Paul Rowley on BBC Radio Manchester

[Spidey]

The concept of Licensing was meant to deliver 1st class facilities (amongst other things). However the management of it and sanctions against clubs who didn’t follow the process just wasn’t there

[mickhornet]

What makes you  think anyone will watch in these new stadiums.Transatlantic league my eye.Pie in the sky

[Dave T]

So some of these things may have happened without licensing (and some DID happen pre-licensing), but it was licensing that was the driver behind the clubs playing in good facilities now?

Awesome.

[GUBRATS]

Leigh got a perfectly good stadium sorted and built completely prior to licencing , and then had it ignored by the RFL , but they were very happy to include artists impressions from Cas,Wakey,Celtic crusaders 

So Scotchy you are as usual posting complete nonsense , but we know that anyway , as that is what you generally do , baffle with waffle 

Dave , best to leave him to it 

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I notice you are still avoiding the pretty simple question of what success looked like. If 6 of 9 in 8 years wasn't it working. What does it working look like?

Well i question your 6 so not worth it.

Catalans expanded their ground way above the 900 you refer to in 2006 after playing their first SL season at the Union ground. They were never joining SL with a 4k stadium and 900 seats.

Warrington didnt 'need' to upgrade, it was a commercial decision to invest rather than requiring improvement.

According to Wiki Leeds, built the Carnegie stand from 2005, completed in 2006.

I think it is extremely tenuous to suggest they were anything to do with licensing in the slightest. 

Im not sure why you are trying to shoe-horn these developments into licensing. I agree that licensing is the best environment to strengthen Rugby clubs in this country. I just think the game wasnt patient enough to recognise the real benefits in this area.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Well i question your 6 so not worth it.

Catalans expanded their ground way above the 900 you refer to in 2006 after playing their first SL season at the Union ground. They were never joining SL with a 4k stadium and 900 seats.

Warrington didnt 'need' to upgrade, it was a commercial decision to invest rather than requiring improvement.

According to Wiki Leeds, built the Carnegie stand from 2005, completed in 2006.

I think it is extremely tenuous to suggest they were anything to do with licensing in the slightest. 

Im not sure why you are trying to shoe-horn these developments into licensing. I agree that licensing is the best environment to strengthen Rugby clubs in this country. I just think the game wasnt patient enough to recognise the real benefits in this area.

Dave the clue with the Leeds development at that time is in the name , unless of course the Uni felt threatened by relegation 

[RayCee]

6 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

A dishonest argument would be to argue because it didnt work for Wakey and Cas it can't have worked for Saints or Salford.

A dishonest argument would be to argue that people have stated ALL it took was licensing for Salford and Saints to build grounds.

Those would be dishonest arguments.

To argue that licensing, which at the time was attacked for being too focused on facilities by some of the same people arguing here that it had no effect on facilities, acted as a catalyst for the moves of Saints and Salford and the significant improvements at Hull KR and Les Catalans (which are being conveniently ignored)  is not dishonest. In fact its a pretty obvious argument.

Here are some facts that some on here are ignoring.

Licensing was established in May 2005. Clubs knew, and had agreed, at that point that we would be moving toward this system and that facilities would be an important part of it.

Clubs applied twice for licences before the licence system was implemented and those 4 clubs (and crusaders) were told that their stadiums werent up to scratch.

They were also told post in 2009 that those stadiums had put their licence in jeopardy.

Gary Tasker, the RFL's Director of Development, said yesterday: 'Since we awarded the Super League licences 12 months ago we have continued to monitor all 14 clubs to ensure they are progressing with plans they put in their original applications.

'Five clubs put forward their intention to build new stadiums. Some are at a more advanced stage of the planning process than others so we feel it is appropriate to remind all of the clubs of their commitment to upgrade or move to a new stadium.

'Clubs need to be aware that we are raising the bar for the next licence period, and showcasing Super League in high quality stadium facilities remains a key objective.

Both Castleford and Salford publicly mentioned their attempts to get a new stadium as an important part of their applications.

Richard Wright We are moving to a new ground at the back end of 2009. Hopefully we will get a licence on the back of that.

David Tarry The new ground is going to shift us from being a small city club marketed to a Salford audience to one that becomes a regional team for the Greater Manchester area.

It is probably the first purpose-built rugby league stadium constructed in decades, so it puts us in a slightly different position to most clubs applying for a licence.

We hope the stadium will host major semi-finals, internationals and we think it needs a Super League team in there.

For these reasons I think it would be unthinkable for Salford City Reds - and also for the game - if we did not get a licence.

An excellent summation Scotchy.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, RayCee said:

An excellent summation Scotchy.

No its complete nonsense , again unless you attribute Warrington,Leigh and indeed Leeds current improvements all to the middle 8 s 

Seriously you havent a clue about what you are commenting on , it'd be like my passing judgement on RL in NZ 

[Scubby]

5 hours ago, Spidey said:

The concept of Licensing was meant to deliver 1st class facilities (amongst other things). However the management of it and sanctions against clubs who didn’t follow the process just wasn’t there

Exactly, under-performing clubs needed punting after that first round to give it any sort of credibility. I don't care if the competition had to drop to 12 clubs at that stage. A message needed to be sent out. At the very least 2-3 clubs should have received 1 year instead of 3-year licences. That would have provided Championship clubs with the opportunity to put together bids to replace them.

[The Parksider]

2 hours ago, Scubby said:

Exactly, under-performing clubs needed punting after that first round to give it any sort of credibility. I don't care if the competition had to drop to 12 clubs at that stage. A message needed to be sent out. At the very least 2-3 clubs should have received 1 year instead of 3-year licences. That would have provided Championship clubs with the opportunity to put together bids to replace them.

At the end of the first round the best performing clubs were the "A" clubs, Hull, Wigan, Leeds and Warrington. The second best performers were the "B" clubs Bradford, Catalans, Huddersfield, HKR & St.Helens. 

The underperformers were Castleford, London, Crusaders, Salford and Wakefield. had they been "punted" there would have been an "incredible" nine club Superleague! What a daft idea.

As for "Championship clubs putting bids together to to replace them" only Widnes and Halifax made bids. Widnes finally got the place denied them by Crusaders. Halifax, the only other Championship applicant were one of the worst ever SL performers, and although this was some years on Halifax by this time had the ground ("a good facility") so maybe they should have replaced Cas or Wakey as you say??

Problem was their financial ability was "Inadequate" "speculative" "insufficient" and "below SL standards". But of course they had a good ground so they should have been a shoe in!!!!

It would have been a total disaster to have put them in SL rather than Cas or Wakey.

The fact is that every club wants to have the best facilities it can because the better the facilities the better the return, the better the business. Hardly any of them had the massive wealth just to build one , they all relied on "opportunity" which at times amounted to Lady Luck. Some were lucky to have wonderful grounds fall into their lap, others strove hard to get the same help from councils and had the door slammed in their face.

The idea decent clubs like Castleford and Wakefield should have been kicked out of SL for Halifax and some other un-named championship club who didn't even put a bid in, to somehow force them to build a new ground (how is that supposed to work?) is absurd. The idea the period of  licensing forced clubs to make ground improvements is equally absurd, they took their opportunities when they arose (long before licensing and likely well after licensing), and when during licensing new grounds were improved further it was for more income not for more points on their Licence score.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

At the end of the first round the best performing clubs were the "A" clubs, Hull, Wigan, Leeds and Warrington. The second best performers were the "B" clubs Bradford, Catalans, Huddersfield, HKR & St.Helens. 

The underperformers were Castleford, London, Crusaders, Salford and Wakefield. had they been "punted" there would have been an "incredible" nine club Superleague! What a daft idea.

As for "Championship clubs putting bids together to to replace them" only Widnes and Halifax made bids. Widnes finally got the place denied them by Crusaders. Halifax, the only other Championship applicant were one of the worst ever SL performers, and although this was some years on Halifax by this time had the ground ("a good facility") so maybe they should have replaced Cas or Wakey as you say??

Problem was their financial ability was "Inadequate" "speculative" "insufficient" and "below SL standards". But of course they had a good ground so they should have been a shoe in!!!!

It would have been a total disaster to have put them in SL rather than Cas or Wakey.

The fact is that every club wants to have the best facilities it can because the better the facilities the better the return, the better the business. Hardly any of them had the massive wealth just to build one , they all relied on "opportunity" which at times amounted to Lady Luck. Some were lucky to have wonderful grounds fall into their lap, others strove hard to get the same help from councils and had the door slammed in their face.

The idea decent clubs like Castleford and Wakefield should have been kicked out of SL for Halifax and some other un-named championship club who didn't even put a bid in, to somehow force them to build a new ground (how is that supposed to work?) is absurd. The idea the period of  licensing forced clubs to make ground improvements is equally absurd, they took their opportunities when they arose (long before licensing and likely well after licensing), and when during licensing new grounds were improved further it was for more income not for more points on their Licence score.

The posts where continually moved to accommodate a situ that would fit. That failed. Now they think they have an aspiration that will succeed. In fact they don't have an answer without failure.

[GUBRATS]

Bump

So Raycee your licencing was the catalyst for new stadia assertion was wrong 

[Dave T]

It is fair to say that the quality of facilities that clubs stage their games at has improved out of sight since the early 90's.

Pretty much every SL club plays in far better grounds than 30 years ago, it is worth looking at what drove that.

1. In 1990 the Taylor Report was published on the back of the Hillsborough disaster. This led to a huge number of improvements across football, and led a shift in what was deemed acceptable at sports grounds in this country.

2. In 1994 the RFL published its Framing the Future document.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby-league-outdated-game-set-for-radical-changes-1386873.html

Note "too many (clubs) fail to provide the facilities necessary to compete with other forms of entertainment"

3. In 2000, both Leigh and Dewsbury were denied entry to SL if they won their GF due to inadequate facilities:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/814781.stm

 

So there we have two key events which put an awful lot of focus on improved facilities and point 3 shows that this was not without repercussions for those who did not act.

A quick timeline of events:

1994 - Huddersfield moved into the John Smiths Stadium 

1997 - Widnes ground improvements (finished in 2005)

1999 - Wigan Warriors moved to the DW Stadium

2003 - Hull FC moved into the KCOM Stadium

2004 - Warrington moved into the HJ Stadium

So in the 15 or so years following the Taylor Report and 10 years following the FtF doc, which I believe put a lot of onus on facilities, we saw 5 teams abandon their old grounds and move into new facilities.

What the above timeline doesn't show is that the majority of clubs were also working hard on getting a new ground, Wakefield, Cas, Salford, St Helens, Leigh, Bradford - I would argue against the backdrop of a ) pressure from the RFL (as evidenced by the first 3 points), b ) them being left behind commercially and c) customer expectations rising. We also saw improvements at various lower league clubs.

What we then have, is a period where some of these plans come to fruition:

2005 - Catalans admitted to SL with a three year exemption - played out of the RU ground while their 4k capacity ground was upgraded for 2006

Leeds Rhinos' Carnegie Stand was built

Licensing was announced to start in 2009.

2008 - first round of licenses awarded

2012 - Salford and St Helens finally moved into their new grounds. McManus commented "I financially invested in the club 12 years ago on the back of architectural plans for a new stadium, which I thought would take two or three years to ensue."

Warrington extended their ground

2013 - Hull KR opened their new stand

 

So, imho we saw the focus on facilities rise in the early 90's due to the two key reports, which has led to huge increases in movements to get better facilities, plus plans drawn up for those still in poor facilities. By the time licensing was announced in 2005, and the first licenses were announced in 2008, the game was being played out of facilities far superior to those in the early 90's.

Similarly, both football and RU have seen similar improvements during this exact same period. This supports my point, and I am pretty comfortable with my assertion that the improved facilities was driven by the reports into football grounds on the back of the 80's disasters and the RFL document supporting the creation of a SL played out of improved facilities.

A major topic of conversation has been facilities ever since then.

I will repeat again, that I agree with the hypothesis of licensing being good for attracting investments in clubs, including facilities improvements (not just grounds) to strengthen clubs as a whole and not teams, but Rugby League didn't do it properly, or long enough to reap those benefits.

[Scubby]

24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is fair to say that the quality of facilities that clubs stage their games at has improved out of sight since the early 90's....

Jesus I'm not quoting the whole lot, thought I was proof reading my masters thesis again. 

The points are well made however. An interesting comparison is cricket who over the last couple of decades have threatened long established counties with the removal of internationals and test matches if the facilities weren't improved. This meant that long established counties like Yorkshire got snubbed for tests in the 2000s and rather than sulk they invested in facilities. RL in this country was not prepared to act on any threat around finances, facilities or junior development during licensing so in the end it was redundant - like school kids wangling out of doing homework when the deadlines came (and went).

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Jesus I'm not quoting the whole lot, thought I was proof reading my masters thesis again. 

The points are well made however. An interesting comparison is cricket who over the last couple of decades have threatened long established counties with the removal of internationals and test matches if the facilities weren't improved. This meant that long established counties like Yorkshire got snubbed for tests in the 2000s and rather than sulk they invested in facilities. RL in this country was not prepared to act on any threat around finances, facilities or junior development during licensing so in the end it was redundant - like school kids wangling out of doing homework when the deadlines came (and went).

it was either that or read through all the asian posts that had appeared here  

I actually think the RFL have been prepared to say no to lower division clubs, (as per my 3rd point) - I suppose it is easier to keep the door shut rather than throw somebody out of a party when they are already in. I think it is easier to justify that the likes of Leigh and Fev improved their facilities after being told in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't be admitted into SL with their previous versions. 

Like I say, had we kept licensing for another 20 years or so, I think we would have seen some real improvements from those looking to come in. They would have had to, and that would have put the squeeze on the poorer clubs, which should have driven standards up. The timeframe we had licensing in was just too short for this to play out though, but at least there have been plenty of improvements due to the focus and momentum built from 1990 onwards.

[Scubby]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

it was either that or read through all the asian posts that had appeared here  

I actually think the RFL have been prepared to say no to lower division clubs, (as per my 3rd point) - I suppose it is easier to keep the door shut rather than throw somebody out of a party when they are already in. I think it is easier to justify that the likes of Leigh and Fev improved their facilities after being told in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't be admitted into SL with their previous versions. 

Like I say, had we kept licensing for another 20 years or so, I think we would have seen some real improvements from those looking to come in. They would have had to, and that would have put the squeeze on the poorer clubs, which should have driven standards up. The timeframe we had licensing in was just too short for this to play out though, but at least there have been plenty of improvements due to the focus and momentum built from 1990 onwards.

Yep fair points. Ironically, it turned out that licensing was criticised heavily as it appeared to be propping up clubs who probably shouldn't have been there. At the time a number were vulnerable like Wakefield, Crusaders, Bradford, London, Salford etc.

As it turns out, some of those clubs slipped out of the top flight and one disappeared. What it has shown is there was resilience to build the likes of Bradford and London back up. Would it have been so disastrous had Fev or Leigh got 3 years ahead of Wakefield or London at the time? My bet is that those demoted clubs would have dusted themselves down and come back again in future.

Like anything, we do not give things time. What disappointed me most was not the change in licensing, it was the complete uncoupling of any form of framework for standards off-the-field (including things like academy teams). That was a terrible oversight and encouraged boom and bust over everything else.

[Scubby]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The error was going to 14. We didnt have 14 clubs big enough. We saw the financial crisis hit in 2008, people had less money, sponsors werent as available, money was tight everyway, and we decided to spread ourselves thinner.

Not only that but 14 clubs left nothing below. Wakefield or London or Bradford, or Crusaders could fail and there wasnt anyone ready to step in. Cas could fail to improve and there was no-one knocking on the door.

Had we gone initially with 10 and concentrated the resources come 2011 we could have had Wakefield, Castleford, Widnes, Leigh, Bradford, Toulouse, and probably one or two more coming from a stronger championship and knocking on the door of SL. putting pressure on those in there and maybe replace them. But we wouldnt necessarily have needed to replace them. We could have expanded at that point, gone to 11 or 12 and been moving forward.

The expand from strength principle is not something that RL does very well. We have a problem with creating strength in the first place. Too many self-serving interests to get there sadly.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

You have decided that you don't want any success attributed to licensing and then you pick and choose what is allowed to come to that conclusion.

 

Nope. You are constantly ignoring points people make. I was a supporter of licensing. I can see the benefits. I would be cool with it returning.

I just think you trying to shoe-horn benefits into a really short period is unnecessary.

Licensing didn't work because we did it poorly and cut it short. 

Licensing didn't fail because of the concept.

I see no issue with accepting that, and trying to convince people it was great because Saints got their stadium built during that period, despite them starting the process much earlier, is unnecessary.

The black and white is that since the early 90's top level sports facilities have improved out of sight - there was a clear trigger for that. 

You are trying to argue that the trigger for RL came in 2005, which is clearly nonsense.

[Adelaide Tiger]

On 28/03/2018 at 5:42 PM, The Parksider said:

It absolutely does Ray, same to Tiger - please stop denying it Gentlemen. SL had to cut from 14 to 12, then confirmed 12 was a many as they could manage and are now considering 10 with a declining player pool. Perez accepted this but still articulated his plan where rich NA clubs are promoted replacing poor English ones until Superleague is Transatlantic. 5-6 NA clubs & 5-6 European clubs. This was needed to unlock the alleged massive American TV deal down the line.

 

Meantime viable English clubs will keep getting dragged into the Championship ruining their businesses.

Parksider, please do me a courtesy and read my previous post using both eyes!

Para 1 above - You will clearly read in my previous post that I DO NOT AGREE with NA clubs simply replacing existing SL clubs to keep SL at 12 clubs.  So how can I 'stop denying it' when I do not support it!!!!   I do look forward to reading your posts as they challenge my view. But when you cant be bothered to actually read my posts then I wonder why I bother reading yours.

Para 2 above -  English clubs ARE currently being dragged into the Championship and potentially could go out of business and that is the problem with the current system that is a slave to satisfy our thirst for promotion and relegation.

Take Hull KR as an example.  Relegation years ago led to crowds of 2,000 or so.  The club built itself up slowly and achieved 7-8k in SL.  The club got relegated in 2016 and flirted with the possibility of having to go part time if promotion wasnt achieved.  Is RL in such a strong position that it can possibly lose fulltime clubs?

 

 

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Portraying opinion as fact there Dave?

You are picking and choosing what is acceptable based on your pre-existing conclusion. You are applying numerous double standards to try and back up your pre-existing conclusion. You are ignoring facts (actual facts not opinions) that don't fit your narrative.

Your post may have been long, but its not at all convincing. It doesnt even address the actual argument. It deliberately avoids it because when you address the actual argument your conclusion simply doesnt stack up.

Did licensing provide the space, impetus or environment that made it easier and more likely for us to see clubs improving or moving facilities? Not was licensing the ONLY driver, not was licensing the ONLY process under which it could happen. Simply did it make it easier or more likely. The obvious conclusion is yes. It did make it more easier and more likely. Because we saw it happen.

 

cool, for the 2nd time on this thread, happy to agree to disagree.

[The Parksider]

On 3/28/2018 at 8:37 AM, RayCee said:

Now Parky, you know very well the standard of many of the players in the Championship is very good. Player quality can sustain more than 12 teams.  

You better think hard about who you are actually disagreeing with, and it's not me.

The June 2017 SL meeting to discuss a 13 or 14 club Superleague was based on ensuring Hull.K.R. returned this year.  The issue was how to find the quality players who could staff these clubs, after all only a couple of years earlier London, Bradford and Wakefield had had great difficulties finding the quality of players to compete in a 14 club league.

The cut to 12 was about player quality, and Jamie Peacock at the time said that for an evenly matched quality league 10 was the number. Back to last summers meeting Koukash was happy to tell the journalists the outcome which was the clubs could not move back to 14 due to player quality.  Koukash said they had accepted even 13 was not possible.  He said "where are we going to find an extra 30 SL players"… "There is not enough homegrown talent". I am pointing out you think you know better than the chairmen and the players. You don’t….

19 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Parksider, please do me a courtesy and read my previous post using both eyes!

You will clearly read in my previous post that I DO NOT AGREE with NA clubs simply replacing existing SL clubs

To quote you exactly:-.

“Option 3 - Choose to accommodate new entities from northern hemisphere countries along with existing SL teams I am not ashamed to say that I prefer Option 3”

So please do me the courtesy of using your brain and understanding the option you prefer is more clubs in Superleage just like Ray Cee above. The option you prefer is not possible due to the player shortage the clubs and senior players themselves highlighted only recently.

You two and others need to have the courtesy of accepting you can't sustain a reasonable debate when you go into denial on the facts as presented by those who run and play Superleague. Both TWP and TO have been warned on the issue by Lenegan and Rimmer and the solution is in the clubs hands to develop quality players. it's no good you two whinging "That will take 10 years" or pretending "There are the players" because you want your fantasy league. If these clubs want in, it's up to them to develop quality players or that's that.   

Have the courtesy to accept the facts.

[RayCee]

20 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

The June 2017 SL meeting to discuss a 13 or 14 club Superleague was based on ensuring Hull.K.R. returned this year.  The issue was how to find the quality players who could staff these clubs, after all only a couple of years earlier London, Bradford and Wakefield had had great difficulties finding the quality of players to compete in a 14 club league.

The cut to 12 was about player quality, and Jamie Peacock at the time said that for an evenly matched quality league 10 was the number. Back to last summers meeting Koukash was happy to tell the journalists the outcome which was the clubs could not move back to 14 due to player quality.  Koukash said they had accepted even 13 was not possible.  He said "where are we going to find an extra 30 SL players"… "There is not enough homegrown talent". I am pointing out you think you know better than the chairmen and the players. You don’t….

I recall October 1996 when a judge ruled SL in Australia was legal. For 1997 22 clubs took part in two RL comps and every expert said that there would be some embarrassingly lop sided results in the SL comp due to the haste in which it had to be arranged in. There just weren't enough quality players. Well guess what? All the experts from administrators, clubs and media experts got it badly wrong. 

I no longer listen to the experts who should know. I use my own eyes. I see quality in the UK and Australian game below the top tier even if the experts don't. 

To take a leaf out of your book, I an pointing out to you that you think you know better than everyone else. You don't.... 

[Kayakman]

On 3/28/2018 at 1:20 PM, mickhornet said:

What makes you  think anyone will watch in these new stadiums.Transatlantic league my eye.Pie in the sky

I go....lots of other people go to the games too.   I think having a successful second team over here will be the true test:   TWP is a certain 'all go' now.  Just telling you the truth on the ground over here.

[mickhornet]

12 hours ago, Kayakman said:

I go....lots of other people go to the games too.   I think having a successful second team over here will be the true test:   TWP is a certain 'all go' now.  Just telling you the truth on the ground over here.

4 at Spotland The owner will soon get tired

[Kayakman]

2 minutes ago, mickhornet said:

4 at Spotland The owner will soon get tired

Come over for the game at Lamport and see the sell out and feel the love....have some beers....we got lots of dough and our owner is in for the long haul.   Lots and lots of dough.