Beaumont and you all know he is correct.

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Don't knock Donald got 50000 $ from him once for 1 wooden perimeter sign in France for WC 2000.

Pitched his PA he returned the call  

Paid in 7 days 

Have you tried selling him a cowboy outfit?

[RayCee]

This year has been a bit different than usual. Mostly, teams are spread fairly evenly down the table. This year, they seem to have formed into four distinct groups.

As of now, the top three - Wigan, KR and Wire (38-42 points).

Trying to make the top six between five clubs, Red Devils, St H, Leigh, Leeds and Cats (28-32 points).

The also rans comprised of the Giants and Cas (15 to 18 points) and  the wooden spooners - FC or London (both 6 points). 

The top three battle is interesting, especially having KR in the mix. Those vying for a top six slot is also a good contest. So overall, an entertaining comp. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

Here is my thought based on the comment from Derek “drop the dead donkey and give me the headlines” Beaumont.

If ….. if ……… there was to have been relegation this year did Beaumont really believe that Hull FC would have continued to blood all these young players or is it remotely possible that Hull FC might, just might, have gone out and recruited/loaned seasoned players throughout the season in an attempt to avoid relegation?  Hmmmmmmmmm?

Although, fair play to Beaumont if Hull FC do finish bottom and he forks out the money for a legal challenge.

[Damien]

I think Hull FC now aren't going to get an invite to join the Beaumont's Ultimate Rugby competition. They must be gutted.

[Henson Park Old Firm]

This week is the Battle of IMG Spooners

[phiggins]

3 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Here is my thought based on the comment from Derek “drop the dead donkey and give me the headlines” Beaumont.

If ….. if ……… there was to have been relegation this year did Beaumont really believe that Hull FC would have continued to blood all these young players or is it remotely possible that Hull FC might, just might, have gone out and recruited/loaned seasoned players throughout the season in an attempt to avoid relegation?  Hmmmmmmmmm?

Although, fair play to Beaumont if Hull FC do finish bottom and he forks out the money for a legal challenge.

That is kind of the point that he is making. That he believes that they have downed tools this season. 

[Barry Badrinath]

14 hours ago, Wilderspoolmemories said:

They did, but those results are few and far between aren't they? For me the SL is far from the competition we were initially led to believe it would become. 

To be honest, I'm beginning to enjoy the championship games more! 

Off you pop then, have fun supporting Widnes

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Although, fair play to Beaumont if Hull FC do finish bottom and he forks out the money for a legal challenge.

Why? It would be a huge waste of money as it will get thrown out and will just further highlight his bitterness and pettiness.

 

[Worzel]

This entire argument is predicated on two ridiculous contentions:

1. That it is better for the long-term health of the club and the sport that Hull FC had parachuted in some expensive emergency coach, and bought 2 or 3 players who could have ensured they finished at least 11th with ease, rather than (as they have done) instead worked on future years behind the scenes and blooded some very promising youth players. They had the means to do so, and probably would have ended up way higher than 11th. 

2. That London, an empty husk of a club with no commercial platform, audience or meaningful club infrastructure to speak of, who have been under-invested in for years (outside of the first team), are somehow a better option for the league than Hull FC who have all of those things are more.

Both are patently nonsensical arguments, it's not even a debate worth having.

We are moving to the new model in order to enable better long-term decision making. It was designed to do precisely this, and is the model that works in the NRL where bottom clubs - just like Hull - focus on building for the next 3-5 years to turn their organisations around, not waste money over the next 3-5 months to turn their season around (or otherwise face a financial apocalypse.)

So, we have designed a new model. We have voted for it. Then when it does what it is designed to do, an outcome that could have been predicted at the time we made that choice, a load of random people start moaning about it. It perfectly encapsulates every thing that is wrong about the organisational culture in rugby league, which has held this sport back for decades.  

[Chrispmartha]

24 minutes ago, phiggins said:

That is kind of the point that he is making. That he believes that they have downed tools this season. 

Downed tools or alternatively they have prepared for next season whilst giving some youngsters a go which will help the future of the club.

 

[daz39]

49 minutes ago, Worzel said:

This entire argument is predicated on two ridiculous contentions:

1. That it is better for the long-term health of the club and the sport that Hull FC had parachuted in some expensive emergency coach, and bought 2 or 3 players who could have ensured they finished at least 11th with ease, rather than (as they have done) instead worked on future years behind the scenes and blooded some very promising youth players. They had the means to do so, and probably would have ended up way higher than 11th. 

2. That London, an empty husk of a club with no commercial platform, audience or meaningful club infrastructure to speak of, who have been under-invested in for years (outside of the first team), are somehow a better option for the league than Hull FC who have all of those things are more.

Both are patently nonsensical arguments, it's not even a debate worth having.

We are moving to the new model in order to enable better long-term decision making. It was designed to do precisely this, and is the model that works in the NRL where bottom clubs - just like Hull - focus on building for the next 3-5 years to turn their organisations around, not waste money over the next 3-5 months to turn their season around (or otherwise face a financial apocalypse.)

So, we have designed a new model. We have voted for it. Then when it does what it is designed to do, an outcome that could have been predicted at the time we made that choice, a load of random people start moaning about it. It perfectly encapsulates every thing that is wrong about the organisational culture in rugby league, which has held this sport back for decades.  

Bang on, 100% correct.

My club know that in the past they would have avoided relegation easily these last 2 years BUT we now know that with our last 2 years performances we are actually in danger of relegation regardless so need to up our game, i hope change happens at my club because of this rather than just being happy we have managed to not finish 12th.

Long live IMG!!

[phiggins]

43 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Downed tools or alternatively they have prepared for next season whilst giving some youngsters a go which will help the future of the club.

 

Maybe. But there should always be a balance between planning for the future and being ready for the here and now. After all it is the latter that we are trying to get fans, TV viewers and sponsors to buy into. This system should be about having strong teams on the field that are underpinned by strong clubs off it. Not allowing terrible teams on the field time to recover from years of being awful off the field, while others are condemned from the start.

Cas have been very clear about where their priorities were this year, and still managed to put together a team that gained 9 points more than Hull, who were making far more positive noises to their fans when asking for them to part with their money.

Hopefully being part of what Hull have become this year doesn't have a detrimental effect on those youngsters. While I believe the stuff from Beaumont is bluster, based on his fears about how vulnerable his (and my) team are, I also believe that those young players and the Hull fans have been badly treated this season.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, phiggins said:

Maybe. But there should always be a balance between planning for the future and being ready for the here and now. After all it is the latter that we are trying to get fans, TV viewers and sponsors to buy into. This system should be about having strong teams on the field that are underpinned by strong clubs off it. Not allowing terrible teams on the field time to recover from years of being awful off the field, while others are condemned from the start.

Cas have been very clear about where their priorities were this year, and still managed to put together a team that gained 9 points more than Hull, who were making far more positive noises to their fans when asking for them to part with their money.

Hopefully being part of what Hull have become this year doesn't have a detrimental effect on those youngsters. While I believe the stuff from Beaumont is bluster, based on his fears about how vulnerable his (and my) team are, I also believe that those young players and the Hull fans have been badly treated this season.

Hull haven't chosen to be rubbish this year, it benefits them in no way at all. They've tried some short term measures which haven't worked, the medium term ones seem to have really upset one vocal chairman. That's all there is to it.

Hull have had a bad season, they happen. 

[Dave T]

I think one thing that's being intentionally ignored here is that quality players are harder to recruit. They are fewer quality players that will move in-season that can help a club out. My club has made a couple of signings (Yates and Bateman), but let's be honest, they're gonna pick a team at the top rather than Hull FC.

If we look at the players that Hull have signed for next year, there are still gonna be some real challenges. Even planning in advance they have had to make signings that are gambles based on age and previous history.

The other thing that is ignored is that clubs clearly don't want to lose. Losing games horribly is not good for business, it's gonna be hard to really drum up excitement and ticket sales for next year. Things are much better when winning.

Hull have just been terrible. Recrited poorly, played poorly. There ain't much more to it than that. 

The only reason this is becoming a thing is DB has a mard on because they signed one of his players.

Edited September 16 by Dave T

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Hull haven't chosen to be rubbish this year, it benefits them in no way at all. They've tried some short term measures which haven't worked, the medium term ones seem to have really upset one vocal chairman. That's all there is to it.

Hull have had a bad season, they happen. 

Well quite, whatever the system there will always be teams that have poor seasons

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

Well quite, whatever the system there will always be teams that have poor seasons

I'm still emotionally affected by the 2015, 2016, 2017 roller coaster we went on at our club.

For all we fans complain, nobody is trying to be bad. Some try harder than others to be good, London set out with a part time team for example, and some are just less successful at being any good, Hull FC. But no club wants to have a bad season.

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Hull haven't chosen to be rubbish this year, it benefits them in no way at all. They've tried some short term measures which haven't worked, the medium term ones seem to have really upset one vocal chairman. That's all there is to it.

Hull have had a bad season, they happen. 

There are bad seasons, and there are bad seasons. If they both lose this week, will London and Hull have had the joint third worst seasons in SL history, behind (or should that be ahead of) Halifax 2003 and Leigh 2005?

[Worzel]

9 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Maybe. But there should always be a balance between planning for the future and being ready for the here and now. After all it is the latter that we are trying to get fans, TV viewers and sponsors to buy into. This system should be about having strong teams on the field that are underpinned by strong clubs off it. Not allowing terrible teams on the field time to recover from years of being awful off the field, while others are condemned from the start.

Cas have been very clear about where their priorities were this year, and still managed to put together a team that gained 9 points more than Hull, who were making far more positive noises to their fans when asking for them to part with their money.

Hopefully being part of what Hull have become this year doesn't have a detrimental effect on those youngsters. While I believe the stuff from Beaumont is bluster, based on his fears about how vulnerable his (and my) team are, I also believe that those young players and the Hull fans have been badly treated this season.

Just because Hull have got the balance wrong, doesn't mean that the model hasn't worked. Clearly it would be better for Hull if they'd improved more this season, it would have been better for fan engagement and future commercial strength. I'm sure fans aren't happy with the club, and memberships and sponsorships are harder to sell for Hull FC right now. But given the choice between this and clubs just doing every short term thing they can to "succeed" by finishing 11th, the model we've run for decades and which patently hasn't worked, then I'd pick this. And importantly, this is what the league voted for.

 

[LeeF]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think one thing that's being intentionally ignored here is that quality players are harder to recruit. They are fewer quality players that will move in-season that can help a club out. My club has made a couple of signings (Yates and Bateman), but let's be honest, they're gonna pick a team at the top rather than Hull FC.

If we look at the players that Hull have signed for next year, there are still gonna be some real challenges. Even planning in advance they have had to make signings that are gambles based on age and previous history.

The other thing that is ignored is that clubs clearly don't want to lose. Losing games horribly is not good for business, it's gonna be hard to really drum up excitement and ticket sales for next year. Things are much better when winning.

Hull have just been terrible. Recrited poorly, played poorly. There ain't much more to it than that. 

The only reason this is becoming a thing is DB has a mard on because they signed one of his players.

The bit in bold is spot on and at the risk of upsetting the “fan club” DB comes across as a bully who when he doesn’t get his own way eg Hull daring to sign one of his better and more high profit players he attacks them without logic or reason 

 

[FearTheVee]

I haven't seen Hull come back about any of this garbage which is commedable. Just leave him shouting away to himself like the attention seeking diva he is appears to be the best strategy.

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Just because Hull have got the balance wrong, doesn't mean that the model hasn't worked. Clearly it would be better for Hull if they'd improved more this season, it would have been better for fan engagement and future commercial strength. I'm sure fans aren't happy with the club, and memberships and sponsorships are harder to sell for Hull FC right now. But given the choice between this and clubs just doing every short term thing they can to "succeed" by finishing 11th, the model we've run for decades and which patently hasn't worked, then I'd pick this. And importantly, this is what the league voted for.

 

I'll leave it at this. I don't care much for DB's social media posts on the topic, but I also think that it will be very rare that a club wins only 3 games in a season, without several posts on this forum suggesting that they aren't ready to be in Super League, or questions of what they offer. Particularly when that club's previous league positions have been 8th, 9th and 10th.

[LeeF]

3 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Just because Hull have got the balance wrong, doesn't mean that the model hasn't worked. Clearly it would be better for Hull if they'd improved more this season, it would have been better for fan engagement and future commercial strength. I'm sure fans aren't happy with the club, and memberships and sponsorships are harder to sell for Hull FC right now. But given the choice between this and clubs just doing every short term thing they can to "succeed" by finishing 11th, the model we've run for decades and which patently hasn't worked, then I'd pick this. And importantly, this is what the league voted for.

 

Let’s all criticise the game for being too short term but then when a longer term model is introduced let’s all complain about clubs putting in foundations eg blooding younger players; thinking about next season and the one after and in some cases doing some long required ground updates 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm still emotionally affected by the 2015, 2016, 2017 roller coaster we went on at our club.

For all we fans complain, nobody is trying to be bad. Some try harder than others to be good, London set out with a part time team for example, and some are just less successful at being any good, Hull FC. But no club wants to have a bad season.

And I remember how the IMG haters moaned then about the system being a farce then because of London not trying and using a part time team.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

There are bad seasons, and there are bad seasons. If they both lose this week, will London and Hull have had the joint third worst seasons in SL history, behind (or should that be ahead of) Halifax 2003 and Leigh 2005?

Hull have been particularly bad yeah, but you seem to suggest, and certainly DB believes, that they are deliberately trying to be so. 

I don't think they are, they've just got it seriously wrong this year and their short term fixes like sacking the coach, recruiting new players and bringing in new investment and a new Rugby Department structure haven't worked.

[Barry Badrinath]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think one thing that's being intentionally ignored here is that quality players are harder to recruit. They are fewer quality players that will move in-season that can help a club out. My club has made a couple of signings (Yates and Bateman), but let's be honest, they're gonna pick a team at the top rather than Hull FC.

If we look at the players that Hull have signed for next year, there are still gonna be some real challenges. Even planning in advance they have had to make signings that are gambles based on age and previous history.

The other thing that is ignored is that clubs clearly don't want to lose. Losing games horribly is not good for business, it's gonna be hard to really drum up excitement and ticket sales for next year. Things are much better when winning.

Hull have just been terrible. Recrited poorly, played poorly. There ain't much more to it than that. 

The only reason this is becoming a thing is DB has a mard on because they signed one of his players.

I would actually like to see a thread about hull to see exactly where they were at the start of the year recruitment wise, pre season injury wise and see if it was obviously bad to the naked eye at that point. 

 

Also a timeline of releases as things got worse.