Hull FC and Hull KR to merge...

[zorquif]

Hey you are getting it. You are almost understanding. It would be up to me to disprove it. Yes, yes it would it indeed. It would indeed be my job to falsify your falsifiable statement. Not yours disprove an unfalsifiable one.. Because as you can see from your own example. Such a thing is impossible. I think it is sinking in isn't it.

 

Your last two posts are entirely correct. The burden is undoubtedly on me in this example. This is the opposite of your previous 10 pages of argument, but you are indeed correct here.

 

I know you struggle to keep up with people acknowledging things and refining their arguments, so let me clear this up.

 

I conceded that you can't show an absence of something, but I suggested some things that you can show a presence of to support your claim of Sydney in 1997 disproving that a merger can fail because just merger. You declined that.

 

I still maintain that the person making a claim has the burden of proof to substantiate it. 

 

In this case, the claim 'Sydney in 1997 disproves that a merger can fail because 'just merger'' has only been substantiated by the idea that there are no fundamental differences between Sydney in 1997 and Hull in 2015 (well, the statement as written that should read 'and any other possible merger'). That has then been claimed as true until proven otherwise - an argument from ignorance. As such, the claim 'Sydney in 1997 disproves that a merger can fail because 'just merger'' has not been substantiated with anything other than a fallacy.

 

In the case of my statement that not anything is theoretically possible is too general. However, I can rephrase this to a defendable position - not anything is possible in the scope of the universe as far as understood by the scope of human knowledge, understanding and experience so far. And I think that would reasonably apply to a merger.

 

For what it is worth, I think the Pythagoras example is at least as relevant as your Godzilla example. I reckon that you come across more triangles in rugby league than you do Japanese aquatic monsters. And furthermore, I am not even sure that there is a possibility that this could not be true; to be a 2d right angle triangle, it has to satisfy certain conditions. Pythagoras showed from first principles that his theorum must always be true for a shape satisfying those conditions. Therefore, if a shape doesn't conform to Pythagoras' theorum, then it can't be a 2d right angled triangle. But that is an aside, and I am not sure about that.

 

However, as it is, you want to apply the argument from ignorance more generally. 

 

In that case, you concede my point 3. in post #470 is correct. As such, you confirm that your point 3. in post #469 are incorrect. From this we can only take it that your understanding of the 'very heart of the matter' (your words) is incorrect.

 

I think from that, we can say that your conclusions concerning 'the matter' must be flawed, if not wholly incorrect; from shaky foundations come shaky buildings.

 

Even disregarding the fact that you are incorrect about the 'very heart of the matter', the following applies.

 

You agree that a fundamental difference between Sydney in 1997 and and any other merger (or even Hull in 2015) means that what happened in Sydney in 1997 does not apply to the other merger. 

 

It is possible that there may be fundamental differences between Sydney in 1997 and any other merger (or even Hull in 2015). This is not a throw away triviality, as not everything is possible. In fact you concede hat there may be fundamental differences between Sydney in 1997 and any other merger (or even Hull in 2015) and even exemplify this point. 

 

If there are possible mergers where what happened in Sydney in 1997 does not apply, then there are mergers that what happened in Sydney in 1997 cannot disprove that it can fail because 'just merger'. 

 

As such, it cannot be said that Sydney in 1997 disproves that a merger can fail because 'just merger'. 

 

Even if we take the narrowest possible definition of just merger - it may be that no merger could ever fail because 'just merger'. However, Sydney in 1997 does not prove that, for the reasons above.

 

I will say again, if you want to say that Sydney in 1997 disproves that a merger can fail because 'just merger' provided that there are no fundamental differences, then I agree.

 

I notice that you want to leave this... provided you have the last word?

[scotchy]

Haha that's a whole lot of rhetoric playing both sides just to try and cover that you were wrong. It's funny because all that rhetoric hasn't even addressed you made the completely opposite argument in this very page and tried to put the burden on me in both examples.

You were wrong. You continue to be wrong. And every post you are making is simply digging you further in to your hole of wrongness.

Sufficed to say if you think we cannot learn from the previous examples its up to you to show the difference. Not me to prove they don't exist. If you want to hide behind rhetorical nonsense to cover for the paucity of your argument then feel free. But all you are achieving here is being wrong in a semantic argument instead of even trying to be right on the subject matter.

[zorquif]

I wasn't. I was right. And I have shown it from every angle.

 

We can learn from previous examples. I never said otherwise. All I said was that previous examples do not necessarily apply to all future examples, which is what the statement regarding Sydney in 1997 disproving that a merger can fail because just merger suggests. If there is a possibility that there is a merger to which Sydney in 1997 does not apply, then the statement that Sydney in 1997 disproves that a merger can fail because just merger is necessarily incorrect. If there is a possible merger to which Sydney in 1997 does not apply, Sydney in 1997 cannot prove or disprove anything about it. My position has been shown to be correct repeatedly, and you even agreed.

 

All we can say from Sydney in 1997 is that it suggests that a merger will not necessarily fail because just merger, not that it disproves that a merger can fail because just merger. As I said many times, and I believe ChrisL2 agreed with.

 

My argument is not pauce. It is strong and entirely correct, both in subject-matter and 'semantics'. As I have shown from various angles. To say that something is true until proven wrong is a pauce argument, a well known fallacy even. But even using that premise, you are wrong.

 

Even if there is a semantic argument here, that isn't all there has been. There has been a discussion showing that your statement  regarding Sydney in 1997 disproving that a merger can fail because just merger is wrong. This has been done in various ways. However you twist it, you are wrong.

 

Now, if you want to claim despite all available evidence that you are right and that this is merely semantics and rhetoric, then you go ahead. 

[zorquif]

I fact, it is clear now that we have both ended up at the point where I am saying you are wrong, and you are saying I am wrong. It appears that neither of us has anything that would persuade the other party from his position.

 

I say that we shake hands, and agree that we'll never see eye to eye on this.

 

I couldn't find a hand shake emoticon, so have a cheers

[scotchy]

Keep trying. You aren't closer to being right. Just using the same rhetorical techniques to try and claim you are.

You can use the same circular reasoning, bring up all the straw men you want, demand all the unfalsifiable claims are falsified,remove all the context you wish, pretend you don't understand what ever you want, and try and distract with arguments over distinctions without practical differences, you are still wrong whether you believe it or not.

[scotchy]

I fact, it is clear now that we have both ended up at the point where I am saying you are wrong, and you are saying I am wrong. It appears that neither of us has anything that would persuade the other party from his position.

I say that we shake hands, and agree that we'll never see eye to eye on this.

I couldn't find a hand shake emoticon, so have a cheers

agreed.

[DeadShotKeen]

Can someone please tell me who's gonna fund this merger? 

 

This has to be most inane and rhetorical repeating question on this forum.

 

Who funds a radical reshape of the sport? Hmm let's see now. The sport's governing body, maybe, with help from a TV deal and commercial partners?

 

Is this really so complicated?

[The Parksider]

This has to be most inane and rhetorical repeating question on this forum.

 

Who funds a radical reshape of the sport? Hmm let's see now. The sport's governing body, maybe, with help from a TV deal and commercial partners?

 

Is this really so complicated?

 

Yes it is.

 

You can't grasp that the way to have one club in Hull with all the resources is to get one in the Elite eight and get the other one off to play with the championship clubs, in the hope one will gradually dominate the other as happened before Neil Hudgell spoiled it..

 

The sports governing body have actually gone for that radical re-shape of the sport, not the senior merger.

 

As for the academy merger that will be an academy that in time will only serve the dominant club in Hull and help that club to grow at the expense of the other, unless you believe the "draft" rubbish.

[DeadShotKeen]

Yes it is.

 

You can't grasp that the way to have one club in Hull with all the resources is to get one in the Elite eight and get the other one off to play with the championship clubs, in the hope one will gradually dominate the other as happened before Neil Hudgell spoiled it..

 

The sports governing body have actually gone for that radical re-shape of the sport, not the senior merger.

 

As for the academy merger that will be an academy that in time will only serve the dominant club in Hull and help that club to grow at the expense of the other, unless you believe the "draft" rubbish.

 

Do you think if NRL had followed that train of thought and kept St George, Illawarra, Balmain and Western Suburbs within their comp with their small crowds that it would have grown in the way that it has since?

 

Do you think that some 16 years or so down the line the battle to organically whittle them down from 4 to 2 via leaving them to market forces would have reached its conclusion yet? If so, who would have won out?

 

And, most importantly, what would be the likely effect of all this on the sport down under?

[The Parksider]

Do you think if NRL had followed that train of thought and kept St George, Illawarra, Balmain and Western Suburbs within their comp with their small crowds that it would have grown in the way that it has since?

 

Do you think that some 16 years or so down the line the battle to organically whittle them down from 4 to 2 via leaving them to market forces would have reached its conclusion yet? If so, who would have won out?

 

And, most importantly, what would be the likely effect of all this on the sport down under?

 

I can't compare their game to ours. The financials and the playing resources are vastly different.

 

I don't think I have argued against merger as a principle. merge, lose fans from both clubs, regrow the fanbase to be much bigger.

 

But that can easily happen where the merged club is in Sydney and is playing the areas leading code of rugby league, that many kids play and is given a year on year franchise.

 

Over here the RFL have just abandoned licensing, and fans lost to RL may not be replaced by new fans if such as Hull City are successful as they are the bigger draw in Hull and that's the game all the kids are growing up playing.

 

When will you face the reality and stop talking hypothetically??

 

Merge the clubs and they re-start in CC1, that will decimate the fanbase and all the professional players will leave. God knows HKR have been there before HKR.v.Chorley 1,000 attendance.

 

How then do you go on a winning spree and rebuild the fanbase??

 

The way to get the "merger" has begun. Hull got the middle eight and HKR have to play Championship. We have just analysed HKR's crowds and from 2011 to this year they have lost 1,000 fans through failure. Maybe less season tickets next year, maybe the better players going again.

 

BUT even I'm fantasising, because as long as Hudgell and Crossland dish out the subsidies HKR will be a subsidised failure and a thorn in Hull's side. 

 

It could take years for Hudgell to give up, but maybe Allam will chuck FC out of the KC?? That could be the event to spark something.

 

Far more likely than Nigel Wood guaranteeing Hull United their own SL license, but it has been done before with Les Catalans in 2006

[DeadShotKeen]

I can't compare their game to ours. The financials and the playing resources are vastly different.

 

Even in the late 90s when they instigated said changes?

 

How in any case do the financials and playing resources affect what is a structural and strategic decision designed to create growth? And which at the base operational level (eg the funding of the new clubs) actually creates huge cost savings?

[The Parksider]

Even in the late 90s when they instigated said changes?

 

How in any case do the financials and playing resources affect what is a structural and strategic decision designed to create growth? And which at the base operational level (eg the funding of the new clubs) actually creates huge cost savings?

 

Of course on paper you join the clubs and halve the costs.

 

Can I agree with that, if so can you deal with the rest of it?

 

1. Will a rich backer be in place to provide the cashflow to take the new club from CC1 to Superleague? Hudgell & Crossland are not interested?

 

2. Will you get a deal at the KC?? Or will you have to play out of NCP?

 

3. How will you build a side capable of SL when all the best players will have gone and you'll be trying to get top players back to Hull United??

 

4. When you hit the top end of the championship as Hull United how will you make that final transition to being a big club again??

 

There is every chance Bradford as big as Hull won't get into SL this year and may not return for years to come.

 

5. If you fail to get back to SL for several years just how many fans will stay with you?? Bradford are down from 15,000 to 4,000 now.

 

6. Do you not realise that unlike Australia merged and new clubs are not given special treatment here. You won't get a licence for Hull United to start in SL or be exempt from relegation

 

Please please please answer these questions I ask you in good faith and support of your principles, because if you keep avoiding them I will just repeat them a couple of times then give up.

[Krytensmate]

 

6. Do you not realise that unlike Australia merged and new clubs are not given special treatment here. You won't get a licence for Hull United to start in SL or be exempt from relegation

 

Please please please answer these questions I ask you in good faith and support of your principles, because if you keep avoiding them I will just repeat them a couple of times then give up.

Ignoring all the other questions , and if the answer to no 6 was Hull United were given a licence direct into a locked in/out SL , you would then get requests from fan organisations to enter start up clubs in the Championships , these would have to be refused , otherwise your potential fan base for Hull United would be diluted , I believe this could/would result in legal action ,

Eventually ( maybe 10 , possibly 20 years ) down the line the link to 2 defunct clubs might not be an issue , but it would be a huge problem initially IMO

[scotchy]

You keep putting this like its an actual worry that clubs with no money, no ground, no players, no link to Hull FC or Hull KR would suddenly magic into existence and become pro clubs, and these league 1 clubs would be a threat to the Hull SL club.

[Krytensmate]

 

2. Will you get a deal at the KC?? Or will you have to play out of NCP?

 

They would have to initially play out of both , or the fans of one or the other club would immediately perceive that whichever stadium wasn't used meant their club had been disbanded

Eventually , maybe a few years down the line you could just use 1 , but in the meantime there would be extra costs involved

[Krytensmate]

You keep putting this like its an actual worry that clubs with no money, no ground, no players, no link to Hull FC or Hull KR would suddenly magic into existence and become pro clubs, and these league 1 clubs would be a threat to the Hull SL club.

It's an opinion Scotchy , just like yours , worth no more or no less , so don't pretend you know , because you don't

[scotchy]

It's an opinion Scotchy , just like yours , worth no more or no less , so don't pretend you know , because you don't

why do you think all opinions are worth the same?

I do know. It's a ludicrous expectation. Laughable.

[zorquif]

Ignoring all the other questions , and if the answer to no 6 was Hull United were given a licence direct into a locked in/out SL , you would then get requests from fan organisations to enter start up clubs in the Championships , these would have to be refused , otherwise your potential fan base for Hull United would be diluted , I believe this could/would result in legal action ,

Eventually ( maybe 10 , possibly 20 years ) down the line the link to 2 defunct clubs might not be an issue , but it would be a huge problem initially IMO

 

Regardless of what Scotchy says, what basis would any legal action have?

[Krytensmate]

Regardless of what Scotchy says, what basis would any legal action have?

I'm certainly not clued up enough legally to give an answer on that , I did put ' could ' as well as would , and I'm not suggesting any legal challenge would be successful , but I would expect one to be considered , by fans ( most likely including some legal professionals ) of one club or another , and given the split nature of the city with regards the 2 clubs I believe there would be considerable support from media and politicians as well

I might be wrong , wouldn't be the 1 st time , again my opinion , not future knowledge by pimped up Delorean

[zorquif]

It's just a wild claim? I think there could be riots, eventually leading to the people of Hull rising up as one and bearing down first on Red Hall, but why stop there? They will then march on Leeds, then turn their attention to London. Their march will be relentless until we all live under an iron fist of rule from Kingston upon Hull... All because FC and KR merged and the championship didn't accept applications from two new Hull clubs. Sad times indeed

[Krytensmate]

It's just a wild claim? I think there could be riots, eventually leading to the people of Hull rising up as one and bearing down first on Red Hall, but why stop there? They will then march on Leeds, then turn their attention to London. Their march will be relentless until we all live under an iron fist of rule from Kingston upon Hull... All because FC and KR merged and the championship didn't accept applications from two new Hull clubs. Sad times indeed

I'd expect just the 1 new Hull club

[Krytensmate]

It's just a wild claim? I think there could be riots, eventually leading to the people of Hull rising up as one and bearing down first on Red Hall, but why stop there? They will then march on Leeds, then turn their attention to London. Their march will be relentless until we all live under an iron fist of rule from Kingston upon Hull... All because FC and KR merged and the championship didn't accept applications from two new Hull clubs. Sad times indeed

Yes I'm afraid that's the best I can come up with , then again we are supposed adults discussing something that we all know will never happen , crazy Innit

[DeadShotKeen]

Yes I'm afraid that's the best I can come up with , then again we are supposed adults discussing something that we all know will never happen , crazy Innit

 

If someone had said just a few weeks ago that the 2 youth academies would soon merge you would have said that would never happen. And yet here is this thread.

 

All evidence suggests that it will happen and it is just a matter of "when" and not "if".

[zorquif]

Just a minute - are you suggesting that what happens to academies is an indicator for the senior sides?

[DeadShotKeen]

Just a minute - are you suggesting that what happens to academies is an indicator for the senior sides?

 

Yes.

 

Why wouldn't it be?