Cheadle Leyther Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 16 hours ago, Damien said: I never said the final say. However it wouldn't be wise to implement something like 2 × 10s if 90% of people were against it. That is the whole point of market research. As a Lancashire CCC member we are also having a controversial restructure attempted to be pushed through by the governing body as regards the reduction of 4 day ball cricket which would obviously impact on the worth of being a member. However, a concerted campaign around the country has forced counties to have a ballot on members views before any decision is made. As a season ticket holder at Leigh Centurions I would have liked a similar privilege for us at all the clubs voting on the issue. But I guess it’s too late now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted September 27 Author Share Posted September 27 22 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said: As a Lancashire CCC member we are also having a controversial restructure attempted to be pushed through by the governing body as regards the reduction of 4 day ball cricket which would obviously impact on the worth of being a member. However, a concerted campaign around the country has forced counties to have a ballot on members views before any decision is made. As a season ticket holder at Leigh Centurions I would have liked a similar privilege for us at all the clubs voting on the issue. But I guess it’s too late now. That's because 16 of the 18 counties (I think that's the right number) are member owned. That isn't true when it comes to rugby league. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 1 hour ago, Griff said: No. There are rules for running the company and there are rules for running the competitions. OK Griff, I suggest it because it is a voting system all ready in place for those clubs allowed to vote (Catalan & Toulouse?) It will be intersting if that is not used how it will be 'Weighted' and in favour of whom, I know from talking to a club Chairman at the last full vote in '18, that Ralph Rimmer was in favour of the SL proposal and took it on himself as RFL CE to personally contact each club below SL and 'persuade' them that was the right way to go, Mr Rimmer carrys no jurisdiction in light of his resignation these days. How would you suggest the vote is apportioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheadle Leyther Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 26 minutes ago, gingerjon said: That's because 16 of the 18 counties (I think that's the right number) are member owned. That isn't true when it comes to rugby league. That wasn’t my point. The reality was the counties were going to vote these changes through before a members petition led by Lancashire Action group mobilised fans in other counties around the country forced a rethink. Could a similar alliance of our clubs fans not at least get the owners to listen to our views especially in relation to the possible removal of promotion/relegation. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLANTISMAN Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) 2 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said: As a Lancashire CCC member we are also having a controversial restructure attempted to be pushed through by the governing body as regards the reduction of 4 day ball cricket which would obviously impact on the worth of being a member. However, a concerted campaign around the country has forced counties to have a ballot on members views before any decision is made. As a season ticket holder at Leigh Centurions I would have liked a similar privilege for us at all the clubs voting on the issue. But I guess it’s too late now. As a Kent CCC full member i know how you feel, i have suggested that next season in between innings we have cost cutter Graves and Harrison taken out into the middle of the pitch and put in the stocks and pelted with rotten apples:) Paul Edited September 27 by ATLANTISMAN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockingchair Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 Any reason why these meetings which effect all clubs and fans alike aren’t televised? Then at least we’re not speculating on what happens and doesn’t happen . Are there not minutes from the meetings made available for public reading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted September 27 Author Share Posted September 27 37 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said: That wasn’t my point. The reality was the counties were going to vote these changes through before a members petition led by Lancashire Action group mobilised fans in other counties around the country forced a rethink. Could a similar alliance of our clubs fans not at least get the owners to listen to our views especially in relation to the possible removal of promotion/relegation. Whatever happened to the RLSA? Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said: OK Griff, I suggest it because it is a voting system all ready in place for those clubs allowed to vote (Catalan & Toulouse?) It will be intersting if that is not used how it will be 'Weighted' and in favour of whom, I know from talking to a club Chairman at the last full vote in '18, that Ralph Rimmer was in favour of the SL proposal and took it on himself as RFL CE to personally contact each club below SL and 'persuade' them that was the right way to go, Mr Rimmer carrys no jurisdiction in light of his resignation these days. How would you suggest the vote is apportioned? In accordance with the existing rules. How else? "We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Griff said: In accordance with the existing rules. How else? In my ignorance please advise how this expected vote will be conducted, thank you. If you don't reply I will take it you are non the wiser than me. Anyone please. Edited September 27 by Harry Stottle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said: In my ignorance please advise how this expected vote will be conducted, thank you. If you don't reply I will take it you are non the wiser than me. Anyone please. I could look it up for you in the Operational Rules, Harry. But, surely, you're wick enough to do that yourself. "We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Daddy Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 1 hour ago, Cheadle Leyther said: As a Lancashire CCC member we are also having a controversial restructure attempted to be pushed through by the governing body as regards the reduction of 4 day ball cricket which would obviously impact on the worth of being a member. However, a concerted campaign around the country has forced counties to have a ballot on members views before any decision is made. As a season ticket holder at Leigh Centurions I would have liked a similar privilege for us at all the clubs voting on the issue. But I guess it’s too late now. No, no, no, no, no!!!! Just No!!! It's bad enough that clubs full of self interest get to vote on these proposals, but to then allow fans that are partisan to have a vote is pointless and will wound up getting us nowhere. As I've said on a previous post, this is last chance saloon for UK RL and if club owners and so called fans from certain clubs try and sabotage the process or vote with self interest then the sport will be finished 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Chopra Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 55 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said: That wasn’t my point. The reality was the counties were going to vote these changes through before a members petition led by Lancashire Action group mobilised fans in other counties around the country forced a rethink. Could a similar alliance of our clubs fans not at least get the owners to listen to our views especially in relation to the possible removal of promotion/relegation. The comparisons with what's going on in cricket right now are interesting, but the parallels only go so far. No county, rich or poor, member owned or not, can accept the cut in cricket that's being proposed. Rugby league clubs aren't, as far as we know, being asked to accept a cut in rugby, and if the rumours are to be believed a significant number of them are going to be granted ring fenced status. If I was a fan of one of the clubs being left out, I wouldn't be worrying about whether my owner was going to sign up to something harmful, I think we'd be on the same page. I don't however think there will be anywhere near the unanimity among rugby fans as there is in cricket, as many rugby fans aren't being asked to make many sacrifices at all. (we guess) Fans of those clubs left out will need to unite with their owners and find a way to collectively pressure RFL/IMG to keep the pathway open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Daddy Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 If IMG propose the removal of promotion and relegation and those proposals are voted in, you'll just have to deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShropshireBull Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) I would have no problem with us having a lock on clubs in SL and Championship and those outside having to apply to join by meeting criteria. We should really want the champ to be a nursury and holding pen for clubs lean and mean enough to get to SL. That means equal central funding so clubs have to generate the rev, clubs that do so get more competitive and then arent outspent by dopers or the matthews effect. Barrow getting 2500 in Champ would be a great example now of a club who could be a genuine challenge for SL if they weren´t doped by other clubs. I just want the FT clubs out of the Champ tbh so we can have two quality competitive leagues. Sadly, clubs like Oldham, Rochdale, West Wales, Skolars, Hunslet dont own their own grounds or have any ability to generate revenue, even Swinton you could chuck in. Depending what happens with Midlands move they´d be another one. Edited September 27 by ShropshireBull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheadle Leyther Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said: The comparisons with what's going on in cricket right now are interesting, but the parallels only go so far. No county, rich or poor, member owned or not, can accept the cut in cricket that's being proposed. Rugby league clubs aren't, as far as we know, being asked to accept a cut in rugby, and if the rumours are to be believed a significant number of them are going to be granted ring fenced status. If I was a fan of one of the clubs being left out, I wouldn't be worrying about whether my owner was going to sign up to something harmful, I think we'd be on the same page. I don't however think there will be anywhere near the unanimity among rugby fans as there is in cricket, as many rugby fans aren't being asked to make many sacrifices at all. (we guess) Fans of those clubs left out will need to unite with their owners and find a way to collectively pressure RFL/IMG to keep the pathway open. Well the main proposal by IMG suggests a cut to a 10 team top division which does seem to indicate a reduction in matches unless there are going to be 9 additional loop games. The similarities between the reports by IMG and Strauss are quite striking. Both want to cut teams in the top division (R.L. 12 to 10, Cricket 10 to 6) resulting in fewer fixtures. The cricket one then suggests meaningless first class matches by made up games between made up teams of North fv South instead of county championship matches. And wasn’t something similar mooted by IMG for our code? Edited September 27 by Cheadle Leyther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 Just now, Cheadle Leyther said: Well the main proposal by IMG suggests a cut to a 10 team top division which does seem to indicate a reduction in matches unless there are going to be 9 additional loop games. How do you know that is the "main" proposal? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roughyed Rats Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 33 minutes ago, The Daddy said: If IMG propose the removal of promotion and relegation and those proposals are voted in, you'll just have to deal with it. They will do just like they did last time......by voting with their feet!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 41 minutes ago, Griff said: I could look it up for you in the Operational Rules, Harry. But, surely, you're wick enough to do that yourself. Fair comment, but I was just interested to see if anyone had any indication that this extraordinary meeting and "vote" was being treated any differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Chopra Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 14 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said: Well the main proposal by IMG suggests a cut to a 10 team top division which does seem to indicate a reduction in matches unless there are going to be 9 additional loop games. The similarities between the reports by IMG and Strauss are quite striking. Both want to cut teams in the top division (R.L. 14 to 10, Cricket 10 to 6) resulting in fewer fixtures. The cricket one then suggests meaningless first class matches by made up games between made up teams of North fv South instead of county championship matches. And wasn’t something similar mooted by IMG for our code? Well, let's see what the proposals actually come up with, we're still mostly speculating. However I find it hard to see any scenario where the top tier clubs have only 9 home games a season. Loops are here to stay, for good or ill. Also, remember the fundamental difference between the sports is that Struss is proposing changes to the domestic game primarily to make the England team better, whereas IMG is proposing changes (we think) to make the domestic game itself stronger. There's less of a conflict in aims in rugby. Whether that means any IMG proposals will get through is still to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 47 minutes ago, The Daddy said: No, no, no, no, no!!!! Just No!!! It's bad enough that clubs full of self interest get to vote on these proposals, but to then allow fans that are partisan to have a vote is pointless and will wound up getting us nowhere. As I've said on a previous post, this is last chance saloon for UK RL and if club owners and so called fans from certain clubs try and sabotage the process or vote with self interest then the sport will be finished There would be no self interest from me Dad, I fully expect my club to be in SL after this weekend but I would vote to maintain P&R. On the other hand I would also say in reading your posts for a good while that you would vote with partisan and self interest in the hope that London would recieve some unfounded judgement that they should be fasttracked to a SL licence because they are in some supposedly advantageous geographical position. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 57 minutes ago, The Daddy said: If IMG propose the removal of promotion and relegation and those proposals are voted in, you'll just have to deal with it. As you will if P&R is to stay. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheadle Leyther Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Spidey said: How do you know that is the "main" proposal? It’s in the fan survey they (IMG) sent out. Edited September 27 by Cheadle Leyther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said: It’s in the fan survey they (IMG) sent out. So were lots of other things Edited September 27 by Tommygilf 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 47 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said: It’s in the fan survey they (IMG) sent out. I wouldn't make any assumptions or draw any conclusions from that survey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DI Keith Fowler Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 2 minutes ago, Spidey said: I wouldn't make any assumptions or draw any conclusions from that survey There's a very real possibility that was done so IMG could turn around to the RFL and say, "see everyone hates it". 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now