Brian McDermott's Big City Team League

[Trojan]

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Yes  Wigan, st Helen's, warrington, hull, et al are all in major urban conurbations.

And this percentage thing which you think backs up your argument, disproves it.

Leeds can be the biggest team in the competition because they dont have to attract some ridiculously high percentage of the local area. The entire town of featherstone would need to attend for them to be equal to leeds. Only a tiny fraction of leeds does.

Because, in major urban conurbations you only need to attract a small fraction of the people and a small fraction of the money. In small towns you need to attract all the money and everyone and even then it might not be enough as has been proven over the last 30 odd years. 

The fact of the matter is that none of the excuses about why fev dont have the money alter the fact they dont have the money, none of the mitigation about how well they do for such a small town can be taken to the bank

If the game is to grow then that growth will come from where the money and the people are. That money and those people are in big conurbations. 

If fev want to attract people from all over the west Yorkshire conurbation and be a big club, brilliant. Go and do it. Put together a plan, get the investment, get people to buy in and do it. 

By that reckoning they're all in major conurbations. Wigan's in Greater Manchester, Saints are in Merseyside.  Fev is in West Yorkshire - a major conurbation, Leigh is likewise in Greater Manchester. The whole heartlands of the RFL stretches across one of the most populated areas of this country.  I've a lot of time for Leeds. But given their advantages they should do a lot better than they do. And since United dropped out of the top flight of soccer they should be raking it in. They're not.  The whole big cities thing is a nonsense.  Unless several someones  are prepared to dump a load of money in them.  And history shows they're not.

When things get tough for Toronto next season, and the other clubs aren't just going to lie down and die for them, we'll see how good they are and how loud they shout about big cities.

I should have read Marty Funkhouser's post before posting.  He says exactly what I say only a lot better than I can.

[MADREDNIGE]

33 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

You have fallen in to the same logical fallacy as has been previously addressed.  That all our big clubs are in big conurbations does not mean that all clubs in big conurbations are big clubs. Your whole argument here is a logical fallacy. 

But, london get David Hughes subsidising them because they are london, the same reason they got Ian Leneghan subsidising them and the same reason they got Branson and Brisbane Broncos subsidising them. Their position in a big city attracted that money. Money Fev has failed to attract. Somebody is willing to spend £20m on London. Nobody is willing to spend that on Fev. 

Thats your second fallacy. You argue that London are a failure because they have this money spent on them, im saying that they get this money because they are in a big city. Thats why in my lifetime London have been to a CC final, finished second in the league spent last season in super league and Featherstone didnt have the money to complete last season. 

I think you'll find Fev DID complete last season, try and keep up. 

[fieldofclothofgold]

Leeds had two seasons of averaging over 17k 2007 ,17600  ,2008 slightly less, since then it evened out at 14 15 until the redevelopment.  I dont think RL will ever average EFL championship  crowds even in big cities 

 

 

 

[Gooleboy]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Only due to the benevolence of others.

Or are we conveniently forgetting that the big club in waiting needed to borrow players from the big bad horrible clubs just to complete last season. 

All achieved within the rules, so what's the problem?

[Gooleboy]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Its not the actions of a big club

Featherstone have never to my knowledge ever said they are a big Club. That, in my book doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed into the same League as bigger Clubs, especially if it is achieved on the pitch where it should be.

[MADREDNIGE]

32 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Only due to the benevolence of others.

Or are we conveniently forgetting that the big club in waiting needed to borrow players from the big bad horrible clubs just to complete last season. 

You said did not complete the season make yer mind up, paint it how you want we DID complete the season! 

[MADREDNIGE]

34 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Only due to the benevolence of others.

Or are we conveniently forgetting that the big club in waiting needed to borrow players from the big bad horrible clubs just to complete last season. 

Big club in waiting, I've NEVER heard we are a big club but we are waiting to compete in SL, may never happen probably never will but if not only Fev don't strive to get into SL what's the point in supporting our clubs every week? I suppose you support a BIG club in SL so it's a case of 'Iam alright Jack'! 

[MADREDNIGE]

15 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Its not the actions of a big club

YOUR words big club NOT ours! 

[Marty Funkhouser]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

You have fallen in to the same logical fallacy as has been previously addressed.  That all our big clubs are in big conurbations does not mean that all clubs in big conurbations are big clubs. Your whole argument here is a logical fallacy. 

But, london get David Hughes subsidising them because they are london, the same reason they got Ian Leneghan subsidising them and the same reason they got Branson and Brisbane Broncos subsidising them. Their position in a big city attracted that money. Money Fev has failed to attract. Somebody is willing to spend £20m on London. Nobody is willing to spend that on Fev. 

Thats your second fallacy. You argue that London are a failure because they have this money spent on them, im saying that they get this money because they are in a big city. Thats why in my lifetime London have been to a CC final, finished second in the league spent last season in super league and Featherstone didnt have the money to complete last season. 

You didn't answer the question.

[Marty Funkhouser]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

 

Thats your second fallacy. You argue that London are a failure because they have this money spent on them, im saying that they get this money because they are in a big city. Thats why in my lifetime London have been to a CC final, finished second in the league spent last season in super league and Featherstone didnt have the money to complete last season. 

Give Featherstone £40 million pounds (Hughes and London SL Money, 20 seasons)  and they are 1/100 on to spend it more efficiently , productively and with a better end result than London.

In your bizarre world view - Club given £40 million plus now playing on a rented park ( their  8th (??) ground in 40 years), capacity 4000, in front of two thousand paying fans, if they are lucky, in an area of 10 million (or watched by 0.02 of the surrounding population), never won a trophy = success.

Club given around £3 million (cumulative championship funding), own their own heavily improved ground, their ground since the inception of the club over 100 years ago,  capacity just short of 10,000, watched by an incredible 16% plus of the local population, RL champions and major trophy winners = failure.

Bizarre. Absolutely bizarre.

[Smudger06]

3 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

Give Featherstone £40 million pounds (Hughes and London SL Money, 20 seasons)  and they are 1/100 on to spend it more efficiently , productively and with a better end result than London.

In your bizarre world view - Club given £40 million plus now playing on a rented park ( their  8th (??) ground in 40 years), capacity 4000, in front of two thousand paying fans, if they are lucky, in an area of 10 million (or watched by 0.02 of the surrounding population), never won a trophy = success.

Club given around £3 million (cumulative championship funding), own their own heavily improved ground, their ground since the inception of the club over 100 years ago,  capacity just short of 10,000, watched by an incredible 16% plus of the local population, RL champions and major trophy winners = failure.

Bizarre. Absolutely bizarre.

Very bizarre. 

[solly]

1 hour ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

Give Featherstone £40 million pounds (Hughes and London SL Money, 20 seasons)  and they are 1/100 on to spend it more efficiently , productively and with a better end result than London.

In your bizarre world view - Club given £40 million plus now playing on a rented park ( their  8th (??) ground in 40 years), capacity 4000, in front of two thousand paying fans, if they are lucky, in an area of 10 million (or watched by 0.02 of the surrounding population), never won a trophy = success.

Club given around £3 million (cumulative championship funding), own their own heavily improved ground, their ground since the inception of the club over 100 years ago,  capacity just short of 10,000, watched by an incredible 16% plus of the local population, RL champions and major trophy winners = failure.

Bizarre. Absolutely bizarre.

You've completely missed the point. 

It’s great that Featherstone could do better with similar amounts of money that London have received. Any well run club should be able to do better. 

But the only point being argued is that that larger amounts of money are available in larger areas.

And that is no slight on any club.

[Marty Funkhouser]

On 10/10/2019 at 10:29, scotchy1 said:

 clubs from sheffield, Wales, and London have seen more success than Fev. There is a reason for that, it isnt unfairness or some conspiracy theory. 

It is money has flowed to these places.

 

On 09/10/2019 at 12:19, scotchy1 said:

 While fev just tag along for the ride and contribute little to nothing to everyone else. 

 

42 minutes ago, solly said:

You've completely missed the point. 

It’s great that Featherstone could do better with similar amounts of money that London have received. Any well run club should be able to do better. 

But the only point being argued is that that larger amounts of money are available in larger areas.

And that is no slight on any club.

Not missed the point at all.

Success..?? Money has flowed..??? Featherstone contribute "little to nothing" yet have more assets than Sheffield, London and the Welsh clubs combined. In a village of 15,000. They are a huge part of their community unlike the aforementioned.

Any money that has been "flowing" to these clubs in their massively, massively advantageous places has obviously been totally and utterly wasted and resulted in failure.

This will only continue.

That is the point.

 

[solly]

1 hour ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

That is the point.

 

Battening down the hatches? 

[Trojan]

19 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

To win the competition they are in. Fev have never been in SL in 24 years. Their existence isnt tied to SL

And as I stated earlier large numbers of their fans still turn out home and away.  OK crowds are down, but that's largely because as fans stop coming due to illness or death (I'm 73) they haven't been replaced by new fans, largely IMO because they're no longer in the top flight.  Let's artificially exclude Leeds or Wigan from SL, and artificially keep them out, like licencing did to Fev for twenty years or so.  And then let's see how many fans and backaers they attract.

When I started watching the game Swinton, 'Fax, Workington were big names. Wakey were dominating the game. Challenge cups, Championships, the lot.  But it only took the death of one man to change all that.

[Trojan]

34 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

We didnt have licensing for 20 odd years, we had it for 5 seasons. The other 19 are all on fev.

It isnt some unfairness or conspiracy that creates this situation. It is a natural consequence of fev having no money and nobody wanting to put the millions required to get them up to standard in. 

And the world has changed compared to 50-60years ago. You cant compare the world where miners were playing doe beer money to today. The world is different the game is different. What worked then doesnt work now. If the game clings to living in the 50s and 60s it will.die

They didn't have P&R at all for the first few years,  Then they had it for a couple of years, then licencing, then the middle 8's which was not easy, and now proper P&R, how long that will last is anyone's guess. My bet is now they've got Toronto in they'll change the format. Probably about the beginning of July next year so no one has a real chance to react.  That's the usual way with these things

Miners don't play for beer money any more, you may not have noticed but thanks to your Tory pals there are no more miners.  Sport is one way for the working man to climb the ladder, but if someone takes the ladder away, what chance doers he have?

Anyway back to the big cities.  What part of "been tried several times, didn't work" don't you understand?

[Trojan]

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Im sure its news to Workington and Oldham that there wasnt P&R at all at the start of SL.  

In 1996 Hull were in the championship. Since then they have spent years in SL and won Challenge Cups, appeared in grand finals. Huddersfield went up and down and have since won LLS and appeared in CC finals. What is the reason these clubs made it and have been competitive yet Fev havent?

 

 

Workington and Oldham were in from the start and dropped out because they couldn't make it pay.  Huddersfield should have been relegated but SL wouldn't allow the team at the top of the championship to be promoted because their ground wasn't up to their standards.  Funny that they let London in with a ground considerably worse than Dewsbury or Hunslet. 

Hull are a big club with big support.  But given the number of their supporters they haven't really succeeded like they should have.

Cas are more on a par with Fev.  They were in the GF two years ago, after being promoted. They got there after kidnapping our coach.  Fev could certainly emulate them.  Don't forget Fev finished top of the Championship year after year under licencing but of course weren't allowed in because of licencing.

But this argument isn't about Fev it's about big cities.  And the big cities idea has been tried and seen to fail.

[MADREDNIGE]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

To win the competition they are in. Fev have never been in SL in 24 years. Their existence isnt tied to SL

Got cheated out of SL if you know your facts, moved the goal posts!!! 

[Gerrumonside ref]

Can’t we expand and keep places like Fev a real hotbed of the sport at the same time?

I think what we need to be doing is selling out games and getting the Wigan public engaged again with their club.

An image of full looking stands is more likely to help the image of the game than the fact that a match is taking place between cities.

I like loads of sports and am more drawn to teams and examples of sporting excellence or fantastic atmospheres, I think the city factor isn’t irrelevant, but I wouldn’t go overboard on it either.

[redjonn]

It seems to me we have to improve the RL brand, in order to attract the interest of sponsors, business or more rich beneficiaries that could provide the ability for the sport to re-calibrate - Whether that be the so called arrival of big glamour cities. BTW if asked the big glamour cities I would never of listed Toronto, no matter its a lovely place and a big city.

Part of the stepping stone to whatever dream glamour existence one may have their has to be the growing of the sports awareness and brand to get their.   Whether that be increasing existing crowds, growing the international game whilst existing clubs grow participation and player pathways.

New clubs like a Toronto have to ride on the existing clubs by virtue of players to play and an existing sporting brand they want to be part of.  The key is sustaining the existing whilst nurturing whatever new clubs in places that some seem to want them. The risk being you kill the existing. especially the fan-base, that keeps RL hanging by the thread it is.

Now of course Toronto could help grow the brands/SL value and bring in the sort of financial benefits to the sport that enables it to think big. Time will tell.

[MADREDNIGE]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Infamy infamy...

 

[MADREDNIGE]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

They were relegated because they finished bottom.

But you are failing to answer the question because the obvious answer disproves your argument.

In 1996  hull were in the lower tiers and so were fev. Since then Hull have been promoted and won competitions and competed at the top.

Why have they been able to do this and Fev haven't?

Because Hull is a city with far more support the Fev which you can't argue with but you keep talking about big cities, HOW MANY big cities are there in SL then? 

[TboneFromTO]

8 minutes ago, MADREDNIGE said:

Because Hull is a city with far more support the Fev which you can't argue with but you keep talking about big cities, HOW MANY big cities are there in SL then? 

Hull (2 teams) Leeds (1-3 teams depending who you ask) greater Manchester (3 teams), Toronto

So 4 big cities essentially

 

 

[MADREDNIGE]

10 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

Hull (2 teams) Leeds (1-3 teams depending who you ask) greater Manchester (3 teams), Toronto

So 4 big cities essentially

 

 

Greater Manchester, Salford who else? Don't tell me Wigan or Saints are big cities. And how you got three in Leeds? Strange answer this one. What about Wakefield (1-3 teams depending who you ask). 

[DC77]

Scotchy’s point (and Brian McDermott’s) is valid. Big city teams attract more money. 

London might have wasted the £40 million, the point is Fev would never have got that £40 million to waste. There is a glass ceiling with clubs like Fev, there isn’t with big city teams.

Of course you have to be careful not to disrespect these small town/village teams as they have been the bedrock of RL since its inception. These historical clubs shouldn’t just be discarded for a new shiny city club with no history, there has to be a balancing act. It would be a risky move to sideline the likes of Fev and place all your bets on a Toronto, as the latter doesn’t have the deep seated roots in the game that these smaller town/village teams have.