Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Smudger06

Brian McDermott's Big City Team League

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Trojan said:

Wigan? St Helens, Warrington?  Wakefield?  hardly megalopolises.  The only SL club in what could be described as a major UK city is Leeds.  And in terms of crowds they can't really be said to pull their weight percentagewise.

You have to wait for dead men's shoes to get a season ticket at Newcastle United, and they're not the biggest or most successful soccer club. Even Leeds don't have that situation.

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

What do you mean what happened?

London have been relegated and sheffield play in the championship and we have gone from 0 welsh teams to two

"In my lifetime, where the vast majority of the competition has been straight P+R, 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, because of where these places are. It hasnt to fev. "

Have they then become big clubs, following this success, and as a natural result of been "big city" and attracting the money and investment you stated had "flowed" to them ? 

London 40 years now,  playing in front of a couple of thousand in a Northern Counties Football standard ground, they would be bankrupt aside from David Hughes who happily admits subsidising them to the tune of £20 million plus. Sheffield 35 years, now playing in front of less than 1000 in their umpteenth "stadium". Celtic Crusaders, the club you were referring to presumably as "successful", by what criteria i am not sure, were liquidated after making the Super League look more amateur than normal. The reborn Crusaders and West Wales both playing to less than 1,000 between them and been beaten by Conference teams.

Does the aforementioned clubs, including the 1st and 5th biggest cities in England, and/or the London Skolars, Nottingham, Cardiff, Paris, Newcastle, Coventry  or Liverpool clubs confirm your "big city" thesis or send it on the plane to Fantasy Island?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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. 

If Wigan, St Helens and Warrington are all "in major urban conurbations", then so are Batley, Featherstone, Dewsbury , Wakefield et al. You cannot have it all ways. There are only a handful of RL clubs that are NOT in major urban conurbations by your measure i.e. the Cumbrian clubs, the Welsh and probably York.

So the clubs are where the "people are". The big clubs were/are the big clubs because they earned it at the time or throughout their history.  The big clubs now Wigan , St Helens , Warrington and Leeds have rarely been anything other than big RL clubs but not always the biggest. In RL history,  Oldham , Wakefield , Widnes, Hull and Hull KR, Halifax , Salford , Castleford , Hunslet , Swinton have all been big clubs at various times, winning leagues and trophies, attracting very big crowds and publicity and enhancing their communities . It cannot last all the time for everyone. There has to be cycles. Leeds had a cycle of 30 odd years not winning a title, yet Halifax and Widnes did, attracted bigger crowds than Leeds and were bigger clubs attracting better players and more publicity for the game. What would have been your measure then? The aforementioned clubs have persevered and endured, maintaining the professional game until today unlike the numerous "big city" teams that have fallen by the wayside or never made an impact even after some (minor) success.

The various times these clubs were the "big clubs" had nothing to do with having the name of a big city attached , Wigan and Saints are big clubs not because they have the name of a big city but their names are widely known precisely because they don't. 

Carry on dreaming...

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Trojan
  • Like 2

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

 

"In my lifetime, where the vast majority of the competition has been straight P+R, 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, because of where these places are. It hasnt to fev. "

Have they then become big clubs, following this success, and as a natural result of been "big city" and attracting the money and investment you stated had "flowed" to them ? 

London 40 years now,  playing in front of a couple of thousand in a Northern Counties Football standard ground, they would be bankrupt aside from David Hughes who happily admits subsidising them to the tune of £20 million plus. Sheffield 35 years, now playing in front of less than 1000 in their umpteenth "stadium". Celtic Crusaders, the club you were referring to presumably as "successful", by what criteria i am not sure, were liquidated after making the Super League look more amateur than normal. The reborn Crusaders and West Wales both playing to less than 1,000 between them and been beaten by Conference teams.

Does the aforementioned clubs, including the 1st and 5th biggest cities in England, and/or the London Skolars, Nottingham, Cardiff, Paris, Newcastle, Coventry  or Liverpool clubs confirm your "big city" thesis or send it on the plane to Fantasy Island?

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Trojan said:

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.

You are arguing against yourself here. 

If you want to argue that Leeds have all these advantages because their size, then fine. I agree. Leeds have advantages because of their size. Size is an intrinsic advantage to building big clubs. We absolutely agree here. 

If you want to argue that Wigan are based in a major conurbation and so are fev and leigh. I also agree. But one of those clubs has been able to leverage that fact, two of them havent. 

If you want to argue that unless someone is willing to dump millions in to a club then being in a big city isnt an advantage i also agree. But history actually shows that only clubs in major conurbations can find someone willing to pump actual millions in. Thats why Caddick spends millions building headingley, leneghan spends millions on Wigan, McManus spends millions building Langtree park, A succession of people have spent money in Hull, Moran spent millions on Wire, Davy at hudds etc and we are seeing millions being spent in London and Toronto. 

As I said to you earlier. If fev think they can become a club for the west yorkshire conurbation, Brilliant. Get the millions required to get them to the standard, get a plan, get people to buy in and be that club. There is literally nothing to stop that happening. 

Share this post


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

If Wigan, St Helens and Warrington are all "in major urban conurbations", then so are Batley, Featherstone, Dewsbury , Wakefield et al. You cannot have it all ways. There are only a handful of RL clubs that are NOT in major urban conurbations by your measure i.e. the Cumbrian clubs, the Welsh and probably York.

So the clubs are where the "people are". The big clubs were/are the big clubs because they earned it at the time or throughout their history.  The big clubs now Wigan , St Helens , Warrington and Leeds have rarely been anything other than big RL clubs but not always the biggest. In RL history,  Oldham , Wakefield , Widnes, Hull and Hull KR, Halifax , Salford , Castleford , Hunslet , Swinton have all been big clubs at various times, winning leagues and trophies, attracting very big crowds and publicity and enhancing their communities . It cannot last all the time for everyone. There has to be cycles. Leeds had a cycle of 30 odd years not winning a title, yet Halifax and Widnes did, attracted bigger crowds than Leeds and were bigger clubs attracting better players and more publicity for the game. What would have been your measure then? The aforementioned clubs have persevered and endured, maintaining the professional game until today unlike the numerous "big city" teams that have fallen by the wayside or never made an impact even after some (minor) success.

The various times these clubs were the "big clubs" had nothing to do with having the name of a big city attached , Wigan and Saints are big clubs not because they have the name of a big city but their names are widely known precisely because they don't. 

Carry on dreaming...

Literally look at the last paragraph. If fev want to be a big club in a major conurbation, do it. Nothing has stopped them

If you want to pretend that clubs winning a few trophies when players were paid beer money automatically means they will be able to do so in a professional game you are obviously  wrong for the obvious reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

 

 

 

Edited by fieldofclothofgold

 Soon we will be dancing the fandango
FROM 2004,TO DO WHAT THIS CLUB HAS DONE,IF THATS NOT GREATNESSTHEN i DONT KNOW WHAT IS.

JAMIE PEACOCK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MADREDNIGE said:

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

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. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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'! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Its not the actions of a big club

YOUR words big club NOT ours! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by solly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MADREDNIGE said:

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

No I didnt, read it again  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MADREDNIGE said:

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'! 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MADREDNIGE said:

YOUR words big club NOT ours! 

This thread is about SL and its need for big clubs.

SL filled with small clubs is worth less and has less money to distribute to subsidise the lower leagues.

The fact is that fev can only operate at the level that they do with a hand our from SL, when that is taken away the house of cards collapses.as we saw last year.

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...