Jump to content

David argyle twitter


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, The storm said:

Why would I agree with that tosser 

Only you can say.  But this pseudo-David-Argyle thinks Rugby League won't progress and so do you.

It's not important but I was interested.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


24 minutes ago, Griff said:

Only you can say.  But this pseudo-David-Argyle thinks Rugby League won't progress and so do you.

It's not important but I was interested.

lets be fair, he is agreeing with a parody account (and not a very good one and hes not agreeing in a comedic way)... which is a slight worry

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Eddie said:

Well yes really obvious. You go on and set all that up then, if you have a spare £500m. 

All I said was, the tweet is absolutely correct.

There would be no point in "setting all that up" when the member clubs clearly don't want it.

They recently invited a team from one of those towns to join SuperLeague instead of a team from one of the biggest cities in France FFS. 

The clubs want to maintain the status quo - a sport built on "away fans" rather than the standard TV revenue that every major sport aims for. 

They want a local sport for local people, and they have got it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

The clubs want to maintain the status quo - a sport built on "away fans" rather than the standard TV revenue that every major sport aims for. 

They want a local sport for local people, and they have got it.

Why would you build a sport on away fans and then make it so difficult to travel to away games ?

[Covid difficulties aside.]

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Griff said:

Maybe it's not the case.

You serious?

They (the clubs) have built a league that covers "a small bit of England".

Their TV audience, comes accordingly, overwhelmingly from that same "small bit of England". 

Some of the teams come from towns that large chunks of the population have never even heard of. So potential viewers in other parts of the country will have no interest as they have never heard of Castleford, or Leigh.

Loads of the fanbase is in deprived areas, so advertisers will not be from premium brands, but more from credit/gambling/payday loans/Weatherspoons etc etc.

They had an opportunity to bring in a team from Toronto, and then a team from Toulouse. They basically shafted the Toronto organisation and turned down the team from Toulouse.

Their 'broadcast partner' accordingly, pays an amount commensurate with an audience based in a "small bit of England". IE: not very much!

Does that sound like a sport built on maximizing TV revenue to you???

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

You serious?

They (the clubs) have built a league that covers "a small bit of England".

Their TV audience, comes accordingly, overwhelmingly from that same "small bit of England". 

Some of the teams come from towns that large chunks of the population have never even heard of. So potential viewers in other parts of the country will have no interest as they have never heard of Castleford, or Leigh.

Loads of the fanbase is in deprived areas, so advertisers will not be from premium brands, but more from credit/gambling/payday loans/Weatherspoons etc etc.

They had an opportunity to bring in a team from Toronto, and then a team from Toulouse. They basically shafted the Toronto organisation and turned down the team from Toulouse.

Their 'broadcast partner' accordingly, pays an amount commensurate with an audience based in a "small bit of England". IE: not very much!

Does that sound like a sport built on maximizing TV revenue to you???

I've disagreed with your tack on most of this thread but this is a fairly comprehensive analysis.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

You serious?

They (the clubs) have built a league that covers "a small bit of England".

Their TV audience, comes accordingly, overwhelmingly from that same "small bit of England". 

Some of the teams come from towns that large chunks of the population have never even heard of. So potential viewers in other parts of the country will have no interest as they have never heard of Castleford, or Leigh.

Loads of the fanbase is in deprived areas, so advertisers will not be from premium brands, but more from credit/gambling/payday loans/Weatherspoons etc etc.

There's so much lazy, simplistic rubbish in there it's hard to know where to start.

Rugby League is popular in places Rugby League is popular. Nobody built it that way, nobody designed it that way and nobody, least of all people who tell us what a problem it is, has ever come up with a serious, financially viable, strategy to overhaul the game's demographics and geography. They just keep telling us how bad it is and how bad the administrators must be to have let it happen as if someone with a half baked marketing or sports administration degree would have the answer if only they were given the chance.

Rugby League's strengths are its localism, the partisan support of its fans and the very strong bonds of identity supporters have with the sport and their clubs. Access to this is what Sky pays for. The challenge is to grow from that, not mindlessly destroy it because some hack doesn't like the demographics.

The self loathing of supposed Rugby League fans (and I use the latter words with caution in your case) really is so tedious in this sort of discussion.

Edited by M j M
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, M j M said:

 

The self loathing of supposed Rugby League fans (and I use the latter words with caution in your case) really is so tedious in this sort of discussion.

Ahhh - the snidey Northern stereotype rears its ugly head again.

The... "I disagree with you, therefore you cannot be a Rugby League fan" garbage.

You have absolutely no idea how big a fan of the sport I am. You are speaking from a position of total ignorance. Similarly, I don't know how big a fan you are. The difference is however, I CGAF, and so won't speculate. 

And BTW... Do you not think you could still have that partisan local support in Toronto, or the South of France? (And still have proper cities, and the vast majority of teams in the league coming from what you term RL's "localism") 

ANY professional sport stands or falls by its TV contracts. The former Melbourne Storm owner Mark Evans recently highlighted this specific point as a problem for the English game. But aye.... Stick to your local league that doesn't even penetrate Liverpool or Sheffield, and see how long it lasts as a viable fully professional entity.

It's 2021, not the 1970s. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, M j M said:

There's so much lazy, simplistic rubbish in there it's hard to know where to start.

Rugby League is popular in places Rugby League is popular. Nobody built it that way, nobody designed it that way and nobody, least of all people who tell us what a problem it is, has ever come up with a serious, financially viable, strategy to overhaul the game's demographics and geography. They just keep telling us how bad it is and how bad the administrators must be to have let it happen as if someone with a half baked marketing or sports administration degree would have the answer if only they were given the chance.

Rugby League's strengths are its localism, the partisan support of its fans and the very strong bonds of identity supporters have with the sport and their clubs. Access to this is what Sky pays for. The challenge is to grow from that, not mindlessly destroy it because some hack doesn't like the demographics.

The self loathing of supposed Rugby League fans (and I use the latter words with caution in your case) really is so tedious in this sort of discussion.

While i agree with a lot of what you say the bit in bold i do not. 

If you look through the history of RL you will find many attempts to change the demographics and geography of the sport. A lot of it done at the expense of a few individuals (not RFL people) and with many all they are asking for is a bit of time, a little bit of help. For some it was money, some it was kit, some even asked for rule books that the RFL couldn't be bothered to send ffs (I have seen the letters when researching my dissertation)! There have been attempts to spread the game that have been stifled by sheer apathy from above or the stupidity/selfishness of the clubs themselves. 

Even down to the amateur game, on this board there are quite a few of us that continually mention the short sighted pulling of all the DOs in the late 00s.. just small levels of funding, targeted, can increase this geographical spread, the simplest examples of just needing someone to organise things (leagues etc) because right at the start volunteers are hard to come by. We're not looking at News Corps Millions to start Melbourne we're looking at the likes of Coventry and Newcastle who, with a bit of extra help, could take a huge leap. We're talking helping the likes of Bristol after a successful world cup match there instead of just leaving them to struggle and go backwards. 

While what you say for the most part is true the RFL's track record of letting opportunities pass them by for the sake of the smallest amount of intervention/effort is heart breaking.

Edited by RP London
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

You serious?

They (the clubs) have built a league that covers "a small bit of England".

Their TV audience, comes accordingly, overwhelmingly from that same "small bit of England". 

Some of the teams come from towns that large chunks of the population have never even heard of. So potential viewers in other parts of the country will have no interest as they have never heard of Castleford, or Leigh.

Loads of the fanbase is in deprived areas, so advertisers will not be from premium brands, but more from credit/gambling/payday loans/Weatherspoons etc etc.

They had an opportunity to bring in a team from Toronto, and then a team from Toulouse. They basically shafted the Toronto organisation and turned down the team from Toulouse.

Their 'broadcast partner' accordingly, pays an amount commensurate with an audience based in a "small bit of England". IE: not very much!

Does that sound like a sport built on maximizing TV revenue to you???

Does a sport that plays most of it's games on Thursday and Friday nights sound like a sport that's looking for away support ?

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/04/2021 at 16:36, RP London said:

i was rather hoping we could keep digging into why on earth someone would think it were true... we may then actually learn how Donald Trump got elected, how people honestly think that Covid is fake and who shot JR!

Kristen, wasn't it ?

  • Like 1

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

you are right! 1 down 2 to go 😄 

That's a misquote.  It's an American Football thing. The 1 there should be ordinal, as in "first down", the second indicates the yards required for a first down, as opposed to the remaining obstacls yet to be overcome.

It's a popular misunderstanding, particularly in the UK.

Just saying.

  • Confused 1

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Griff said:

That's a misquote.  It's an American Football thing. The 1 there should be ordinal, as in "first down", the second indicates the yards required for a first down, as opposed to the remaining obstacls yet to be overcome.

It's a popular misunderstanding, particularly in the UK.

Just saying.

its 1 problem solved (1 down) 2 problems still to be solved.. I'm all for NFL jargon but not here... not here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RP London said:

 

If you look through the history of RL you will find many attempts to change the demographics and geography of the sport. A lot of it done at the expense of a few individuals (not RFL people) and with many all they are asking for is a bit of time, a little bit of help. For some it was money, some it was kit, some even asked for rule books that the RFL couldn't be bothered to send ffs (I have seen the letters when researching my dissertation)! There have been attempts to spread the game that have been stifled by sheer apathy from above or the stupidity/selfishness of the clubs themselves. 

Even down to the amateur game, on this board there are quite a few of us that continually mention the short sighted pulling of all the DOs in the late 00s.. just small levels of funding, targeted, can increase this geographical spread, the simplest examples of just needing someone to organise things (leagues etc) because right at the start volunteers are hard to come by. We're not looking at News Corps Millions to start Melbourne we're looking at the likes of Coventry and Newcastle who, with a bit of extra help, could take a huge leap. We're talking helping the likes of Bristol after a successful world cup match there instead of just leaving them to struggle and go backwards. 

While what you say for the most part is true the RFL's track record of letting opportunities pass them by for the sake of the smallest amount of intervention/effort is heart breaking.

All this I agree with. Rugby League needs to spend from the bottom up, and too many opportunities to fund that for small-ish amounts have been passed up.

What we don't need and can't afford to do is an expensive top-down approach which destroys the game's strengths. Wigan vs St Helens is one of our most marketable games. It's local and northern, everything some posters despise. But it gets top end viewing figures, plenty of media coverage and lots of exposure. It's an authentic event between top teams that people know is important, even if they aren't from those two towns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Does a sport that plays most of it's games on Thursday and Friday nights sound like a sport that's looking for away support ?

Friday nights - against teams from a few miles away.

Getting from Warrington to Salford, or Warrington to Wigan, or Wakefield to Leeds, or Leeds to Huddersfield, or Castleford to Wakefield is not exactly difficult. 

If you can tell me of a single league which has its teams closer together, I would love to hear about it.

And there is 1 game on a Thursday night.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/04/2021 at 10:27, The storm said:

Argyle 

 

Has stated on twitter that our game will never move on until it can out grow its poverty stricken Northern towns 

 

This is the same bloke who racially abused a Swinton player and did not pay his employees how he should have done. 

 

He is a waster with no knowledge of our game 

I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in and also I have a waterfall for sale in Niagara Falls at a good price....please contact me at suckerborneveryminute.com

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, M j M said:

All this I agree with. Rugby League needs to spend from the bottom up, and too many opportunities to fund that for small-ish amounts have been passed up.

What we don't need and can't afford to do is an expensive top-down approach which destroys the game's strengths. Wigan vs St Helens is one of our most marketable games. It's local and northern, everything some posters despise. But it gets top end viewing figures, plenty of media coverage and lots of exposure. It's an authentic event between top teams that people know is important, even if they aren't from those two towns.

absolutely dont disagree with you. Where you will find the disagreement is that when you get Wakefield v Huddersfield (and not picking on those teams per se) is that that marketable? probably not.

We know Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Hull maybe Warrington and we know that they have some draw outside of the heartlands as clubs seen as "big clubs" but get much further down and they are potentially interchangeable.. If you were looking to market a game to "none RL fans" a game between Manchester and London would be easier for example as 2 big cities people know. Therefore the arguments start to grown that we should have these bigger city teams etc.. 

what annoys me the most is that London could be stronger, it was growing well in junior development in the 2000s but had the rug pulled from under it.. Cov and Newcastle are doing well but need extra help.. the RFL can do this and we can start to work towards this "perfect world" that has the nice balance of both but do it organically but we always seem to miss it. I truly believe Sheffield could have built nicely on the 98 challenge cup win but the will was not there from the club or the RFL, the club didnt do its bit and then the RFL basically pulled the plug. 

The problem with the message board and the people you mention is that, as with twitter and politics etc, it is the extreme that shouts the loudest for "Big cities" or "I like my small clubs"... the middle people (of whom i would like to think i was one) who think "ok this is where we are but its not where we need to stay, but it will and should take time" tend to struggle as its not as black and white as those other arguments make out... 

all my opinion of course.. and i totally get everything you have said about the 2 sides of the argument and some of the people involved in them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

Friday nights - against teams from a few miles away.

Getting from Warrington to Salford, or Warrington to Wigan, or Wakefield to Leeds, or Leeds to Huddersfield, or Castleford to Wakefield is not exactly difficult. 

If you can tell me of a single league which has its teams closer together, I would love to hear about it.

And there is 1 game on a Thursday night.

 

Please tell me that you do understand the reasoning behind this is not because it has been designed as such... we have tried Wales, we have tried Paris, Catalans, London, Sheffield, Workington, Toronto etc we've tried chucking teams in the top level and it doesnt work that often. However, start to bring them through (which is the tactic being used at the moment) the league system and teams like Coventry and Newcastle are starting to build sustainable long term clubs rather than just teams. 

Yes, I am sure everyone would like to break out of being solely a game based around the m62 corridor but its not that easy and it will take time, but steps are being taken... As you can  see by other posts i've made i blame the RFL for not helping more and more but those steps are being take now, they could do more of course, and they are trying to change some of this but it CANNOT happen overnight, and whining about history doesnt help [and i'm a history graduate] learning from it does.

Edited by RP London
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

Please tell me that you do understand the reasoning behind this is not because it has been designed as such... we have tried Wales, we have tried Paris, Catalans, London, Sheffield, Workington, Toronto etc we've tried chucking teams in the top level and it doesnt work that often. However, start to bring them through (which is the tactic being used at the moment) the league system and teams like Coventry and Newcastle are starting to build sustainable long term clubs rather than just teams. 

Yes, I am sure everyone would like to break out of being solely a game based around the m62 corridor but its not that easy and it will take time, but steps are being taken... As you can  see by other posts i've made i blame the RFL for not helping more and more but those steps are being take now, they could do more of course, and they are trying to change some of this but it CANNOT happen overnight, and whining about history doesnt help [and i'm a history graduate] learning from it does.

FFS - giving Toronto a spot with no TV money, or London Broncos a spot without any real Salary Cap exemption, or even Catalans without an extended Salary Cap is clearly "reluctant expansion" at best. If the Clubs wanted genuine growth, they would not act repeatedly out of utter self interest.

Ahead of this season, the CEO stated that the 12th club coming in would be based around offering the most opportunities to expand commercially. (I forget his exact words, but it was on an interview for BBC 5Live). The clubs then voted to include Leigh... A suburb of Wigan.

You say "everyone would like to break out of being solely a game based around the m62 corridor" - hopefully these examples show that clearly isn't the case.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

FFS - giving Toronto a spot with no TV money, or London Broncos a spot without any real Salary Cap exemption, or even Catalans without an extended Salary Cap is clearly "reluctant expansion" at best. If the Clubs wanted genuine growth, they would not act repeatedly out of utter self interest.

Ahead of this season, the CEO stated that the 12th club coming in would be based around offering the most opportunities to expand commercially. (I forget his exact words, but it was on an interview for BBC 5Live). The clubs then voted to include Leigh... A suburb of Wigan.

You say "everyone would like to break out of being solely a game based around the m62 corridor" - hopefully these examples show that clearly isn't the case.

And that is why i said that it doesn't work to plonk them in the top flight.. we don't have the money to do this. That is why you learn from history and you change the way you do it. 

I believe London had a "london weighted" cap which allowed them to operate in a different market, i may be wrong but i remember that being mentioned when i lived there. if you want a general "expansion clubs can spend what they like" way of doing it (i have sympathy to that argument to an extent) i think you would damage the sport in the eyes of many people not just within RL.

I dont disagree (and you would know this from my other posts) that more help should be given... from the system and the clubs to expansion teams and it doesnt need to be much but they do need a leg up.. However, that doesnt stop them from working per se and my point, as you well know, is that there are and have been chances given for growth outside the M62. They need to be more and better, and i have said this, but i believe the clubs are just many times bitten many times shy.

I dont agree with your conclusion that it shows that the clubs want to stay in the M62 corridor. I believe it is simply that they are/have been risk averse and the risk to them is the death of the game as a whole, and argument i have huge sympathy with as you have to deficit finance all of the expansion you want and the money isnt there to do that.. however, there is a change coming through now that is seeing growth coming from the lower leagues in a sustainable way and they are coming through the leagues and that is the best most reliable way for this to work and for this change to happen IMHO.

But you wont agree, you want it to happen yesterday with a bang or bust approach and that IMHO will simply lead to bust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RP London said:

 

I believe London had a "london weighted" cap which allowed them to operate in a different market, i may be wrong but i remember that being mentioned when i lived there. if you want a general "expansion clubs can spend what they like" way of doing it (i have sympathy to that argument to an extent)

1. Of course the cap was London weighted. Same as any organisation of that era paid a London weighting on salaries. Thinking that was 'enough' was utter lunacy though. How on earth could the London team be expected to attract the same players with zero community-level infrastructure around it, as teams from the North?? The cap extension needed to be MUCH more to attract players from small, inward-looking, narrow minded Northern communities to move to uproot and play in London.

2. Nowhere did I say that expansion teams should be able to "spend what they like". 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...