Featherstone v Batley match thread

[RPH]

1 hour ago, Blue Pike said:

That’s refreshing talking about your own Team for a change

that's fine coming from you....

lol....your post yesterday has extended the DR debate for another day....

[Phil Loxton]

21 minutes ago, Dog forever said:

Its a bit of a vicious circle.  If there was no d/r a championship player would work hard to try and get game time. But with d/r the same guy isn't going to get game time because he can't compete with a sl player, playing his position. So what does he do. Apart from being peed off about the situation he gets shipped out to a championship 1 side for game time for which he never signed on the dotted line for. There is only 1 winner and that's the sl club. 

You are right. Its talent blocking. Nowhere for fringe players to go and nowhere for fresh talent to go. The roots of the game are being killed off.

[silverback]

55 minutes ago, RPH said:

that's fine coming from you....

lol....your post yesterday has extended the DR debate for another day....

and there already talking about goulding and mullaly filling a couple a gaps for weekend before squads are released.

[silverback]

48 minutes ago, Phil Loxton said:

You are right. Its talent blocking. Nowhere for fringe players to go and nowhere for fresh talent to go. The roots of the game are being killed off.

wouldent it be great to see the SL club take a couple a players now and again in the other direction with the DR club and let a couple a young championship players have a blast in SL. had love to see wardy/scotty/brownie ont telly. good way a giving sommat back as DR seems to just be one directionand the Sl club calls the shots.

[tms]

14 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

Very true, but the salary cap was introduced to supposedly stop that.

no salary cap introduced to stop the rich clubs spending lots more than the poorer clubs but hasn't really worked how many got enough to spend to the limit isn't the championship same as super greed  1.8 mill now wouldn't that be nice if BATLEY AND FEV had a spare 1.8 mill in our backpockets and as phil rightly says you'll always get the best players signing for clubs with that extra bit of cash through the turnstiles. proof haven't we signed your best two players from last season

 

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

12 hours ago, silverback said:

wouldent it be great to see the SL club take a couple a players now and again in the other direction with the DR club and let a couple a young championship players have a blast in SL. had love to see wardy/scotty/brownie ont telly. good way a giving sommat back as DR seems to just be one directionand the Sl club calls the shots.

As far as I can tell the DR rules no longer allow a player from the lower division club to be DR'd to the higher division club. he could, of course, be loaned.

[DOGFATHER]

1 hour ago, POR said:

no salary cap introduced to stop the rich clubs spending lots more than the poorer clubs but hasn't really worked how many got enough to spend to the limit isn't the championship same as super greed  1.8 mill now wouldn't that be nice if BATLEY AND FEV had a spare 1.8 mill in our backpockets and as phil rightly says you'll always get the best players signing for clubs with that extra bit of cash through the turnstiles. proof haven't we signed your best two players from last season

That is what I said, wasn't it? It was to stop clubs like Fev spending more than others and therefore ensuring they were better than everyone else.

Have a look back at the 2009 table when the salary cap worked in this division, before Leigh et al spat their dummy out and managed to get the rules changed so they could spend more than everyone else. 

The £200k (approx) salary cap worked really well, with everyone spending a very similar amount,0 there were about 4 league points between the top and bottom 4. It was a huge success IMO, not because Batley did well out it, (we avoided relegation on the last day of the season with a win at your place), but because you could not pick a winner in any of the games prior to kick off.

Unlike Sunday, we knew what we were in for before a ball was kicked and it will be the same when we play WIdnes, Toronto and Toulouse. Realistically we haven't got much of a chance of getting anything out of those games, given the money spent by those clubs, we really shouldn't have any hope, either.

The SC was introduced to stop clubs like Wigan and Saints, or Fev and Leigh spending several times more than clubs around them and making the divisions competitive for all. It seems those clubs in a position to spend more than the other clubs didn't like it, because the playing field was somewhat levelled and heaven forbid we could see a club like Salford upsetting the monopoly of the likes of Wigan and St. Helens. 

Imagine, 12 or 14 equally matched teams playing each other every week and games being tight fought affairs, with results in the balance right up to the hooter?

Nah, it would never catch on, we obviously would rather watch WIgan, Saints or Toronto and Widnes win easily every week, that is far more enjoyable.... Not! 

 

 

[Dog forever]

1 hour ago, POR said:

no salary cap introduced to stop the rich clubs spending lots more than the poorer clubs but hasn't really worked how many got enough to spend to the limit isn't the championship same as super greed  1.8 mill now wouldn't that be nice if BATLEY AND FEV had a spare 1.8 mill in our backpockets and as phil rightly says you'll always get the best players signing for clubs with that extra bit of cash through the turnstiles. proof haven't we signed your best two players from last season

 

 

Wouldn't say you are richer than batley. What I would say is you are more ambitious and willing to take financial risks.  But so did Leigh and bradford and it nearly ruined their clubs. As a genuine supporter of rugby I don't like to see clubs going under, but some times that's the chance they take and for what a stab at super league to probably lose most matches and come straight back down again. 

[Dog forever]

22 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

That is what I said, wasn't it? It was to stop clubs like Fev spending more than others and therefore ensuring they were better than everyone else.

Have a look back at the 2009 table when the salary cap worked in this division, before Leigh et al spat their dummy out and managed to get the rules changed so they could spend more than everyone else. 

The £200k (approx) salary cap worked really well, with everyone spending a very similar amount,0 there were about 4 league points between the top and bottom 4. It was a huge success IMO, not because Batley did well out it, (we avoided relegation on the last day of the season with a win at your place), but because you could not pick a winner in any of the games prior to kick off.

Unlike Sunday, we knew what we were in for before a ball was kicked and it will be the same when we play WIdnes, Toronto and Toulouse. Realistically we haven't got much of a chance of getting anything out of those games, given the money spent by those clubs, we really shouldn't have any hope, either.

The SC was introduced to stop clubs like Wigan and Saints, or Fev and Leigh spending several times more than clubs around them and making the divisions competitive for all. It seems those clubs in a position to spend more than the other clubs didn't like it, because the playing field was somewhat levelled and heaven forbid we could see a club like Salford upsetting the monopoly of the likes of Wigan and St. Helens. 

Imagine, 12 or 14 equally matched teams playing each other every week and games being tight fought affairs, with results in the balance right up to the hooter?

Nah, it would never catch on, we obviously would rather watch WIgan, Saints or Toronto and Widnes win easily every week, that is far more enjoyable.... Not! 

 

 

Great post dogfather. I think that just settles all the debates about d/r, loan players and the salary cap.

[silverback]

2 hours ago, POR said:

no salary cap introduced to stop the rich clubs spending lots more than the poorer clubs but hasn't really worked how many got enough to spend to the limit isn't the championship same as super greed  1.8 mill now wouldn't that be nice if BATLEY AND FEV had a spare 1.8 mill in our backpockets and as phil rightly says you'll always get the best players signing for clubs with that extra bit of cash through the turnstiles. proof haven't we signed your best two players from last season

 

 

proof haven't we signed your best two players from last season

 you sure got two workhorses but not the best 2 players. day is a stand out hard grafter and iro will be a big name in rugby within next couple a years for sure.i would a been mad if you had nicked scotty or wardy..mannin or gledders.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, DOGFATHER said:

That is what I said, wasn't it? It was to stop clubs like Fev spending more than others and therefore ensuring they were better than everyone else.

Have a look back at the 2009 table when the salary cap worked in this division, before Leigh et al spat their dummy out and managed to get the rules changed so they could spend more than everyone else. 

The £200k (approx) salary cap worked really well, with everyone spending a very similar amount,0 there were about 4 league points between the top and bottom 4. It was a huge success IMO, not because Batley did well out it, (we avoided relegation on the last day of the season with a win at your place), but because you could not pick a winner in any of the games prior to kick off.

Unlike Sunday, we knew what we were in for before a ball was kicked and it will be the same when we play WIdnes, Toronto and Toulouse. Realistically we haven't got much of a chance of getting anything out of those games, given the money spent by those clubs, we really shouldn't have any hope, either.

The SC was introduced to stop clubs like Wigan and Saints, or Fev and Leigh spending several times more than clubs around them and making the divisions competitive for all. It seems those clubs in a position to spend more than the other clubs didn't like it, because the playing field was somewhat levelled and heaven forbid we could see a club like Salford upsetting the monopoly of the likes of Wigan and St. Helens. 

Imagine, 12 or 14 equally matched teams playing each other every week and games being tight fought affairs, with results in the balance right up to the hooter?

Nah, it would never catch on, we obviously would rather watch WIgan, Saints or Toronto and Widnes win easily every week, that is far more enjoyable.... Not! 

 

 

So, in other words, the wages of Championship players (in particular) should be held down? because that is a consequence of what you are saying/proposing

[tms]

52 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

That is what I said, wasn't it? It was to stop clubs like Fev spending more than others and therefore ensuring they were better than everyone else.

Have a look back at the 2009 table when the salary cap worked in this division, before Leigh et al spat their dummy out and managed to get the rules changed so they could spend more than everyone else. 

The £200k (approx) salary cap worked really well, with everyone spending a very similar amount,0 there were about 4 league points between the top and bottom 4. It was a huge success IMO, not because Batley did well out it, (we avoided relegation on the last day of the season with a win at your place), but because you could not pick a winner in any of the games prior to kick off.

Unlike Sunday, we knew what we were in for before a ball was kicked and it will be the same when we play WIdnes, Toronto and Toulouse. Realistically we haven't got much of a chance of getting anything out of those games, given the money spent by those clubs, we really shouldn't have any hope, either.

The SC was introduced to stop clubs like Wigan and Saints, or Fev and Leigh spending several times more than clubs around them and making the divisions competitive for all. It seems those clubs in a position to spend more than the other clubs didn't like it, because the playing field was somewhat levelled and heaven forbid we could see a club like Salford upsetting the monopoly of the likes of Wigan and St. Helens. 

Imagine, 12 or 14 equally matched teams playing each other every week and games being tight fought affairs, with results in the balance right up to the hooter?

Nah, it would never catch on, we obviously would rather watch WIgan, Saints or Toronto and Widnes win easily every week, that is far more enjoyable.... Not! 

 

 

fev never asked for the cap to be increased that was down to leigh  and the rfl wanting bradford to stay full time

I agree  the  salary cap was designed to make the leagues competitive  but it was  false economy  the rfl thought with the tv money all clubs could pay the full salary cap 1 million for what ever reason that didn't happen similarly championship level set in line with tv at 200k 

yes FEV could be spending  more than others  now cap increased but you will have to help me out here when it was 200k FEV paid out the full 200 salary cap   did batley and remember at the time FEV won league four years on trot so looked like they were able to sign the better players

   1 2 or 14 equally matched teams would e great but will never happen with or without the cap some teams will always have more money  through bigger attendances and other things off the field than others so will still be able to cherry pick the players

[wayne_r]

personally as a Swinton fan I hate DR - we had four players drafted in for last week's match against Bradford, admittedly they had played for us last season on DR and one actually transferred from Swinton to Wigan. We didn't win - even though the score would suggest otherwise it was a close match up to the last 7-8 mins.

We have four players injured right now - so maybe that was the driving force behind the decision - but next week at Dewsbury - who knows whether or indeed which DR player will be available and to use them over our own squad players is wrong for me - but as we all know its more about SL clubs not having reserve teams than championship clubs with small squads - that's what I think at least.

[DOGFATHER]

3 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

So, in other words, the wages of Championship players (in particular) should be held down? because that is a consequence of what you are saying/proposing

Not really what I am saying, but it would ensure the top players would be more evenly distributed throughout the division and didn't end up at one or two clubs that happened to have a wealthy benefactor inflating what the club could afford on player wages. 

[DOGFATHER]

2 hours ago, POR said:

fev never asked for the cap to be increased that was down to leigh  and the rfl wanting bradford to stay full time

Please try and read what I have written, where did I state Fev asked for the increase? 

I agree  the  salary cap was designed to make the leagues competitive  but it was  false economy  the rfl thought with the tv money all clubs could pay the full salary cap 1 million for what ever reason that didn't happen similarly championship level set in line with tv at 200k 

It started to get close and then the top teams introduced the marquee signing, which basically neutralised the salary caps ability to level the playing field, because there were only about 5 teams that could afford a marquee signing. 

yes FEV could be spending  more than others  now cap increased but you will have to help me out here when it was 200k FEV paid out the full 200 salary cap   did batley and remember at the time FEV won league four years on trot so looked like they were able to sign the better players.

No we didn't spend up to the cap, Fev and Halifax decimated our squad on two different occasions, after we finished 3rd in the league under Harrison and again under Kear after we reached the GF. Then had the job of rebuilding until we finished 3rd again, in Kear's last season.

   1 2 or 14 equally matched teams would e great but will never happen with or without the cap some teams will always have more money  through bigger attendances and other things off the field than others so will still be able to cherry pick the players.

It would if all teams had the ability to spend up to the cap limit. IT would stop the top teams cherry picking the talent and evenly distributing it throughout the league.

 

 

[Keep The Faith]

But let’s remember fev finished top 4 years on the bounce but failed to win the main trophy on three occasions 

 

batley from 2010-2016 finished within the top 3-7 over enough times to become a serious threat and decent sized club over the years but something is holding us back I just can’t put my finger on the problem...

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

19 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

It would if all teams had the ability to spend up to the cap limit. IT would stop the top teams cherry picking the talent and evenly distributing it throughout the league.

To ensure every team can spend up to the cap and that no team has a monetary advantage over the rest, the cap would have to be set at the level the poorest club could afford which has to reduce the wages of virtually all, including the 'top', players. Currently we'd be looking at a cap of around £100k!

Essentially you're saying no club in the Championship should have any ambition to move upwards and advocating turning the Championship into a very semi-professional game. How long before most clubs would simply disappear under that scenario?

[The Phantom Horseman]

14 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

To ensure every team can spend up to the cap and that no team has a monetary advantage over the rest, the cap would have to be set at the level the poorest club could afford which has to reduce the wages of virtually all, including the 'top', players. Currently we'd be looking at a cap of around £100k!

Essentially you're saying no club in the Championship should have any ambition to move upwards and advocating turning the Championship into a very semi-professional game. How long before most clubs would simply disappear under that scenario?

This, not to mention how you get round the issue of the relegated team from SL having to adjust from having £2m central funding to having to fund a team on 1/10th of that budget. They would literally have to get rid of virtually every player and try and find a team of Championship players from scratch after most players across the league had signed contracts.

I know Leigh had to do something along those lines this year but that was as a result of choosing to overspend in the Championship rather than being relegated, and they were probably very fortunate not to go into administration.

[DOGFATHER]

Personally, I would have increased the funding to the CH when the last Sky deal was signed. I'd have increased it to £500k per club and set the cap at that level, meaning all clubs could afford a few FT/top class PT players and increase the pressure on teams at the bottom of SL. Provide some real competition because although there would still be a big disparity in funding the standard of the CH would have great increased, meaning teams taking part in the playoffs would be used to playing to a much better consistent standard. 

The SL clubs would have still had a big increase in funding. But not enough to buy all of the CH top players to then DR them back to the clubs they signed them from, which is all they did with the extra money. 

[DOGFATHER]

10 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

This, not to mention how you get round the issue of the relegated team from SL having to adjust from having £2m central funding to having to fund a team on 1/10th of that budget. They would literally have to get rid of virtually every player and try and find a team of Championship players from scratch after most players across the league had signed contracts.

I know Leigh had to do something along those lines this year but that was as a result of choosing to overspend in the Championship rather than being relegated, and they were probably very fortunate not to go into administration.

I'd have a clause in the contracts that states that the player wages reduces upon relegation or the player has the option to be released as a free agent. Quite a few Premier League football teams have a clause like this written in to the contracts.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

19 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

Personally, I would have increased the funding to the CH when the last Sky deal was signed. I'd have increased it to £500k per club and set the cap at that level, meaning all clubs could afford a few FT/top class PT players and increase the pressure on teams at the bottom of SL. Provide some real competition because although there would still be a big disparity in funding the standard of the CH would have great increased, meaning teams taking part in the playoffs would be used to playing to a much better consistent standard. 

The SL clubs would have still had a big increase in funding. But not enough to buy all of the CH top players to then DR them back to the clubs they signed them from, which is all they did with the extra money. 

Sorry but you're living in Dreamland.

15 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

I'd have a clause in the contracts that states that the player wages reduces upon relegation or the player has the option to be released as a free agent. Quite a few Premier League football teams have a clause like this written in to the contracts.

SL contracts already do

[Dog forever]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

This, not to mention how you get round the issue of the relegated team from SL having to adjust from having £2m central funding to having to fund a team on 1/10th of that budget. They would literally have to get rid of virtually every player and try and find a team of Championship players from scratch after most players across the league had signed contracts.

I know Leigh had to do something along those lines this year but that was as a result of choosing to overspend in the Championship rather than being relegated, and they were probably very fortunate not to go into administration.

Leigh were very fortunate not to go into admin. The team to get relegated from sl come season end comes down with a nice hefty parachute payment, therefore putting the rest of the championship clubs on the back foot before a ball is thrown. Things will never be as they used to . Its a case of shut up and put up.

[DOGFATHER]

3 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Sorry but you're living in Dreamland.

Maybe, but the game as a whole, would be in a much better state if that is the approach they had taken.

The big argument by the top sides is viewing figures, they will tell you Sky want Saints v Wigan because the tv viewing audiences are bigger. What they fail to grasp is, if there were 10 teams in with a shout of the GF, IF the talent was evenly spread the viewing figures overall would be greater, which would then attract more investment etc. 

[greavesy]

Have not posted for a while but I think the people on here know my feelings on D/R. It was introduced so super league clubs could give game time to players from their squads either not making the first team or returning from injury. The loss of reserve teams has been a massive negative for  RL. D/R is not good for the championship never was and never will be.

I was at the game on Sunday and am not saying Batley would have won if the Featherstone side was not packed full of players from Leeds and even Hudds. but my last thought was of a once proud team from Featherstone who have in my opinion lost their identity and sold their soul. It may sound like sour grapes but I can assure fellow fans it is not. 

[DOGFATHER]

I could stand DR if it was limited to 2 loan/DR players out of a 17 man squad, clubs would not lose there identities then. But up to 5, plus a loan player from elsewhere and the possible transfer shenanigans with a parent club to get 2 more in as signed players and therefore under the radar, is pretty poor IMO.