Match cancellations

[andyscoot]

1 minute ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Anyone actually know why Salford don’t have the players available if it’s not COVID?

This is what I'm wondering. They have a small squad in fairness of 26 according to their website but that means 13 players aren't fit to play.

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Anyone actually know why Salford don’t have the players available if it’s not COVID?

Injuries. Down to the last 13. 

[Cheshire Setter]

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

Injuries. Down to the last 13. 

Ah okay. Thanks. 

[WSRD]

1 minute ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Anyone actually know why Salford don’t have the players available if it’s not COVID?

Going off what Ian Watson said after the Saints game it’s to to injuries and illness, we had two players playing against Saints with rib injuries.

[Rupert Prince]

11 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Anyone actually know why Salford don’t have the players available if it’s not COVID?

They are bu##ered...?  Seems sensible to me.

[Rupert Prince]

16 minutes ago, andyscoot said:

This is what I'm wondering. They have a small squad in fairness of 26 according to their website but that means 13 players aren't fit to play.

I am not criticizing Salford in this... but fundamentally this exposed the wider game to its shoestring amateurishness.  And I applaud Salfords players for the game last night.

[John Drake]

Please keep this discussion relevant to Rugby League.

I have amended the thread title to that end.

If it veers off into a general discussion about lockdown rules or opinions on the virus, it will be locked.

For those who want to discuss the latter, there is an ongoing thread here >> https://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php?/topic/350095-coronavirus-politics-thread/

Thanks.

 

[Toby Chopra]

To me the Salford cancellation is kind of COVID related because their injury situation is exacerbated by the exceptionally condensed run of games, and the shutdown of the sport outside superleague makes it harder for them to bring in cover in an affordable way. 

[Robin Evans]

13 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

To me the Salford cancellation is kind of COVID related because their injury situation is exacerbated by the exceptionally condensed run of games, and the shutdown of the sport outside superleague makes it harder for them to bring in cover in an affordable way. 

Eggsbloodyzactly!!

[Hela Wigmen]

Does this not just highlight how wrong Rugby League is? I’m not having a go at Salford here, I will say that, however, this is a club that have been back in Super League now for eleven years, earning themselves in the region of £10m in that time through their performances on the field.

They closed their Academy in 2016, with cost issues cited as the reason. I can understand why they would choose that route, especially with the threat of relegation looming over them, something which I think is probably only a couple of bad decisions away for most clubs in the current Super League, in the form of the Super 8’s and now automatic relegation. 

They’re now, on the back of being successful and making the Cup Final, playing catch-up (which is fair enough, it’s what is expected of successful teams every year) and are down to the bare bones and having to postpone games. 

Somethings wrong somewhere. 

[Robin Evans]

22 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

They are bu##ered...?  Seems sensible to me.

The greater welfare of the players has to be a priority. These are loopy times, the likes we haven't seen in our lifetime.

Sh it is bound to happen under these circumstances. Its inevitable 

[tonyXIII]

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Does this not just highlight how wrong Rugby League is? I’m not having a go at Salford here, I will say that, however, this is a club that have been back in Super League now for eleven years, earning themselves in the region of £10m in that time through their performances on the field.

They closed their Academy in 2016, with cost issues cited as the reason. I can understand why they would choose that route, especially with the threat of relegation looming over them, something which I think is probably only a couple of bad decisions away for most clubs in the current Super League, in the form of the Super 8’s and now automatic relegation. 

They’re now, on the back of being successful and making the Cup Final, playing catch-up (which is fair enough, it’s what is expected of successful teams every year) and are down to the bare bones and having to postpone games. 

Somethings wrong somewhere. 

If this is "not having a go at Salford", I'd hate to see what actually having a go at us is. You need to let it go.

 

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, tonyXIII said:

If this is "not having a go at Salford", I'd hate to see what actually having a go at us is. You need to let it go.

 

It’s not. I’d suggest actually reading it. 

[Wildcat]

Salford RLFC looking after player welfare. Exactly how it should be, at any cost. 

[tonyXIII]

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s not. I’d suggest actually reading it. 

I did. Your focus was all about Salford and our shortcomings.

[Rupert Prince]

9 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Eggsbloodyzactly!!

And next season we should have 23 - 24 games. Tops.

[Cheshire Setter]

6 minutes ago, tonyXIII said:

If this is "not having a go at Salford", I'd hate to see what actually having a go at us is. You need to let it go.

 

To be fair, I think HW is rightly pointing out that outside of the few ‘big clubs’ RL is extremely vulnerable. His argument could be applied to a few clubs surely, even though it mentions Salford? I think he’s questioning us as a sport, not your club alone. Maybe the advent of Super League was a missed opportunity for franchising, I don’t know. Worth taking a step back to look at how exposed we are though. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

It seems to me that we are doing the right thing, playing where we can, and testing every week. We have to do the best we can in all the circumstances to get the games on, even if that means postponements along the way. We need the Sky money to survive, and our games are always  worth watching regardless of context. 

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, tonyXIII said:

I did. Your focus was all about Salford and our shortcomings.

It wasn’t. Not at all. It was at the game. Not Salford. 

[tonyXIII]

1 minute ago, Cheshire Setter said:

To be fair, I think HW is rightly pointing out that outside of the few ‘big clubs’ RL is extremely vulnerable. His argument could be applied to a few clubs surely, even though it mentions Salford? I think he’s questioning us as a sport, not your club alone. Maybe the advent of Super League was a missed opportunity for franchising, I don’t know. Worth taking a step back to look at how exposed we are though. 

I get what you are saying and perhaps you are correct, but he has been having a go at Salford for a couple of days now.

Maybe I should just bite my tongue?

 

[Manx RL]

3 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

To be fair, I think HW is rightly pointing out that outside of the few ‘big clubs’ RL is extremely vulnerable. His argument could be applied to a few clubs surely, even though it mentions Salford? I think he’s questioning us as a sport, not your club alone. Maybe the advent of Super League was a missed opportunity for franchising, I don’t know. Worth taking a step back to look at how exposed we are though. 

Are you not always fair?  

[Hela Wigmen]

5 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

To be fair, I think HW is rightly pointing out that outside of the few ‘big clubs’ RL is extremely vulnerable. His argument could be applied to a few clubs surely, even though it mentions Salford? I think he’s questioning us as a sport, not your club alone. Maybe the advent of Super League was a missed opportunity for franchising, I don’t know. Worth taking a step back to look at how exposed we are though. 

Exactly that. Beyond 4, maybe five clubs, at most, the fragility of the game in the northern hemisphere is frightening and this, amongst many other things, is something that should be used to take stock of the sport and how we move forwards. 

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, tonyXIII said:

I get what you are saying and perhaps you are correct, but he has been having a go at Salford for a couple of days now.

Maybe I should just bite my tongue?

 

I haven’t been. You’ve been very precious and quick to throw these allegations around. Salford have had to play more games than most because they’ve been successful. It’s how it’s been for years. 

[Hammerless Nail]

18 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Does this not just highlight how wrong Rugby League is? I’m not having a go at Salford here, I will say that, however, this is a club that have been back in Super League now for eleven years, earning themselves in the region of £10m in that time through their performances on the field.

They closed their Academy in 2016, with cost issues cited as the reason. I can understand why they would choose that route, especially with the threat of relegation looming over them, something which I think is probably only a couple of bad decisions away for most clubs in the current Super League, in the form of the Super 8’s and now automatic relegation. 

They’re now, on the back of being successful and making the Cup Final, playing catch-up (which is fair enough, it’s what is expected of successful teams every year) and are down to the bare bones and having to postpone games. 

Somethings wrong somewhere. 

I attended a presentation given by then owner Marwan Koukash about the closure of the academy. He said that the RFL had assessed all SL clubs' academies, and had given Salford the lowest rating, a rating that meant the club wouldn't receive any funding from the RFL for their academy. The criticisms seemed to be all about the management side rather than what was happening with player development. Marwan accepted those criticisms and spent money correcting them. He then asked the RFL to reassess Salford's academy, but they refused, and said they wouldn't reassess for another five years. That meant that, in order to run an academy, Salford would have to pay around £100,000 per year for five years, and that would have to come out of money intended to pay for the first team squad. Marwan didn't think this was fair or viable, and so felt he had no choice but to disband it.

It's fair to say that Marwan had a somewhat tenuous connection with reality, but this story seemed to be confirmed by the club's then performance director. I've never seen cost issues alone cited as the reason the academy was closed, but I'd be interested to see any links you have for this claim.

Marwan later said that disbanding the academy was the worst decision he made at Salford, a bold assertion given the number of runners and riders in that particular field.

[Rupert Prince]

6 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

It seems to me that we are doing the right thing, playing where we can, and testing every week. We have to do the best we can in all the circumstances to get the games on, even if that means postponements along the way. We need the Sky money to survive, and our games are always  worth watching regardless of context. 

More than SKY.  We need investment. And plan.  A real plan.

We need Private Equity/Venture Capital.  The Mayor of Manchester will no doubt scream his thick head off.