Salford Red Devils

[scotchy]

And there you drift off into never never land again,

What was wrong with Wigan being worried about relegation they were a bad team, badly coached and to guarantee survival they broke the rules, but in your preferred totalitarian RL society they should get rewarded.

What was wrong with it would have been the utterly pointless and damaging nature of losing a team like Wigan.

 

I know that all that matters to you is your team might be promoted, but the health of the game is more important than that.

[The Parksider]

I know that all that matters to you is your team might be promoted, but the health of the game is more important than that.

 

All that matters IS the "Derby" Leigh.v.Wigan, Hull.v.HKR, the two new Manchester Superleague clubs.

[DeadShotKeen]

RL is hardly lacking in derbies, is it?

 

A merged Hull side against Leeds or Bradford at the KC would be massive draws. 

 

We obsess about our history when we could be creating our own.

 

Or as someone else on here put it very eloquently a while back: "The enemy is at the gates but we continue to squabble amongst ourselves".

[The Parksider]

The points you make are valid and even the most staunch "closed shop" we have our own gang and we don't want any one else in, people of the same mind set such as Scotchy, have to admit that the system is weighted towards the incumbent SL members.

My theory is now that the 3 year cul-de-sac has been breached and the light at the end of the tunnel can be seen to give an annual chance, however slim, for promotion, I think the lack of criticism on part of the clubs (second tier) re the SC imbalance was from the outset of the rules a fear that objections could be met with a withdrawal of the system......

 

Indeed there was an element of closing of ranks to all agree to put disagreements to one side, cop the SKY deal and do the best possible to promote it and talk it up and talk the fans back.

 

Still doesn't excuse the fact that the disparity didn't have to happen, unless some were pushing for that uneveness of competition?.

[The Parksider]

RL is hardly lacking in derbies, is it?

 

A merged Hull side against Leeds at the KC would be massive.. 

 

Leeds gave Hull a 14,000 plus crowd at the KC in 2007when Hull could compete.

 

Leeds gave Hull a 12,000 crowd for the last dead rubber of two out of form sides at the end of 2014.

 

But hey you can make statistics say anything, so they count for nothing.

 

Back to the OP and topic............

 

Salford must be aiming to draw in fans from right round the M60 inside and outside. I'd guess much the same way that Warrington nowadays give Wigan a big match, as do Leeds (the Wigan/Leeds crowd surpassed the Saints gate) Salford must be looking for future big pay days against Wigan.

 

That THE derby lost out to a match between Wigan and Leeds pretty much shows that in these modern times you are right, the symbiosis is big club against big club. HKR.v.Leeds surpassed the Hull Derby.

 

These darn Stats are a nuisance.

[Krytensmate]

In intrigued to see how much of an effect the cap difference will have at that stage. Will it have more of an effect than the winning/losing momentum of the clubs in play? Will some of these clubs at the bottom be at the bottom because their "big earners" aren't performing (literally and/or metaphorically?).

I think people are being way too simplistic in saying that the cap means they'll be better. They'll have a better chance at recruitment at the start of a season. Whether that comes to fruition at the end is where the battle on the field will show.

As you have put , the salary cap only affects recuitment , essentially Leigh built their squad 18 months ago on a salary cap of less than £ 400 K , what the increase to 1 million has done is allowed that squad to become full time , which should ' should ' in theory improve individual players performance and the collective performance of the team , if they were allowed a cap of 1.8 million it is doubtful they would have used it anyway , as that would mean dismantling an already excellent squad

 

it will be interesting to see if this is the way to win and maintain a SL position

[The Parksider]

 Leigh built their squad 18 months ago on a salary cap of less than £ 400 K , what the increase to 1 million has done is allowed that squad to become full time , which should ' should ' in theory improve individual players performance and the collective performance of the team...........

 

I get where this is going now.

 

Add your idea Championship clubs should get more central funding to the idea you don't need that much money to turn your squad full time, which will then turn championship players into Superleague players.........

 

And it provides an argument to split SKY money 24 ways and create SL1 & SL2. An argument you are already doubting as being "theoretical".

[Krytensmate]

I get where this is going now.

 

Add your idea Championship clubs should get more central funding to the idea you don't need that much money to turn your squad full time, which will then turn championship players into Superleague players.........

 

And it provides an argument to split SKY money 24 ways and create SL1 & SL2. An argument you are already doubting as being "theoretical".

It wont neccessarily turn all players into SL standard players , that assumption would be absurd , but it would fill in the gap between SL and Championship 1 better IMO , allowing an easier route from C 1 to SL for ANY club , be they original NU clubs , or a Coventry Bears with an investor

 

Surely thats what we all actually want , isnt it ?

[GaryO]

I get where this is going now.

 

Add your idea Championship clubs should get more central funding to the idea you don't need that much money to turn your squad full time, which will then turn championship players into Superleague players.........

 

And it provides an argument to split SKY money 24 ways and create SL1 & SL2. An argument you are already doubting as being "theoretical".

I wouldn't doubt for one minute that whoever the club and more so whoever the player introducing them to a full time environment could and most certainly would improve them collectivly and individually, and the main rub of this is it should appease the "top" clubs as there will be a bigger selection to choose from, it may even bring back the dreaded transfer fee.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Wellsy I can understand completely your opening paragraph, especially as a speccy your club has spent as much as it possibly could within the cap restrictions and been rewarded with lets say some outstandingly bad returns on their investments in recent seasons, in respect of "aren't performing".

But, in that a club has the ability to spend more they are obviously as you say in a better position to recruit, if any of Bradford, Leigh, Fev etc, had another £800k added to the cap (and the money to speculate) and they could recruit the likes of O'loughlin, Brough, Hall and Hardacre, pure speculation, but you would have to say they would be in a much stronger position to challenge for promotion, wouldn't you?

They would have a better chance. I wouldn't say they "would be". They might spend it awfully. They might blow it in one big star rather then depth. There's all sorts that could happen.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

You are right that no statistics could prove one way or the other, but to be fair, that's true of any change we are going to make. What is it that financial advisors tell you 'past performance is not necessarily a guide to future results"

Are you just going to throw your savings to the wind? let fate decide? Or even knowing that it may not be perfect are you going to make the best decision you can? Remember you don't need to get the all right, just more than sheer chance.

One of the things about sport that makes it attractive is its unpredictability. If you start controlling what happens, you take away that area. You can only control so much. There are differing opinions on this, but mine is that if you're going to hand pick the teams in the league, you might as well hand pick who wins. You may not agree, but it's not you that will get turned off by a licensed bubble wrapped league.

We would never have had the Hull Derby had we created licensing in 2006. But we also may have had something much much better. Licensing in 2006 could have seen Leeds, Bradford and Hull all knocking on 20k averages by now.

It could have. It could also have seen them plummet to below 10,000.

2006 wouldn't have seen Wigan worried about relegation, they don't take Fielden and Noble don't get the fine and points deduction and Whelan doesn't leave, Lenegan stays at London and they are getting 8/9k.

And so they stay operating as a poor club running near the bottom of the league, not forced to make changes to improve on the field and still run by an out of touch Lyndsay? Yes, a much better alternative. One of the reasons licensing was a turn off for many.

I'm not a fan of the comfort zone in elite sport. I'm hoping the new structure puts an end to that.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Indeed, the Hull fans reaction to Old Trafford 2006, and we sat amongst them, was their club was making great strides towards the top.

The response was such as 12,673 for the 2007 Catalans opener. Last season that was down to 10,178 for again the opener.

Wakefield 13,229 2007 up from 11,860 2006 down to 10,088 last year, Salford 13,338 2007 up from 10,107 2006, down to 9,821 last year.

Even the 23,002 Derby 2007 down to 18,103.

Symbiotic relationship? No. Statistics providing proof - sometimes yes, sometimes no sometimes never and if you don't like what they say shoot the messenger......

I'm not sure what you're trying to even prove now? That clubs that were successful tend to get bigger crowds?

I thought your point was that the derby affected Hull's crowds? What do randomly selecting games from two years out of context have to do with any of that?

If you're going to talk about the points I make, at least show the decency to address me. Or are you actually trying to antagonise?

[scotchy]

One of the things about sport that makes it attractive is its unpredictability. If you start controlling what happens, you take away that area. You can only control so much. There are differing opinions on this, but mine is that if you're going to hand pick the teams in the league, you might as well hand pick who wins. You may not agree, but it's not you that will get turned off by a licensed bubble wrapped league.

It could have. It could also have seen them plummet to below 10,000.

And so they stay operating as a poor club running near the bottom of the league, not forced to make changes to improve on the field and still run by an out of touch Lyndsay? Yes, a much better alternative. One of the reasons licensing was a turn off for many.

I'm not a fan of the comfort zone in elite sport. I'm hoping the new structure puts an end to that.

But that's not what we have seen elsewhere or in our league.

 

Your argument about Wigan, entirely misses the point. P+R never forced them to make those changes. You want to attribute those changes to 'the lack of comfort zone' or P+R forcing them to make the changes. But that isn't true.

 

It also hasn't been true of our other clubs who have struggled either. Wigan made those changes not because of the threat of P+R but because of a change in ownership. Under P+R they were still surviving, still closer to the top than the bottom. P+R precipitated none of the changes Wigan needed to make to be where they are now. Ian Lenegan is responsible for those changes and his Wigan were never close to P+R. Even that year was a little of a Whelan panic. They were comfortably safe and for a lot of teams they had a 'good season' simply not as good as the heights a club like Wigan set.

 

The club who was affected by P+R was Cas, who under P+R were a yo-yo club. That comfort zone allowed them to grow to post their best season in years last year. They likely wouldn't have done that under P+R because they spent that time blooding youngsters, and finishing close to, If not at the bottom.

 

The next club relegated were Salford who were massively damaged by it, the promoted club was Hull KR who pretty much admitted they were using up to 13 over seas players because their only priority was survival.

 

In 2008 it was Cas again. Which is pretty clear evidence that relegation didn't force the club to improve at all. Their performance in 2006 when they were relegated, was better than their first season back up

 

Look at the clubs that 'safety net' saved Cas in 8, Crusaders were bottom in 2009, playoffs 2010. Les Catalans were bottom 2010, play offs 2011, Widnes in their first season in 2012 finished bottom, 10th in 2013, play offs 2014. 2013 Salford were bottom,  10th in 2014 who would bet against play-offs 2015? Those clubs were making those changes and the safety net allowed them to progress and that's what changed things at the top. That's where the unpredictability came from. Thats where our new challengers came from.

 

We will never know what London or Bradford could have done next year after they made changes, we do know that Wakefield aren't spending next year diverting funds to their desperate stadium, we know they aren't going to be spending a season blooding the kids, they will have one priority and one only. Avoid relegation and best case scenario they achieve they achieve that. The season after it is exactly the same

[The Parksider]

I wouldn't doubt for one minute that whoever the club and more so whoever the player introducing them to a full time environment could and most certainly would improve them collectively and individually

 

Don't you think that the Professional clubs who lose players to down under, and who struggle to find stars in their academies haven't already been through the Championship with a fine tooth comb to see if anyone has the wherewithall to be a good pro?

 

When they find the odd player it's let's all hail the Championship whose teams are packed with rough diamonds.

 

But where do you think these lads came from Gary?? Leeds chased Ryan Brierley because they aren't finding much gold since the golden generation got old. The lads a good player but is where he is because he didn't make it as a pro.

 

Many of the players people want to pay more money to to somehow make them better players have blown past chances and are where they are i.e. in the Championship, because of it. 

 

It's a thread about Salford not about how failed SL players are the future of Superleague.

[keighley]

You are right that no statistics could prove one way or the other, but to be fair, that's true of any change we are going to make. What is it that financial advisors tell you 'past performance is not necessarily a guide to future results"

 

Are you just going to throw your savings to the wind? let fate decide? Or even knowing that it may not be perfect are you going to make the best decision you can? Remember you don't need to get the all right, just more than sheer chance.

 

We would never have had the Hull Derby had we created licensing in 2006. But we also may have had something much much better. Licensing in 2006 could have seen Leeds, Bradford and Hull all knocking on 20k averages by now. 2006 wouldn't have seen Wigan worried about relegation, they don't take Fielden and Noble don't get the fine and points deduction and Whelan doesn't leave, Lenegan stays at London and they are getting 8/9k.

 

Seeing as how, in the history of the game, there has never been a club averaging 20,000, I think that is highly optimistic if not downright delusional. The London figure might be doable but only if they had a vey successful team which they have not had for some time.

 

London might bounce back and achieve that. Perpignan went from nothing to something. Sheer chance throws up some unlikely outcomes sometimes.

[keighley]

What was wrong with it would have been the utterly pointless and damaging nature of losing a team like Wigan.

 

I know that all that matters to you is your team might be promoted, but the health of the game is more important than that.

 

Why do we ever play the games if the result needs to be voided if it doesn't suit and endangers a "big" club.?  Maybe the health of the game is enhanced if there is success in new areas and a wider distribution of enthusiastic and passionate fans, as a result, over a wider area. 

[scotchy]

Seeing as how, in the history of the game, there has never been a club averaging 20,000, I think that is highly optimistic if not downright delusional. The London figure might be doable but only if they had a vey successful team which they have not had for some time.

 

London might bounce back and achieve that. Perpignan went from nothing to something. Sheer chance throws up some unlikely outcomes sometimes.

Les Catalans weren't promoted by chance. They took a well thought out decision to invite them.

 

Leeds were at were around 18k, Hull around 14k, ten years ago. Its not a huge leap/

[scotchy]

Why do we ever play the games if the result needs to be voided if it doesn't suit and endangers a "big" club.?  Maybe the health of the game is enhanced if there is success in new areas and a wider distribution of enthusiastic and passionate fans, as a result, over a wider area. 

We don't. Nobody is saying anything about voiding results. Simply that 1 bad season = relegation is not healthy or necessary.

 

There are no new areas close to being promoted on the field.

[keighley]

Leeds gave Hull a 14,000 plus crowd at the KC in 2007when Hull could compete.

 

Leeds gave Hull a 12,000 crowd for the last dead rubber of two out of form sides at the end of 2014.

 

But hey you can make statistics say anything, so they count for nothing.

 

Back to the OP and topic............

 

Salford must be aiming to draw in fans from right round the M60 inside and outside. I'd guess much the same way that Warrington nowadays give Wigan a big match, as do Leeds (the Wigan/Leeds crowd surpassed the Saints gate) Salford must be looking for future big pay days against Wigan.

 

That THE derby lost out to a match between Wigan and Leeds pretty much shows that in these modern times you are right, the symbiosis is big club against big club. HKR.v.Leeds surpassed the Hull Derby.

 

These darn Stats are a nuisance.

 

And it looks like it will do again as the game is heading for a sellout and the club increased their gates last season whist FCs fell, again, which begs the question, which is the bigger of the two Hull teams and which should we keep seeing as how Hull are failing and have stadium problems ?

[keighley]

But that's not what we have seen elsewhere or in our league.

 

Your argument about Wigan, entirely misses the point. P+R never forced them to make those changes. You want to attribute those changes to 'the lack of comfort zone' or P+R forcing them to make the changes. But that isn't true.

 

It also hasn't been true of our other clubs who have struggled either. Wigan made those changes not because of the threat of P+R but because of a change in ownership. Under P+R they were still surviving, still closer to the top than the bottom. P+R precipitated none of the changes Wigan needed to make to be where they are now. Ian Lenegan is responsible for those changes and his Wigan were never close to P+R. Even that year was a little of a Whelan panic. They were comfortably safe and for a lot of teams they had a 'good season' simply not as good as the heights a club like Wigan set.

 

The club who was affected by P+R was Cas, who under P+R were a yo-yo club. That comfort zone allowed them to grow to post their best season in years last year. They likely wouldn't have done that under P+R because they spent that time blooding youngsters, and finishing close to, If not at the bottom.

 

The next club relegated were Salford who were massively damaged by it, the promoted club was Hull KR who pretty much admitted they were using up to 13 over seas players because their only priority was survival.

 

In 2008 it was Cas again. Which is pretty clear evidence that relegation didn't force the club to improve at all. Their performance in 2006 when they were relegated, was better than their first season back up

 

Look at the clubs that 'safety net' saved Cas in 8, Crusaders were bottom in 2009, playoffs 2010. Les Catalans were bottom 2010, play offs 2011, Widnes in their first season in 2012 finished bottom, 10th in 2013, play offs 2014. 2013 Salford were bottom,  10th in 2014 who would bet against play-offs 2015? Those clubs were making those changes and the safety net allowed them to progress and that's what changed things at the top. That's where the unpredictability came from. Thats where our new challengers came from.

 

We will never know what London or Bradford could have done next year after they made changes, we do know that Wakefield aren't spending next year diverting funds to their desperate stadium, we know they aren't going to be spending a season blooding the kids, they will have one priority and one only. Avoid relegation and best case scenario they achieve they achieve that. The season after it is exactly the same

 

To avoid relegation all those bottom placed clubs would have to do is beat off the challenge of the championship clubs in the middle eight. It s likely they would do that.

[Progman]

Parky Salford bought a failed super leage player from Hunslet recently

[keighley]

Les Catalans weren't promoted by chance. They took a well thought out decision to invite them.

 

Leeds were at were around 18k, Hull around 14k, ten years ago. Its not a huge leap/

 

And Leigh or Bradford or whomever won't be promoted by chance. It will be the result of a good team, well coached winning the prize on the field which will have been achieved by backroom planning and management.

 

That was the absolute zenith of Leeds attendances and so it is more likely they would fall than rise, but I will admit that if any team can breach the 20,000 barrier it will be Leeds as they are in by far the biggest city represented in SL. I do not see why the 20,000 level cannot be gained by Leeds under the current system.

[keighley]

We don't. Nobody is saying anything about voiding results. Simply that 1 bad season = relegation is not healthy or necessary.

 

There are no new areas close to being promoted on the field.

 

Well  by new I mean new to SL so Featherstone, Leigh, Cumbria, Halifax, anywhere that's been out of the pale for a goodly length of time.

[wackojacko]

And so they stay operating as a poor club running near the bottom of the league, not forced to make changes to improve on the field and still run by an out of touch Lyndsay? Yes, a much better alternative. One of the reasons licensing was a turn off for many.

I'm not a fan of the comfort zone in elite sport. I'm hoping the new structure puts an end to that.

 

Do you really think Wigan would be happy to just sit at the bottom of a league if they were unrelegatable? That they're not in the sport in the hope of success?

[Krytensmate]

Do you really think any team  would be happy to just sit at the bottom of a league if they were unrelegatable? That they're not in the sport in the hope of success?

edited