Boring

[Robin Evans 4,459]

2 minutes ago, Ullman said:

Excellent choice of venue though, I'm sure we can all agree.

I thought they missed a trick with not using post office rd like..... but they k-com is a fab alternative 

[Davo5 4,716]

1 minute ago, Robin Evans said:

I thought they missed a trick with not using post office rd like..... but they k-com is a fab alternative 

Use it for what though 

[Gooleboy 1,383]

1 hour ago, Davo5 said:

Use it for what though 

Halfway House.

[Blind side johnny 6,361]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

So my Question johnny is how was the name to describe such a contest arrived at?

See the answer provided by Johnm.

[wilsontown 614]

6 hours ago, JonT said:

You obviously didn't bother watching their game against York then. If you had, you'd realise just how inaccurate your statement is.

Indeed. Not sure how they got on at Haven, but I went to the game at York expecting a pasting. We gave them a real fright. I don't think we really looked like we could have won but we certainly had Catalans rattled and they had to work for their win. Imagine my surprise when Catalans went on to win the whole thing.

[DimmestStar 280]

Any team in any sport which dominates will bore people. The unexpected excites like relentless efficiency can never do.

We have 2 excellent teams in the Grand Final and either could win. Let's enjoy it.

 

[Oxford 5,023]

39 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

Any team in any sport which dominates will bore people. The unexpected excites like relentless efficiency can never do.

We have 2 excellent teams in the Grand Final and either could win. Let's enjoy it.

 

Nothing wrong with that.

[Chris22 1,359]

The salary cap, I understand, was brought in to prevent overspending and keep the competition even. If that was the aim, then it has failed on both counts.

It would be better if we saw a greater variety of teams in the Grand Final. But the answer isn't to try and tie an anchor to the top teams, such as by re-introducing the top 8 for example. Correctly, we now have a system where the higher you finish, the greater the reward.

The likes of Hull FC, Warrington and Catalans should have the ability to compete at the top. They have good stadiums, big crowds, the ability to spend the salary cap, why should they not be getting to finals regularly and winning?  I suppose the difference in the teams that win have the best youth sets ups and the ones that fall short don't.

[LeeF 2,124]

19 hours ago, JonT said:

You obviously didn't bother watching their game against York then. If you had, you'd realise just how inaccurate your statement is.

Careful. You’ll baffle him with facts

[Harry Stottle 4,120]

14 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

See the answer provided by Johnm.

I hadn't when I answered you but I still prefer the RL connection, right or wrong. 

[Tommygilf 7,009]

The Premier League was effectively a 2 horse race between Man United and Arsenal from the mid 90s onwards. Then massive investment came into other clubs (Chelsea, Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool, Spurs latterly and to an even greater extent Man City), some evidently more successfully than others, to take it from 2 to 4 and then a big 6.

What is clear is that to begin to break down, or rather break into, sporting monopolies and oligarchies, it requires massive financial investment. Barring the slight aberrations of Leicester and Blackburn, and even then its not like they were financially tiny teams. 

In RL how can we achieve that? Its clear the current strategy doesn't work. We have a pathological fear of investment being paper thin, our salary cap has been kept so low that the top team oligarchy is under no chance of threat from new investment, and the past 2 decades have seen that oligarchy reinforced. Obviously this is all relative, we aren't expecting Sheikh Mansour with £70million transfer fees. But we also don't make it easy for anyone like him should they want to invest.

[bobbruce 2,722]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The Premier League was effectively a 2 horse race between Man United and Arsenal from the mid 90s onwards. Then massive investment came into other clubs (Chelsea, Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool, Spurs latterly and to an even greater extent Man City), some evidently more successfully than others, to take it from 2 to 4 and then a big 6.

What is clear is that to begin to break down, or rather break into, sporting monopolies and oligarchies, it requires massive financial investment. Barring the slight aberrations of Leicester and Blackburn, and even then its not like they were financially tiny teams. 

In RL how can we achieve that? Its clear the current strategy doesn't work. We have a pathological fear of investment being paper thin, our salary cap has been kept so low that the top team oligarchy is under no chance of threat from new investment, and the past 2 decades have seen that oligarchy reinforced. Obviously this is all relative, we aren't expecting Sheikh Mansour with £70million transfer fees. But we also don't make it easy for anyone like him should they want to invest.

Blackburn were big spenders for the time the surprise when you look back at it was a multi millionaire with say £300m could buy the premier league now with an owner  like that you’d  struggle to get in the premier league. 

[Blind side johnny 6,361]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

The Premier League was effectively a 2 horse race between Man United and Arsenal from the mid 90s onwards. Then massive investment came into other clubs (Chelsea, Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool, Spurs latterly and to an even greater extent Man City), some evidently more successfully than others, to take it from 2 to 4 and then a big 6.

What is clear is that to begin to break down, or rather break into, sporting monopolies and oligarchies, it requires massive financial investment. Barring the slight aberrations of Leicester and Blackburn, and even then its not like they were financially tiny teams. 

In RL how can we achieve that? Its clear the current strategy doesn't work. We have a pathological fear of investment being paper thin, our salary cap has been kept so low that the top team oligarchy is under no chance of threat from new investment, and the past 2 decades have seen that oligarchy reinforced. Obviously this is all relative, we aren't expecting Sheikh Mansour with £70million transfer fees. But we also don't make it easy for anyone like him should they want to invest.

Not wanting these forums to become all about soccer clubs but the strategies are quite different, aren't they? Putting aside those clubs taken over as an expensive hobby many soccer clubs have been acquired as an appreciating assett for investment (Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool, Spurs...). If you could show me any RL club, including those in the NRL, that fits into the same category I would be very interested to learn of them.

[Oxford 5,023]

2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

If you could show me any RL club, including those in the NRL, that fits into the same category I would be very interested to learn of them.

Now you're getting into the realms of capitalism, market value and politics Johnny, be careful! The value of say a house is one of perception, ie what people are prepared to pay! RL clubs may be one of increasing worth but the market has to see it that way to realise the monies involved.

 

[Blind side johnny 6,361]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

Now you're getting into the realms of capitalism, market value and politics Johnny, be careful! The value of say a house is one of perception, ie what people are prepared to pay! RL clubs may be one of increasing worth but the market has to see it that way to realise the monies involved.

 

Capitalism, market values and politics maybe but certainly not fantasy Oxford.

[Tommygilf 7,009]

6 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Blackburn were big spenders for the time the surprise when you look back at it was a multi millionaire with say £300m could buy the premier league now with an owner  like that you’d  struggle to get in the premier league. 

Absolutely. It shows how at any level you simply cannot escape the fact you need to spend money to get into the top.

[Oxford 5,023]

57 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Capitalism, market values and politics maybe but certainly not fantasy Oxford.

Well that's a matter of opinion Johnny but drifting off thread is much more likely to get me in triouble than you.

Tulips & Holland is all I will say.

[Tommygilf 7,009]

4 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

Not wanting these forums to become all about soccer clubs but the strategies are quite different, aren't they? Putting aside those clubs taken over as an expensive hobby many soccer clubs have been acquired as an appreciating assett for investment (Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool, Spurs...). If you could show me any RL club, including those in the NRL, that fits into the same category I would be very interested to learn of them.

Warrington and Catalans are two teams that have gotten significant investment and have done all but the final act when it comes to Super League. Increasing their value along the way. There are examples in t'other code too. The NRL is a different kettle of fish as bar Gold Coast Titans and Brisbane every team is basically of the same size (and through mergers and election some have been manufactured to be so). 

What particularly Salford under Marwan Koukash showed (there are other examples such as Leigh under Beaumont) is that the current financial set up prohibits clubs rising to challenge those at the very top in a short term. We can't have "rich mans playthings" except in the lower divisions. To challenge at the top, you have to build for half a decade at least and then as Wire, Huddersfield, Catalans and Hull have shown that is no guarantee. There are strengths to that system, but there are obvious costs that we see with complaints such as the OP. 

[Liverpool Rover 567]

Warrington should have won a couple of titles, Catalans should have won one as well and maybe Hull as well with the teams that they have had, so it hasn’t been like Wigan, Saints and Leeds have been so dominant that no one else has had any chance.

We do need more teams to be challenging so there does need to be changes to the salary cap to allow the Wakefields, Huddersfields etc to to attract bigger investors improve the investments in their teams to get them up to a level where they can challenge the top clubs. I wouldn’t have points deductions for exceeding the cap but for every so much a club exceeds the cap they would have to pay an amount to the league which would be distributed to the other clubs.

 

[Blind side johnny 6,361]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Warrington and Catalans are two teams that have gotten significant investment and have done all but the final act when it comes to Super League. Increasing their value along the way. There are examples in t'other code too. The NRL is a different kettle of fish as bar Gold Coast Titans and Brisbane every team is basically of the same size (and through mergers and election some have been manufactured to be so). 

What particularly Salford under Marwan Koukash showed (there are other examples such as Leigh under Beaumont) is that the current financial set up prohibits clubs rising to challenge those at the very top in a short term. We can't have "rich mans playthings" except in the lower divisions. To challenge at the top, you have to build for half a decade at least and then as Wire, Huddersfield, Catalans and Hull have shown that is no guarantee. There are strengths to that system, but there are obvious costs that we see with complaints such as the OP. 

Sorry Tommy but these clubs could only be said to have acquired a "value" if somebody else buys them. You can't call any of the money that has been spent investment unless those investing get a return. Nobody ever has, to my knowledge but would be happy to be proven wrong.

[Blind side johnny 6,361]

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

Well that's a matter of opinion Johnny but drifting off thread is much more likely to get me in triouble than you.

Tulips & Holland is all I will say.

And look where that all ended up!

[Tommygilf 7,009]

12 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Sorry Tommy but these clubs could only be said to have acquired a "value" if somebody else buys them. You can't call any of the money that has been spent investment unless those investing get a return. Nobody ever has, to my knowledge but would be happy to be proven wrong.

Well whatever you want to call it, you have to spend money to win things and win things consistently. You generally have to spend more than your opponents. Each new big spender forces the others to grow to compete and maintain their top position. That it is hard to do that in RL goes a long way to explain why only 3 clubs have won the competition since 2006.

[Tommygilf 7,009]

35 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

Warrington should have won a couple of titles, Catalans should have won one as well and maybe Hull as well with the teams that they have had, so it hasn’t been like Wigan, Saints and Leeds have been so dominant that no one else has had any chance.

We do need more teams to be challenging so there does need to be changes to the salary cap to allow the Wakefields, Huddersfields etc to to attract bigger investors improve the investments in their teams to get them up to a level where they can challenge the top clubs. I wouldn’t have points deductions for exceeding the cap but for every so much a club exceeds the cap they would have to pay an amount to the league which would be distributed to the other clubs.

 

I'm not sure about your solution but you're spot on with the problem. 

Off the top of my head, NFL and F1 have some form of breaking negative feedback loops. Maybe that is something the game can explore?

Equally I agree, the game at the top has to be open to greater money being spent. Running everything by this low standard ensures the top clubs remain unchallenged.

[Oxford 5,023]

39 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

And look where that all ended up!

Especially for those who believed most!

[Blind side johnny 6,361]

20 hours ago, Oxford said:

Especially for those who believed most!

Or were the greediest?