Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Eddie said:

Obviously, but as long as Hunslet can afford to be there they will be. 

I’m not saying we should cull and cut clubs for the sake of it but if the league can’t afford a third division I can’t see clubs like Hunslet being able to stay there unfortunately 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The point of them being in the pro leagues is that they want to be there, they want to be semi pro and are holding their own at that level; there is no reason for them not to be there. 

I’d have thought there is far too much of a distance between the respective Welsh clubs to have any sort of effective link up. It makes Barrow to Workington look like a short jaunt down the motorway. 

All of them. No club should be discriminated on purely on their postcode. 

11 hours ago, Eddie said:

I can see an argument for Skolars, Cov and WWR being in the Southern Conference (which would itself be strengthened by them) until they can strengthen further, particularly with the distances they have to travel, but are you suggesting you’d just close down Rochdale and Hunslet? What have they done wrong?

What argument is that then? Other than postcode? There’s probably more going on at Skolars, Coventry and West Wales besides what’s on the pitch than some northern heartland teams. 

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

What argument is that then? Other than postcode? There’s probably more going on at Skolars, Coventry and West Wales besides what’s on the pitch than some northern heartland teams. 

Yes the postcode, the distances teams have to travel at that (almost amateur) level are enormous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

That is a good slide in fairness there.

Not sure on some of the abbreviations such as NED’s at the top of the tree.And not too sure what COM means either.

 I think there are some good ideas there in all honesty and I certainly agree that there should be a Super League and a Championship General Manager etc with specific defined roles for those divisions.
 

It certainly suggests to me that Championship and Championship 1 would become one division with however many clubs.I suspect number wise there will be less than 20 clubs in it as opposed to the current combined(I think)25 clubs.

The question is where do the individual clubs we have now fit into it all and into what categories/divisions especially outside of Super League?

What will the relevant criteria be?

 

 

 

 Those abbreviations mean  Non Executive Director and  Community..

Not going behind a pay wall either. He seems to be suggesting yet another layer of governance and God knows how manageable that lot at the top would be. The RFL have spent years getting to the point where the main Board is effectively comprised of independent movers and shakers, yet still struggling with  SL owners and their  ' visions '

Pure economics will shape Championship and League 1 in the fairly  near future anyway. That's when the transition between semi - pro/ boot money  clubs and the Community game ( both ways ) could become interesting. 

No need to restructure a Governance that is held up by  the UK Government as a model for other sports. Strategy on the other hand - delivery of our product -  TTG -  is a totally different matter

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

Yes the postcode, the distances teams have to travel at that (almost amateur) level are enormous. 

So you’re openly discriminating sides based solely on location? 

There’s a lot more to Skolars, Coventry and West Wales than what goes on the field on a Sunday. The three clubs probably do more community work than most heartland sides at their respective level, for example. For example, you’re willing to have the plug pulled on community work within one of London’s poorest boroughs because Hunslet (or any others) don’t like travelling over three hours? I’d argue that work is more important than the outcome of a Rugby League game. 

You have raised a point that will probably need addressing at some point in the future. We have 25 non-Super League clubs, soon to be 26. Given the loss of income from this pandemic and potential for change in terms of the money trickled down to the lower leagues from the next TV negotiations, is the amount of travelling actually a good use of the money these clubs have/generate and is there a way in which we can as a game keep as many of these sides as possible (in terms of do they still want to be here and do they have the finances to still be here, not some archaic postcode war)?

Could a move to a merging of the Championship and League One and number of location based conferences help reduce travel time and costs for sides, for example? 

Whatever the answer is, it’s not discriminating on sides who have done nothing wrong but fight to set up and establish Rugby League clubs in new areas when we have “heartlands” teams that have no player pathway, no academies and no community programmes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, del capo said:

 Those abbreviations mean  Non Executive Director and  Community..

Not going behind a pay wall either. He seems to be suggesting yet another layer of governance and God knows how manageable that lot at the top would be. The RFL have spent years getting to the point where the main Board is effectively comprised of independent movers and shakers, yet still struggling with  SL owners and their  ' visions '

Pure economics will shape Championship and League 1 in the fairly  near future anyway. That's when the transition between semi - pro/ boot money  clubs and the Community game ( both ways ) could become interesting. 

No need to restructure a Governance that is held up by  the UK Government as a model for other sports. Strategy on the other hand - delivery of our product -  TTG -  is a totally different matter

Yes, the additional cost of the governance structure will be far more than the cost of L1 to the game.

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

 Those abbreviations mean  Non Executive Director and  Community..

Not going behind a pay wall either. He seems to be suggesting yet another layer of governance and God knows how manageable that lot at the top would be. The RFL have spent years getting to the point where the main Board is effectively comprised of independent movers and shakers, yet still struggling with  SL owners and their  ' visions '

Pure economics will shape Championship and League 1 in the fairly  near future anyway. That's when the transition between semi - pro/ boot money  clubs and the Community game ( both ways ) could become interesting. 

No need to restructure a Governance that is held up by  the UK Government as a model for other sports. Strategy on the other hand - delivery of our product -  TTG -  is a totally different matter

It is a valid point you raise in fairness regarding another layer of governance.And whilst I understand it I guess that there could be issues there.

But all the same in my opinion a lot of ideas suggested there have got mileage and legs in them.

Especially a general manager for each of the divisions.That to me is a good idea.

And I am under no illusions that pure economics will determine and shape the future of Championship and Championship 1 clubs and the relevant division(s)clubs will come under.And I am certain that there will be changes and yes some,many will be controversial and very unpopular.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

So you’re openly discriminating sides based solely on location? 

There’s a lot more to Skolars, Coventry and West Wales than what goes on the field on a Sunday. The three clubs probably do more community work than most heartland sides at their respective level, for example. For example, you’re willing to have the plug pulled on community work within one of London’s poorest boroughs because Hunslet (or any others) don’t like travelling over three hours? I’d argue that work is more important than the outcome of a Rugby League game. 

You have raised a point that will probably need addressing at some point in the future. We have 25 non-Super League clubs, soon to be 26. Given the loss of income from this pandemic and potential for change in terms of the money trickled down to the lower leagues from the next TV negotiations, is the amount of travelling actually a good use of the money these clubs have/generate and is there a way in which we can as a game keep as many of these sides as possible (in terms of do they still want to be here and do they have the finances to still be here, not some archaic postcode war)?

Could a move to a merging of the Championship and League One and number of location based conferences help reduce travel time and costs for sides, for example? 

Whatever the answer is, it’s not discriminating on sides who have done nothing wrong but fight to set up and establish Rugby League clubs in new areas when we have “heartlands” teams that have no player pathway, no academies and no community programmes. 

Not for the first time you’ve read a lot more into what someone is saying than is actually the case.
It’s nothing to do with discrimination, it’s just common financial sense - why do you think there are regional leagues in non-league football instead of 100 national divisions? And having a strong southern division wouldn’t stop community development, there are plenty of teams in the South developing players without being in L1. That division could be on a par with L1 if the teams are good enough, just without 10 hour bus rides every other weekend. 
And finally I know WWR are doing great stuff in the community but having them in League one getting humped every week is unnecessary and quite frankly makes the game look a bit silly. They’d be better off playing teams more their own standard, who wants to sit on a bus for 8+ hours to play a completely uncompetitive game?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Not for the first time you’ve read a lot more into what someone is saying than is actually the case.
It’s nothing to do with discrimination, it’s just common financial sense - why do you think there are regional leagues in non-league football instead of 100 national divisions? And having a strong southern division wouldn’t stop community development, there are plenty of teams in the South developing players without being in L1. That division could be on a par with L1 if the teams are good enough, just without 10 hour bus rides every other weekend. 
And finally I know WWR are doing great stuff in the community but having them in League one getting humped every week is unnecessary and quite frankly makes the game look a bit silly. They’d be better off playing teams more their own standard, who wants to sit on a bus for 8+ hours to play a completely uncompetitive game?

You made no mention of retaining southern clubs, you’re now backtracking and changing your argument.

A Southern Division of three teams is effectively killing them off. There’s also no way you can add more teams, because that means the funding teams get is watered down even further, which almost certainly wont happen. I also don’t think any southern side is anywhere near ready to step up. 

Much like Football, you have to go down to about the sixth-seventh level in Rugby League before true localisation of leagues, so I’m not sure you have an argument on that. 

If this pandemic is as financial damaging as some predict, it makes more sense, IMO, to merge the Championship and League One and split it into smaller, regionalised conferences, with cross-conference games and a play-off structure at the end of it to decide an ultimate winner, much like the NFL.

For example, Bradford playing ‘home’ and away against Batley, Dewsbury and Hunslet, for example, significantly reduces travel time and costs and playing against a selection of cross conference sides once, either home or away, is likely to significantly reduce costs to these clubs after this difficult period. 

Pushing sides away because some northern lads have to travel 8 hours on a Sunday is discrimination. These Southern lads do it every other week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

You made no mention of retaining southern clubs, you’re now backtracking and changing your argument.

A Southern Division of three teams is effectively killing them off. There’s also no way you can add more teams, because that means the funding teams get is watered down even further, which almost certainly wont happen. I also don’t think any southern side is anywhere near ready to step up. 

Much like Football, you have to go down to about the sixth-seventh level in Rugby League before true localisation of leagues, so I’m not sure you have an argument on that. 

If this pandemic is as financial damaging as some predict, it makes more sense, IMO, to merge the Championship and League One and split it into smaller, regionalised conferences, with cross-conference games and a play-off structure at the end of it to decide an ultimate winner, much like the NFL.

For example, Bradford playing ‘home’ and away against Batley, Dewsbury and Hunslet, for example, significantly reduces travel time and costs and playing against a selection of cross conference sides once, either home or away, is likely to significantly reduce costs to these clubs after this difficult period. 

Pushing sides away because some northern lads have to travel 8 hours on a Sunday is discrimination. These Southern lads do it every other week.

Dear me you are so argumentative aren’t you. I can’t be bothered to address most of your points as you’re just making them to disagree but yes I did say we’d retain the southern clubs and I certainly never suggested a division of three - which would be ridiculous. 
 

When you say no Southern team is ready to ‘step up’ I assume you meant to play Skolars, Cov and WWR? If none of them are good enough to give WWR a game then yes I agree they’re definitely not ready. 
 

 

Edited by Eddie
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

All of them. No club should be discriminated on purely on their postcode. 

There should be a professional level. If it has enough support then it can expand if we can be profitable.

Below that the game should be completely open. Like the Lancashire Leagues in cricket, where Clive Lloyd was a professional.

If a club can afford professionals then pay them (contracts) otherwise the remaining players are amateur and receive suitable expenses.  I suggest regional leagues and playoffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Dear me you are so argumentative aren’t you. I can’t be bothered to address most of your points as you’re just making them to disagree but yes I did say we’d retain the southern clubs and I certainly never suggested a division of three - which would be ridiculous. 
 

When you say no Southern team is ready to ‘step up’ I assume you meant to play Skolars, Cov and WWR? If none of them are good enough to give WWR a game then yes I agree they’re definitely not ready. 
 

 

Isn’t the point of a forum to have discussions and debates with people? 

So, you want to relegate three sides based purely on their postcode to a lesser level and you expect these clubs to continue to grow? Can’t you see how that’s unfair? 

Skolars have a pathway from their junior levels to Academy level/Broncos Academy and a pathway to their first team. West Wales, I believe, have similar. Do Rochdale Hornets or Hunslet, for example, have anything like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

Isn’t the point of a forum to have discussions and debates with people? 

So, you want to relegate three sides based purely on their postcode to a lesser level and you expect these clubs to continue to grow? Can’t you see how that’s unfair? 

Skolars have a pathway from their junior levels to Academy level/Broncos Academy and a pathway to their first team. West Wales, I believe, have similar. Do Rochdale Hornets or Hunslet, for example, have anything like that?

Yes it is to debate, but you’re putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them, which isn’t debate. 
 

I’m not doubting that these clubs have great pathways, but in sports that’s not how teams are chosen for divisions, it’s about how good their first teams are and WWR’s quite frankly aren’t good enough for L1. 
 

Regarding academies etc, semi pro teams don’t necessarily need them, ie there are local community teams who produce youngsters (Mayfield for example - if Rochdale Hornets started a youth system it would impact negatively on them). 

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

Yes it is to debate, but you’re putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them, which isn’t debate. 
 

I’m not doubting that these clubs have great pathways, but in sports that’s not how teams are chosen for divisions, it’s about how good their first teams are and WWR’s quite frankly aren’t good enough for L1. 
 

Regarding academies etc, semi pro teams don’t necessarily need them, ie there are local community teams who produce youngsters (Mayfield for example - if Rochdale Hornets started a youth system it would impact negatively on them). 

What’s the barometer for “being good enough for League One”? When South Wales joined League One, it was seen and painted as a development league by The RFL and then that changed within a couple of years. Is that the fault of the clubs that The RFL changed their plans and should they be punished with relegation as a result?

Clubs don’t need pathways? That’s a new one on me. These clubs are merely surviving, they hold little purpose other than for a few hundred ageing people who watched these sides in hay days long gone. We as a game are funding these clubs to merely exist when amateur teams, your Siddal’s, Wigan St Pats’ etc are the ones providing players for these clubs and are receiving little to nothing for producing players ranging from Internationals to those who play for the love of the game at League One level. It’s misguided, IMO. 

Punishing sides based on nothing than their postcode and relegating them to a lesser level, which the current Southern Conference is, is unfair and discriminatory and, IMO, the wrong direction for the game. 

If finances at clubs significantly worsen, smaller, regionalised conferences from the current sides we have is a better way to go, again IMO, than unfairly relegating some sides because some northern lads don’t like travelling for 8 hours twice a season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Regarding academies etc, semi pro teams don’t necessarily need them, ie there are local community teams who produce youngsters (Mayfield for example - if Rochdale Hornets started a youth system it would impact negatively on them). 

  There should be rules and restrictions surrounding academies.

 While I have no doubt it may be pointless for Hunslet to attempt to attract youngsters,given the attraction of Leeds,it must be wrong to allow Hull FC to take youngsters from South/west Wales to their academy.What is the point? Does it not completely undo the purpose of the academy? 

  Newcastle Thunder venture into Cumbria for some of their academy players.It could soon get to be as it is in the soccer Premier League,where they pay huge sums to attract the very young,from such diverse places as France and Africa,for their academy players.

  I do understand the frustrations for those in places where rugby league is not played;but not from where the sport is quite popular and the coaching there may very well match the coaching at academy leave,of Super League clubs.

  Given the finances needed for a re-structure of the governing/administration side of the sport,looking at the OP,it may end up with more spent off the field than what is spent on those on the field.

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

What’s the barometer for “being good enough for League One”? When South Wales joined League One, it was seen and painted as a development league by The RFL and then that changed within a couple of years. Is that the fault of the clubs that The RFL changed their plans and should they be punished with relegation as a result?

Clubs don’t need pathways? That’s a new one on me. These clubs are merely surviving, they hold little purpose other than for a few hundred ageing people who watched these sides in hay days long gone. We as a game are funding these clubs to merely exist when amateur teams, your Siddal’s, Wigan St Pats’ etc are the ones providing players for these clubs and are receiving little to nothing for producing players ranging from Internationals to those who play for the love of the game at League One level. It’s misguided, IMO. 

Punishing sides based on nothing than their postcode and relegating them to a lesser level, which the current Southern Conference is, is unfair and discriminatory and, IMO, the wrong direction for the game. 

If finances at clubs significantly worsen, smaller, regionalised conferences from the current sides we have is a better way to go, again IMO, than unfairly relegating some sides because some northern lads don’t like travelling for 8 hours twice a season. 

I’m not proposing relegating WWR because of distances, it’s because they’ve won one game in the last three (?) seasons. 
 

I’m not proposing relegating Skolars or Cov either (or more accurately moving them into a southern and midlands division to reduce travel time and costs), I just said I could see an argument in favour of it, and then somehow ended up arguing about it when you put words in my mouth ?

Edited by Eddie
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I’m not proposing relegating WWR because of distances, it’s because they’ve won one game in the last three (?) seasons. 
 

I’m not proposing relegating Skolars or Cov either (or more accurately moving them into a southern and midlands division to reduce travel time and costs), I just said I could see an argument in favour of it, and then somehow ended up arguing about it when you put words in my mouth ?

Can you not see how moving WWR, Skolars and Coventry to the Southern Conference is effectively relegating them to a far lesser standard, of which they will receive no funding from The RFL, which will then have a knock-on effect on the way those clubs run? 

I can’t see an argument/your argument/call it what you want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Can you not see how moving WWR, Skolars and Coventry to the Southern Conference is effectively relegating them to a far lesser standard, of which they will receive no funding from The RFL, which will then have a knock-on effect on the way those clubs run? 

I can’t see an argument/your argument/call it what you want. 

Who said they would lose funding? If the structure was different finding would be different. 
 

Personally I’d have a 14 team SL (12 is too repetitive and dull) and a 16 or maybe even 18 team Championship as I think there’s enough teams for that, especially if Ottawa and NY come in and Toronto carry on. That would take up the bulk of the existing three divisions and then you could have a Northern and a Southern, Midlands & Wales conference of the tier below including NCL, Southern Conf and the L1 straggler clubs. I’m not saying that is the best structure but is an example of what could happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

  There should be rules and restrictions surrounding academies.

 While I have no doubt it may be pointless for Hunslet to attempt to attract youngsters,given the attraction of Leeds,it must be wrong to allow Hull FC to take youngsters from South/west Wales to their academy.What is the point? Does it not completely undo the purpose of the academy? 

  Newcastle Thunder venture into Cumbria for some of their academy players.It could soon get to be as it is in the soccer Premier League,where they pay huge sums to attract the very young,from such diverse places as France and Africa,for their academy players.

  I do understand the frustrations for those in places where rugby league is not played;but not from where the sport is quite popular and the coaching there may very well match the coaching at academy leave,of Super League clubs.

  Given the finances needed for a re-structure of the governing/administration side of the sport,looking at the OP,it may end up with more spent off the field than what is spent on those on the field.

Surely Hull taking Welsh players into their academy shows the system is working? 

We don't want teams to run academies just for the sake of it, or to benefit just one club - it's to be part of the whole game pathway. If Welsh players head north at 17/18 into top-level coaching environments that's a good thing.

What would forcing them to stay in Wales achieve? Who would coach them, who would they play? Good players would be more likely to be lost to the game at the moment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Who said they would lose funding? If the structure was different finding would be different. 
 

Personally I’d have a 14 team SL (12 is too repetitive and dull) and a 16 or maybe even 18 team Championship as I think there’s enough teams for that, especially if Ottawa and NY come in and Toronto carry on. That would take up the bulk of the existing three divisions and then you could have a Northern and a Southern, Midlands & Wales conference of the tier below including NCL, Southern Conf and the L1 straggler clubs. I’m not saying that is the best structure but is an example of what could happen. 

I personally think it’s a terrible example of what could happen and a great example of how to kill the game at the lower levels. 

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

  There should be rules and restrictions surrounding academies.

 While I have no doubt it may be pointless for Hunslet to attempt to attract youngsters,given the attraction of Leeds,it must be wrong to allow Hull FC to take youngsters from South/west Wales to their academy.What is the point? Does it not completely undo the purpose of the academy? 

  Newcastle Thunder venture into Cumbria for some of their academy players.It could soon get to be as it is in the soccer Premier League,where they pay huge sums to attract the very young,from such diverse places as France and Africa,for their academy players.

  I do understand the frustrations for those in places where rugby league is not played;but not from where the sport is quite popular and the coaching there may very well match the coaching at academy leave,of Super League clubs.

  Given the finances needed for a re-structure of the governing/administration side of the sport,looking at the OP,it may end up with more spent off the field than what is spent on those on the field.

I think when Parky used to criticise clubs for pinching expansion areas he forgot Hunslet had a good few from those areas too.  I know he supports Leigh as well ?

So, in some instances I think your right but in another way these lads are getting a potential shot in the big time.  The downside is they don’t make it and pack up playing, thinking playing at a lesser level is below them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SL17 said:

What is the point of players 17/18 moving to academies? To be sent back when they don't make the grade to be as you said lost to the game.

The ideal situation would be welsh academies. Those are the goals the sport should be looking at.

 

 

Why would it be any difference if the academy was in Wales? A player either makes it to the next level or they don't, that's the system everywhere, harsh as it is. 

This doesn't preclude having an academy in Wales as well as there may be players that don't want to go north at that age, but to be honest it's no different to going to university at 18 to pursue your chosen career - you have to take a step out into the world to make the most of your chances. 

It depends on what the goal is. For me it's to produce more Welsh-qualified players capable of playing for the national team and/or Superleague. If you look at any other sport, players need to be in an elite coaching environment, and playing in elite age group competitions, by the time they're about 19 to have a chance of making it at the top pro level. The numbers not following that path are increasingly small, an no reason that rugby league should be any different. 

The key for Wales should be to improve the local pathway UP TO the age of 17/18, so more potential academy candidates are coming through. Then let them choose where they want to play at the next level. 

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...