Hull FC and Hull KR to merge...

[zorquif]

No it doesn't. It shows that a merged club, several years after the merger MAY have a crowd roughly equal to or lower than the sum of the original clubs crowds. However, again, it only disproves anything if the merger took place in a vacuum. Other factors might have attracted many more new fans to the clubs. Who knows what would happen in Hull?

[scotchy]

So then it does disprove that notion. That lack of correlation shows that. Your argument that it doesn't happen in a vacuum is true, but also strengthens the argument against your point because those 'other' things, we are in agreement, will effect the growth/shrinkage of a club over and above a merger. We have clear and obvious proof positive that a merger can be successful.

Also the argument 'who knows what would happen in Hull' is not an argument against it because it applies just as much to the status quo. Especially as the two hull clubs are currently shrinking and have been for a little while. Who knows what will happen in hull if they don't merge?

[zorquif]

It doesn't disprove the notion that fans will leave in great numbers. It shows that crowds MAY, after several years, return to what the sum was (although this isn't the case for Wests, who are still 4k, or 22% down). I think we differ on what proof is. 

 

And who knows what would happen in Hull is a perfectly valid point. You are comparing Hull to suburbs of Sydney. Very different places. I would say that arguments regarding what would or would not happen on Hull based on what happened in Sydney (especially in light of multiple variables being potentially varied in the time being spoken about) are less valid.

[scotchy]

There is some serious having your cake and eating it there. The success of something you do like is attributed to a myriad of factors because success wasn't acheives in a vacuum, The potential failure of the thing you don't like is directly attributable to thing you don't like. Also status quo you do like is easily predictable, change you don't like is unknowable chaos.

The success or failure of any hull merger would depend entirely on how such a thing were implemented and run. The deciding factor of it's success or failure would not be some inalienable fact that mergers are failures, buy the specifics of it's implementation.

There is no default position on it. There is no valid argument that a merger is good for hull nor one that it is bad for them. The only sensible prediction is that a well implemented merger would likely be very good for them. A poorly implemented one very bad in exactly the same way as two seperate underfunded clubs fighting each other would see falling attendances failing financials falling participation rates and a city that cannot support two clubs leading to likely failure and two rich and well run clubs would likely be be good for them.

[zorquif]

I don't think I am. I haven't attributed anything to anything. I am saying that what happened in Sydney neither proves nor disproves any notion with respect to a Hull merger, especially in light of multiple changing factors.

 

I don't think that the success or failure of any Hull merger would depend entirely on how such a thing were implemented and run. Like it or not, people may just not buy in to it.

 

I don't think that is the 'only' sensible prediction either. As mentioned above, people might just be turned off by the idea of the merger. That is a perfectly valid prediction. 

[scotchy]

It does disprove that it will be failure. It doesn't disprove that it might but it does disprove the idea that fans 'just don't respond to mergers'.

Even here you are stating that the success of the mergers in Sydney cannot be attributed to 'just mergers' but are still putting forth the idea that merger in hull can fail because 'just mergers'. It's confirmation bias. You don't like it so when success can be correlated to it there are other reasons, when failure correlates to it its because of the thing you don't like. You are arguing that success was not achieved in a vacuum but failure would be.

[zorquif]

It does not disprove anything. At the very best it suggests that it won't necessarily be a failure. Also, it doesn't disprove the idea that fans 'just don't respond to mergers'. It disproves that the most of the fans of St George, Illawarra, Wests and Balmain didn't respond to mergers (noting that they are still down on the year before the merger).

 

I'm saying that you can't draw retrospective conclusions and state that the numbers are due to one factor. However, in a thought experiment, you could say that the people of Hull, being very different and in very different conditions to those in Sydney, may decide that a merged team is not for them. That would severely hinder the success of a merged club. Also, that was one reason. Maybe superleague or the club itself would not present itself properly. Maybe the powers that be won't manage to secure great TV rights that will enable an increase in the TV money, allowing the salary cap to raise, making Hull KFC the only show in town. Maybe Hull City will hit a previously unheard of level of success, making THEM the only show in town. Who knows. That is not my point.

 

My point is that the merged teams in Sydney not achieving the crowds that the teams that made them had does not prove or disprove anything in relation to a potential merger in Hull.

 

Also, I never said that success was not achieved in a vacuum but failure would be. I said quite the opposite. You said that the success or failure of any Hull merger would depend entirely on how such a thing were implemented and run. I merely pointed out another possible factor upon which it would depend (i.e. that people may just not buy in to it).

[Roy Boy]

You can go on all you like!

I'm from Hull and know what the majority of fans think about a future merger of the senior clubs and it isn't pretty.

 

Both Hull FC and Rovers fans would stay away in droves and I can guarantee the sum gate would be smaller than either club gets at present.

 

Sorry but you country folk have no idea about the rivalry here in the big city

[scotchy]

You did and you are still doing so.

You are arguing that the success of St George-illawara and wests tigers was not down to the merger but the myriad of this that happened around it. You are also arguing that the failure of a prospective hull merger could be down to the fact people just don't like mergers.

You are stating that that we cannot attribute the growth at merged clubs to one factor but we could attribute a prospective failure to one factor. That is you putting the prospective merger of a hull side in a vacuum whilst arguing against doing the same of St George Illawara or Wests Tigers.

And again we know a merged side can be a success. Ergo we cannot attribute the prospective failure of a merged side to simply being merged.

The simple version would be, you know all those things that you argue are reasons for St George-illawara success that aren't 'the merger' they would also be a factor in deciding whether or not a prospective Hull merger was a success or not. And just how St George-illawara weren't a success just because they merged, any merged Hull side wouldn't fail just because they merged. As much as you don't want it to. It does work both ways.

[zorquif]

No I didn't and no I am not. I said myriad factors could have affected the Sydney mergers. You said that the success or failure of any Hull merger would depend entirely on how such a thing were implemented and run. I pointed out another possible factor upon which it would depend (i.e. that people may just not buy in to it). I didn't say anywhere that, for example, how such a thing were implemented and run wouldn't have an impact. Just that this is not the only factor.

 

We know that a merged side in Sydney can almost attract as many fans as the two individual clubs. Ergo we cannot attribute the prospective failure of a merged side in Sydney to simply being merged.

 

And I never said that. It could be a factor in the club failing though. There is no evidence that St George-Illawara haven't managed to almost achieve the crowds the individual clubs had before merging DESPITE the merger. 

[The Parksider]

The success or failure of any hull merger would depend entirely on how such a thing were implemented and run. The deciding factor of it's success or failure would not be some inalienable fact that mergers are failures, buy the specifics of it's implementation.

There is no default position on it. There is no valid argument that a merger is good for hull nor one that it is bad for them. The only sensible prediction is that a well implemented merger would likely be very good for them. 

 

 

Fair point but that is essentially the same generation of fans. 

 

The point is that if we wind forward another 20 years without any genuine success at either Hull side (save for yet more 8th vs 9th derbies sold to us on here as epic encounters that the whole world is watching) how do you think that will impact on crowds as we most definitely move into the next generation of fans? Can we still expect 10K and 6K respectively do you think?

 

As Scotchy says many factors will click in.

 

They used to have three decent clubs in Manchester that was a hotbed of RL. Look at it recently when Salford nearly folded.

 

Hull could under certain circumstances be a soccer city in 20 years time with both RL clubs OR a merged club struggling annually.

 

Under other circumstances you may have a merged club winning the league ad nauseum before 20,000 crowds.

 

Then again both Hull clubs may still be what they are today and be top eight.

 

The decision to merge the senior sides would be a risk and the outcome uncertain.

 

Also when's best to do it is another question, for me both have to want it, so if one is doing well at the top and the other collapses as has happened, the successful club would be fools to merge.

 

If HKR had never got Hudgell then there'd be no merger talks at all now.

 

Events will shape things not theories....

[zorquif]

As Scotchy says many factors will click in.

 

They used to have three decent clubs in Manchester that was a hotbed of RL. Look at it recently when Salford nearly folded.

 

Hull could under certain circumstances be a soccer city in 20 years time with both RL clubs OR a merged club struggling annually.

 

Under other circumstances you may have a merged club winning the league ad nauseum before 20,000 crowds.

 

Then again both Hull clubs may still be what they are today and be top eight.

 

The decision to merge the senior sides would be a risk and the outcome uncertain.

 

Also when's best to do it is another question, for me both have to want it, so if one is doing well at the top and the other collapses as has happened, the successful club would be fools to merge.

 

If HKR had never got Hudgell then there'd be no merger talks at all now.

 

Events will shape things not theories....

 

Scotchy doesn't say that. He says that the fact that the Sydney mergers are ok disproves the fact that people will walk away in droves, and that the success depends entirely on how the proposed merged club would be run (which is not many factors by any stretch).

 

I say that the Sydney mergers show that the Sydney fans did not walk away in droves but cannot prove or disprove anything in relation to Hull. Also that more factors than how the proposed merged club would be run will decide whether or not the proposed Hull club would be a success.

[Roy Boy]

The generational factor is a thin thread.

 

Most of the youngsters I chat to at games are as "dyed in the wool" as the old codgers like me.

 

So any thoughts of "time will heal" are well off the mark.

[scotchy]

No I didn't and no I am not. I said myriad factors could have affected the Sydney mergers. You said that the success or failure of any Hull merger would depend entirely on how such a thing were implemented and run. I pointed out another possible factor upon which it would depend (i.e. that people may just not buy in to it). I didn't say anywhere that, for example, how such a thing were implemented and run wouldn't have an impact. Just that this is not the only factor.

We know that a merged side in Sydney can almost attract as many fans as the two individual clubs. Ergo we cannot attribute the prospective failure of a merged side in Sydney to simply being merged.

And I never said that. It could be a factor in the club failing though. There is no evidence that St George-Illawara haven't managed to almost achieve the crowds the individual clubs had before merging DESPITE the merger.

we are going round in circles here

But You argued that success in the NRL could not be attributed to 1 factor. You are also arguing that a prospective failure in Hull could be attributed to 1 factor. There is a dissonance there whether you want to admit it or not.

As for me saying it was entirely down to how it was implemented and run you haven't yet mentioned one factor that wasn't down to how it was implemented and run. And I include 'people not liking mergers' In that. That is an issue that can be over-come (that you believe St George-illawara may have achieved what they have in spite of the merger only serves to strengthen the argument against a club gain just because of merger) and a failure to do so would be a failure of implementation.

[scotchy]

Scotchy doesn't say that. He says that the fact that the Sydney mergers are ok disproves the fact that people will walk away in droves, and that the success depends entirely on how the proposed merged club would be run (which is not many factors by any stretch).

I say that the Sydney mergers show that the Sydney fans did not walk away in droves but cannot prove or disprove anything in relation to Hull. Also that more factors than how the proposed merged club would be run will decide whether or not the proposed Hull club would be a success.

it does disprove that they will walk away in droves. You can't say something with happen and then just ignore examples where it doesn't.

Fans may walk away in droves but we know that wouldn't just be because 'because merger' in the same way we know the growth at St George and Wests wasn't just 'because merger'

There are no factors you have yet highlighted that would not be the responsibility of those implementing and running the club.

[zorquif]

we are going round in circles here

But You argued that success in the NRL could not be attributed to 1 factor. You are also arguing that a prospective failure in Hull could be attributed to 1 factor. There is a dissonance there whether you want to admit it or not.

As for me saying it was entirely down to how it was implemented and run you haven't yet mentioned one factor that wasn't down to how it was implemented and run. And I include 'people not liking mergers' In that. That is an issue that can be over-come (that you believe St George-illawara may have achieved what they have in spite of the merger only serves to strengthen the argument against a club gain just because of merger) and a failure to do so would be a failure of implementation.

 

I'm not going round in circles. I am saying the same thing repeatedly and you are attributing thoughts and comments to me that I neither had nor expressed.

 

I DID NOT argue that a prospective Hull failure could be attributed to one factor. Nowhere did I say that.

 

 

I disagree with your attempt to include peoples feelings about mergers per se, in particular in Hull with respect to their clubs in how the club is run. It could be the nicest ground, best marketing, an awesome team (i.e. run very well) and people in Hull might still say they aren't having anything to do with it. 

 

I didn't say that I believe that St George-Illawara succeeded despite the merger. I said there is no evidence to the contrary.

[scotchy]

The generational factor is a thin thread.

Most of the youngsters I chat to at games are as "dyed in the wool" as the old codgers like me.

So any thoughts of "time will heal" are well off the mark.

the vast majority weren't there 10-15 years ago. About 10k of the 16k or so fans who regularly go will only go watch SL in relatively new facilties. The last 10-15 years have shown us the growth potential of clubs not searching for the dyed in the wool codger but the new and casual fan.

[zorquif]

it does disprove that they will walk away in droves. You can't say something with happen and then just ignore examples where it doesn't.

Fans may walk away in droves but we know that wouldn't just be because 'because merger' in the same way we know the growth at St George and Wests wasn't just 'because merger'

There are no factors you have yet highlighted that would not be the responsibility of those implementing and running the club.

 

I can say that what happened in Sydney does not disprove that something different might happen in Hull. You are generalising two examples in one area to cover the whole globe. That is a massive (and unreliable) extrapolation.

 

I agree with your second point. But nor can you discount the possibility of that happening in Hull because it didn't seem to in Sydney.

 

See my post above. People are a weird bunch, you know - you can't burden the opinions of people completely to those running the clubs (obviously it is their responsibility to some extent, but not completely). Opinions on mergers might just be a 'non-negotiable' to a lot of people in Hull.

[jacksy]

As i said in an earlier post, Pearsons assertion that less kids in Hull are interested in playing RL and established youth sides are struggling for numbers is a load of rubbish.

 

http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/32701/hull-fc-foundation-sees-huge

 

The talent pool is huge in Hull they have been useless at bringing it through

[zorquif]

As i said in an earlier post, Pearsons assertion that less kids in Hull are interested in playing RL and established youth sides are struggling for numbers is a load of rubbish.

 

http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/32701/hull-fc-foundation-sees-huge

 

I always wonder about these. I notice that they don't say how many USED to be playing...

[jacksy]

I don't know the answer to that. I base my opinions on discussions with other RL people and what i see week in week out around the city. My own club has hundreds of players and a great many are new to the game. 

[zorquif]

I'm not getting at you jacksy - your comment is fair play. Just commenting on dodgy journalism!

[Krytensmate]

Really interesting thread

[jacksy]

I didn't think you were zorquif..sorry if my response made you feel i was.

[The Parksider]

As i said in an earlier post, Pearsons assertion that less kids in Hull are interested in playing RL and established youth sides are struggling for numbers is a load of rubbish.

 

http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/32701/hull-fc-foundation-sees-huge

 

The talent pool is huge in Hull they have been useless at bringing it through

 

Try looking at the Hull Junior ARL on their Pitchero website..........

 

I can see 9 teams at under 15 and no under 14's. Looks like they have had to double up to get a league

 

I can see only 8 clubs in the under 12's

 

Hundreds of schoolkids playing a bit of tag rugby does not constitute a "huge talent pool" that's the RFL's public relations machine in overdrive.

 

I'm at a loss to believe the clubs scouting and coaching teams are useless, more like the numbers are just not there.

 

Which is why you can pick an overseas team and two subs out of the two senior first teams, but only scrape a seven a side team of Hull born locals.

 

Sad fact seems to be that Hull has a small junior set up that delivers one decent professional level local player a year???