Jump to content

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 393
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hope not, a ten team SL (or championship) would be woeful. 

2x10 just smacks of trying to please everyone, whilst at the same time not really pleasing anyone.  For starters, calling it "SL2" just cheapens the Super League brand. You may as well call it "S

This. I want 14 and a bit of variety. 10 just doesnt do it for me.

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

OED definition of 'sport'.

"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment"

So, yes, it is.

I look forward to ballroom dancing at the Olympics 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that my opinions have drifted this thread 

I can only conclude my ' detractors are upset that dancing on Ice is just highlights tonight , or they'd all be rivetted to it 

As I said I don't consider dancing horses or indeed skateboarding as sport , others do , their perogative 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Exactly , anything that requires a subjective judging to decide the winner isn't sport 

I think Pro Surfing is a sport though, need courage to get in the water for a fair while in some of those places with the risk from wildlife & drowning, need serious skills as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

I think Pro Surfing is a sport though, need courage to get in the water for a fair while in some of those places with the risk from wildlife & drowning, need serious skills as well. 

I look forward to watching the tightrope walking at the Olympics 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

I look forward to ballroom dancing at the Olympics 

That isn't as farfetched as it might sound either considering that ice dancing has been a Winter Olympics medal sport since 1976.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2021 at 09:10, whatmichaelsays said:

Because if the game's main stakeholders won't invest in the game, why the hell should Sky?

Sky are not investing in the game they are buying a commodity that suits their purpose, when that is no longer relevant to them they will find something else to fill the gap or simply keep the purse strings tied together until another opportunity arises.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Sky are not investing in the game they are buying a commodity that suits their purpose, when that is no longer relevant to them they will find something else to fill the gap or simply keep the purse strings tied together until another opportunity arises.

We might be playing in semantics here, but Sky makes an "investment" into a product that it then packages and sells on to it's customer base (hopefully for a profit).

The point I'm making here is that throughout all of this discussion about the TV deal, the narrative being pushed (not just by posters on here but also by the likes of Ian Lenagan) was that the previous Sky deal was undersold, signed too hastily and that we should be entitled to an increase when the next one comes around "just because". My argument to that has been that if the game wants to demand more from Sky (or any other broadcaster), then it needs to offer more value - not just demand more money because we think we deserve it.

The process of adding value to the TV deal should have started the moment the ink dried on the last contract but in that time, we've messed around with new structures, arguing over whether we should have clubs in other countries, arguing over how to carve up the existing TV distributions and doing all manner of things other than finding ways of adding value to the broadcast product. The game has spent five years achieving the square-root of jack, and the TV deal will more than likely - and perfectly fairly - reflect that. As a result, this whole process has the air of leaving the homework until the night before it's due. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

We might be playing in semantics here, but Sky makes an "investment" into a product that it then packages and sells on to it's customer base (hopefully for a profit).

The point I'm making here is that throughout all of this discussion about the TV deal, the narrative being pushed (not just by posters on here but also by the likes of Ian Lenagan) was that the previous Sky deal was undersold, signed too hastily and that we should be entitled to an increase when the next one comes around "just because". My argument to that has been that if the game wants to demand more from Sky (or any other broadcaster), then it needs to offer more value - not just demand more money because we think we deserve it.

The process of adding value to the TV deal should have started the moment the ink dried on the last contract but in that time, we've messed around with new structures, arguing over whether we should have clubs in other countries, arguing over how to carve up the existing TV distributions and doing all manner of things other than finding ways of adding value to the broadcast product. The game has spent five years achieving the square-root of jack, and the TV deal will more than likely - and perfectly fairly - reflect that. As a result, this whole process has the air of leaving the homework until the night before it's due. 

You are quite right that the 5 (?) year deal has been wasted.  Most of it by the RFL. I'm not sure the money was undersold... just that most of it was dribbled away by teams wasting it trying to get into superleague.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Now now Johnny you know that is completely different , they don't score on a performance , , as was pointed out , is ' dancing horses ' really a sport ? 

So are you saying that all refereeing decisions are simply objective and never involve judgement?

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

You are quite right that the 5 (?) year deal has been wasted.  Most of it by the RFL. I'm not sure the money was undersold... just that most of it was dribbled away by teams wasting it trying to get into superleague.

Do you have any other explanations than it was all the non-SL clubs fault Rupert?

How was the money available to the senior clubs when the SL was franchised wisely invested?

  • Like 1

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blind side johnny said:

Do you have any other explanations than it was all the non-SL clubs fault Rupert?

How was the money available to the senior clubs when the SL was franchised wisely invested?

It was dribbled away by teams wasting it trying to stay in Super League. 

  • Like 1

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

It was dribbled away by teams wasting it trying to stay in Super League. 

They automatically stayed in though - that was the point of the franchise.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Do you have any other explanations than it was all the non-SL clubs fault Rupert?

How was the money available to the senior clubs when the SL was franchised wisely invested?

I am not following your logic, but that might be just me.

Large sums went to the RFL, not the SL clubs.  The depth of quality in the lower leagues is no better now.  I'd say worse.  Meantime clubs like Wigan and Saints and others are finding and developing players.  

The wider game is pretending it's something which it is not.  It has refused to face the facts that full time professionalism in Superleague, and more importantly full time professionalism in Rugby Union, has pulled the rug from under the whole history and structure of our game.

Edited by Rupert Prince
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

It was dribbled away by teams wasting it trying to stay in Super League. 

Well, we should never have had promotion and relegation.  We certainly should not have had the insane Middle Eights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

So are you saying that all refereeing decisions are simply objective and never involve judgement?

Refs give  subjective decisions on individual incidents , they don't award a set number of points or goals based on ' artistic impression ' , something which is completely subjective 

  • Like 1
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...