Rochdale change venue with less than 48hrs notice.....to AMATEUR club!

[Colin James]

According to Rochdale there are 250 seats at Mayfield. Could get interesting when people are being asked to give up their seats for people who can't stand for 80 minutes. Out of a crowd of 800ish how many are able to stand for the full game, and frankly should spectators paying £15 be expected to stand unless they choose to? 

As a last resort I can see the merit of getting the game on at Mayfield but it wasn't a last resort because AJ Bell was available and willing to host the game.

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Colin James said:

According to Rochdale there are 250 seats at Mayfield. Could get interesting when people are being asked to give up their seats for people who can't stand for 80 minutes. Out of a crowd of 800ish how many are able to stand for the full game, and frankly should spectators paying £15 be expected to stand unless they choose to? 

As a last resort I can see the merit of getting the game on at Mayfield but it wasn't a last resort because AJ Bell was available and willing to host the game.

For £ 8 K apparently

[steve wild]

Just on a point of fact , AJ Bell did not want £8k, the hire figure was much less. There was also another Championship standard ground (in addition to Salford) willing to stage the game at a very reasonable cost. However, Hornets chose to apply for dispensation for Mayfield, as they were entitled to do within the rules, and this dispensation was granted by the RFL. Swinton learned of this on Friday morning. I’m sure there are varying opinions, and we at Swinton Lions certainly have ours - but these are the baseline facts.

[Hopping Mad]

11 hours ago, Clogiron said:

So what's the alternative? Nobody is saying the bottom team should be kicked out every season, but there is a number of clubs who are hanging on by a thread. How do you propose that they should prosper, time moves on, nothing lasts forever it seems, plenty of other sports that drew larger crowds than RL have withered and all but died off: speedway and greyhound racing for two, in industry coal and steel, weaving and cotton and on and on. Why should a RL club be any different

It's the same old rugby league story (along with the trend of a decline in popularity of team sports): too many clubs in too small an area, chasing the same small (and getting smaller) pool of players, sponsors and supporters. I'd say 'consolidation' (meaning the weakest go to the wall) is inevitable. Sad but inevitable.

After clinging on through numerous seasons of plummeting attendances, speedway in Britain appears to be reaching its end game. Four clubs - Buxton, Lakeside, Rye House and Workington - called it a day during the recent close season. Word is others will follow.

[roughyedspud]

Rochdale's long term future may lie at Mayfield...and it might not be too bad a idea...

Hornets being a trust owned club and mayfield being a amateur club they would have access to grants & funds to develop mayfield into a community RL facility..looking at mayfield on Google Earth there's plenty of scope achieve something very suitable,there's even a massive disused car park next to the far rugby pitch..

Only when the RL community start working together will we stop being shafted by other sports,we need to build our own facilities.

[Spike]

Which clubs do everyone believe will pack in?

[JohnM]

Spot on. I'd add too all of that, "....and how many people want it". 

 

If not enough people in a clubs catchment want what is in (vastly improved) offer as suggested above,  then the entity has to widen it's catchment area. Look at local govt.as a loose analogy.  First, Swinton and Pendlebury were separate townships. They merge to form Swinton and Pendlebury, gaining economies of scale. Then they were absorbed into Salford.....

It used to take me 20 mins to walk from home to Station Road. I've moved away long ago, but it would now take me the same length of time to drive from my former home to the AJ Bell stadium.

Things have changed, people  move away, transport links get better and faster. Mergers and takeovers will ###### off some people, but bigger and better clubs based on  RPS post, will, in my view, attract many more new fans than will be lost from the  old fan base. 

 

 

[The Daddy]

Can we just boot out Rochdale and replace them with Manchester Rangers or merge them with Swinton or Oldham?

[Tim Streets tache]

7 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

Out of interest, are there many (any?) amateur clubs within the bounds of the township of Swinton?

Folly Lane

[Manx RL]

11 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

Can we just boot out Rochdale and replace them with Manchester Rangers or merge them with Swinton or Oldham?

No.

[tub]

Not sure if this has been posted already but for those looking to cut loose of the the 'Greater Manchester' clubs you should listen to last weeks BBC podcast , former CEO of Melbourne Storm and Harlequins Rugby Union Mark Evans get's it spot on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07f1k8m

RL can't afford to lose any area's where the game is already  established ,RFL need to review their expansion strategy and focus on saving what they already have , like the blokes say   you first  "fish where the fish are "   , so that means the likes of Bradford, Oldham , Rochdale, Swinton etc  , with York as an expansion strategy , not Oxford, Bristol, Cheltenham etc .....

It's from these areas we also get the 'player pathways' , not saying London haven't don't well considering but these areas are the 'heart' ..lands

 

 

[overtheborder]

On 01/07/2019 at 12:49, RP London said:

The above in bold crops up quite a lot.. There is a counter argument to that which is that they are pretty much on their knees anyway, there is little to no impact on the "local community" from those clubs because they are struggling to even exist let alone do that much for the community. Are they really helping the amateur game at all? are they having any impact on the local amateur scene except for being a club that is close.. does that really make any difference?

I think this link is overplayed to be honest and I dont think amateur clubs (which often have a bigger link within their local community) die just because the local semi pro club no longer exists. If it was vibrant, ran loads of community outreach projects had Junior development links etc etc going on then yes it would have more of an impact, but arguably if they were really linking in that much (not just paying lip service) then they would probably find they werent in such an awful position.

I do not know much of what is happening specifically in Rochdale and Oldham but I am talking about more generally. 

Completely agree with this. I do think having a full time professional club helps though (although i'm not sure whether the full time clubs thrive due a strong culture in the area or whether full time clubs help the amateur game to thrive - I'd imagine both). I also think the problem is for teams such as Swinton, rich in history though they are, that they could be seen as little more than a strong amateur club. if they are seen this way it's hard to attract supporters, impact the comminity and generally be taken seriously and grow. I think there is a role to play from above these types of clubs actually i.e. SL clubs, the RFL, to try to help these clubs grow and develop, but also the clubs themselves. If the Championship as a whole professionalises it's image somewhat, I think that could go a long way to helping clubs like Swinton, Rochdale, Oldham etc who basically seem to need an image boost by being associated with a successful and popular league.

[Bleep1673]

Official attendance at Mayfield was 549.

[paulwalker71]

13 minutes ago, Bleep1673 said:

Official attendance at Mayfield was 549.

Interesting. I'd wager they created a better atmosphere there than in Rochdale's usual 10,249 capacity stadium.

 

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

On 01/07/2019 at 12:47, The Daddy said:

Can we just boot out Rochdale and replace them with Manchester Rangers or merge them with Swinton or Oldham?

You been hanging around with Ralph again?

[Bleep1673]

Or Liverpools, what was it again? Oh. they're without a club, and haven't been for 60 years? Why not? It's not because of the lack of funds the RFL have thrown into the area since Huyton went under, and Widnes's refusal to admit they are Merseyside, and refuse to take funds from the Merseyside council.

The argument is a useless one about merging Glorious Swinton, Rochdale & Oldham into one "Manchester" club, because we wont go for it, no more than a merged Wigan/ Leigh or Leeds/Bradford/Keighley, or Hull/KR or ……………...

whats the point? 

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

50 minutes ago, Bleep1673 said:

Or Liverpools, what was it again? Oh. they're without a club, and haven't been for 60 years? Why not? It's not because of the lack of funds the RFL have thrown into the area since Huyton went under, and Widnes's refusal to admit they are Merseyside, and refuse to take funds from the Merseyside council.

The argument is a useless one about merging Glorious Swinton, Rochdale & Oldham into one "Manchester" club, because we wont go for it, no more than a merged Wigan/ Leigh or Leeds/Bradford/Keighley, or Hull/KR or ……………...

whats the point? 

it makes scrapping league one easier for the RFL

 

[Man of Kent]

On 01/07/2019 at 02:59, roughyedspud said:

Rochdale's long term future may lie at Mayfield...and it might not be too bad a idea...

Hornets being a trust owned club and mayfield being a amateur club they would have access to grants & funds to develop mayfield into a community RL facility..looking at mayfield on Google Earth there's plenty of scope achieve something very suitable,there's even a massive disused car park next to the far rugby pitch..

Only when the RL community start working together will we stop being shafted by other sports,we need to build our own facilities.

Agree with this.

Some non-league football sides have kind of morphed into community clubs (often with 3G/4G pitches) that are essentially hubs for the sport in the locale with all sorts of teams playing there.

A merger of sorts between amateur and some of the struggling semi-pro clubs may be the way to go. Perhaps aided by World Cup legacy funding.

 

[Tommygilf]

11 hours ago, Bleep1673 said:

Or Liverpools, what was it again? Oh. they're without a club, and haven't been for 60 years? Why not? It's not because of the lack of funds the RFL have thrown into the area since Huyton went under, and Widnes's refusal to admit they are Merseyside, and refuse to take funds from the Merseyside council.

The argument is a useless one about merging Glorious Swinton, Rochdale & Oldham into one "Manchester" club, because we wont go for it, no more than a merged Wigan/ Leigh or Leeds/Bradford/Keighley, or Hull/KR or ……………...

whats the point? 

Problem is then though when a "Manchester" club emerges it is denied as it supposedly threatens those clubs. A "Manchester" club playing at the mini etihad is more likely to draw new fans than Swinton, Rochdale or Oldham realistically right now.

IMO it should be open season and those clubs that grow best will progress best. There's a reason Hunslet have gone from being the first to win all 4 cups to being virtually invisible in the city. Equally, Leeds Rhinos haven't just restricted themselves to North Leeds. 

Equally in the WF district part of the reason the council has been so unwilling to fund a stadium for any of the 3 clubs is that there is that tacit acceptance that whichever of the 3 gets the shiny new venue first is going to place itself lightyears ahead of the others and certainly make it more SL friendly. The council obviously doesn't want to be seen as supporting one club over the other as they realise this could mean a significant period of decline for the other.

By all means keep the old historic clubs, but don't kill off young blood to try preserve some status. Let everyone compete.

[Bleep1673]

36 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Problem is then though when a "Manchester" club emerges it is denied as it supposedly threatens those clubs. A "Manchester" club playing at the mini etihad is more likely to draw new fans than Swinton, Rochdale or Oldham realistically right now.

IMO it should be open season and those clubs that grow best will progress best. There's a reason Hunslet have gone from being the first to win all 4 cups to being virtually invisible in the city. Equally, Leeds Rhinos haven't just restricted themselves to North Leeds. 

Equally in the WF district part of the reason the council has been so unwilling to fund a stadium for any of the 3 clubs is that there is that tacit acceptance that whichever of the 3 gets the shiny new venue first is going to place itself lightyears ahead of the others and certainly make it more SL friendly. The council obviously doesn't want to be seen as supporting one club over the other as they realise this could mean a significant period of decline for the other.

By all means keep the old historic clubs, but don't kill off young blood to try preserve some status. Let everyone compete.

A "Manchester" club would be no more able to attract new fans than a new club in any football city, & in fact the supporters of SL/RH/OR would move away from the game, so it wouldn't benefit the RFL's cause (Whatevr that is). The new stadia for all 3 WF clubs should be applied for at the same time, and have roughly the same design/capacity then the council cannot deny one because of favouritism, but that would mean 3 chairmen meeting and agreeing, and as we know Yorkshiremen would find an argument in a toilet.

[RP London]

27 minutes ago, Bleep1673 said:

A "Manchester" club would be no more able to attract new fans than a new club in any football city, & in fact the supporters of SL/RH/OR would move away from the game, so it wouldn't benefit the RFL's cause (Whatevr that is). The new stadia for all 3 WF clubs should be applied for at the same time, and have roughly the same design/capacity then the council cannot deny one because of favouritism, but that would mean 3 chairmen meeting and agreeing, and as we know Yorkshiremen would find an argument in a toilet.

Genuine question... if that is the case with a Manchester Club then why were they all so scared to vote it in... if it is no threat as you point out.. tommy was suggesting putting them in "as well as" not "instead of" SL/RH/OR and survival of the fittest.

[Tommygilf]

32 minutes ago, Bleep1673 said:

A "Manchester" club would be no more able to attract new fans than a new club in any football city, & in fact the supporters of SL/RH/OR would move away from the game, so it wouldn't benefit the RFL's cause (Whatevr that is). The new stadia for all 3 WF clubs should be applied for at the same time, and have roughly the same design/capacity then the council cannot deny one because of favouritism, but that would mean 3 chairmen meeting and agreeing, and as we know Yorkshiremen would find an argument in a toilet.

Your WF proposal isn't going to happen because the council doesn't have the money for 3 stadia at once. 

As for Manchester, this is what I'm trying to say

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

Genuine question... if that is the case with a Manchester Club then why were they all so scared to vote it in... if it is no threat as you point out.. tommy was suggesting putting them in "as well as" not "instead of" SL/RH/OR and survival of the fittest.

Exactly. It should be all fair game.

[Bleep1673]

Where is the evidence that there is support for a "Manchester" club? Has there been any surveys done that suggest there might be a groundswell need for a professional RL club in "M/cr"? Other than on this site. There never has been a support background for a club in M/cr, every time there has been a club pushed into M/cr it has died.

Rugby League does not need M/cr, M/cr does not need/want Rugby League.

[RP London]

4 hours ago, Bleep1673 said:

Where is the evidence that there is support for a "Manchester" club? Has there been any surveys done that suggest there might be a groundswell need for a professional RL club in "M/cr"? Other than on this site. There never has been a support background for a club in M/cr, every time there has been a club pushed into M/cr it has died.

Rugby League does not need M/cr, M/cr does not need/want Rugby League.

Rugby League needs as many clubs as it can get and as many successful clubs as humanly possible no matter where they are based.. 

There is no evidence of there being a groundswell of support but there was a club wanting to step up to the league and it was denied... but if there is no threat to anyone why did they vote against having them in?

Just because it has died in the past does not necessarily mean it would die now.. because it is a different time, with different influences and different people involved. 

none of this gets away from the key part of the question..... If they are no threat then why not just put them in and see if it works and see if someone can make it work, what were the other clubs so worried about that they voted against them?

[steve wild]

The misnomer that Salford , Swinton, Rochdale or Oldham, or combinations thereof,  have opposed the addition of a Manchester (Rangers) team needs knocking on the head once and for all. There has certainly never been a “vote” put to the pro clubs. Manchester Rangers applied to join League 1 and it was rejected by the RFL, & not because the other “Manchester clubs” had lobbied against them - which they didn’t - but because the business model submitted by Rangers was not deemed strong enough to sustain a professional club. It’s as simple as that, and there is no conspiracy.