PDA

View Full Version : The Expansion / Heartlands Debate



Pages : [1] 2

wrexhamsaint
7th January 2010, 13:38
As notified by that hot-bed of RL reporting, The Wrexham Leader:

Crusaders v St Helens – previously Saturday 21st August – now to be played Sunday 22nd August 15.00 KO (at the Racecourse Ground, Wrexham).

E Saint
7th January 2010, 13:51
As notified by that hot-bed of RL reporting, The Wrexham Leader:

Crusaders v St Helens – previously Saturday 21st August – now to be played Sunday 22nd August 15.00 KO (at the Racecourse Ground, Wrexham).

Means we now only get 6 days rest before the CC final ;)

wrexhamsaint
7th January 2010, 14:00
Means we now only get 6 days rest before the CC final ;)

Good point: might see a weakened team for this one, then.

Not being too presumptuous, are we?

Noel Cleal
7th January 2010, 18:02
Saints may leave a couple out too. :D

Syd
7th January 2010, 21:09
Lets hope were in the CC final, and can send blackbrook ARLFC to stand in for us for this one.

Legolas
7th January 2010, 21:18
Lets hope were in the CC final, and can send blackbrook ARLFC to stand in for us for this one.

I'd sooner send a full team and humiliate the new south wales australian franchise in north wales 31miles away from a side turned down.

I'm out of patience and sympathy for Crusaders.

THELAST3YARDS
7th January 2010, 21:40
I'd sooner send a full team and humiliate the new south wales australian franchise in north wales 31miles away from a side turned down.

I'm out of patience and sympathy for Crusaders.

Widnes didn't deserve a place, sod 'em!

Go Crusaders

thestatman
7th January 2010, 21:41
Lets hope were in the CC final, and can send blackbrook ARLFC to stand in for us for this one.

You could at least put "Saints" in with a chance by sending Thatto Heath!

Legolas
7th January 2010, 22:21
Widnes didn't deserve a place, sod 'em!

Go Crusaders

No they didn't and I've been hammered on here for my views on widnes. However, Crusaders are an embarrassment.

THELAST3YARDS
7th January 2010, 22:49
No they didn't and I've been hammered on here for my views on widnes. However, Crusaders are an embarrassment.

I think they deserve the 3 years before being condemed.

Doesn't look too hot for them currently mind.

Legolas
7th January 2010, 23:04
I think they deserve the 3 years before being condemed.

Doesn't look too hot for them currently mind.

I passionately supporter them right up to the point the new South Wales franchise moved to Wrexham.

Now the singular reason for their admission to SL is in tatters in my view. And to make it worse, they will have fewer welsh players this year than last if Nobby is right. They will be a side of has been aussies and discarded SL players like Tommy Lee.

I suppported them, but with the visa farce, the move to Wrexham, and their recruitment policy, its game over for me. I'd sooner kick them out and bring the Scorpions in on a fresh three year deal. At least they are absolutely commited to South Wales RL.

wrexhamsaint
8th January 2010, 08:55
I think they deserve the 3 years before being condemed.

Doesn't look too hot for them currently mind.

The arguments for and against the Welsh expansion have been thoroughly aired on this site: personally, I think the RFL has been guilty of letting its optimism get in the way of a thorough examination of the "business case" the original Crusaders offered. The argument about whether the RFL should be looking to expand depends on whether or not you see sport as a "business". Again, personally, it's this "business" attitude that has robbed UK sport of a lot of its character and regional identity and for me that's a bad thing and in RL's case, it's closely connected with Sky and the way the game is marketed.

Having said all that, now that the Crusaders have gone to Wrexham, I don't want it to fail. Why?

1. Because the RU arses like Barnes & co will be hugging their smug little selves at the headlines - which will be plentiful.
2. Because it gives a Parr exile like me some decent League on my doorstep, at least for a season or two (and when it doesn't clash with the S).

There seems to be quite a lot of goodwill towards the experiment in and around Wrexham - including from the majority of Wrexham FC fans. Whether that will translate to bums on seats remains to be seen.

Either way, I'm looking forward to my shortest trip to a Saints away day since they last played at Brentford (close to my old girlfriend's place)

Div
8th January 2010, 09:13
I think they deserve the 3 years before being condemed.

Doesn't look too hot for them currently mind.

I just dont see it. Its from a standing start,no grass roots and no history at all in the area. Doomed before it starts. Get Widnes back in before that town starts to lose interest too

eddiewaringsflatcap
8th January 2010, 09:14
I passionately supporter them right up to the point the new South Wales franchise moved to Wrexham.

Now the singular reason for their admission to SL is in tatters in my view. And to make it worse, they will have fewer welsh players this year than last if Nobby is right. They will be a side of has been aussies and discarded SL players like Tommy Lee.

I suppported them, but with the visa farce, the move to Wrexham, and their recruitment policy, its game over for me. I'd sooner kick them out and bring the Scorpions in on a fresh three year deal. At least they are absolutely commited to South Wales RL.

Wrexham Crusaders are a 'dead man walking.'

An embarrasment to the RFL which throughly failed (yet again) to identify the obvious shortcomings in their franchise application.

E Saint
8th January 2010, 10:16
I just dont see it. Its from a standing start,no grass roots and no history at all in the area. Doomed before it starts. Get Widnes back in before that town starts to lose interest too

100% correct.

The new owner even admits he has no interest in RL he just wants pay days from Saints, Leeds, Wire and Wigan speccies to save the finacial necks of his football team. Widnes were sold down the river in 1995 had the goalposts changed on them again in 2005, and should have got the licence last year,

HitTheWall
8th January 2010, 10:42
I'd sooner send a full team and humiliate the new south wales australian franchise

Yeah, we should beat them 6-0 this time.;)

eddiewaringsflatcap
8th January 2010, 12:13
I just dont see it. Its from a standing start,no grass roots and no history at all in the area. Doomed before it starts. Get Widnes back in before that town starts to lose interest too

And therein always was the problem, but the RFL were too pig headed to see the challenges that lay before this feeble franchise.

That there were only 270 season ticket holders was a portent of the troubles that were to come, but moreover, the club appeared to 'come out of nowhere.'

Bridgend had been long jetissoned by the RFU and always drew modest support in that particular sport. When Leighton Samuel was coming out and saying 'we always thought the RFL would be giving us more dosh' then there must be something completely amiss.

The whole move stunk of desperation by the RFL to satisfy its paymasters and to get its long cherished South Wales team into Super League. Not completing a thorugh check on the Bridgend bid was disasterous.

The pathetic and ramshackle 'licence applications' were not only a sop to fair play, but were surely badly executed in their judgement.

Secondly, assuming the RFL were influenced by their dedication to SKY to 'spread the game,' there was a failure to understand that this needs ot be done with excellence, or the game finds itself more in the muck.

The likes on Nigel Wood should be out on there ear, but the good old muppets remain in charge.

is it any wonder there is a failure to support the national team when the RFL so frequently alientates those outside the big clubs.

I really struggle to understand the RFL and the mindset of some of its followers and media. Whereas critical judgement and accountability are clearly needed, alls we hear is a need for promotion - psst, raincheck guys, you need credibility before emabarking on bold marketing ideas - and silence on the latest gospel spreading failure.

What cheered me up was reading Rugby League Worlds national global rankings of Saudi Arabia, Sweden and Niue.... I kid you not. And we expect outsiders to take us seriously...

The Hoss
8th January 2010, 16:28
Rugby League will always be the same with these monkeys running the show... Crusaders are a disgrace and i feel sorry for teams such as Leigh, Widnes, Halifax and even Barrow! Was all for it at the begining, but like Legolas, this pharse of Crusaders moving to wrexham is appauling, when Widnes cant get a franchise... I know its harsh to say it, but ill be glad to see the back of Crusaders! This game will never grow in Wales.. League cannot cope with Union in Wales because of money! Fact!

NUTSONTHE70S
8th January 2010, 16:37
Wrexham Crusaders are a 'dead man walking.'

An embarrasment to the RFL which throughly failed (yet again) to identify the obvious shortcomings in their franchise application.

I agree, Look.....Id love to see the game grow in this part of the world, but IT WILL NEVER. God knows, we have tried. They prefer the kick and clap brigade. Stuff em, the crowds will be a laugh. 600 if theyre lucky. This just gives the Union boys a laugh when they read the attendances.

Get Widnes in.......Im sick of the Welsh farce.

The Hoss
8th January 2010, 17:45
I agree, Look.....Id love to see the game grow in this part of the world, but IT WILL NEVER. God knows, we have tried. They prefer the kick and clap brigade. Stuff em, the crowds will be a laugh. 600 if theyre lucky. This just gives the Union boys a laugh when they read the attendances.

Get Widnes in.......Im sick of the Welsh farce.

100% agree... There'll be more away support there than home support! Its an absolute pharse how the Rugby League run this sport! Always has been and always will be with the ar$es who run it!

Div
8th January 2010, 21:38
There seems to be an obsession with ' spreading' the game at all costs. The trouble is it is nearly always a false implantaion without any solid infastructure.

Im sure we would ALL love to see the game played far and wide but what is wrong with admitting its a pipedream in the short term and strengthening the game in its heartlands ? If we have a very strong base in Lancs, Yorks and Cumbria surely we need to look after that in the first place ? The longer the likes of Halifax, Leigh, Widnes and the Cumbrian teams stay on the periphery the fewer people will be interested.A worry of mine is that the game will start to die in its traditional boundaries and add that in to failed expansion areas and the game will struggle to survive in any guise anywhere.

RU for its ' national' profile in reality only have Sale and Leeds in our territory and Im not sure the latter are well supported ?

Other sports are limited geographically but they dont seem to worry about it. I mean are Gaelic Football, Hurling or Aussie Rules strong anywhere other than their home area ?

I know it may not be popular with some but I really think the game needs to make some brave decisions, make the heartland strong and build gradually and not parachute clubs with no substance into SL. Paris, South Wales, Kent, Mansfield , etc may look good on paper but they now have a long track record that says it isn't working.

saint pie
8th January 2010, 22:36
Well put Div. Forget the emotive nonsense spouted about spreading the game, make it strong and secure in its heartlands, then look at other markets for the product.

Every marketing director of a major corporation would tell you that the first rule in marketing is to secure your home market. Only then do you start to look for export markets.

When you consider the RFL you have to conclude that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. The mistakes they make are breathtaking, and you have to ask why people of common sense like McManus and Lennighan don't kick up an almighty fuss. They should be cleared out and a new set of properly qualified people put in their places.

We have a wonderful game, supported by loyal and committed fans and we deserve better!:(:o:mad:

wrexhamsaint
9th January 2010, 10:13
At the risk of repeating myself, expansion only makes sense if you look at RL as a business (which, I suppose Super League is, damn it). However, no business worth its salt would go into a new area on such a wing and a prayer as previous expansion clubs have done. We tend to point the finger at Red Hall (quite rightly) for their naivety, but for me the real villains are the Sky lot who want novelty and sensation (so Stephenson can shout "sensational") to help with marketing their business - often at the expense of the credibility of the sport (top 8? Pick your own opponents? Murrayfield Magic?). Because of the money they offer, the RFL rolls over and plays dead every time. I have to keep reminding myself, Rugby League is a sport, Super League is a business; run, unfortunately, by amateurs.

Legolas
9th January 2010, 10:28
At the risk of repeating myself, expansion only makes sense if you look at RL as a business (which, I suppose Super League is, damn it). However, no business worth its salt would go into a new area on such a wing and a prayer as previous expansion clubs have done. We tend to point the finger at Red Hall (quite rightly) for their naivety, but for me the real villains are the Sky lot who want novelty and sensation (so Stephenson can shout "sensational") to help with marketing their business - often at the expense of the credibility of the sport (top 8? Pick your own opponents? Murrayfield Magic?). Because of the money they offer, the RFL rolls over and plays dead every time. I have to keep reminding myself, Rugby League is a sport, Super League is a business; run, unfortunately, by amateurs.

Expansion had nothing to do with Sky, it was purely for the RFL when considering licence applications.

Crusaders are not the villians in this. The RFL are. They are 95% to blame and Celtic 5%. They are as much victims of the RFL monumental stupidity.

I backed the wrong horse. The move to expansion was right. We just when the wrong way and should have gone to Cumbria. Perhaps Barrrow

I don't buy widnes should be brought back just because the town might lose interest. It wasn't ready then having just come out of administration and half its team being on loan. I'm not entirely convinced they are ready now.

Div
9th January 2010, 10:58
Expansion had nothing to do with Sky, it was purely for the RFL when considering licence applications.

Crusaders are not the villians in this. The RFL are. They are 95% to blame and Celtic 5%. They are as much victims of the RFL monumental stupidity.

I backed the wrong horse. The move to expansion was right. We just when the wrong way and should have gone to Cumbria. Perhaps Barrrow

I don't buy widnes should be brought back just because the town might lose interest. It wasn't ready then having just come out of administration and half its team being on loan. I'm not entirely convinced they are ready now.


I think Sky might push the agenda though with the RFL and their financing of the game means what they want they have a very good chance of getting be it right for the game in the longer term.

Think we have had similar discussions before but when you say ' expand' into Cumbria that is 100 % home turf as far as I am concerned ? I would support a move of that nature fully but it has to be in the right place. Possibly Barrow but the crowds attending some of the clubs games up there proves the point that as the years roll by out of the top flight less and less people will be inclined to turn up. I honestly think that many kids in Cumbria will support Saints, Leeds, Bradford or Wigan rather than their local club and that is quite sad.

Legolas
9th January 2010, 11:02
I think Sky might push the agenda though with the RFL and thire financing of the game means what they want they have a very good chance of getting be it right for the game in the longer term.

Think we have had similar discussions before but when you say ' expand' into Cumbria that is 100 % home turf as far as I am concerned ? I would support a move of that nature fully but it has to be in the right place. Possibly Barrow but the crowds attending some of the clubs games up there proves the point that as the years roll by out of the top flight less and less people will be inclined to turn up. I honestly think that many kids in Cumbria will support Saints, Leeds, Bradford or Wigan rather than their local club and that is quite sad.

I agree Sky's views will be taken into account, probably more than they deserve to be, but it doesn't take away from it being down to the RFL. They can go to Sky and say no.

I agree Cumbria is our own turf but its been allowed to fall by the way side. And I agree kids are more likely to support current SL sides but I think that is as much to do Cumbrian RL falling by the way side.

wrexhamsaint
9th January 2010, 13:13
Expansion had nothing to do with Sky, it was purely for the RFL when considering licence applications.

I think you'll find Sky is intimately involved in every decision the RFL makes, up to and including taking ideas to them: which tend to be rubber-stamped, by and large.

Legolas
9th January 2010, 14:12
I think you'll find Sky is intimately involved in every decision the RFL makes, up to and including taking ideas to them: which tend to be rubber-stamped, by and large.

They cannot be that intimately involved. And as you say "taking ideas to" the RFL. If they RFL are simply rubber stamping Sky ideas, and they were so intimately involved in the franchise decisions, which I don't believe they were, but if they were you simply can't get away from the position that the RFL cultivated that relationship, they allowed that relationship to prevail to a point they created their own weak position and hence the RFL are still incompetent in so doing.

wrexhamsaint
9th January 2010, 15:55
They cannot be that intimately involved. And as you say "taking ideas to" the RFL. If they RFL are simply rubber stamping Sky ideas, and they were so intimately involved in the franchise decisions, which I don't believe they were, but if they were you simply can't get away from the position that the RFL cultivated that relationship, they allowed that relationship to prevail to a point they created their own weak position and hence the RFL are still incompetent in so doing.

If you read my earlier posts, I've already said that the RFL is naive and unprofessional, so I'm not certain what you're arguing about. My additional point was that the driver for a lot of this is Sky - directly or indirectly. And by the way, this is not conjecture.

Wanderer
9th January 2010, 16:54
Me being me, I really hope the Crusaders and the Scorpions both take off. I don't think we'll see much in the way of improvement in the Crusaders this season, given that I think they have yet to get a full squad together, but Nobby is good at pulling a club up by their bootlaces so I would imagine if anyone can make a success of the Crusaders, he will (and by success I mean winning a significant proportion of their games, if not challenging for a place in the playoffs).

I don't know who is coach at the Scorpions, I'm not even sure they know themselves yet. But whoever it turns out to be, I hope they make a real go of it in Championship 1. If they have a sizeable number of the players who won the European Cup in their squad then they should certainly be competitive at that level.

Hopefully, the Welsh scene will turn out to be an exciting one. I would love to see rugby league develop in Wales. They are a rugby loving nation and we've benefited from that in the past (albeit the dim and distant nowadays) so I suppose that element of sentimentality encourages me to keep everything crossed for success in Wales by both teams.

As for Widnes ... although it was tough on them to be left out of Superleague because they had only just come out of administration, given that recently they have had to cut back financially yet again I think in retrospect the decision was a wise one. And I don't often say that about the RFL. At the time it happened, although I was in support of expansion I did feel the decision was a little harsh. But their subsequent wobbles have persuaded me otherwise and I think they need the next couple of seasons to prove that they can maintain a stable financial situation at the club.

Personally, based on last season's performance alone, I think Barrow are presently more the team to back for Superleague, except I'm not sure where their stadium is up to (and alas that still seems to be a criterion of a licence, even though we're still in the midst of a pretty drastic recession). Again for sentimental reasons I would like to see Barrow in Superleague, not least because then Cumbria gets a Superleague presence and that may help reignite interest in the sport in that county.

Div
9th January 2010, 17:15
Whilst the thread has drifted from the original post I think its a decent discussion and debate so re titled thread name to encourage more opinion,

As I said earlier we would ALL like to see the new ventures suceed but in my heart of hearts I just dont see it happening at the moment.

Widnes had the rug pulled from under them on more than one occasion and in all honesty in austere times most clubs would struggle financially out of the top flight. Lets be honest the overwhelming majority of Super League clubs are lossmaking with an insolvent balance sheet and that is with the benefit of the TV moolah.

saint mully
9th January 2010, 17:30
I hope the Scorpions do well in CC1, looks like they're starting again in South Wales like they did with Celtic in 2006. I hope not too much of the local talent has deflected bacj to Union now. Hopefully the RFL will not ruin them again. Sadly I think this means the Crusaders won't live past the next franchise announcements. They were intended to be a S. Wales club, can't see Wreexham being long-term. Don't know what the situation with a new Bridgend stadium is unless that was all hot air?

Wanderer
9th January 2010, 17:44
Widnes had the rug pulled from under them on more than one occasion and in all honesty in austere times most clubs would struggle financially out of the top flight.
I have every sympathy for Widnes' plights of previous years but I don't think those occasions should have influenced the decision regarding their licence application last time around. While it might have seemed to be another example of the same thing, given that an expansion team were awarded a licence over them (and indeed I even thought that way myself at first), Widnes were only just out of administration and at that stage I don't think they had won anything in their league for that season had they? Whereas the Crusaders had made it to the Grand Final and were second in the league so in performance terms alone, the Crusaders scored over Widnes. Given that other Superleague clubs, including Saints, were offered some slack over the stadium issue then that could hardly be held against the Crusaders. And, finally, at that time the Crusaders were in a financially sound position. I can't see why Widnes should have been chosen over the Crusaders. Come the next round of licences it may be beyond doubt why they should be but at the last round, objectively speaking, they had no claim to be hard done by.


Lets be honest the overwhelming majority of Super League clubs are lossmaking with an insolvent balance sheet and that is with the benefit of the TV moolah
I couldn't agree more. Saints run at a loss. We have been fortunate that our directors have the financial clout to write off their loans against the new stadium bringing in increased revenue. However, running at a loss is different from just crawling out of administration and then the following year cutting back on staff and resources available to players, which is what Widnes had to do early last season. That suggests they are yet to reach a stable financial position. Running at a loss is something I would expect in rugby league given that we are small fry in terms of sponsorship and other revenue streams when it comes to the sporting world.

E Saint
9th January 2010, 21:26
Widnes were only just out of administration

People keep mentioning this but they went into administration under the previous ownership and they were the ONLY club to include a financial bond (put up by the owner) as part of their license application.




I think you'll find Sky is intimately involved in every decision the RFL makes, up to and including taking ideas to them: which tend to be rubber-stamped, by and large.

The decision to use the Video ref is one example. Neville Smith (Skys RL exec producer) has previously been credited with instigating the move rather than the RFL.

Greengrass
9th January 2010, 21:35
Apart from 1 English hating sweaty sock GB Tennis has gone down the gurgler so Lewis must go and bring in the Great Britain Tiddkleywinks chief to run Rugby League even further into oblivion. The simple answer is for the RFL to appoint someone from a successful sport not a ne'er do well from a failed sport as the next head tosser.

Buddy
9th January 2010, 21:51
All this talk of Widnes being a victim in this franchise nonsense is ignoring the fact that they are historically a very poorly run club.


If this club fails in Wrexham (or should I say when) they shouldn't be first in line to replace them.

60s supporter
9th January 2010, 22:15
Kick and clap brigade are expandinging the support base fantastically 75,000 for a league game at twickers and 24,000 at Leicester
sorry I love saints but am getting to the stage of would rather watch Union than League unless its Saints
The way league is going it just doesnt do anything for me now and I am beginning to enjoy the technical side of Union a game for a much broader spread of player,
not just 13 big guys that can run fast
I agree there is not enough tries in union and perhaps the scoring should be altered to encourage more but who is to blame for that, yes the rugby league coaches that have gone as defensive coaches in union

ploughman
9th January 2010, 22:29
i watched the leicester wasps game this afternoon.classic when barnes said it was a 24000 sell out and the weather didnt deter anyone.the commentator then said that there were 2000 scouts in the main stand who had ben invited!
what happened in south wales was a disaster,wrexham is a farce.but i could never agree that union is a better game than league.the australia new zealand tri nations game at quinns last season was one of the best games ive seen in years.we seem to be comparing bad games of league with good games of union.

60s supporter
9th January 2010, 22:41
many people on here watch football as well as league but as soon as union is mentioned the morons start
All I am saying is that Union is a completely different sport and should be seen as so
2000 scouts well you can bet union will be getting those kids to rugby union clubs ,look at the way the RFU youth development is going it leaves league in its wake
Enjoy both and football as well what could be better than choice

ploughman
9th January 2010, 22:57
many people on here watch football as well as league but as soon as union is mentioned the morons start
All I am saying is that Union is a completely different sport and should be seen as so
2000 scouts well you can bet union will be getting those kids to rugby union clubs ,look at the way the RFU youth development is going it leaves league in its wake
Enjoy both and football as well what could be better than choice

i much prefer rugby union to football.the problem with union for me is people like stuart barnes,the game is ok without him.i agree with what you say about unions development,we couldnt get 2000 scouts at saints with free tickets,could we?have we ever tried?they did

DD
10th January 2010, 03:25
There seems to be an obsession with ' spreading' the game at all costs. The trouble is it is nearly always a false implantaion without any solid infastructure.

Im sure we would ALL love to see the game played far and wide but what is wrong with admitting its a pipedream in the short term and strengthening the game in its heartlands ? If we have a very strong base in Lancs, Yorks and Cumbria surely we need to look after that in the first place ? The longer the likes of Halifax, Leigh, Widnes and the Cumbrian teams stay on the periphery the fewer people will be interested.A worry of mine is that the game will start to die in its traditional boundaries and add that in to failed expansion areas and the game will struggle to survive in any guise anywhere.

RU for its ' national' profile in reality only have Sale and Leeds in our territory and Im not sure the latter are well supported ?

Other sports are limited geographically but they dont seem to worry about it. I mean are Gaelic Football, Hurling or Aussie Rules strong anywhere other than their home area ?

I know it may not be popular with some but I really think the game needs to make some brave decisions, make the heartland strong and build gradually and not parachute clubs with no substance into SL. Paris, South Wales, Kent, Mansfield , etc may look good on paper but they now have a long track record that says it isn't working.

The definitive post on the subject, although it will upset the dreamers in Rugby League World and on RL Fans.

As you say, every last one of us would love to see the game expand, not only in this country, but worldwide but anyone with an intelligence level above your average slug knows it's never going to happen now.

Could it ever happen if it was done right for a change rather than pitching clubs in at the deep end without any solid foundations? I'd like to think so and I did believe it to be the case back in 1996 but not any more.

This game has had so many chances. London provided a great chance in 1996. Crowds were good, their team was good, everything looked like it could be in place. We blew it!

South Wales was perfect at the time. There were two dozen high profile ex-Union players and their public flocked in to see them in the 1995 World Cup. The time was right yet we formed a Welsh club and dumped it in the bottom tier.

Four years later, Cardiff and Swansea absconded from the Welsh RU to Scotland. The two cities had franchise applications turned down in favour of Gateshead when their populations were there for the taking.

We then finally plump for a Welsh Super League team when interest in our game, in that part of the country, is at its lowest in a generation. The kind of balls up only the RFL could make.

We've had our chances and blown them. No-one takes this game seriously outside of the M62 corridor and the Irish Sea coastline of Cumbria, in this country, and that is a fact.

It could have been all so different but I feel our chances have gone now.

bazzac666
10th January 2010, 07:29
I suppose the upshot of all this is that we now have two teams in Wales, one north and one south. For how long? I'm not sure. Will it last? I'm not sure. The problem is history is against the whole idea of expansion of both the super league and rugby league in general.

I'd like to see RL and the super league expand and have been vocal with my backing of the Crusaders. But I also agree with alot of comments from those who are, not against expansion, but for shoring up support in the heartlands and building on the support they have already.

I think in the next round of franchises I'd like to see a Cumbrian side in their, not sure who but I think expanding in that direction could pay huge dividends.

What I don't agree with is the view that Widnes lost out to Crusaders and are the automatic choice for the next franchises.

Widnes were only just out of administration, not an ideal financial footing for a super league club and only their due to a new owner. Widnes didn't get in because of their own failings.

wrexhamsaint
10th January 2010, 10:18
It's hard to disagree with anything Div or DD say here. There is a place for regionally based-sport, and indeed it's regional base will help to keep it honest (otherwise we end up with the "positive discrimination" scenario - ie we won't relegate you for x years; we will allow you to stuff your team with Aussies for a limited period etc). However, I have no problem with helping to develop the game outside the heartlands outside the top division and allowing the teams to build crowds and quality at an appropriate pace. This should apply to applicants from the heartlands too, mind. The Catalans example is misleading, since the crowd base was already there. Crusaders is frustrating in one sense, because if the RFL had left well alone for a few years and allowed Celtic (as it was) to knock around NL1 for a decent period, then a more accurate view of its long term feasibility would be apparent.

So for me it's support development by all means, but don't fast-track: it doesn't bloody work. And I don't like the word or concept of "franchising". It smacks too much of get-rich-quick schemes and will end up a target of those who see it as a way to make quick money.

Div
10th January 2010, 10:19
I would be very shocked if Te Racecourse Ground fulfilled the ground criteria expected also. They shift the goalposts to suit ! For what its worth I think there is far too much emphasis on the stadia aspect but there you go.

wrexhamsaint
10th January 2010, 10:33
Further to this, if RL wants to invest in development, I like the idea (not certain where I saw it) of a 2 division superleague, 12 teams in each, playing each other twice, with promotion and relegation between these two only.

That might leave room for either an early season extra knock-out (Regal Trophy style - though I'm certain you won't be calling it that!) or a couple of meaningful rep games. It also presupposes a fairer spread of TV money so teams in the 2nd tier can still build towards competing in the top tier if promoted.

Either way, we need to rid ourselves of the Franchise idea, which places too much emphasis on a best-case projection and not enough on current playing strength and core support.

Buddy
10th January 2010, 11:11
Further to this, if RL wants to invest in development, I like the idea (not certain where I saw it) of a 2 division superleague, 12 teams in each, playing each other twice, with promotion and relegation between these two only.

That might leave room for either an early season extra knock-out (Regal Trophy style - though I'm certain you won't be calling it that!) or a couple of meaningful rep games. It also presupposes a fairer spread of TV money so teams in the 2nd tier can still build towards competing in the top tier if promoted.

Either way, we need to rid ourselves of the Franchise idea, which places too much emphasis on a best-case projection and not enough on current playing strength and core support.

Spot on.

eddiewaringsflatcap
10th January 2010, 11:52
The definitive post on the subject, although it will upset the dreamers in Rugby League World and on RL Fans.

As you say, every last one of us would love to see the game played at a top level, not only in this country, but worldwide but anyone with an intelligence level above your average slug knows it's never going to happen now.

Could it ever happen if it was done right for a change rather than pitching clubs in at the deep end without any solid foundations? I'd like to think so and I did believe it to be the case back in 1996 but not any more.

This game has had so many chances. London provided a great chance in 1996. Crowds were good, their team was good, everything looked like it could be in place. We blew it!

South Wales was perfect at the time. There were two dozen high profile ex-Union players and their public flocked in to see them in the 1995 World Cup. The time was right yet we formed a Welsh club and dumped it in the bottom tier.

Four years later, Cardiff and Swansea absconded from the Welsh RU to Scotland. The two cities had franchise applications turned down in favour of Gateshead when their populations were there for the taking.

We then finally plump for a Welsh Super League team when interest in our game, in that part of the country, is at its lowest in a generation. The kind of balls up only the RFL could make.

We've had our chances and blown them. No-one takes this game seriously outside of the M62 corridor and the Irish Sea coastline of Cumbria, in this country, and that is a fact.

It could have been all so different but I feel our chances have gone now.

Your recollection of the historical failings of the efforts to spread the game are a daming indicement of the RFL at large.

'Our chances have gone for now' as you put it are gone, precisely because the RFL has exhausted itself of credibility. The disasterous 2000 world cup was the icing on the cake as far as RFL incompetence was concerned, but back to the case in hand.

The efforts to spread the game fail because they are the victims of the RFL's failure to manage and vet applications thoroughly, and the resultant blow to the game's stature each time the likes of a Gateshead go tits up.

We are now in a position where the RFL is alienating its heartlands, and as both myself and also Div have picked up on, we risk doing untold damage to the likes of Leigh, Workington, Widnes etc This has already manifested itself in the falling crowds at international matches.

In my opinion, the dreamers on RLFans and the RFL need to start being proud of our traditions. I think only Stevo actually takes pride in the game's history and values.

As opposed to apologising about flat caps, working class roots and the like we should dwell on the positives - the honesty, integrity and community values these have bred.

Unfortunately, until the RFL abandons its grossly over ambitious at best, and cynical agenda at worst we wil be stuck with a game that is directionless. The RFL is a real basket case and needs new talent to map some sort of strategic direction.

For my two penneths we should start at home and ensure the game is booming, well presented and feels good about itself in the M62 corridor.

saintollie
10th January 2010, 11:56
Your recollection of the historical failings of the efforts to spread the game are a daming indicement of the RFL at large.

'Our chances have gone for now' as you put it are gone, precisely because the RFL has exhausted itself of credibility. The disasterous 2000 world cup was the icing on the cake as far as RFL incompetence was concerned, but back to the case in hand.

The efforts to spread the game fail because they are the victims of the RFL's failure to manage and vet applications thoroughly, and the resultant blow to the game's stature each time the likes of a Gateshead go tits up.

We are now in a position where the RFL is alienating its heartlands, and as both myself and also Div have picked up on, we risk doing untold damage to the likes of Leigh, Workington, Widnes etc This has already manifested itself in the falling crowds at international matches.

In my opinion, the dreamers on RLFans and the RFL need to start being proud of our traditions. I think only Stevo actually takes pride in the game's history and values.

As opposed to apologising about flat caps, working class roots and the like we should dwell on the positives - the honesty, integrity and community values these have bred.

Unfortunately, until the RFL abandons its grossly over ambitious at best, and cynical agenda at worst we wil be stuck with a game that is directionless. The RFL is a real basket case and needs new talent to map some sort of strategic direction.

For my two penneths we should start at home and ensure the game is booming, well presented and feels good about itself in the M62 corridor.

and then we can consider expansion and not before

DD
10th January 2010, 12:59
Your recollection of the historical failings of the efforts to spread the game are a daming indicement of the RFL at large.

'Our chances have gone for now' as you put it are gone, precisely because the RFL has exhausted itself of credibility. The disasterous 2000 world cup was the icing on the cake as far as RFL incompetence was concerned, but back to the case in hand.

The efforts to spread the game fail because they are the victims of the RFL's failure to manage and vet applications thoroughly, and the resultant blow to the game's stature each time the likes of a Gateshead go tits up.

We are now in a position where the RFL is alienating its heartlands, and as both myself and also Div have picked up on, we risk doing untold damage to the likes of Leigh, Workington, Widnes etc This has already manifested itself in the falling crowds at international matches.

In my opinion, the dreamers on RLFans and the RFL need to start being proud of our traditions. I think only Stevo actually takes pride in the game's history and values.

As opposed to apologising about flat caps, working class roots and the like we should dwell on the positives - the honesty, integrity and community values these have bred.

Unfortunately, until the RFL abandons its grossly over ambitious at best, and cynical agenda at worst we wil be stuck with a game that is directionless. The RFL is a real basket case and needs new talent to map some sort of strategic direction.

For my two penneths we should start at home and ensure the game is booming, well presented and feels good about itself in the M62 corridor.

Superb post pal.

One thing about Redvee is that we seem to have a collection of posters who can genuinely seperate dreams from reality. Go to other forums and read official publications and the dreamers seem to have the biggest voice.

What these people don't seem to realise is that we are not against expansion, it's just that we can see that their 'fast-track' methods of achieving it simply do not work in a country who's population does not embrace new concepts in the manner of the likes of the USA and Australia.

Remember the big boom of American Football, in this country, in the late 80s/early 90s? The crowds initially flocked in to watch the London Monarchs on the back of this new wave of exictement. However, once the initial excitement was over, the crowds dipped and the whole thing went kaboom. Yes, they can pull in crowds for an NFL game, between two American clubs, but the whole idea of the sport taking off in this country and a decent level of competition being formed would have been wholly unsustainable. The game is not ingrained in the mindset of the masses.

Whether we like it or not, this is a parochial country and traditional values mean a lot to the people who live here. The people of Wrexham don't even have any interest in Rugby Union, it is a solid football area and the people will feel no emotional attachment to our game and to their new team; especially with a name that has no relationship with the town or area as a whole. It feels like a nomadic team briefly popping in for somewhere to stay on a gypsy caravan site and it sounds like it.

Unfortunately, it is beyond the comprehension of the RFL that you cannot just plonk a team in an area without any Rugby League grass roots and make it work. The Celtic Crusaders initially had the right idea, by building up through the lower leagues and building a solid foundation through the schools and at least the South Wales Scorpions means that all that work won't be lost.

However, in true fashion, the RFL did not do what they should have done and showed time and patience. The Crusaders should have been man enough to say they were not ready for the big leap and ask for another three, maybe six, years before submitting their application. As ever, it's straight in at the deep end, with no thought of the long term consequences of putting a team in that is not ready and does not have the support base. It's happened a dozen times before and one wonders just how many times it has to happen before the penny drops that the haste of it all has been a significant reason why the clubs have ultimately failed.

More alarmingly, with the blinkers on, the dream of expansion has become obsessional and it's almost as if they feel that killing off the smaller, traditional clubs, will help rid the game of it's parochial image.

In my book, outsiders will see the game in a more positive light if they see these parochial clubs packing their smaller grounds out than if they see franchise clubs playing in front of smaller crowds in bigger stadiums. I don't care what anyone says, the image portrayed is far better if Leigh play Widnes in front of 7,000 singing fans at the Leigh Sports Village than if 4,000 happy-clappy curious folk watch Birmingham play Newcastle in a 30,000 capacity stadium. It does not make people think that the game is national, it makes people think that the game is a joke because they cannot attract decent crowds and atmospheres. That's just the way the human mind works.

We need to concentrate on getting things right in our own heartlands and then show the rest of the country that we have a great product, we are filling stadiums and that the sport is big and not the small time sport we falsely convey to the country that we are at present.

If expansion does not occur though, does it matter? Rugby League is massive in Sydney and Brisbane and Melbourne have produced a great side but let no-one kid you that the game is national there. In reality, it's only played in a small strip of the country. Perth, Adelaide, Darwin and the likes have no interest. They still get great crowds in the NRL though and the sport still thrives.

There are many sports in this world that are confined to small regions. Cricket may be nationwide but only a dozen countries play it. Gaelic Football is confined to one country (unless you buy into an RFL style propaganda that suggests that Rugby League is alive and well in Serbia). Hurling is more or less solely confined to the southern counties of Ireland. Only three countries in the world have an interest in Baseball. Do these sports waste all their resources on chasing impossible dreams or do they pump all their resources into making what they have got even stronger?

We like it, we support it, if people down south don't get it, then that's their problem. Why does it matter so much?

Buddy
10th January 2010, 13:29
The thing that strikes me about this thread is we all agree that the game need expansion, but at the right time and in the right place.


So how come the RFL cannot see this?

Wanderer
10th January 2010, 13:47
The thing that strikes me about this thread is we all agree that the game need expansion, but at the right time and in the right place.
Yes, but 'the right time and in the right place' is not something we all agree on!

The Chair Maker
10th January 2010, 13:51
As someone who believes strongly in expanding the game nationally, I am deeply dissapointed by the shambles of the Celtic Crusaders.

However what it says IMO is not how poor the RFL are, but how poor the other championship clubs are.

People may champion Widnes all they want, however the bare facts are that Widnes in 2008 did not win or make the grand final. Infact they finished 6th in the league, having the previous season gone into administration.

The current Widnes side may be fans favourites at replacing the Crusaders in 2012, but so far on the pitch they havent performed. Remember last season Barrow won the championship. Widnes only finished 4th in the league.

Its all being well talking about supporting the heartlands, but lets be honest, how many clubs in the championship have a chance of making a fist of it in SL. Personally i could only see Widnes and Halifax having the potential to do anything, due to their proven ability to generate a reasonable level of support.

To some extent I think talk of the "Heartlands" is nothing more than a bit of RL myth making, and imo holds the game back. It conjurs up amongst fans an image of an impregnable fortress that no other sport can breech. The reality is that in all but a handfull of towns, RL has nothing more than a cult following, and is irrelevant to the population at large.

Long term if the game stays limited to just traditional Lancs, Yorkshire and Cumbria, it will be dead as a meaningfull professional sport in the UK, and will become nothing more than an anachranism like cheese throwing or Maurice dancing.

IMO where things have gone wrong, is that the RFL is desperate to expand the game, rather than letting it grow organically.
To some extent, i think this is being forced on the game due to the growth of professional RU, and also pressure from SKY to expand the frontiers of RL, in order for Sky to sell more dishes.
There is an old adage in business that says that to stand still is too decline, therefore the RFL must look to grow.
Were so far the RFL have got it wrong, is in knowing how to expand the game properly. A quick look at the failed expansion attempts will show that more often than not the RFL have fallen in thrall to a sweet taling businessman who promisses them the Earth, but who in reality lacks the capital to run a sport business long term. As a result the club then collapses within a couple of seasons.

Div
10th January 2010, 14:01
The thing that strikes me about this thread is we all agree that the game need expansion, but at the right time and in the right place.


So how come the RFL cannot see this?


I'm not sure we all agree we ' need' it. Some of us see it as a ' nice to have ' but not as the be all and end all.

My point is neglect your own backyard and you are storing up problems for the future.

I look at the NW Counties Open Age RL which as gone from around 11 divisions down to half a dozen in a decade. That is probably 50 + teams ( not necessarily clubs) that have disappeared. There are possibly many reasons for that but I do wonder whether the years in the wilderness in Swinton, Oldham, Leigh, Widnes , etc is resulting in a decline in grass roots participation and overall interest levels ?

wrexhamsaint
10th January 2010, 14:18
I would be very shocked if Te Racecourse Ground fulfilled the ground criteria expected also. They shift the goalposts to suit ! For what its worth I think there is far too much emphasis on the stadia aspect but there you go.

Actually, the Racecourse Ground is pretty good and stands up against 90% of RL stadia. It's just the rest of the criteria that are the problem.

Div
10th January 2010, 14:27
Actually, the Racecourse Ground is pretty good and stands up against 90% of RL stadia. It's just the rest of the criteria that are the problem.


I take it some re development has been done then in recent years ? My image is from the football league cup runs era !!

Div
10th January 2010, 14:34
.
To some extent I think talk of the "Heartlands" is nothing more than a bit of RL myth making, and imo holds the game back. It conjurs up amongst fans an image of an impregnable fortress that no other sport can breech. The reality is that in all but a handfull of towns, RL has nothing more than a cult following, and is irrelevant to the population at large.

Long term if the game stays limited to just traditional Lancs, Yorkshire and Cumbria, it will be dead as a meaningfull professional sport in the UK, and will become nothing more than an anachranism like cheese throwing or Maurice dancing.
.


If it has no more than a ' cult' following around these parts what has it got anywhere else ? I cannot think of anywhere else in the UK that has anything like the interest and infastructure of any substance where hand on heart I could say it just might work. If we cant make it work where the game has at least a foothold we might as well pack up.

For all the bluster about ' summer leagues' throughout the country what has it achieved ? I think in many cases these are RU players giving RL a bash in their off season many based ay Union clubs bringing them year round income over the bar ( nothing wrong with that) They are certainly not breeding elite RL players.

wrexhamsaint
10th January 2010, 15:04
I take it some re development has been done then in recent years ? My image is from the football league cup runs era !!

There's an entire new main stand been built 9 or 10 years back with considerable dosh from the Welsh Assembly. The only problem is the remaining terracing behind the town end goal. It's been condemned (though no worse than the Eddington End!) and they won't be opening it for the SL games.

DD
10th January 2010, 16:28
Long term if the game stays limited to just traditional Lancs, Yorkshire and Cumbria, it will be dead as a meaningfull professional sport in the UK, and will become nothing more than an anachranism like cheese throwing or Maurice dancing..

Don't be daft sunshine. It's been that way since 1895 but it has never yet died as a meaningful sport. As long as people still turn up to watch the game it will continue to survive as well as it has done.

The simple fact is, it will NOT take off outside of the heartlands, today or in the next twenty years so let's strengthen what we have got and don't neglect them for the sake of projects that will simply never work.

Wanderer
10th January 2010, 18:43
The simple fact is, it will NOT take off outside of the heartlands, today or in the next twenty years
How do you know?

Buddy
10th January 2010, 19:13
How do you know?

How much evidence do you need before realising this is true?

Which of the "expansion" clubs have succeeded?

We need the game to be successful in its heartlands, then expand.

If we were filling stadia accross he M62 corridor we wouldn't need to prostitute our game to other areas of the country - they would come begging us!!

ploughman
10th January 2010, 19:54
i can not disagree with anyones comments on the subject of expansion.however,the stark reality is this.we sold our soul to sky,they enabled our sport to go proffessional.thus stopping a lot of talent going over to union.sky will not continue to pay big money to a sport that is confined to the m62 corridor.they need to be seen to be showing a 'national' sport.we know that there have been a lot of mistakes re expansion,but regardless of that,our paymasters,sky,will keep on insisting on it.regardless of it making sense.

saintgeorge
10th January 2010, 20:01
I agree with everything that has been said about the Crusaders/Expansion on here but are we not forgetting the one (in my opinion) success of expansion in the SL era? Perpignan? Apart from the geographical problems when they play away from home surely this has been one "franchise" that has been successful?

Div
10th January 2010, 20:03
I agree with everything that has been said about the Crusaders/Expansion on here but are we not forgetting the one (in my opinion) success of expansion in the SL era? Perpignan? Apart from the geographical problems when they play away from home surely this has been one "franchise" that has been successful?



No we are not because for the umpteenth time it is not an expansion area its a RL heartland.

ploughman
10th January 2010, 20:03
I agree with everything that has been said about the Crusaders/Expansion on here but are we not forgetting the one (in my opinion) success of expansion in the SL era? Perpignan? Apart from the geographical problems when they play away from home surely this has been one "franchise" that has been successful?

my opinion also.allthough the sport was allready eastablished there well before they had a super league team.

saintgeorge
10th January 2010, 20:18
Exactly right - just as in South Wales (arguably) and Cumbria, you could say. Before Catalans were allowed into Super League people were always bleating about the need for a South Wales team rather than a French one - and look what has happened. I used to be an "expansionist" but the Crusaders debacle coupled with the decline of the London club and failure of Gateshead has left me very disillusioned.

ploughman
10th January 2010, 20:32
perhaps gateshead was a success.it enabled hull to continue after the 'merger'

The Chair Maker
10th January 2010, 23:29
Don't be daft sunshine. It's been that way since 1895 but it has never yet died as a meaningful sport. As long as people still turn up to watch the game it will continue to survive as well as it has done.

The simple fact is, it will NOT take off outside of the heartlands, today or in the next twenty years so let's strengthen what we have got and don't neglect them for the sake of projects that will simply never work.

The lesser clubs are not being neglected though. Its one of the great myths of the SL era. The RFL are trying to encourage the small clubs to maximise their potential, and are giving them support were they can. For example they negotiated the televising of Championship matches and provide a proportion of SL sky money to these clubs.

The vast majority of the none Sl clubs have always been small, eeking out a living on the backs of the big clubs. Only a few could be described as sleeping giants, Widnes, Halifax and Oldham being the three i can think of. Sadly Oldham through incompetant and some would say corrupt mgmt in the early days of Sl, are nothing more than a pub team these days, with not even a ground in Oldham they can play at.

With that in mind what harm is there in trying to develop the game in new areas. At the very least clubs should be able to get to the level of most championship clubs. Celtic certainly proved they could be successful at that level. The problem came when it came to moving up a level. This is something thats damaged many a so called heartland club. I remember when Doncaster came up in the 1980s. The end result was insolvency. Similar thing happened with Workington after promotion, and also Hunslet.
Look at Sheffield. They were in many respects a success, having grown crowds to average 4k+. However they just didnt have the financial muscle to keep it up, and ended up merging with Huddersfield. A club which itself had gone out of business a few years earlier, prior to multi millionaire Ken Davey saving them.

Im a realist and dont expect instant success, or for a club to take off as you say. The key is merely to initially garner a professional presence in a town or city, and then develop a fan base of a couple of thousand. Anything more is simply living in fantasy land.

With regard to the Catalans they are the exception to the rule, and have exceeded the wildest expectations of even the most ardent expansionist. The Catalans have in many respects shown how to expand SL into new geographical areas. First you need to have an established RL culture in the area. In the case of the French this was mainly amateur with a bit of semi pro thrown in. Then you put in place a well financed club backed by multiple parties.

Far too often RL has merely dropped a professional outfit into an area with no open age amateur or junior RL presence. This club is then more often than not run by one generous benefactor, who quickly discovers that managing professional sport in virgin territory is a financial money pit. They consequently bail out. Leaving the sport with egg on its face as a club goes extinct.

Div
11th January 2010, 09:56
With that in mind what harm is there in trying to develop the game in new areas.




The risk is an embarrassing quick failure. Ask the following :

Nottingham City
Mansfield Marksman
Gateshead Thunder ( MK 1 & 2)
Scarborough Pirates
Kent Invicta
Southend Invicta
Sheffield Eagles ( MK1)
Cardiff Dragons
Celtic Crusaders
Fulham/ London Crusaders/Broncos
Paris SG
Carlisle Border Raiders.

They are the ones off the top of my head. How many times will we try before the penny drops ?

Saint Bert
11th January 2010, 10:09
I know they have had preferential treatment along the way but while not a roaring success London has hardly been an out and out failure!

Div
11th January 2010, 10:15
I know they have had preferential treatment along the way but while not a roaring success London has hardly been an out and out failure!

Although the failure to muster a core 2000 fans after three decades isn't too great.

Saint Bert
11th January 2010, 10:26
To be fair mate Huddersfield that is in the "heartland" up until last season was lucky to pull in 3k...What crowds do Salford get?

eddiewaringsflatcap
11th January 2010, 11:38
Superb post pal.

One thing about Redvee is that we seem to have a collection of posters who can genuinely seperate dreams from reality. Go to other forums and read official publications and the dreamers seem to have the biggest voice.

What these people don't seem to realise is that we are not against expansion, it's just that we can see that their 'fast-track' methods of achieving it simply do not work in a country who's population does not embrace new concepts in the manner of the likes of the USA and Australia.

Remember the big boom of American Football, in this country, in the late 80s/early 90s? The crowds initially flocked in to watch the London Monarchs on the back of this new wave of exictement. However, once the initial excitement was over, the crowds dipped and the whole thing went kaboom. Yes, they can pull in crowds for an NFL game, between two American clubs, but the whole idea of the sport taking off in this country and a decent level of competition being formed would have been wholly unsustainable. The game is not ingrained in the mindset of the masses.

Whether we like it or not, this is a parochial country and traditional values mean a lot to the people who live here. The people of Wrexham don't even have any interest in Rugby Union, it is a solid football area and the people will feel no emotional attachment to our game and to their new team; especially with a name that has no relationship with the town or area as a whole. It feels like a nomadic team briefly popping in for somewhere to stay on a gypsy caravan site and it sounds like it.

Unfortunately, it is beyond the comprehension of the RFL that you cannot just plonk a team in an area without any Rugby League grass roots and make it work. The Celtic Crusaders initially had the right idea, by building up through the lower leagues and building a solid foundation through the schools and at least the South Wales Scorpions means that all that work won't be lost.

However, in true fashion, the RFL did not do what they should have done and showed time and patience. The Crusaders should have been man enough to say they were not ready for the big leap and ask for another three, maybe six, years before submitting their application. As ever, it's straight in at the deep end, with no thought of the long term consequences of putting a team in that is not ready and does not have the support base. It's happened a dozen times before and one wonders just how many times it has to happen before the penny drops that the haste of it all has been a significant reason why the clubs have ultimately failed.

More alarmingly, with the blinkers on, the dream of expansion has become obsessional and it's almost as if they feel that killing off the smaller, traditional clubs, will help rid the game of it's parochial image.

In my book, outsiders will see the game in a more positive light if they see these parochial clubs packing their smaller grounds out than if they see franchise clubs playing in front of smaller crowds in bigger stadiums. I don't care what anyone says, the image portrayed is far better if Leigh play Widnes in front of 7,000 singing fans at the Leigh Sports Village than if 4,000 happy-clappy curious folk watch Birmingham play Newcastle in a 30,000 capacity stadium. It does not make people think that the game is national, it makes people think that the game is a joke because they cannot attract decent crowds and atmospheres. That's just the way the human mind works.

We need to concentrate on getting things right in our own heartlands and then show the rest of the country that we have a great product, we are filling stadiums and that the sport is big and not the small time sport we falsely convey to the country that we are at present.

If expansion does not occur though, does it matter? Rugby League is massive in Sydney and Brisbane and Melbourne have produced a great side but let no-one kid you that the game is national there. In reality, it's only played in a small strip of the country. Perth, Adelaide, Darwin and the likes have no interest. They still get great crowds in the NRL though and the sport still thrives.

There are many sports in this world that are confined to small regions. Cricket may be nationwide but only a dozen countries play it. Gaelic Football is confined to one country (unless you buy into an RFL style propaganda that suggests that Rugby League is alive and well in Serbia). Hurling is more or less solely confined to the southern counties of Ireland. Only three countries in the world have an interest in Baseball. Do these sports waste all their resources on chasing impossible dreams or do they pump all their resources into making what they have got even stronger?

We like it, we support it, if people down south don't get it, then that's their problem. Why does it matter so much?

Thanks - I have always enjoyed your posts on this subject.

There is not much I can add that we have not already covered. I agree strongly though, that there is a desperate need to separate dreams from reality in the RL world. At times some people are akin to Orwell's 1984 - throw the latest failure down the memory hole. Those are the people I truly despise, and who the game would be better off without.

The expansionist fantasies seemed to be fulfilled when Mr Murdoch and SKY came knocking in the mid 90's. Whereas a lot of folk were seduced by the promises of Mo Lindsay and his ilk, I was cynical at the time.

I became even more sceptical when I saw what damage 'Super League' had created in Australia. The destruction of noble values, forced 'marriages' doomed for failure (of which the Northern Eagles was, perhaps, the worst), and shallow razzmataz.

Overnight, what the game stood for was thrown of a cliff culminating in a proud, although admittedly threadbare, team such as Souths being jettisoned in favour of an artificial team in Melbourne, one continually sustained through the channeling of millions off dollars into it's back pockets - sound familiar?

The point of this of course is that such ventures are doomed to fail almost inevitably. They are a double blow when the real supporters are marginalised to sustain such pipe dreams.

I have mentioned in the past that this phenomon isn't confined to Rugby league and it's limited resources.

Take a look at Phoenix Coyotes and their struggles in that ice hockey hot bed that is, er, Arizona. Compare this against how many fans pine for the return of teams such as Hartford, Quebec and Winnipeg - teams that had what new franchises lack, passion.

Div mentioned expansion should equate to a work from the bottom up. It is hard not to agree.

We must add that the game has zero credibility because if its hideous track record in managing itself. When I lived in Swindon, I played cricket for an Oxfordshire village team and came across a guy in a village called Brill wearing a Saints shirt. Why was he wearing that shirt? Was it the RFL and their strategy for spreading the game? No. Was it the product on display? Yes, no doubt.

Every RL supporter is convinced the Rugby League is the greatest game, and that we have a fantastic product. The game is presented in a better light than it has been in its history, I would guess. We need to let the game do the talking and rest will slowly follow.

Like you say, the RFL is so craven for expansion that it looks like a cheap whore. We should look after the passionate and loyal areas that sustain Rugby League and understand that success rarely comes overnight.

I cant understand Chairmaker doubting the fortitude of some of the Championship clubs.

Even a small village like Featherstone has produced some belting players, one of whom represented Saints with distinction in the centre position not so long ago. After all those decades, who have London produced? A decent prop.

Such passionate teams always had what any sports follower craves - atmosphere. I would hazard a guess that Post Office Road has more atmosphere at match day then The Stoop and Brewery field combined. And therein also lies a point yopu touched on, would the likes of Fev etc be more credible with a gate of 7,000 then 2,500 lifeless souls stuck in a 15,000 ground like The Stoop? Maybe.

The Chair Maker
11th January 2010, 11:51
Although the failure to muster a core 2000 fans after three decades isn't too great.

Quins have nearly 2000 season ticket holders.
infact i know that int he past they have had more season ticket holders than Salford.

Granted their gates are poor, but they cant rely on 4000 fans from a "big" club distorting their average gate figures.

As for your earlier post re failed expansion clubs. The key reason is lack of capital due to the clubs being run as one man bands who then lose interest or run out of money and pull out.

The only reason some of the so called heartland clubs are still here is because someone else has rescued them from oblivion.
Examples of heartland clubs that i know nearly went belly before being saved by a new investor, or did go belly up are as follows:-

St.helens
Wigan
Bradford
Hull
Hull KR
Leigh
Widnes
Oldham
Workington
Keighley
Wakefield
etc etc etc

Div
11th January 2010, 12:42
Quins have nearly 2000 season ticket holders.




It must be that the season ticket holders are the only ones to turn up then ? There must be minimal walk up on match day.

The Chair Maker
11th January 2010, 12:51
I cant understand Chairmaker doubting the fortitude of some of the Championship clubs.

Even a small village like Featherstone has produced some belting players, one of whom represented Saints with distinction in the centre position not so long ago. After all those decades, who have London produced? A decent prop.

Such passionate teams always had what any sports follower craves - atmosphere. I would hazard a guess that Post Office Road has more atmosphere at match day then The Stoop and Brewery field combined. And therein also lies a point yopu touched on, would the likes of Fev etc be more credible with a gate of 7,000 then 2,500 lifeless souls stuck in a 15,000 ground like The Stoop? Maybe.

Im not doubting the fortitude of such clubs. However many "traditionalists" have an over inflated view of the size and importance of most of these clubs.
Many are actually smaller in terms of income than the top amateur clubs these days, and although many make an attempt at community development, some just exist and take their handouts from the RFL.

For me its about getting things in perspective, from all sides be it flatcappers or expansionazis. Traditionalists need to acknowledge the game needs to grow, and expansionists need to realise they need to take a long term structured view rathere than cobling a club together and crossing ones fingers.

Ive always felt development should start at the bottom eg junior level in schools followed with the formation of junior amatur clubs. As time progresses open age clubs are formed. Then following that the RFL should look to develop a community professional club, that would play in the lower leagues and develops a fan base. If the club finds a strong interest in the sport in the area, it can then look to apply for a SL franchise. If doing so the club should ensure that it has a number of financial backers, and these should put bonds upfront to show they are not fly by nights.

FWIW the above should also apply to existing championship clubs.

Div
11th January 2010, 12:57
It must be that the season ticket holders are the only ones to turn up then ? There must be minimal walk up on match day.



On checking the Quins site Crowds agains Catalan ( assuming negligible away support was 2539 and Celtic 2245.

Other than that crowds were between 3200-3900. Only 2 attendances topped the 4000 barrier being Leeds 4378 and Saints 4258.

Div
11th January 2010, 13:01
Ive always felt development should start at the bottom eg junior level in schools followed with the formation of junior amatur clubs. As time progresses open age clubs are formed. Then following that the RFL should look to develop a community professional club, that would play in the lower leagues and develops a fan base. If the club finds a strong interest in the sport in the area, it can then look to apply for a SL franchise. If doing so the club should ensure that it has a number of financial backers, and these should put bonds upfront to show they are not fly by nights.

FWIW the above should also apply to existing championship clubs.




So in other words you generally agree with the rest of us.

I reckon to get the above in place you could be looking at literally DECADES from a cold start.

I think the use of language like ' flapcappers' in a total nonsense. What is the barrier to strengthening areas where the game does have some history and a foothold in addition to ( see it doesnt have to be an either/or situation) seeking to develop grass roots in fledgling areas ?

The RFL seemes to think staging a couple of 'on the road' games = grass roots development at which point they can drop in a franchise Super League club and then they seem amazed when it falls flat on its ar5e.

DD
11th January 2010, 13:40
It must be that the season ticket holders are the only ones to turn up then ? There must be minimal walk up on match day.

Wasn't I with you when one esteemed member of our club informed us that they had less than 100 spectators pay on the day for one game this season?

The alarming thing for Harlequins is that support is steadily decreasing rather than increasing.

Whilst the RFL cannot be blamed for this botch job, the marriage with the Harlequins was never going to be a happy one. It's alienated any support they may have had from non-Harlequins supporting Union clubs in London and The Stoop is hardly the easiest place in the city to get to.

Div
11th January 2010, 22:17
To be fair mate Huddersfield that is in the "heartland" up until last season was lucky to pull in 3k...What crowds do Salford get?


I think Hudds was pretty respectable last year, around 8000 ?

Agree on Salford,again they won a franchise though.As soon as they got it the new ground suspiciously fell through too.

The Chair Maker
11th January 2010, 22:42
So in other words you generally agree with the rest of us.

I reckon to get the above in place you could be looking at literally DECADES from a cold start.

.

I think you will find that when you get down to the nitty gritty all fans are more in agreement than against. Its just that some people take a more negative pessimistic view of expansion, and others a more positive view.
Ask those two groups of people how to expand the game and you will get very similar answers though.

I do also think it does take decades to truly develop a sport in a new area. A sport isnt truly established until you have Father and Son or Mother and Daughter, interested or involved in the sport.
This is why when you look at London now, the number of junior teams is snowballing. I would imagine part of this is down to the first group of kids who were exposed to RL 20+ years ago, have now grown up, become parents and have got their kids involved in playing the game.

Hopefully the same thing can happen in Wales. Hindsight is a wonderfull thing, but looking back, Celtic should probably have spent a minimum of 5-10 years in the Championship developing a hardcore fan base, and further entrenching the game in their area. Im keeping my fingers crossed that the new South Wales Scorpions club will set itself more realistic and achievable goals and become a community based club.

Sausalito
11th January 2010, 22:45
On gates, considering what we have done, we don't stand at the top of the tree. It's been a poor effort considering the size of the town.
I think we would have a nucleus of 6 to 6,500 stalwarts. If we had a poor season.

bazzac666
12th January 2010, 06:57
On gates, considering what we have done, we don't stand at the top of the tree. It's been a poor effort considering the size of the town.
I think we would have a nucleus of 6 to 6,500 stalwarts. If we had a poor season.

Let's hope the new stadium helps us in the same way it's done with warrington, who had s ignificant increase in support when they moved to the new stadium.

eddiewaringsflatcap
12th January 2010, 10:24
People are very picky about standing in a shithole these days. The ground is stuck in a by-gone era, and people won't accept that, especially if they are a 'floating fan.'

The queues outside the womans toilets are pathetic - what family is going to want to attend a game when it takes all of the half time interval for the mother to visit the bogs. That notwithstanding the gents, which are like a scene from Ypres.

Add to the fact that we are invariably on SKY, and it is a difficult situation for Saints. We need to increase our gates, but until we get the new staidum we are screwed.

Billinge Lump
12th January 2010, 12:06
I think Hudds was pretty respectable last year, around 8000 ?

Agree on Salford,again they won a franchise though.As soon as they got it the new ground suspiciously fell through too.

That's from practically giving season tickets away though.

DD
12th January 2010, 12:21
I Hindsight is a wonderfull thing, but looking back, Celtic should probably have spent a minimum of 5-10 years in the Championship developing a hardcore fan base, and further entrenching the game in their area.

Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing and most of us around here had it but no-one at the RFL did.

It didn't need a level of hindsight on a level of Nostradamus to work out just what was going to happen if the Crusaders were fast tracked in to Super League for 2009.

It may be interesting to note though, despite the failure of the club, the Crusaders posted a higher average attendance than Harlequins did. A very sad indicment on the London club indeed.

Div
12th January 2010, 13:07
Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing and most of us around here had it but no-one at the RFL did.

It didn't need a level of hindsight on a level of Nostradamus to work out just what was going to happen if the Crusaders were fast tracked in to Super League for 2009.



Hindsight ? Lets be honest anyone with a modicum of foresight would have seen what the result would be.

Div
12th January 2010, 13:09
That's from practically giving season tickets away though.

Think they were about £100, big discount certainly ? Interesting to see how the hold up in 2010. They do have a reasonably decent team to follow now.

Billinge Lump
12th January 2010, 15:47
Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing and most of us around here had it but no-one at the RFL did.

It didn't need a level of hindsight on a level of Nostradamus to work out just what was going to happen if the Crusaders were fast tracked in to Super League for 2009.

It may be interesting to note though, despite the failure of the club, the Crusaders posted a higher average attendance than Harlequins did. A very sad indicment on the London club indeed.

Although I am an 'expansionist', you could see that Celtic could quite easily turn into another PSG, which they did.

The Chair is correct in the way he thinks it should be done, it should start from the bottom and work upwards, rather than the other way round. A process that has now failed twice. Div is also correct in that it takes decades to work. Some would say that clubs in the 'heartlands' have had a century to get it to work and in the main are just about surviving, why does anyone expect a new pro club to work in years? Especially one that has to build up the amateur scene around it (something London has done very well).

For those wanting to shore up the heartlands, what exactly would you do? Pour more money into clubs that aren't working, should Salford get more money from the RFL than we do? Which of the Cumbrian clubs would you pile money into? A joint Cumbrian club would not work, no one would go and watch them.

warringtonsaint
12th January 2010, 16:07
Some really excellent reasoned debate in this thread - both for and against expansion.

Plus two classic quotes - first from eddiewaring: "Like you say, the RFL is so craven for expansion that it looks like a cheap whore." and then a cracker from Div too: "Hindsight ? Lets be honest anyone with a modicum of foresight would have seen what the result would be."

Top stuff!

DD
12th January 2010, 17:23
Hindsight ? Lets be honest anyone with a modicum of foresight would have seen what the result would be.

That's what I meant. ;)

Div
12th January 2010, 19:40
That's what I meant. ;)

I know ;)

bazzac666
13th January 2010, 04:38
For those wanting to shore up the heartlands, what exactly would you do? Pour more money into clubs that aren't working, should Salford get more money from the RFL than we do? Which of the Cumbrian clubs would you pile money into? A joint Cumbrian club would not work, no one would go and watch them.

I don't think anyone believe's the RFL should be pumping money into anyone one club but a long term plan could be put in place now for say 8-10 years in the future to start at the grass roots and work the way up into a super league club.

As for a Cumbrian club, it wouldn't surprise me if Barrow were a candidate for one of the next franchises.

Div
13th January 2010, 08:46
For those wanting to shore up the heartlands, what exactly would you do? Pour more money into clubs that aren't working, should Salford get more money from the RFL than we do? Which of the Cumbrian clubs would you pile money into? A joint Cumbrian club would not work, no one would go and watch them.



Is it necessarily a ' money' thing though ?

For me the one positive thing we could do is give them a lifeline....promotion. I think the minute we stopped promotion and relegation of at least one club we snatched the dream away from those clubs in the lower leagues who aspired to get to the elite level.

How difficult must it be to promote and market and get sponsorship for and get interest from new supporters when there is no reward for being champions of your division other than lifting a pot ?

Billinge Lump
13th January 2010, 20:19
I don't think anyone believe's the RFL should be pumping money into anyone one club but a long term plan could be put in place now for say 8-10 years in the future to start at the grass roots and work the way up into a super league club.

Who for? A club in the heartlands? They've already had a hundred years and should be doing this kind of thing themselves.


As for a Cumbrian club, it wouldn't surprise me if Barrow were a candidate for one of the next franchises.

I hope they will because it will have to be a current Cumbrian club that does it if it is to work.

Billinge Lump
13th January 2010, 20:25
Is it necessarily a ' money' thing though ?

For me the one positive thing we could do is give them a lifeline....promotion. I think the minute we stopped promotion and relegation of at least one club we snatched the dream away from those clubs in the lower leagues who aspired to get to the elite level.

How difficult must it be to promote and market and get sponsorship for and get interest from new supporters when there is no reward for being champions of your division other than lifting a pot ?

But they'd only be able to market and get sponsorship for the division they were in anyway, no one would sponsor them more for if promotion was involved. I agree it may well effect crowds, but if the rugby is good enough, will people stop going just because they can't go up?

They can get promoted every three years. Whilst it does remove the chance of a yearly promotion, the system does give them a defined timetable and criteria to get up. It also gives them the chance to build once they are in SL, rather than having to sign a shed load of **** poor Aussies in an attempt to keep themselves up. They also don't have the problem that Leigh did in that last year of starting their recruitment months after every other SL club did and being left with the dregs. There was no real chance they were going to stay up that year.

bazzac666
14th January 2010, 04:16
Who for? A club in the heartlands? They've already had a hundred years and should be doing this kind of thing themselves.

More of a general expansion idea than a specific heartland plan.

It's interesting to note that even heartland clubs have failed not just the expansion one's. Like those previously mentioned, however a number have been saved from administration by last minute takeovers or chairmen pumping in more cash so maybe this should also be looked at for everyclub not just expansion clubs.

bazzac666
14th January 2010, 04:20
It also gives them the chance to build once they are in SL, rather than having to sign a shed load of **** poor Aussies in an attempt to keep themselves up. They also don't have the problem that Leigh did in that last year of starting their recruitment months after every other SL club did and being left with the dregs. There was no real chance they were going to stay up that year.

When will the new franchises be announced? You'd hope that this would help in signing quality rather any available player but it does depend on when the clubs find out they are in the next set of franchises.

But as you say it couldn't be worse for the promoted clubs.

Gray77
14th January 2010, 09:57
They can get promoted every three years. Whilst it does remove the chance of a yearly promotion, the system does give them a defined timetable and criteria to get up.

It also means that said teams may lose good up and coming youngsters who dont want to play outside of the top flight indefinitely with only the chance that their team will be chosen for promotion in the years ahead.

A team could potentially have two great years, lose a load of players that they can no longer afford and who have attracted Super League clubs attention then have a dreadful third year and be overlooked for promotion in year 3. When in reality that club would have gone up in Year 1 and kept its players.

There are pro's and cons in this as always, but the excitement of a promotion campaign is what makes life outside the top flight exciting. Without it you end up with even the succesful clubs treading water relying on off field factors to impress the league that they should be the next club up for franchising.

DD
14th January 2010, 11:18
Franchises, business plans, no time to build up squads, too much fear etc.

All dreadful American/Australiaisms that have been introduced to this country and the brainwashed imbeciles that wash this sport have been seduced by it and are utterly convinced that it is the answer to all our games ills and the reason it's the answer - because Australia are better than us and that is what they do. Utter crap!

Of course, it can help stabilise a club but there is no evidence that it will benefit the game as a whole. It may just be that they are better than us at grass roots level and breed better players.

What they are trying to do is take away the very essence of fair play and true sporting tradition. In this country and 250 out of the 252 others in the world, sport is about any team being able to dream about being at the top, small clubs can have that dream. Automatic promotion and relegation is the very core foundation of team sport. We try and take that away just because the Australians have never had it that way.

Let me tell you now, the only reason they have not shut up shop completely and left us with a three year possibility for the richer, bigger, lower league clubs is because of the public backlash. If they'd had their way, those clubs would have been cast adrift for ever and left to fend for themselves.

Gray77
14th January 2010, 13:31
All dreadful American/Australiaisms that have been introduced to this country and the brainwashed imbeciles that wash this sport have been seduced by it and are utterly convinced that it is the answer to all our games ills and the reason it's the answer - because Australia are better than us and that is what they do. Utter crap!

That's only partly true though Dave. I think we can all see the reasoning behind the franchising system in terms of the RFL wanting its Super League clubs to be long-term succesful entities financially, but as with many things they've gone about it the wrong way.

Not many teams came up into Super League and did much other than get tonked every week and then went back down, and of course the same is now true for the likes of the Crusaders (without the relegation) but I can see the logic behind the RFL wanting all teams in Super League to be competitive. But its failed.

The Australians and Americans just have a different sporting culture, its not necessarily a worse one than we have. The Americans have a thriving sporting culture underneath the professional leagues, in terms of minor league baseball and college football for example whereby smaller teams can (and do) beat the big boys and succeed against the odds. Some high-school football teams in the US get bigger crowds than Saints and college football crowds regularly top 80k in many areas.

The salary cap idea is one most of us applaud and that came from the American models such as the NFL whereby any team in that league can win the Superbowl, and the same can be said for the NRL whereby many different teams can win the Grand Final. Compare that to our league whereby we have a salary cap and an even playing field yet the same two teams have been in the last 3 GF's.

We just have a different sporting culture that is inherently suspicious of such things as franchising, play-offs and no relegation etc. Its different but neither has proven to be better or worse than the other IMO.

Noel Cleal
14th January 2010, 13:50
Regardless of what you say about the Crusaders the RFL got an increase on the sky money presumably because they promised that the game would be run better and have a more geographical spread. Surely to safeguard this money the RFL should have taken over the Crusaders and run them in the south of Wales. It would have surely cost less money to run them than the increase in television money they have recieved.

I don't see anyone saying that having a Super league team in Hull is a waste of time after KR announce they are losing more money than the Crusaders. All start up businesses are run at a loss.

I think that having a super league team in Wrexham is a good idea. It is an area that rugby league can grow. Unfortunately it seems to have been done as a last resort and will probably be done half arsed and fail. It will then be used as a reason never to have a team in the region again for the rest of eternity (yet Widnes going bust every five years is ignored).

The bottom line is that Leigh and Widnes (the teams that are supposed to have been hardly done to) add nothing to a competition. In fact when Leigh were last in the competition they lowered the standard. At least the crusaders were competitive in most of their matches. Having small town/village teams in Super league is only going to lead to the death of the sport.

eddiewaringsflatcap
14th January 2010, 14:14
Regardless of what you say about the Crusaders the RFL got an increase on the sky money presumably because they promised that the game would be run better and have a more geographical spread. Surely to safeguard this money the RFL should have taken over the Crusaders and run them in the south of Wales. It would have surely cost less money to run them than the increase in television money they have recieved.

Because:

A) It would be a massive conflict of interest/s.o.d
leading to
B) The credibility of the RFL being reduced to somewhere beneath the floorboards
and
C) The RFL are inept at most forms of business management, anyway

It's funny that you mention money, because I seem to recall the RFL pilling millions into a certain London club not so long ago.


I don't see anyone saying that having a Super league team in Hull is a waste of time after KR announce they are losing more money than the Crusaders. All start up businesses are run at a loss.

Maybe that is because Hull have a presence and a credibility in their region. Certainly in times of troubles they have been able to bounce back effectively. Look at the support of local business and media they garner.

Such clubs have released generations of Rugby talent - this of course related to the powerful amateur teams in the area.

Just compare this to what happens at the latest fantasy club when the going gets tough....


I think that having a super league team in Wrexham is a good idea. It is an area that rugby league can grow. Unfortunately it seems to have been done as a last resort and will probably be done half arsed and fail. It will then be used as a reason never to have a team in the region again for the rest of eternity (yet Widnes going bust every five years is ignored).


I think having a team in Kings Lynn and Haverfordwest is a good idea. Maybe we can chuck one in Basingstoke as well.


The bottom line is that Leigh and Widnes (the teams that are supposed to have been hardly done to) add nothing to a competition. In fact when Leigh were last in the competition they lowered the standard. At least the crusaders were competitive in most of their matches. Having small town/village teams in Super league is only going to lead to the death of the sport.

The Crusaders had more support and time from the RFL than either of those clubs did. In fact, I recall Widnes being relegated to accomodate Les Catalans finishing in a relegation spot at the time so I am struggling to comprehend how you can assert they 'added nothing.' Certainly the gates at KR benefitted their inclusion in the top tier which you cannot say about Celticc, sorry Wrexham, Crusaders

DD
14th January 2010, 19:44
That's only partly true though Dave. I think we can all see the reasoning behind the franchising system in terms of the RFL wanting its Super League clubs to be long-term succesful entities financially, but as with many things they've gone about it the wrong way.

Not many teams came up into Super League and did much other than get tonked every week and then went back down, and of course the same is now true for the likes of the Crusaders (without the relegation) but I can see the logic behind the RFL wanting all teams in Super League to be competitive. But its failed.

The Australians and Americans just have a different sporting culture, its not necessarily a worse one than we have. The Americans have a thriving sporting culture underneath the professional leagues, in terms of minor league baseball and college football for example whereby smaller teams can (and do) beat the big boys and succeed against the odds. Some high-school football teams in the US get bigger crowds than Saints and college football crowds regularly top 80k in many areas.

The salary cap idea is one most of us applaud and that came from the American models such as the NFL whereby any team in that league can win the Superbowl, and the same can be said for the NRL whereby many different teams can win the Grand Final. Compare that to our league whereby we have a salary cap and an even playing field yet the same two teams have been in the last 3 GF's.

We just have a different sporting culture that is inherently suspicious of such things as franchising, play-offs and no relegation etc. Its different but neither has proven to be better or worse than the other IMO.

I'll give you the salary cap but the rest may give us benefits in some directions but be detrimental in others.

The question always boils down to whether the international game is more important than the clubs who pay the players wages.

I am largely of the opinion (and I appreciate I will be shouted down here) that the international game is not as important as is made out. We have to be honest here, this is not like football, the international game comprises three teams and two half teams. It's a bit of a joke so I'm not sure why all our club game has to be tailored to the slight possibility that it might, one day in a couple of decades, see us beat Australia in a meaningful encounter.

The lack of crowds at international fixtures is probably not due to the fact we can't beat them in a series, we couldn't in the 1980s and 1990s but the crowds still went, it's probably got lots to do with many fans becoming disenchanted with the Rugby League as a whole. The fans of Leigh, Featherstone, Halifax etc etc no longer feel they part of the same family as we all once did. There is Super League and the rest are rubbing rags who, providing they demonstrate suitable financial muscle and manage to somehow afford to provide decent stadia, may well be allowed to mingle in the presence of the rich one day in future.

A regular promotion and relegation system allowed the poor clubs to live the dream and at least play with the big boys now and again and it gave everyone a sense of purpose, a dream that one day, they could be lifting major trophies. Those dreams have gone forever for all but a few as things stand.

I don't like the fact that the game has dramatically altered and I am 99% sure it's all to do with the obsession of a meaningful international game than for the good of the lifeblood of the game, i.e. the clubs and the supporters.

As for promotion and relegation clubs and how they fared:-

1996 - Salford - Stayed up comfortably
1997 - Hull - Stayed up comfortably
1997 - Huddersfield - Stayed up by default (finished bottom but no relegation)
1998 - Wakefield - Stayed up comfortably
2001 - Widnes - Stayed up comfortably
2002 - Huddersfield - Stayed up comfortably
2003 - Salford - Stayed up comfortably
2004 - Leigh - Relegated
2005 - Castleford - Relegated by default (Catalans finished below them)
2006 - Hull KR - Stayed up comfortably
2007 - Castleford - Stayed up by default.

It's not quite the damning statistic it's made out to be.

The rate of those promoted in finishing in supposed relegation positions is 2/11.

The rate of 'voted in' teams finishing in supposed relegation positions is 2/3 (Catalans and Celtic).

Gray77
14th January 2010, 20:43
As for promotion and relegation clubs and how they fared:-

1996 - Salford - Stayed up comfortably
1997 - Hull - Stayed up comfortably
1997 - Huddersfield - Stayed up by default (finished bottom but no relegation)
1998 - Wakefield - Stayed up comfortably
2001 - Widnes - Stayed up comfortably
2002 - Huddersfield - Stayed up comfortably
2003 - Salford - Stayed up comfortably
2004 - Leigh - Relegated
2005 - Castleford - Relegated by default (Catalans finished below them)
2006 - Hull KR - Stayed up comfortably
2007 - Castleford - Stayed up by default.

It's not quite the damning statistic it's made out to be.

The rate of those promoted in finishing in supposed relegation positions is 2/11.

The rate of 'voted in' teams finishing in supposed relegation positions is 2/3 (Catalans and Celtic).

I knew I should have checked that before I typed it! ;)
So, I am completely wrong on that score but I'm actually happy about that. I would fully support the re-introduction of promotion/relegation as I see the barriers between Super League and the rest as an artificial one which does nothing but hold those outside the top flight down without any real justification. All I was alluding to was that I could see the basic logic in the RFL's policy, but unfortunately they've messed it up and the expansion of the play-off system further harms the integrity and vitality of the league.

Div
14th January 2010, 23:16
.

The bottom line is that Leigh and Widnes (the teams that are supposed to have been hardly done to) add nothing to a competition. In fact when Leigh were last in the competition they lowered the standard. At least the crusaders were competitive in most of their matches. Having small town/village teams in Super league is only going to lead to the death of the sport.


They bring some away support for starters. Saints get virtually zero income from the likes of Quins and Celtic.

DD
14th January 2010, 23:54
They bring some away support for starters. Saints get virtually zero income from the likes of Quins and Celtic.

And, of course, playing in front of 2-3,000 at Celtic and Quins (2,000 of which are away support or freebies) make the sport look so much better than having significantly more partisan fans at Fev and Leigh. :???:

I'm not bothered about income but I am bothered about the way the game is perceived.

If anyone truly believes that 2,000 by-standers at The Stoop gives the game better Kudos than 4,000 passionate fans in a smaller traditional ground than they are wrong.

If anyone thinks that a team in Wrexham will add more to the competition than one in Widnes then I really do despair. That is not realism, it's pure unadulterated fantasy. Both towns are shit holes in nationwide terms but one has a Rugby League steeped history and support base whereas one is about as likely to take off as a team in Saffron Walden. Can we please get out of Cloud Cuckoo Land, Mr Cleal, and start dealing with the real world? We are not going to get anywhere in this world if we start putting our money on 1% possibilities instead of 50% ones.

Rugby League is a Northern game, in this country, and always will be. Let them think it's a game that is vastly popular in part of the country rather than one that is a bit of a Mickey Mouse sport in all of it.

Expansion is not the be all and end all. Ask Fern Britton! ;)

Div
15th January 2010, 08:17
. Both towns are shit holes in nationwide terms


Apologies to Wrexham Saint ( !! :D ) but have you ever been there ?!! It ' traditional RL territory' in that sense at least.

DD
15th January 2010, 12:56
Apologies to Wrexham Saint ( !! :D ) but have you ever been there ?!! It ' traditional RL territory' in that sense at least.

Believe it or not, I was involved in a College Land Surveying Competition at the college next door to the ground in 1989. :D

Div
15th January 2010, 13:22
Believe it or not, I was involved in a College Land Surveying Competition at the college next door to the ground in 1989. :D

We played Rugby League at our school. ;)

wrexhamsaint
20th January 2010, 08:43
Apologies accepted, Div, but not strictly necessary (I'm an incomer - born in Chancery Lane!). It's not paradise, here: in fact feels very like St Helens sometimes, but surrounded by some lovely country in which I live.

I'm not an expansionist for its own sake and think the Crusaders experiment was a huge error (as I've posted elsewhere). However I'm surprised at the number of RL supporters who seem to want the Wrexham Crusaders to fail: whether on an I Told You So basis or in order that a trad non-SL club can slip into the gap. I don't want anything RL-related in the UK to fail because of the knowing smirks it will provoke in the Union-loving press. From here, at least for the time being, it looks like Wrexham is interested in having top level sport played in the town. That may fade, but there is a chance that it will settle into a reasonable core of support. Sceptical though I am, I'll support it and attend the matches I can (Saints/work permitting). Also, I get to see Saints on a Sunday without using the car - selfish I know but it's something.

E Saint
26th January 2010, 22:31
http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/01/26/RUGBYL_Super_Potter.html

According to the very last paragraph on this article the 3 clubs most under threat of losing their franchises are Wakefield, Salford and Castleford due to their current situation in terms of new stadiums.

If the do go they'll probably be replaced with Norwich, Portsmouth and Glasgow :rolleyes:

Saint Simon
27th January 2010, 08:00
It has been reported on RLfans that the Crusaders have sold 1600 season tickets (more than the football club)so far and the Leeds game is virtually sold out. Not bad going in 2-3 months! I wonder how this compares to Quins and Salford? Pretty well i imagine

Div
27th January 2010, 08:24
It has been reported on RLfans that the Crusaders have sold 1600 season tickets (more than the football club)so far and the Leeds game is virtually sold out. Not bad going in 2-3 months! I wonder how this compares to Quins and Salford? Pretty well i imagine


I wouldn't base anything on the opening game. Didn't PSG pull in 17,000 for their first game against Sheffield ?

Saint Simon
27th January 2010, 08:29
I wouldn't base anything on the opening game. Didn't PSG pull in 17,000 for their first game against Sheffield ?

yup, but the season tickets are more impressive

E Saint
27th January 2010, 09:18
It has been reported on RLfans that the Crusaders have sold 1600 season tickets (more than the football club)so far and the Leeds game is virtually sold out. Not bad going in 2-3 months! I wonder how this compares to Quins and Salford? Pretty well i imagine

Sold or given away?

wrexhamsaint
27th January 2010, 10:27
Sold or given away?

Season tickets sold, not given away (though they're a reasonable deal including family season tickets at a good price).

There really seems to be a local buzz about this. I've just started cricket indoor nets (too old for league!) and I tend to wear my Saints shirt. I'm amazed how many people have said to me "Are you going on Friday? I'll be there...etc." Again, I'm sceptical about how sustained it'll be, and the proof of the pudding will come when the likes of Salford come to town and Crusaders are struggling for a win.

However I'm pretty confident that the bigger clubs will attract a decent crowd. Beyond that, who knows? For all other posters' distaste at how the Crusaders got here (which I share, as posted elsewhere) it's a done deal now, so I, as a fan of the sport as well as my beloved Saints, will give it my full support.

Gray77
27th January 2010, 11:03
Very convenient for them that they get to play Leeds at home first out, I suppose that is just the luck of the draw eh! ;)

They should get a big crowd for that one if it is to be any kind of success, and I suppose Noble has attracted a few to think that maybe they will be a team that could do something (however doubtful that may be in reality) but my mind wanders forward to when the likes of Quins, Catalans and Wakefield are in town and the crowds dwindle.

For the sake of the sport Sky should steer clear of that place for anything other than the games vs Leeds, Saints and Wigan. People need to get into the culture of going to the games there and TV games against lower opposition will deter them and make the 'product' look embarrassing if crowds dip.

oldun
29th January 2010, 23:19
Mr Sinfield would prefer to play at Whithaven than Wrexham according to this interview
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby/2010/01/29/welsh-wails-115875-22003160/

DD
30th January 2010, 00:35
No matter what I have said on the subject and no matter how low the crowds dip from here, you have to congratulate everyone at the Crusaders club and the people of Wrexham and the surrounding areas on a fabulous 10,000+ crowd tonight.

I know PSG and such like have done the same on their opening games before but it's a darned sight more than the Crusaders got for their opening Super League game in Bridgend last year.

How many Leeds fans were there? 1,000 maybe?. 9,000+ home fans is a great effort, it's just a shame that the score ran away from them in the end because they deserved better.

For the sake of the game, let's hope many of those fans come back to the Racecourse Ground and prove us all wrong.

Buddy
30th January 2010, 08:44
No matter what I have said on the subject and no matter how low the crowds dip from here, you have to congratulate everyone at the Crusaders club and the people of Wrexham and the surrounding areas on a fabulous 10,000+ crowd tonight.

I know PSG and such like have done the same on their opening games before but it's a darned sight more than the Crusaders got for their opening Super League game in Bridgend last year.

How many Leeds fans were there? 1,000 maybe?. 9,000+ home fans is a great effort, it's just a shame that the score ran away from them in the end because they deserved better.

For the sake of the game, let's hope many of those fans come back to the Racecourse Ground and prove us all wrong.

Yep I agree, congratulations to the club, lets hope we are proved wrong

Div
30th January 2010, 09:35
No matter what I have said on the subject and no matter how low the crowds dip from here, you have to congratulate everyone at the Crusaders club and the people of Wrexham and the surrounding areas on a fabulous 10,000+ crowd tonight.

I know PSG and such like have done the same on their opening games before but it's a darned sight more than the Crusaders got for their opening Super League game in Bridgend last year.

How many Leeds fans were there? 1,000 maybe?. 9,000+ home fans is a great effort, it's just a shame that the score ran away from them in the end because they deserved better.

For the sake of the game, let's hope many of those fans come back to the Racecourse Ground and prove us all wrong.


Totally agree with the sentiment Dave but we have seen it all before. Hope I am wrong but the novelty will wear off.

welshsaint
30th January 2010, 10:07
And, of course, playing in front of 2-3,000 at Celtic and Quins (2,000 of which are away support or freebies) make the sport look so much better than having significantly more partisan fans at Fev and Leigh. :???:

I'm not bothered about income but I am bothered about the way the game is perceived.

If anyone truly believes that 2,000 by-standers at The Stoop gives the game better Kudos than 4,000 passionate fans in a smaller traditional ground than they are wrong.

If anyone thinks that a team in Wrexham will add more to the competition than one in Widnes then I really do despair. That is not realism, it's pure unadulterated fantasy. Both towns are shit holes in nationwide terms but one has a Rugby League steeped history and support base whereas one is about as likely to take off as a team in Saffron Walden. Can we please get out of Cloud Cuckoo Land, Mr Cleal, and start dealing with the real world? We are not going to get anywhere in this world if we start putting our money on 1% possibilities instead of 50% ones.

Rugby League is a Northern game, in this country, and always will be. Let them think it's a game that is vastly popular in part of the country rather than one that is a bit of a Mickey Mouse sport in all of it.

Expansion is not the be all and end all. Ask Fern Britton! ;)

I am amazed at some attitudes to Celtic last night. They open the season playing the champions a couple of weeks before the world club challenge, at a new ground with invitations a plenty and get about 10400. Any other club bringing in such a low number for such a prestigious event would be unhappy about the low response.
Celtic Loose 6- 34. Any other team loosing by this margin would consider themselves well and truly thumped. BN states that the Crusaders should be proud of what they achieved!!
My point is that, in order to attract new speccies to the game and keep the ones we've got, we should be careful how the game is percieved. After last night it would appear to be politically biased, in that it is more important to be seen in the right place with the right coach at the right ground than having teams in the right place for the right reason. Fev/Fax/Widnes, whoever you will, have a history of RL support that will ride the present storms.
Will Crusaders? I don't care any more, it's just smoke and mirrors and the sooner it stops the happier I shall be.

E S Thetic
30th January 2010, 11:08
I agree, Look.....Id love to see the game grow in this part of the world, but IT WILL NEVER. God knows, we have tried. They prefer the kick and clap brigade. Stuff em, the crowds will be a laugh. 600 if theyre lucky. This just gives the Union boys a laugh when they read the attendances.

Get Widnes in.......Im sick of the Welsh farce.

Considering the full-house in Wrexham last night, I take it you aren't entering a team in the Fantasy League this year; or thinking of putting money on any of the 'predictions' you have made, mate.

The masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools...

...and another thing: care to say how WE have TRIED with expansion? If, by 'tried', you mean sat on the sidelines and poured the vitriol of ill-informed (or otherwise) opinion into the debate, then you are 100% right...

They say RL is all about opinions, or at least the 'commentators, do. But isn't it time we had some reason in the game?

The Chair Maker
30th January 2010, 12:02
Apart from the gate which was excellent. I thought the biggest thing was to hear the fans chanting. Especially "Wales, Wales". I dont recall the Celtic crusaders ever chanting in such a way.

It may therefore be that the North Welsh outpost is able to tap into a more nationalistic fervour up north, and develop a fan base on the coat tails of that.

Hopefully Crusaders can build on that match, and get a number of results against the middling teams which will help them carry a core fan base along.
They certainly looked well organised, but lacking in pace.

What was also encouraging was that the crowd was overwhelmingly Welsh. Leeds only sold 700 tickets (a shocking turnout) out of their allocation, So something like 9500 were from the north wales area.

Now i suspect that when the likes of Warrington, Wigan and Saints travel west, the traveling support will be far greater.
If they have nearly 2k season ticket holders, then even if playing poor, they should be able to draw a minimum of 4k for the visit of the traditional Lancs teams. This in itself would be an improvement on the original celtic variant of the club.

Im hoping RL may have accidentally stumbled into the right place with the crusaders enforced move North. It may also point to the right way to expand in future. Namely gradual steps south or north, rather than huge leaps into hostile territory.

DD
30th January 2010, 13:44
I am amazed at some attitudes to Celtic last night. They open the season playing the champions a couple of weeks before the world club challenge, at a new ground with invitations a plenty and get about 10400. Any other club bringing in such a low number for such a prestigious event would be unhappy about the low response.
Celtic Loose 6- 34. Any other team loosing by this margin would consider themselves well and truly thumped. BN states that the Crusaders should be proud of what they achieved!!
My point is that, in order to attract new speccies to the game and keep the ones we've got, we should be careful how the game is percieved. After last night it would appear to be politically biased, in that it is more important to be seen in the right place with the right coach at the right ground than having teams in the right place for the right reason. Fev/Fax/Widnes, whoever you will, have a history of RL support that will ride the present storms.
Will Crusaders? I don't care any more, it's just smoke and mirrors and the sooner it stops the happier I shall be.

Look, we've all disagreed with the Crusaders place in Super League but stop acting like a stroppy teenager and give credit where credit is due.

10,000+ is a crowd that the quite a few Super League clubs would not have got for such a game and one that is significantly more than they would have pulled in at Bridgend, if last year's crowds were anything to go by.

As for the performance, they did themselves proud for 65 minutes before Leeds superior class told. The score was a very unfair reflection on the effort they put in.

And it's 'lose' not 'loose'. I'd have been strung up for that at the age of 4 but half the country is doing it now. It's no wonder the country is going to the dogs. ;)

Wanderer
30th January 2010, 14:53
Look, we've all disagreed with the Crusaders place in Super League
Um, no we haven't!


As for the performance, they did themselves proud for 65 minutes before Leeds superior class told.
Um, not really. Two tries weren't actually tries. Aside from that, what told was Leeds' superior fitness. I don't think Leeds looked especially classy last night. I think the Crusaders looked a whole lot better than I was expecting. If Nobby can get a couple of players with pace in the squad - I know he hasn't finished recruiting yet - then that would be good. Also, hopefully as the season continues they will all be able to get up to speed and build on what looks to be a competitive side, which actually has some Welsh players in it already.

Div
30th January 2010, 15:58
Um, no we haven't!


Um, not really. Two tries weren't actually tries. Aside from that, what told was Leeds' superior fitness. I don't think Leeds looked especially classy last night. I think the Crusaders looked a whole lot better than I was expecting. If Nobby can get a couple of players with pace in the squad - I know he hasn't finished recruiting yet - then that would be good. Also, hopefully as the season continues they will all be able to get up to speed and build on what looks to be a competitive side, which actually has some Welsh players in it already.



I think its was always going to be a closely fought game given the conditions.

wrexhamsaint
30th January 2010, 16:59
What was interesting for me was the extent of the family attendance: it was mum, dad and two kids as far as you could see. Talking to people on the way out, it was clear that a number of them will return - they were comparing the RL experience favourably with Wrexham FC. It won't be 10 k every week, of course, but if they continue to market the game as well as they have this last fortnight, I can see a healthy average by season end.

Also, the owners will be hugging themselves at the prospect of crowds in excess of 5k again and before long I can see the RL tail wagging the football dog: a kind of anti-matter Wigan.

I have sympathy for the S Wales element, but with the franchise system (alas), whoever owns the franchise takes it where it chooses for the duration. See US sport for numerous examples (LA Dodgers etc). Either way, some positive news for League for a change.

Gray77
30th January 2010, 17:07
Great turnout, reasonable atmposphere and a certain degree of potential there. But, this is supposed to be the top flight of RL and I have to agree with some people on here who are wondering why the Crusaders get so much credit for eventually being comprehensively beaten on a pitch that was a great equaliser for them.
The hope for them is that they aren't awful and win a few games, which is frankly ridiculous for a team in our top division. I wish them luck but potential and a decent crowd isn't that important if the on-field product is poor.

wrexhamsaint
30th January 2010, 17:12
Great turnout, reasonable atmposphere and a certain degree of potential there. But, this is supposed to be the top flight of RL and I have to agree with some people on here who are wondering why the Crusaders get so much credit for eventually being comprehensively beaten on a pitch that was a great equaliser for them.
The hope for them is that they aren't awful and win a few games, which is frankly ridiculous for a team in our top division. I wish them luck but potential and a decent crowd isn't that important if the on-field product is poor.

...but they have to start somewhere. They only knew they were going to be playing at all this year but a short time ago and Nobby's problems with recruitment are well-documented. Let's give it a couple of seasons and see where we are then.

Gray77
30th January 2010, 17:18
...but they have to start somewhere. They only knew they were going to be playing at all this year but a short time ago and Nobby's problems with recruitment are well-documented. Let's give it a couple of seasons and see where we are then.

That's exactly my point mate. A team in the top flight of RL shouldn't be thrown together with a few weeks notice and have this level of ineptitude in their lead up to a season. It makes the league look amateurish and whilst I've no issue with Wrexham having a RL team and wish them all the best I doubt whether they should be in the top flight right now.

welshsaint
30th January 2010, 17:36
Look, we've all disagreed with the Crusaders place in Super League but stop acting like a stroppy teenager and give credit where credit is due.

10,000+ is a crowd that the quite a few Super League clubs would not have got for such a game and one that is significantly more than they would have pulled in at Bridgend, if last year's crowds were anything to go by.

As for the performance, they did themselves proud for 65 minutes before Leeds superior class told. The score was a very unfair reflection on the effort they put in.

And it's 'lose' not 'loose'. I'd have been strung up for that at the age of 4 but half the country is doing it now. It's no wonder the country is going to the dogs. ;)

I apologise for the "loose" when it should have been "lose". I trust you will not have nightmares over it !!
However, I stand by the rest of my posting as I believe that any club in Superleague should be worthy of playing top class rugby and be worthy of Elite status. Becoming a new professional club is commendable but it does not automatically confer Elite status... that must be earned and status proven before entry into Superleague.

But who am I to have an opinion? A stroppy teenager apparently?
"Look, we've all disagreed with the Crusaders place in Super League but stop acting like a stroppy teenager and give credit where credit is due."

In my opinion there is no credit due, yet.

oldun
31st January 2010, 00:40
The Wrexham 10,000+ is a crowd that the quite a few Super League clubs would not have got for such a game and one that is significantly more than they would have pulled in at Bridgend, if last year's crowds were anything to go by.

Only 3,688 for this Saturdays afternoon game between Quins and Waky

wrexhamsaint
31st January 2010, 10:12
That's exactly my point mate. A team in the top flight of RL shouldn't be thrown together with a few weeks notice and have this level of ineptitude in their lead up to a season. It makes the league look amateurish and whilst I've no issue with Wrexham having a RL team and wish them all the best I doubt whether they should be in the top flight right now.

I couldn't agree more as I've posted elsewhere, but...

...it's now a fait accomplis, like it or not, so it's reasonable to give the club a bit of rope: whether they use it to hang expansion or pull it out of the mire remains to be seen

ploughman
31st January 2010, 19:33
after being quite sceptical about the crusaders move to wrexham,i really hope they make a go of it now.great crowd on friday,lets hope they can kick on now.when having a go at a new club like crusaders i think we should compare them against a few others.salford and wakefield especially should be looking closely and learning.

Div
26th March 2010, 13:33
Back on the subject of Harlequins and in particular the ' fantastic work' they are doing in the South.

Take a look at the link below of a recent weekends fixtures. Just so people are aware 18-0 is the default scoreline given for a walkover i.e. generally when one of the teams is unable to raise a team to fulfil a fixture. There are some marked as ' bye' also.

Now I keep hearing about the work going on in the South. Just exactly how well is it working ? I note that some of the Open Age divisions have just 4 or 5 teams in them- some of which are nowhere near London to be honest.


Harlequins U 20's are 4 losses from 4 in the league with an average points conceeded approaching 50 per game rock bottom with the same points we normally get in Eurovision.

I dont want the Rugby League World isn't development fantastic we are playing in Outer Mongolia line I want hard facts.

Convince me that London is developing at a sufficient rate of knots please.....


http://www.londonrl.com/fixtures

The Hoss
26th March 2010, 15:03
Back on the subject of Harlequins and in particular the ' fantastic work' they are doing in the South.

Take a look at the link below of a recent weekends fixtures. Just so people are aware 18-0 is the default scoreline given for a walkover i.e. generally when one of the teams is unable to raise a team to fulfil a fixture. There are some marked as ' bye' also.

Now I keep hearing about the work going on in the South. Just exactly how well is it working ? I note that some of the Open Age divisions have just 4 or 5 teams in them- some of which are nowhere near London to be honest.


Harlequins U 20's are 4 losses from 4 in the league with an average points conceeded approaching 50 per game rock bottom with the same points we normally get in Eurovision.

I dont want the Rugby League World isn't development fantastic we are playing in Outer Mongolia line I want hard facts.

Convince me that London is developing at a sufficient rate of knots please.....


http://www.londonrl.com/fixtures

Very good post mate... For weeks at the pub i have been saying things similar to the above, its a shame it hasnt developed as much as people hoped, but surely money has to be put elsewhere?

saintollie
26th March 2010, 15:41
Not that popular then!

given the poor gates the Quinns get I am of the opinion that the only reason London is in SL is to raise the national profile of the game on the promise of money from SKY

I stand to be proven wrong!

we should be spending money in Cumbria to establish a SL team up there and leave London to its fate after all it has had 30yrs plus
but alas this wont happen for the reason I have stated.

Billinge Lump
26th March 2010, 15:46
Not that popular then!

given the poor gates the Quinns get I am of the opinion that the only reason London is in SL is to raise the national profile of the game on the promise of money from SKY

I stand to be proven wrong!

we should be spending money in Cumbria to establish a SL team up there and leave London to its fate after all it has had 30yrs plus
but alas this wont happen for the reason I have stated.

Cumbria has had much longer than 30 years to get it right and has a number of clubs that have developed less than London in the last 30 years (how many have there been in SL?).

Why should money be pumped there? Why shouldn't they be left to their fate?

saintollie
26th March 2010, 15:56
Cumbria has had much longer than 30 years to get it right and has a number of clubs that have developed less than London in the last 30 years (how many have there been in SL?).

Why should money be pumped there? Why shouldn't they be left to their fate?

Cumbria has a decent grassroot following and MAY be worth a punt

we just keep pumping money into London and we dont appear to be getting anywhere

eddiewaringsflatcap
26th March 2010, 16:06
Back on the subject of Harlequins and in particular the ' fantastic work' they are doing in the South.

Take a look at the link below of a recent weekends fixtures. Just so people are aware 18-0 is the default scoreline given for a walkover i.e. generally when one of the teams is unable to raise a team to fulfil a fixture. There are some marked as ' bye' also.

Now I keep hearing about the work going on in the South. Just exactly how well is it working ? I note that some of the Open Age divisions have just 4 or 5 teams in them- some of which are nowhere near London to be honest.


Harlequins U 20's are 4 losses from 4 in the league with an average points conceeded approaching 50 per game rock bottom with the same points we normally get in Eurovision.

I dont want the Rugby League World isn't development fantastic we are playing in Outer Mongolia line I want hard facts.

Convince me that London is developing at a sufficient rate of knots please.....


http://www.londonrl.com/fixtures


But demand for hard facts together with mentioning the cold ones that we already know leads invariably to banal adjectives being thrown in your direction. You know, 'flat cappers,' 'dinosaurs,' 'traditionalists' etc.

Very often the people who want to throw such heavy words are akin to those rabid American Republicans who criticise those skeptical of their foreign policy as 'Anti American' and hence want to close down any rational form of debate.

The simple facts are that after 30 years in London the game, at top level, is back at the levels of popularity it had when Fulham were born. The only difference is they sold their association with Rugby League down the river when they allowed their brand to be swallowed up by Harlequins RU.

It may have allowed them to find a home and help their balance sheet at a time when they were struggling financially, but the move has just about summed up the whole failure of the game to expand down sar’f.

If London were'nt in SL what would there attendances be? A few hundred?

I keep hearing paeans to how the game is attracting kids to the game at a junior level and platitudes to how a token bunch of academy level players are now breaking in to the first team. Should this not be a core requirement of a team that has exisited for over 30 years with strong levels of support form the game’s governing body.

The closest the game has come to a Londoner making it big in RL and being recognized on a national stage was the rise of Martin Offiah. Sadly he was recruited from Rugby Union by Widnes.

I really despair for London, because the rebrand as Harlequins was ill conceived on just about every level – the club can’t even appeal to the floating voter as a novelty sport any more… The name just infers struggling sport relying on an artificial name from a rival sport to catch a mug.

DD
26th March 2010, 19:40
But demand for hard facts together with mentioning the cold ones that we already know leads invariably to banal adjectives being thrown in your direction. You know, 'flat cappers,' 'dinosaurs,' 'traditionalists' etc.

Very often the people who want to throw such heavy words are akin to those rabid American Republicans who criticise those skeptical of their foreign policy as 'Anti American' and hence want to close down any rational form of debate.

The simple facts are that after 30 years in London the game, at top level, is back at the levels of popularity it had when Fulham were born. The only difference is they sold their association with Rugby League down the river when they allowed their brand to be swallowed up by Harlequins RU.

It may have allowed them to find a home and help their balance sheet at a time when they were struggling financially, but the move has just about summed up the whole failure of the game to expand down sar’f.

If London were'nt in SL what would there attendances be? A few hundred?

I keep hearing paeans to how the game is attracting kids to the game at a junior level and platitudes to how a token bunch of academy level players are now breaking in to the first team. Should this not be a core requirement of a team that has exisited for over 30 years with strong levels of support form the game’s governing body.

The closest the game has come to a Londoner making it big in RL and being recognized on a national stage was the rise of Martin Offiah. Sadly he was recruited from Rugby Union by Widnes.

I really despair for London, because the rebrand as Harlequins was ill conceived on just about every level – the club can’t even appeal to the floating voter as a novelty sport any more… The name just infers struggling sport relying on an artificial name from a rival sport to catch a mug.

Or to put it in plain English - it's failed! lol

Seriously, the biggest boo-boo in all of this was the marriage with Harlequins RUFC. From that moment on, the separate Rugby League club of Fulham/London Crusaders/London Broncos that had been nomadic but individually indentifiable to all Londoners as "that club that plays the northern code of rugby", had effectively ceased to exist.

Whilst many had heard of the Broncos they would never have dreamed of watching them but they were known to many Londoners at least.

Now when the name Harlequins is banded about, who in their right mind will think of the League club first. Harlequins is a name that has been synonymous in everything that is 'Union' about Rugby Union (if you see where I am coming from) and always will be. Quite frankly, it was just about the last RU club and supporters that you would expect to embrace our game and the depressing decline in the League club only goes to show that it was a marriage made in hell right from the off.

London's only fully professional League club has now completely lost it's identity and lost it's soul and quite a few of the old guard, hardened League supporters in London, now follow the Skolars as the last true stand-alone non-amateur League club in London.

When the Broncos had their own identity, back in 1996, it was there for the taking. Unfortunately the club moved from Charlton to Twickenham, which is about as practical as Saints moving to Hull, for residents close to The Valley and, although the quality of it's side initially gathered some support from the ashes of those that had been lost, it was a short lived fad.

Maybe one thing we have learned from Crusaders (and I admit, what has happened there so far has taken me by total surprise) is that, contrary to what League has always tried to do with Wales, if you put a League club in staunch Union territory, it doesn't attract rugby enthusiasts who want to watch both codes. Such people are a rarity. You'd have thought that in South Wales, or so i was told at any rate, the public would not turn up for Championship stuff but they would turn up for the real deal. Well, last season proved that was not the case. In Wrexham, where this is no rugby tradition in either code, the three crowds they have had so far just happen to be convincingly higher than the highest ever recorded in South Wales. Whatever happens from now till October, the average will be considerably higher than it was in Bridgend.

Maybe the biggest mistake London ever made was pitching their tent in the area of London that just happens to be steeped in Union tradition and has rugby fans that are as equally stuck in their ways as the Union fans of South Wales or the League fans in St. Helens or Wigan. Anyone with any sense could see that tagging yourselves along with a bigger Union brother is only going to draw unfavourable comparisons. Had the Broncos took up a permanent basis in a suburb of London that has no identifiable links with professional football or RU clubs then maybe it would have stood a chance.

Grass roots rugby or not, if professional Rugby League dies off in London this time then that's your lot. If Quins don't make the cut in 2012, they will die very shortly, leaving Skolars as the one last bastion that is likely to go on in front of 3 or 400 spectators for many years to come.

For me, the only hope is that the club manage to get itself away from Harlequins and re-invent the London Broncos name. Without a suitable benefactor, this won't happen and Super League's London dream is about to die.

wrexhamsaint
27th March 2010, 08:15
Seriously, the biggest boo-boo in all of this was the marriage with Harlequins RUFC. From that moment on, the separate Rugby League club of Fulham/London Crusaders/London Broncos that had been nomadic but individually indentifiable to all Londoners as "that club that plays the northern code of rugby", had effectively ceased to exist.

Whilst many had heard of the Broncos they would never have dreamed of watching them but they were known to many Londoners at least.

This is exactly right. I spent nearly 20 years living & working in London and saw a lot of league at Fulham, The Valley, Griffin Park and for one desperate season, Barnet Copthall Athletics Stadium, but whatever ups and downs they went through, they were always a recognisable entity. Not any more - right down to the shirts. Their next franchise bid needs to get out from under the fake-blood spitters: the problem is, who else will take it on?

cjhatesunion
27th March 2010, 14:59
I think we have to persevere with London RL but Harlequins RL need to get away from the stoop and also have nothing to do with them RU w.....s.

Div
28th March 2010, 20:23
I think we have to persevere with London RL but Harlequins RL need to get away from the stoop and also have nothing to do with them RU w.....s.


Yet another move, yep certain to do the trick.

Div
29th March 2010, 21:03
I notice further strong evidence of that great development work. Bradford U 20's beat Quins U 20's 80 - 0 at the weekend.

On another note Gateshead have found some consistency, scored Nil again.lol

Div
16th May 2010, 16:55
Today's result

Blackpool 132 Gateshead 0


Sorry but its time to call it a day. A total embarrassment in a ' professional' sport.

eddiewaringsflatcap
17th May 2010, 08:45
Today's result

Blackpool 132 Gateshead 0


Sorry but its time to call it a day. A total embarrassment in a ' professional' sport.

The League Express will have some cock and bull story about 'brave' Gateshead and why they are facing a battle against the odds no doubt....

Div
12th November 2010, 12:33
Another laughing stock, sooner or later the penny will drop.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/9149935.stm

eddiewaringsflatcap
12th November 2010, 16:04
Another laughing stock, sooner or later the penny will drop.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/9149935.stm

It won't, because the people who govern the game are not held to account for their terrible decisions.

We have seen a mixture of blind optimism, pure inccomptence, and hush-hush and wink-wink self presevation from our games govenors continue to destroy the fabric of the game.

Destroyed to an extent that the RFL looks like the modern day emperor with no clothes. It proclaims how good the game is, but looks a desperate basket case with zero credibility.

Until new blood comes in with an approach to take the game forwards in a coherent manner that maintains attachment to the games routes whilst actually making infored decisions about spreading the appeal of RL, we will remain in a rut.

Northampton_Saint
12th November 2010, 23:32
It's a demonstrable fact of life that very few active supporters of one sport will ever be interested in supporting a team from another sport in the area. Football fans as a rule are not interested in watching RU, RU fans will not be interested in watching RL etc. 'Round here is a great example - I have never met anyone in Northampton who goes to both the footie team and the rugby team - it is strictly a case of being a fan of one or the other. No amount of marketing or publicity will ever change that fact or make fans from one go to the other as well.

The only way we will ever have a chance of expanding permanently and successfully into non-traditional RL areas is slowly and through grass roots development, not by the ludicrous overnight creation of incongruous SL teams in footie or RU strongholds and somehow expecting 8000 fans a game to materialise out of the ether. Every single one of those teams has collapsed embarassingly (the walking corpse of Harlequins notwithstanding) and every single one always will. A small team in the National League slowly building up a fanbase over decades will stand 10,000 times more chance of being a strong SL team someday than a manufactured joke team, no matter how loudly Sky bark.

RL needs to strengthen in its core areas now while there is still some chance of saving the sport. We desperately need SL teams in Barrow, Halifax, Featherstone etc. NOW to get the fans interested in their local team again, before we irreplacably lose the next generation of fans in those areas to football. It disturbed the hell out of me the number of Scum Utd. shirts I saw walking around in Barrow town centre a few months ago with not a single Barrow shirt to be see anywhere.

The whole thing makes me weep...

Div
14th November 2010, 17:14
RL needs to strengthen in its core areas now while there is still some chance of saving the sport. We desperately need SL teams in Barrow, Halifax, Featherstone etc. NOW to get the fans interested in their local team again, before we irreplacably lose the next generation of fans in those areas to football. .
..


Absolutely and that has been my big fear, once interest in traditional strongholds of the game wanes we are in BIG trouble. Those are the areas still supplying lads playing the game.

eddiewaringsflatcap
15th November 2010, 09:27
Absolutely and that has been my big fear, once interest in traditional strongholds of the game wanes we are in BIG trouble. Those are the areas still supplying lads playing the game.

Those areas also used to supply supporters by the coach load for the international games at Wembley, Elland Road and Old Trafford. Given the fact that the RFL have made supporters of Leigh, Widnes and Featherstone etc feel as welcome as fleas on a dog, it is little surprise that the wider support for the international game has dwindled.

I conceed that the championship is a lot better run then it ever has been, and the likes of Ian Millward have some genuinely good ideas that could help it further. It is just that this work is ruined by the sheer incompetence and skullduggery on display from the RFL whenever 'development' rears its head.

HitTheWall
15th November 2010, 11:23
There's a rumour going around currently that the next round of franchises are going to be delayed until 2015, don't know how much truth there is in it. Could the RFL change the goalposts at such short nitice?

eddiewaringsflatcap
15th November 2010, 11:34
There's a rumour going around currently that the next round of franchises are going to be delayed until 2015, don't know how much truth there is in it. Could the RFL change the goalposts at such short nitice?

Of course they could. They have as much credibility as a fly-by-night car boot salesman from Dagenham.

Div
15th November 2010, 12:50
There's a rumour going around currently that the next round of franchises are going to be delayed until 2015, don't know how much truth there is in it. Could the RFL change the goalposts at such short nitice?

Can Wakefield pretend for another 4 years that their stadium is in the pipeline ? Personally I think the stadium aspect needs to be relaxed. It seems that the RFL is happy if you have a nice stadium even if there is no bugger in it but if you draw 7000-10,000 to a shithole chances are you will be chucked out.

eddiewaringsflatcap
24th November 2010, 10:22
Oh dear:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/9149935.stm

What a pathetic situation that the RFL has allowed to brew. Essentially, there is a for sale sign on the Crusaders, with the RFL propoing up the club until the outift - which have absolutely no crdibility whatsover - is sold off.

Laughable.

saintollie
24th November 2010, 12:18
Oh dear:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/9149935.stm

What a pathetic situation that the RFL has allowed to brew. Essentially, there is a for sale sign on the Crusaders, with the RFL propoing up the club until the outift - which have absolutely no crdibility whatsover - is sold off.

Laughable.

some things never change!!!

Div
24th November 2010, 15:01
Oh dear:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/9149935.stm

What a pathetic situation that the RFL has allowed to brew. Essentially, there is a for sale sign on the Crusaders, with the RFL propoing up the club until the outift - which have absolutely no crdibility whatsover - is sold off.

Laughable.



I really dont know how they can be allowed to start the season.

eddiewaringsflatcap
24th November 2010, 16:54
I really dont know how they can be allowed to start the season.

Like Gary Schofield said in one of his columns, its down to self preservation at the RFL. Pure and simple.

They are an absolute disgrace and incompetent at just about every level.

Wanderer
25th November 2010, 22:24
I can't disagree with your sentiment, but the branding of the club in a professional, mature and coherent way doesn't have to come at the expense of tradition and history.
Nah, the highlighted words are the nub of it for you and DD and a few others. You're traditionalists and my guess is that if you had your way we would still be wearing shirts with a single hoop, playing winter rugby league nowhere but Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire, and we'd be touring under the banner of Great Britain.

You and a few others on here are traditionalists and you will argue against expansion, against any form of change at all because you put Tradition and History above all else. Saints have to adapt to the times, preferably be ahead of the game rather than playing catch up. We are going to a new stadium with a new coach and a new training facility and so it is the ideal time to freshen up the logo and the message the club wants to take to the world outside. Those of us who are happy with that are not showing loads of emotion because we do not feel anything is under threat. You do.

It's just a logo. That's all.

Div
25th November 2010, 22:40
Nah, the highlighted words are the nub of it for you and DD and a few others. You're traditionalists and my guess is that if you had your way we would still be wearing shirts with a single hoop, playing winter rugby league nowhere but Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire, and we'd be touring under the banner of Great Britain.

You and a few others on here are traditionalists and you will argue against expansion, against any form of change at all because you put Tradition and History above all else. Saints have to adapt to the times, preferably be ahead of the game rather than playing catch up. We are going to a new stadium with a new coach and a new training facility and so it is the ideal time to freshen up the logo and the message the club wants to take to the world outside. Those of us who are happy with that are not showing loads of emotion because we do not feel anything is under threat. You do.

It's just a logo. That's all.


I will be one of those people you are putting in the bracket of being against expansion. To be honest I am not against expansion as such. Im just a realist who can see that the method of expansion at top level isn't working. Its not even as though its a new thing given the major ' London' club is now 30 years in. Meanwhile, whilst endevours are concentrated on expansion the game is slowly dying in its heartlands. It not all about tradition as I see it its mostly about common sense but lets face it that is not a commodity in great supply at red Hall. The Crusaders fiasco is testament to that. Grow the game upwards from grass roots and it will happen when its ready you cannot create demand from nothing.

As for Great Britain, well in the reasonably recent past under that moniker we could sell out the majority of Wembley Stadium and the whole of Old Trafford for a test match against the Australians. Now as England we have to choose more modest venues like the JJB or Galpharm. We used to win the odd test too. Another change for the better ?


Im not sure why a new coach, ground and training facility needs a new logo either ?

johnnyl
25th November 2010, 23:02
. Better to be a moaner than someone who doesn't care.

You made some great points in the rest of the post but to me this implies that only those who share your view on the re-brand cares. All the others that dont share that same opinion obviously dont care or care as much. Now I might have this wrong, as it can be read 2 ways, but if the point is what I have wrote above I think it is way off mark. For me, there will be those on both sides of the fence who all care and give a sh1t, and people like myself who isnt for or against it yet still cares (about the club just not about the re-brand).

johnnyl
25th November 2010, 23:04
Nah, the highlighted words are the nub of it for you and DD and a few others. You're traditionalists and my guess is that if you had your way we would still be wearing shirts with a single hoop, playing winter rugby league nowhere but Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire, and we'd be touring under the banner of Great Britain.
.

Yup....good job they werent the early cave men or we would all still be waiting for lightning to strike a tree before we could get warm

Legolas
25th November 2010, 23:20
Nah, the highlighted words are the nub of it for you and DD and a few others. You're traditionalists and my guess is that if you had your way we would still be wearing shirts with a single hoop, playing winter rugby league nowhere but Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire, and we'd be touring under the banner of Great Britain.

You and a few others on here are traditionalists and you will argue against expansion, against any form of change at all because you put Tradition and History above all else. Saints have to adapt to the times, preferably be ahead of the game rather than playing catch up. We are going to a new stadium with a new coach and a new training facility and so it is the ideal time to freshen up the logo and the message the club wants to take to the world outside. Those of us who are happy with that are not showing loads of emotion because we do not feel anything is under threat. You do.

It's just a logo. That's all.

I find that a tad harsh. Most if that can apply to anyone including you.

I don't support England for reasons discussed elsewhere.

I am not against expansion but Crusaders have become an embarrassment and I've had to admit I got it wrong. Nor do I believe creating a Catalonian Wigan is the best way of growing a credible competitive French domestic, international game. Do I think its right that an embarrassing Nomad team and a Catalonian Wigan is in the league with no Cumbrian side no. I do support Quins however.

I agree it's a badge end of. But to draw all the things under one heading as you have done is very unfair.

Gray77
25th November 2010, 23:59
Nah, the highlighted words are the nub of it for you and DD and a few others. You're traditionalists and my guess is that if you had your way we would still be wearing shirts with a single hoop, playing winter rugby league nowhere but Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire, and we'd be touring under the banner of Great Britain.

You and a few others on here are traditionalists and you will argue against expansion, against any form of change at all because you put Tradition and History above all else. Saints have to adapt to the times, preferably be ahead of the game rather than playing catch up. We are going to a new stadium with a new coach and a new training facility and so it is the ideal time to freshen up the logo and the message the club wants to take to the world outside. Those of us who are happy with that are not showing loads of emotion because we do not feel anything is under threat. You do.

It's just a logo. That's all.

Seriously, I was going to leave this thread alone but you've made me bite with that load of absolute nonsense.

So, I would prefer it if we were only playing in Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire eh? Do you mean when we had top flight teams in Cumbria who could pull in 6-7,000 a game? How are those clubs doing now since the modern game rolled up? How many fans have we lost from the game because we've tried to expand? Do we say bye-bye to Barrow, Whitehaven etc so we can have a try at getting the Crusaders to work? Maybe get 5,000 interested at the expense of losing 10,000 who already loved the game and will never see their clubs playing in Super League for at least the next decade for non-sporting reasons! Is that modern? Are you happy to bin off the Cumbrian teams because they're not in an expansion area? Are you happy that people who should be watching a team in RL heartland are now so disillusioned that they don't bother anymore because their teams can't make the Super League because we have Crusaders and Quins who are there on everything but on-field merit and performance?

I'm also a traditionalist in that I grew up watching a game where the team that won the most games won the league and the team that won the fewest got relegated. We had promotion and relegation based on merit and what happened on the field. Now we have a season where a team can finish in the bottom half of Super League and be rewarded with a chance of winning the title if they hit form for a month? Is that another great concept of modernity? Is it great and modern that a club can work its backsides off all season to win the Championship yet don't get promoted whilst the likes of Quins get less than 3,000 a game most weeks and are safe because they play in London? Is that modern? Is that preferable?

And I'd still like us to be playing under the GB banner eh? Damn right I would! Because back in the day we'd go over to Australia and play their best club sides and places would be full. The Kangaroos would come over here and play at Saints, Wigan, Leeds in warm-up games infront of full houses and then play a 3 game Test Series with 80,000 at Wembley, 40,000 at Elland Road and 40,000 at Old Trafford. It used to be called THE ASHES!!! Quite a popular concept I reckon. So how is modern RL making our international game any better?! I'm accused by you of being a tired old grizzly traditionalist for wanting those tours back because I don't see the glory of the 4 Nations which is frankly a sham of a tournament and half the games in it are dead rubbers. We struggle to fill the Galpharm for a Test match these days, and why is that? Because it's a sham tournament instead of being a traditional concept like the Ashes which is historic and has meaning behind it. In 20 years we've gone from having 80,000 people travelling to London for an Ashes 1st Test to struggling to get 20,000 to get on the M62 for a Four Nations game. How is that a good thing?

Frankly I don't care if I'm called a traditionalist, because traditions make Rugby League a special game and have prevented it so far from becoming the money-driven hype show that football has become. The traditions of the game made the culture of the game, its why we haven't followed the route of modern society for violence at games because RL has a culture of fan integration, its why players still retain respect for refs, its why we give the Lance Todd trophy to the Challenge Cup MOTM. Its called tradition, if you think that's less important than getting a few thousand people to start going to The Stoop then fine.

I am not against expansion in any way, if it is done properly. Catalans for me wasn't expansion, it was a logical step into a RL heartland, but Quins and Crusaders should never have been given Super League places as it has demeaned our top flight comp and showed people that winning is less important than your geographical position.

You make it sound like you have a complete lack of historical knowledge of the game with some of your comments.

Div
26th November 2010, 07:20
......but there are ' x' number of schools playing in London so everything is cool.:???:

eddiewaringsflatcap
26th November 2010, 10:40
......but there are ' x' number of schools playing in London so everything is cool.:???:

The game is booming down there, apparently...

The problem, amongst Gray's excellent thread, is the fact that there is a delusion that:

A) Crowds of 7,000 in small heartlands like Castleford, Featherstone etc are a sign of weakness
B) That Harlequins, Crusaders are a means to getting 30,000 people to attend individual games.

The simple truth is that the game (other than a small post-war period when most folks had naff all to do) has never acheived this and probably never will in a soccer dominated country is apparently a square wheel for the men at the RFL.

Legolas
26th November 2010, 11:49
......but there are ' x' number of schools playing in London so everything is cool.:???:

Very funny and all but you gripe about grass roots development so have to look at the excellent work done in London. It might have taken 30years but they are there now and to drop it is ridiculous.

For a kick off they are doing better than the "heartland" in Catalonia. One club does not make it a heartland. RL may be big down there but they have less French players than when they started and the French national team has gone backwards, despite an apparent thriving French comp.

eddiewaringsflatcap
26th November 2010, 12:03
Very funny and all but you gripe about grass roots development so have to look at the excellent work done in London. It might have taken 30years but they are there now and to drop it is ridiculous.

For a kick off they are doing better than the "heartland" in Catalonia. One club does not make it a heartland. RL may be big down there but they have less French players than when they started and the French national team has gone backwards, despite an apparent thriving French comp.

How has London's 'excellent work' translated into a benefit for RL? Really, I am very interested in the answer to this question.

Legolas
26th November 2010, 12:13
How has London's 'excellent work' translated into a benefit for RL? Really, I am very interested in the answer to this question.

RL is the biggest growth sport in the whole of London and greater London. As such it attracts more money, grassroots development etc. Put it this way, look at the number of londoners now in the quins squad, and LMS who obviously isn't. Then tell me Catalan are doing a better job.

E Saint
26th November 2010, 12:43
RL is the biggest growth sport in the whole of London and greater London. As such it attracts more money, grassroots development etc. Put it this way, look at the number of londoners now in the quins squad, and LMS who obviously isn't. Then tell me Catalan are doing a better job.

What is the aim of expansion though? To get more people playing or to get more watching the sport?

Id suggest both, and you would expect one to follow the other. This certainly hasnt happened in London, and shows no signs of doing so, with Quins average attendance for 2010 being less than half of Catalans.

Gray77
26th November 2010, 13:33
RL is the biggest growth sport in the whole of London and greater London. As such it attracts more money, grassroots development etc. Put it this way, look at the number of londoners now in the quins squad, and LMS who obviously isn't. Then tell me Catalan are doing a better job.

The game is doing okay down here below the radar, lots of teams and players getting interested in the game. But, I still don't see how this means we should prop Quins up in a position that is doing them and the game no good at all. I'm not saying do away with them, or Crusaders for that matter. But have them play at a level that is more natural for them, if they're good enough they'll get promoted and get their place in the top flight on merit.

If a young player is going through the system in London he's not going to be put off because Quins are in the Championship and not Super League. In fact there is more chance they'll make the team away from the demands of Super League and the team will grow more naturally.

Having a struggling team in front of 3,000 fans is not good for them or the game. Have that club in the second tier with less financial and on-field pressure with the room to get more young local lads in the team and they'll be better off.

Barney Rubble
26th November 2010, 14:30
The game is doing okay down here below the radar, lots of teams and players getting interested in the game. But, I still don't see how this means we should prop Quins up in a position that is doing them and the game no good at all. I'm not saying do away with them, or Crusaders for that matter. But have them play at a level that is more natural for them, if they're good enough they'll get promoted and get their place in the top flight on merit.

If a young player is going through the system in London he's not going to be put off because Quins are in the Championship and not Super League. In fact there is more chance they'll make the team away from the demands of Super League and the team will grow more naturally.

Having a struggling team in front of 3,000 fans is not good for them or the game. Have that club in the second tier with less financial and on-field pressure with the room to get more young local lads in the team and they'll be better off.Trouble with that though is, will the fans turn out to watch championship rugby. If they only get that number with the big boys turning up, then what will they get with the lesser teams ?

Legolas
26th November 2010, 15:31
What is the aim of expansion though? To get more people playing or to get more watching the sport?

Id suggest both, and you would expect one to follow the other. This certainly hasnt happened in London, and shows no signs of doing so, with Quins average attendance for 2010 being less than half of Catalans.

All these kids playing RL are the future fans that will swell the Quins crowds. Pull the rug, and we lose them all and any hope ifdevelopment in london

E Saint
26th November 2010, 15:53
All these kids playing RL are the future fans that will swell the Quins crowds. Pull the rug, and we lose them all and any hope ifdevelopment in london

We've been saying that for a good few years now, the fact remains that those kids/adults playing the game are not becoming attending supporters of the top flight team in the area. Ten years ago their average attendance was the lowest in the league at 3419, 10 years later they are still the worst supported in the league with an average of 3379.

Div
26th November 2010, 16:28
RL is the biggest growth sport in the whole of London and greater London. ..


Is that a fact ? Im not saying it isn't but where is the evidence ? Its oft quoted but I do wonder where it comes from........I think we are on the wrong thread , we did have a heartlands / development area thread and this is drifting into that territory now !!

Hemel Hempstead were always quoted as being a hotbed of development who would be ready for the pro game a few years down the line. Are they still thriving ?( That is a genuine question )

Gray77
26th November 2010, 16:31
All these kids playing RL are the future fans that will swell the Quins crowds. Pull the rug, and we lose them all and any hope ifdevelopment in london

I agree, pull the rug and we could damage the prospects down there. But if Quins aren't doing the business in Super League then they should face relegation IMO. That is not pulling the rug, that is getting them to play at a level that they should be at.

I honestly believe that the amateur RL scene in London is a grassroots thing and I'm not sure that Super League is the be all and end all for these kids when they start out. If they have a winning Championship team down the road that they have a chance of breaking into then they'll keep it up, just as much as they will if there is a struggling Super League club down the road that they'll struggle to break into.

The other argument is that if people aren't watching Quins now then they'll definitely not if they are in a lower league. That's a risk, but the fact is people are not watching them now and the situation is not good enough right now. This isn't a case of changing something that is succesful with a demotion, it's a case of changing something that isn't working and trying to re-build it properly with a proper timetable.

For every potential player or fan we may generate in London I worry about the scores of potential players and fans we are losing in Barrow, Whitehaven, Halifax, Featherstone, Leigh etc because those areas are not getting a fair crack at the whip when it comes to Super League inclusion.

Wanderer
26th November 2010, 17:27
Seriously, I was going to leave this thread alone but you've made me bite with that load of absolute nonsense.
And yet ... you repeated it all in your own post.


You make it sound like you have a complete lack of historical knowledge of the game with some of your comments.
Rubbish. I didn't talk about the history of the game at all. I was simply displaying that I am aware of some traditionalists on here and I was right, wasn't I? You do believe those things I suggested you did, as will the other traditionalists on here. I don't lack historical knowledge of the game; I just don't want the game to be held back by clinging too closely to a history that is just that ... history. It's always good to acknowledge and respect roots, and sometimes to revel in what has gone before, but to allow that to dominate will simply result in the game stultifying and probably dying.

IMO, obviously.

Wanderer
26th November 2010, 17:46
I will be one of those people you are putting in the bracket of being against expansion. To be honest I am not against expansion as such. Im just a realist who can see that the method of expansion at top level isn't working. Its not even as though its a new thing given the major ' London' club is now 30 years in.
What is your standard for success? I'll tell you what one of mine is. It's when I heard an interview with one of their young local players. I cannot remember his name but he became a feature of their team last season, a young black guy with real potential. During the interview he said that he had grown up with rugby league. His is the first generation of players who had had access to the game as a matter of course; who had been given the opportunity to play and, through the presence of Quins as well as the Skolars, had been provided with a pathway to the top flight. Quins is succeeding. It's succeeding because it is the aspirational focus for the amateur and semi-professional scene down there. Without Quins, talented aspirational young London players would have to compete directly with northerners in northern clubs, limiting their chances and also not providing for a sense of identity that is important to our sport. That Quins doesn't have a big fanbase will be in part due to its location. Dumb move, that was. But then wherever our sole London Superleague club was based it would prove to be problematic for some people because London is huge and takes ages to travel across.

To me, expansion is about spreading the game: the playing of it and watching of it. There is now a generation of people in London who have had access to it to some degree or another. That is paying dividends because Quins could field a starting 17 wholly made up of London based players. That is an incredible achievement in just 30 years. We have had 120 years.


Meanwhile, whilst endevours are concentrated on expansion the game is slowly dying in its heartlands.
I disagree. The problem with traditionalists is they look back, see a wonderful time and blame someone for the change. Society has changed. 24 hour sports channels now exist. Sport is a highly competitive marketplace. We have been overtaken by scousers in St Helens who have brought soccer into the town where it hardly existed in the days of 20,000 turning up at Saints. There is a multiplicity of factors involved in the decrease in numbers following rugby league. I would bet my salary on the existence of Quins not being one of them.


Now as England we have to choose more modest venues like the JJB or Galpharm. We used to win the odd test too. Another change for the better ?
That is nothing to do with a name change or indeed drawing from England only, since England has always contributed more players to the national side in RL, specifically northern England. I'd say look at club policies and how clubs keep on recruiting foreign players to our backline, how we have become too relaxed about poor handling and creativity in the game. Nothing to do with being GB; much more to do with the culture clubs and the RFL have allowed to develop in the game over here.



Im not sure why a new coach, ground and training facility needs a new logo either ?
We don't. But if everything else is new, it's a good opportunity to freshen up the logo too. The all new Saints image. But it's only an image. And it simply adds to all the other images Saints have had over the decades the club has existed.

Wanderer
26th November 2010, 18:56
I honestly believe that the amateur RL scene in London is a grassroots thing and I'm not sure that Super League is the be all and end all for these kids when they start out.
Well, if our new recruit Louie McCarthy Scarsbrook shines while at Saints, maybe you will eat your words? He started out at Greenwich Admirals, an amateur club, at the grand old age of 16, was spotted by the then London Broncos, and now he has given up his life in his hometown to play for 'the mighty St Helens', as he calls us. If ever there is a reason to keep the Quins going, the likes of LMS has to be up there at the top of the list.

Gray77
26th November 2010, 19:09
Well, if our new recruit Louie McCarthy Scarsbrook shines while at Saints, maybe you will eat your words? He started out at Greenwich Admirals, an amateur club, at the grand old age of 16, was spotted by the then London Broncos, and now he has given up his life in his hometown to play for 'the mighty St Helens', as he calls us. If ever there is a reason to keep the Quins going, the likes of LMS has to be up there at the top of the list.

Why would I eat my words, because one kid had dreams of playing for a big Northern RL club? What does that prove other than LMS is a lad who knows about RL and went for his dreams and achieved it. Is he the walking embodiment of every amateur player in London? Will the Quins being in the Championship instead of Super League stop any future players of his ability from being picked up and nurtured through their system?

And stop saying that I want to ditch Harlequins because I don't. I want Super League to be a competition based on excellence, where 14 teams (or however many) are there on merit because they've earned the right to be there, either by being established clubs or by achieving promotion. I don't agree with plonking teams into the elite British division of our sport on a gamble. I don't agree with teams winning the Championship and then not getting promoted, it's goes against the ethos of competition and fairness.

This isn't about wanting to stamp on amateur development down here. This is were I live and I would love Quins to have 10,000 there every week and for there to be a thriving scene down here full of potential future internationals. But that isn't the reality, and whilst we unfairly prop up Quins and Crusaders on the gamble of nurturing future fans and players we are neglecting areas of the North that are RL areas and are losing the culture of our sport because the RFL has ignored them for too long.

Wanderer
26th November 2010, 19:42
Why would I eat my words, because one kid had dreams of playing for a big Northern RL club? What does that prove other than LMS is a lad who knows about RL and went for his dreams and achieved it.
Now you are being obtuse. Without Quins he would not be playing for Saints. He showcased his talent through Quins. Had Quins been more successful on the field he may have stayed or he may have wanted to join a 'big' club. But it is the fact that he has had that opportunity which was created in part by the presence of Quins which is the point I was making. James Graham came through Blackbrook amateurs. But he had Saints to aspire to and had Saints to talent spot him. Without Quins to talent spot him, LMS may have stayed at the Admirals or he may not, but the presence of Quins made his ability to show the RL world what he can do that much easier; and the RL world being able to see what he could do was made that much easier by his being able to play for Quins.

And if you think that Quins being in the Championship wouldn't stop future players from being picked, just think of how many players in the Championship at present get picked for first team action in Superleague. Just reflect on that. See how many you can count. So far as I can remember, Bradford have taken one guy into their first team. A few have been bought by Superleague clubs, notably Leeds and Huddersfield, and then loaned back out to the Championship club. That isn't the same as having them play in their first choice 17 though.


And stop saying that I want to ditch Harlequins because I don't. I want Super League to be a competition based on excellence, where 14 teams (or however many) are there on merit because they've earned the right to be there, either by being established clubs or by achieving promotion.
Riiiight. So really what you are saying is that you want a Superleague made up of Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Warrington and, er, um, well ... Huddersfield? Hull FC maybe? What do you consider to be 'excellence'? And why only 'established' clubs? What does established mean, anyway? Just the ones that were there to make the switch from RU or are newer ones allowed?


it's goes against the ethos of competition and fairness.
That's an oxymoron. Competition is never fair. Winner takes all. I don't think it is fair that Wakefield is allowed to play crap rugby and have no youth system to speak of and forget to pay their taxes and make vaccuous statements about a stadium which hasn't even received planning approval (for a second time) but somehow, because they are in Yorkshire and because they have been around a while, they are more worthy than Quins, who are actually paying their way, who have a great youth system and play their young players, and who are working hard to spread the RL word in the biggest city in the country. They would have been more competitive last season too had their main playmakers not been buggered up with injuries.


But that isn't the reality, and whilst we unfairly prop up Quins and Crusaders on the gamble of nurturing future fans and players we are neglecting areas of the North that are RL areas and are losing the culture of our sport because the RFL has ignored them for too long.
How is the north neglected for heaven's sake? And are you sure that we are 'losing' the culture of our sport or is it just that it is changing and you don't like the way that it is changing?

Legolas
26th November 2010, 20:20
I don't think he is calling for just the same old faces. Just arguing against the formation and fast tracking of certain clubs who get protected status at the expense of a team with proven pedigree or who has achieved excellence through winning the NL1 title. If I understand his arguments correctly, it's the same as mine vis a vis Widnes who will get a franchise out of a ridiculous love affair, and to a lesser extent regarding Catalan.

eddiewaringsflatcap
26th November 2010, 22:47
Now you are being obtuse. Without Quins he would not be playing for Saints. He showcased his talent through Quins. Had Quins been more successful on the field he may have stayed or he may have wanted to join a 'big' club. But it is the fact that he has had that opportunity which was created in part by the presence of Quins which is the point I was making. James Graham came through Blackbrook amateurs. But he had Saints to aspire to and had Saints to talent spot him. Without Quins to talent spot him, LMS may have stayed at the Admirals or he may not, but the presence of Quins made his ability to show the RL world what he can do that much easier; and the RL world being able to see what he could do was made that much easier by his being able to play for Quins.

And if you think that Quins being in the Championship wouldn't stop future players from being picked, just think of how many players in the Championship at present get picked for first team action in Superleague. Just reflect on that. See how many you can count. So far as I can remember, Bradford have taken one guy into their first team. A few have been bought by Superleague clubs, notably Leeds and Huddersfield, and then loaned back out to the Championship club. That isn't the same as having them play in their first choice 17 though.


Riiiight. So really what you are saying is that you want a Superleague made up of Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Warrington and, er, um, well ... Huddersfield? Hull FC maybe? What do you consider to be 'excellence'? And why only 'established' clubs? What does established mean, anyway? Just the ones that were there to make the switch from RU or are newer ones allowed?


That's an oxymoron. Competition is never fair. Winner takes all. I don't think it is fair that Wakefield is allowed to play crap rugby and have no youth system to speak of and forget to pay their taxes and make vaccuous statements about a stadium which hasn't even received planning approval (for a second time) but somehow, because they are in Yorkshire and because they have been around a while, they are more worthy than Quins, who are actually paying their way, who have a great youth system and play their young players, and who are working hard to spread the RL word in the biggest city in the country. They would have been more competitive last season too had their main playmakers not been buggered up with injuries.


How is the north neglected for heaven's sake? And are you sure that we are 'losing' the culture of our sport or is it just that it is changing and you don't like the way that it is changing?

There are so many inaccuracies in here, it is quite astounding... I was waiting for somebody to mention LMS, as if one player who has reached the fringes of the international team is a cause celebre. What's the population of London again? How much financial and emotional investment has gone into them?

Over 30 years of existence and the sum total of their player production that you could mention with a straight face is one player. As for quality academies, perhaps this explains this:

Valvoline Cup
Team P W D L PF PA Diff Pts
Warrington Wolves 20 16 1 3 832 359 473 33
St. Helens 20 15 1 4 744 444 300 31
Wigan Warriors 20 15 0 5 727 340 387 30
Huddersfield Giants 20 11 2 7 510 560 -50 24
Hull FC 20 11 1 8 457 456 1 23
Salford City Reds 20 9 2 9 596 564 32 20
Bradford Bulls 20 10 0 10 552 570 -18 20
Wakefield Wildcats 20 8 1 11 468 498 -30 17
Hull Kingston Rovers 20 5 2 13 505 671 -166 12
Leeds Rhinos 20 5 2 13 396 720 -324 12
Castleford Tigers 20 5 0 15 488 638 -150 10
Harlequins RL 20 4 0 16 366 821 -455 8

And as for Quins 'paying their way':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/london/4712141.stm

The simple truth is that the club was propped up, in various manners, by the RFL and had to sell out its very identity (ironically the one thing which might have endeared it to the stereotypical RL fan) to a rugby union club.

Of course, as Gray reliably points out, this all looks very worrying when your attendences have not grown in 10 years, and, despite some powerful backers.

All this as we know has been brushed under the carpet by those who I recall DD quoting as being akin to Lord Melchett (displaying a stubborn refusal to look facts in the face and hoping blind optimism could guide them through).

With little to back them up in the way of fact, they resort to weak arguments and theoretical statements about how the game is bound to grow any time soon and to dismiss knowledgable people as flat cappers. If it was'nt so laughable it would be pathetic.

The only saving grace in all of this is the absolutely barren RFL which ould be a millstone around just about every teams efforts to grow.

Legolas
26th November 2010, 23:44
Give them a break. They have more London bred players in their first 17 than Catalan do Frenchmen, Crusaders do Welshmen and Salford do Mancunians. London are the sole shining light of ambition for London RL players. They may not have their own great academy but their cross London links to spot and develop players like LMS is very very good and something most other SL clubs can only dream of.

Nobodies dismissing anyone. But whereas Gray77 at least has reason to his argument you are defining your argument very narrowly and grumbling and groaning.

There is a lot if work to be done swelling the Quins gates but they have got great community work going on, a first rate network which perhaps explains their lack of academy, put simply, their academy is the connurbation if greater London, they have a hatful of londoners in their side and deserve their place in SL z damned sight more than some others I could mention.

eddiewaringsflatcap
27th November 2010, 00:16
Give them a break. They have more London bred players in their first 17 than Catalan do Frenchmen, Crusaders do Welshmen and Salford do Mancunians. London are the sole shining light of ambition for London RL players. They may not have their own great academy but their cross London links to spot and develop players like LMS is very very good and something most other SL clubs can only dream of.

Nobodies dismissing anyone. But whereas Gray77 at least has reason to his argument you are defining your argument very narrowly and grumbling and groaning.

There is a lot if work to be done swelling the Quins gates but they have got great community work going on, a first rate network which perhaps explains their lack of academy, put simply, their academy is the connurbation if greater London, they have a hatful of londoners in their side and deserve their place in SL z damned sight more than some others I could mention.

'Give them a break...' It would appear you are the one injecting emotion to your argument not me. I simply, in a limited arena, injected a few facts into the thread. If you dont like them, then that is your misfortune at the end of the day. The history books back me up.

Please dont patronise or take me for a mug by trying to assert there are Landaners breaking into the Quins side. The vast majority are sub standard and would struggle to get a game at Leigh. Is it any wonder they are given a chance when the funding from the likes of Virgin appear to have dried, gates remain pitiful, and they are now reduced to appointing a relative novice as coach.

It seems the emotive arguments on Quins shift to the parameters their apologists want to use on an almost daily basis. Now it is the proportion of local lads in the team as opposed to foreigners. This, argued at the expense of another dying on its arse 'expanshun' team.

Gray77
27th November 2010, 00:46
Riiiight. So really what you are saying is that you want a Superleague made up of Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Warrington and, er, um, well ... Huddersfield? Hull FC maybe? What do you consider to be 'excellence'? And why only 'established' clubs? What does established mean, anyway? Just the ones that were there to make the switch from RU or are newer ones allowed?

No. It is a simple concept. You have a league, the team at the bottom gets relegated and the Champions of the second tier league gets promoted. If you haven't finished bottom you deserve to stay in the top flight, you are established and until you get relegated you can claim to deserve your spot. If you finish bottom you don't deserve to be there, and if you win the second tier you deserve to be given the chance of proving yourself in the top flight.

In 2009 and 2010 Barrow and Halifax won the Championship but did not get promoted yet Crusaders never won the Championship yet play in Super League. The London team also didn't win a place in the top flight based on what they did on the field. Is the concept of deserving and undeserving that hard to work out?

Wanderer
27th November 2010, 08:45
There are so many inaccuracies in here, it is quite astounding....
Really? But instead of addressing them you go off on your own tangent and don't address any of them. Why is that? Because there weren't any, that's why. My post was mainly opinion. However, if my facts about LMS are wrong then please enlighten me. If my facts about the number of Championship players playing in Superleague last season (or chosen by clubs to play in the Superleague for this season) are wrong, then again - please enlighten me. Otherwise, don't tell me I'm stating inaccuracies when what you mean is you disagree with my opinion.

Wanderer
27th November 2010, 08:49
No. It is a simple concept. You have a league, the team at the bottom gets relegated and the Champions of the second tier league gets promoted.
Funny, ha-ha. You said either relegation or keeping established clubs. I asked what you meant by established clubs but rather than address the concept you tried - and failed - to be funny about relegation, which the part of my post you quoted didn't discuss at all.


In 2009 and 2010 Barrow and Halifax won the Championship but did not get promoted yet Crusaders never won the Championship yet play in Super League. The London team also didn't win a place in the top flight based on what they did on the field. Is the concept of deserving and undeserving that hard to work out?
The criterion for promotion in relation to the Championship comps is for clubs to feature in the Championship Grand Final or win the Northern Rail Cup. Crusaders featured in the Championship Grand Final the season prior to their promotion: they lost to Salford. Both teams were promoted because that was the season the RFL also decided to expand to 14 clubs. The runners up in the Championship Grand Final for the last two seasons have also been granted eligibility to apply for a licence, assuming other criteria are met, so where is the difference?

Gray77
27th November 2010, 14:23
Funny, ha-ha. You said either relegation or keeping established clubs. I asked what you meant by established clubs but rather than address the concept you tried - and failed - to be funny about relegation, which the part of my post you quoted didn't discuss at all.

The criterion for promotion in relation to the Championship comps is for clubs to feature in the Championship Grand Final or win the Northern Rail Cup. Crusaders featured in the Championship Grand Final the season prior to their promotion: they lost to Salford. Both teams were promoted because that was the season the RFL also decided to expand to 14 clubs. The runners up in the Championship Grand Final for the last two seasons have also been granted eligibility to apply for a licence, assuming other criteria are met, so where is the difference?

Point 1 - An established club is one that was in the top flight before the Franchise system started, in that they were in the top flight based on what they did on the field. I actually answered that question in my last post. If Wigan, Saints or Leeds finished bottom then they should be relegated and would not be an established club until they won promotion and proved that they deserved to play in the top flight again based on what they did on the field. It is not my plan to protect the 'big' clubs, but to reward the established clubs, big or small, who have shown that they deserve to be in the top flight based on what they do on the field.

Point 2 - I do understand the Franchise system you know, and I think it's crap. I believe in a system of relegation and promotion where teams at the bottom of Super League worry more about what happens on the field than whether or not they have a new stadium lined up to impress the RFL.

I also believe that teams in the Championship should be focused primarily on getting promotion and not on whether they will be 'granted eligibility' to 'apply' for a Franchise spot. Crusaders would have been pushed up in 2008 no matter where they finished, Super League was expanding from 12 to 14 and if they hadn't made the GF are you honestly saying they wouldn't have been promoted that year? I don't care if Grand Final runners up are given a form to fill in asking whether they are eligible, I just want the GF winners to be promoted and the team bottom of Super League to be relegated, it would be far more just and would be far more fair than what goes on.

I will ask you a simple question. How would you feel if you were a Barrow or Halifax fan, you follow your team over the season and you end up winning your Grand Final and then realise that your reward is to do it all over again the next season. If either of those teams had been rightfully promoted and then failed in Super League then tough, that's sport but at least they'd have had their chance. Just like in every other sport. Both of those clubs would have been well supported, would have brought loads to their away games and would have sunk or swam based on what they did or didn't do on the field.

Nobody in football told Blackpool they couldn't be promoted to the Premier League or the RFU didn't tell Exeter they couldn't be promoted into the Premiership because they had a small stadium and no money. And if they both fail and get relegated it won't reflect badly on either sport because that is the romance of the game, allowing teams who deserve a chance to get one. Rugby League is failing to do that, it is rewarding teams because of geographical potential and holding down clubs who deserve to be in the top flight based on results.

Legolas
27th November 2010, 16:22
Point 1 - An established club is one that was in the top flight before the Franchise system started, in that they were in the top flight based on what they did on the field. I actually answered that question in my last post. If Wigan, Saints or Leeds finished bottom then they should be relegated and would not be an established club until they won promotion and proved that they deserved to play in the top flight again based on what they did on the field. It is not my plan to protect the 'big' clubs, but to reward the established clubs, big or small, who have shown that they deserve to be in the top flight based on what they do on the field.

Point 2 - I do understand the Franchise system you know, and I think it's crap. I believe in a system of relegation and promotion where teams at the bottom of Super League worry more about what happens on the field than whether or not they have a new stadium lined up to impress the RFL.

I also believe that teams in the Championship should be focused primarily on getting promotion and not on whether they will be 'granted eligibility' to 'apply' for a Franchise spot. Crusaders would have been pushed up in 2008 no matter where they finished, Super League was expanding from 12 to 14 and if they hadn't made the GF are you honestly saying they wouldn't have been promoted that year? I don't care if Grand Final runners up are given a form to fill in asking whether they are eligible, I just want the GF winners to be promoted and the team bottom of Super League to be relegated, it would be far more just and would be far more fair than what goes on.

I will ask you a simple question. How would you feel if you were a Barrow or Halifax fan, you follow your team over the season and you end up winning your Grand Final and then realise that your reward is to do it all over again the next season. If either of those teams had been rightfully promoted and then failed in Super League then tough, that's sport but at least they'd have had their chance. Just like in every other sport. Both of those clubs would have been well supported, would have brought loads to their away games and would have sunk or swam based on what they did or didn't do on the field.

Nobody in football told Blackpool they couldn't be promoted to the Premier League or the RFU didn't tell Exeter they couldn't be promoted into the Premiership because they had a small stadium and no money. And if they both fail and get relegated it won't reflect badly on either sport because that is the romance of the game, allowing teams who deserve a chance to get one. Rugby League is failing to do that, it is rewarding teams because of
geographical potential and holding down clubs who deserve to be in the top flight based on
results.

Well said.

Wanderer
28th November 2010, 16:03
Point 1 - An established club is one that was in the top flight before the Franchise system started, in that they were in the top flight based on what they did on the field.
Fine. I asked for your definition and now you have provided me with one.


Point 2 - I do understand the Franchise system you know
I didn't say you didn't.


and I think it's crap.
Fine.


I believe in a system of relegation and promotion where teams at the bottom of Super League worry more about what happens on the field than whether or not they have a new stadium lined up to impress the RFL.
One of the negatives of promotion and relegation that, if you remember, it was hoped the licensing system would address was the yo-yo effect and the impact that was having upon a club's financial stability and ability to develop local players. Being so focused upon winning promotion meant that money was often spent on importing ready-made Aussies, which often clubs could not afford to do, to make a club more competitive but at the expense of investing in youth systems, undermining both a club's stability and also the talent pool of the English game (which was already being limited by a natural fall-off in player numbers).

I do agree that the licensing system has been a bit hit and miss in its application but that doesn't mean the principles behind the system were poor. They were good principles. Clubs need stability; they need proper, responsible financing; they need to develop their local young players; they need to rely less on imports they cannot afford. However, the system has trapped Championship clubs somewhat. Once they have 'ticked the box' in terms of on-field success they are left pretty much without motivation, unless they have a healthy outlook on competition itself (ie, winning for winning's sake rather than for an ultimate goal). In addition, it will be difficult to attract and retain fans who watch their club win stuff only to discover that is it: they aren't promoted. Maybe, in the short term anyway, the way forward is to make the Championship leagues an end in themselves. The Grand Final winner of the Superleague can't go anywhere. That is it. Wigan are presently champions of superleague; they can't be promoted to anything higher. If the Championship leagues grow a similar culture while the RFL feel it necessary to retain licensing then that might increase the value of the Championship leagues to those inside and outside the game. That might not be the answer, obviously, but it is one suggestion.

While my overall opinion of the RFL is it is still backward in so many respects, I do like the fact that as a sport we are willing to be innovative. We don't get or give enough credit for that. Sometimes the innovations will work; other times they won't. So far as I can remember, licensing was not purported as a permanent fixture but rather an open-ended one, with the possibility of returning to relegation and promotion at some point in the future. Maybe what is being considered is retaining licenses until such time as the primary objectives have been met. From what has been said bythe RFL so far, those objectives appear to be financial stability, youth development, stadia and playing standards (although the latter have slipped in the last couple of seasons IMO).

Div
28th November 2010, 21:02
Wanderer, you have picked up on one of the major issues for me. The abolition of promotion and relegation takes the dream away from many clubs supporters. I really admire those supporters in the lower leagues who follow their local clubs with a passion and many of whom probably have given up hope of seeing their team in the top flight. Its a shame as many of the teams down there have been powerhouses of the game in the past , the likes of Swinton, Workington, etc. My fear is that these sleeping hotbeds of the game will be lost forever the longer they spend in the wilderness.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread that the stadium restrictions for entry to SL seem short sighted to me. As long as stadiums are not dangerous and have acceptable if dated facilities I dont see why it should necessarily be a barrier to entry. I would rather see a healthy crowd in a slightly sub standard stadium than rafts of empty seats and a 2000 crowd in a smart modern stadium.

E Saint
28th November 2010, 21:21
Its a shame as many of the teams down there have been powerhouses of the game in the past , the likes of Swinton, Workington, etc. My fear is that these sleeping hotbeds of the game will be lost forever the longer they spend in the wilderness.

Come on Div, its about time you bought into the RFL masterplan. It really doesnt matter that we risk losing the support of those that have carried the game for 120 years as we have a record number (not that any body will give a figure) of kids playing the game in London.

welshsaint
28th November 2010, 21:25
The question of Stadia, for me, should be one of facilities for the players: pitch/training/catering/changing etc. The fans' comfort should come second. As long as the watching hordes are in no danger and have reasonable facilites then none of this should come into the franchise criteria at all. I fear greatly that more clubs will go to the wall by trying to provide facilities that their generated income can never withstand. Would be better to see games packed out than suberb stadia only partially used.
It is a fact that numbers dwindle if there's no chance of promotion or silverware. If promotion and relegation are permanently removed from the Championship, I fear for the outcome.
The idea of spreading the game is admirable but it must be laced with a good dose of common and business sense.....I think that both have been seriously lacking in the franchise system

wardies love child
28th November 2010, 21:52
Sad to say I don't even look at the bottom half of table, just a cursory glance now and then( what is there to look at until august/September). It's wrong to not have promotion and relegation but understand the need for stability regards costs/funds. The criteria for super league I'm not convinced helps the sport at all and I've no idea how we could include promotion/relegation without the risk of a club going to the wall. The sport I think has been stabilised regards clubs going bust but I do think a franchise system has spoiled probably half the games in a season.

DD
29th November 2010, 09:55
Wanderer, you have picked up on one of the major issues for me. The abolition of promotion and relegation takes the dream away from many clubs supporters. I really admire those supporters in the lower leagues who follow their local clubs with a passion and many of whom probably have given up hope of seeing their team in the top flight. Its a shame as many of the teams down there have been powerhouses of the game in the past , the likes of Swinton, Workington, etc. My fear is that these sleeping hotbeds of the game will be lost forever the longer they spend in the wilderness.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread that the stadium restrictions for entry to SL seem short sighted to me. As long as stadiums are not dangerous and have acceptable if dated facilities I dont see why it should necessarily be a barrier to entry. I would rather see a healthy crowd in a slightly sub standard stadium than rafts of empty seats and a 2000 crowd in a smart modern stadium.

The frightening probability is that places such as Oldham, Leigh, the Heavy Woollen Areas and Cumbria, all hotbeds of the game, are gradually, as the years go by, going to see the amount of players playing the game at amateur level diminish as the interest in the game itself dies.

Already we are seeing Oldham post their lowest gates in history and Swinton are now the worst supported club in the game. I wouldn't be surprised to see either go to the wall in the near future.

When the interest is finally killed off in these towns, there won't be the same amount of talent coming through elsewhere to compensate.

The lack of promotion and relegation is slowly killing the game in all of those areas. The clubs have nothing to aspire to anymore.

There are less and less players of decent quality coming through with every year, hence the reason our international team is so poor, yet the RFL continues to neglect the heartland areas that have produced 99% of the players Britain/England has ever had.

The expansion dream is just that. In the end, the obsession with expanding the game is far more likely to kill the game off completely than make it grow substantially.

Gray77
29th November 2010, 10:57
The lack of promotion and relegation is slowly killing the game in all of those areas. The clubs have nothing to aspire to anymore... In the end, the obsession with expanding the game is far more likely to kill the game off completely than make it grow substantially.

Dead right, this is the point I've been trying to make (in a much more long-winded way I admit) and those that don't see it are supporting policies that will lead to the slow death of our game in the hope (and it is no more than that) that we can expand the game elsewhere. For every person we attract in Wrexham and London, I fear we are losing multiple people from Cumbria, East Lancashire and parts of Yorkshire.

We should have made sure that every RL fan in the North of England was sold on the new ideas and made them feel that their support and emotional investment in our game was worth it before trying to get others to do so. Those who complain of a 'flat-cap' mentality will find out that in a decade or so the heartlands of our game will basically be a small corner of South West Lancashire, the metropolitan Leeds area of West Yorkshire and the city of Hull. We could end up with the game being played at a competitive level and infront of decent crowds in an even smaller part of the country than it is now if we continue with the policies of 'act first, think later' expansionism and the end of promotion and relegation.

eddiewaringsflatcap
29th November 2010, 11:45
The frightening probability is that places such as Oldham, Leigh, the Heavy Woollen Areas and Cumbria, all hotbeds of the game, are gradually, as the years go by, going to see the amount of players playing the game at amateur level diminish as the interest in the game itself dies.

Already we are seeing Oldham post their lowest gates in history and Swinton are now the worst supported club in the game. I wouldn't be surprised to see either go to the wall in the near future.

When the interest is finally killed off in these towns, there won't be the same amount of talent coming through elsewhere to compensate.

The lack of promotion and relegation is slowly killing the game in all of those areas. The clubs have nothing to aspire to anymore.

There are less and less players of decent quality coming through with every year, hence the reason our international team is so poor, yet the RFL continues to neglect the heartland areas that have produced 99% of the players Britain/England has ever had.
The expansion dream is just that. In the end, the obsession with expanding the game is far more likely to kill the game off completely than make it grow substantially.

This is a point we have made which seems to blow in the wind. I have, in the past, linked it to the decline of the international game.

Whereas the followers of teams such as Workington, Oldham, Doncaster etc were always likely to follow the game they loved by attending GB/England games, I would strongly suggest that they are less inclined to do so now.The likes of Martyn Sadler thing that 'marketing' will solve this. The answer has far more to do with what the RFL has to stand for then any publicity campaign.

The absolutely catastrophic handling of ventures such as PSG, Celtic, Gateshead and to a lesser extent Harlequins proved to followers that the RFL were elitist and disingenous and did not respect those who dug the well. That they were willing to sacrifice the traditions of the game (honesty, hard headedness, community spirit etc) for the sake of appealing to new 'markets.'

All very well if you want SKY money, but any attempt to break into new territory at the very least needs to be managed well at the least and needs to be in line with the brand values of the RFL (not that anyone would ever know what these are because the RFL - self serving body that it is - probably does'nt have any) at best.

The continued failings of the RFL serve to confirm to your average fan that expansion is like searching for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and that in failing time in and time out, without any form of self inspection, the RFL are craven of the values that made the game the greatest to those who follow it.

Wanderer
29th November 2010, 12:46
Wanderer, you have picked up on one of the major issues for me. The abolition of promotion and relegation takes the dream away from many clubs supporters. I really admire those supporters in the lower leagues who follow their local clubs with a passion and many of whom probably have given up hope of seeing their team in the top flight. Its a shame as many of the teams down there have been powerhouses of the game in the past , the likes of Swinton, Workington, etc. My fear is that these sleeping hotbeds of the game will be lost forever the longer they spend in the wilderness.
I certainly agree that the lack of promotion/relegation undermines motivation to support or play in a team in the lower divisions and like you I admire fans who support the teams involved. I especially admire those fans who have stood by their club through sessions in administration, like Doncaster and Gateshead. However, I don't agree that the lack of promotion/relegation will result in clubs going under or losing fans per se because that has been happening for decades. There has been a natural decline in interest in rugby league in the so-called 'heartlands' for a long time and that has nothing to do with Superleague, expansion or the introduction of licensing.

Gray77
29th November 2010, 13:30
There has been a natural decline in interest in rugby league in the so-called 'heartlands' for a long time and that has nothing to do with Superleague, expansion or the introduction of licensing.

I don't know whether you're right or wrong on this, but I'm wondering why you come to that conclusion? Just from having a quick look at the Average Attendance page on Redvee it looks like crowds have risen in the past 20 years in the top flight, at the top end clubs like Leeds, Saints, Hull and Wire have shown steady improvements, Wigan remain well supported, teams like Huddersfield and Hull KR are getting better crowds and the likes of Castleford (who are arguably less strong now than 20 years ago on the field) have remained constant.

Below the top flight I don't know, but it looks to me like the amount of people who are going to games is higher than 20 years ago, but maybe concentrated in a smaller area possibly.

DD
29th November 2010, 14:02
I don't know whether you're right or wrong on this, but I'm wondering why you come to that conclusion? Just from having a quick look at the Average Attendance page on Redvee it looks like crowds have risen in the past 20 years in the top flight, at the top end clubs like Leeds, Saints, Hull and Wire have shown steady improvements, Wigan remain well supported, teams like Huddersfield and Hull KR are getting better crowds and the likes of Castleford (who are arguably less strong now than 20 years ago on the field) have remained constant.

Below the top flight I don't know, but it looks to me like the amount of people who are going to games is higher than 20 years ago, but maybe concentrated in a smaller area possibly.

Every one of the top flight clubs is averaging more than they did in the early 1990s.

Every one (bar one or two) of the lower division clubs are averaging less than they did in the early 90s.

If I've time, I'll compare those figures later but it tells you everything you need to know. It's not the fact that people are losing interest in the heartlands. It's the fact that they are losing interest in the heartland clubs outside of Super League.

I wonder why that is?

Div
29th November 2010, 14:15
Every one of the top flight clubs is averaging more than they did in the early 1990s.

Every one (bar one or two) of the lower division clubs are averaging less than they did in the early 90s.

If I've time, I'll compare those figures later but it tells you everything you need to know. It's not the fact that people are losing interest in the heartlands. It's the fact that they are losing interest in the heartland clubs outside of Super League.

I wonder why that is?


...Because in most cases the drawbridge is up.

Gray77
29th November 2010, 15:36
It's not the fact that people are losing interest in the heartlands. It's the fact that they are losing interest in the heartland clubs outside of Super League.

I wonder why that is?

That's my reading of it as well.

Also could have contributed to the stagnation in interest in watching Quins down here. If they were fighting relegation people may turn up and get involved in the good fight and actually have an emotional interest in helping keep the club in the top flight. But when you can lose every week and you know you'll be back in the same division the next year regardless then why will anyone bother to invest in that?

I speak from personal experience in another sport when I say that fighting relegation or striving for promotion gets you out of your armchair and off to a game alot more than mid-table stagnation with nothing to play for.

The RFL got it all the wrong-way around. Making the play-offs 8 teams was supposed to give the crap teams something to strive for, it has led to mediocrity and rewards for poor teams. The RFL argued that it was supposed to eliminate meaningless games. Harlequins haven't played a meaningful league game for years yet we expect people to get involved and support that team.

DD
29th November 2010, 18:32
Every one of the top flight clubs is averaging more than they did in the early 1990s.

Every one (bar one or two) of the lower division clubs are averaging less than they did in the early 90s.

If I've time, I'll compare those figures later but it tells you everything you need to know. It's not the fact that people are losing interest in the heartlands. It's the fact that they are losing interest in the heartland clubs outside of Super League.

I wonder why that is?

As I suspected. Frightening and damning statistics showing how Super League is flourishing whilst at the same time killing off the clubs it left behind.

As Crusaders, Catalans, South Wales, Gateshead, London Skolars and Toulouse were not in existence 20 years ago, their stats have been excluded from this list.

The first figures are the crowd averages twenty years ago and the second figures are the crowd averages for last season.

SUPER LEAGUE

Bradford – 5,584 to 8,359 - UP
Castleford – 6,428 to 6,616 - UP
Harlequins – 841 to 3,379 - UP
Huddersfield – 1,634 to 7,386 - UP
Hull FC – 6,218 to 13,731 - UP
Hull KR – 4,851 to 8,234 - UP
Leeds – 12,259 to 15,362 - UP
St. Helens – 8,555 to 11,190 - UP
Salford – 3,720 to 4,166 - UP
Wakefield – 5,428 to 5,984 - UP
Warrington – 5,412 to 10,945 - UP
Wigan – 13,973 to 15,723 - UP


NON-SUPER LEAGUE

Barrow – 1,997 to 1,764 - DOWN
Batley – 1,506 to 1,068 - DOWN
Blackpool – 806 to 373 - DOWN
Dewsbury – 1,227 to 1,196 - DOWN
Doncaster – 1,965 to 563 - DOWN
Featherstone – 4,269 to 1,918 - DOWN
Halifax – 5,929 to 2,509 - DOWN
Hunslet – 1,046 to 535 - DOWN
Keighley – 936 to 1,083 - UP
Leigh – 4,568 to 2,144 - DOWN
Oldham – 4,401 to 832 - DOWN
Rochdale – 2,510 to 606 - DOWN
Sheffield – 4,038 to 1,308 - DOWN
Swinton – 1,678 to 383 - DOWN
Whitehaven – 961 to 1,012 - UP
Widnes – 7,858 to 2,981 - DOWN
Workington – 691 to 462 - DOWN

Wanderer
29th November 2010, 19:38
The first figures are the crowd averages twenty years ago and the second figures are the crowd averages for last season.

SUPER LEAGUE

Bradford – 5,584 to 8,359 - UP
Castleford – 6,428 to 6,616 - UP
Harlequins – 841 to 3,379 - UP
Huddersfield – 1,634 to 7,386 - UP
Hull FC – 6,218 to 13,731 - UP
Hull KR – 4,851 to 8,234 - UP
Leeds – 12,259 to 15,362 - UP
St. Helens – 8,555 to 11,190 - UP
Salford – 3,720 to 4,166 - UP
Wakefield – 5,428 to 5,984 - UP
Warrington – 5,412 to 10,945 - UP
Wigan – 13,973 to 15,723 - UP

NON-SUPER LEAGUE

Barrow – 1,997 to 1,764 - DOWN
Batley – 1,506 to 1,068 - DOWN
Blackpool – 806 to 373 - DOWN
Dewsbury – 1,227 to 1,196 - DOWN
Doncaster – 1,965 to 563 - DOWN
Featherstone – 4,269 to 1,918 - DOWN
Halifax – 5,929 to 2,509 - DOWN
Hunslet – 1,046 to 535 - DOWN
Keighley – 936 to 1,083 - UP
Leigh – 4,568 to 2,144 - DOWN
Oldham – 4,401 to 832 - DOWN
Rochdale – 2,510 to 606 - DOWN
Sheffield – 4,038 to 1,308 - DOWN
Swinton – 1,678 to 383 - DOWN
Whitehaven – 961 to 1,012 - UP
Widnes – 7,858 to 2,981 - DOWN
Workington – 691 to 462 - DOWN
Your stats are skewed, DD. To find out whether indeed my position or yours is the accurate one, you would need to cite averages for each season over the last 20 years, not just 20 years ago and last year. For all we both know, the figures could have gone up and down, or last season could have been an exception, or whatever. Also, Superleague did not exist 16 seasons ago and so having five seasons' worth of figures prior to the introduction of Superleague would show whether a decline was occurring in the Championship clubs before the existence of Superleague or whether it began with Superleague. They would also show if licensing had had any effect.

Also, Halifax was in Superleague at one point. Wasn't Oldham also? I can't remember. Sheffield was too, wasn't it? So those years would be interesting to see in terms of their stats and which position they support. LIkewise, it is interesting that the attendances for Whitehaven and Keighley were higher last season than 20 years ago, yet both clubs have been relegated now and Whitehaven was in serious financial trouble at one point last season (was Keighley, too?). Also, Castleford spent time in the Championship on more than one occasion during the Superleague era so it would be interesting to see what happened to the attendances for those seasons. Having a memory loss here, but did Wakefield also spend time in the Championship during the last 15 seasons? I can't remember for some reason. It's interesting to see that between the two seasons you cite, Wakefield and Castleford have both noted only slight increases in attendances. If that trend is shown throughout the 20 years you cover then that could point to one reason why the numbers have been unsustainable, assuming they have (hard to judge when 18 years' worth of stats are missing!). Namely: they are just too damn close to one another!

DD
29th November 2010, 21:12
Your stats are skewed, DD. To find out whether indeed my position or yours is the accurate one, you would need to cite averages for each season over the last 20 years, not just 20 years ago and last year. For all we both know, the figures could have gone up and down, or last season could have been an exception, or whatever. Also, Superleague did not exist 16 seasons ago and so having five seasons' worth of figures prior to the introduction of Superleague would show whether a decline was occurring in the Championship clubs before the existence of Superleague or whether it began with Superleague. They would also show if licensing had had any effect.

Also, Halifax was in Superleague at one point. Wasn't Oldham also? I can't remember. Sheffield was too, wasn't it? So those years would be interesting to see in terms of their stats and which position they support. LIkewise, it is interesting that the attendances for Whitehaven and Keighley were higher last season than 20 years ago, yet both clubs have been relegated now and Whitehaven was in serious financial trouble at one point last season (was Keighley, too?). Also, Castleford spent time in the Championship on more than one occasion during the Superleague era so it would be interesting to see what happened to the attendances for those seasons. Having a memory loss here, but did Wakefield also spend time in the Championship during the last 15 seasons? I can't remember for some reason. It's interesting to see that between the two seasons you cite, Wakefield and Castleford have both noted only slight increases in attendances. If that trend is shown throughout the 20 years you cover then that could point to one reason why the numbers have been unsustainable, assuming they have (hard to judge when 18 years' worth of stats are missing!). Namely: they are just too damn close to one another!

This is the biggest straw clutching post I have ever read.

Every single Super League club shows a massive increase in 20 years. All bar two decrease out of Super League and you accuse me of producing skewed stats.

Utterly ridiculous.

The FACTS are that those cast adrift have showed a massive decrease in attendances. Those that haven't been, have shown a large increase. There is no two ways about it. It's happened. How else can the facts be demonstrated? I mean, I can actually email you a spreadsheet showing the trends over the last twenty years if you want by the end of the week, because I will be damned if I am typing out 500 lots of attendances just to make you finally see what should be staring you in the face, but even then I dare say you will pull something out of the fire to continue the argument. If you are trying to enhance your argument by pulling a slight reversal of the trend at Whitehaven and Keighley as your key points then I think it goes to show that you will go to any length to avoid being seen as wrong.

As for Whitehaven and Keighley. Both clubs were in a right holy mess back in 1990. Although these two clubs are your sole crumbs of comfort, Keighley is the one club that doesn't adequately demonstrate their change in support accurately. In fact, really they are the shining beacon of why the closed shop has killed off a club's support. In 1994-95 they averaged 5,000 after Cougarmania had built up so well. Keighley had their rightful promotion stripped away and with each passing season over a 5 or 6 year period, they lost a few hundred each time to get back down to the 1,000 level again as their fans realised that top flight dream had been stripped from them.

Crowds in the lower leagues are suffering terribly and have been doing for the last ten/fifteen years or so. That's not an interpretaion, it's a stone wall fact.

For once, accept it. You are wrong! :)

Wanderer
29th November 2010, 22:23
This is the biggest straw clutching post I have ever read.
Hardly. I just know that producing two years of stats with 18 between them is ridiculous if you want an intelligent discussion, which it would seem you do not. I'm not going to respond to your tirade because that is all it is. As it turns out, I could have written a post in classical Greek and you would have said the same thing.

DD
30th November 2010, 10:02
Hardly. I just know that producing two years of stats with 18 between them is ridiculous if you want an intelligent discussion, which it would seem you do not.

No it isn't. Not if I am trying to show what crowds were like in 1990 compared to what they are in 2010.

As it happens, I am well up for an intelligent discussion but it doesn't matter what evidence is presented, you won't accept it, if it's going to prove you wrong. I have 4,133 posts of yours on here that demonstrate that. :)

You don't want to argue because you cannot present any facts to the contrary, because there aren't any.

As I said, if you want a spreadsheet showing all of the attendances of all of the clubs over the last twenty years, I'll knock up one for you.

At the end of the day, you have to use something to demonstrate something. I utilised 20 years ago as it was a nice round number. I could have picked 16, 17, 18 or 19 too and it would tell you the same. The fact that 27 out of 29 clubs demonstrate my fact perfectly is rather too coincidental for it to be a 'flaw' in the statistics.

However, the fact that you to chose to get all excited over those two clubs 'proving me wrong' just goes to show that all my spreadsheet will do is give you the chance to spot the one or two odd bucks of the trend and then write half a dozen paragraphs on them to try and back up some completely false counter-argument.

The trend of crowds over a significant period of time for the current Super League clubs is upwards, the trend for crowds at clubs outside Super League has been the other way. It's a fact that only the most stubborn would deny.

Gray77
30th November 2010, 10:59
Hardly. I just know that producing two years of stats with 18 between them is ridiculous if you want an intelligent discussion, which it would seem you do not. I'm not going to respond to your tirade because that is all it is. As it turns out, I could have written a post in classical Greek and you would have said the same thing.

Well why not find some stats of your own to back up what you have said? It is hardly fair when you come on giving an opinion without any evidence, somebody else then goes to the time to produce some stats to go against what you have said but then you just come back with this last post. You have done similar with me in the past, you make a sweeping statement, people disagree so you opt for the 'I'm not dignifying/bothering with your remarks anymore' approach and then move on to the next subject. It might be fun for you, but it's deeply frustrating to be on the other side of an argument from you, given that you never approach any issue with anything other than your opinion and an inability to change your mind.

You said that RL in the heartlands has been suffering from a drop in support for a while, and you reckon this started before the licensing started and before we dropped regular promotion and relegation. Fine, but at least try and prove your point with some evidence.

eddiewaringsflatcap
30th November 2010, 12:34
No it isn't. Not if I am trying to show what crowds were like in 1990 compared to what they are in 2010.

As it happens, I am well up for an intelligent discussion but it doesn't matter what evidence is presented, you won't accept it, if it's going to prove you wrong. I have 4,133 posts of yours on here that demonstrate that. :)

You don't want to argue because you cannot present any facts to the contrary, because there aren't any.

As I said, if you want a spreadsheet showing all of the attendances of all of the clubs over the last twenty years, I'll knock up one for you.

At the end of the day, you have to use something to demonstrate something. I utilised 20 years ago as it was a nice round number. I could have picked 16, 17, 18 or 19 too and it would tell you the same. The fact that 27 out of 29 clubs demonstrate my fact perfectly is rather too coincidental for it to be a 'flaw' in the statistics.

However, the fact that you to chose to get all excited over those two clubs 'proving me wrong' just goes to show that all my spreadsheet will do is give you the chance to spot the one or two odd bucks of the trend and then write half a dozen paragraphs on them to try and back up some completely false counter-argument.

The trend of crowds over a significant period of time for the current Super League clubs is upwards, the trend for crowds at clubs outside Super League has been the other way. It's a fact that only the most stubborn would deny.

I am still waiting for some evidence to back up the 'conceptual' assertion that Harlequins RL...:


...have a great youth system

...In the face of:

- Over 30 years of existence and the sum total of their player production that you could mention with a straight face is one, possibly two players.
- Last seasons Valvoline Cup:

Team P W D L PF PA Diff Pts
Warrington Wolves 20 16 1 3 832 359 473 33
St. Helens 20 15 1 4 744 444 300 31
Wigan Warriors 20 15 0 5 727 340 387 30
Huddersfield Giants 20 11 2 7 510 560 -50 24
Hull FC 20 11 1 8 457 456 1 23
Salford City Reds 20 9 2 9 596 564 32 20
Bradford Bulls 20 10 0 10 552 570 -18 20
Wakefield Wildcats 20 8 1 11 468 498 -30 17
Hull Kingston Rovers 20 5 2 13 505 671 -166 12
Leeds Rhinos 20 5 2 13 396 720 -324 12
Castleford Tigers 20 5 0 15 488 638 -150 10
Harlequins RL 20 4 0 16 366 821 -455 8

To be fair to Wanderer, I actually think that the Championship is allowing teams to improve their foundations (how much this is mandated by the RFL or the positive work of those clubs is an interesting side note) and the attendences of the likes of Fev, Barrow, Halifax and Widnes last seasons were encouraging.

It's just the fact that I don't buy into the sop that is the 'franchise application.' Its nothing of the sort and lacks all credibility, substance and objectivity.

DD
30th November 2010, 13:45
To be fair to Wanderer, I actually think that the Championship is allowing teams to improve their foundations (how much this is mandated by the RFL or the positive work of those clubs is an interesting side note) and the attendences of the likes of Fev, Barrow, Halifax and Widnes last seasons were encouraging.

.

I haven't got the stats at hand but Featherstone barely changed despiite a hugely successful season. Barrow and Widnes crowds declined markedly and Halifax only broke the 2,500 barrier because of some hugely inflated last attendance to make sure they broke that barrier.

DD
30th November 2010, 13:54
Well why not find some stats of your own to back up what you have said? It is hardly fair when you come on giving an opinion without any evidence, somebody else then goes to the time to produce some stats to go against what you have said but then you just come back with this last post. You have done similar with me in the past, you make a sweeping statement, people disagree so you opt for the 'I'm not dignifying/bothering with your remarks anymore' approach and then move on to the next subject. It might be fun for you, but it's deeply frustrating to be on the other side of an argument from you, given that you never approach any issue with anything other than your opinion and an inability to change your mind.

Oh yes!



You said that RL in the heartlands has been suffering from a drop in support for a while, and you reckon this started before the licensing started and before we dropped regular promotion and relegation. Fine, but at least try and prove your point with some evidence.

And of course it's kind of ambigiuous to say when this was and this is where someone as clever as Wanderer can manipulate the stats to suit.

In theory, P&R has been only abolished over the last couple of years. However, automatic P&R went by the wayside in 1994-95. Whilst Widnes may have had a chance of promotion up until the last three years, Dewsbury and Hunslet had those chances taken away fifteen years ago because they were never going to fulfill the criteria.

Therefore different years demonstrate the cut off point for each club's dreams.

It isn't an exact science so you can only go back to a time when all clubs had hope of P&R and compare to a time that they don't. With hindsight I should have knocked up a comparison between 1994-95 and now. For me, that was the year that automatic promotion without criteria was ended and that was the year Super League became a closed shop to all bar four or five bigger lower league clubs.

Either way, the argument is about the state of clubs now and most lower league clubs are now posting their lowest crowds over a twenty year period, whilst most Super League clubs are up there with their highest.

There's no argument about it.

Geoggy
30th November 2010, 14:01
Hardly. I just know that producing two years of stats with 18 between them is ridiculous if you want an intelligent discussion, which it would seem you do not. I'm not going to respond to your tirade because that is all it is. As it turns out, I could have written a post in classical Greek and you would have said the same thing.

pwned

DD
30th November 2010, 14:11
pwned

It's as much bollocks as what you have just written! :)

eddiewaringsflatcap
30th November 2010, 14:18
I haven't got the stats at hand but Featherstone barely changed despiite a hugely successful season. Barrow and Widnes crowds declined markedly and Halifax only broke the 2,500 barrier because of some hugely inflated last attendance to make sure they broke that barrier.

OK - I am happy to stand corrected, unlike some ;-)

eddiewaringsflatcap
30th November 2010, 14:23
There's no argument about it.

There is... There's a notional argument that is more important than fact, but dont worry, point any mor eout and it will be dismissed as an (inconvenient) 'tirade.'

Perhaps you could speak in neo-classical Latin?

DD
30th November 2010, 14:48
There is... There's a notional argument that is more important than fact, but dont worry, point any mor eout and it will be dismissed as an (inconvenient) 'tirade.'

Perhaps you could speak in neo-classical Latin?

I'd settle for being able to get up there with your level of English!:)

Geoggy
30th November 2010, 16:45
It's as much bollocks as what you have just written! :)
:D

Last time I stick up for you!;)

Dont mess with DD 's stats!

Wanderer
30th November 2010, 17:47
Well why not find some stats of your own to back up what you have said?
DD provided some but they were inadequate to back up either point because two sets of figures with an 18 year gap is not evidence of anything: either a drop or a rise. I didn't produce figures because I'm too lazy to look and didn't anticipate a bloody tirade about it (although God knows I should by now, whenever I put finger to keyboard for feck's sake). However, DD did produce figures so, in doing so, left himself open to the risk of them being shown up as not fit for purpose; which they aren't. Either my purpose or his own. They were pointless, in fact.

Gray77
30th November 2010, 18:26
DD provided some but they were inadequate to back up either point because two sets of figures with an 18 year gap is not evidence of anything: either a drop or a rise. I didn't produce figures because I'm too lazy to look and didn't anticipate a bloody tirade about it (although God knows I should by now, whenever I put finger to keyboard for feck's sake). However, DD did produce figures so, in doing so, left himself open to the risk of them being shown up as not fit for purpose; which they aren't. Either my purpose or his own. They were pointless, in fact.

Why reply to me, I only asked you to back up what you said. You do make a relevant point in that you didn't expect the come-back from people about your post. But you should have done, because you made a sweeping remark about RL losing support in certain areas and said that this had been happening for a while before franchising and the end of natural P&R. You only have to look at the Average Attendance page on this website to see that Super League crowds have risen gradually but steadily over the years. The crowd figures for clubs outside of Super League are not what they were before the 'modernising' elements of RL came into force, and if you look at the same figures you'll see that clubs like Widnes and Halifax pulled in good crowds back in the day (on a par with Saints at times and well above the likes of Warrington) but those clubs are now stuck in the Championship hoping that off-field events allow them a chance to return to the top flight.

This issue for me is similar to the Saints rebranding thread in terms of how some people on here justified the rebranding by commenting that Saints have reached their potential in terms of home-town support, yet when given facts to indicate that a new ground basically doubled the crowds at Hull and Warrington people just ignored the facts and kept up an opinion-led argument because the facts didn't suit their argument. This is similar. If you want to give an opinion based view of stuff then that's obviously fine, you can write what you want, but in terms of your views about loss of support and about the advances in Harlequins internal player development etc your views are simply that, your view. The facts don't bear it out. Harlequins finished bottom of the reserve table, crowds in Super League have risen whilst crowds outside Super League have fallen. They are facts. Single clubs may buck the trend, but there is still a trend which is too obvious to ignore.

As for the 'tirades', well I don't know what classes as a tirade in your eyes, but it's not like you're the victim on here. You easily give as much as you receive, and I have never felt for a second that you actually care too much about people disagreeing with you and telling you you're talking nonsense, and that's fine with me. But, when you are wrong or facts are put to you to indicate that you are it would be nice if you bent just a little and actually made the other person at least aware that you've taken an opposite viewpoint on board.

Your last post is the perfect example of this. You have no desire to actually give a factual counter-argument to what DD wrote. You've informed him that his facts are pointless and you think they aren't 'fit for purpose'. Great, disagree all you want, but where are your facts to back up your point of view? This issue is a pretty big one and will get people involved in passionate debate, but if you only want to give your opinions then shirk the issue when it comes to backing it up then people are going to get annoyed. Nobody came on here on this thread to have a pop at you, you made the sweeping remark first, I was actually interested and asked you a while back how you came to those conclusions, but you never replied. A few of us think you're wrong and have tried to back up our POV using facts. If you still believe what you think is right then that's fine, but you're doing nothing to convince us so far.

Northampton_Saint
30th November 2010, 18:56
DD provided some but they were inadequate to back up either point because two sets of figures with an 18 year gap is not evidence of anything: either a drop or a rise. I didn't produce figures because I'm too lazy to look and didn't anticipate a bloody tirade about it (although God knows I should by now, whenever I put finger to keyboard for feck's sake). However, DD did produce figures so, in doing so, left himself open to the risk of them being shown up as not fit for purpose; which they aren't. Either my purpose or his own. They were pointless, in fact.

...except for the fact that all SL clubs are better supported now than 18 years ago. And that all non-SL (with minor exceptions) are worse supported now than 18 years ago. Which is exactly the point that the figures were meant to prove. And do prove. So it's difficult to see where your continued beef is...

This reminds me of that line from Homer Simpson: "Facts? Pfff... What use are facts? Facts can be used to prove almost anything even remotely true..."

Northampton_Saint
30th November 2010, 19:04
Anyway, facts are that RL is being slowly strangled by Superleague in it's hinterland and football is steadily backfilling the vacuum that is being left. Unless we kick the ludicrous and embarassing failed experiments in London and Wales to the curb and reinstate promotion and relegation to reignite some fan interest in the current RL leper colonies then the game will be dead and buried as anything more than a glorified pub game in 20 years. Once you've lost the next generation of kids to the all-consuming media monster of football then all future generations after that will be lost irrevocably too.

Wanderer
30th November 2010, 19:19
...except for the fact that all SL clubs are better supported now than 18 years ago. And that all non-SL (with minor exceptions) are worse supported now than 18 years ago. Which is exactly the point that the figures were meant to prove. And do prove. So it's difficult to see where your continued beef is...
What beef would that be exactly? I simply responded to a post of DD's, I believe. More fool me.

I was not debating Superleague but the figures provided by DD in particular relating to the Championship. I'm not repeating my post because you can see that for yourself if you can be arsed actually reading what I've written.

Wanderer
30th November 2010, 19:26
Why reply to me, I only asked you to back up what you said.
And I answered you.


But you should have done, because you made a sweeping remark about RL losing support in certain areas
I believe I was responding to someone else's 'sweeping remark' (in the language of people without a problem: an opinion was expressed).

But, when you are wrong or facts are put to you to indicate that you are it would be nice if you bent just a little and actually made the other person at least aware that you've taken an opposite viewpoint on board.
Er, I didn't quote any facts and the only facts DD quoted to me were in relation to two seasons: 1990 and 2010. You cannot establish whether a trend has occurred by using only the top and tail of the period you are analysing. To do so is nonsense. As you would read from my post, if you read my post, I was particularly concerned with the Championship stats because it is my opinion on declining CHampionship attendances pre-licensing and pre-Superleague that DD was taking me to task on. Neither my position nor his can be evidenced one way or another by citing only two seasons' figures at either end of the range.

If people want to challenge my opinion on something I'm all for that. But if they want to cite figures to back up their position then they need to do so accurately or else there is no way I can respond to their evidence.

Wanderer
30th November 2010, 19:31
No it isn't. Not if I am trying to show what crowds were like in 1990 compared to what they are in 2010.
lol!! But that isn't what you were trying to achieve by quoting those stats at me, as you well know. You were trying to make the point that Championship crowds had diminished as a result of Superleague/licensing. Citing stats at either end of the range doesn't do that; it just compares two seasons with 18 years between them. That shows nothing at all other than there was a difference in attendences between the two seasons: mostly down but in two cases up. To show a trend you have to show all the seasons, as you also well know. If you want to prove your point to me then please go ahead and cite official averages for the seasons from 1990 to 2010 inclusive for the Championship clubs. If you don't want to prove your point then I'm fine about that. I'm not bothered whether I am right or wrong.

The rest of your post was a bit silly, so I'll leave it there.

Private Pyle
30th November 2010, 19:34
Out of interest does anyone have any idea how the drop in attendance shown by DD's figures compares with the inevitable drop in attendance that would be expected from any relegation from the top flight (regardless of P&R)?

Personally I'm more than a little worried at the extreme way in which attendances in the Manchester area have disappeared completely. It's not like Salford have managed to find an equivalent increase despite being in Superleague. What a waste

Barney Rubble
30th November 2010, 19:48
Out of interest does anyone have any idea how the drop in attendance shown by DD's figures compares with the inevitable drop in attendance that would be expected from any relegation from the top flight (regardless of P&R)?

Personally I'm more than a little worried at the extreme way in which attendances in the Manchester area have disappeared completely. It's not like Salford have managed to find an equivalent increase despite being in Superleague. What a waste

Maybe because they are called salford and not Manchester ?:???:

Private Pyle
30th November 2010, 19:58
Maybe because they are called salford and not Manchester ?:???:

Well done genius, but there's no need for the sarcasm (spot the irony)

I'm not too sure what point you were trying to make but I wasn't meaning that they should be taking on the other teams supporters. I was merely making the observation that we've obviously lost a lot of fans in that region (i.e. Greater Manchester, of which Salford is a part) and therefore the sport has a reduced exposure in the area. The one remaining high-level team in that region have made pretty limited progress in attracting new support

Barney Rubble
30th November 2010, 20:25
Well done genius, but there's no need for the sarcasm (spot the irony)

I'm not too sure what point you were trying to make but I wasn't meaning that they should be taking on the other teams supporters. I was merely making the observation that we've obviously lost a lot of fans in that region (i.e. Greater Manchester, of which Salford is a part) and therefore the sport has a reduced exposure in the area. The one remaining high-level team in that region have made pretty limited progress in attracting new supportCalm your skin brother ! :cool:
Im thinking maybe they would get more supporters if they were Manchester rather than Salford. Im probably wrong but there have been more stupid ideas than that in the last 10/15 years ?

Gray77
30th November 2010, 20:43
I'm not bothered whether I am right or wrong.

That sums it up really!

eddiewaringsflatcap
30th November 2010, 20:45
I'd settle for being able to get up there with your level of English!:)

I remember when people used to think that about Paul Cullen...

Wanderer
30th November 2010, 20:47
That sums it up really!
lol!

Div
30th November 2010, 20:48
lol!! But that isn't what you were trying to achieve by quoting those stats at me, as you well know. You were trying to make the point that Championship crowds had diminished as a result of Superleague/licensing. Citing stats at either end of the range doesn't do that; it just compares two seasons with 18 years between them. That shows nothing at all other than there was a difference in attendences between the two seasons: mostly down but in two cases up. To show a trend you have to show all the seasons, as you also well know. If you want to prove your point to me then please go ahead and cite official averages for the seasons from 1990 to 2010 inclusive for the Championship clubs. If you don't want to prove your point then I'm fine about that. I'm not bothered whether I am right or wrong.

The rest of your post was a bit silly, so I'll leave it there.




Or just have a good general knowledge of what has happened in recent years.

Wanderer
30th November 2010, 21:02
Or just have a good general knowledge of what has happened in recent years.
Not if you are providing evidence to back up your good general knowledge, no. That is what DD did and he can't simply pick two seasons as evidence and claim that is a trend. Not if he wants his stats to be taken seriously anyway.

DD
1st December 2010, 00:13
For Christ's sake woman, I've had enough of this.

I have never come across a more pig headed, condascending, stubborn arse hole in my entire life. However, Wanderer, just send me your email address. I haven't got the time or inclination to type out 500+ attendances individually but I can have it all on spreadsheet to you by early afternoon tomorrow. I'll send it to you and you can pick holes out of that. Just PM me with your address will you?

Northampton_Saint
1st December 2010, 00:39
Out of interest does anyone have any idea how the drop in attendance shown by DD's figures compares with the inevitable drop in attendance that would be expected from any relegation from the top flight (regardless of P&R)?

Personally I'm more than a little worried at the extreme way in which attendances in the Manchester area have disappeared completely. It's not like Salford have managed to find an equivalent increase despite being in Superleague. What a waste

To be fair to the eternal waste of time that is Salford RL, no team a couple of miles down the road from Old Trafford, right in the centre of a traditional Scum Utd. heartland, has the slightest prayer of getting any more than 4 or 5 thousand a week turning up no matter what they do. Sad but true.

warringtonsaint
1st December 2010, 05:53
For Christ's sake woman, I've had enough of this.

I have never come across a more pig headed, condascending, stubborn arse hole in my entire life. However, Wanderer, just send me your email address. I haven't got the time or inclination to type out 500+ attendances individually but I can have it all on spreadsheet to you by early afternoon tomorrow. I'll send it to you and you can pick holes out of that. Just PM me with your address will you?

I can but agree with you here Dave - so many threads end on here up being devalued by having to deal with the minutiae of detail caused by one posters total inability to be anything other than a stubborn @rse.

You have to think that they do it from some perverse sense of ego............just how many threads do they "contribute" to that descend not into a reasoned discussion and preparedness to accept other poster's views, but sheer bloody mindedness for the sake of it?

It's all pretty sad really, especially from a poster who I used to think made some very valid points, but now seems to accept no views other than her own.

Div
1st December 2010, 08:48
Is that a fact ? Im not saying it isn't but where is the evidence ? Its oft quoted but I do wonder where it comes from........I think we are on the wrong thread , we did have a heartlands / development area thread and this is drifting into that territory now !!

Hemel Hempstead were always quoted as being a hotbed of development who would be ready for the pro game a few years down the line. Are they still thriving ?( That is a genuine question )




On the subject of requesting evidence nobody has still answered my questions here ref ' the game in London is booming' claims. (Before anyone points it out I know HH isn't in London but the first paragraph was referring to London).

eddiewaringsflatcap
1st December 2010, 10:10
On the subject of requesting evidence nobody has still answered my questions here ref ' the game in London is booming' claims. (Before anyone points it out I know HH isn't in London but the first paragraph was referring to London).

Likewise, I am interested on why the 'great youth setup' at London seems to result in this (year in, year out):

Team P W D L PF PA Diff Pts
Warrington Wolves 20 16 1 3 832 359 473 33
St. Helens 20 15 1 4 744 444 300 31
Wigan Warriors 20 15 0 5 727 340 387 30
Huddersfield Giants 20 11 2 7 510 560 -50 24
Hull FC 20 11 1 8 457 456 1 23
Salford City Reds 20 9 2 9 596 564 32 20
Bradford Bulls 20 10 0 10 552 570 -18 20
Wakefield Wildcats 20 8 1 11 468 498 -30 17
Hull Kingston Rovers 20 5 2 13 505 671 -166 12
Leeds Rhinos 20 5 2 13 396 720 -324 12
Castleford Tigers 20 5 0 15 488 638 -150 10
Harlequins RL 20 4 0 16 366 821 -455 8

Gray77
1st December 2010, 10:43
Harlequins/London Broncos Average Attendances from their first season in the top flight 1995-96 to 2010 with league position in brackets.

1995-96 - 2357 (10th)
1996 - 5859 (4th)
1997 - 5634 (2nd)
1998 - 3626 (7th)
1999 - 2934 (8th)
2000 - 3419 (11th)
2001 - 3177 (6th)
2002 - 3760 (8th)
2003 - 3546 (5th)
2004 - 3458 (10th)
2005 - 4038 (6th)
2006 - 4917 (7th) (1st year as Harlequins)
2007 - 3395 (9th)
2008 - 3777 (9th)
2009 - 3436 (11th)
2010 - 3379 (13th)

Absolutely no progression at all. A real spike in crowds in the mid 1990's when they were 'promoted' and then finished 4th and 2nd in the table (pre play-offs) and a smaller spike in support in the first season after the merger with Harlequins RUFC. Note as well that in this we have an average attendance that is skewed by a few 'double-headers' that they had with the RU team when the overrall crowd figure was used by the RL team as well.

Even in the years when they've been top half it hasn't correlated with any real increase in support. Their best season in the last decade was 2003 when they finished 5th but their average was just 3546. It seems to me that short-term interest was there in 1995 to 1997 because it was something new and the team were doing well. Once the buzz of a new thing had passed the crowds went off to do something else, and in the 13 years since they've never been back in any real numbers.

Wanderer
1st December 2010, 13:05
For Christ's sake woman, I've had enough of this.

I have never come across a more pig headed, condascending, stubborn arse hole in my entire life. However, Wanderer, just send me your email address. I haven't got the time or inclination to type out 500+ attendances individually but I can have it all on spreadsheet to you by early afternoon tomorrow. I'll send it to you and you can pick holes out of that. Just PM me with your address will you?
I don't know why the •••• you are getting so irate.

I am not worried about your figures. I never was. You quoted them; I didn't ask you to and nor did I quote any.

But I don't think it is necessary to call me an arsehole. I do realise these boards are not exactly closely moderated but I think that is over the top and unnecessarily offensive.

End of conversation.

Wanderer
1st December 2010, 13:06
It's all pretty sad really, especially from a poster who I used to think made some very valid points, but now seems to accept no views other than her own.
Clearly you don't read my posts if you think that.

Reacher
1st December 2010, 13:12
For Christ's sake woman, I've had enough of this.

I have never come across a more pig headed, condascending, stubborn arse hole in my entire life. However, Wanderer, just send me your email address. I haven't got the time or inclination to type out 500+ attendances individually but I can have it all on spreadsheet to you by early afternoon tomorrow. I'll send it to you and you can pick holes out of that. Just PM me with your address will you?

:D:D

Quality and I have never agreed more with you. She really cannot comprehend how stubborn she is and why loads of posters argue with her.

Wanderer- Ever heard of the expression common denominator??

Wanderer
1st December 2010, 13:15
:D:D

Quality and I have never agreed more with you. She really cannot comprehend how stubborn she is and why loads of posters argue with her.

Wanderer- Ever heard of the expression common denominator??
Oh, now there's a surprise. You suddenly appear from nowhere to join in a piley.

Reacher
1st December 2010, 13:20
I can but agree with you here Dave - so many threads end on here up being devalued by having to deal with the minutiae of detail caused by one posters total inability to be anything other than a stubborn @rse.

You have to think that they do it from some perverse sense of ego............just how many threads do they "contribute" to that descend not into a reasoned discussion and preparedness to accept other poster's views, but sheer bloody mindedness for the sake of it?

It's all pretty sad really, especially from a poster who I used to think made some very valid points, but now seems to accept no views other than her own.

I think its more that she has gone from under 1000 posts to over 4000 in such a short space of time. She must make nearly 30 a day so obviously feels fit to post any old shite. Obviously has a real exciting home life.

Oh and before you quote my post count Wanderer, look at our respective join dates.

Reacher
1st December 2010, 13:21
Oh, now there's a surprise. You suddenly appear from nowhere to join in a piley.

Oh there's a surprise you being on here every minute of every day. You not got a job yet?

Gray77
1st December 2010, 13:41
There has been a natural decline in interest in rugby league in the so-called 'heartlands' for a long time and that has nothing to do with Superleague, expansion or the introduction of licensing.

That's what you said in response to a post by DD. In the 2 pages since then you have been asked to at least attempt to try and back that up with some facts. You haven't just failed to do so, you have openly said you have no intention of doing so and you also have said that 'I don't care if I'm right or wrong' which just makes you look like a wind-up merchant.

When talking about a big issue like the future of our game in heartland areas it is obvious that some people who care about our game are going to disagree with your comment and some (me included) see the drop in crowds outside of the top flight as more to do with the end of P&R and the start of Franchising. But at least we try and back the opinion up with stats and information. You just make a point, then pick holes in the opposite viewpoint whilst doing nothing to back up your own.

That is why some people on here give you stick, because you treat everything that opposes your view as a personal attack. You have no will to compromise or see another viewpoint, and then when people start getting wound up over your refusal to budge you then declare that you don't even care anyway. I seem to spend half my time on this board shaking my head at the way you act, you just go around picking arguments on everything on the back of you giving your 'opinions' which are badly thought out, have no factual back up and obviously aren't of massive importance to you anyway.

I suppose now that you've annoyed multiple people on this thread you can go on to the next subject now, until the point when your viewpoint is challenged and you realise you have no basis for your argument, accuse everyone of picking on you and then go off to the next thread and start another row. I'm getting sick and tired of it, I'm not the only one.

Div
1st December 2010, 13:53
any chance of some evidence of the booming London scene ?