London Skolars

[Griff]

1 hour ago, del capo said:

Loop fixtures will exacerbate travel costs issues regardless of the no doubt modest payments made to the players and L1 clubs will end up in even deeper financial mire .

We've been constantly told, all season, that clubs in L1 don't have enough games.  Now you say that travel costs are too high to justify more games.

Which is it ?  More - or less ?

[Spidey]

45 minutes ago, Griff said:

We've been constantly told, all season, that clubs in L1 don't have enough games.  Now you say that travel costs are too high to justify more games.

Which is it ?  More - or less ?

It’s not that black and white. There is a balance of course

[Phil W]

50 minutes ago, Griff said:

Who will Cornwall's derby opponents be ?

Think that'll be the outpost expansion derby with us at Thunder!

[Derwent Parker]

28 minutes ago, Griff said:

We've been constantly told, all season, that clubs in L1 don't have enough games.  Now you say that travel costs are too high to justify more games.

Which is it ?  More - or less ?

MORE

L1 don't have enough games. FACT

That's got nothing to do with Cornwall or Workington or Newcastle's travel costs etc

Back in 80s etc before all the newer teams - The M62 teams etc longest trip was to Workington.  We did that trip every other week - nobody is complaining of travel - we  complain about the lack of games, because the fact is the CF has been reduced that far, that our main income is from Home Gates

Me personally would play the other 8 home and away twice. Get some money in.

L1 teams dont get more than 1 CC game[usually] and scrap the playoffs  2 up 2 down and no L1 player plays in internationals [usually]

So 32 games is no worse than 70s/80s - 16 home games would be great-  Get some money in.

To use Saints as an example

26 league games, MW plus WCC thats 28 plus CC and play offs will end up more than 32  - They might not need that many because they get a good CF not just 15k.

[Griff]

5 minutes ago, Spidey said:

It’s not that black and white. There is a balance of course

Unless you're suggesting that teams play different numbers of games, it'll have to be black or white.

[Griff]

1 minute ago, Derwent Parker said:

Me personally would play the other 8 home and away twice. Get some money in.

So 32 games is no worse than 70s/80s - 16 home games would be great-  Get some money in.

The counter argument is that the away games would be getting some money out.

I'm not even convinced that home games are profitable in League 1, let alone away games.

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, Griff said:

Unless you're suggesting that teams play different numbers of games, it'll have to be black or white.

Nobody has suggested any make up of the extra fixtures so no it isn’t, hence it’s not a binary choice

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Nobody has suggested any make up of the extra fixtures so no it isn’t, hence it’s not a binary choice

You assume that there are going to be extra fixtures.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

You assume that there are going to be extra fixtures.

You made a point about cost or amount of fixtures. I pointed out it’s a bit more nuanced- I’ll leave you be ad you just want to have an argument

Edited September 16, 2023 by Spidey

[Griff]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

You made a point about cost or amount of fixtures. I pointed out it’s a bit more nuanced- I’ll leave you be ad you just want to have an argument

Jeez - it's hard to have any sort of debate, let alone an argument, with a fella who makes random unsupported posts of a sentence at a time.

You have an opinion but you seem unable to justify it.

[Derwent Parker]

14 minutes ago, Griff said:

The counter argument is that the away games would be getting some money out.

I'm not even convinced that home games are profitable in League 1, let alone away games.

I never said profit - I said income

Take the SL CF down to 15k and 9 games and how many of those teams would be profitable

[Spidey]

Just now, Griff said:

Jeez - it's hard to have any sort of debate, let alone an argument, with a fella who makes random unsupported posts of a sentence at a time.

You have an opinion but you seem unable to justify it.

When you introduce a binary choice to a debate, you’re not wanting to debate.

[Griff]

Just now, Derwent Parker said:

I never said profit - I said income

Take the SL CF down to 15k and 9 games and how many of those teams would be profitable

OK - fine. Fair point.

Who's paying the bills, though?

[Griff]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

When you introduce a binary choice to a debate, you’re not wanting to debate.

 

[Derwent Parker]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

OK - fine. Fair point.

Who's paying the bills, though?

Well

There,s the supporters who Pay to turn up at our Home games and those who buy items. Shirts etc

There,s the hard working BOD and Sponsors. Who organize events.

Not forgetting the volunteers and those of us who have to suffer the task of forcing beer down our necks to generate probably the biggest and tastiest form of income.

So twice as many games = more income and bigger bellies

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Well

There,s the supporters who Pay to turn up at our Home games and those who buy items. Shirts etc

There,s the hard working BOD and Sponsors. Who organize events.

Not forgetting the volunteers and those of us who have to suffer the task of forcing beer down our necks to generate probably the biggest and tastiest form of income.

So twice as many games = more income and bigger bellies

Makes you wonder why they've not chosen to play more games before.

[Derwent Parker]

8 minutes ago, Griff said:

Makes you wonder why they've not chosen to play more games before.

L1 teams dont run the league!

[Expatknight]

The only logical option outside of the upper tier would be to have the two lower divisions forming geographical conferences with maybe the top two of each playing off to decide the league. It isn’t as if they will be playing for promotion to the upper tier has that door has effectively been shut unless a team in the lower league can show it outperforms the lower teams in the upper tier in the stated criteria required to be included in the upper tier, which, let’s face it is not / highly unlikely going to happen. There must be a fairer system as far as the distribution of central funding goes too, but I can’t see the upper tier clubs giving up any of their TV cash sadly. We are not like the Australians or even the Americans where teams can be manufactured, for want of a better term, in Oz, for example, they had numerous mergers of teams to consolidate their positions, similarly in America, they think nothing of moving a franchise to a whole new area or state, here, because we are so tribal that couldn’t happen, it was suggested when Super League first started and was received in a way that you would have thought they were asking you to sacrifice your first born, the only two that did take place were not really mergers at all - Huddersfield / Sheffield and Hull / Gateshead. It is difficult because we value our history but in reality it hard to sustain so many clubs in such a small area eg Cas, Fev, Wakefield, Batley, Huddersfield, Dewsbury all a stones throw from each other, all trying to attract new supporters from what is really quite a small pool. That is even before you have to fill the playing roster. How can that be sustainable, I have no doubt it is similar at the other side of the Pennines and in Cumbria, up there a combined Cumbrian team would be a force to be reckoned with. 

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

 I have no doubt it is similar at the other side of the Pennines and in Cumbria, up there a combined Cumbrian team would be a force to be reckoned with. 

Why do you say that ?  What advantages would you see in Workington and Whitehaven combining?  Bigger crowds? Better team?  Do you think either of those would happen?

[Expatknight]

11 minutes ago, Griff said:

Why do you say that ?  What advantages would you see in Workington and Whitehaven combining?  Bigger crowds? Better team?  Do you think either of those would happen?

You have taken one sentence out of my post and quoted it out of context, if you had read the rest you would see I have said that mergers would not happen and why, I stand by the sentence that a combined Cumbrian team would be a force to be reckoned with even though I and everyone else knows it wouldn’t happen. It is hypothetical.

[Derwent Parker]

30 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

The only logical option outside of the upper tier would be to have the two lower divisions forming geographical conferences with maybe the top two of each playing off to decide the league. It isn’t as if they will be playing for promotion to the upper tier has that door has effectively been shut unless a team in the lower league can show it outperforms the lower teams in the upper tier in the stated criteria required to be included in the upper tier, which, let’s face it is not / highly unlikely going to happen. There must be a fairer system as far as the distribution of central funding goes too, but I can’t see the upper tier clubs giving up any of their TV cash sadly. We are not like the Australians or even the Americans where teams can be manufactured, for want of a better term, in Oz, for example, they had numerous mergers of teams to consolidate their positions, similarly in America, they think nothing of moving a franchise to a whole new area or state, here, because we are so tribal that couldn’t happen, it was suggested when Super League first started and was received in a way that you would have thought they were asking you to sacrifice your first born, the only two that did take place were not really mergers at all - Huddersfield / Sheffield and Hull / Gateshead. It is difficult because we value our history but in reality it hard to sustain so many clubs in such a small area eg Cas, Fev, Wakefield, Batley, Huddersfield, Dewsbury all a stones throw from each other, all trying to attract new supporters from what is really quite a small pool. That is even before you have to fill the playing roster. How can that be sustainable, I have no doubt it is similar at the other side of the Pennines and in Cumbria, up there a combined Cumbrian team would be a force to be reckoned with. 

I agreed with everything you said up until the last line. - Merger would just be the death of one or both teams, but dont tell SL as it may be taken as an idea to get another 30K

[Derwent Parker]

28 minutes ago, Griff said:

Why do you say that ?  What advantages would you see in Workington and Whitehaven combining?  Bigger crowds? Better team?  Do you think either of those would happen?

NO and for once I totally agree with you

[Griff]

16 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

You have taken one sentence out of my post and quoted it out of context, if you had read the rest you would see I have said that mergers would not happen and why, I stand by the sentence that a combined Cumbrian team would be a force to be reckoned with even though I and everyone else knows it wouldn’t happen. It is hypothetical.

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, I wanted to know why you thought that.  Hypothetical or not.

Seriously - I know everyone (except Derwent Parker and me) says how good a combined Cumbrian team would be but it just wouldn't.  The gates wouldn't increase, they'd still only be able to afford a squad of similar quality, they'd hover around the level the individual clubs are at now.

Edited September 16, 2023 by Griff

[The Art of Hand and Foot]

In 1989-90 season, div 2 had 21 teams, but only played 28 league games.so we didn't play every team home and away. Plus of course challenge cup games, Oldham were beaten semi finalist. County cup games, Oldham beaten finalists plus premier play offs, Oldham were winners. So in total Oldham played, according to my trusty copy of Turner, 43 games. This season we've had 21 games excluding friendlies. Half the games of 89-90 and we were in the play offs. 

let's just combine the two lower divisions.

edit. As an aside five of the teams in 1989-90 no longer exist. Runcorn Highfield, Nottingham city, Chorley borough,Carlisle and Bramley.

Edited September 16, 2023 by The Art of Hand and Foot

[Griff]

23 minutes ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

In 1989-90 season, div 2 had 21 teams, but only played 28 league games.so we didn't play every team home and away. Plus of course challenge cup games, Oldham were beaten semi finalist. County cup games, Oldham beaten finalists plus premier play offs, Oldham were winners. So in total Oldham played, according to my trusty copy of Turner, 43 games. This season we've had 21 games excluding friendlies. Half the games of 89-90 and we were in the play offs. 

let's just combine the two lower divisions.

edit. As an aside five of the teams in 1989-90 no longer exist. Runcorn Highfield, Nottingham city, Chorley borough,Carlisle and Bramley.

The game's moved on in the last 30 years.

It seems to have passed you by.