Paul Rowley on BBC Radio Manchester

[bigbaldnmad]

Having just watched the replay of the Fev game, and more over PR comments on the officials in the post match interview, he should be charged by the RFL for bringing the game into disrepute. it would seem he is a horrible person, and it is now obvious that the nature in which Leigh used to treat officials, which has followed him to Toronto, is down to him as an individual and not the Leigh club as first thought!!!

[Kayakman]

2 minutes ago, bigbaldnmad said:

Having just watched the replay of the Fev game, and more over PR comments on the officials in the post match interview, he should be charged by the RFL for bringing the game into disrepute. it would seem he is a horrible person, and it is now obvious that the nature in which Leigh used to treat officials, which has followed him to Toronto, is down to him as an individual and not the Leigh club as first thought!!!

Ahhh, he is a great guy and the players and the fans love him up over here....he is just stating it the way it is, and the one sided reffing in the game....this English discrimination by the English refs against the Canadians has got to stop, its very,very blatant now....some refs are fair and don't participate in it though.   The Canadians continue to struggle and overcome this  ingrained English bias against them and seem to find a way to constantly win anyway.  

GO CANADA!

[Big Picture]

On 2018-3-29 at 7:11 AM, Adelaide Tiger said:

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?

At present there's only enough money coming in to sustain 12 clubs at the top level, and those 12 have a tough time keeping players from leaving for the NRL or RU where they can get more money.

That being the case, how does the game manage to increase the number of clubs in the top tier without generating more money to sustain them?

[Oxford]

On 3/29/2018 at 12:09 PM, Dave T said:

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

Licensing didn't fail because of the concept.

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

" _______________   didn't fail because of the concept."

This is not just the history of licensing It's a potted history of TGG. Fill in as applicable.

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Oxford said:

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

" _______________   didn't fail because of the concept."

This is not just the history of licensing It's a potted history of TGG. Fill in as applicable.

Indeed mate!

[Oxford]

6 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Come over for the game at Lamport and see the sell out and feel the love....have some beers

That would mean getting involved in enjoyment and excitement and fun, are you mad? This is TGG you know......!

We should change the name of Magic to MOANFEST  .... all together now!  "By the time I got to Moanfest we were half a dozen strong ...."

[Adelaide Tiger]

On 30/03/2018 at 4:54 PM, The Parksider said:

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….

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.

Yes my preferred way forward is to have more clubs in a league. And for that to happen over many years.

My opinion is that the comments by Lenighan 'not enough quality players' and Peacock 'reduce SL to 10 clubs' is a smokescreen to absolve the game of the rank bad management at HQ and club level that has failed to increase player participation numbers, player quality, supporter numbers and income.

Club Chairmen are quite rightly worried about new entities that may be able to bring in more money than there clubs generate.  To me this is self protection and does not serve the growth of the game.

As you appear to hang onto the words of Lenighan and Peacock ask yourself these questions:

How will a reduction to 10 teams using existing teams:

1. grow the game in the uk never mind another country

2. Increase player participation numbers at all levels

3. Increase player quality to enable the league to expand at a future date.  I struggle to see how this can be achieved as if you have 10 teams you can only accommodate that number of players.  Other players are then lost to the professional game

4. Increase the tv money 

5. increase visibility of the game to current non RL followers 

If you can show that a retraction in the number of full time clubs will grow the game then I might consider your view point.

EDIT 

Just realised that whilst you are against - quite rightly - in losing 5 existing SL teams to 5 NA teams in a 10 team league.  Are you supportive of losing 2 SL teams if SL is reduced to 10 existing teams as per Peacocks suggestion?

[The Parksider]

On 3/31/2018 at 8:16 AM, Adelaide Tiger said:

My opinion is that the comments by Lenighan 'not enough quality players' and Peacock 'reduce SL to 10 clubs' is a smokescreen to absolve the game of the rank bad management at HQ and club level that has failed to increase player participation numbers, player quality, supporter numbers and income.

You wrongly condemn SL management for not “growing” the game. The market conditions RL inherited from a failure of the game to grow 100 years ago makes just survival one heck of an achievement, and growth pretty much impossible. Richard Branson could not make London work, Shane Richardson could not make Gateshead work, and a lot of money was lost. RL operates in a market in direct competition with massively rich and popular soccer, AND a vastly bigger and richer rival code of Rugby. It’s not about growth it’s about survival, and that’s very true for many decent businesses.

A successful business needs trained and capable staff, and as for a reducing pool of players, both soccer and union have suffered exactly the same relative size of drop as social trends change. Union and Soccer buy abroad as they have the money, we don’t and so our best players get bought. Market forces not bad management, The evidence is there from the day Fulham FC thought they could make a go of pro Rugby League that there isn’t the money, the interest or the players and a point often made on here is just how much it cost to make Melbourne Storm a success under better conditions for growth than we have.

If you mean by “new entities that may be able to bring in more money” the legendary massive TV contract Perez promised is the bottom line. I urge you to look at the interview with Woods where he promised it make your judgement whether you really believe him? For me anyone who loves our game would want to believe it, but anyone with a business brain would have heard all this sort of thing many times before.

Those who believed it are now too embarrassed to change their mind even though Perez has gone, You appear to be one of them. I predict you will prevaricate and won't answer this central point where Perez has got you hook line and sinker?

 

[Adelaide Tiger]

3 hours ago, The Parksider said:

You wrongly condemn SL management for not “growing” the game. The market conditions RL inherited from a failure of the game to grow 100 years ago makes just survival one heck of an achievement, and growth pretty much impossible. Richard Branson could not make London work, Shane Richardson could not make Gateshead work, and a lot of money was lost. RL operates in a market in direct competition with massively rich and popular soccer, AND a vastly bigger and richer rival code of Rugby. It’s not about growth it’s about survival, and that’s very true for many decent businesses.

A successful business needs trained and capable staff, and as for a reducing pool of players, both soccer and union have suffered exactly the same relative size of drop as social trends change. Union and Soccer buy abroad as they have the money, we don’t and so our best players get bought. Market forces not bad management, The evidence is there from the day Fulham FC thought they could make a go of pro Rugby League that there isn’t the money, the interest or the players and a point often made on here is just how much it cost to make Melbourne Storm a success under better conditions for growth than we have.

If you mean by “new entities that may be able to bring in more money” the legendary massive TV contract Perez promised is the bottom line. Look at the interview with Woods where he promised it make your judgement whether you really believe him? For me anyone who loves our game would want to believe it, but anyone with a business brain would have heard all this sort of thing many times before.

Those who believed it are now  too embarrassed to change their mind even though Perez has gone

OK, I wil look at the points you have raised.

So instead of blaming the RFL and SL Chairmen that have been given hundreds of millions of pounds since 1995 and had 22 years to develop and implement a firward strategy we instead blame all administrators since 1895 ....  Fair enough.

If you agree that the strategy of the SL clubs should be based on survivel and nothing else ..... then fair enough.

If existing/potential sponsors are lost due to them viewing RL as a sport that has retracted, inward looking and its prime focus on just surviving .... then fair enough.

If you believe reducing SL to 10 clubs and losing up to 60 current squad players is the way forward .... then fair enough

If, as you say, a successful business needs trained and capable staff which implies that you believe the RFL and SL do not have these people and IMHO through survival mode will not attract them .... then fair enough

You say that soccer and RU buy abroad but you ignore the fact that SL attracts up to 80 overseas players ..... fair enough

You acknowledged in a previous post Perez said it would take 5 years and at least 5 NA teams before a tv deal may be possible.  But you feel you have to keep spouting on about a lack if tv money after 1 season ... fair enough

Now I have responded to points you have made will you respond to the 5 questions I posed previously on this page?  I wont hold my breath!

 

[Guest]

On 01/04/2018 at 1:28 PM, Adelaide Tiger said:

OK, I wil look at the points you have raised.

So instead of blaming the RFL and SL Chairmen that have been given hundreds of millions of pounds since 1995 and had 22 years to develop and implement a firward strategy we instead blame all administrators since 1895 ....  Fair enough.

If you agree that the strategy of the SL clubs should be based on survivel and nothing else ..... then fair enough.

If existing/potential sponsors are lost due to them viewing RL as a sport that has retracted, inward looking and its prime focus on just surviving .... then fair enough.

If you believe reducing SL to 10 clubs and losing up to 60 current squad players is the way forward .... then fair enough

If, as you say, a successful business needs trained and capable staff which implies that you believe the RFL and SL do not have these people and IMHO through survival mode will not attract them .... then fair enough

You say that soccer and RU buy abroad but you ignore the fact that SL attracts up to 80 overseas players ..... fair enough

You acknowledged in a previous post Perez said it would take 5 years and at least 5 NA teams before a tv deal may be possible.  But you feel you have to keep spouting on about a lack if tv money after 1 season ... fair enough

Now I have responded to points you have made will you respond to the 5 questions I posed previously on this page?  I wont hold my breath!

 

Given Toronto's latest victories, that comment is looking ironic. Unless they are given a free pass to SL,it will never happen.