The cycle needs to break

[Tommygilf]

19 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

You tell me ?

You were there, you made the point, surely you must have a theory as to why?

[Tommygilf]

11 hours ago, JDINTHEHIZZOUSE said:

forgive my late intrusion, maybe semi professionalism ? . Which was great in the past and teams could certainly cause an upset,Now, that we wish to be deemed more credible, perhaps to satisfy our 'sky overlords' the game we all fell in love with has become a chess piece in terms of money.

Perhaps, but football wasn't semi pro though? 

The financial and social realities of the world in the 50 years between 1970 to now cannot be wished away either. 

[GUBRATS]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

You were there, you made the point, surely you must have a theory as to why?

Why ? , I suppose that sport just being different then , in football a smaller player pool , more one club players , less pressure from owners , different funding streams 

Not suggesting we can return in some way , just pointing out that was the situation then , Liverpool were creating the first long term dominant ' dynasty ' , United and Arsenal followed then Chelsea and City 

Wigan started it in RL ,Saints,Bradford and Leeds have continued it 

Is it better ? IMO no , yours ?

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Bostik Bailey said:

Well considering that these three clubs developed their own players and all their champion winning sides had a large proportion of home grown talent, that could be the main reason. And we should be championing this system of excellence.

however this is British rugby league, far easier complain about the success built this way and look for ways to level down.

having said that next week is no forgone conclusion and however wins will be deserving champions

 

 

Who is talking about levelling the system down BB, I am saying the as you put it "System of excellence" should be extended to whichever clubs wishes to run an academy, you or anyone who supports a club who run academies wouldn't have a problem with that would you?

[idrewthehaggis]

3 hours ago, Bostik Bailey said:

Well considering that these three clubs developed their own players and all their champion winning sides had a large proportion of home grown talent, that could be the main reason. And we should be championing this system of excellence.

however this is British rugby league, far easier complain about the success built this way and look for ways to level down.

having said that next week is no forgone conclusion and however wins will be deserving champions

 

 

A centre of excellence and titrating the best elite youngsters into regional academies is the very opposite of leveling down.

It is levelling up to a higher standard for all. 

The current system is a rigged racket to monopolize talent for a few and is reinforced by salary cap exemptions that is used to strengthen the club to gain further advantage.

It is self perpetuating and can not say the structure is producing scores of NRL level athletes neither. We have here a moribund sport and an ever falling standards compared to the NRL.

It can be said this is hugely successful for the tiny few Big Clubs and those straggler clubs that are keen to live off their scraps,  but has created a moribund sport and a fall in standards compared to the NRL.

I will take Saints as an example. They have from Roby to Rizzelli 20 players who are club trained by them in the current squad. Of them, a dozen hail from St Helens/Merseyside, the rest from Cumbria, Rochdale and Wales.

It is already regional, but whilst a true hub would be for all of RL, this is just for St Helens.

 

 

[redjonn]

9 hours ago, goldcoaster said:

I think the biggest counter to this argument is the Scottish Premiership. Only 2 teams can win it and it’s a hopeless joke. Even those 2 clubs want to join English football. 

Who wants to watch the same clubs win every single year?

yep, true of Scottish football. 

Then again English premiership was a league dominated by Utd originally, a top 3 going to a top 4, now a top 6. With all the other clubs benefiting from the monies that those top clubs attracted from media coverage and huge TV deals. Those TV deals were on the back of the top teams not the rest.  Now all those lower clubs have squads full of internationals and thus enhancing the overall level of the premier league.

Spanish football dominated by two clubs may be a counter argument to the premier league but nowadays even their you have top 3 now and other clubs.

Germany is dominated by few or at least one club but its heathy league with participation and fanbases. Opposite to Scottish soccer.

The point being we can pull out alternative examples.

Basically it boils down to one's ethos for SL.  For one example: Believe in the top clubs being able to compete though no salary cap with bringing in or keeping future stars  or minimising salary club to try and force equal competition across the league - with a lower level of players as the bigger stars are attracted away from even those clubs that can otherwise afford to attract better.

e.g. Could introduce salary cap in Scottish soccer to force the top two to spend at the level of the lowest clubs. Not sure that would help Scottish football

[redjonn]

44 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

A centre of excellence and titrating the best elite youngsters into regional academies is the very opposite of leveling down.

It is levelling up to a higher standard for all. 

The current system is a rigged racket to monopolize talent for a few and is reinforced by salary cap exemptions that is used to strengthen the club to gain further advantage.

It is self perpetuating and can not say the structure is producing scores of NRL level athletes neither. We have here a moribund sport and an ever falling standards compared to the NRL.

It can be said this is hugely successful for the tiny few Big Clubs and those straggler clubs that are keen to live off their scraps,  but has created a moribund sport and a fall in standards compared to the NRL.

I will take Saints as an example. They have from Roby to Rizzelli 20 players who are club trained by them in the current squad. Of them, a dozen hail from St Helens/Merseyside, the rest from Cumbria, Rochdale and Wales.

It is already regional, but whilst a true hub would be for all of RL, this is just for St Helens.

 

 

Maybe... who pays for the regional academies as at the moment individual clubs have an incentive.  What happens if you remove the incentive, but to get the money surcharge the clubs... do you surcharge the bigger clubs more in which case its one way to punish those more successful clubs for the greater good as you would say.

[audois]

On 02/10/2021 at 04:01, JohnM said:

It's a competition. Any club can win it. The fact that not every club has done so points to deficiencies in the way those other clubs are owned, run, structured,  managed and play. As a neutral, I can say I like nothing about St Helens other than they are deservedly in the GF and if they win, it will be on merit. The fact that they are playing Catalans indicates that it IS possible to build "new" and sucessful clubs, something the other 10 SL clubs should reflect on.

John we just need more big clubs end of story!!

[idrewthehaggis]

2 hours ago, redjonn said:

Maybe... who pays for the regional academies as at the moment individual clubs have an incentive.  What happens if you remove the incentive, but to get the money surcharge the clubs... do you surcharge the bigger clubs more in which case its one way to punish those more successful clubs for the greater good as you would say.

That is a reasonable response. To digress for a second once  abroad, I met a group of business types from Arizona and we got talking about the NHS. They found it difficult to understand why we had a collective and state run health service as for them it contradicted the individual's freedom and liberty. As a progressive of sorts, I argued my case and so did they without either side being persuaded. Copenhagen does have some great beer though.

I think we are the same. My arguments are sound from my viewpoint and I think from yours, they have a certain consistency as well.

I would argue the "incentive" for the big clubs is there and is a key motivator for quality. 

My retort would be others would see this more "selfishness" and the inventiveness is insular and monopolistic, when a collective structure would be more financially effective and a raiser of quality.

My thought that this needs a plethora of professional clubs as organized as well as yer St Helens and a RFL that is competent, assertive and fair.

If this could happen, then there would be no negative "surcharge" but the opposite. The 20 elite clubs would pay the same, Their collective monies would outstrip the haphardous club academies and higher standards may occur. If you can't contribute, then you are not an elite club.

As for punishment, it depends on whether you see exclusivity and freedom as fair as the Arizonans did, or inclusivity and regulation more so.

I will say the system works, but my thoughts are a musing on how to improve it. In the end whatever system the best players will continue to play for the best clubs. Wigan will remain there. So will Leeds, but we do need more than them. 

[Saint Toppy]

On 02/10/2021 at 13:34, idrewthehaggis said:

 

Check the the Big Three NW clubs players within or around their first team squad who have been club trained. A third of each hails from outside Wigan/St Helens/ Warrington areas. Thus the structure is set up biased towards these three big clubs and net talent that would go to their local clubs.

This becomes even more enforced when if any of those club trained players succeed at this Big Three, then the RFL grants them a dispensation on the salary cap.

 

There are multiple reasons why young players choose the likes of Saints, Wigan or Leeds over a Huddersfield or a Wakey or another club closer to where they live. They go to where they see themselves getting the best chance to progress their careers. All 3 of the big clubs have a long history or not only developing youngsters to a high level, but also in then promoting them to the 1st team consistently year after year and giving them a chance to settle into the 1st team and prove themselves. Why would you chose to go to a club who's first choice is always to 'buy in' other players over promoting their own youngsters ?

There's then other factors such as scholarships outside the game, not all the clubs are willing to pay for all their youngsters to train in a skill or gain academic qualifications along side their rugby. As another example Saints run an Academy tour to Australia every 2 years at great cost to the club & the fans who support them financially, thats a huge draw for a youngster when picking their first pro club.

Instead of moaning about the big 3 having successful academies all the other clubs should be looking on in admiration and trying to replicate them. Maybe then we'll see youngsters choosing clubs other then the big 3 as their first choice.  

[idrewthehaggis]

*Moaning, " nah you can do better than that sir.

Aside from an uncharacteristic blemish of petulance, an excellent post. Demonstrating how far the bar has been raised up on McManus Drive. 

Locality

Best place to progress

Scholarships

Jolly to Oz.

Historical good practice, trust in youth and career progression.

You know mine and others argument still stands.

This is a self -perpetuating, monopolistic, protectionist system that does a very good for a few and nor the many. A sort of claiming Eton is a beneficious charitable cause than a mechanism in exclusivity and power maintenance.

The quality is not in doubt, but neither is its negative affect on the competitiveness of Super League. Or in Eton's case, UK society as a whole.

Just imagine a north west centre of excellence where the very best of WIgan to Leigh could develop. Or a Yorkshire version?

A winner for all, not just five big clubs. 

 

 

[Saint Toppy]

12 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

*Moaning, " nah you can do better than that sir.

Aside from an uncharacteristic blemish of petulance, an excellent post. Demonstrating how far the bar has been raised up on McManus Drive. 

Locality

Best place to progress

Scholarships

Jolly to Oz.

Historical good practice, trust in youth and career progression.

You know mine and others argument still stands.

This is a self -perpetuating, monopolistic, protectionist system that does a very good for a few and nor the many. A sort of claiming Eton is a beneficious charitable cause than a mechanism in exclusivity and power maintenance.

The quality is not in doubt, but neither is its negative affect on the competitiveness of Super League. Or in Eton's case, UK society as a whole.

Just imagine a north west centre of excellence where the very best of WIgan to Leigh could develop. Or a Yorkshire version?

A winner for all, not just five big clubs. 

 

 

There's no need to try and break something thats already working for an untried & untested regional model (particularly when your trying to sell it via lines straight from the Corbyn socialist playbook of the 70's). The big 3 have shown how well academies can & do work and its down to all the the clubs to match them if you genuinely want choice for youngsters when it comes to selecting their first pro-clubs.

Its no different to life outside of sport. If you were a student who's just got straight A's in your A Levels and have 2 offers on the table, one from Oxford University and one from say Bognor Regis Polytechnic, 99.9% of students are going to opt to go to Oxford.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

There's no need to try and break something thats already working for an untried & untested regional model (particularly when your trying to sell it via lines straight from the Corbyn socialist playbook of the 70's). The big 3 have shown how well academies can & do work and its down to all the the clubs to match them if you genuinely want choice for youngsters when it comes to selecting their first pro-clubs.

Its no different to life outside of sport. If you were a student who's just got straight A's in your A Levels and have 2 offers on the table, one from Oxford University and one from say Bognor Regis Polytechnic, 99.9% of students are going to opt to go to Oxford.

I'm with you on this one. Although I appreciate that perspective is important here, as I'm also a fan of one of the bigger clubs, but if those clubs are investing more heavily in playing and training facilities, investing more heavily in pastoral support, investing in providing non-rugby education, investing in coaching and giving their young talent more opportunities both in rugby and in life, then the problem is not "the big clubs".

The sport should be treating its talent as well as it can be and if certain clubs are leading the way on that front, then young players (and their parents) will rightly factor that into their decision. Would I want to play for Leeds, where I can get fit in a state of the art gym, practice on a 4G playing surface, have good prospects of a shot in the first team and have the offer of a part-time degree from the local university, or do I want to go to Wakefield, train in an unheated converted warehouse, practice on dog **** park, have a coach that's too nervous to give me a chance in a relegation battle and play for a chairman that criticises his players in the press for not taking a big enough pay cut? 

The NHS analogy is a misdirection for me. That's an organisation that exists for societal good. Rugby League is a competitive sport where businesses compete with each other in order to succeed - and competing for talent is a significant part of that process. 

[goldcoaster]

Oh well.  The 3-team monopoly drags on yet again. Very disappointing for the League.

[Tabby]

21 minutes ago, goldcoaster said:

Oh well.  The 3-team monopoly drags on yet again. Very disappointing for the League.

You want change?

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, goldcoaster said:

Oh well.  The 3-team monopoly drags on yet again. Very disappointing for the League.

Best team on the night won ,only just , but 2 trys to one , just , well done Les Cats 

Its called sport 

[Scubby]

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Best team on the night won ,only just , but 2 trys to one , just , well done Les Cats 

Its called sport 

Yes absolutely. Two very evenly matched sides but Saints just shaded it with their defence and experience. 

[Tommygilf]

9 hours ago, goldcoaster said:

Oh well.  The 3-team monopoly drags on yet again. Very disappointing for the League.

Tbf, between Saints, Wigan and Leeds that is a quarter of the league. It is highly unlikely for two sides to be better than all three of them in any given season or for all 3 of them to be off the pace to the extent that none of them are within touching distance of a grand final. 

But there are other pieces of Silverware to win in the UK, and those two have a far broader scope of winners and finalists.

[David Dockhouse Host]

10 hours ago, Tabby said:

You want change?

I do, I think a healthy league is one that isn't dominated by the same teams 

[idrewthehaggis]

3 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I do, I think a healthy league is one that isn't dominated by the same teams 

Recognition deserved. The Honourable Carnster from SRD's own forum describes the monopoly of three as "asphyxiating" the game.

The structure is contrived to ensure such dominance and is ensuring its decline.

There is apathy at the top and disinterest at the bottom.

It is too easy and repetitive to keep interested if you win all the time, especially when some "curious" refereeing decisions enforce that monopoly. It is also dismal and demoralizing if you are at the bottom,

Imagine the difference today had Catalan won. The joy, colour and delight in Perpignan. An explosion that would light the game there for years.

Meanwhile in St Helens, once the celebratory bus skirts the couple of hundred fans who'd turned out, the town will return to Sunday evening silence.  And by Monday the weekend thrill will be all forgotten, like a one night stand. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

4 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Recognition deserved. The Honourable Carnster from SRD's own forum describes the monopoly of three as "asphyxiating" the game.

The structure is contrived to ensure such dominance and is ensuring its decline.

There is apathy at the top and disinterest at the bottom.

It is too easy and repetitive to keep interested if you win all the time, especially when some "curious" refereeing decisions enforce that monopoly. It is also dismal and demoralizing if you are at the bottom,

Imagine the difference today had Catalan won. The joy, colour and delight in Perpignan. An explosion that would light the game there for years.

Meanwhile in St Helens, once the celebratory bus skirts the couple of hundred fans who'd turned out, the town will return to Sunday evening silence.  And by Monday the weekend thrill will be all forgotten, like a one night stand. 

Agree with everything apart from the ref comment

[bobbruce]

I’m not sure what more can be done we are already holding the top teams back. Let’s look towards the rest of the league surely it’s time for those clubs to step up. For me all the more reason why Catalans and Toulouse are so important. We at least get a couple more teams who can spend the full cap and hopefully enough over to be able to create an environment that convinces top players to go there. 

[Bostik Bailey]

On 03/10/2021 at 15:33, idrewthehaggis said:

That is a reasonable response. To digress for a second once  abroad, I met a group of business types from Arizona and we got talking about the NHS. They found it difficult to understand why we had a collective and state run health service as for them it contradicted the individual's freedom and liberty. As a progressive of sorts, I argued my case and so did they without either side being persuaded. Copenhagen does have some great beer though.

I think we are the same. My arguments are sound from my viewpoint and I think from yours, they have a certain consistency as well.

I would argue the "incentive" for the big clubs is there and is a key motivator for quality. 

My retort would be others would see this more "selfishness" and the inventiveness is insular and monopolistic, when a collective structure would be more financially effective and a raiser of quality.

My thought that this needs a plethora of professional clubs as organized as well as yer St Helens and a RFL that is competent, assertive and fair.

If this could happen, then there would be no negative "surcharge" but the opposite. The 20 elite clubs would pay the same, Their collective monies would outstrip the haphardous club academies and higher standards may occur. If you can't contribute, then you are not an elite club.

As for punishment, it depends on whether you see exclusivity and freedom as fair as the Arizonans did, or inclusivity and regulation more so.

I will say the system works, but my thoughts are a musing on how to improve it. In the end whatever system the best players will continue to play for the best clubs. Wigan will remain there. So will Leeds, but we do need more than them. 

What we are talking about here is elite professional sport the very reason it exists is for individuals (clubs etc) to pursue  excellence and beat the opposition.

Your comparison to the NHS, and how society as a whole should be run have absolutely nothing to do with elite sport.     
 

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, bobbruce said:

I’m not sure what more can be done we are already holding the top teams back. Let’s look towards the rest of the league surely it’s time for those clubs to step up. For me all the more reason why Catalans and Toulouse are so important. We at least get a couple more teams who can spend the full cap and hopefully enough over to be able to create an environment that convinces top players to go there. 

Yes , until they both reach a C Cup or GF ?

[DC77]

On 03/10/2021 at 15:33, idrewthehaggis said:

That is a reasonable response. To digress for a second once  abroad, I met a group of business types from Arizona and we got talking about the NHS. They found it difficult to understand why we had a collective and state run health service as for them it contradicted the individual's freedom and liberty. As a progressive of sorts, I argued my case and so did they without either side being persuaded. Copenhagen does have some great beer though.

I think we are the same. My arguments are sound from my viewpoint and I think from yours, they have a certain consistency as well.

I would argue the "incentive" for the big clubs is there and is a key motivator for quality. 

My retort would be others would see this more "selfishness" and the inventiveness is insular and monopolistic, when a collective structure would be more financially effective and a raiser of quality.

My thought that this needs a plethora of professional clubs as organized as well as yer St Helens and a RFL that is competent, assertive and fair.

If this could happen, then there would be no negative "surcharge" but the opposite. The 20 elite clubs would pay the same, Their collective monies would outstrip the haphardous club academies and higher standards may occur. If you can't contribute, then you are not an elite club.

As for punishment, it depends on whether you see exclusivity and freedom as fair as the Arizonans did, or inclusivity and regulation more so.

I will say the system works, but my thoughts are a musing on how to improve it. In the end whatever system the best players will continue to play for the best clubs. Wigan will remain there. So will Leeds, but we do need more than them. 

america is a self absorbed (“me me me”), look after number one, screw you society. One result of this narcissistic trait is access to basic healthcare is not based on clinical need, but ability to pay. There is no care for others (classic narcissism), it’s all about the self. This narcissism and focus on the self is seen in their “white saviour” films and literature, the best example of which is their ‘most beloved national book’, To Kill a Mockingbird, a book that sums up a self absorbed, I’m only interested in myself, national ethos.

By not caring about others and focusing on oneself, this has resulted in Stan Brock (British philanthropist) who set up Remote Area Medical (initially for the third world) but ultimately focused much of their operations in america to save millions there (many of whom were non white, of course) who could not afford healthcare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Brock_(philanthropist)

 

Anything that comes out of there regarding views on sport should be dismissed like everything else. Their “franchises” (that move around at the drop of a hat) are vehicles for owners to make money; the owners also lift the bleedin trophy first. The concept of teams being for the community doesn’t exist there.