Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Your right Ken Davy has started to win trophies and that is brilliant.

The problem is we have clubs who are jockying to play huddersfield in the playoffs because they know its the easiest way to the next round.Its not right is it?

wont that be the same in the new system? If hudds finishtop you would try to finnish 4th and be in the grand final

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It was Mcmanus who got the Langtree Stadium built. Without his influence and input it would probably never have been built. And he himself has said it has saved the clubs future. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/article-2094515/St-Helens-new-stadium-secures-club-future-says-chief-Eamonn-McManus.html

Licensing had a small part to play in the clubs reaching a level to compete. Tthe 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

true he saved the club and got the stadium built.....but with very little of his own money, he also puts v little in each year, they dont need propping up as suggested. .....

the exact same applies to warrington....

I dont know about catalan but I am unaware of a big investor. ....

so theres 5 clubs fully sustainable in SL....hull fc may v.well be a sixth...thats more than the 2 people ars harping on about....

also stadia thanks to licensing. ...salford, hull kr improvements, the roof at wakey, catalan, widnes, leigh, fevs improvements, fax,

Edited by yipyee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super League will feature 12 teams from the 2015 season after Rugby League’s elite clubs today agreed to a key change to the structure of their competition.

Click here to view the article

 

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!

Edited by JohnM

“If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.” Zen Proverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true he saved the club and got the stadium built.....but with very little of his own money, he also puts v little in each year, they dont need propping up as suggested. .....the exact same applies to warrington....I dont know about catalan but I am unaware of a big investor. ....so theres 5 clubs fully sustainable in SL....hull fc may v.well be a sixth...thats more than the 2 people ars harping on about....

also stadia thanks to licensing. ...salford, hull kr improvements, the roof at wakey, catalan, widnes, leigh, fevs improvements, fax,

 

That's a very good post IMVHO. I've no axe to grind and like you try to look at the facts of the matter which are very important for a good debate, and the events as they unfolded.

 

I have no doubt and all the main commentators agree that in 1996 we had to professionalise part of the game to deliver the SKY contract that we all agreed on here saved the game. That needed clubs with professional resources we didn't have unless we reached out to France and London and merged 15 clubs to create bigger entitities with the fans and money to cope with the change.

 

The fans and directors scuppered the mergers and it was true that in 1996 we had two clubs capable of Professionalism with a relatively small investment for actually a small return.Wigan had 14,000 crowds then and Leeds 12,500, After 18 long years at the top and plenty of success these clubs only have 10% growth in their fan base and they are the two clubs referred to by several on here.

 

What people argue, (and it's their choice) is often "principle". In 1996 Huddersfield were neither considered for merger nor considered for Superleague and were due to be left for dead. They famously struggled badly in SL and were a literal laughing stock. Ken Davey famously threw £Millions at them in their new stadia after they emerged from the Shuddersfield debacle and they climbed the ladder of success on those £Millions.

 

The return on that investment was to increase crowds from  3,700 to 6,300. That's a mere 2,700 extra fans for a winning club in a modern stadia. In addition the poor academy is due to be booted out of the RFL. Don't get me wrong for a real poor return on investment check out the £Millions spend on Salford by Mr. Wilkinson. Half a £Million for what 20 years?? The result of the £10M investment was to take crowds down from 5,000 to 3,000 and do nothing for an annually poor academy.

 

There's no doubt all clubs needed a helping hand to turn from semi professionalism to professionalism. Hull struggled but had the KC, a run at all the best juniors in Hull, a responsive crowd that rose to 13,000. Saints needed McManus to transform them, Warrington needed Moran to transform them.

 

But there's a sharp sharp contrast between the bigger clubs who had the resources to enable rich men to invest and get some sort of a return despite probably being £thousands out of pocket whether Moran. McManus, Caddick, Whelan, and other big clubs who made the top like Hull and Bradford largely without a rich man, against the £tens of Millions needed to prop up small clubs with no return whatsoever. As Martyn has shown Featherstone are a £Million down before they have kicked a ball in SL.

 

P & R has no relevance at all to the problem of too many small clubs with too few resources. Licensing didn't make a great dent on the problem but it did fix a few things as you indicate. The return to extensive P & R can't therefore logically have any effect on the growth of clubs if you look at the reality rather than applying wishful thinking to pins on maps.

 

The solution is radical and brutal to quote Gingerjon's reaction to Martyns expose of Featherstone's accounts. The game has allowed the very long tail to wag the short dog. Sense may prevail after further decline.

Edited by The Parksider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

"I love our club, absolutely love it". (Overton, M 2007)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :drag::sarcastichand:

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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Lounge Room Lizard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :P 

 

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

"You cant be scared of death. When that time comes, it comes....I've been blessed. God's looked out for me, so, I'm happy." -Sean Taylor, #21, Washington Redskins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by yipyee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :P

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

"You cant be scared of death. When that time comes, it comes....I've been blessed. God's looked out for me, so, I'm happy." -Sean Taylor, #21, Washington Redskins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

"You cant be scared of death. When that time comes, it comes....I've been blessed. God's looked out for me, so, I'm happy." -Sean Taylor, #21, Washington Redskins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

"You cant be scared of death. When that time comes, it comes....I've been blessed. God's looked out for me, so, I'm happy." -Sean Taylor, #21, Washington Redskins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

"You cant be scared of death. When that time comes, it comes....I've been blessed. God's looked out for me, so, I'm happy." -Sean Taylor, #21, Washington Redskins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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