Jump to content

Super League Promotion (Merged Threads)


Col81

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Im not sure it is. Ive been a fan for 25/30 years but I dont have much interest in watching the battle to be king of the ashes. The lack of positive outlook and growth in RL I do find quite off-putting. I go to a fair amount of games at headingley, at least one of the 'event' games, and the internationals (when they are on) each year but im not particularly motivated to go this year

A man who is tired of the RLWC is tired of life

Only 25/30 years !

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, Johnoco said:

You may be right. But I honestly don’t think I have the inclination to bother now....just CBA in truth.

And BTW the ‘next stop Barcelona’ was just a bit of a generic phrase thrown in, it was used at the time by flat earthers to deride any attempt at RL expansion. 

It's ironic that the record Super League crowd for a single match was in Barcelona!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johnoco said:

Beyond a guarantee of a few thousand fans attending games, (virtually all of them existing RL fans anyway) I can’t see anything added to SL.
No disrespect to Leigh, I have absolutely nothing against them and in themselves are a decent club. But they aren’t going to stimulate wider growth and interest in the game or new punters. In a word - boring.

Why choose the best when you sure can have the worst... day after day, superleague is becoming a district league. Sad 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I know you often label arguments bad faith, but I don't see that at all. People don't need to hide their agenda, or create bad faith arguments - it's the internet, whats the worst that's gonna happen, some people you don't know are going to say they disagree? There is no need for deceit or misdirection, and I'm not sure why people would need to hide their opposition. 

Different things bother different people. Some people's top concerns about TWP wouldn't even make my top 20 list of things to focus on. I completely disagreed with concerns about massaged crowd numbers, or player development in year 3, or lack of away fans etc. but to some these are really important things. That's their prerogative. 

 

The youth development argument is absolutely a bad faith argument. 

The tv rights argument is absolutely a bad faith argument. SL had already sold the rights, the didnt have the choice. 

Nobody has argued that they didnt make their position known because they were scared or whatever. Simply that they made arguments against Toronto they didnt really believe in principle because they wanted a stick to beat Toronto. 

You can deny that if you want Dave but its not 'reasonableness' that leads you there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Do you have an example of that Tommy?

The player production argument regularly trotted out comes to mind. Especially considering yesterday meaning we now have 2 teams in Greater Manchester, a sixth of Super League, without a category 1 academy. 

The "no away fans argument" was always funny, especially when circa 400 turned up at Bradford and we had people trying to ask their postcodes in a hilarious attempt to say that they didn't count as true "away fans". 

The TV deal is an even funnier one considering it was tied up for a paltry sum in NA at the time our own deal was signed for 2015. That's to say, they couldn't have had an effect until the end of 2021 at the earliest, but it was still a stick used in bad faith.

Obviously a lot of these are related to the age and maturity of the club too which was often something not taken into account with criticism.

There's plenty of mental gymnastics and glass houses at play too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Oxford said:

A man who is tired of the RLWC is tired of life

Only 25/30 years !

Ive got tickets for the RLWC and im really looking forward to it. Disappointed ive not got a Samoa Tonga game to buy for but still looking forward to it. 

Everything else has become a bit meh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Im not sure it is. Ive been a fan for 25/30 years but I dont have much interest in watching the battle to be king of the ashes. The lack of positive outlook and growth in RL I do find quite off-putting. I go to a fair amount of games at headingley, at least one of the 'event' games, and the internationals (when they are on) each year but im not particularly motivated to go this year

Have I got this right, that your interest in getting along to support 'your team' has wained, your experiences of 25/30 years have taken a back seat because Toronto are no more and Leigh have been chosen to make up the numbers and be the fall guy in the spot that Toronto held, I would have thought you would derive much more pleasure watching/observing Leigh continually losing as you have expressed they will other than Toronto continually losing over the course of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scotchy1 said:

The youth development argument is absolutely a bad faith argument. 

The tv rights argument is absolutely a bad faith argument. SL had already sold the rights, the didnt have the choice. 

Nobody has argued that they didnt make their position known because they were scared or whatever. Simply that they made arguments against Toronto they didnt really believe in principle because they wanted a stick to beat Toronto. 

You can deny that if you want Dave but its not 'reasonableness' that leads you there. 

They are absolutely not bad faith arguments. 

Insisting that TWP played Canadian players in Y4 absolutely would be, but questioning what their strategy and approach to player development is isn't bad faith. Questioning whether we would ever see Canadian players in SL is a fairly resonable argument. My personal view is that we would probably be talking 20 years maybe before we saw a small handful of pro RL players, but the lack of signs of starting that RL youth development was a big issue for some. FWIW, I strongly disagreed with one poster's claims that it is not expansion until you have player development, I found that odd. 

Questioning the value they bring to TV rights is also valid, whether that is for the next deal, or even in 20 years, there needs to be a hypothesis at least. 

I would have expected the new guy's bid to have had details of potential commercial/media value and player development - I don't see them as controversial topics for discussion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The player production argument regularly trotted out comes to mind. Especially considering yesterday meaning we now have 2 teams in Greater Manchester, a sixth of Super League, without a category 1 academy. 

The "no away fans argument" was always funny, especially when circa 400 turned up at Bradford and we had people trying to ask their postcodes in a hilarious attempt to say that they didn't count as true "away fans". 

The TV deal is an even funnier one considering it was tied up for a paltry sum in NA at the time our own deal was signed for 2015. That's to say, they couldn't have had an effect until the end of 2021 at the earliest, but it was still a stick used in bad faith.

Obviously a lot of these are related to the age and maturity of the club too which was often something not taken into account with criticism.

There's plenty of mental gymnastics and glass houses at play too. 

Thanks, I address a couple of those points in my response to scotchy. I do think we are mixing up unreasonable with bad faith. 

Some posters think there should be a laid down plan for player development that had started already, others are happy to be more patient. As I said, I think we are talking a couple of decades, but that is from the point you start in earnest. I don't think it is bad faith to state that they should have carried out more player development work, I think it is a little short-sighted and impatient, but I don't see any dishonesty there. 

I will give you one example though - where some claimed that they should have found ready-made players from US Football and the like. I think that's pretty close to bad faith, although I'd be generous and label that as naive.!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

, I strongly disagreed with one poster's claims that it is not expansion until you have player development, I found that odd. 

I think that would be me Dave, what I actully said is 'expansion' to me is getting more participants involved in playing the game, not just shipping a team in to play games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Thanks, I address a couple of those points in my response to scotchy. I do think we are mixing up unreasonable with bad faith. 

Some posters think there should be a laid down plan for player development that had started already, others are happy to be more patient. As I said, I think we are talking a couple of decades, but that is from the point you start in earnest. I don't think it is bad faith to state that they should have carried out more player development work, I think it is a little short-sighted and impatient, but I don't see any dishonesty there. 

I will give you one example though - where some claimed that they should have found ready-made players from US Football and the like. I think that's pretty close to bad faith, although I'd be generous and label that as naive.!

I think the point really is Dave that these arguments are used in a self-fulfilling "told you so" way that barely hides their opinion, which makes them in bad faith. The Bradford game I cited was perhaps my favourite example as it totally exposed this 😂 the masque drops so to speak!

It would be far easier if people just said they don't like them because they're different rather than come up with a veneer of "pseudo-intelligent" points. Its a far easier position to work with and ensures there are no bad faith arguments based in nonsense. 

I think when you combine short-sighted with a stated dislike of the club and a total people in glass houses scenario yet clearly a degree of intelligence, it becomes impossible to say some arguments are anything but bad faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I think the point really is Dave that these arguments are used in a self-fulfilling "told you so" way that barely hides their opinion, which makes them in bad faith. The Bradford game I cited was perhaps my favourite example as it totally exposed this 😂 the masque drops so to speak!

It would be far easier if people just said they don't like them because they're different rather than come up with a veneer of "pseudo-intelligent" points. Its a far easier position to work with and ensures there are no bad faith arguments based in nonsense. 

I think when you combine short-sighted with a stated dislike of the club and a total people in glass houses scenario yet clearly a degree of intelligence, it becomes impossible to say some arguments are anything but bad faith.

I suppose this is ultimately my point - why does anybody need to hide anything?

It is perfectly ok for somebody to say "TWP should not be in SL because they are not a fit being based in Canada, don't have their own players, and bring no value". Nobody needs to hide that view on an internet forum. We should maybe just accept that people are having honest arguments, they just put more importance on different things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

The youth development argument is absolutely a bad faith argument. 

The tv rights argument is absolutely a bad faith argument. SL had already sold the rights, the didnt have the choice. 

Nobody has argued that they didnt make their position known because they were scared or whatever. Simply that they made arguments against Toronto they didnt really believe in principle because they wanted a stick to beat Toronto. 

You can deny that if you want Dave but its not 'reasonableness' that leads you there. 

It seems, everything is a bad faith argument should it not fall in line with your manifesto.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think that would be me Dave, what I actully said is 'expansion' to me is getting more participants involved in playing the game, not just shipping a team in to play games.

Yes, I wasn't going to name you without you on the thread, but it was you I was thinking of. And I completely disagree with you that it can't be expansion without player development (you have been as explicit as that) - my view was that the new sponsors, new fans, new investors in new territories was absolutely expansion. 

I disagree with your point, but I don't think you are making it in bad faith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Clogiron said:

Welcome to Super League Europe Leigh, don't bother finding a seat, you won't be here long enough to sit down.

Thinking about it over time this comment may have been misunderstood, I wasn't getting at Leigh themselves, any of the clubs in the contest obviously wanted the place and believed they could  make a fist of it but the past doesn't support this. The SL club's have twisted the criteria to suit themselves, less Sky money, ensures that, most would have been happy to run with 11 teams or less if it meant more money for themselves but it seems their paymasters wanted a even number. They have previous for this with the Bulls on one of their implosions I recall.

Any talk of expansion should be forgotten about, Toulouse must be questioning whether they have any prospect of gaining admission even if they win the championship and likewise the Dragons know the lie of the land vis CC admittance fees and TV deals, sadly they don't help themselves with some of the Richard heads they sign as player's.

It's a small time game run by small time men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The player production argument regularly trotted out comes to mind. Especially considering yesterday meaning we now have 2 teams in Greater Manchester, a sixth of Super League, without a category 1 academy. 

Should they grant us one straight away, if so It could be fully functional come kick off in March?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Clogiron said:

Thinking about it over time this comment may have been misunderstood, I wasn't getting at Leigh themselves, any of the clubs in the contest obviously wanted the place and believed they could  make a fist of it but the past doesn't support this. The SL club's have twisted the criteria to suit themselves, less Sky money, ensures that, most would have been happy to run with 11 teams or less if it meant more money for themselves but it seems their paymasters wanted a even number. They have previous for this with the Bulls on one of their implosions I recall.

Any talk of expansion should be forgotten about, Toulouse must be questioning whether they have any prospect of gaining admission even if they win the championship and likewise the Dragons know the lie of the land vis CC admittance fees and TV deals, sadly they don't help themselves with some of the Richard heads they sign as player's.

It's a small time game run by small time men.

and will always be the case with small minded fans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sweaty craiq said:

Should they grant us one straight away, if so It could be fully functional come kick off in March?

They should, but given Salford don't have one for reasons set by your fellow Leigh fans, I hope whoever runs it can think outside the box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I suppose this is ultimately my point - why does anybody need to hide anything?

It is perfectly ok for somebody to say "TWP should not be in SL because they are not a fit being based in Canada, don't have their own players, and bring no value". Nobody needs to hide that view on an internet forum. We should maybe just accept that people are having honest arguments, they just put more importance on different things.  

I think its because some people clearly recognize that sheer irrational arguments that struggle against facts don't last very long here and they don't like having said opinions taken to pieces

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Have I got this right, that your interest in getting along to support 'your team' has wained, your experiences of 25/30 years have taken a back seat because Toronto are no more and Leigh have been chosen to make up the numbers and be the fall guy in the spot that Toronto held, I would have thought you would derive much more pleasure watching/observing Leigh continually losing as you have expressed they will other than Toronto continually losing over the course of the season.

No, That isnt what it says at all Harry 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I think its because some people clearly recognize that sheer irrational arguments that struggle against facts don't last very long here and they don't like having said opinions taken to pieces

Says the one who was complaining yesterday about having his opinions challenged. Thaz as flat capped as I am....🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.