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

[Robin Evans]

page one to page one hundred and eighty seven, post #1 to post #3729..... not one mind changed, not one opinion revised, not one step nearer the answer to life, the universe..everything. .........and in one bound he was free!

apart from those on ignore, I've read almost every post on this thread. This has to be the best!!

Love n peace man!

[yipyee]

The improvements of stadiums at places like Fax, Fev, Leigh were never down to licensing but I will let you live in your fantasy world that it was and that licensing was so successful

why was Leigh so peeved when their application was knocked back when they had gone to so much trouble to build a stadium?

Why have fev dismantled a stand and re-build it....

I may need to point this out to you, or you may be playing dumb.....but championship clubs improved their grounds to be eligible for SL....

therefore as a result of licencing championship clubs raised their game! Built new stadia.....

[EastLondonMike]

One thing that has always angered me about so many of our pro clubs (the obvious sides populating the top 6-7 spots aside) is their willingness to throw money at players year on year for what seems like decades, but almost a refusal to spend any money in appointing a knowledgable and professional staff to run the clubs.

 

This is why so many clubs are such a state, and will continue to be so.

[Lounge Room Lizard]

But Leigh RLFC didnt build the stadium or even own it! The stadium which is part of a Sports Village, was built and is still owned by the Council for many sports from athletics to football to Rugby League to Swimming. Clear Leigh would have been disappointed.

 

Fev rebuilt the stand from Scarboro because they wanted to redevelop the ground and this was one of the cheapest ways of doing it. Just because fev or any other improve their grounds doesnt mean anything about being eligible for SL. In fact Fev never even applied for SL. 

Edited January 19, 2014 by Lounge Room Lizard

[Ian (Pencil) Elliott]

Hi Daz,

 

Martyn said "For the year ending 30 November 2012 Featherstone Rovers show current assets of £137,400 and current liabilities of £453,308, while they also have long term liabilities of £531,162".

 

I don't think there is any question of any profits mate......

Hi Parky, either Martyn is lying or our board is telling fibs. http://featherstonerovers.net/article.php?id=11501

 

Well done Mr Sadler for highlighting our so called financial problems, it just shows how peeved he his with the recent developments which makes me soo happy  

 

Didn't get chance to respond yesterday but yes I am looking forward to proper on field Rugby debates. 

[Martyn Sadler]

I'm just a fan of RL, I like the community based aspect to it and now that I'm living so far beyond it, I miss it.

 

However, I didn't really appreciate the politics, even though I am a born and bred league fan.

 

League Express as a format was always my bible but with this topic, the agenda's are too obvious and too leading. I have accepted all previous structures to the game, all previous opinions, I've kept going and even brought my kids to the game with a 160 mile round trip. 

 

However, I object to censorship, censorship that is too sensitive. If the Editor of LE has to be protected when he comes on here frothing his opinion and baiting Fev fans so readily, then you are welcome to him. I accept that this forum has to be paid for but I would prefer to pay than be led by the nose, or cut from the debate because I think the rhetoric is beyond editorial licence.

You're making some rather odd points.

 

John Drake has already responded to you, and your strange comment about censorship.

 

I didn't realise that my opinions had to be protected by censoring everyone else. If that really were the case this forum wouldn't last for five minutes.

 

And as for coming on here and "frothing" my opinion, and "baiting" Featherstone fans, again I find your comments curious. I'm not absolutely sure what it means to "froth" an opinion, but I can assure you I don't give an opinion without thinking about it carefully. And as for Featherstone, I have nothing but admiration for that club, but have pointed out the financial pressures the new league structure could put them under. If that is "baiting" their fans, then so be it.

 

As for an "agenda", my agenda is the good health of our sport. Nothing more and nothing less, and I call it as I see it. I hope that is indeed obvious, as you suggest.

[Lobbygobbler]

One thing that has always angered me about so many of our pro clubs (the obvious sides populating the top 6-7 spots aside) is their willingness to throw money at players year on year for what seems like decades, but almost a refusal to spend any money in appointing a knowledgable and professional staff to run the clubs.

This is why so many clubs are such a state, and will continue to be so.

I agree with this and would like to see a rule whereby a certain percentage of sky money must be spent on running a club properly

[yipyee]

But Leigh RLFC didnt build the stadium or even own it! The stadium which is part of a Sports Village, was built and is still owned by the Council for many sports from athletics to football to Rugby League to Swimming. Clear Leigh would have been disappointed.

Fev rebuilt the stand from Scarboro because they wanted to redevelop the ground and this was one of the cheapest ways of doing it. Just because fev or any other improve their grounds doesnt mean anything about being eligible for SL. In fact Fev never even applied for SL.

I must have dreamed fevs destination SL?? They never applied as they knew they weren't good enough without a stadium, academy etc.....they were working towards a licence which is raising their standard. ...

I must have also made up leigh needed a stadium for SL ....council owned like barton then???????

Edited January 19, 2014 by yipyee

[Martyn Sadler]

Hi Parky, either Martyn is lying or our board is telling fibs. http://featherstonerovers.net/article.php?id=11501

 

Well done Mr Sadler for highlighting our so called financial problems, it just shows how peeved he his with the recent developments which makes me soo happy

 

Didn't get chance to respond yesterday but yes I am looking forward to proper on field Rugby debates. 

Actually the profit was £10,046, according to the accounts lodged at Companies House, which are open to all to view.

 

And well done to the club.

 

But the club still has the liabilities that I referred to earlier in this thread. There is nothing inconsistent in making a profit but also having significant liabilities, as any accountant will tell you.

 

The club has been very well run over the last five years, which I fully acknowledge, and the main hope for everybody is that it continues to be so.

[Northern Sol]

All those who slate expansion are basing it on a short term view. Many would say all golds have failed with their crowds under 100. If they can hang around long enough and their schools programme works then they may eventually be a serious team. 15 years or so. I have seen the attitude towards rugby league in Gloucester change in schools already. Yet the flat cap brigade will deem it a failure unless Gloucester ru have changed codes within 2 years. Stop meddling with the structure. Support expansion. Enjoy the sport. Stop bloody moaning

Who are these mythical people having a go at teams like Gloucester? I come across this very rarely and those few people who do this claim to be expansionists; at least they certainly think that Celtic Crusaders is a good model to follow.

[Ian (Pencil) Elliott]

You're making some rather odd points.

 

John Drake has already responded to you, and your strange comment about censorship.

 

I didn't realise that my opinions had to be protected by censoring everyone else. If that really were the case this forum wouldn't last for five minutes.

 

And as for coming on here and "frothing" my opinion, and "baiting" Featherstone fans, again I find your comments curious. I'm not absolutely sure what it means to "froth" an opinion, but I can assure you I don't give an opinion without thinking about it carefully. And as for Featherstone, I have nothing but admiration for that club, but have pointed out the financial pressures the new league structure could put them under. If that is "baiting" their fans, then so be it.

 

As for an "agenda", my agenda is the good health of our sport. Nothing more and nothing less, and I call it as I see it. I hope that is indeed obvious, as you suggest.

Martyn, with all respects the way that you have run your campaigned against re-structuring has been very disappointing in my opinion.

 

Has for censorship, I noticed that many of my posts have been deleted during the last few days.  Yes, I have been gloating but it's a bit of pay back for all the garbage I have had on here for years (which strangely never got deleted).

 

It appears censorship has been stepped up on here since the RFL started to go down the root of scrapping licensing upsetting some pals of moderators.  John has sent me some PM's before on this which I don't agree with hence the reason I stopped using the forum.

 

Some will probably not get chance to read this because it might be deleted and my account suspended, which if it his goes to show that this forum just like your paper wants to show one side of the argument.

[Ian (Pencil) Elliott]

Actually the profit was £10,046, according to the accounts lodged at Companies House, which are open to all to view.

 

And well done to the club.

 

But the club still has the liabilities that I referred to earlier in this thread. There is nothing inconsistent in making a profit but also having significant liabilities, as any accountant will tell you.

 

The club has been very well run over the last five years, which I fully acknowledge, and the main hope for everybody is that it continues to be so.

Strange how you did not focus on our £10,046 and only chose to show negative aspects

[Martyn Sadler]

Martyn, with all respects the way that you have run your campaigned against re-structuring has been very disappointing in my opinion.

 

Has for censorship, I noticed that many of my posts have been deleted during the last few days.  Yes, I have been gloating but it's a bit of pay back for all the garbage I have had on here for years (which strangely never got deleted).

 

It appears censorship has been stepped up on here since the RFL started to go down the root of scrapping licensing upsetting some pals of moderators.  John has sent me some PM's before on this which I don't agree with hence the reason I stopped using the forum.

 

Some will probably not get chance to read this because it might be deleted and my account suspended, which if it his goes to show that this forum just like your paper wants to show one side of the argument.

I haven't run a campaign of any sort, at least not in the sense that I understand the word 'campaign'.

 

I have simply expressed my opinions, and I don't think the 2-12s and 3-8s is the right course for the game, although if it comes in I hope to be proved wrong.

 

I have not been opposed to a re-structure in itself, as my article in this week's League Express should make clear.

 

You reveal yourself why some of your posts have apparently been deleted, but I'm quite sure this one won't be.

[John Drake]

Martyn, with all respects the way that you have run your campaigned against re-structuring has been very disappointing in my opinion.

 

Has for censorship, I noticed that many of my posts have been deleted during the last few days.  Yes, I have been gloating but it's a bit of pay back for all the garbage I have had on here for years (which strangely never got deleted).

 

It appears censorship has been stepped up on here since the RFL started to go down the root of scrapping licensing upsetting some pals of moderators.  John has sent me some PM's before on this which I don't agree with hence the reason I stopped using the forum.

 

Some will probably not get chance to read this because it might be deleted and my account suspended, which if it his goes to show that this forum just like your paper wants to show one side of the argument.

 

This thread is on page 191 now, with views from all sides forcefully expressed. TotalRL also hosts the Featherstone Rovers club forum which is exclusively moderated by Featherstone fans, not me. Hardly a sign of any kind of censorship going on.

 

Yes, in the past 24-48 hours I've removed a bundle of posts that were just poor attempts at trolling (from both sides of the fence) in an attempt to keep this thread on topic and free of the kind of personal abuse that would ultimately get it locked. That's a means of preserving the debate, not shutting it down.

 

If you have a particular problem with anything anyone posts on here, report it and the moderators will deal with it.

[Martyn Sadler]

Strange how you did not focus on our £10,046 and only chose to show negative aspects

Liabilities are only negative if you can't afford to pay them, and that is the point I was making. The club, like any other club, needs to ensure that it can continue to do so, in the face of the increased financial pressure that the new structure will bring.

[lorne mosley.]

So in your humble opinion Martyn , do Featherstone Rovers deserve a chance at Super League ?

[Ian (Pencil) Elliott]

This thread is on page 191 now, with views from all sides forcefully expressed. TotalRL also hosts the Featherstone Rovers club forum which is exclusively moderated by Featherstone fans, not me. Hardly a sign of any kind of censorship going on.

 

Yes, in the past 24-48 hours I've removed a bundle of posts that were just poor attempts at trolling (from both sides of the fence) in an attempt to keep this thread on topic and free of the kind of personal abuse that would ultimately get it locked. That's a means of preserving the debate, not shutting it down.

 

If you have a particular problem with anything anyone posts on here, report it and the moderators will deal with it.

Just like in the past hey John

[lorne mosley.]

And John, as a former moderator on the Rovers, i have known you moderate that forum, as this is the reason i stopped doing it, i banned a person off the forum an within 2 hours you re-instated him

[Ian (Pencil) Elliott]

And John, as a former moderator on the Rovers, i have known you moderate that forum, as this is the reason i stopped doing it, i banned a person off the forum an within 2 hours you re-instated him

Thanks for that Lorne, certainly backs my argument up.  I don't have a problem with rules as long as the rules fit all.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Yes.

The current play off system can be basically summed up as: play 27 rounds and at the end of that there is a play off system to determine the champions.

The new system can be basically summed up as: play 23 rounds in a 12 team league and then the top four have further fixtures and semi finals to determine the champions, the bottom four join with the top of the league below in new a league starting from scratch to determine the top three who are automatically promoted, the middle two places play off for the last promotion place, the bottom eight of the second tier have further fixtures and semi finals to determine their champions, the bottom team of the bottom tier is relegated.

It might not be too complex but it is more complicated - to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

You've not described the SL playoffs there. You've described the SLPO and the Qualifying playoffs.

You've also not described the actual current playoffs. To say "there is a play off system to determine the champions" is not a description (and if it is, it can equally be said to apply to the new system, because THERE IS a playoff system to determine the champions, just a different one).

Try describing the playoff system currently and in as much detail as you have for the new system. Then tell me it's less complicated.

[Ian (Pencil) Elliott]

Liabilities are only negative if you can't afford to pay them, and that is the point I was making. The club, like any other club, needs to ensure that it can continue to do so, in the face of the increased financial pressure that the new structure will bring.

Thanks Martyn, that clears that up a bit. The same goes for all member clubs then?  I still think that it was unfair to focus on Featherstone's worse case scenario.

[The Parksider]

Hi Parky, either Martyn is lying or our board is telling fibs. http://featherstonerovers.net/article.php?id=11501

 

Well done Mr Sadler for highlighting our so called financial problems, it just shows how peeved he his with the recent developments which makes me soo happy

 

Didn't get chance to respond yesterday but yes I am looking forward to proper on field Rugby debates. 

 

Hi Ian,

 

The accounts show BOTH massive "liabilities" and also a small "profit". Good old accountants they are so confusing.

 

A bit like KPMG who really confused me about how downgrading SL clubs into a second tier will increase attendances significantly. The do have odd ways of looking at money. Bit like the bankers I suppose.

 

All along I have been waiting for Griff to comment as he has a great handle on accounts and knows Rovers accounts inside out. We did discuss in the summer if Mr. Nahaboos input may put the clubs land assets at risk and I think something had been done about this.

 

Anyway "Calling Griff" where are you??

[Saintslass]

No they didn't. They lost to Salford in the Championship grand final and both went in on a licence. I think it was when they expanded SL to 14 maybe.

Except that appearing in the Grand Final was one of the criteria for securing a licence at that time.  And prior to that point they had obtained promotion from each division by means of winning the respective leagues.

[The Parksider]

The likes of Huddersfield, St.Helens, Wigan and Leeds would have had the stadium and structures anyway with or without the licensing system which was an absolute joke by the end anyway

 

Joke or not your right about clubs being the master of their own destiny's rather than any "system" under P & R clubs went down because they were skint and up because they were rich enough. Under licensing clubs went out because they were skint and came in when they were rich enough.

 

The most "bankrupt" thing is arguing between P&R and licensing. Neither are really relevant when the record is clear money is the only mechanism relevant. This is the main reason 2x12=3x8 is irrelevant IMVHO.

 

KPMG know it's about money hence they said loads of fans will flood to the games to justify their suggestions. I've two years to wait now to see if that was disingenuous or not!

[Saintslass]

For me this is the nub of it. I have been a fan of RL for 23 years, and as a southerner watched with great interest the creation of SL. It had such promise. Yet this promise, one of a pan European competition with such stellar names as PSG (who had wonderful promise - and yes, they did- I lived in Paris at the time and can vouch for the attention they attracted - they were simply managed poorly) and the hope for a greater footprint in the UK, has not been actualised. Instead, the sport has, if anything, regressed in terms of print profile, sponsorship, innovation, and certainly a southern awareness (another bugbear of mine - people making assumptions about how much RL is known down south - it is simply virtually non-existent in the lives and day to day experience of many here). Admittedly,the sport has 'regressed' in many respects because of the manner in which football and RU have improved their standing within broader UK culture in this time period. Nevertheless, what we are being left with is a sport that is becoming increasingly marginalized, and unfortunately, more culturally located than ever in certain northern communities. And please, do not remind me of the growth of the community game in the south. I could just as easily quote other sports, largely considered to be non mainstream ones, that have high participation levels in the south and yet still do not register in terms of national consciousness. Actually, I will give a couple of examples: American football and handball. So in sum, the sport of RL seems to be regressing. And a particularly harsh or cynical view of this might put forward the idea that it could end up abou as culturally relevant in this country as an emerging sport such as handball.

I think you may be confusing actual expansion - it is an actual fact that rugby league is now played in more places than ever before - with perception of expansion.  You don't have to go down south to find an almost total ignorance of rugby league.  Just try Liverpool or Manchester, or come to work with me here in St Helens for a day!

 

Soccer is everywhere, in part because kicking a ball is introduced to children almost as soon as they can walk, but in part because it is in the media to a mind numbing degree every day of the year.  RU isn't that far behind.  If RL was in the media to the same degree then even if it wasn't played in your area you would be aware of it.  Being aware of something and something actually happening are two different things, surely?