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

[Bullish Giant Rhino]

Saved for future reference

Its the recession that has reduced crowds not SL

 

Thanks, you've made my day.

Mine too. Thanks!

[Ponterover]

I have one word for you' "recession".

 

Not sure you can blame the recession, the mythical city of Calder hasn't been massively affected by it (if there really is a recession).

 

Over the common at Belle Vue, recession hasn't hurt their numbers, nor has it hurt numbers at Post Office Road.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Ponterover

[Ponterover]

What will be the nature of the PO Road end redevelopment, out of interest?

 

No firm plans, probably new, covered terracing.  Possibly recycling the new roof from Belle Vue, if they ever move to Newmarket.

[keighley]

Well this is the BIG question. Will dropping out of superleague because your not good enough and playing extra fixtures against the same losers as you, and four second tier clubs really get your fans cheering.

 

To assume more fans will turn up for games outside Superleague flies in the face of the figures??

 

Castleford dropped out of Superleague losing most of their games and came back winning most of their games. The crowds were 2,000 down for the winning side

And the difference probably was the fans of Leeds, Wigan, Saints, warrington et al who were not attending games in Castleford. I think the Castleford support held up quite well both times they were relegated.

[Bullish Giant Rhino]

Not sure you can blame the recession, the mythical city of Calder hasn't been massively affected by it (if there really is a recession).

Contrary to what most think, I actually believe the economy is heading for tougher times still and is getting worse. In my opinion, the recession will continue to bite away more than ever in the future. Impossible to put dates on these things, though.

[Bullish Giant Rhino]

No firm plans, probably new, covered terracing.  Possibly recycling the new roof from Belle Vue, if they ever move to Newmarket.

Will they clad the back of the stands?

[ckn]

Slightly moronic comment.  Can't see anybody was arguing that. Are you L'Angelo in disguise?

Was that really necessary?

 

A general comment to the forum at large and this thread specifically, some people seem to think that using petty digs at members who they disagree with or dislike is acceptable.  It's getting tedious now and eventually we'll lose patience and start suspending people until the message gets across.

[Ponterover]

Contrary to what most think, I actually believe the economy is heading for tougher times still and is getting worse. In my opinion, the recession will continue to bite away more than ever in the future. Impossible to put dates on these things, though.

 

Off topic I know, but I'm still waiting to see evidence of a recession in my area. 

 

I think our standard of living will deteriorate over the next 30 to 40 years, but one could argue that it had got un-sustainably high over the last 30 to 40 years and as such is a natural correction, which is a different thing to recession.

[Ponterover]

Will they clad the back of the stands?

 

They'd better, I've bought an advertising board on one of them!

[Ponterover]

Was that really necessary?

 

A general comment to the forum at large and this thread specifically, some people seem to think that using petty digs at members who they disagree with or dislike is acceptable.  It's getting tedious now and eventually we'll lose patience and start suspending people until the message gets across.

 

Fair enough, my comment was uncalled for.

 

As was the comment that provoked it, perhaps you'd like to issue a warning about provacative, irrelevant posts like that too?

[Bullish Giant Rhino]

Off topic I know, but I'm still waiting to see evidence of a recession in my area. 

 

I think our standard of living will deteriorate over the next 30 to 40 years, but one could argue that it had got un-sustainably high over the last 30 to 40 years and as such is a natural correction, which is a different thing to recession.

I would argue that 10 years will do plenty of damage. For me the largest reason for the 'recession' was ponzi-scheming

[Bullish Giant Rhino]

They'd better, I've bought an advertising board on one of them!

On what, a new stand which hasn't even been planned yet? You've lost me

[Ponterover]

On what, a new stand which hasn't even been planned yet? You've lost me

 

Sorry, thought you meant the ones they're building now (which are currently un-clad).

 

Doubt they'd be able to at the PO Road end, it'd block out the light for the houses, plus we'd never see Batman and Robin climbing out of a Velux window and sitting on the roof of a house watching a big, televised game for free!

Edited January 4, 2014 by Ponterover

[keighley]

Yeah. right, whatever.

Or Winston Churchill in 1945.

[keighley]

Saved for future reference

Its the recession that has reduced crowds not SL

 

Thanks, you've made my day.

To quote yourself "yeah, whatever"

[Bullish Giant Rhino]

Sorry, thought you meant the ones they're building now (which are currently un-clad).

 

Doubt they'd be able to at the PO Road end, it'd block out the light for the houses, plus we'd never see Batman and Robin climbing out of a Velux window and sitting on the roof of a house watching a big, televised game for free

So you think after the current development they'll level out the slope?

On a slightly more bizarre note, do Batman and Robin live in Fev?

[Ponterover]

So you think after the current development they'll level out the slope?

On a slightly more bizarre note, do Batman and Robin live in Fev?

 

Just two merry chaps sat on a roof in fancy dress when we played Cas in the cup a couple of years ago.

[Bullish Giant Rhino]

Just two merry chaps sat on a roof in fancy dress when we played Cas in the cup a couple of years ago.

Life can be strange sometimes..

[sweaty craiq]

Spot on IMO.

John Wilkin among other RL players has been saying this publically for some time and yet the RFL continue along the path of structural change rather than income generation.

No disrespect to wilkin but he is better equipped to make butties

[The Parksider]

Any ideology of SL which includes less teams than 12 is so unrealistic it's not even worth debating. Like I said at the start of the hour (hehe) we need more money in the game and we need more rich owners in influencing the cap, in other words increasing it, to make this happen.

 

It's not an ideology, it's a business plan the chief exec of the RU premiership suggests as best for the scale of our game. To call it "unrealistic" without backing that up doesn't help our discussion. To say it's "not worth debating" again means you are giving me nothing but the following argument....

 

"It's unrealistic, ideological and not worth debating".

 

Your counter argument is "we need more money" which is blindingly obvious and something all agree on. Cutting to ten big clubs with all the resources in those clubs can maximise the chance of more money. More money is useless to any business if it merely creates more expenditure.

 

I know small businesses with large healthy profits. I know large businesses making heavy losses. This is a sound business principle.

 

A 14 clubs Superleague is a large business with heavy losses it needs cutting down. This is a given because that is what has definitely been voted on by the SL clubs themselves so how can the principle of reducing Superleague to have more money by cutting expenditure be wrong??? Do let me know and do let the chairmen who voted for a cut know, and the RU's chief executive.

 

You at least offer "we need more rich owners" which is also with deepest respect sir, blindingly obvious and in line with the solution a number of people offer on here. You are in fine company.

 

But to all of you look at the reality of the top SL chairmen who will not countenance a rise in the cap because they do not want to have to pay that extra from their pockets.

 

Look at the reality of the bottom SL chairmen who refuse to carry on funding their clubs with wedges of £500K ike Neil Hudgell and Jack Fulton. Mr. O'Connor will not be a cash cow. Mr. Hughes is reducing his contribution. Try to find rich men in the other 23 clubs. In many of them supporters run the clubs.

 

With respect it not a business plan to just say "we need some rich  men". When are they coming, should I watch the horizon for their imminent approach, or have they set up camp just over the hill waiting for the SL meeting this month to ratify P & R?

[The Parksider]

I have one word for you' "recession".

 

I think the Castleford support held up quite well both times they were relegated.

 

So it was only once the recession kicked in when Superleague's profits fell and we started making losses then??

 

Well we 're coming out of recession now so your logic means lets leave everything as it is, as the only problem the game has is the "recession"??

 

That's a terrible argument as is the one about how the fans will suddenly start attending once a club gets into relegation trouble and how they will all rally round once relegated.

 

Take that illogical argument that has no statistical backing and you may as well leave Superleague as it is but have a top eight play off and six relegation places.

 

Oh hang on??

[The Parksider]

You are Marwan Koukash and I claim £5. I agree with all of your post.

 

So you agree we need more rich men prepared to bankroll clubs up to levels of true superleague operations? Mr. Davey has bankrolled Fartown for over 10 years. He's got them to the top of the table and they are now on a big loss making 6,300 crowd.

 

What do you think he puts in to make them competitive? £2,000,000 a year?? How much do you think it would take them to make Cas, HKR. London, Widnes, Salford, Wakefield, Bradford competetive??

 

I'm going to have a stab at £12,000,000 a year. We therefore have a sound business plan which involves a call to the business world for SL to be given £12,000,000 a year by "rich men".

 

I have to try to find a reason why so many fans of top championship clubs favour a solution that is never going to happen. My thesis with respect is that if you call for a solution that is no solution at all, then whilst we are waiting for that solution Superleague can gently unravel, financial requirements can be heavily downgraded, P & R can come back and it will be 1990 all over again.

 

I'm not having a go at you, but if fans of London, Keighley, Fev, Leigh, Halifax, Sheffield etc want their clubs to do well, they need SL clubs to do badly. I can understand that a 10 club ring fenced successful SL would be really good for the game as a whole but would also be really good at reducing the six named clubs above to the level of Hunslet, Bramley, Swinton, Oldham, Rochdale and York.

[Griff]

3x8 is not all about relegation, it's also about meaningful competition that clubs such as Cas have a shot at winning.

 

Win what ?  We still don't know what we're playing for apart from blundering from one group to another.

[Dave T]

Why are the two mutually exclusive. Can't we have both at the same time ?

spot on. It is a nonsense argument.

[Bullish Giant Rhino]

It's not an ideology, it's a business plan the chief exec of the RU premiership suggests as best for the scale of our game. To call it "unrealistic" without backing that up doesn't help our discussion. To say it's "not worth debating" again means you are giving me nothing but the following argument....

 

"It's unrealistic, ideological and not worth debating".

 

Your counter argument is "we need more money" which is blindingly obvious and something all agree on. Cutting to ten big clubs with all the resources in those clubs can maximise the chance of more money. More money is useless to any business if it merely creates more expenditure.

 

I know small businesses with large healthy profits. I know large businesses making heavy losses. This is a sound business principle.

 

A 14 clubs Superleague is a large business with heavy losses it needs cutting down. This is a given because that is what has definitely been voted on by the SL clubs themselves so how can the principle of reducing Superleague to have more money by cutting expenditure be wrong??? Do let me know and do let the chairmen who voted for a cut know, and the RU's chief executive.

 

You at least offer "we need more rich owners" which is also with deepest respect sir, blindingly obvious and in line with the solution a number of people offer on here. You are in fine company.

 

But to all of you look at the reality of the top SL chairmen who will not countenance a rise in the cap because they do not want to have to pay that extra from their pockets.

 

Look at the reality of the bottom SL chairmen who refuse to carry on funding their clubs with wedges of £500K ike Neil Hudgell and Jack Fulton. Mr. O'Connor will not be a cash cow. Mr. Hughes is reducing his contribution. Try to find rich men in the other 23 clubs. In many of them supporters run the clubs.

 

With respect it not a business plan to just say "we need some rich  men". When are they coming, should I watch the horizon for their imminent approach, or have they set up camp just over the hill waiting for the SL meeting this month to ratify P & R?

2 things here. First it's no guarantee there will be less than 14 clubs in 2015. Ian Lenegan wants 14, according to all our mags, and at the last time of knowing he had at least 5 other clubs backing him up- the so called 'rebel clubs'. To quote Gary Hetherington 'nothing is a formality in rugby league'

Secondly, like I say it's yes but no. Any club without a money men will struggle. That's the reality. We're at a crisis stage and in the short-term we need to look to solutions externally. People could've said years 'what if Caddick stopped investing?' well, he has, years ago, and Leeds are still thriving. Other owners, though, may demand a bigger cap. The same 'Caddick' argument will crop up, but the fact is they're needed..

More money comes into the game with a higher cap and so owners do end up paying less on that cap

Edited January 5, 2014 by Bullish Giant Rhino