you won't do that because it would prove you're speaking nonsense.

Hull's crowds rose the year Hull KR entered SL. That is a fact. They've never been lower. That is another fact.

How can comparing crowds from 2007 to 2013 (years that Hull KR were in SL) prove that Hull KR have had an effect?! The methodology is ridiculous.

I agree, but crowds aren't the be all etc... signing the stand off wouldn't have helped, challenging the acedemy for players either.........

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Do they sell Pomfret cakes. ?

No

My brother works in the health service

My mam who is 87 goes to the bingo and cooks acres of braising steak

My stepfather who is also 87 reads Clive cussler books

 

[The Parksider]

Statistics can only be valued against the breadth of socio and economic influences. So to compare without considering the structure of the game in those 2 points in time, both previous and in that season as well as the credit crunch is to ignore one huge elephant.

 

Supposition for the rest as well. I can't for the life of me understand why you want to prove that the Hull clubs aren't good for one another? It is a pointless activity. You ignore the interwoven nature of RL at all levels throughout the East Riding, Hull and the wider game. It's variety that allows RL to exist as a sport. It's the reason why there's 2 professional clubs and always will be.

 

If you'd followed the point in debate you may realise I am not trying to "prove" HKR are bad for Hull, I'm suggesting it, but if you believe they are good for each other you and others have my views - why not counter those views with your own. Why not set out the reasons why HKR are good for Hull. That's open to anyone to explain how HKR's entry to SL put up Hulls crowds outside the Derby, and to explain why the clubs are good for each other. I am sure DSK will oblige you.

 

All you have done is dismiss the statistics with an "It's the recession you know" answer. Without counting the "Derby" attendances Hull's crowds grew remarkably in 2007 as I have set out after they had been in the Grand Final, was that due to their competitiveness with the big boys or merely due to a surge of economic affluence that year? The latter as simplistic an answer as why crowds are now well down is due to "credit crunch".

 

To assist the actual point in debate was the idea that first and foremost Superleague needs profitability before bums on seats. Hull was an example, Calder and Pennine are others. In 2007 Hull had 13,000 crowds against all clubs other than Rovers.

 

Those crowds were profitable, the team was competitive. Today Hull as a city boasts a regular 18,700 bums on seats making the game supposedly "strong" in the city, and fans may be proud of that, but the underlying losses at Rovers were £500,000 a year, and as Pearson stated he put Hull F.C.(now on 11,000 crowds) into a loss situation this last year to spend money trying to dismantle Rovers team.

 

For Hull/HKR derby read Leeds/Hunslet, Swinton/Salford, Saints/Saints Recs Will there "always be 2 professional clubs" there?

 

One big success of Superleague is to have increased crowds in the elite from 5543 in 1996 to 9431 in 2012. But it's failure overshadowing that is the £68,000,000 loss in achieving that. So which IS more important? Merely the numbers of bums on seats (an approach Bradford took) or maximising profits to minimise losses??

Edited December 28, 2013 by The Parksider

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I agree, but crowds aren't the be all etc... signing the stand off wouldn't have helped, challenging the acedemy for players either.........

We've had issues at half back since Cooke left, yes. But he could have left to join any club really.

We've got some of the best players coming through in years at the moment.

But his point was that crowds were being negatively affected by Hull KR. That is an absurd claim to make when you look at the stats from before and after they joined SL.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Statistics can only be valued against the breadth of socio and economic influences.

So to compare without considering the structure of the game in those 2 points in time, both previous and in that season as well as the credit crunch is to ignore one huge elephant.

Supposition for the rest as well. I can't for the life of me understand why you want to prove that the Hull clubs aren't good for one another? It is a pointless activity. You ignore the interwoven nature of RL at all levels throughout the East Riding, Hull and the wider game. It's variety that allows RL to exist as a sport. It's the reason why there's 2 professional clubs and always will be.

That, and to try and prove a club had an effect (any effect) without posting a single stat for when that club weren't in the league will prove absolutely nothing!

It's as effective a methodology as me going outside today, declaring it's cold; then going outside tomorrow, declaring it's colder; then coming to the conclusion that it's because of Hull KR!

Edited December 28, 2013 by Wellsy4HullFC

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I don't particularly disagree with anything here, exept the bit about what allows Rugby league to exist, It may be a very desirable trait in many ways and may well have been a huge reason in the past, But it is not what allows League to exist today. Take away Sky money and see how well League exists then, It may be unpalatable to some and i can well understand why, But is reality.

You could say that about any elite sport. Why is that unique to us? Why is it a problem?

Really annoys me when people use this as some kind of argument for the game being in trouble!

No amount of talk about fairness, desirable as it might be will make any difference, Until people finally grasp that we are not in the 1900s anymore, all the things that people are using for argument, that were very relevant in days gone are no longer so.

Completely disagree.

How is it that other sports have maintained a consistent fair league structure but we should just let anyone in because they have money and kick others out if they don't?

If you don't want our sport to have some kind of morals or fairness, that's your opinion. But it's certainly not mine, and certainly not anything to do with it not being the 1900s.

If a very wealthy man came along tomorrow and offered to fund , Say Keithley, to the tune of Millions a year provided they were guaranteed a SL place, Who in their right mind would tell him to clear off because it wouldn't be fair to A B C or whoever, Why would anyone want to promote any team instead, who will never in the foreseeable future be able to compete with the Saints ,Wolves exc, It would be sheer stupidity.

Money doesn't buy success all the time. Look at the image you're looking to promote for our sport. Look at the unrest it would cause. You're looking at money=success as a very linear process.

The damage and unrest caused to the game every time a decision like this is made could cost the game more overall than one man putting in a few extra quid and then pulling out a few years later (which history has shown happens more than not). What image does that then give the game?

One thing this thread has shown is that you can indeed prove any argument any way you want to with Stats, You can argue them till Hell freezes over, It will make no difference at all, Spectators are a very desirable thing to have, every single pound they pay is needed by some club, But if people can't switch on their TV and see the amount of Union that is shown, and grasp which way sport is going, then i fear the sport is truly lost.

Only the ignorant can be fooled by stats. Being fooled doesn't prove anything.

Why you feel the need to compare us to union is beyond me.

It is no longer about Derby's with the old enemy,( Unfortunately the Uncle Eddie style commentators are still with us ) Derby's mean most to the clubs who are playing them, and some of them at top level are as good as anything in the game, When i watch on Sky i don't care if It's a derby or not ,I want to see the game at the top level whoever the teams are, thats why i have sky, And that is what is responsible for the major part of the funding of League.

Some people want to see the best vs the best (your Wigans and Leeds'). Some people want to see rivalry or a story behind a game (derbies). Some want to see the underdog try to overcome a huge obstacle (last year's Wire vs Widnes). Some like to see up-and-coming sides do battle and see who can be next. Some even like to just see a team fail.

We all watch for different reasons. Just because you watch for one reason doesn't mean we all should, or do, and that Sky pay for that. If Sky only wanted to show the best then they wouldn't put on the derbies (unless it involves the best), or the lower teams.

Someone on here one day suggested giving everyone the same chance and let them sink or swim, Fine that will just take us a few years to get to where we are now, A much better Idea for me is to say ,Right you would be SL clubs,, Have you got the required 3 million, good you are in SL for as long as you can compete, I am aware how bad that sounds, but it is actually what happens, And when they no longer have the 3 million they get in deep trouble, IMO until SL has enough clubs run by people like IL and co , some clubs are worth Helping back , Which do you help ? for me you help the ones that have the potential or have proved they can do it, Rather than the ones who have never had a chance , but neither have they showed any potential to be able to hack it All very unfair , and yet exactly the choices that have to be made.

And that's what's killing my interest and many others in the game. You're taking away reasons people watch the game for not much replacement. It's artificial and dull. I can't wait til P&R comes back. Breath some life into what has become an increasingly full year except for a few near the top.

Fev, Fax and Leigh are the candidates to be promoted to SL on the face of it, IMO Leigh will never succeed living with a Giant, Fax are a great area for League , They produce lots of youngsters, but failed badly in SL, dont see what's changed then to now, They are i understand a very well run debt free club, but have they got 3 Million, And then we have Fev , Working wonders at a very small town club, The favorite of them all to move up, I think i saw somewhere their crowds were around 2,500, They will have to multiply that by 4, just to hold their heads above the Water, Personally i dont think they can get anything like that support ( but i would like to be wrong ) But as i understand it they have a wealthy man behind them, so that may well be the difference, Either way they can plan for a long steady climb up the table , If the past is anything to go by.

Why do Leigh have to multiply by 4, yet there are 8 clubs that have never even achieved a 10k average in the SL era?

You can't hold an eternal judgement on Leigh for one year in the SL in a different ground with a different board nearly a decade ago. It's ridiculous! Do you judge everyone that way?

Imagine going for the job interview of your life, but the guy won't hire you because of a shocking year 10 years ago for a different company despite all the hard work you're doing now. Sounds awful way to go about business.

So all in the melting pot at the moment, For me League is no different that any other bussines in the end, It's survival of the fitest, We can hough and Puff as much as we like about fitness, if we try and run the game that fair it will go down the tubes, Because when Joe Bloggs turns on the TV on Friday night he doesn't worry about whats behind the teams ,he just wants to see a top game.

Just because that's what you see doesn't mean it's what everyone sees or wants to see.

And just because we have a fair system doesn't mean we won't see top games. I don't see how we wouldn't?

If you're putting on a show, people need a reason to watch the show. If you limit these reasons (which you are doing) then people won't watch in as great numbers.

This artificial nonsense of giving places to teams just because they have some cash is killing my interest in the sport. There's no morals there. It portrays a poor image. And most of all money doesn't equal success so it doesn't even guarantee a top elite league! I was willing to give licensing a go because I don't judge on what I haven't seen, but it's not done anywhere near the job it said it would.

[keighley]

You could say that about any elite sport. Why is that unique to us? Why is it a problem?

Really annoys me when people use this as some kind of argument for the game being in trouble!

Completely disagree.

How is it that other sports have maintained a consistent fair league structure but we should just let anyone in because they have money and kick others out if they don't?

If you don't want our sport to have some kind of morals or fairness, that's your opinion. But it's certainly not mine, and certainly not anything to do with it not being the 1900s.

Money doesn't buy success all the time. Look at the image you're looking to promote for our sport. Look at the unrest it would cause. You're looking at money=success as a very linear process.

The damage and unrest caused to the game every time a decision like this is made could cost the game more overall than one man putting in a few extra quid and then pulling out a few years later (which history has shown happens more than not). What image does that then give the game?

Only the ignorant can be fooled by stats. Being fooled doesn't prove anything.

Why you feel the need to compare us to union is beyond me.

Some people want to see the best vs the best (your Wigans and Leeds'). Some people want to see rivalry or a story behind a game (derbies). Some want to see the underdog try to overcome a huge obstacle (last year's Wire vs Widnes). Some like to see up-and-coming sides do battle and see who can be next. Some even like to just see a team fail.

We all watch for different reasons. Just because you watch for one reason doesn't mean we all should, or do, and that Sky pay for that. If Sky only wanted to show the best then they wouldn't put on the derbies (unless it involves the best), or the lower teams.

And that's what's killing my interest and many others in the game. You're taking away reasons people watch the game for not much replacement. It's artificial and dull. I can't wait til P&R comes back. Breath some life into what has become an increasingly full year except for a few near the top.

Why do Leigh have to multiply by 4, yet there are 8 clubs that have never even achieved a 10k average in the SL era?

You can't hold an eternal judgement on Leigh for one year in the SL in a different ground with a different board nearly a decade ago. It's ridiculous! Do you judge everyone that way?

Imagine going for the job interview of your life, but the guy won't hire you because of a shocking year 10 years ago for a different company despite all the hard work you're doing now. Sounds awful way to go about business.

Just because that's what you see doesn't mean it's what everyone sees or wants to see.

And just because we have a fair system doesn't mean we won't see top games. I don't see how we wouldn't?

If you're putting on a show, people need a reason to watch the show. If you limit these reasons (which you are doing) then people won't watch in as great numbers.

This artificial nonsense of giving places to teams just because they have some cash is killing my interest in the sport. There's no morals there. It portrays a poor image. And most of all money doesn't equal success so it doesn't even guarantee a top elite league! I was willing to give licensing a go because I don't judge on what I haven't seen, but it's not done anywhere near the job it said it would.

Thanks for articulating in a very cogent and reasoned way many of my thoughts on the situation in RL present. I would just add that if any daddy Warbucks want to help RL they are welcome but they have to work within the system and, if they choose to bankroll a lower league team, that team must work it's way to the top.

If we want a second French team, the favourite is Toulouse, then maybe we can give the French elite a grading of say Championship level play and allow them in at that level, but, thereafter they need to be competitive and win promotion. In theory, that should be easier on the playing field than being dumped straight into SL a la Catalans first year.

[The Parksider]

If we want a second French team, the favourite is Toulouse, then maybe we can give the French elite a grading of say Championship level play and allow them in at that level, but, thereafter they need to be competitive and win promotion. In theory, that should be easier on the playing field than being dumped straight into SL a la Catalans first year.

 

But you discount the long debate on this. Toulouse can't get a top side together playing in the Championship, conversely Les catalans have become one of the bigger more competitive sides being started straight in Superleague. Your quest for "fairness" gets in the way of good business sense and reality.

 

We have £68M losses to make up, Toulouse offer money in Superleague not out of it.

 

As for Hull/HKR maybe you'd be brave enough to suggest what the counter argument that Hull and HKR in SL are symbiotically good for both each other and Superleague is, because I aren't hearing any!!

Edited December 28, 2013 by The Parksider

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Thanks for articulating in a very cogent and reasoned way many of my thoughts on the situation in RL present. I would just add that if any daddy Warbucks want to help RL they are welcome but they have to work within the system and, if they choose to bankroll a lower league team, that team must work it's way to the top.

Exactly. If we keep bending and changing the rules because someone with a few extra quid comes along, when does it stop? Will those original millionaires pull out because the rules are changed for a new millionaire? Where's the consistency? This isn't how you run a sports league. This is how you run a mad house where the biggest richest turkey gets to decide whether he's eaten this Christmas.

I can't believe there are people that think we should ditch our morals and fair play system for money.

If we want a second French team, the favourite is Toulouse, then maybe we can give the French elite a grading of say Championship level play and allow them in at that level, but, thereafter they need to be competitive and win promotion. In theory, that should be easier on the playing field than being dumped straight into SL a la Catalans first year.

Expansion is the only major issue when it comes to altering the rules, particularly in France, and that is more to do with logistical reasons. A part time French team will never make it through the British league system and it is unfair to ask them to do so when they have a good competition back home. Super League is a European league. The Championship is not and should not be. There needs to be a different entry route to SL for French clubs than British clubs, but one that is clear cut and understandable not based on random selection.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

But you discount the long debate on this. Toulouse can't get a top side together playing in the Championship, conversely Les catalans have become one of the bigger more competitive sides being started straight in Superleague. Your quest for "fairness" gets in the way of good business sense and reality.

Toulouse playing in the Championship is logistically unfair. It was a poor idea. A quest for fairness does not require French teams to go through the British league system to enter a European league.

As for Catalans, they didn't "start up" in SL, did they. They had years going into it to prepare, not 6 months like in the licensing system.

French entry into SL needs to be different because they have their own league system.

We have £68M losses to make up, Toulouse offer money in Superleague not out of it.

If that was the case, they'd already be in.

As for Hull/HKR maybe you'd be brave enough to suggest what the counter argument that Hull and HKR in SL are symbiotically good for both each other and Superleague is, because I aren't hearing any!!

We gathered, which is why you keep misusing stats to get people on your side and failing miserably!

[Griff]

Because the clubs agree to abide by it

Read the post previous to yours regarding gentlemen's agreements

I'd be happy to explain what a gentleman's agreement is if you wish

 

I don't agree that it's just a gentlemen's agreement.  It's a rule of the competition.

[Griff]

Is that the recession, or is it the fact that WMDC (and many others) spent most of the noughties spending money they didn't have.  Having worked at WMDC 2000-2007, I have massive sympathy with my former co-workers, but I also know that far too much money was wasted in that period.  Sadly the biggest cost is the wage bill, so it's sort of obvious where the axe must fall.

 

Budgets were already being cut from 2006 onwards (by as much as 10%), long before the "recession" started.  The penny dropped in 2005 that the then current level of spending was not sustainable.

 

I live in Ackworth (middle of the road) own businesses in South Elmsall (up and coming) and spend a lot of time in Pontefract (middle of the road).  There is no evidence of a recession in any of those places.

 

I still think you should look harder.  Maybe at the nuclear wasteland that Fev has been allowed to become.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I don't agree that it's just a gentlemen's agreement.  It's a rule of the competition.

I'll go with that

I was just putting it into the context of a gentleman's agreement

 

It doesn't have to be 'legal'