Toulouse out of pocket again

[gingerjon]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Yes Ginger, I hope this is not a condition of your questionable memory, but the number of posts who said it would be devastating if Leeds were relegated were numerous on these pages, would the league have allowed it to happen, would the other chairmen allow it to happen? 

So, it wasn't people saying the rules should be changed, just a cynical view expressed by some that the chairmen would be so worried by the loss of Leeds' away fans that the posters could see rules being changed to allow Leeds to survive?

A view that the rest of your post indicates you seem to share?

[yipyee]

8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Go watching that then , we do have it 

For now....

And I do watch that as well... they are better at expansion too

[yipyee]

53 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yep, and let every club who wants to run an academy do so, Established SL teams with Academies hate this as it reduces their fishing pool and the financial advantage they gain for playing lads from their academies.

 

I think the RFL should step in and give say Leigh first choice on lads from leigh clubs. Same with Wigan and Warrington etc that way you wouldn't have saints and Wigan cherry picking all the best talent in the NWC

[glossop saint]

29 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So, it wasn't people saying the rules should be changed, just a cynical view expressed by some that the chairmen would be so worried by the loss of Leeds' away fans that the posters could see rules being changed to allow Leeds to survive?

A view that the rest of your post indicates you seem to share?

So just to be clear, we have people complaining about a theoretical system that is not being brought in, using the argument that, when we didn't have this system, people were cynically (and baselessly) predicting that the RFL would change the rules to prevent something that didn't happen from happening, but if it did would be damaging.

The usual tactic of strutting around on the chess board by our feathered friends in play.

[Harry Stottle]

26 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So, it wasn't people saying the rules should be changed, just a cynical view expressed by some that the chairmen would be so worried by the loss of Leeds' away fans that the posters could see rules being changed to allow Leeds to survive?

A view that the rest of your post indicates you seem to share?

Yes I do believe if a Leeds or Warrington were to be the relegated club, there would be a EGM the next day to reinstate them, now tell me honestly do you not believe that could happen, can this little cash strapped sport allow either one of its few wealthier clubs to not be playing in its Premier competition?

Besides that would be about 25% of Sky's useual schedule up the swanny

[GUBRATS]

18 minutes ago, yipyee said:

I think the RFL should step in and give say Leigh first choice on lads from leigh clubs. Same with Wigan and Warrington etc that way you wouldn't have saints and Wigan cherry picking all the best talent in the NWC

First choice in what way ? , At what stage ? , Where does Golborne and Hindley fall into this ? , Ashton and Haydock? 

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes I do believe if a Leeds or Warrington were to be the relegated club, there would be a EGM the next day to reinstate them, now tell me honestly do you not believe that could happen, can this little cash strapped sport allow either one of its few wealthier clubs to not be playing in its Premier competition?

Can you give me the list?

Leeds, Wire, Saints, Wigan ... but then ... what about Hull FC? Do they get this EGM or not?

(And, for the record, I believe the rules would not be changed in this scenario. Just like they aren't being for Toulouse despite earlier equally cynical suggestions that they would be.)

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

So just to be clear, we have people complaining about a theoretical system that is not being brought in, using the argument that, when we didn't have this system, people were cynically (and baselessly) predicting that the RFL would change the rules to prevent something that didn't happen from happening, but if it did would be damaging.

The usual tactic of strutting around on the chess board by our feathered friends in play.

I have greatly increased my understanding of what might happen should we have a completely different system to the one we have now and something that has not yet happened and does not look like happening then happens.

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

 

SCALE - SL is concentrated into a relatively small geographical area but it has a population of probably 8 million within 30 minutes of an SL ground.  Let’s pretend that one of the KPI’s for the next 10 years is for SL to average 15k per game then in terms of scale that is just as ambitious as the NFL wanting to attract 70k.

But how do you achieve that scale?

 

 

Your post only references SL 

Mr Shepard watches as I do a non SL club 

So is it only SL you are interested in ?

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

So just to be clear, we have people complaining about a theoretical system that is not being brought in, using the argument that, when we didn't have this system, people were cynically (and baselessly) predicting that the RFL would change the rules to prevent something that didn't happen from happening, but if it did would be damaging.

The usual tactic of strutting around on the chess board by our feathered friends in play.

This is a supposition on my part, in direct response to Damiens suggestion of ringfencing the two French Clubs from relegation, I merely pointed out that if it was in operation now the likely hood is that it would be Warrington who would have to give way for them albeit not finishing in a relegation position, and would he think that would be allowed to happen.

So it was a thought by Damien which he made in good faith, and a counter from me, a debate Glossop, get it, and yes I did reference what went before when Leeds were in trouble and the reaction on these pages, that relegation should not be allowed to happen to such a big club.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I have greatly increased my understanding of what might happen should we have a completely different system to the one we have now and something that has not yet happened and does not look like happening then happens.

As I said to Glossop, Damien suggested, I responded that is what we do on these pages we make suggestions and have opinions, just as you are awaiting "What might happen should we have a completely different system"

I could say it was a conversation between Damien and myself, but you read it it and offered your opinion, that's what we do on here.

[glossop saint]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

This is a supposition on my part, in direct response to Damiens suggestion of ringfencing the two French Clubs from relegation, I merely pointed out that if it was in operation now the likely hood is that it would be Warrington who would have to give way for them albeit not finishing in a relegation position, and would he think that would be allowed to happen.

So it was a thought by Damien which he made in good faith, and a counter from me, a debate Glossop, get it, and yes I did reference what went before when Leeds were in trouble and the reaction on these pages, that relegation should not be allowed to happen to such a big club.

I think that Damiens system is a good compromise. Keeping the French presence and allowing them to build but still catering for the 2 or 3 mediocre M62 clubs. If Warrington or Leeds or Saints get relegated from finishing in the relegation place then they go down. How is that different to now? It isn't. It is just that the usual suspects don't like the fact that expansion may happen and the sport will outgrow their local town. The longer this debate goes on the more I am convinced by this. You said it yourself on another thread Harry, at your stage of life all you care about in RL is your side.

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

(And, for the record, I believe the rules would not be changed in this scenario. Just like they aren't being for Toulouse despite earlier equally cynical suggestions that they would be.)

Again no one said any rules would be changed - if this passage is the one you are referring to.

[DOGFATHER]

On 24/08/2022 at 17:17, ATLANTISMAN said:

This totally sucks and makes my blood boil, Toulouse should be paying ZERO if clubs cannot afford a simple 2 trips to France every year they really should not be in business.

 

Paul

What makes my blood boil is, the lack of understanding by some posters on this forum, that expect Championship clubs to spend around a third of the central funding they receive for the season, travelling to France.

SL teams with £2M a year should be able to absorb the cost of travel, and I quite agree with you, if they cannot find £50k out of £2M they have got problems.

Last year, Batley travelled to Toulouse twice, once in the league and again in the playoffs, presumably the cost of travel in the playoffs was added to the costs before the gate was shared, which is fair enough, but again more lost revenue against playing an English based team in the playoffs.

It is not just the cost of travel that impacts either. If the average away support is 500 at £20 (including bar and food revenue for ease of calculation), that is another £10k in lost revenue by incorporating an overseas team. 

Somehow, clubs in the Championship are expected to field a competitive side, market themselves to increase gates so they are not as reliant on away support, and find the money for ground upkeep and bills on circa £120k a season central funding, (they still do not know the exact figure for next year yet, it could be even less). Which is less than the going rate of a third rate, has been overseas player that is likely to have a questionable disciplinary record.

If a CH club doesn't welcome an overseas team, or particularly like the thought of losing £50k+ a season of their already meagre budget, to incorporate a team that is able to outspend them 20:1, they are seen as small minded and parochial thinkers.

Remember, it takes money to make money.

Edited August 29, 2022 by DOGFATHER

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I think that Damiens system is a good compromise. Keeping the French presence and allowing them to build but still catering for the 2 or 3 mediocre M62 clubs. If Warrington or Leeds or Saints get relegated from finishing in the relegation place then they go down. How is that different to now? It isn't. It is just that the usual suspects don't like the fact that expansion may happen and the sport will outgrow their local town. The longer this debate goes on the more I am convinced by this. You said it yourself on another thread Harry, at your stage of life all you care about in RL is your side.

And you think all those Wigan and Saints fans the other night are any different ? 

[glossop saint]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

And you think all those Wigan and Saints fans the other night are any different ? 

In honesty I suspect not. They've just been lucky that their clubs are the biggest in the game. I hope there are enough fans of all clubs who are fans of the sport as opposed to just their local team.

I think that those attitudes from those fans, and more worryingly administrators, are holding back the game from achieving its true potential.

[Tubby]

9 hours ago, yipyee said:

Or a fourth, licensing where clubs that can add to the top tier are means tested and given a license... P&R lovers hate this as it means that their small time pit village teams can't just sign a load of has beens to gain promotion.

 

Define ‘add to the top tier’. 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, glossop saint said:

In honesty I suspect not. They've just been lucky that their clubs are the biggest in the game. I hope there are enough fans of all clubs who are fans of the sport as opposed to just their local team.

I think that those attitudes from those fans, and more worryingly administrators, are holding back the game from achieving its true potential.

Fans of the ' sport ' = supporter's of those clubs not at risk or those who don't follow any specific club , conveniently 

[Blind side johnny]

14 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I was at the game at Gigg Lane, 13 - 12 if I remember correctly and I also remember the RFL refusing Dewsbury promotion because I think the reasoning was Crown Flatt was not suitable for SL which I thought was ridiculous.

But I honestly fail to see why a decision taken 22 years ago would dampen your enthusiasm for a successful Dewsbury team today, one that can only be acheived by having a generous benefactor, it is a long time to hold a grudge Johnny and I am of the opinion not to many rams fans would agree with you.

 

Not a grudge Harry, I leave that to fans of clubs who think they are being unfairly excluded.

What you fail to realise is the aftermath of that Championship win was the discovery that the club was massively in debt (leading to the Chairman at the time eventually being banned from being a director) and within a whisker of being wound up.

The lesson was, and is, that a club of our size can never sustain a presence in a higher league. Generous benefactors come and go leaving supporters to repent at leisure. Sustainability is the holy grail of RL but if you enjoy fleeting success mixed with humble failure and near collapse then you are welcome to it.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Blind side johnny

[GUBRATS]

8 minutes ago, Tubby said:

Define ‘add to the top tier’. 

It's not the ' top tier ' , it's the ' means testing ' that needs defining  

[Tubby]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

It's not the ' top tier ' , it's the ' means testing ' that needs defining  

I think it’s important to understand what ‘add to’ specifically refers to. It’s such a subjective premise. 

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

OK, let's say your protectionist system was in place now, the relegated team as the league stands at the moment would be Warrington, in the very recent past when Leeds were deep in the relegation battle this platform was awash with posters saying if Leeds get relegated the league should not allow it to happen it would be damaging for the game, change the rules and do whatever it takes for Leeds to remain in SL.

I suspect the very same would happen if we were operating your system this season and Warrington were the victims of this ridiculous suggestion.

Would you swop Toulouse for Warrington, or put another way would Lenighan, McManus, Hetherington and co allow that to happen?

What would really happen is ringfence the French club's and that will be OK just so long it is not one if the big boys who it effects.

The only way to prevent any club from being relegated is licensing, which you have made it quite clear that you don't want either.

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

What makes my blood boil is, the lack of understanding by some posters on this forum, that expect Championship clubs to spend around a third of the central funding they receive for the season, travelling to France.

SL teams with £2M a year should be able to absorb the cost of travel, and I quite agree with you, if they cannot find £50k out of £2M they have got problems.

Last year, Batley travelled to Toulouse twice, once in the league and again in the playoffs, presumably the cost of travel in the playoffs was added to the costs before the gate was shared, which is fair enough, but again more lost revenue against playing an English based team in the playoffs.

It is not just the cost of travel that impacts either. If the average away support is 500 at £20 (including bar and food revenue for ease of calculation), that is another £10k in lost revenue by incorporating an overseas team. 

Somehow, clubs in the Championship are expected to field a competitive side, market themselves to increase gates so they are not as reliant on away support, and find the money for ground upkeep and bills on circa £120k a season central funding, (they still do not know the exact figure for next year yet, it could be even less). Which is less than the going rate of a third rate has been, with a strong possibility of a questionable disciplinary record, overseas player.

If the CH club don't welcome an overseas team, or particularly like the thought of losing £50k+ a season, of their already meagre budget, to incorporate a team that is able to outspend them 20:1, they are seen as small minded and parochial thinkers.

Remember, it takes money to make money.

You are completely missing the point Father, those fans of SL clubs who seemingly has you say "have a lack of understanding" they understand alright but as such have a complete disregard of the Championship.

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Not a grudge Harry, I leave that to fans of clubs who think they are being unfairly excluded.

What you fail to realise is the aftermath of that Championship win was the discovery that the club was massively in debt (leading to the Chairman at the time eventually being banned from being a director) and within a whisker of being wound up.

The lesson was, and is, that a club of our size can never sustain a presence in a higher league. Generous benefactors come and go leaving supporters to repent at leisure. Sustainability is the holy grail of RL but if you enjoy fleeting success mixed with humble failure and near collapse then you are welcome to it.

Yes I enjoy the rollercoaster ride Johnny, I have suffered many more downs that ups in my time watching Leigh, I can only hope the next visit to SL if ever or whenever that may be will be a longer one.

[Damien]

38 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I think that Damiens system is a good compromise. Keeping the French presence and allowing them to build but still catering for the 2 or 3 mediocre M62 clubs. If Warrington or Leeds or Saints get relegated from finishing in the relegation place then they go down. How is that different to now? It isn't. It is just that the usual suspects don't like the fact that expansion may happen and the sport will outgrow their local town. The longer this debate goes on the more I am convinced by this. You said it yourself on another thread Harry, at your stage of life all you care about in RL is your side.

In a 14 team SL, it's 2 more spots for English clubs than we have seen this season. To me it's a good compromise if P&R is so sacred that it must be retained.