Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rupert Prince

"Rugby League needs to look at it's future"

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

I'm assuming he sees his own club as one of the elite?

I'm struggling to see what there is about Hull KR that could be described as 'elite'. Clearly reliant on him and the other guy (I forget his name) to keep going despite many years of SL funding, adequate but still average facilities, poor playing record over the years etc etc.

It just looks like he wants to pull up the drawbridge so that clubs, like his, that are always in danger of relegation don't have to worry about getting relegated.

Basically, self-serving with no actual vision for what will grow the sport.

They do average over 8k while struggling though, so would probably be five figures if they were at the top, and they are one half of the only city derby in SL which is always a great game to watch. Personally I think KR are an important part of SL and I enjoy watching the televised games from Craven Park  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil Hudgell - 24.09.2019 - https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-news/neil-hudgell-hull-kr-fans-3352854

"Ultimately the market isn’t there.  I have to contradict what Robert Elstone has said about expanding the game to 14 clubs.  There isn’t enough players for 12 clubs, not enough quality players. It’s an indictment of the competition that everyone finished closer to the bottom than the top team St Helens. I don’t want to be negative, it’s not a question of being negative, and it’s about being realistic about things."

Neil Hudgell - 3.10.2019 

"My attitude has never changed; we need a mechanism where we decide the structure, and promotion and relegation isn’t a given, but if clubs can add value they go in on their own merit. That’s how they grow the competition. I can see how a Toulouse, London or Leigh could add value, and possibly Bradford a few years ago"

So one week 12 clubs is too many, 9 days later adding 3 or 4 "could" be possible...I somehow think he might be looking out for his own interests...it is hard to see how Hull KR will not be in a similar position next season to this and so on and so on.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

Neil Hudgell - 24.09.2019 - https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-news/neil-hudgell-hull-kr-fans-3352854

"Ultimately the market isn’t there.  I have to contradict what Robert Elstone has said about expanding the game to 14 clubs.  There isn’t enough players for 12 clubs, not enough quality players. It’s an indictment of the competition that everyone finished closer to the bottom than the top team St Helens. I don’t want to be negative, it’s not a question of being negative, and it’s about being realistic about things."

Neil Hudgell - 3.10.2019 

"My attitude has never changed; we need a mechanism where we decide the structure, and promotion and relegation isn’t a given, but if clubs can add value they go in on their own merit. That’s how they grow the competition. I can see how a Toulouse, London or Leigh could add value, and possibly Bradford a few years ago"

So one week 12 clubs is too many, 9 days later adding 3 or 4 "could" be possible...I somehow think he might be looking out for his own interests...it is hard to see how Hull KR will not be in a similar position next season to this and so on and so on.

When he says about not being enough players for 12 clubs and not enough quality players he did little to increase the player pool when the Robins shared an academy with the Black and Whites in a Rugby League city like Hull.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''It's an indictment of the competition that everyone finished closer to the bottom than the top team St Helens.''' 

Can anyone explain to me how there is any possible alternative to all the others being closer to the bottom than the league leaders? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

''It's an indictment of the competition that everyone finished closer to the bottom than the top team St Helens.''' 

Can anyone explain to me how there is any possible alternative to all the others being closer to the bottom than the league leaders? 

He doesn't mean in actual standings on the league table, he means by the amount of points won. Wigan who finished 2nd were 16 points off the top place and also 16 points off the bottom place. Every other team were closer to the points tally of London than that of Saints at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Private Baldrick said:

He doesn't mean in actual standings on the league table, he means by the amount of points won. Wigan who finished 2nd were 16 points off the top place and also 16 points off the bottom place. Every other team were closer to the points tally of London than that of Saints at the top.

Ah! thank you for clearing that up. cheers. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restructuring, again!😲

Go to 24 teams, with the same 29 fixtures. 😁

Pick the 12 fave clubs. 😀 But don't give them any funding.😉

At the end of the season, the bottom 12 get no funding for the following season.

Total madness I hear you cry!😜Course it is, this is RL!!

 

I'll fetch me coat...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

He doesn't mean in actual standings on the league table, he means by the amount of points won. Wigan who finished 2nd were 16 points off the top place and also 16 points off the bottom place. Every other team were closer to the points tally of London than that of Saints at the top.

Including his own team , who were VERY close to the bottom 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he really means is " it's not fair , London didn't play ball like they're supposed to do , normally we have a newly promoted club at the bottom , way off the pace so we can use that as a reason to bring back a closed shop , so this time we have to use a different excuse " 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe everyone is finishing closer to the bottom because an artificially low salary cap has created a competition which is a played to the lowest common denominator.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Damien said:

I'm not saying Hudgell is right or wrong but his comments do sound like the sort from someone currently in the club.

How often on here have we seen massive criticism and suggestions that we need to return to some form of closed shop because the newly promoted club are stranded at the bottom in June , now we are seeing the same because they weren't , hypocrisy

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Damien said:

Maybe everyone is finishing closer to the bottom because an artificially low salary cap has created a competition which is a played to the lowest common denominator.

Or we have a closer competition , which is one of the reasons it was brought in ?

Which was the last newly promoted club to be stranded early on ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Or we have a closer competition , which is one of the reasons it was brought in ?

Which was the last newly promoted club to be stranded early on ?

We could have an amateur competition that is close. Doesn't mean the quality is great or that crowds will come flocking to watch.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Damien said:

We could have an amateur competitive that is close. Doesn't mean the quality is great or that crowds will come flocking to watch.

Ah so if we'd have had a gap between London and the rest that would have meant all is well ? , But because the gap was between Saints and the rest everybodies rubbish ?, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Ah so if we'd have had a gap between London and the rest that would have meant all is well ? , But because the gap was between Saints and the rest everybodies rubbish ?, 

As for your first question no not at all.

Well frankly everyone else has been fairly rubbish. Wigan were fairly awful for much of the season yet still finished 2nd and could still be in the Grand Final. I have watched some attricious performances, particularly in the first half of the season. If that's the 2nd best what does it say about the rest?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

He’s right that there are plenty of clubs, Super League included, who are only being propped up by the goodwill and deep pockets of their owners and he’s right that it’s completely unsustainable. 

As for the league structure, I think there’s equally some positives and negatives to such a format, as proven with the no P&R period of Super League in the last ten years. 

 

So are you saying the no P&R was a positive or negative, or both, and what was proven? 

Honest question Ollie, I honestly have not grasped what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chris22 said:

I spot a contradiction!

Not 12 months after the last restructure, the calls already start for another.

The same people then bemoan a lack of stability. Madness.

Hudgell and the other influential Chairman don't seem to know what they want. Let's be honest, they haven't made much of an impact since taking control from the RFL.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of clubs are propped up by a rich bloke.  And not just in Rugby League.

Nothing to see here.  Move along, please.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So are you saying the no P&R was a positive or negative, or both, and what was proven? 

Honest question Ollie, I honestly have not grasped what you mean.

I’m not sure, is my answer. There were and are positives and negatives to both the current system of P&R and the “closed shop” system we previously had. 

For what it’s worth, I think there needs to be a balance between the two somewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not against licensing/franchising call it what you will, but I would need to see how a closed shop directly removes shareholder reliance. And I don't mean a load of management talk. 

If we are going down that route, we need to be 100% clear on what the reasons for it are, and what will be achieved. Because after 10 years of licensing when the lower clubs are still reliant on shareholders, what then?

Not only shareholders David, but the Sky payment also which I should imagine in most cases is the most relied on amount and shortfalls topped up by the owner/chaimen/board members.

As I have been informed (from these pages) SL can do nothing whatsoever as far as witholding the payments to clubs below SL before the TV contract terminates in 2021, then as I have said before they will go for the closed shop, not because they will want to improove anything structurally it will be a matter of necessity as the next contract in my opinion, I may be wrong, but I think it will be much reduced as the present one that is payed.

And Hudgell's comments about teams being invited into SL on merit  just who does he think he addressing a convention of Mongolian Yak Herders, the present situation we have with Toronto whereas if they do win promotion the SL clubs will share out what funding they would be entitled to I think is ludicrous, if Toronto are to be denied it spend it on promoting sport through the community clubs and youth development, I should imagine "The Share Out" was voted on by each of the SL clubs the wealthy and those who live from season to season. 

So is he honestly trying to tell us SL will be inviting clubs to join them in the future wherby the funding will automatically drop by being divided by a larger number of clubs, not on your sweet nellie, never in a hundred years, and especially if as I predict the TV contract diminishes 2022 onwards.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Damien said:

Maybe everyone is finishing closer to the bottom because an artificially low salary cap has created a competition which is a played to the lowest common denominator.

Don't Saints play to same artificially low cap Damien?

Or it could really be has I have been saying for a long time we do not produce enough  quality players in the UK along with the 90'ish S. Hemisphere player's we employ, it is more likely that Saints have signed more of their fair share of the good ones  - home grown included - from the pool that is available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Damien said:

We could have an amateur competition that is close. Doesn't mean the quality is great or that crowds will come flocking to watch.

The Quality of SL is not great Damien, anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

PS I'm working down the page I can see you agree with me in your response to Gubrats.

Edited by Harry Stottle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

The Quality of SL is not great Damien, anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

PS I'm working down the page I can see you agree with me in your response to Gubrats.

I completely agree about the quality not being great as I said.

I certainly don't think such a low salary cap helps in this regard, which is where I suspect we differ in views. Not does it help that some teams can't even spend that low amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

The Quality of SL is not great Damien, anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

PS I'm working down the page I can see you agree with me in your response to Gubrats.

I will probably get jumped on for this but

The game of Rugby League is about more than a handful of SL chairmen sat intheir ivory towers.

I'm sick of reading that the game needs a strong SL for the game to grow.

The more money SL gets the more they will want.If SL do manage to grow(and I doubt if it will)they will allow nothing to filter down to the lower levels of the game.

Basically they don't give a damn about the lower tiers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...