Hull FC and Hull KR to merge...

[scotchy]

Yep, the word 'suggests' doesn't imply anything about the relationship between Sydney and Hull other than something happened in one place that could happen in another. Or might not.

you see a headline. Moon landing suggests alien life a possibility' would you bit expect the article to be about something we had learned which suggests alien life more of a possibility than previously?

[zorquif]

1. Fine.

2. You are still insisting this isn't contradictory?

3. I'm assuming nothing. We know so far three things. That both are colourless, both are liquids, and it is possible for colourless liquids to freeze. So unless there is some fundamental difference between water and nameless colourless liquid we know it is possible for nameless colourless liquids to freeze. If you are suggesting there is. Show it.

4. It is for you to show they are different because you are claiming they are or could be different.

If you have two liquids. One is water, on is nameless colourless liquid. You know it is possible for water to freeze. Is it possible for nameless colourless liquid to freeze? The answer 'unless there is some fundamental difference between water and nameless colourless liquid, then yes'. That is a factually correct statement. It is a factually correct argument. It isn't an argument from ignorance.

If you say, 'it might not freeze' then you are stating there is or may be a fundamental difference and it is up to you to show them.

All I have said is that Sydney proves the possibility of success. You are saying success might not be possible. The only reason that success might not be possible is if there is some fundamental difference between hull and Sydney ergo it is your claim there is or maybe some fundamental difference that would make success impossible. It is not my job to disprove a fundamental difference you have decided may or may not apply and you refuse to tell us what it is. It is yours to prove that it could.

 

2. Yes.

 

3. I think you've dragged this to another ground again. Looking to your reinterpretation, are saying that you only meant that the 'success' of the mergers in Sydney only shows the possibility of success of a Hull merger? If so, that doesn't disprove that it could fail because 'just  merger'. In that case, we agree.

 

And if I say might not, I am not saying there is or may be, I am saying there may be. This is different to what you claim. If I am questioning something, why is it for me to disprove or prove either side? I am not asserting anything. I am querying. In absence of evidence or solid reasoning from either side, I will not be persuaded either way. 

 

4. I think this use of possibility is a new thing. If I recall correctly, this all comes from the assertion that because the mergers in Sydney were successful, then this disproves that a potential merger in Hull won't fail because 'just merger'.  Are you now saying it doesn't prove or disprove anything? Merely suggests that there is a possibility that it may not fail because 'just merger'? If so, I agree.

[Krytensmate]

My belief (perhaps similar to scotchy's) is that if there was a Hull merger then the people of Hull would go on the same journey as the people of Sydney did with their mergers, which have proven to be successful. 

 

That - I think most would assume - is a logical and sensible belief, based as it is on real events.

 

If you're saying this isn't the case then you need to give some reasoning as to why. This will be theoretical reasoning, which is in itself fine and valid. So let's hear it.

To achieve what you suggest would require an East Hull club to no longer exist , or perhaps a west Hull club to no longer exist , now as we have seen in the past , we had a west Hull club in SL for several years , and yet many fans in East Hull didn't move to it , instead remaining as supporters of a club in East Hull in a lower tier ( even if they only attended the high profile games

So to achieve what you want would require a clubs owners to shut down the club they support , something I don't believe they would do

Anyway while your visiting the board , how about your vision for RL in the future , who's in and who's out ?

[The Parksider]

Whats all this Zorquif, engaging in respectful listening discussion and putting forward nuanced points? This is an internet discussion forum, you're meant to win and be King of the Internet, and all of Rugby League will be great for ever more!

 

Don't we all aspire to be Parky?

 

Read the board rules, and grow up a bit.

[scotchy]

2. Yes.

 

3. I think you've dragged this to another ground again. Looking to your reinterpretation, are saying that you only meant that the 'success' of the mergers in Sydney only shows the possibility of success of a Hull merger? If so, that doesn't disprove that it could fail because 'just  merger'. In that case, we agree.

 

And if I say might not, I am not saying there is or may be, I am saying there may be. This is different to what you claim. If I am questioning something, why is it for me to disprove or prove either side? I am not asserting anything. I am querying. In absence of evidence or solid reasoning from either side, I will not be persuaded either way. 

 

4. I think this use of possibility is a new thing. If I recall correctly, this all comes from the assertion that because the mergers in Sydney were successful, then this disproves that a potential merger in Hull won't fail because 'just merger'.  Are you now saying it doesn't prove or disprove anything? Merely suggests that there is a possibility that it may not fail because 'just merger'? If so, I agree.

2. then you are wrong....... or you pretending that "is or may be" does not encompass "may be" is just nonsense. It self evidently does.

 

3.it is not a reinterpretation, it is the same interpretation, I have always said it only proves the possibility of success. And without a fundamental difference it does prove that it cannot fail because 'just merger' because we know mergers can be successful. Merger plus fundamental difference, possibly not. But you aren't saying there may be a fundamental difference, except when you are saying there may be a fundamental difference and these things might be them.

 

4. Im saying, lacking the fundamental difference you suggest may exist but refuse to show or prove, then we can prove, from the fact we have successful mergers, that the reason a merger may fail isnt "because merger". I am saying that should a merger fail, "because merger" it could only do so because of a fundamental difference between the two examples. I don't believe a fundamental difference exists, I cannot prove it because I cannot prove something (anything in fact) doesn't exist anywhere in time and space (your two fundamental differences that you say may be fundamental differences,

 

if of course you were to say they may be fundamental differences.

 

Which you aren't.

 

But we cannot discount them or anything else because they or anything else may be fundamental differences,

 

even though we aren't saying there may be fundamental differences at all 

 

 

Just that these could be those things we aren't saying do or may exist.)

 

if we ever get to the point where you can admit you are saying these things do or may exist, it is up to you to show. Because it is you claiming the possible existence of something.

[scotchy]

To achieve what you suggest would require an East Hull club to no longer exist , or perhaps a west Hull club to no longer exist , now as we have seen in the past , we had a west Hull club in SL for several years , and yet many fans in East Hull didn't move to it , instead remaining as supporters of a club in East Hull in a lower tier ( even if they only attended the high profile games

So to achieve what you want would require a clubs owners to shut down the club they support , something I don't believe they would do

Anyway while your visiting the board , how about your vision for RL in the future , who's in and who's out ?

They didn't remain supports of a club in east Hull, you are kidding yourself if you think none of the 10k or so new fans Hull gained were either previously fans of HKR or fans who would previously have become HKR fans (i.e RL fans from east hull)

 

And it would be crazy if either club never mind a merged one was only targeting those from West or East hull and not those from Cottingham, Beverley, Holderness, Hessle or North Ferriby

[zorquif]

2. then you are wrong....... or you pretending that "is or may be" does not encompass "may be" is just nonsense. It self evidently does.

3.it is not a reinterpretation, it is the same interpretation, I have always said it only proves the possibility of success. And without a fundamental difference it does prove that it cannot fail because 'just merger' because we know mergers can be successful. Merger plus fundamental difference, possibly not. But you aren't saying there may be a fundamental difference, except when you are saying there may be a fundamental difference and these things might be them.

4. Im saying, lacking the fundamental difference you suggest may exist but refuse to show or prove, then we can prove, from the fact we have successful mergers, that the reason a merger may fail isnt "because merger". I am saying that should a merger fail, "because merger" it could only do so because of a fundamental difference between the two examples. I don't believe a fundamental difference exists, I cannot prove it because I cannot prove something (anything in fact) doesn't exist anywhere in time and space (your two fundamental differences that you say may be fundamental differences,

if of course you were to say they may be fundamental differences.

Which you aren't.

But we cannot discount them or anything else because they or anything else may be fundamental differences,

even though we aren't saying there may be fundamental differences at all

Just that these could be those things we aren't saying do or may exist.)

if we ever get to the point where you can admit you are saying these things do or may exist, it is up to you to show. Because it is you claiming the possible existence of something.

2.A perfect example of you not reading what is written. All along I have said 'may be' does not mean 'is'. I never said is, or if I did I explained what I actually meant soon after.

3. We agree that you said that the success in Sydney disproves that failure in hull could be due to 'just merger'. That is what started this. So you postulate something and say that it is true until proven otherwise. Argument from ignorance. Also, just because it is possible that it won't fail doesn't mean that it will succeed. And it doesn't mean that it won't fail for any possible reason. Oh, and again - may doesn't mean is. Incidentally, I suggested two things that could possibly be considered fundamental differences - suggested, didn't state as fact. These were dismissed out of hand with no reasoning. Another difference, which may or may not be fundamental is the potential fan base. Can you explain why this difference is not fundamental. In fact, and I get the feeling that you'll just say no, but could you suggest a possible difference that you would consider a fundamental difference that is not present here, or in your opinion could no difference could ever be considered fundamental and so could never be pointed out?

4. Can you not see how this is a reversal of burden? You say that something disproves something, but it is up to me to refute your statement. Even though I have never stated that either position is true. Classic argument from ignorance.

I am saying they may exist. But that doesn't give me the burden to refute you. Somebody questioning your position doesn't put burden on them. It is still up to you to support your position.

[zorquif]

Just wondering - if you can say that it cannot fail because just merger absent significant differences, can I say that it will fail because just merger absent significant similarities and then ask you to show the significant similarities? That is not my position by the way, I'm just probing your 'logic'

[Krytensmate]

They didn't remain supports of a club in east Hull, you are kidding yourself if you think none of the 10k or so new fans Hull gained were either previously fans of HKR or fans who would previously have become HKR fans (i.e RL fans from east hull)

 

And it would be crazy if either club never mind a merged one was only targeting those from West or East hull and not those from Cottingham, Beverley, Holderness, Hessle or North Ferriby

I have no idea where any of those places are , or what any fantasy club might do in some alternative universe inside your head

However I would expect that both current Hull clubs already try to build support from all of Hull and many surrounding towns already , only an idiot would even question that

[scotchy]

2.A perfect example of you not reading what is written. All along I have said 'may be' does not mean 'is'. I never said is, or if I did I explained what I actually meant soon after.

3. We agree that you said that the success in Sydney disproves that failure in hull could be due to 'just merger'. That is what started this. So you postulate something and say that it is true until proven otherwise. Argument from ignorance. Also, just because it is possible that it won't fail doesn't mean that it will succeed. And it doesn't mean that it won't fail for any possible reason. Oh, and again - may doesn't mean is.

4. Can you not see how this is a reversal of burden? You say that something disproves something, but it is up to me to refute your statement. Even though I have never stated that either position is true. Classic argument from ignorance.

I am saying they may exist. But that doesn't give me the burden to refute you. Somebody questioning your position doesn't put burden on them. It is still up to you to support your position.

2.you been drinking? this is completely irrelevant to what I wrote, which was that "is or may be" encompasses "may be" it obviously does, its right there. It says it.

Now you are banging on that "may be" does not mean "is", which nobody said was the case. Simply that "is or may be" encompasses two things "is" and "may be". Im guessing you understand what the word "or" means.

 

3. No, it isn't true until proven otherwise. It is true because it was proven true. It was proven that a merger can work. For you to suggest that the proof of what has happened isn't applicable, you are suggesting there is some fundamental difference between them

 

4. There is no reversal of burden. I am not asking you to refute my statement. I am asking you to evidence your claim that there is or may be (whichever you choose) a fundamental difference.

 

Lets set this out for you.

 

What do we know and have proof of?

 

Mergers can be successful.

That's it. That's all we are applying from one example to the to other. That is the only variable dealt with.

 

A merger in Hull fails, Why did this happen?

Well we know mergers can be successful so it can only be because A) some fundamental difference between Hull and the examples where mergers did happen and were successful

 

or

 

Some other reason

 

We know this because otherwise we would need to accept that even under the same circumstances with all the other variables being exactly the same (i.e Hull and Sydney being the same and there being no difference) a merger in Hull could fail for no other reason than "because merger". Something which cant be true (and has been proven to not be true because a merger in those same circumstances has happened and was successful) and is an argument even you haven't made.

 

Now I don't believe A exists, you state it may do. The burden lies with you to prove A may exist. Not to me to prove it doesn't exist.

 

This principle could be applied to anything.

 

You could change it to A) there being a possibility that someone starts up a new club and all the fans go to that instead

 

or

 

Some other reason.

 

If you were to say, well such a thing doesn't exist, and I were to say, it may do, it would be up to me to prove it may exist, not you to prove it doesn't and wont.

[scotchy]

Just wondering - if you can say that it cannot fail because just merger absent significant differences, can I say that it will fail because just merger absent significant similarities and then ask you to show the significant similarities? That is not my position by the way, I'm just probing your 'logic'

no, because neither you nor are I are claiming the merger wouldn't fail because there are significant similarities

 

Simply that what happened in the last experiment will happen again unless there are differences, if you think there are differences, prove it.

 

and as you have been advised before, I could list all the similarities it is possible to have, it doesn't mean there isn't some fundamental difference which makes all of them irrelevant.

 

Perhaps that will help, a simple way to see it, listing all the similarities in the world will not prove there aren't fundamental differences. Listing one fundamental difference would prove there is fundamental differences.

[zorquif]

2.you been drinking? this is completely irrelevant to what I wrote, which was that "is or may be" encompasses "may be" it obviously does, its right there. It says it.

Now you are banging on that "may be" does not mean "is", which nobody said was the case. Simply that "is or may be" encompasses two things "is" and "may be". Im guessing you understand what the word "or" means.

3. No, it isn't true until proven otherwise. It is true because it was proven true. It was proven that a merger can work. For you to suggest that the proof of what has happened isn't applicable, you are suggesting there is some fundamental difference between them

4. There is no reversal of burden. I am not asking you to refute my statement. I am asking you to evidence your claim that there is or may be (whichever you choose) a fundamental difference.

Lets set this out for you.

What do we know and have proof of?

Mergers can be successful.

That's it. That's all we are applying from one example to the to other. That is the only variable dealt with.

A merger in Hull fails, Why did this happen?

Well we know mergers can be successful so it can only be because A) some fundamental difference between Hull and the examples where mergers did happen and were successful

or

Some other reason

We know this because otherwise we would need to accept that even under the same circumstances with all the other variables being exactly the same (i.e Hull and Sydney being the same and there being no difference) a merger in Hull could fail for no other reason than "because merger". Something which cant be true (and has been proven to not be true because a merger in those same circumstances has happened and was successful) and is an argument even you haven't made.

Now I don't believe A exists, you state it may do. The burden lies with you to prove A may exist. Not to me to prove it doesn't exist.

This principle could be applied to anything.

You could change it to A) there being a possibility that someone starts up a new club and all the fans go to that instead

or

Some other reason.

If you were to say, well such a thing doesn't exist, and I were to say, it may do, it would be up to me to prove it may exist, not you to prove it doesn't and wont.

2. I never said is or may be doesn't encompass may be. I said may be doesn't encompass is. But I never said is or may be. Or if i did i explain more thoroughly soon after. So, er, what's your point.

3. I have never said merged clubs can't succeed. I agree that it has been proven that mergers can succeed (well, not fail). What I am not sure about is that this disproves that mergers can fail due to just merger. Incidentally, your claim has changed. Originally your claim was that this disproves that mergers can fail due to just merger. Now it is batting some fundamental difference.

4. There is reversal of burden. In an argument from ignorance. You are saying 'this applies because there is no difference. That is true until you prove otherwise'. Do you understand that by saying may I mean I'm not sure they are there? How can I evidence something I'm not sure of.

4. Again - I would like to go back to the original assertion. That what happenened in Sydney disproves that mergers can fail because 'just merger'. Are we in agreement that that statement is incorrect? It is now barring any fundamental differences. So the statement should be at least that what happened in Sydney disproves that a merger can fail because just merger, provided that there are no fundamental differences between conditions for the new merger and those relevant to rugby league i sydney in 1997. Are we happy with that?

I must say, in a similar way that you mention about the similarities it does seem that someone could list all the possible differences and they'd be dismissed as not being fundamental differences.

[zorquif]

no, because neither you nor are I are claiming the merger wouldn't fail because there are significant similarities

Simply that what happened in the last experiment will happen again unless there are differences, if you think there are differences, prove it.

and as you have been advised before, I could list all the similarities it is possible to have, it doesn't mean there isn't some fundamental difference which makes all of them irrelevant.

Perhaps that will help, a simple way to see it, listing all the similarities in the world will not prove there aren't fundamental differences. Listing one fundamental difference would prove there is fundamental differences.

It was a gedanken experiment. Imagine someone took the other hypothesis. Why is their position of it failing unless there are fundamental similarities less valid than your position. In parallel to your comment, someone could list all the differences in the world and they could be dismissed as not being fundamental differences.

[ChrisL2]

Read the board rules, and grow up a bit.

 

I was referring to the famous Yorkshire-born chat show host who I've heard may surreptitiously post on here.  Who are you? 

[scotchy]

2. I never said is or may be doesn't encompass may be. I said may be doesn't encompass is. But I never said is or may be. Or if i did i explain more thoroughly soon after. So, er, what's your point.

3. I have never said merged clubs can't succeed. I agree that it has been proven that mergers can succeed (well, not fail). What I am not sure about is that this disproves that mergers can fail due to just merger. Incidentally, your claim has changed. Originally your claim was that this disproves that mergers can fail due to just merger. Now it is batting some fundamental difference.

4. There is reversal of burden. In an argument from ignorance. You are saying 'this applies because there is no difference. That is true until you prove otherwise'. Do you understand that by saying may I mean I'm not sure they are there? How can I evidence something I'm not sure of.

4. Again - I would like to go back to the original assertion. That what happenened in Sydney disproves that mergers can fail because 'just merger'. Are we in agreement that that statement is incorrect? It is now barring any fundamental differences. So the statement should be at least that what happened in Sydney disproves that a merger can fail because just merger, provided that there are no fundamental differences between conditions for the new merger and those relevant to rugby league i sydney in 1997. Are we happy with that?

I must say, in a similar way that you mention about the similarities it does seem that someone could list all the possible differences and they'd be dismissed as not being fundamental differences.

2. it wasn't my point. It was yours which is strangely the may be doesn't encompass is, even though nobody had said it did.

 

3. And again, I didn't say you said merged clubs couldn't work. I said you had said that the proof we had seen that mergers can work (in Sydney) weren't applicable to Hull. Which you are. I then said that barring some fundamental difference it can. You have said there may be. I asked you to show that to be so. you wouldn't.

 

4. It isn't a reversal of burden, simply that if you are saying something may exist, it is up to you show that thing may exist. Even by disproving every possible (is such a thing were possible) fundamental difference it still doesn't prove that there isn't another fundamental difference somewhere within space and time. That's why it isn't up to me to prove this thing doesn't exist. Not only would it be impossible, it would be pointless.

 

5. No, it isn't wrong. It is factually correct. We have one piece of information, that mergers can be successful. From that we can deduce that a merger cannot fail because it is a merger.

 

it can fail because it is a merger and a fundamental difference, but we have no information that there is or may be such a thing. We only have the information that mergers can be successful. If you want to us to add the possibility that there is a fundamental difference, it is up to you to show such a thing is possible.

 

Disagreeing whether something is or isn't a fundamental difference is a completely different thing to a list of similarities not proving there aren't also differences.

[scotchy]

It was a gedanken experiment. Imagine someone took the other hypothesis. Why is their position of it failing unless there are fundamental similarities less valid than your position. In parallel to your comment, someone could list all the differences in the world and they could be dismissed as not being fundamental differences.

it may be so. If somebody wants to put forward such a hypothesis that is up to them. But nobody has as of yet.

 

Someone could list all the differences in the world and they could not be fundamental differences.  it isn't up to me to show that every possible difference is not fundamental and that there are no other possible differences. If you would like prove there is fundamental differences you simply need to a show that a difference is fundamental. Once you have proved there is a fundamental difference, you proved that fundamental differences exist. Even if I show you a fundamental similarity,  a fundamental difference may still exist.

[scotchy]

I have no idea where any of those places are , or what any fantasy club might do in some alternative universe inside your head

However I would expect that both current Hull clubs already try to build support from all of Hull and many surrounding towns already , only an idiot would even question that

Im pretty sure neither Hull KR or Hull FC are fantasy clubs. If you accept that the hull clubs are already trying and attracting fans from all over hull and the surrounding area, your argument that having one hull club would mean that fans from east or west hull would support the east or west hull club in the lower leagues becomes invalid. You already accept that fans from both areas will support a club not in that area.

[zorquif]

2. But I never said 'is or may be'. Or if I did, I corrected myself soon after and on numerous occasions. So, what is the relevance of 'is or may be' encompassing anything?

3. No I didn't - I said it may not be applicable in hull. And then you said it was barring any fundamental differences and then asked me to disprove your position.

4. It is - you have made a claim. That what happened in Sydney disproves that mergers can fail because just merger. You need to support that. Your support is apparently barring any major differences that it does (which is essentially just saying that your statement is true until proven false). Which shifts burden from you. And once again, I said may, not are. Also, you have set up a scientifically unfalsifiable claim because you won't give an example of a difference that might be considered fundamental, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you would not consider any difference fundamental.

Well I suppose that doesn't make it formally scientifically unfalsifiable. However, I don't think anyone on here has the time or money to go around merging clubs until one fails for something that may be considered just merger and recording the differences. Which is what you seem to need to acknowledge that a difference is fundamental. So it is an unfalsifiable claim to all intents and purposes.

5. it is not factually correct. What is factually correct is that mergers between St George and Illawarra or balmain and Wests in 1997 won't fail because just merger. Anything else is extrapolation or merger. You even agreed that there must be no fundamental differences for what happened in Sydney to say anything about anywhere else.

I am now wondering if we are just coming from different places on what 'just merger' means. In your thoughts is that limited to the mere acts of naming a new club and withdrawing the former two?

Also - do you think it is impossible that there are fundamental differences between what happened in Sydney in 1997 and any other possible merger anywhere ever in rugby league?

What you said may be different, but it still has the same effect. If the other side will never acknowledge any difference as fundamental then without running the merger and showing the failure is due to one particular difference then it is impossible to prove that the difference is fundamental. That is obviously a massively high burden of proof, rendering discussion on a message board moot. Now, admitting that certain differences would be fundamental makes things possible to talk about, but it seems that you think it is impossible for such a thing to exist. As such somebody could list all possible differences and you just dismiss them as not being fundamental.

As to the similarities discussion, the devil is in the detail. In particular the word fundamental. If you look to what I typed, I think I said fundamental similarities. Which undermines your counter to some extent. If you were to list the fundamental similarities and someone came along with a difference you could say 'no, my fundamental similarity makes that difference mere detail because x, y and z'

[Krytensmate]

They didn't remain supports of a club in east Hull, you are kidding yourself if you think NONE of the 10k or so new fans Hull gained were either previously fans of HKR or fans who would previously have become HKR fans (i.e RL fans from east hull)

 

Can't you read ? , I said MANY

You really need to stop making up things people haven't posted

[Krytensmate]

Im pretty sure neither Hull KR or Hull FC are fantasy clubs. If you accept that the hull clubs are already trying and attracting fans from all over hull and the surrounding area, your argument that having one hull club would mean that fans from east or west hull would support the east or west hull club in the lower leagues becomes invalid. You already accept that fans from both areas will support a club not in that area.

But a new merged club is a fantasy club , in your mind only , because anybody with a modicum of common sense knows it won't work and will not happen

[Rover and out]

Different governing bodies, different league set ups, different locations with different attitudes towards sport and mergers, fans of both clubs in this forum saying they don't want it and wouldn't support it, different owners who may not be interested, money issues.

These are fundamental differences. So if the posters who arguing that there are no differences between the Sidney mergers and the ones being proposed for hull could tell me why these don't apply and wouldn't affect a merger or how they could be overcome that would be great.

[scotchy]

2. But I never said 'is or may be'. Or if I did, I corrected myself soon after and on numerous occasions. So, what is the relevance of 'is or may be' encompassing anything?

3. No I didn't - I said it may not be applicable in hull. And then you said it was barring any fundamental differences and then asked me to disprove your position.

4. It is - you have made a claim. That what happened in Sydney disproves that mergers can fail because just merger. You need to support that. Your support is apparently barring any major differences that it does (which is essentially just saying that your statement is true until proven false). Which shifts burden from you. And once again, I said may, not are. Also, you have set up a scientifically unfalsifiable claim because you won't give an example of a difference that might be considered fundamental, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you would not consider any difference fundamental.

Well I suppose that doesn't make it formally scientifically unfalsifiable. However, I don't think anyone on here has the time or money to go around merging clubs until one fails for something that may be considered just merger and recording the differences. Which is what you seem to need to acknowledge that a difference is fundamental. So it is an unfalsifiable claim to all intents and purposes.

5. it is not factually correct. What is factually correct is that mergers between St George and Illawarra or balmain and Wests in 1997 won't fail because just merger. Anything else is extrapolation or merger. You even agreed that there must be no fundamental differences for what happened in Sydney to say anything about anywhere else.

6.I am now wondering if we are just coming from different places on what 'just merger' means. In your thoughts is that limited to the mere acts of naming a new club and withdrawing the former two?

7.Also - do you think it is impossible that there are fundamental differences between what happened in Sydney in 1997 and any other possible merger anywhere ever in rugby league?

8.What you said may be different, but it still has the same effect. If the other side will never acknowledge any difference as fundamental then without running the merger and showing the failure is due to one particular difference then it is impossible to prove that the difference is fundamental. That is obviously a massively high burden of proof, rendering discussion on a message board moot. Now, admitting that certain differences would be fundamental makes things possible to talk about, but it seems that you think it is impossible for such a thing to exist. As such somebody could list all possible differences and you just dismiss them as not being fundamental.

9.As to the similarities discussion, the devil is in the detail. In particular the word fundamental. If you look to what I typed, I think I said fundamental similarities. Which undermines your counter to some extent. If you were to list the fundamental similarities and someone came along with a difference you could say 'no, my fundamental similarity makes that difference mere detail because x, y and z'

2. If you say may be. Which you have said numerous times. It is factually correct to say "you said is or may be".

3.So you said it may not be applicable in Hull. Prove it may not be applicable in Hull. That is your claim.

4. No it isn't. The statement I made was self evident. If 1 single merger ever was successful. It disproves that the sole reason a merger fails is because it was a merger.

It is not up to me to give you an example of your claim.

I only bring this up because of your previous pedantry but you clearly don't understand falsifiability. You are using them in the wrong way around. My claim is entirely falsifiable. You can prove my claim (that there are no fundamental differences) false by providing 1 example of a fundamental difference (to be specific a fundamental difference which would make what happened in Sydney impossible in Hull). It is your claim (that there may be fundamental differences) which is unfalsifiable. All the examples in the world will not prove that that there isn't somewhere a fundamental difference. Unfalsifiable doesn't mean that you can't find an experiment to prove your claim. It means you can. And it is possible for you to do so.

I'll even give you one. The merger between Sheffield and Huddersfield was fundamentally different to that which happened in Sydney in 1997 because no real attempt was made to keep Sheffield a meaningful part or that merger. Whereas the mergers in Sydney were two equal parties in the same area joining together, the Huddersfield-sheffield merger was in practice, a side from one city taking the club of another.

5. Yes, if there are fundamental differences between two things then you cannot 'read on' from one to another. In the absence of those differences then you can. You are saying there may be those fundamental differences away you go...

6. By just merger I mean the sole reason for the failure is by virtue of them being merged. What else could 'just merger' mean other than the merger in isolation and in and of itself?

7. I think it to be an impossibility for anyone to say it is impossible for these fundamental differences to exist. These fundamental differences are unfalsifiable, that is they can never be proven to not exist. There will always be the possibility they do exist. But it is up to those claiming they may exist to show them.

In fact there have already been examples of fundamental differences on this thread where I have said I wouldn't do it. Under P+R for instance I wouldn't see the point in a merger. That is a fundamental difference currently that could very easily have the effect you suggest. (But I don't think we should have such a set up)

8. It is easy to show a fundamental difference. If you were to suggest that leeds and Oxford merge for instance. I would argue that the difference in size between Leeds and Oxford, as well as the distance between them would likely leave Oxford swallowed up by leeds and as such would be fundamentally different from a merger between St George and Illawara.

And you could give a long list of differences and they could be dismissed as not fundamental. Because you could give a long list of differences which aren't fundamental. It is up to you to prove a strong argument that one is.

9. My argument is that we can 'read on' Sydney to hull in absence of fundamental differences. Not because of fundamental similarities. If you are arguing there are or aren't fundamental similarities you are doing that with someone else.

[scotchy]

But a new merged club is a fantasy club , in your mind only , because anybody with a modicum of common sense knows it won't work and will not happen

that post was about the history of the existing clubs. I didn't mention a merged one.

[scotchy]

But a new merged club is a fantasy club , in your mind only , because anybody with a modicum of common sense knows it won't work and will not happen

seems an odd thing for someone who doesn't know the geography of the hull area and what they are doing to gain fans throughout the city claim then doesn't it.

[scotchy]

Different governing bodies, different league set ups, different locations with different attitudes towards sport and mergers, fans of both clubs in this forum saying they don't want it and wouldn't support it, different owners who may not be interested, money issues.

These are fundamental differences. So if the posters who arguing that there are no differences between the Sidney mergers and the ones being proposed for hull could tell me why these don't apply and wouldn't affect a merger or how they could be overcome that would be great.

brilliant. Finally someone who understands it.

I would agree under the current league structure there is no point. That is a fundamental difference (one I mentioned before) but it is something that can be changed.

I'm not sure the governing body will make all that much difference. I'm not sure the location makes any difference whatsoever.

I would say that the initial resistance is the same. The fans of St George, Illawara, Balmain and wests were very very much against the merger. I would ask in what way you propose the attitudes there are fundamentally different?

The owners have already been addressed. They would need to be in favour the same as the other clubs.

Money issues?