Halifax - the forgotten club?

[Click]

3 minutes ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

I agree, but my point was that i believe the end game aim for SL/IMG is a totally closed shop with 14 clubs and to hell with everyone else.  

Well, that is your opinion. 

I honestly see a potential top 14 teams in SL, and then perhaps we get one or more that build enough to reach SL.

Rugby League in this country isn't blessed with many more than 14 clubs that can be professional anyway.

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, Click said:

What is the difference to what he described for the "future" and what is happening now? 

Championship clubs have always needed a money man in order to get promotion, nothing changes.

I think the difference now is that you need someone with money who is thinking 4 or 5 years in to the future been stuck in the same league. In an ideal world for what is best for the game then that is probably a good thing but the reality is that most people with money to make a difference will be thinking 1-2 years to get in to SL which under the new criteria will be really difficult after the 12 are picked for this year.

FWIW I think we will have 12 grade A clubs under this system within 3-4 years but unless there is an increase in TV money, I just don't ever see the top 12 clubs voting for a reduction in their funding leaving us with a status quo and then an ever increasing gap between top tier and 2nd tier. All that is if the system sticks around which I also think is unlikely.

[Daft old hooker]

3 hours ago, Click said:

What is the difference to what he described for the "future" and what is happening now? 

Championship clubs have always needed a money man in order to get promotion, nothing changes.

The difference is even if you find a money man under IMG it will still be virtually impossible to win promotion

[EggFace]

On 30/04/2024 at 07:58, Fax Knight said:

You’ve also got a very large Pakistani heritage population who don’t follow either code of rugby. My son played League (at Siddal) and Union for 10 years in the town. I can count on one hand the number of Pakistani heritage lads he played with or against. He went to Crossley Heath and they now have trouble raising a Union team. A number of private schools who used to play them now don’t as they are too weak. The same demographics occur in many traditional League towns. If you fail to engage with a massive part of your local population, it’s hardly surprising your crowds plummet. Ikram Butt was a long time ago. He did an amazing job, but no one continued on from him. 

Is there not any Eastern European population in areas like Halifax and other League areas that they can tap into ?

[Click]

43 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I think the difference now is that you need someone with money who is thinking 4 or 5 years in to the future been stuck in the same league. In an ideal world for what is best for the game then that is probably a good thing but the reality is that most people with money to make a difference will be thinking 1-2 years to get in to SL which under the new criteria will be really difficult after the 12 are picked for this year.

FWIW I think we will have 12 grade A clubs under this system within 3-4 years but unless there is an increase in TV money, I just don't ever see the top 12 clubs voting for a reduction in their funding leaving us with a status quo and then an ever increasing gap between top tier and 2nd tier. All that is if the system sticks around which I also think is unlikely.

That honestly sounds like a better way of investing in a club/the sport then the current mess that it is. We are talking about a potential 5 year plan to build a club up to a level where they can be competitive with other top clubs not just in regards to what is on the field, but their backroom staff, etc.

We don't need more money men that come in for a year, blow a little bit of money and then run off without any sustainability. 

4 minutes ago, Daft old hooker said:

The difference is even if you find a money man under IMG it will still be virtually impossible to win promotion

That is very much just your opinion. I believe that clubs should have a way of understanding exactly what they need to do in order to improve and then get actually managing to achieve that. Featherstone have been spending money for years and they have found it virtually impossible to win promotion.

People seem to think that the bottom clubs in SL are suddenly really strong that other clubs wouldn't be able to do what they're doing. Half of our RL clubs, inside and outside of SL are a mess, I can't imagine it would take much money, or effort to be able to improve a lot of them.

 

[JDR]

"Is there not any Eastern European population in areas like Halifax and other League areas that they can tap into ?"

There are fair numbers of Ukrainians, Poles etc in West Yorkshire, both post WWII and more recent calls for workers (90s/00s) or people escaping War. My heritage is largely Ukrainian - but from what I've seen there's no particular affinity with either code, certainly a few of us started playing union mainly because of the code our school played.

Edited May 2 by JDR
QUote failure

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Click said:

That honestly sounds like a better way of investing in a club/the sport then the current mess that it is. We are talking about a potential 5 year plan to build a club up to a level where they can be competitive with other top clubs not just in regards to what is on the field, but their backroom staff, etc.

We don't need more money men that come in for a year, blow a little bit of money and then run off without any sustainability. 

I totally agree but most people when putting large amounts of cash in to sport tend to want almost instant results. I think the new criteria just about gets rid of any chance of that and when you have no return on your money how do you persuade someone to work to a 5 year plan?

Ive been a Fax fan for around 40 years and if I won 50 million on the lottery there is zero chance I would put any significant amount of money in to the club under the new criteria. Under P & R though I think supporting Fax would be a lot of fun if I won that much money.

[Click]

11 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I totally agree but most people when putting large amounts of cash in to sport tend to want almost instant results. I think the new criteria just about gets rid of any chance of that and when you have no return on your money how do you persuade someone to work to a 5 year plan?

Ive been a Fax fan for around 40 years and if I won 50 million on the lottery there is zero chance I would put any significant amount of money in to the club under the new criteria. Under P & R though I think supporting Fax would be a lot of fun if I won that much money.

Personally I don't understand this viewpoint whatsoever.

Under P&R you could buy a team for a year and hope they get promoted, or 2 years and hope they get promoted. 
Under this current system, you can know that you need to do X, X and X to improve the club, team, backroom staff, Social Media, etc. There are so many factors that are key to building a strong RL club, and the team on the field is one of the last parts of that.

Look at London Broncos - 25m of DH money over the last 30 years, and for what? No stadium, no offices, no training facilities, etc everything is rented, 25m just spent poorly on players and renting buildings with nothing to show for it. 

For 50m you could potentially turn Halifax into a super club, but if you were only looking to invest in a team, then I imagine it would only last as long as you do at the club.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Click said:

Personally I don't understand this viewpoint whatsoever.

Under P&R you could buy a team for a year and hope they get promoted, or 2 years and hope they get promoted. 
Under this current system, you can know that you need to do X, X and X to improve the club, team, backroom staff, Social Media, etc. There are so many factors that are key to building a strong RL club, and the team on the field is one of the last parts of that.

Look at London Broncos - 25m of DH money over the last 30 years, and for what? No stadium, no offices, no training facilities, etc everything is rented, 25m just spent poorly on players and renting buildings with nothing to show for it. 

For 50m you could potentially turn Halifax into a super club, but if you were only looking to invest in a team, then I imagine it would only last as long as you do at the club.

The problem is that once we get past this year it will be very hard for any new team to make that step up in to SL because of how the criteria will favor the holders of the first 12 positions. I'm not even sure Halifax could realistically get in the top 12 throwing a ton of money at them. One thing I could say for certain though is that give me a few million quid under P&R and I would have us in the top 2 in the first year and a very good chance of SL within the 1st 3 years. To go further than that I would also do a deal with Siddal to make sure that Fax get 1st pick of the best talent in the country to make sure we would be more than comfortable in SL.

I want to see success on the field and if Im throwing stupid money with no return, I want to see it pretty much straight away. From a fan point of view I would take boom and bust over quietly building for 5 years in the hope that we could make the 12 just because in RL history tends to repeat and I don't think this system will last that long. Imagine pumping 10m in to a club and then the RFL rug pulling you with another system that is totally different to the criteria you have been working to. I know we should probably laugh at the thought of that but this is Rugby League.

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, Click said:

Personally I don't understand this viewpoint whatsoever.

Under P&R you could buy a team for a year and hope they get promoted, or 2 years and hope they get promoted. 
Under this current system, you can know that you need to do X, X and X to improve the club, team, backroom staff, Social Media, etc. There are so many factors that are key to building a strong RL club, and the team on the field is one of the last parts of that.

Look at London Broncos - 25m of DH money over the last 30 years, and for what? No stadium, no offices, no training facilities, etc everything is rented, 25m just spent poorly on players and renting buildings with nothing to show for it. 

For 50m you could potentially turn Halifax into a super club, but if you were only looking to invest in a team, then I imagine it would only last as long as you do at the club.

Would you put money into a Championship Club under the IMG rules?

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Would you put money into a Championship Club under the IMG rules?

I know someone who does and is putting that money in.

The people most upset about this, that I also know, are the ones used to getting their way in a short period of time. 

[Tex Evans Thigh]

Nobody in their right mind would invest money into a Championship club unless it was already almost guaranteed a place in SL via previous on field performance. The longer this system goes, the less people will invest and I include fans in that.

[Gooleboy]

34 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I know someone who does and is putting that money in.

The people most upset about this, that I also know, are the ones used to getting their way in a short period of time. 

But would you?

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

But would you?

Yeah 100% if I had the money to do it. What a lot of people upset are realising is that they don't either.

[Griff]

5 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

But would you?

I definitely would.

But you'll never know whether that's true, will you?  The chances of me having zillions available are vanishingly small.

There's actually much more sense in investing in a club's infrastructure that signing up players.

Provided you're in for the long haul.

[Click]

  

16 hours ago, Gooleboy said:

Would you put money into a Championship Club under the IMG rules?

Yes, I would be much more willing to put money into a Championship Club under IMG rules than before. 

@The Blues OxI don't really understand a fan wanting a boom and bust situation, surely it would be better to invest in the longevity of the team, rather than just investing in players. 

At the moment, I would suggest that (god forbid) something happened to DH at London, I am pretty sure the club would fold within weeks as no one else is going to run it. You want to build a club that someone would be interested in taking over, that has a long term future to build towards and keep improving.

I would have thought the idea of investing money and actually seeing the fruits of that money in 5/10/20 years would be a lot more satisfying than scrapping into SL by buying a team of mercenaries.

 

[The Blues Ox]

13 minutes ago, Click said:

 

@The Blues OxI don't really understand a fan wanting a boom and bust situation, surely it would be better to invest in the longevity of the team, rather than just investing in players. 

I see sport as been decided on the pitch, if Im spending a lot of money that is what I want. I could not care less what our catchment area is or if we have an LED scoreboard. As a Fax fan I have seen numerous people take over our club with the best intentions of growing slowly off the field and yet we are still nowhere near SL but our best times have always been when we have gone boom or bust.

[Griff]

18 minutes ago, Click said:

  

Yes, I would be much more willing to put money into a Championship Club under IMG rules than before. 

@The Blues OxI 

I would have thought the idea of investing money and actually seeing the fruits of that money in 5/10/20 years would be a lot more satisfying than scraping into SL by buying a team of mercenaries.

 

Or, worse, buying a team of mercenaries and not scraping into SL.

[JohnM]

There are no " money-men" in rugby league. Above all, well-heeled current and potential owners need a burning ambition to see their chosen club to succeed, rather than hoping, trying, needing to make money.  It is my opinion that Halifax's answer to Derek Beaumont would not let any apparent "closed shop" interpretation of the Re-imagining Rugby League project get in the way of realising his or her ambition.

[JohnM]

19 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I see sport as been decided on the pitch, if Im spending a lot of money that is what I want. I could not care less what our catchment area is or if we have an LED scoreboard. As a Fax fan I have seen numerous people take over our club with the best intentions of growing slowly off the field and yet we are still nowhere near SL but our best times have always been when we have gone boom or bust.

"I see sport as been decided on the pitch"

Exactly. That is why the grading structure is so important, as it lays down the criteria that must be met in order to ensure a winning team. The criteria are indeed "success factors". The  ten habits of successful clubs" as it were.

Edited May 3 by JohnM

[Click]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

I see sport as been decided on the pitch, if Im spending a lot of money that is what I want. I could not care less what our catchment area is or if we have an LED scoreboard. As a Fax fan I have seen numerous people take over our club with the best intentions of growing slowly off the field and yet we are still nowhere near SL but our best times have always been when we have gone boom or bust.

At some point the club/team needs to start investing in areas that aren't just on the pitch. 

People bemoan how small time out sport is, but we have all just accepted that if some clubs had invested their money better 20 years ago, they would be in a much better position at this stage, rather than playing out of dilapidated stadiums, etc.

If you want more people to come to your stadium, then sure you need an exciting team to watch, but you also need the facilities to accommodate people, and the reach to target them in the first place.

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, Click said:

At some point the club/team needs to start investing in areas that aren't just on the pitch. 

They do now with the new criteria but going back to one of the original points, this is going to put some investors off having to wait 3-5 years or more to see any sort of return on their money. Leigh are a pretty good example of boom or bust and when boom on the field works you can grow from there off the field. Ironically Leigh seem to be a club potentially at risk with the new system which feels like madness. I wonder what DB would do if Leigh were to drop out of the 12.

[Click]

21 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

They do now with the new criteria but going back to one of the original points, this is going to put some investors off having to wait 3-5 years or more to see any sort of return on their money. Leigh are a pretty good example of boom or bust and when boom on the field works you can grow from there off the field. Ironically Leigh seem to be a club potentially at risk with the new system which feels like madness. I wonder what DB would do if Leigh were to drop out of the 12.

But you say that this would put investors off as they have to wait 3-5 years, most investors in sports clubs aren't looking for a return on their money. But with Leigh as an example, how many years did DB spend big in the Championship to keep failing at getting to SL?  

You said yourself it would take 3 years to get Halifax to perhaps be in a place for promotion. What is the big difference between what it was compared to what it is now?

[phiggins]

Just now, Click said:

But you say that this would put investors off as they have to wait 3-5 years, most investors in sports clubs aren't looking for a return on their money. But with Leigh as an example, how many years did DB spend big in the Championship to keep failing at getting to SL?  

You said yourself it would take 3 years to get Halifax to perhaps be in a place for promotion. What is the big difference between what it was compared to what it is now?

Where do you spend the money to build Halifax up to one of the top 12 clubs as judged by this grading system?

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Click said:

But you say that this would put investors off as they have to wait 3-5 years, most investors in sports clubs aren't looking for a return on their money. But with Leigh as an example, how many years did DB spend big in the Championship to keep failing at getting to SL?  

You said yourself it would take 3 years to get Halifax to perhaps be in a place for promotion. What is the big difference between what it was compared to what it is now?

When I talk about return I mean results on the pitch, I probably should have been clearer about that. As far as I remember DB only spent really big on the most recent promotion season building a team that would have easily survived in SL that year. 

3 years is not getting Fax anywhere near promotion under IMG criteria no matter how much money you were able to put in to the club. The 3 year average rule takes care of that. As phiggins alludes to, Im not even sure Fax could score high enough to get in to SL but even if they could you would be looking easily at 5 years. If I had millions to spend and P&R were in place I'd get us there within 2 I reckon.