If Carlsberg did pre-season friendlies...

[latchford albion]

53 minutes ago, northamptoncougar said:

Its honestly people like this that need to close their eyes and walk across the M1 or at least leave the sport.

The clue really is in the title of “pre season friendly” and the focus should be on;

- 1200+ people watching RL on a freezing Friday night in Coventry 

- Sold out hospitality 

- Coventry being able to offer the chance of playing semi pro RL to people outside the heartlards

All of the above is progression not the score.

Coventry Bears is some people’s life’s work, as a club they run on a budget that compares to Sam Burgess’s jock strap, they have never gone bust (see nearly every club anyone’s ever supported) don’t go cap in hand to the RFL and are hugely proactive in the community. This isn’t to also mention their relationships with local business’s and the university.

If more clubs acted in such a way (my own included) then the game wouldn’t be in such a state.

Quotes of the above imo are in the same narrow minded class as the bigots that kick and clap.

RL does not belong to the North, it’s anyones game that wants it.

Fantastic post.  The 'like' that I have given is really not enough.  

[chuffer]

20 minutes ago, latchford albion said:

Fantastic post.  The 'like' that I have given is really not enough.  

couldn't agree more

[OriginalMrC]

1 hour ago, latchford albion said:

Fantastic post.  The 'like' that I have given is really not enough.  

Also agree. Some of the other posts on here make me sad. The attendance at the game last night shows how much potential there is at the Bears. Everyone associated with Leeds was so complimentary of everything the Bears are trying to achieve. They've been in League one for 3 seasons so far and competing against clubs that have been around for over 100 years, that have more resources and bigger player pools to pick from. Coventry and other so called expansion teams should be applauded for everything they do. 

[Padge]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

You mean a little like the Eskimo culture who leave the old out on the ice to perish, because no matter how great they once were, they offer no further use in the eyes of some. 

Develop faster than precisely what in these outlying outposts Padge? Maybe, just maybe over the years the money that has been 'wasted' in some of these places and instead used to develop the infrastructure in the regions of some "M62" clubs we could be in a much healthier position than we are now.

But it is all supposition Padge, you can't tell me that my suggestion is wrong, because it did not happen, just as I can't say to you it will be a waste of money, time and effort, investing in these outlying outposts, because we do not no if it will make a differance, history says it won't.

That is reality.

Eskimos feed their young until they can stand proud and add to the group. The young look after the old because they then have the strength to do so.

 

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Padge said:

Eskimos feed their young.

Yes but in a balanced society, they also look after the aged. You know the ones that without their efforts there may not have been the young to feed. 

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes but in a balanced society, they also look after the aged. You know the ones that without their efforts there may not have been the young to feed. 

Go back to my edited post.

 

[gogledd]

1 hour ago, latchford albion said:

Fantastic post.  The 'like' that I have given is really not enough.  

Totally agree. 

[Harry Stottle]

15 minutes ago, Padge said:

Eskimos feed their young until they can stand proud and add to the group. The young look after the old because they then have the strength to do so.

 

You took to long to think of the edit, I already replied to your highlighted original.

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

You took to long to think of the edit, I already replied to your highlighted original.

So I hit return early answer the point.

Do you suggest we starve our young to allow our old a slower, lingering death because we have no new money to help them. Alternative, let the new blood invigorate the group and bring in the money to sustain the elders.

Your choice strangle the young at birth and let the old die, or help the young to thrive to help to feed the old.

 

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Padge said:

So I hit return early answer the point.

Do you suggest we starve our young to allow our old a slower, lingering death because we have no new money to help them. Alternative, let the new blood invigorate the group and bring in the money to sustain the elders.

Your choice strangle the young at birth and let the old die, or help the young to thrive to help to feed the old.

 

Like I said Padge it is all supposition, had money been previously spent in developing the infrastructures in the 'heartlands' we may be in a far better position to assist in your phrase "help to move them on and develop faster" unless you have a crystal ball at hand you or I cannot make any statements that pouring money into these areas will be an unmitigated success or akin to throwing it down the drain, unfortunately for both of us, I will nor see any fruits from the numerous previous RL managements who wasted opportunities to "help those in the heartlands to develop faster", and you can't say money will not be wasted again.

[Padge]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Like I said Padge it is all supposition, had money been previously spent in developing the infrastructures in the 'heartlands' we may be in a far better position to assist in your phrase "help to move them on and develop faster" unless you have a crystal ball at hand you or I cannot make any statements that pouring money into these areas will be an unmitigated success or akin to throwing it down the drain, unfortunately for both of us, I will nor see any fruits from the numerous previous RL managements who wasted opportunities to "help those in the heartlands to develop faster", and you can't say money will not be wasted again.

The "M62" has gone nowhere since 1895, it is a road to nowhere.

Hunslet are not going to start taking support from Leeds, even if they did, it isn't growth. Hunslet are not going to attract new RL supporters in great numbers, Leeds have that market.

Coventry, Skolars etc. have an open RL market, what holds them back is the lack of help from the centre. They are held back because for over 125 years we have sought to subsidise the next door neighbor than rather than help friends further afield.

All the little "M62"  <Laugh> expansionists</>  always say they are in favour. as long as they get no money and they start at the bottom with no players and no access to Northern players.

That is utter bowlocks, I would sooner you are are honest and say, I don't what clubs outside of the originals involved, this is my domain and the rest of you can F.O.

 

[chuffer]

29 minutes ago, Padge said:

The "M62" ....is a road to nowhere.

bit harsh on hull that but I wouldn't disagree...

[Padge]

12 minutes ago, chuffer said:

bit harsh on hull that but I wouldn't disagree...

The other end is Liverpool, nuff said.

[Evil Homer]

10 hours ago, northamptoncougar said:

Its honestly people like this that need to close their eyes and walk across the M1 or at least leave the sport.

The clue really is in the title of “pre season friendly” and the focus should be on;

- 1200+ people watching RL on a freezing Friday night in Coventry 

- Sold out hospitality 

- Coventry being able to offer the chance of playing semi pro RL to people outside the heartlards

All of the above is progression not the score.

Coventry Bears is some people’s life’s work, as a club they run on a budget that compares to Sam Burgess’s jock strap, they have never gone bust (see nearly every club anyone’s ever supported) don’t go cap in hand to the RFL and are hugely proactive in the community. This isn’t to also mention their relationships with local business’s and the university.

If more clubs acted in such a way (my own included) then the game wouldn’t be in such a state.

Quotes of the above imo are in the same narrow minded class as the bigots that kick and clap.

RL does not belong to the North, it’s anyones game that wants it.

Very strange and toxic attitude on this forum where anyone who makes any type of comment that is perceived as negative towards an expansion club, even comments that are made with positive intentions, is accused of being some sort of bigot or anti-expansionist troll. Believe me, if I was a millionaire I would buy this club and take them to Super League myself. The fact you've actually wished death on me for wanting Coventry to raise their standards on the field is alarming. Re-evaluate what you're doing here.

[Evil Homer]

10 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

The truth is they’ve been in the league for three years.

So what? Skolars have been in the league for 15 years. Are these teams making progress on the field? Are they making sustainable progress off the field? Toronto were in the league for one year and walked it in their first season, it's not difficult to assemble a competitive team in League 1. People can get very upset with me but the fact is these teams will be whipping boys yet again this year, and next year, and the year after until someone acknowledges the problem and acknowledges that standards need to be raised. Again, not questioning the passion and enthusiasm of the people involved but this is professional sport. How long to we continue to praise people just for showing up?

[FearNothing]

It saddens me when some people think that smaller clubs are not worthy of existing. Just remember - whatever league structure you have, there will (and indeed have to be) some that are at the bottom of that structure BUT THAT MAKES THEM NO LESS WORTHY..

[deluded pom?]

3 hours ago, Evil Homer said:

So what? Skolars have been in the league for 15 years. Are these teams making progress on the field? Are they making sustainable progress off the field? Toronto were in the league for one year and walked it in their first season, it's not difficult to assemble a competitive team in League 1. People can get very upset with me but the fact is these teams will be whipping boys yet again this year, and next year, and the year after until someone acknowledges the problem and acknowledges that standards need to be raised. Again, not questioning the passion and enthusiasm of the people involved but this is professional sport. How long to we continue to praise people just for showing up?

As long as these teams you criticise fulfill their obligations and aren’t racking up huge debts I don’t have a problem with them. You know full well Toronto have money, lots of it. Let’s see you assemble a League 1 winning team on Coventry’s budget. You say “this is professional sport” but so is the biggest game in the country and they have plenty of teams who live off handouts and will never win anything barring the backing of a multi millionaire. Maybe they need kicking out of the football league too while we’re at it. We don’t have enough teams and you want to cull what you perceive as the weaker ones! We are NOT the NFL. Get over it.

[OriginalMrC]

It's really sad that a thread about something really positive has been derailed by negative idiots. It's the same in multiple other threads. Rugby League needs clubs like Coventry and Skolars. Not every club can be like Leeds, Wigan or St. Helens and not every club will have instant success on the pitch. I just don't understand the narrow minded views of some people, it's just bizarre and damaging to the game. 

[Scubby]

6 hours ago, Evil Homer said:

So what? Skolars have been in the league for 15 years. Are these teams making progress on the field? Are they making sustainable progress off the field? Toronto were in the league for one year and walked it in their first season, it's not difficult to assemble a competitive team in League 1. People can get very upset with me but the fact is these teams will be whipping boys yet again this year, and next year, and the year after until someone acknowledges the problem and acknowledges that standards need to be raised. Again, not questioning the passion and enthusiasm of the people involved but this is professional sport. How long to we continue to praise people just for showing up?

Sorry but that is a completely disingenuous thing to say. When I was growing up some clubs like Huddersfield and Doncaster were whipping boys year after year after year - finishing rock bottom of the whole competition. This is despite being able to call on a massive pool of players within 20 miles of their base.

They stuck at it and were successful in becoming better clubs over time and both made it to the top flight at some point.

Skolars were whipping boys for quite a few years yet they made the top 8 in 2016 (with a W8 L6 record) and narrowly missed it in 2017. For someone as dismissive as you, that may not be progress but for others who have put their heart and soul into starting a club from absolutely nothing, hundreds of miles from the heartlands it must be extremely satisfying and encouraging. If they make the Championship in the next 5-10 years it will be a herculean effort from those fantastic guys running the club. It could potentially take off from there as it will be built on solid foundations.

Coventry will no doubt feel the same over time. They also have great dedicated people running the club and Friday night's game against Leeds must have been a small but hugely satisfying tick in the box. It warmed my heart to see over 1200 there. Posts like yours really do the game no favours.

[deluded pom?]

13 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

I suppose my "problem" with some of the League 1 teams isn't the League 1 teams themselves, in as much as it is what I would argue are potential better uses for the money. If you look at the likes of say Coventry, Hemel, South Wales, and formerly Oxford and All Golds, you're looking at ~£400k a year of funding there. I'd rather see 20 development officers, split 1 per town/city, aiming to get as many people as possible playing the game, so that in future years these professional clubs have much more developed roots to sit on top of.

You can have as many development officers as you like but if you want to expand the game’s footprint then you have to fund the clubs somehow or is it better to produce players with nowhere to play other than going north? 

[Evil Homer]

9 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

As long as these teams you criticise fulfill their obligations and aren’t racking up huge debts I don’t have a problem with them. You know full well Toronto have money, lots of it. Let’s see you assemble a League 1 winning team on Coventry’s budget. You say “this is professional sport” but so is the biggest game in the country and they have plenty of teams who live off handouts and will never win anything barring the backing of a multi millionaire. Maybe they need kicking out of the football league too while we’re at it. We don’t have enough teams and you want to cull what you perceive as the weaker ones! We are NOT the NFL. Get over it.

I don't have a problem with them. I want to see them succeed and replace the embarrassing village teams and ghost clubs above them in the pyramid. Clubs like Coventry and Skolars should be the future of RL but instead they're stuck perennially being thrashed at the bottom of League 1, why? Toronto have money because their founder solicited funding and the club is run as a results-driven business, not being thrashed by a team of 17 year olds and then patting each other on the back because they sold some hospitality packages. Toronto started off as just one guy with literally nothing. There isn't any excuse for a professional club to be consistently uncompetitive and I don't see why there should be any excuses made for anyone, if a team like Hunslet was being flogged at the bottom of the pyramid every year for a prolonged period they would be met with derision and rightly so. Comparisons with soccer are disingenuous and bizarre to say the least.

Not surprised at the very angry response to my post from zealots telling me to get out of the sport, but I make absolutely no apologies for wanting these clubs to be better than they are. And I have never, ever once claimed that anyone should be 'culled', so you should probably apologise for that and re-evaluate your hostile and reactionary attitude towards someone who is trying to help, the same goes for many others who have replied here.

[Evil Homer]

6 hours ago, Scubby said:

Sorry but that is a completely disingenuous thing to say. When I was growing up some clubs like Huddersfield and Doncaster were whipping boys year after year after year - finishing rock bottom of the whole competition. This is despite being able to call on a massive pool of players within 20 miles of their base.

They stuck at it and were successful in becoming better clubs over time and both made it to the top flight at some point.

Skolars were whipping boys for quite a few years yet they made the top 8 in 2016 (with a W8 L6 record) and narrowly missed it in 2017. For someone as dismissive as you, that may not be progress but for others who have put their heart and soul into starting a club from absolutely nothing, hundreds of miles from the heartlands it must be extremely satisfying and encouraging. If they make the Championship in the next 5-10 years it will be a herculean effort from those fantastic guys running the club. It could potentially take off from there as it will be built on solid foundations.

Coventry will no doubt feel the same over time. They also have great dedicated people running the club and Friday night's game against Leeds must have been a small but hugely satisfying tick in the box. It warmed my heart to see over 1200 there. Posts like yours really do the game no favours.

Firstly, comparisons to winter-era RL are pretty bizarre and unhelpful in this case. Secondly, when those teams were bottom of the league I would've said the same things about them, they needed a change of approach. Thirdly, Skolars best season in 15 years is finishing 8th and that's a pretty clear illustration of my point. Nice guys who are trying their best but they aren't cutting it, were it not for even more hapless expansion clubs they would be bottom or second-bottom every year. I want to see these teams developing and moving up the pyramid, I don't want to see a stack of hapless expansion clubs being hammered at the bottom of League 1 while people pat them on the back and make excuses for their constant failure. These aren't amateur clubs or community clubs where participation is the goal, they're in a professional structure. They need to be better. Maybe Coventry could attract over 1200 every week if they had a team that didn't concede 70 points to an u19s side.

[Scubby]

28 minutes ago, Evil Homer said:

Firstly, comparisons to winter-era RL are pretty bizarre and unhelpful in this case. Secondly, when those teams were bottom of the league I would've said the same things about them, they needed a change of approach. Thirdly, Skolars best season in 15 years is finishing 8th and that's a pretty clear illustration of my point. Nice guys who are trying their best but they aren't cutting it, were it not for even more hapless expansion clubs they would be bottom or second-bottom every year. I want to see these teams developing and moving up the pyramid, I don't want to see a stack of hapless expansion clubs being hammered at the bottom of League 1 while people pat them on the back and make excuses for their constant failure. These aren't amateur clubs or community clubs where participation is the goal, they're in a professional structure. They need to be better. Maybe Coventry could attract over 1200 every week if they had a team that didn't concede 70 points to an u19s side.

I am sorry I don't agree at all. Winter rugby is a perfect comparison. Teams like Fulham, Cardiff Blues and Carlisle were created as top down clubs and had a couple of good seasons (cutting it as you say) before imploding and eventually going belly up. Yet a club like Skolars or Coventry building organically from the bottom up, running multiple teams, having locals in the first team and creeping up the table year by year are a waste of time

. Skolars in their 15 years are now an established League one club who could challenge for promotion in the next 3-5 years. If in 10 years time they are going toe to toe with Halifax and Featherstone and getting 1000 per game then we have another solid semi-professional club with strong foundations. Coventry have the potential to move to 1000-plus crowds much quicker. The work these guys are doing at those two clubs is exactly what the game needs IMO.

[Evil Homer]

21 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I am sorry I don't agree at all. Winter rugby is a perfect comparison. Teams like Fulham, Cardiff Blues and Carlisle were created as top down clubs and had a couple of good seasons (cutting it as you say) before imploding and eventually going belly up. Yet a club like Skolars or Coventry building organically from the bottom up, running multiple teams, having locals in the first team and creeping up the table year by year are a waste of time

. Skolars in their 15 years are now an established League one club who could challenge for promotion in the next 3-5 years. If in 10 years time they are going toe to toe with Halifax and Featherstone and getting 1000 per game then we have another solid semi-professional club with strong foundations. Coventry have the potential to move to 1000-plus crowds much quicker. 

They're not building though, they're making no progress, that's my point. There's an apologetic attitude towards these clubs where we pretend they are 'building' just by existing when the truth is they're not, they're going nowhere. Skolars as you say had a relatively good season two years ago and have since gone backwards again. Their crowds, player development and off-field performance all seem to be more or less the same as they were when I last attended a match there 10 years ago. I don't expect overnight success but as a professional entity I do expect them to have more to show after 15 years than one eighth-place finish and a meek team that is hammered by u19s. We shouldn't be satisfied with them merely existing  in this way and neither should the clubs themselves, although I suspect they are which is probably reinforced by attitudes like the ones in your post and others in this thread. Not sure where your assessment of challenging for promotion in 3-5 years has come from, I would like them to be but that certainly isn't going to happen until someone acknowledges that they aren't good enough at present and does something to improve the standards. Making excuses and patting them on the back for showing up won't achieve that.

[Scubby]

18 minutes ago, Evil Homer said:

They're not building though, they're making no progress, that's my point. There's an apologetic attitude towards these clubs where we pretend they are 'building' just by existing when the truth is they're not, they're going nowhere. Skolars as you say had a relatively good season two years ago and have since gone backwards again. Their crowds, player development and off-field performance all seem to be more or less the same as they were when I last attended a match there 10 years ago. I don't expect overnight success but as a professional entity I do expect them to have more to show after 15 years than one eighth-place finish and a meek team that is hammered by u19s. We shouldn't be satisfied with them merely existing  in this way and neither should the clubs themselves, although I suspect they are which is probably reinforced by attitudes like the ones in your post and others in this thread. Not sure where your assessment of challenging for promotion in 3-5 years has come from, I would like them to be but that certainly isn't going to happen until someone acknowledges that they aren't good enough at present and does something to improve the standards.

Wow. It's quite right you hold these clubs to comparison against the likes of Swinton, Hunslet, Oldham, Rochdale and Workington. There's over 500 years of semi-professional Rugby League right there and all are currently playing to crowds of around 500 give or take a few (two of them on the verge of going bust). Really puts Covertry Bears (3 years) and London Skolars (14 years) into perspective.