Hull FC and Hull KR to merge...

[DeadShotKeen]

You have no evidence a merged side could get a decent crowd, retain the best players in Hull, or get in the top eight. 

 

No-one ever has any evidence when venturing into the unknown so that's not any kind of rebuttal of the idea.

 

What we all have, however, is intuition and basic common sense, which tells me that all 3 of those are easily achievable.

 

A merged Hull side in the not-too-distant future is inevitable and deep down we all know this.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

No-one ever has any evidence when venturing into the unknown so that's not any kind of rebuttal of the idea.

What we all have, however, is intuition and basic common sense, which tells me that all 3 of those are easily achievable.

A merged Hull side in the not-too-distant future is inevitable and deep down we all know this.

We have no evidence that if we send the players into space for high altitude training beforehand that it will benefit them, yet it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Basic common sense would tell you to leave well alone. It's not inevitable. You can try and create hype all you like, it's only you that's doing it. Get over it. You lost by a heavy score to Wigan.

[The Parksider]

No-one ever has any evidence when venturing into the unknown so that's not any kind of rebuttal of the idea.

 

What we all have, however, is intuition and basic common sense, which tells me that all 3 of those are easily achievable.

 

A merged Hull side in the not-too-distant future is inevitable and deep down we all know this.

 

You really mustn't tell everyone what they "all know" unless your evidence, logic and reasoning is sound.

 

What we know is Hull FC are capable of 13,000 crowds whether 1981 or 2007, Rovers are good for 8,500 whether 1981 or 2008.

 

But they are also capable of crowds of 3,000 and 2,000 respectively and those fans were die hards of their traditional sides.

 

In Hull success can bring 21,000 through the gates for their beloved FC and Rovers, but combined that will not happen, and we have the evidence of that in the Australian mergers, Merger turns thousands off. The sum of the whole is far lesser that the sum of the two parts.

 

This is the evidence. It won't matter if 6,000 stay at home as 15,000 will sustain a top side, but top sides only get 15,000 if they win trophies regularly.

 

Hull have stopped doing that after winning just one and HKR have won nowt for years. Combining two failing SL clubs doesn't give you a winning side and that is logical reasoning. Put Cas and Wakey together and does that guarantee trophies??

 

It doesn't does it. Nor does putting Hull & HKR together.

 

If success doesn't come what is the magnet to keep the fans? Is it loyalty?? Well 3,000 and 2,000 clung onto that loyalty in 1996 when the clubs were outside Superleague but they had an affinity and a history with their clubs. If a merged side continues to struggle the "fans" have an excuse not to stick about.

 

Even on here some of the long time die hard Hull fans threatened to walk due to Hull not winning and same for you - you walked. That's not having a go at you fine chaps. It's just how it is and you can all do as you wish and not be admonished for it.

 

You underestimate as most do, "the importance of being in the eight" as HKRBob observed yesterday. Merging the sides would be OK if you could merge the Salary caps to £3.8M but you can't and reforming and starting again would take some doing and won't be enthusing many if the club is merged outside the eight? It even begs the question does this new club have to start in CC1?

 

If you want one big trophy winning club try the successful Leeds/Hunslet model. One grows steadily at the expense of the other before finally they get all the best players and most of the fans. Before you jump at this, think hard.

 

It was only in 1999 when Hunslet won promotion to SL and attracted investment. It was not long after when during HKR's demise they got just over 1,000 playing Chorley in CC1.

 

Hull took advantage to grow crowds to 13,000 (taking out the KR match attendances) and they won the cup and got to Old Tradfford without merger.

 

The reality is if anyone has spoiled the advancement of a "one club in Hull" winning trophies it is Neil Hudgell's "rescue" of Rovers, Hudgell and Crossland's resignations would be a far far better and proven plan than any "merger".

 

And that argument is based on fact, logic reality and reasoning. 

 

You have posted only a slogan and if you want to win this debate set out your plan for a merged successful Hull side and the mechanisms by which this can logically happen??

 

Some details for once my fine friend... 

[The Future is League]

For me this just shows that both clubs are not interested in doing the hard yards for future junior development.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

You really mustn't tell everyone what they "all know" unless your evidence, logic and reasoning is sound.

What we know is Hull FC are capable of 13,000 crowds whether 1981 or 2007, Rovers are good for 8,500 whether 1981 or 2008.

But they are also capable of crowds of 3,000 and 2,000 respectively and those fans were die hards of their traditional sides.

In Hull success can bring 21,000 through the gates for their beloved FC and Rovers, but combined that will not happen, and we have the evidence of that in the Australian mergers, Merger turns thousands off. The sum of the whole is far lesser that the sum of the two parts.

This is the evidence. It won't matter if 6,000 stay at home as 15,000 will sustain a top side, but top sides only get 15,000 if they win trophies regularly.

Hull have stopped doing that after winning just one and HKR have won nowt for years. Combining two failing SL clubs doesn't give you a winning side and that is logical reasoning. Put Cas and Wakey together and does that guarantee trophies??

It doesn't does it. Nor does putting Hull & HKR together.

If success doesn't come what is the magnet to keep the fans? Is it loyalty?? Well 3,000 and 2,000 clung onto that loyalty in 1996 when the clubs were outside Superleague but they had an affinity and a history with their clubs. If a merged side continues to struggle the "fans" have an excuse not to stick about.

Even on here some of the long time die hard Hull fans threatened to walk due to Hull not winning and same for you - you walked. That's not having a go at you fine chaps. It's just how it is and you can all do as you wish and not be admonished for it.

You underestimate as most do, "the importance of being in the eight" as HKRBob observed yesterday. Merging the sides would be OK if you could merge the Salary caps to £3.8M but you can't and reforming and starting again would take some doing and won't be enthusing many if the club is merged outside the eight? It even begs the question does this new club have to start in CC1?

If you want one big trophy winning club try the successful Leeds/Hunslet model. One grows steadily at the expense of the other before finally they get all the best players and most of the fans. Before you jump at this, think hard.

It was only in 1999 when Hunslet won promotion to SL and attracted investment. It was not long after when during HKR's demise they got just over 1,000 playing Chorley in CC1.

Hull took advantage to grow crowds to 13,000 (taking out the KR match attendances) and they won the cup and got to Old Tradfford without merger.

The reality is if anyone has spoiled the advancement of a "one club in Hull" winning trophies it is Neil Hudgell's "rescue" of Rovers, Hudgell and Crossland's resignations would be a far far better and proven plan than any "merger".

And that argument is based on fact, logic reality and reasoning.

You have posted only a slogan and if you want to win this debate set out your plan for a merged successful Hull side and the mechanisms by which this can logically happen??

Some details for once my fine friend...

Got to give it to you, that's a pretty good post.

[DeadShotKeen]

We have no evidence that if we send the players into space for high altitude training beforehand that it will benefit them, yet it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Basic common sense would tell you to leave well alone. It's not inevitable. You can try and create hype all you like, it's only you that's doing it. Get over it. You lost by a heavy score to Wigan.

 

I don't need to create hype, that's the point. A merged side will very soon become an economic necessity (if it isn't already). Unless you have £millions to maintain the status quo you're gonna have to just go with the flow, like me and everyone else.

 

It's nothing more than the natural evolution of the sport. You may as well rail against the fact that we no longer have gills.

[The Parksider]

Got to give it to you, that's a pretty good post.

 

And that is a very kind reply.

[CodeAgnostic]

Got to give it to you, that's a pretty good post.

I agree. However even if Hull FC were to grow as a result of rovers decline it would not guarantee the success that winning Trophies does. Whether the catalyst for success is a merger or investment, the best academy age players will still see a future outside of Humberside no matter how many academy sides there are until such times as there is a successful intervention.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I don't need to create hype, that's the point. A merged side will very soon become an economic necessity (if it isn't already). Unless you have £millions to maintain the status quo you're gonna have to just go with the flow, like me and everyone else.

Based on what evidence?

You can't just keep making these statements with absolutely nothing to back them up and expect people to take you seriously!

It's nothing more than the natural evolution of the sport. You may as well rail against the fact that we no longer have gills.

Mergers are the natural evolution of sport? Really?

If you're going to make a scientific comparison based on animal evolution, mergers are more like gene-splicing to create a new species; natural selection is the "Natural evolution of sport". Stop trying to play God.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I agree. However even if Hull FC were to grow as a result of rovers decline it would not guarantee the success that winning Trophies does. Whether the catalyst for success is a merger or investment, the best academy age players will still see a future outside of Humberside no matter how many academy sides there are until such times as there is a successful intervention.

And hopefully this is it.

If you don't try something different, you'll continue to get them same results.

[DeadShotKeen]

I agree. However even if Hull FC were to grow as a result of rovers decline it would not guarantee the success that winning Trophies does. Whether the catalyst for success is a merger or investment, the best academy age players will still see a future outside of Humberside no matter how many academy sides there are until such times as there is a successful intervention.

 

Well said.

 

But more to the point, why are people even talking about FC growing at Rovers' expense when they just gave them a leg-up at junior level and the last 10 years has seen a distinct move in the opposite direction?

 

Neither side can ever command a significant majority at the Hull RL ballot box. Which inevitably leads us to coalition. 

[The Parksider]

Even if Hull FC were to grow as a result of rovers decline it would not guarantee the success that winning Trophies does. Whether the catalyst for success is a merger or investment, the best academy age players will still see a future outside of Humberside

 

You need to give us the detail of your point??.

 

Hull FC in the Superleague era did grow as a result of Rovers decline, and they won the cup, and went to Old Trafford.

 

Of course any highly successful side may fall at the latter hurdles. Wigan have bombed out to Cas and HKR in the RL cup last two years , and failed against Saints last year at Old Trafford. 

 

But I don't see an exodus out of Wigan by their academy stars because of this?

[DeadShotKeen]

You need to give us the detail of your point??.

 

Hull FC in the Superleague era did grow as a result of Rovers decline, and they won the cup, and went to Old Trafford.

 

Of course any highly successful side may fall at the latter hurdles. Wigan have bombed out to Cas and HKR in the RL cup last two years , and failed against Saints last year at Old Trafford. 

 

But I don't see an exodus out of Wigan by their academy stars because of this?

 

Can you give me the detail of your point about 1 of the sides (presumably HFC) eventually taking over as sole elite pro side in Hull, bearing in mind that it shows absolutely no sign of ever happening.

 

How/why/when?

[CodeAgnostic]

Hull FC in the Superleague era did grow as a result of Rovers decline, and they won the cup, and went to Old Trafford.

Did Hull FC grow as a direct result of Rovers decline or was it because they won the cup and went to Old Trafford?

Of course any highly successful side may fall at the latter hurdles. Wigan have bombed out to Cas and HKR in the RL cup last two years , and failed against Saints last year at Old Trafford.

Does Hull FC meet your definition of a highly successful side?

But I don't see an exodus out of Wigan by their academy stars because of this?

Wigan are so successful that they are one of the few names that are recognisable beyond Rugby League, so why exactly would their academy stars leave in the numbers you imagine?

[zorquif]

Well said.

But more to the point, why are people even talking about FC growing at Rovers' expense when they just gave them a leg-up at junior level and the last 10 years has seen a distinct move in the opposite direction?

Neither side can ever command a significant majority at the Hull RL ballot box. Which inevitably leads us to coalition.

I think you are mixing up sport with democracy. There is no inevitability about anything. The scenario could well be that which ever team invests best in external resources ends up out stripping the other to the point that the current arrangement is change so that one club is little more than a feeder club for the other - a step on the ladder from academy to sl

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I think you are mixing up sport with democracy. There is no inevitability about anything. The scenario could well be that which ever team invests best in external resources ends up out stripping the other to the point that the current arrangement is change so that one club is little more than a feeder club for the other - a step on the ladder from academy to sl

The other option being that they accept that their rivalry is good for the sport in the city, and they safeguard that by ensuring they're both competing so working together rather than against each other.

[The Parksider]

1. Did Hull FC grow as a direct result of Rovers decline or was it because they won the cup and went to Old Trafford?

2. Does Hull FC meet your definition of a highly successful side?

4. Wigan are so successful that they are one of the few names that are recognisable beyond Rugby League, so why exactly would their academy stars leave in the numbers you imagine?

 

1. There is no scientific survey, your question does not appear to cover the option of "both". After 50 years following the game and how fans react, I'd expect Hull's success on the pitch grew crowds and that thousands of floating and new fans in both sides of the city were choosing Hull over HKR to go watch, I'd also reckon that all the best young players both sides of the city were choosing to join Hull academy, I'll take that as a given, as they were.

 

Here in Leeds the best players and the fans of the game south of the river choose to migrate north. I can't see Hull people being different to Leeds people.

 

2. They meet my definition of a big club alongside Leeds and Wigan. 

 

3. I don't imagine they would leave Wigan just because the senior side get pipped in finals. I don't imagine you have to win trophies to get the best locals playing for you. I imagine you have to be one of the few sides competing for those trophies. That's what Hull need to be - not a bottom four SL club which makes them as attractive to fans and quality young professionals as Widnes, Salford and Wakefield.

[The Parksider]

I think you are mixing up sport with democracy. There is no inevitability about anything. The scenario could well be that which ever team invests best in external resources ends up out stripping the other to the point that the current arrangement is change so that one club is little more than a feeder club for the other - a step on the ladder from academy to sl

 

The SKY funding provides the basis of the salary cap and the level of crowds the two clubs get (4th. & 7th. best supported clubs despite their lowly positions) probably cements them into always being SL clubs and also the bridesmaids too as has been an annual occurrence since the two clubs ended up in SL together.

 

Pre SKY money days both clubs collapsed, pre KC Hull collapsed. but now SKY can fund the mediocrity, and the clubs are secure in decent stadia.

 

Just for the record in 2007 Hull averaged 14,500 crowds after their cup and old Trafford exploits. This put them up with Leeds and Wigan. However the average was boosted by two sell out home games to Rovers. However take those out and Hull still averaged 13,000 they were growing crowds on the back of success.

 

Since then the clubs have had to share fan and player resources and neither has been able to do much other than make up the numbers in Superleague, this doesn't seem to inspire the more athletic kids to take up the game, and that 13,000 average at Hull has taken a big tumble to 11,000 now.

 

There were 4,000 empty seats at the KC Derby last year and over 1,000 at the NCP derby the year before. Don't be fooled that the clubs rivalry is somehow good for each other, even that is starting to turn the fans and young players off. Besides the rivalry they had early 1980's when they were both top dogs on top crowds didn't sustain either and both clubs went downhill. It's the SKY money that sustains the clubs in SL, along with Hudgells subsidy.

 

Pearson knows this and tried IMHO to dismantle HKR via the cheque book which spectacularly failed and put the club in deficit. Now he seems more interested in Leeds United. 

 

I'll give Keeney this, he has a point if he believes the top tier of the game should be "engineered" to get the "right" clubs in there. We see Hull a shell of their former selves because due to sheer luck Hudgell was a Rovers fan. If he hadn't of been Hull may be still be getting to finals.

 

Yesterday I took in Fartown.v.HKR and you could count the Rovers fans all regimented at one side of the stand behind the posts. Take their number off  and there well under 5K fartowners despite their winning rugby.

 

It's a shame that we don't have a Hull and a Bradford side up there challenging Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Wire. Leaving businesses "to chance" isn't a good policy.

[The Parksider]

Can you give me the detail of your point about 1 of the sides (presumably HFC) eventually taking over as sole elite pro side in Hull, bearing in mind that it shows absolutely no sign of ever happening.

 

How/why/when?

 

Under the new system clubs in the top eight are rewarded with better fixtures, higher crowds, a higher status and no doubt quality juniors will want to be playing for those clubs.

 

Bottom four SL clubs will have a lower status, worst fixture lists and be less attractive than they are now.

 

How that eventually pans out we shall see but I'd agree thanks to the new SKY deal and Hudgell's subsidy it may be many a long year before one club breaks through by the default of the other being relegated and as per 1996 that one club could in theory follow the other to the exit door!!!

[zorquif]

The SKY funding provides the basis of the salary cap and the level of crowds the two clubs get (4th. & 7th. best supported clubs despite their lowly positions) probably cements them into always being SL clubs and also the bridesmaids too as has been an annual occurrence since the two clubs ended up in SL together.

 

Pre SKY money days both clubs collapsed, pre KC Hull collapsed. but now SKY can fund the mediocrity, and the clubs are secure in decent stadia.

 

Just for the record in 2007 Hull averaged 14,500 crowds after their cup and old Trafford exploits. This put them up with Leeds and Wigan. However the average was boosted by two sell out home games to Rovers. However take those out and Hull still averaged 13,000 they were growing crowds on the back of success.

 

Since then the clubs have had to share fan and player resources and neither has been able to do much other than make up the numbers in Superleague, this doesn't seem to inspire the more athletic kids to take up the game, and that 13,000 average at Hull has taken a big tumble to 11,000 now.

 

There were 4,000 empty seats at the KC Derby last year and over 1,000 at the NCP derby the year before. Don't be fooled that the clubs rivalry is somehow good for each other, even that is starting to turn the fans and young players off. Besides the rivalry they had early 1980's when they were both top dogs on top crowds didn't sustain either and both clubs went downhill. It's the SKY money that sustains the clubs in SL, along with Hudgells subsidy.

 

Pearson knows this and tried IMHO to dismantle HKR via the cheque book which spectacularly failed and put the club in deficit. Now he seems more interested in Leeds United. 

 

I'll give Keeney this, he has a point if he believes the top tier of the game should be "engineered" to get the "right" clubs in there. We see Hull a shell of their former selves because due to sheer luck Hudgell was a Rovers fan. If he hadn't of been Hull may be still be getting to finals.

 

Yesterday I took in Fartown.v.HKR and you could count the Rovers fans all regimented at one side of the stand behind the posts. Take their number off  and there well under 5K fartowners despite their winning rugby.

 

It's a shame that we don't have a Hull and a Bradford side up there challenging Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Wire. Leaving businesses "to chance" isn't a good policy.

 

That's a long post that sort of misses the point of what I was saying. I was just illustrating that a merger is not inevitable. 

 

Two points though - when I talk about better investment, you could sign Willy Mason as your 'marquee player' and he turns out to be a duff, or you could sign Michael Dobson as a 'normal' overseas player, and he could turn out to be a perfect fit for your team. Having the same salary cap doesn't mean that one team can't invest better than the other.

 

Secondly, I really don't believe that FC and KR share fan resources as such. When one is successful, fans will come out of the woodwork. When one is less successful, fans stay at home. However, I don't think that fans stop going to KR to go and watch FC (and vice versa) depending on who is performing best. en masse any way, there is bound to be someone who knows a lad down the pub who does this...

[Blind side johnny]

I can only see problems with it tbh.

 

There's too much rivalry and hatred between the teams and this will be made worse if a bit of skullduggery goes on when a promising youngster is targeted by both teams. In spite of the two chairmen's words, I think it'll happen.

 

As a slight aside, "The new academy side will play in blue and yellow, the colours of Hull city council", that's nice, I wonder if the Allams will consider a new colour scheme for theHull Tigers' kit in recognition of Hull City Council's colours..

 

Who's to say that any really promising youngster would join either club?

[Errol Stock]

"It is a case of a decline in the talent pool in Hull with less school kids playing the game. We've not got the number of talented players. The cost of running a Super League team and an academy is high, sponsors are drifting away and we have a decline in talent.

 

"That decline in talent and the costs basis means this is a logical step and it's one we believe will help both clubs to produce Super League players.

 

I can understand the reaction within the city to this news. Its worrying. As a neutral I disagree with Pearson's logic completely. His quote above and his solution proves to me he hasn't tried to solve it - more stick plaster on it.

 

This may sound stupid - but wouldn't it be better for both clubs to combine efforts and funds to grow the sport back into schools and get kids back into playing from age 4/5/6 upwards?

 

I have always considered Hull to be a hot bed of RL and I was shocked to see Pearson's statement.

 

Is he right and me wrong?

 

Or is he wrong and I am right?

 

 

[zorquif]

Who's to say that any really promising youngster would join either club?

 

I don't remember properly, but is there not some SC rule about academy grown players not counting fully to the cap? Presumably then FC/KR could offer these players more (at least for their first contract) than other clubs would be willing to...

[The Parksider]

 I really don't believe that FC and KR share fan resources as such. When one is successful, fans will come out of the woodwork. When one is less successful, fans stay at home. However, I don't think that fans stop going to KR to go and watch FC (and vice versa) depending on who is performing best. en masse any way, there is bound to be someone who knows a lad down the pub who does this...

 

That's because you take the "here and now" view.

 

It makes the assertion "the fans" are the same people every year.

 

I've seen them come and go over many years in Leeds and as the Hunslet diehards eventually drift away or die off the younger kids take the option of following the big side north of the river.

 

That's where the "merger" thing falls down when it asks fans to change allegiances. A merged club is asking 21,000 diehards to follow a new club.

 

A Hull.F.C. that is the only ticket in town can try to use that to attract the best local players, and get more on field success and grow to the 13,000 they used to get a few years back.

 

After that new fans coming into the game can choose who they want to watch and if there's only one SL side it's a no-brainer. In a generation or two Hull could be the best supported club in the game on say 16,000 crowds.

 

Not overnight. Sorry I could not say that in a sentence.

[The Parksider]

Who's to say that any really promising youngster would join either club?

 

 

"It is a case of a decline in the talent pool in Hull with less school kids playing the game. We've not got the number of talented players. The cost of running a Super League team and an academy is high, sponsors are drifting away and we have a decline in talent.

 

"That decline in talent and the costs basis means this is a logical step and it's one we believe will help both clubs to produce Super League players.

 

This may sound stupid - but wouldn't it be better for both clubs to combine efforts and funds to grow the sport back into schools and get kids back into playing from age 4/5/6 upwards?

 

I have always considered Hull to be a hot bed of RL and I was shocked to see Pearson's statement.

 

Is he right and me wrong?

 

Or is he wrong and I am right?

 

I'm not sure Hull was ever a "hotbed". The rise of Hull FC in 1980 was based on the M62 facilitating the best players in the Calder area leaving their local clubs and going to Hull for the money.

 

Sure HKR had a real core of Hull born top stars at the same time but that success lasted a few short years and both clubs went back to what they had always been, two generally mediocre clubs. That short period may have left a lasting impression that Hull was a "Hotbed" of RL. We hear the same about Cumbria, and that isn't either.

 

On getting kids to play nobody tries harder than Leeds. Every match they invite the schools to parade around the pitch and the junior sides to play mini matches at half time, they have kids days and loads of summer camps etc etc etc.

 

But you can't make the kids play, the kids find the game hard, and parents prefer them playing something softer like Soccer. The kids at Headingley all seem to have headguards now.

 

Getting 1,000 kids to "try" the game is one thing, sustaining their development through season after season in JARL is another. TWIG told me there are rules on professional clubs not being allowed to get too involved in JARL.

 

I'm sure Hull and HKR have not failed to do what they can to promote JARL anyway.

 

For me the two clubs are just cost cutting which is a sensible thing to do, and it also appear this isn't a Hull thing, other areas will share academies.