Miracle workers at Castleford

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, paul hicks said:

because they wont get relegated and they have very little chance of a grand final 

A team like Cas should be competing for finals. They appeared in one recently, and are at Wembley. This 24 nil does affect them. 

[RP London]

15 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

This is the bit I don't understand 

Do Sky pay for a set number of games ? , Or a set number of rounds ?

My guess would be rounds, although it probably isnt as cut and dried as that and is more a mixture of both. Just by looking at the press releases about the new deal it seems to be about how many games per round they get, so they get 3 games per round (for example) rather than 81 games in total.. however, change either of those things and you are in a contract dispute as the argument could be "but i should get 81 games" or "but there should be 27 rounds" etc after all you may now be asked to take the 4th best match of a round rather than the top 3 matches therefore now you have (plucking numbers here) 7 less quality matches to sell etc. 

Whatever it is they sign for, any movement I would think would be a legal argument and who has the bigger/better lawyers and the deeper pockets to fight it.. it will come down to negotiating with them and I am not sure i have the confidence in our bunch to do that. 

[RP London]

12 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Does anyone know if clubs have to follow self isolating rules. As if players are training in bubbles if one player tests positive everyone in that training bubble would then have to self isolate for ten days. If that’s the case these players would be unavailable but may never fail a test so wouldn’t count towards the numbers a club needs to call a fixture off without penalty. 

They are the close contacts... you dont need 6 positives tests, you need 6 out for covid related reasons which means if they are isolating as close contacts too (I pick 6 but i am not 100% sure that is the correct number needed to postpone). 

[RP London]

12 hours ago, paul hicks said:

because its what is happening if a team claims to be short on players they can just cancel and accept a 24-0 loss safe in the knowledge that it wont alter there seasons end  .

lets face it cas claimed to have a scratch team the game  before the semi final yet were close on full strength when they played in the semi the week after. so now what's to stop them just making the claim they do not have players whenever they want to although of course no doubt they will be fit for Wembley. 

lets face it even leigh fans know there going down so no other club need worry about relegation .

One of the problems i am having with the "scratch one week full strength the next" argument is that people assume that an injury cannot heal in 1 week from a point when you cannot play to a point where you can..

I am sure we have all had it where you roll an ankle or "tweak" a groin etc and you just cannot play, train etc it can be only a matter of days later that you are running around like a mad thing.. but you physically cannot play/train at that point.

I am sure we have also all had it where you are on the come back from a pulled muscle and you know you probably could play/train/run but its a risk. Perhaps you take it perhaps you dont, thats a mindset I suppose, but there is a risk that a slight strain becomes a tear or worse and that is then months out injured and should we, with a duty of care, be asking them to do this? I am not so sure we should and any other season this would not be questioned and it happens all the time. 

Add into that that some of the players are off for "covid reasons" which can just be isolating (5 potentially).

You could easily have 5 out with slight niggles and 5 out due to covid, all returning the next week making it "look suspicious" but it be nothing of the sort. 

5 minor niggles, 5 major issues, 5 covid related (all fit to play just not allowed to) and thats 15 out of a squad which in a squad of 31 means less than 17 fit... but 10 will bounce back in a week. (without the 5 covid cases the game would happen, therefore in a normal season they would happen but this season is causing extra issues)

While i am not saying this is what is happening, and there could well be something suspicious going on it is very conceivable that these things are just what they are Covid is putting extra strain on the squads when they are depleted and we have seen in seasons past squads get decimated with injuries, its just that this year there is an extra element in the equation.

People are jumping on clubs, and i understand it, but i just think that we see this year in year out with clubs we just have never had this extra issue that can drop 5 players who are perfectly healthy out of availability. Clubs have had injury issues in the squads in the past, if you then suddenly took out 5 more players then they wouldnt be able to cope either. Its not all about Covid but Covid is the straw breaking the camels back IMHO. 

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, RP London said:

My guess would be rounds, although it probably isnt as cut and dried as that and is more a mixture of both. Just by looking at the press releases about the new deal it seems to be about how many games per round they get, so they get 3 games per round (for example) rather than 81 games in total.. however, change either of those things and you are in a contract dispute as the argument could be "but i should get 81 games" or "but there should be 27 rounds" etc after all you may now be asked to take the 4th best match of a round rather than the top 3 matches therefore now you have (plucking numbers here) 7 less quality matches to sell etc. 

Whatever it is they sign for, any movement I would think would be a legal argument and who has the bigger/better lawyers and the deeper pockets to fight it.. it will come down to negotiating with them and I am not sure i have the confidence in our bunch to do that. 

Yup, Sky will want a comp that runs over many months, as they work on a monthly subscription model. Also, ad revenue covering more months is likely to be attractive, to support those lean spells like summer. 

Fans advocating shortening the season by up to 2 months are really just asking for a pay cut. 

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yup, Sky will want a comp that runs over many months, as they work on a monthly subscription model. Also, ad revenue covering more months is likely to be attractive, to support those lean spells like summer. 

Fans advocating shortening the season by up to 2 months are really just asking for a pay cut. 

But the season could have been shortened with no loop fixtures and spread out more to still give Sky what they want, if that is indeed the case. I'm not sure it is even the case anyhow as we have had seasons starting in January and seasons starting in March and many variations in between.

Sky have always been pretty insistent that they don't dictate the RL structure and I see no reason why they would be insistent on loop fixtures.

[Dave T]

51 minutes ago, Damien said:

But the season could have been shortened with no loop fixtures and spread out more to still give Sky what they want, if that is indeed the case. I'm not sure it is even the case anyhow as we have had seasons starting in January and seasons starting in March and many variations in between.

Sky have always been pretty insistent that they don't dictate the RL structure and I see no reason why they would be insistent on loop fixtures.

They are not insistent on loop fixtures clearly, but a 22 week season has a different value to a 27/28/29/30 week season - and not just to a broadcaster - to all involved.

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

They are not insistent on loop fixtures clearly, but a 22 week season has a different value to a 27/28/29/30 week season - and not just to a broadcaster - to all involved.

As I said a 22 game season does not have to equate to a 22 week season. Games can be spread out to easily put that over 27 weeks, other content created or dare I say it 14 teams. Obviously the value to clubs is different but that's a different discussion. Sky is just often held up as the barrier, falsely most of the time when the real barrier is the self interest of clubs.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

As I said a 22 game season does not have to equate to a 22 week season. Games can be spread out to easily put that over 27 weeks, other content created or dare I say it 14 teams. Obviously the value to clubs is different but that's a different discussion. Sky is just often held up as the barrier, falsely most of the time when the real barrier is the self interest of clubs.

That isn't realistic tbh - having free weekends doesn't really work too well, and a broadcaster wants the top teams playing each round - as do sponsors, and so should fans - they provide the talking points.

The way to get rid of loop fixtures is to extend the number of clubs in the league really. 

Of course it is clubs who decide how many games they want - but they do that because staging games get the money from broadcasters (currently Sky), sponsors, fans etc. 

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That isn't realistic tbh - having free weekends doesn't really work too well, and a broadcaster wants the top teams playing each round - as do sponsors, and so should fans - they provide the talking points.

The way to get rid of loop fixtures is to extend the number of clubs in the league really. 

Of course it is clubs who decide how many games they want - but they do that because staging games get the money from broadcasters (currently Sky), sponsors, fans etc. 

I never said free weekends. I don't see how games twice a week are needed or why games can't be more spread out. That is clubs wanting more games, not Sky.

I completely agree that the league should simply be extended.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I never said free weekends. I don't see how games twice a week are needed or why games can't be more spread out. That is clubs wanting more games, not Sky.

I completely agree that the league should simply be extended.

Free weekends relates to individual clubs having free weekends, which would have to happen if say, Wigan were only playing 22 matches over 27 weeks.

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Free weekends relates to individual clubs having free weekends, which would have to happen if say, Wigan were only playing 22 matches over 27 weeks.

But not free weekends for Sky. We'll agree to disagree.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

But not free weekends for Sky. We'll agree to disagree.

It's not really a model any other comp does. I don't suspect it appeals to anybody at all. 

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's not really a model any other comp does. I don't suspect it appeals to anybody at all. 

Neither are loop fixtures, in England at least.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Neither are loop fixtures, in England at least.

Maybe not, but very many comps have structures that are not just straight home and away round robins. 

The reason we have the number of games we do is because that is what the clubs decide we need to make it work financially - pretty much exactly the same as what all other comps do. Therefore going to 22 games per club over 27 rounds isn't a solution for example.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Maybe not, but very many comps have structures that are not just straight home and away round robins. 

The reason we have the number of games we do is because that is what the clubs decide we need to make it work financially - pretty much exactly the same as what all other comps do. Therefore going to 22 games per club over 27 rounds isn't a solution for example.

RL's structure is as manufactured and gimmicky as it gets right through loop fixtures, extra magic games to play offs to decide the league winners. Most RL fans realise this.  I'm not really concerned with what random sports do. The main competitors to RL have far more traditional structures.

I'm not sure why you are changing the argument. This was about Sky and the presumption of someone of what the contract was based on and the amount of weeks. I don't think that is even true, based on the competitors history, and even if it was there are ways around that. However all you are doing is confirming what I said, that this is down to clubs and self interest and not the Sky bogey man that people always blame.

I'll leave it at that as this is just becoming a circular debate.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

RL's structure is as manufactured and gimmicky as it gets right through loop fixtures, extra magic games to play offs to decide the league winners. Most RL fans realise this.  I'm not really concerned with what random sports do. The main competitors to RL have far more traditional structures.

I'm not sure why you are changing the argument. This was about Sky and the presumption of someone of what the contract was based on and the amount of weeks. I don't think that is even true, based on the competitors history, and even if it was there are ways around that. However all you are doing is confirming what I said, that this is down to clubs and self interest and not the Sky bogey man that people always blame.

I'll leave it at that as this is just becoming a circular debate.

There is no change in 'argument' the conversation is directly about number of games and rounds. 

The word 'self-interest' is really weird in your post.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There is no change in 'argument' the conversation is directly about number of games and rounds. 

The word 'self-interest' is really weird in your post.

Geez Dave, it was about getting rid of loop fixtures means a cut from Sky. You can go back yourself and check, its all there. You changed the parameters and that's fine. I'm not sure what you are arguing about this for but each to their own.

So you don't think clubs have self interest? I find it more weird to think that they don't but each to their own.

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

But the season could have been shortened with no loop fixtures and spread out more to still give Sky what they want, if that is indeed the case. I'm not sure it is even the case anyhow as we have had seasons starting in January and seasons starting in March and many variations in between.

Sky have always been pretty insistent that they don't dictate the RL structure and I see no reason why they would be insistent on loop fixtures.

My point , in a nutshell , same number of TV games , spread out over the same time frame , with clubs having bye weeks resulting in better quality , closer games ? 

[Damien]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

My point , in a nutshell , same number of TV games , spread out over the same time frame , with clubs having bye weeks resulting in better quality , closer games ? 

I think it's clear that 2 games in a week, short turnarounds and stacks of injuries result in poor quality games.

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

It's not really a model any other comp does. I don't suspect it appeals to anybody at all. 

Maybe not , but we are in the middle of a pandemic , it was madness to try and play all the games they did last season , it's madness to do it again after a late finish last year and it's madness to do it in a WC year 

Nobody is saying it should be a permeant thing , but having what we are now seeing is ' Madness ' 

[Dave T]

32 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Maybe not , but we are in the middle of a pandemic , it was madness to try and play all the games they did last season , it's madness to do it again after a late finish last year and it's madness to do it in a WC year 

Nobody is saying it should be a permeant thing , but having what we are now seeing is ' Madness ' 

Well yes, but even if we had one game a week we would still see postponements, just like we saw last year.

It's madness because of a pandemic. But we still have bills to pay and income has been battered.

[Dave T]

39 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

My point , in a nutshell , same number of TV games , spread out over the same time frame , with clubs having bye weeks resulting in better quality , closer games ? 

We could have bye weeks any time we want, but you don't get income from not staging games. 

We are doing it tough as we are in a pandemic and we pay the bills by playing games, that's the business we are in.

For all of the stick Cas are getting, assuming I am reading the table right, they have played more games so far this year than the likes of Leeds (11 league games plus an extra round in the cup).

There isn't really a debate about whether midweek games are good or not, we know they aren't - we scrapped them 21 years ago. But we are in survival mode, so sometimes you have to take the least bad option.

[Kirmonds pouch]

On 04/07/2021 at 20:28, DoubleD said:

Leigh are already a disgrace to the sport 

Pathetic comment, dim doesn’t do you justice.