Hull FC and Hull KR to merge...

[Roy Boy]

 

I find it hard to believe that Hull kids will continue to support 2 middle-of-the-pack sides in the same numbers as we've seen in recent times going forward but I guess we may have to wait and see.

 

Meanwhile, scotchy has proved that Wests and St George-Illawarra continue to attract young fans through their turnstiles in increasing number. There is certainly danger in ignoring this fact.

I see the point but don't see the relevance.

The support in Australia is totally different to the support (atmosphere) here and without being crass hasn't quite got the same history!

 

My 18 yo son has been (brainwashed) coming with me for the last 10 years and has now brought some of his friends along on a regular basis.

He knows that glory is hard to come by and not that likely, but he's a dyed in the wool fan and laughs at the idea that a merger might happen.

 

His comment was "so do you think Liverpool and Everton or Arsenal and Spurs are going to merge to ensure European football?  I'd sooner get bored watching Hull City than have my team taken off me and be told to watch a HULL FCKR (looks like an abbreviation!) combined team, unless it was against the Aussies!"

[zorquif]

Well we don't know what the vast majority of people in hull want (and/or would accept/actually care enough about to make a difference) but the comment originally made was very much absolute.

With regards to the demographics of St George-illawara and wests tigers there are many other factors including an aging population to take in to account. If your population as a whole is going up, you could only be attracting younger fans and still see your average age go up. However that doesn't really matter because nobody has made such a claim. Nobody has claimed that those clubs average fan age is going down. Simply that those clubs are attracting young fans.

Clearly the more reasonable of those statements is that those clubs are attracting young fans. It would be crazy if they weren't.

 

Do you mean that if the age of your population is going up? Ok then, they attract SOME young fans, as opposed to none. I'll accept that.

 

Again - not of Hull, rather of the fans of the two clubs. I think that the Hull fans on here conducting a straw poll might give a good indication. 

[scotchy]

Do you mean that if the age of your population is going up? Ok then, they attract SOME young fans, as opposed to none. I'll accept that.

Again - not of Hull, rather of the fans of the two clubs. I think that the Hull fans on here conducting a straw poll might give a good indication.

I said if the age of your population is going up?

I think fans would give you the worst straw poll possible. Especially at this point when one side has the bias of inertia. If we did have 1 Hull side I don't think those same fans would be clamouring for 2. It's easy when you have 2 teams to start claiming you would never ever under no circumstances even if you were offered a billion pounds go watch a merged side. When the reality of 1 side happens its a very different question.

What your framing of the argument forgets is that the status quo is still seeing fans fall away and for all the arguments that fans in hull would never ever watch a merged team never ever ever, they aren't getting enough watching/playing now and got far far fewer not so long ago.

[Krytensmate]

So again Scotchy and DSK ( I notice you like asking questions but not answering them ) , who are you culling , which fans of which clubs do you think should stop watching their club and follow somebody else ?

Simple question to 2 simple people , how hard can it be ?

Apologies to those who have requested I stick to the OP , but nobody seems that interested in it

[scotchy]

So again Scotchy and DSK ( I notice you like asking questions but not answering them ) , who are you culling , which fans of which clubs do you think should stop watching their club and follow somebody else ?

Simple question to 2 simple people , how hard can it be ?

Apologies to those who have requested I stick to the OP , but nobody seems that interested in it

nobody is interested in you asking the same question over and over and ignoring it when it is answered.

[DeadShotKeen]

I see the point but don't see the relevance.

The support in Australia is totally different to the support (atmosphere) here and without being crass hasn't quite got the same history!

 

My 18 yo son has been (brainwashed) coming with me for the last 10 years and has now brought some of his friends along on a regular basis.

He knows that glory is hard to come by and not that likely, but he's a dyed in the wool fan and laughs at the idea that a merger might happen.

 

His comment was "so do you think Liverpool and Everton or Arsenal and Spurs are going to merge to ensure European football?  I'd sooner get bored watching Hull City than have my team taken off me and be told to watch a HULL FCKR (looks like an abbreviation!) combined team, unless it was against the Aussies!"

 

Clearly Liverpool/Everton and Arsenal/Spurs are mergers that don't need to happen. Such a comment is a classic diversionary tactic when discussing this issue. Please let's keep this sensible.

 

I take on board the rest of what you say though. Thing is, I was 21 when the 1995 merger plan was mooted and I was vehemently against it too. In many ways, most people are instinctively against that kind of thing as there is inevitably a degree of sadness about it and to some degree a rejection of the past. What hasn't happened, sadly, is a sensible debate about the issue in public akin to the Scottish Referendum or some such, because the case for a merger is a nuanced one that takes time to explain to people and patience is needed to get past their base instincts and convince them that it's actually in their best interests. It took me the best part of 20 years to come round to it. This is why - despite being essentially a communist - this isn't one of those decisions that I think is best passed by mob rule. It's not as simple or devastating as closing a local school or hospital or some such where it's very easy to draw a line in the sand as to motive, right/wrong etc. It's much more subtle than that. 

 

It's for this reason also that the kind of exit poll that has been spoken of is of precious little use. I'm sure if ahead of the Wests & St George-Illawarra mergers the authorities had put it to the vote via a phone line or the internet you would have seen a strong opposition. It's those currently watching the sides who are most exorcised and moved to comment and obviously sporting allegiances die hard. Conversely, if anyone had floated the idea of a Melbourne side 5 years before it happened they might well have been challenged to produce anything like the 15/20K they currently get to sign a petition for it or whatever to prove their point. Would that have been realistic? It was an abstract concept, the same as a merged Hull side is now. There is not necessarily a ready-made audience. But NRL went ahead with the Melbourne side and found those 15/20K fans, in the same way that I'm convinced we would find nigh on 20K fans of a merged Hull side in time.

 

Your last comment is interesting. Could a merged Hull side in a streamlined, franchised Super League not realistically play competitive fixtures against Aussie sides? That would be a given and would really be a primary objective for any competent RFL. There is no realistic prospect whatsoever of either current Hull side being strong enough to do so in what is already a very weak WCC tournament.

 

Again, this is one of the benefits. It needs to be spelled out to people. The status quo is not the be all and end all. We can do much, much better but it will necessitate a little medicine.

[zorquif]

I said if the age of your population is going up?

I think fans would give you the worst straw poll possible. Especially at this point when one side has the bias of inertia. If we did have 1 Hull side I don't think those same fans would be clamouring for 2. It's easy when you have 2 teams to start claiming you would never ever under no circumstances even if you were offered a billion pounds go watch a merged side. When the reality of 1 side happens its a very different question.

What your framing of the argument forgets is that the status quo is still seeing fans fall away and for all the arguments that fans in hull would never ever watch a merged team never ever ever, they aren't getting enough watching/playing now and got far far fewer not so long ago.

You didn't say that. Read the quote in my post. I didn't edit it.

What your discussion about the bias of inertia does is ignore that there is currently two clubs and have been for some time. If you were starting completely afresh, it might well be better to only have one club. But we aren't and we don't. As it is, some fans might carry on watching but I think it's a very real possibility that a lot won't.

I don't think I'm framing anything, for the main part I'm asking why some assumptions are more valid than others. However, your last sentence seems to contradict itself. Crowds are falling away but are far better than they were. Also, for all the arguments that a merged club would attract more fans (although if Saint George Illawarra and Wests are used as 'proof' of this, it seems likely that the new clubs crowds would break even or be upto 20% less after almost 20 years), Hull currently has ~20k folk watching pro RL. Is that worth risking?

[Krytensmate]

nobody is interested in you asking the same question over and over and ignoring it when it is answered.

You haven't answered it , ignore it all you want , I'll keep asking it

[Krytensmate]

Clearly Liverpool/Everton and Arsenal/Spurs are mergers that don't need to happen. Such a comment is a classic diversionary tactic when discussing this issue. Please let's keep this sensible.

 

I take on board the rest of what you say though. Thing is, I was 21 when the 1995 merger plan was mooted and I was vehemently against it too. In many ways, most people are instinctively against that kind of thing as there is inevitably a degree of sadness about it and to some degree a rejection of the past. What hasn't happened, sadly, is a sensible debate about the issue in public akin to the Scottish Referendum or some such, because the case for a merger is a nuanced one that takes time to explain to people and patience is needed to get past their base instincts and convince them that it's actually in their best interests. It took me the best part of 20 years to come round to it. This is why - despite being essentially a communist - this isn't one of those decisions that I think is best passed by mob rule. It's not as simple or devastating as closing a local school or hospital or some such where it's very easy to draw a line in the sand as to motive, right/wrong etc. It's much more subtle than that. 

 

It's for this reason also that the kind of exit poll that has been spoken of is of precious little use. I'm sure if ahead of the Wests & St George-Illawarra mergers the authorities had put it to the vote via a phone line or the internet you would have seen a strong opposition. It's those currently watching the sides who are most exorcised and moved to comment and obviously sporting allegiances die hard. Conversely, if anyone had floated the idea of a Melbourne side 5 years before it happened they might well have been challenged to produce anything like the 15/20K they currently get to sign a petition for it or whatever to prove their point. Would that have been realistic? It was an abstract concept, the same as a merged Hull side is now. There is not necessarily a ready-made audience. But NRL went ahead with the Melbourne side and found those 15/20K fans, in the same way that I'm convinced we would find nigh on 20K fans of a merged Hull side in time.

 

Your last comment is interesting. Could a merged Hull side in a streamlined, franchised Super League not realistically play competitive fixtures against Aussie sides? That would be a given and would really be a primary objective for any competent RFL. There is no realistic prospect whatsoever of either current Hull side being strong enough to do so in what is already a very weak WCC tournament.

 

Again, this is one of the benefits. It needs to be spelled out to people. The status quo is not the be all and end all. We can do much, much better but it will necessitate a little medicine.

So which club are you culling in Hull , and which clubs elsewhere ?

Come on man display some balls , put them on the line , your not another Scotchy avoiding the difficult bit ? , or are you ? , full of fantasy ideals , with no substance to back it up ?

[The Parksider]

If anyone had floated the idea of a Melbourne side 5 years before it happened they might well have been challenged to produce anything like the 15/20K they currently get to sign a petition for it or whatever to prove their point. Would that have been realistic? It was an abstract concept, the same as a merged Hull side is now. There is not necessarily a ready-made audience. But NRL went ahead with the Melbourne side and found those 15/20K fans, in the same way that I'm convinced we would find nigh on 20K fans of a merged Hull side in time.

 

There's Four Million more people in Melbourne than Hull

 

Plus the club became a top four club and won things in a country where RL is a big sport. 

 

Melbourne is not Hull and there is no comparison.

 

Now you have two below average SL teams, and an academy that produces the odd decent player each year but no top class players since Kirk Yeaman years ago.

 

In merging you dump half the average players and are restricted to the salary cap.

 

You cheese off half the fans so many don't come at a time you need to climb the table to get the success that is the only thing that will grow the crowds.

 

It's not a recipe for reaching for the stars, it's a recipe for disaster.

 

When will you ever face this reality?

[scotchy]

1.You didn't say that. Read the quote in my post. I didn't edit it.

2.What your discussion about the bias of inertia does is ignore that there is currently two clubs and have been for some time. If you were starting completely afresh, it might well be better to only have one club. But we aren't and we don't. As it is, some fans might carry on watching but I think it's a very real possibility that a lot won't.

3.I don't think I'm framing anything, for the main part I'm asking why some assumptions are more valid than others. However, your last sentence seems to contradict itself. Crowds are falling away but are far better than they were.4) Also, for all the arguments that a merged club would attract more fans (although if Saint George Illawarra and Wests are used as 'proof' of this, it seems likely that the new clubs crowds would break even or be upto 20% less after almost 20 years), Hull currently has ~20k folk watching pro RL. Is that worth risking?

1.thats what it says. I really don't know what your confusion is.

2.some fans won't. But big numbers don't anyway and the vast majority weren't 10-15 years ago.

3. Because the assumption that a group of 30k rl fans includes some young ones is a far more valid one than that fans of hull speak with one true voice.

4)both attract comfortably more than any of their constituent parts; and you aren't taking in to account the fact you are comparing 2 games with 4 sets of fans against 1 game with 2.

[scotchy]

You haven't answered it , ignore it all you want , I'll keep asking it

so when I said 1 club in wakefield and 1 club in hull you though I was talking about stone-age weapons? Drinking establishments? For what you stated was a simple question you seem to struggle quite a bit with even understanding there was an answer.

[scotchy]

There's Four Million more people in Melbourne than Hull

Plus the club became a top four club and won things in a country where RL is a big sport.

Melbourne is not Hull and there is no comparison.

Now you have two below average SL teams, and an academy that produces the odd decent player each year but no top class players since Kirk Yeaman years ago.

In merging you dump half the average players and are restricted to the salary cap.

You cheese off half the fans so many don't come at a time you need to climb the table to get the success that is the only thing that will grow the crowds.

It's not a recipe for reaching for the stars, it's a recipe for disaster.

When will you ever face this reality?

c'mon parky. You are only setting yourself up equating your thoughts with reality.

[The Parksider]

If you were starting completely afresh, it might well be better to only have one club. But we aren't and we don't. As it is, some fans might carry on watching but I think it's a very real possibility that a lot won't.

 

Starting completely afresh means a stadium deal is necessary at the KC, would they get that at a decent price?

 

It means like Toulouse starting in CC1 and most fans would not go.

 

It means dumping the current playing rosters.

 

The best case scenario is magically the RFL, Hull City, SLE etc. all say "go on you can merge and stay in the ground on the current deal and stay in SL"

 

Then the best 25 players can't be retained as they will be over the cap so you put out an average team called Hull United.

 

What counts far more than where St.george/Illawara are today is where they were at the start of the merger and that was with thousands of fans staying away.

 

You only have to look at what happens to big clubs when the fans start doing that by looking at Bradford and the proof of it is the extent to which Hull/HKR crowds fell away so very badly through the 1990's.

 

If a Hull club is to succeed in joining the big boys then the hull clubs cannot afford in any way to lose their SL status.

 

So they will both remain in SL, they may well prepare for the day one takes a tumble, as they are doing merging the academy, and they will fight each other for the supremacy one needs over the other to start to grow a supremacy Hull had to great reward, when HKR were out of the top division for so many of Superleague's early years.

 

I believe Hudgell when he  says he is sticking around, his club has a distinct advantage over Hull FC useless Huddersfield had over Bradford which was a rich owner. With those sorts of guys crowds don't matter so much.

[zorquif]

 

1.thats what it says. I really don't know what your confusion is.
2.some fans won't. But big numbers don't anyway and the vast majority weren't 10-15 years ago.
3. Because the assumption that a group of 30k rl fans includes some young ones is a far more valid one than that fans of hull speak with one true voice.
4)both attract comfortably more than any of their constituent parts; and you aren't taking in to account the fact you are comparing 2 games with 4 sets of fans against 1 game with 2.

 

1. From your post that we are talking about: 'If your population as a whole is going up, you could only be attracting younger fans and still see your average age go up'. I don't know what your confusion is.

 

2. Sorry, I don't understand that after the first sentence.

 

3. I think this reframes the assumption, or at least dilutes it whilst not giving the other side the same benefit. 'Attracts young fans' would suggest that the average age of the crowd is falling. Attracting 'some' young fans is a lot lower burden. Two 'young' fans being attracted fulfills that. But isn't anything to crow about, really. Then to say that 'all Hull fans speak with one true voice' is a very high burden, and not what I think was being suggested. However, it might be that the majority (or even enough to wind up making a merged club nonviable) do share the same feeling. I get the feeling that this one has run its course and the rebuttal will reiterate that all 20k Hull fans don't have the same opinion.

 

4. Both do attract more than their constituent parts did, true. But that still means that in terms of bums on seats, you've lost fans (or at best the same number of fans are attending). So, you say that what happened in Sydney is a worthwhile model for Hull. If so, in 18 years time we might have 16k-20k Hull fans attending the Hull KFC games if all goes well. If not, we might have none. Is that worth the risk?

[zorquif]

Starting completely afresh means a stadium deal is necessary at the KC, would they get that at a decent price?

 

It means like Toulouse starting in CC1 and most fans would not go.

 

It means dumping the current playing rosters.

 

The best case scenario is magically the RFL, Hull City, SLE etc. all say "go on you can merge and stay in the ground on the current deal and stay in SL"

 

Then the best 25 players can't be retained as they will be over the cap so you put out an average team called Hull United.

 

What counts far more than where St.george/Illawara are today is where they were at the start of the merger and that was with thousands of fans staying away.

 

You only have to look at what happens to big clubs when the fans start doing that by looking at Bradford and the proof of it is the extent to which Hull/HKR crowds fell away so very badly through the 1990's.

 

If a Hull club is to succeed in joining the big boys then the hull clubs cannot afford in any way to lose their SL status.

 

So they will both remain in SL, they may well prepare for the day one takes a tumble, as they are doing merging the academy, and they will fight each other for the supremacy one needs over the other to start to grow a supremacy Hull had to great reward, when HKR were out of the top division for so many of Superleague's early years.

 

I believe Hudgell when he  says he is sticking around, his club has a distinct advantage over Hull FC useless Huddersfield had over Bradford which was a rich owner. With those sorts of guys crowds don't matter so much.

 

I sort of meant in dream land, the whole league starting afresh kind of thing parky. As in the whole history gone; the two current clubs never existed...

[scotchy]

1. From your post that we are talking about: 'If your population as a whole is going up, you could only be attracting younger fans and still see your average age go up'. I don't know what your confusion is.

2. Sorry, I don't understand that after the first sentence.

3. I think this reframes the assumption, or at least dilutes it whilst not giving the other side the same benefit. 'Attracts young fans' would suggest that the average age of the crowd is falling. Attracting 'some' young fans is a lot lower burden. Two 'young' fans being attracted fulfills that. But isn't anything to crow about, really. Then to say that 'all Hull fans speak with one true voice' is a very high burden, and not what I think was being suggested. However, it might be that the majority (or even enough to wind up making a merged club nonviable) do share the same feeling. I get the feeling that this one has run its course and the rebuttal will reiterate that all 20k Hull fans don't have the same opinion.

4. Both do attract more than their constituent parts did, true. But that still means that in terms of bums on seats, you've lost fans (or at best the same number of fans are attending). So, you say that what happened in Sydney is a worthwhile model for Hull. If so, in 18 years time we might have 16k-20k Hull fans attending the Hull KFC games if all goes well. If not, we might have none. Is that worth the risk?

1. I wonder why you removed the sentence before????? Either way. You now understand.

2.some fans won't (attend). Big numbers (of fans) already dont(attending). The vast majority (of fans) weren't (attending) 10-15 years ago.

3. It suggests nothing of the sort. This is you trying to reframe the argument and just outright change it. 2 claims were made. One pretty reasonable with a relatively low burden. That the dragons and tigers attract young fans and the other a less reasonable one with a very high burden. That all hull fans wouldn't attend a merger. Neither of these claims were made by you but you made a big play about how they were equal and we shouldn't treat one more valid than the other even though one is clearly more valid. Now you are trying to change this to two different claims to bring those two claims closer together. Fact is even with a reading which is very kind to you. One of the claims made is very much more valid than the other.

4. Yes. As we are seeing hull cannot support 2 sides.

[zorquif]

1. I wonder why you removed the sentence before????? Either way. You now understand.

2.some fans won't (attend). Big numbers (of fans) already dont(attending). The vast majority (of fans) weren't (attending) 10-15 years ago.

3. It suggests nothing of the sort. This is you trying to reframe the argument and just outright change it. 2 claims were made. One pretty reasonable with a relatively low burden. That the dragons and tigers attract young fans and the other a less reasonable one with a very high burden. That all hull fans wouldn't attend a merger. Neither of these claims were made by you but you made a big play about how they were equal and we shouldn't treat one more valid than the other even though one is clearly more valid. Now you are trying to change this to two different claims to bring those two claims closer together. Fact is even with a reading which is very kind to you. One of the claims made is very much more valid than the other.

4. Yes. As we are seeing hull cannot support 2 sides.

 

1. Because it was a separate sentence. You sentence says what it says.

 

2. I'm not sure of the relevance.

 

3. I didn't make any such 'play'. I asked WHY one should be treated as being more valid than the other. All I have so far is 'because it is crazy not to believe me'. Incidentally, why should your assumption be given the low burden and not the other?

 

4. But the best we can hope for (using your model) is to arrive back at where we are now after 20 years.

[scotchy]

1. Because it was a separate sentence. You sentence says what it says.

2. I'm not sure of the relevance.

3. I didn't make any such 'play'. I asked WHY one should be treated as being more valid than the other. All I have so far is 'because it is crazy not to believe me'. Incidentally, why should your assumption be given the low burden and not the other?

4. But the best we can hope for (using your model) is to arrive back at where we are now after 20 years.

1. Yes and the sentence before adds pretty clear context. Do you only speak in seperate single sentences? Each entirely separate and unrelated to the last?

2. Well then I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse.

3. My assumption isn't given a low burden. The statement itself only demanded such a thing. Try as you might the claims that were made aren't changing and reword them as much as you want. The assumption that 'the dragons and tigers attract young fans' is far more valid than 'hull fans will not support a merged side'.

4. No it isn't. Using your model (not mine) we have 1 strong and growing club as opposed to now where we have two struggling and shrinking ones.

[The Parksider]

Using your model we have 1 strong and growing club as opposed to now where we have two struggling and shrinking ones.

 

There's no business model for this.

 

Merge and...

 

1. Lose SL status

2. Re-start in CC1 and lose most fans

3. Cut off a professional pathway for a poor academy anyway

4. Lose the KC stadium deal and 

5. Ship out all the current top players

[zorquif]

1. Yes and the sentence before adds pretty clear context. Do you only speak in seperate single sentences? Each entirely separate and unrelated to the last?

2. Well then I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse.

3. My assumption isn't given a low burden. The statement itself only demanded such a thing. Try as you might the claims that were made aren't changing and reword them as much as you want. The assumption that 'the dragons and tigers attract young fans' is far more valid than 'hull fans will not support a merged side'.

4. No it isn't. Using your model (not mine) we have 1 strong and growing club as opposed to now where we have two struggling and shrinking ones.

 

1. The sentence makes sense alone. A population can go up.

 

2. Or that your multiple bracket sentence isn't clear?

 

3. I don't think that it necessarily is. There is no evidence to support either.

 

4. You say that what happened at Sydney is a valid model for what will happen at Hull. I don't really agree. So it is your model. Looking at what happened in Sydney suggests that 17 years post-merger, we will have the same (well, slightly fewer fans) watching the new team as were watching both teams combined.

[The Parksider]

Looking at what happened in Sydney suggests that 17 years post-merger, we will have the same (well, slightly fewer fans) watching the new team as were watching both teams combined.

 

No we won't:

 

Merge and...

 

1. Lose SL status

2. Re-start in CC1 and lose most fans

3. Cut off a professional pathway for a poor academy anyway

4. Lose the KC stadium deal and 

5. Ship out all the current top players

[The Parksider]

 Last time I looked fc academy was going rather well. 

 

Not too long ago I looked and Wakefield topped the academy league.

[scotchy]

There's no business model for this.

Merge and...

1. Lose SL status

2. Re-start in CC1 and lose most fans

3. Cut off a professional pathway for a poor academy anyway

4. Lose the KC stadium deal and

5. Ship out all the current top players

you are right. That doesn't sound like a business model at all. Just a list of things.

[scotchy]

1. The sentence makes sense alone. A population can go up.

2. Or that your multiple bracket sentence isn't clear?

3. I don't think that it necessarily is. There is no evidence to support either.

4. You say that what happened at Sydney is a valid model for what will happen at Hull. I don't really agree. So it is your model. Looking at what happened in Sydney suggests that 17 years post-merger, we will have the same (well, slightly fewer fans) watching the new team as were watching both teams combined.

1. It does indeed make sense on it's own. So does this one. But the one preceeding it added context. I can't be the person breaking this news to you. Surely you are aware that sentences can be related to one another?

2.it seems pretty clear. Perhaps you can tell us which part you are struggling with?

3. If you think that 'hull fans will not support a merged side' is an assumption as valid as 'the dragons and tigers attract young fans' there is nothing I can add. Your statement can be left to wallow in its ridiculousness

4. I didn't. I have never said what has happened in Sydney will happen in Hull. I simply highlighted them of successful examples of a merger. I.e evidence that a merger can be a success and definitive statements such as 'fans will not support a merged side' are demonstrably wrong. Fans have and continue to do such a thing.