Rugby History Thread

[Bearman]

That is certainly different than the "official" reason

[shaun mc]

A certain level of broken time payments were allowed by the RFU pre 1895. If anything, the Northern Union were a bit more draconian in its application post 1895. I don't have access to the book at the moment, but I'm sure it was the Leeds club, that in the 1895-96 season only spent a third of what they did in the 1894-95 season as a RFU club 

[Padge]

Just now, shaun mc said:

A certain level of broken time payments were allowed by the RFU pre 1895. If anything, the Northern Union were a bit more draconian in its application post 1895. I don't have access to the book at the moment, but I'm sure it was the Leeds club, that in the 1895-96 season only spent a third of what they did in the 1894-95 season as a RFU club 

 

Quite a few clubs reported a reduction in expenses following the split, and yes the NU were seen as more draconian on professionalism than the RFU in the first few years. You couldn't play if you were unemployed and certain occupations would bar you from playing. There was at first a professionalism arms race between the RFU and the NU to see who could be the most strict, baring broken time payments.

 

[Neil_Ormston]

Thought it might be of interest to some on here that I have just launched a new website dedicated to preserving the history of rugby league in Warrington.  

www.warringtonrugbyheritage.com

Content is a little light at the minute, with the main thing being a brief(ish!) history article, that has specific focus on the pre-Northern Union days.  I plan to expand it significantly over the coming months, in time loading up a full list of all 5,000+ Wire games and teams, together with images of over 3,000 first team programmes.

Coming soon will be a full record of all players to have played for Warrington's first team, which will also cover pre-NU competitions.

Any feedback on the site, or comments to help improve it, would be very much appreciated.

Thanks

Neil

[Oxford]

Which RL club is the oldest one?

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

Which RL club is the oldest one?

If you accept that clubs are the same after going bust i.e. Same players and fans. Then you can put an argument for either Bradford 1863 or Hull FC 1865. Although there is an argument that the 1863 Bradford went on to be a different club  

[Bearman]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

Which RL club is the oldest one?

Millom are always quoted as the World's oldest amatuer club,  dated  1873

[Neil_Ormston]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

If you accept that clubs are the same after going bust i.e. Same players and fans. Then you can put an argument for either Bradford 1863 or Hull FC 1865. Although there is an argument that the 1863 Bradford went on to be a different club  

I've always taken the view that it's Hull FC, and the continuation of the Bradford FC line is Bradford Park Avenue (Association FC), with Bradford Northern being a new club in 1907.  

I accept that there's an argument that Northern are a continuation of BFC though.  One thing I've never seen though, that would be interesting, are what happened with teams/players as the split happened; this will be fairly readily available (as an output of the work done by the Rugby League Record Keepers Club)-does anyone on here have anything that can share on it, as I think it would be interesting to see (I.e. How many players from BFC from 1906/7 switched to BPA V. BN for 1907/8?).

I don't have too much issues with the various reformations of both Northern/Bulls, and Hull FC (through their Sharks/Gateshead phase) that have happened since-for me, you'd be arguing on a technicality that these are NOT that same clubs, but I get that some might take this view.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Neil_Ormston
Correction of typo

[Padge]

33 minutes ago, ntw said:

I've always taken the view that it's Hull FC, and the continuation of the Bradford FC line is Bradford Park Avenue (Association FC), with Bradford Northern being a new club in 1907.  

I accept that there's an argument that Northern are a continuation of BFC though.  One thing I've never seen though, that would be interesting, are what happened with teams/players as the split happened; this will be fairly readily available (as an output of the work done by the Rugby League Record Keepers Club)-does anyone on here have anything that can share on it, as I think it would be interesting to see (I.e. How many players from BFC from 1906/7 switched to BPA V. BN for 1907/8?).

I don't have too much issues with the various reformations of both Northern/Bulls, and Hull FC (through their Sharks/Gateshead phase) that have happened since-for me, you'd be arguing on a technicality that these are NOT that same clubs, but I get that some might take this view.

 

Clubs change players, change owners, change grounds, change fans, change names, change coaches and coach firms, they change background staff and even unpaid staff. If every time anyone of these things changed you declared a club a 'new' club most clubs would be less than a year old.

A club is an amalgamation of many things, continuity does not depend on any one of these things or all of them.

[deluded pom?]

Surely any club involved in the 1895 breakaway and that is still around today can lay claim to being the oldest RL club in the world? Any club older than that would have been playing rugby union. Or is it any club who were there, and still around, in 1922 when the NU became RL?

[Padge]

1 hour ago, deluded pom? said:

Surely any club involved in the 1895 breakaway and that is still around today can lay claim to being the oldest RL club in the world? Any club older than that would have been playing rugby union. Or is it any club who were there, and still around, in 1922 when the NU became RL?

 

To be pedantic they are all Football Clubs.

 

[deluded pom?]

18 minutes ago, Padge said:

 

To be pedantic they are all Football Clubs.

 

Your pedantry is duly noted and acknowledged

[Neil_Ormston]

6 hours ago, Padge said:

 

To be pedantic they are all Football Clubs.

 

At the risk of turning this into a pedant's arms race, I would say to be pedantic they WERE all Football Clubs.  Most are now Rugby League Football Clubs (though I'm happy Hull continue to stick to plain old "FC"!)

To Deluded Pom's point, I've always had a mild fascination with the fact that 1895 is seen as a Big Bang event for RL, rather than as an (albeit obviously crucial) evolutionary step.  The contradiction in this approach is all around us: Clubs often quote pre-1895 trophies in their honours list, but then don't include these games in player records, or ignore the pre-NU players when issuing heritage numbers; and whilst the RFL can claim to be founded in 1895, the use of the date on England RL shirt badges always strikes me as odd (given it was nearly another decade before they played a game under that guise).

My own club Warrington didn't really start use 'rugby league' in its title until the 1960s, being just 'Warrington Football Club' before that (apart from their first season as Warrington Zingari FC).  Even now though the incorporated name remains Warrington Football Club Limited.

And back to Padge's earlier response: I'm not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with my point about Bradford/Hull!?  I would agree that you often see changes but 'the club' remains a constant - which is what I meant when making reference to Gatehead, and Bradford's recent troubles/1964.  But there are other times when a club clearly ceases to exist, or evolves into something else.  That's why the Bradford FC/BPA/BN situation is interesting (& unique??).  Can a club really split into two, and both claim the same formation date?  It depends on circumstances, but I reckon BPA could claim to be formed in 1863; I would judge that a group of former members and officials of BFC set up a new club in 1907.  But that's why I ask for the players info: I've never researched it properly, but I could be persuaded to take an alternate view, if, for example, the entire playing staff of BFC continued as BN. 

[Padge]

1 hour ago, ntw said:

At the risk of turning this into a pedant's arms race, I would say to be pedantic they WERE all Football Clubs.  Most are now Rugby League Football Clubs (though I'm happy Hull continue to stick to plain old "FC"!)

To Deluded Pom's point, I've always had a mild fascination with the fact that 1895 is seen as a Big Bang event for RL, rather than as an (albeit obviously crucial) evolutionary step.  The contradiction in this approach is all around us: Clubs often quote pre-1895 trophies in their honours list, but then don't include these games in player records, or ignore the pre-NU players when issuing heritage numbers; and whilst the RFL can claim to be founded in 1895, the use of the date on England RL shirt badges always strikes me as odd (given it was nearly another decade before they played a game under that guise).

My own club Warrington didn't really start use 'rugby league' in its title until the 1960s, being just 'Warrington Football Club' before that (apart from their first season as Warrington Zingari FC).  Even now though the incorporated name remains Warrington Football Club Limited.

And back to Padge's earlier response: I'm not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with my point about Bradford/Hull!?  I would agree that you often see changes but 'the club' remains a constant - which is what I meant when making reference to Gatehead, and Bradford's recent troubles/1964.  But there are other times when a club clearly ceases to exist, or evolves into something else.  That's why the Bradford FC/BPA/BN situation is interesting (& unique??).  Can a club really split into two, and both claim the same formation date?  It depends on circumstances, but I reckon BPA could claim to be formed in 1863; I would judge that a group of former members and officials of BFC set up a new club in 1907.  But that's why I ask for the players info: I've never researched it properly, but I could be persuaded to take an alternate view, if, for example, the entire playing staff of BFC continued as BN. 

They are all still football clubs, the business name is neither here nor there. They play under different rules, hence, rugby union football, association football and Rugby League Football. The you have Australian Rules Football, American Football, Gaelic Football.

They are all the same 'sport' but they are playing under the rules of the organisation they have chosen to be affiliated to.

With the Bradford split both teams can have a claim to the history as both teams have a direct association with the previous club, unique as you say, but unique is not impossible just unusual.

Professor Tony Collins agreed with my view that Bradford et al are the same club and that will do for me.

 

[Neil_Ormston]

9 hours ago, Padge said:

They are all still football clubs, the business name is neither here nor there. They play under different rules, hence, rugby union football, association football and Rugby League Football. The you have Australian Rules Football, American Football, Gaelic Football.

They are all the same 'sport' but they are playing under the rules of the organisation they have chosen to be affiliated to.

With the Bradford split both teams can have a claim to the history as both teams have a direct association with the previous club, unique as you say, but unique is not impossible just unusual.

Professor Tony Collins agreed with my view that Bradford et al are the same club and that will do for me.

 

I don't think this is about names or rules though.  You could (rightly) say that humans are hominids, or great apes.  But then so are chimpanzees.  In a certain context that doesn't matter, and at a certain point in time, the distinction would have been irrelevant.  However, more accurate definitions are available, so better to use them.

I suppose technically, I've contradicted my earlier point that they were football clubs, as I concede that they still are.  But my point was that the most accurate description of them available used to be football clubs, but now it is rugby league football clubs, as they have evolved.  I don't agree though that they are the same 'sport'.  It depends how you define sport, but again I would say they were all playing the same sport at a point in time, but have evolved into quite different sports, district in themselves, with a common ancestor.

Anyway, back to Bradford: I know TC refers to 'The Great Betrayal' in both Rugby's Great Split & RL in Twentieth Century Britain, but it's ages since I read them both.  I'll check back, but do you now why he concludes this?

When making a judgement (for that's what it is) on this, I'd say important factors are:

- Name - neither kept the 'Bradford FC' name, so a 0-0 draw here

- Ground - retained by BPA

- Kit - not sure, but I think retained by BPA

- Officials - I think majority stayed with BPA, but some (members, rather than existing officials?) did move to set up BN

- Fans - not sure (likely to be difficult to conclude)

- Players - not sure (hence my earlier question)

- Affiliation to member organisation - a tricky one.  Clearly BN stayed with the NU, but the whole issue was over what organisation the club should be a member of.

- Legal/financial matters - BFC wasn't incorporated at the time (I don't think), but what about retained funds, etc?  I think BPA kept all this.

Like I said, I'll have a read back to see why TC concludes this, or point me in the direction or where this is if you would please.  It would need a very strong steer in the form of players (and fans) to swing this towards BN though. 

[marklaspalmas]

Interesting ideas on this subject.

Perhaps a parallel can be drawn between the Northern/BPA split & who claims the Bradford FC history and the Chorley/Trafford split of 1989(?) and which of those two clubs was the inheritor of Blackpool's history. Largely academic now as both clubs are defunct, but interesting to consider.

FWIW I think we have to look at each case individually and there are no hard&fast rules on a 'new' club. Certainly not player retention/company name/ground/colours/name. Things as nebulous as spirit, or just what-folk-feel/think seem just as important.

At my own club, there are people who count Fev Rovers from 1921 which is understandable but wrong. Whether 1902 or 1908 is the correct foundation date is open to interpretation. Im a 1902er, but Im pretty sure the club's best regarded historian is a 1908er.

[CmonTheBorough]

The Blackpool/Chorley/Trafford scenario was a bit of a mixed bag.  Legally speaking, the limited company which was Blackpool Borough became Springfield Borough then Chorley Borough then Trafford Borough.

From a Rugby League point of view, a second Chorley Borough club was formed after the original Chorley Borough went to Trafford.  This second club was founded by directors from the original Blackpool club and many Blackpool-based fans, myself included, decided to follow this team rather than Trafford.

From a legal point of view, Trafford Borough was the original but the second Chorley club was the heart and soul.

Hope this helps.  Going for a lie down!!

 

 

[Trojan]

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 9:43 PM, Padge said:

I posted this on the Tony Smith Licensing thread but it is probably better discussed here. It is a look at the events leading up to the split with the RFU, which is nothing to do with broken time. This a version of events from my research into it.

 

Lancashire and Yorkshire were a pain in the side of the RFU long before 1895. As the story of the eventual split in rugby unfolds you may get confused by all the various meetings taking place. What you need to realise is that there is the governing body, the RFU, there are then two county committees Lancashire and Yorkshire RFU, there are then sub-committees of the county unions representing the senior clubs in each competition. Other meetings were taking place between groups of clubs that had a similar vision for the game.

The first inter county rugby game between the two great Northern rivals was in 1870 and was played in Leeds. At this stage there was no formal County Committees and it was down to the teams in the county to try and organise informaly a county competition. In 1874 Leeds Athletic, Bradford, Huddersfield, Hull and York formed a county committee to oversee the interests of a Yorkshire County team under the banner of The Yorkshire County Club. Other clubs were not content with 5 clubs running county matters which was causing friction between the elite clubs and the rest, eventually the committee of the Yorkshire County Club bowed to the inevitable and became a formal Union of all Yorkshire clubs in 1888.

Form 1870 to 1881 the Manchester Rugby Union club was the equivilant of the Yorkshire County Club and was responsible for county fixtures on behalf of Lancashire. Rugby clubs in West Lancashire wary of the growth of soccer in the area decided to form their own union in November 1881 to look after the interests of all rugby clubs in Lancashire.

In the 1885-86 season 24 clubs took part in the West Lancashire Cup, the cup competition proved popular attracting a crowd as high as 15,000 for a game between Warrington and Runcorn held at Widnes.

By the start of the 1886-87 season membership had increased to fifty clubs and the union introduced a Junior Challenge Cup alongside the Lancashire Cup.

The Lancashire Union at their AGM held on the 31st May 1889 decided to change from knockout cup competitions to leagues. The senior league consisted of eight clubs, Aspull, Warrington, Wigan, Tyldesley, Leigh, Walkden, St.Helens and Widnes.

The league system only lasted for two seasons, squabbling amongst clubs had made the system difficult to manage. The experiment though had sown seeds for the future.

As the Lancashire experiment ended after season 1890-91 the Yorkshire Senior clubs of Batley, Bradford, Brighouse, Dewsbury, Halifax, Huddersfield, Hull, Hunslet, Leeds, Liversedge, Manningham and Wakefield decided that they wanted their own league starting in season 1891-92. The clubs wanted full control of the league. The Yorkshire RFU would not sanction the move as that would mean they were relinquishing control of the sport to the senior clubs.

At a meeting of the Yorkshire R.U. on 15th January 1895 the Yorkshire committe agreed to send a deputation to a meeting with their Lancashire counterparts in Manchester at The Crown Hotel to discuss the propsal of the formulation of a Northern Union.

At the Manchester meeting the decision was made to press ahead with the creation of the a Northern Union and a meeting arranged for 30th January at the George Hotel Huddersfield for all the senior clubs from Lancashire and Yorkshire.

At the meeting on the 30th January attended by Brighouse Rangers, Batley, Dewsbury, Huddersfield, Warrington, Swinton, Liversedge, Salford, Hull, Wakefield, Manningham, Wigan, Leigh, Tyldesley, Broughton Rangers, Leeds, Oldham, Rochdale Hornets, Hunslet, Bradford and St. Helens the following resolutions were passed.

 

1. That the premier clubs of Lancashire and Yorkshire as here represented do form themselves into a union for the purpose of furthering the interests of Rugby football in the two counties.

2. That the union be governed by one representitive from each club, the offucials to consist of president, vice-president, honarary secretaries and treasurer to be selected from such representitives.

3. That the champion club in the first division of the Lancashire Championship and the champion club of the first division of the Yorkshire Senior Competition play a match for the championship of the Union.

4. Any bona-fide playing member of a club shall be eligible to play for any club in the Union, provided he has not already taken part in a match with another club of the Union. If he has so played, permission for his transfer must be obtained from the club for which he has played and he must in addition have obtained the sanction of this competition committee.

 

Wednesday 23rd January 1895

Yorkshire Senior Competition Committee meet in Leeds discuss a proposal for Northern Rugby Union League. No decision is made about whether to press ahead. It was decided that a meeting should be arranged with Lancashire clubs to see their point of view in Huddersfield on the 8th February.

 

11th February 1895

Manchester guardian reports that interest in Rugby Football in Lancashire has all but disappeared with the suspension of Salford, Wigan and Leigh and compulsery posponement of fixtures betwee Widness and Aspull, Backley and Ulverston and Walkden and Blackley. The reports also complained about the standard of game in the county matches as being below standard and that the Lancashires match with Cumberland had been scratched as being a pointless excersise due to the weakness inflicted by exclusions.

The rugby union have not yet taken any decisive action in regard to the newley formed Northern Union. It was expectted that the union would receive official sanction at the meeting of the (RFU) committee on Friday night but it was considered suffeciently important to defer the consideration of the question to the next meetig. Presumably this meeting will take place before the Scotland game at Richmond on March 9. It is assumed, of coourse, that the fact of the committee declining for the present to approve the new union is an indication of hostility to it.

At the March 9th meeting the RFU asked the Northern Union clubs to submit its proposed rules for the new union.

The following rules were submitted to the RFU following a meeting of the Senior clubs at the George Hotel on 2nd April 1895.

1. The Union shall be called The Lancashire and Yorkshire R.F.U. of Senior Clubs.

 

2. That the Union shall be a member of the RFU

 

3. That it is governed by one representative from each club.

 

4. The officials to be elected at an A.G.M held alternatively in Lancashire and Yorkshire.

 

5. Annual subscription 1 guinea

 

6. Committee of Management to be 4 per County

 

7. Champion club from each county to play for 'Champion of Union'

 

 

The Yorkshire clubs, Leeds, Bradford and Huddersfield declined to sign up due to having large capital debts and felt the Northern Union was to much of a gamble. Lancashire clubs Salford and Swinton also had reservations.

The Lancashire RFU refused to back the senior clubs Northern Union at their meeting on 17th April 1895.

The RFU discussed the proposals from the Lancashire and Yorkshire Senior Clubs at a meeting on the 9th May 1895. The RFU committee passed the following resolution.

"This committee being of the opinion that any such organisation as the proposed Union of Lancashire and Yorkshire Clubs would be prejudicial to the best interests of the game, forbids the formation of such a Union”.

 

This left the senior clubs of Lancashire and Yorkshire little option but to form their own organisation outside of the RFU.

The whole thing about money is the line-peddled by the RFU, the clubs wanted control of their fixtures and competitions, this was what the Northern clubs were arguing over, broken time was a side-show.

 

 

 

 

 

All this is very interesting.  And if you say broken time was a red herring introduced by the RFU, I'm prepared to accept it.  But it begs the question, why was the RFU so against league and cup comps, when the rest of sport were adopting it.  Even cricket, of all sports closest in culture (in a public school kind of way) to Rugby Union had its County Championship and local leagues (the Bradford League dates from 1903)  And why the likes of the Rev Frank Marshall went about trying to sniff out professionalism and persecuting those he found guilty of it (Dickie Lockwood say.)

[Padge]

35 minutes ago, Trojan said:

All this is very interesting.  And if you say broken time was a red herring introduced by the RFU, I'm prepared to accept it.  But it begs the question, why was the RFU so against league and cup comps, when the rest of sport were adopting it.  Even cricket, of all sports closest in culture (in a public school kind of way) to Rugby Union had its County Championship and local leagues (the Bradford League dates from 1903)  And why the likes of the Rev Frank Marshall went about trying to sniff out professionalism and persecuting those he found guilty of it (Dickie Lockwood say.)

 

The RFU felt that leagues and cups would lead to professionalism as the desire to win silver-ware would cause clubs to seek out the best players and induce them to play for them by rewarding them. They did however seem to leave the ultimate decision with the County Unions and that is who the senior clubs were dealing with. The Yorkshire clubs resigned from the YRFU thinking they would still be members of the RFU, however to be a member of the RFU you had to be a member of the county union. Hence the clubs didn't resign from the RFU on 28th August 1895 but much earlier that year.

 

 

[Lobbygobbler]

I can't understand why any RL fan would argue against the case for saying Bradford's heritage goes back to 1863. The fans, some players and some backroom staff continued the NU in 1907. In fact this is an even stronger argument than clubs who take a break but are reformed with the same fans and backroom people. So long as the fans remain then the line continues. Btw Huddersfield est. 1864 is also older than Hull FC!

[Padge]

2 hours ago, Padge said:

 

The RFU felt that leagues and cups would lead to professionalism as the desire to win silver-ware would cause clubs to seek out the best players and induce them to play for them by rewarding them. They did however seem to leave the ultimate decision with the County Unions and that is who the senior clubs were dealing with. The Yorkshire clubs resigned from the YRFU thinking they would still be members of the RFU, however to be a member of the RFU you had to be a member of the county union. Hence the clubs didn't resign from the RFU on 28th August 1895 but much earlier that year.

 

 

 

Just to add to this, the Northern press were writing about the various difficulties the clubs were having with their unions over fixtures and leagues and who controlled what and the thorny subject of professionalism and broken time. Since the professionalism was more of a concern for the RFU the Southern press were reporting on the battles the Northern Clubs were having with the RFU over broken time and since the RFU were not directly involved the Southern press were not reporting about "local" difficulties. This is how I believe the focus of the breakaway became the argument with the RFU over broken-time when really the arguments were over control of competitions in the North. Professionalism wasn't just a concern in Lancashire and Yorkshire but in places like Coventry, Cheletnham and Wales amongst others.

 

 

 

[Trojan]

22 hours ago, Padge said:

They are all still football clubs, the business name is neither here nor there. They play under different rules, hence, rugby union football, association football and Rugby League Football. The you have Australian Rules Football, American Football, Gaelic Football.

They are all the same 'sport' but they are playing under the rules of the organisation they have chosen to be affiliated to.

With the Bradford split both teams can have a claim to the history as both teams have a direct association with the previous club, unique as you say, but unique is not impossible just unusual.

Professor Tony Collins agreed with my view that Bradford et al are the same club and that will do for me.

 

Funny that,  I was watching a video of Fev at Swinton, who play at Sale RU and noticed the signs say Sale FC.

[Trojan]

3 hours ago, Padge said:

 

Just to add to this, the Northern press were writing about the various difficulties the clubs were having with their unions over fixtures and leagues and who controlled what and the thorny subject of professionalism and broken time. Since the professionalism was more of a concern for the RFU the Southern press were reporting on the battles the Northern Clubs were having with the RFU over broken time and since the RFU were not directly involved the Southern press were not reporting about "local" difficulties. This is how I believe the focus of the breakaway became the argument with the RFU over broken-time when really the arguments were over control of competitions in the North. Professionalism wasn't just a concern in Lancashire and Yorkshire but in places like Coventry, Cheletnham and Wales amongst others.

 

 

 

Nevertheless, the extraordinary general meeting in 1893 to discuss broken time, must have taken place.  And the fact that the majority of the clubs voted against broken time payments, can't have helped matters.  But there must have been some ambivalence to the Northern clubs.  After all the England captain was Dickie Lockwood, who played for Heckmondwike and had been accused of professionalism.  IN 1890 England even played an international against Wales at Crown Flatt Dewsbury.  Presumably there was some sympathy for the problems confronting the Lancashire and Yorkshire clubs.  Perhaps they hoped for a compromise, we weren't there, we don't know.  But what's happened re Brexit in our own time shows that once the zealots have the bit between their teeth there's no stopping them.  They cut off their nose to spite their face, and effectively destroyed England as a force in the game for a generation.  

[Padge]

5 minutes ago, Trojan said:

Funny that,  I was watching a video of Fev at Swinton, who play at Sale RU and noticed the signs say Sale FC.

 

That's the old Sale ground.

8 minutes ago, Trojan said:

Nevertheless, the extraordinary general meeting in 1893 to discuss broken time, must have taken place.  And the fact that the majority of the clubs voted against broken time payments, can't have helped matters.  But there must have been some ambivalence to the Northern clubs.  After all the England captain was Dickie Lockwood, who played for Heckmondwike and had been accused of professionalism.  IN 1890 England even played an international against Wales at Crown Flatt Dewsbury.  Presumably there was some sympathy for the problems confronting the Lancashire and Yorkshire clubs.  Perhaps they hoped for a compromise, we weren't there, we don't know.  But what's happened re Brexit in our own time shows that once the zealots have the bit between their teeth there's no stopping them.  They cut off their nose to spite their face, and effectively destroyed England as a force in the game for a generation.  

 

I am not saying that broken time wasn't an issue and that discussions didn't take place between the Lancashire and Yorkshire clubs, these meetings did take place. What I am saying is that the main driving force behind the split was the desire for the senior clubs to control their own fixtures and competitions. All of this was a local matter as far as the RFU was concerned, they were looking at the game as a whole and professionalism. The clubs broke away because they wanted to be in control of fixtures not because they wanted to be professional and not even because they wanted broken time payments. 

The RFU and the Southern press either mischievously or ignorantly only reported about broken time and professionalism. The clubs deciding to leave over the fixture issue was ideal for the RFU, they got rid of the clubs that were the biggest threat to the amateur status of the game and it showed them as being firmly against professionalism. The rules brought in by the Northern Union were more draconian about professionalism than the RFUs.

[marklaspalmas]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

That's the old Sale ground.

It still is theirs. The first team play at Salford's ground, but the reserves & juniors use Heywood Road.