Re: Merger : Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:50 pm  

rovers wrote:

merged teams in this country wouldnt work

dont understand that comment

Re: Merger : Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:04 pm  

MUTLEY CAT wrote:

dont understand that comment

I think he means that history would get in the way of a commercial decision. I agree that it would, but disagree that in the long run it would make the merged club stronger, more viable financially and as a bi-product, more competitive.
The Sport is a Business now and you can't base commercial decisions on your uncle albert spinning in his grave.

Re: Merger : Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:37 pm  

I really don't know why we keep coming back to this old chestnut, we fought long and hard to keep our identities and until our relegation we played our part. All that would happen with a merger is we would lose over half our support, trinity would lose over half their support and the result would be a similar sized club to what we already have, with the loss of two famous clubs who still contribute a great deal to their local communities. Do you think that Castleford schools would continue to dominate schools RL if there was no Castleford club? no way!

There's no reason why both clubs can't still flourish and in fact one reason they do is because of the local rivalry, you might as well say lets merge both Hull clubs, it's well known that KR are struggling with finances, of course FC have been down that road before, haven't they and that didn't work other than to line FC's pockets and get them out of a great big hole!

The divide between Castleford and Wakefield is wider than ever these days, time was when it was the cappers or loiners who were the arch emeny, but I can tell you these days that position is reserved for Wakey these days! I for one would never watch a merged side and I can tell you there are many thousands more who feel the same.

What we need is the RFL to relax the stadium criteria until this recession is well and truly over, then both clubs (and others such as Salford and Bradford) can get on with playing competitive rugby instead of chasing the dream with every bit of cash, ideally we would all like a sugar daddy such as Wire have, but unfortunately they are few and far between.

Re: Merger : Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:52 am  

Mergers eh, mmmmmmmmmmmmm Huddersfield / Sheffield mmmmm Gateshead / Hull

Now they really work dont they

Re: Merger : Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:22 am  

Speedy wrote: Mergers eh, mmmmmmmmmmmmm Huddersfield / Sheffield mmmmm Gateshead / Hull Now they really work dont they I think we can all see that they were takeovers and not mergers, however, both clubs are now a millions times better off then they were prior to the takeover/merger. In respect of the thread title, steadygetyerboots-on perhaps has made the most sensible comment I’ve read yet viewtopic.php?p=15126058#p15126058 steadygetyerboots-on wrote: As soon as wakey announced the location of Newmarket Lane I warned both Cas and wakey fans that a merger would come and I still don't see anything to make me think it wont happen. As I have resigned myself to this I have mused over the prospect for quite a while and I think the majority of people, myself included, could follow a merged team under the following conditions: 1. No professional rugby league team henceforth to be allowed to have the following words incorporated into its name; Castleford Tigers and/or Wakefield Trinity Wildcats. The names must die with the merger; it's the only way it could work. 2. The newly merged team must play in completely neutral colours (no black, amber, red, white or blue) difficult though this may be. There aren't many left as I'm sure neither of us wants to play in blue (spit!) 3. The newly formed club must be named independently of the two places. Who says a team has to bear the name of a Town or a City? It has to be something completely synonomous with the area; the only thing I can think of that alienates no-one, but incorporates almost everyone is the moniker "Miners" or some other mining industry name. This, in my opinion, could appease some of the older heads too as well as allowing the heritage and identity of the whole area to blossom and engender a lost sense of pride and community which has otherwise been consigned to the rubbish tip by successive Tory and (more shamefully in my opinion) Labour governments. Apologies I digress! If these three points were applied, more importantly point 1, then I, as gut wrenching as it would be, could support a merged team with the pride and passion with which I have followed Castleford Tigers. You may have noticed that I have left Featherstone Rovers out of the equation, this is purely as the thread appears to me to be talking about Cas and wakey only. They could easily be placed into the equation I have outlined above with little or no problem should they choose to.

Speedy wrote: Mergers eh, mmmmmmmmmmmmm Huddersfield / Sheffield mmmmm Gateshead / Hull Now they really work dont they I think we can all see that they were takeovers and not mergers, however, both clubs are now a millions times better off then they were prior to the takeover/merger. In respect of the thread title, steadygetyerboots-on perhaps has made the most sensible comment I’ve read yet viewtopic.php?p=15126058#p15126058 steadygetyerboots-on wrote: As soon as wakey announced the location of Newmarket Lane I warned both Cas and wakey fans that a merger would come and I still don't see anything to make me think it wont happen. As I have resigned myself to this I have mused over the prospect for quite a while and I think the majority of people, myself included, could follow a merged team under the following conditions: 1. No professional rugby league team henceforth to be allowed to have the following words incorporated into its name; Castleford Tigers and/or Wakefield Trinity Wildcats. The names must die with the merger; it's the only way it could work. 2. The newly merged team must play in completely neutral colours (no black, amber, red, white or blue) difficult though this may be. There aren't many left as I'm sure neither of us wants to play in blue (spit!) 3. The newly formed club must be named independently of the two places. Who says a team has to bear the name of a Town or a City? It has to be something completely synonomous with the area; the only thing I can think of that alienates no-one, but incorporates almost everyone is the moniker "Miners" or some other mining industry name. This, in my opinion, could appease some of the older heads too as well as allowing the heritage and identity of the whole area to blossom and engender a lost sense of pride and community which has otherwise been consigned to the rubbish tip by successive Tory and (more shamefully in my opinion) Labour governments. Apologies I digress! If these three points were applied, more importantly point 1, then I, as gut wrenching as it would be, could support a merged team with the pride and passion with which I have followed Castleford Tigers. You may have noticed that I have left Featherstone Rovers out of the equation, this is purely as the thread appears to me to be talking about Cas and wakey only. They could easily be placed into the equation I have outlined above with little or no problem should they choose to.

Re: Merger : Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:11 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

Surely a merged team would be called The Wild Pussies this maintaing a link with both clubs feline monikers.

You would be better served sorting out your own pussies

Re: Merger : Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:32 am  

Khlav Kalash wrote: I think we can all see that they were takeovers and not mergers, however, both clubs are now a millions times better off then they were prior to the takeover/merger. In respect of the thread title, steadygetyerboots-on perhaps has made the most sensible comment I’ve read yet viewtopic.php?p=15126058#p15126058 That million times better is because they both received a £million for merging, when you say both clubs are better off, of course you mean Hull FC and Huddersfield, but where did it leave rugby league in the outposts of Sheffield and Gateshead? on the scrapheap! It was an absolute travesty when that happened and took a couple of £million, no doubt without that money Hull and Huddersfield wouldn't be where they are today, but I'm sure with such a handout the Tigers would also prosper. I say a big NO to mergers!!! It's a stupid idea and won't happen, but if you want a merger for Wakey, then you would be better off merging them with Dewsbury and ploughing any money they get from selling their ground into upgrading Dewsbury's tidy little stadium!

Khlav Kalash wrote: I think we can all see that they were takeovers and not mergers, however, both clubs are now a millions times better off then they were prior to the takeover/merger. In respect of the thread title, steadygetyerboots-on perhaps has made the most sensible comment I’ve read yet viewtopic.php?p=15126058#p15126058 That million times better is because they both received a £million for merging, when you say both clubs are better off, of course you mean Hull FC and Huddersfield, but where did it leave rugby league in the outposts of Sheffield and Gateshead? on the scrapheap! It was an absolute travesty when that happened and took a couple of £million, no doubt without that money Hull and Huddersfield wouldn't be where they are today, but I'm sure with such a handout the Tigers would also prosper. I say a big NO to mergers!!! It's a stupid idea and won't happen, but if you want a merger for Wakey, then you would be better off merging them with Dewsbury and ploughing any money they get from selling their ground into upgrading Dewsbury's tidy little stadium!

Re: Merger : Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:56 am  

Speedy wrote:

Mergers eh, mmmmmmmmmmmmm Huddersfield / Sheffield mmmmm Gateshead / Hull

Khlav Kalash wrote:

I think we can all see that they were takeovers and not mergers, however, both clubs are now a millions times better off then they were prior to the takeover/merger.

In fact there were four clubs mentioned. How are the other two getting on since their Super League days?

I'm not in any way convinced that a truly equal merger of two businesses could happen without one becoming dominant and the other subsumed. Hudds/Sheff becomes Hudds.. Hull/Gateshead becomes Hull. With that in mind, entering into a merger means little for the dominant business and death for the other. It happens all the time, not just in sport.

It strikes me that, while both businesses have stengths and weaknesses, Trinity would assume dominance in a merger purely because their name encompasses a larger geographic area. Personally, while I'm not knocking Wakey in any way, it's just not a place name I identify with to any degree. I'm not interested in following a side with Wakefield in it's name, especially when - once the dust has died down - it will likely end up with ONLY Wakefield in it's name, just like the two examples above.

Re: Merger : Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:20 am  

Disco wrote:

In fact there were four clubs mentioned. How are the other two getting on since their Super League days?

I'm not in any way convinced that a truly equal merger of two businesses could happen without one becoming dominant and the other subsumed. Hudds/Sheff becomes Hudds.. Hull/Gateshead becomes Hull. With that in mind, entering into a merger means little for the dominant business and death for the other. It happens all the time, not just in sport.

It strikes me that, while both businesses have stengths and weaknesses, Trinity would assume dominance in a merger purely because their name encompasses a larger geographic area. Personally, while I'm not knocking Wakey in any way, it's just not a place name I identify with to any degree. I'm not interested in following a side with Wakefield in it's name, especially when - once the dust has died down - it will likely end up with ONLY Wakefield in it's name, just like the two examples above.

There's already an example of something like this Disco, Emley Football Club moved to Wakey's ground a few years ago, after a couple of years there, they changed the clubs name to Wakefield and Emley, then Emley was dropped altogether from the name and it's now Wakefield FC (a new Emley club has since been formed, but of course, this was well down the leagues).

I'm sure we would eventually finish up with Wakefield in the name, if ever this happened to us and I very much like you, don't identify at all with Wakefield, in fact I would go as far as to say I identify more with Leeds than the merry city (as some call it).

Re: Merger : Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:36 am  

Indeed both Gateshead and Sheffield were left on the scrap heap, Gateshead however were going bust so chances are they would be were they are now anyway and Sheffield the same. Perhaps right now both clubs are better off then what they would’ve been had they kept going . Sheffield in particular seem to be developing nicely and with the move to Brammell Lane perhaps in time they can bid for a SL license as a much stronger entity.

Any merged club can not have any reference to the existing clubs as per steady’s post. It would alienate any existing supporters open to the idea of a merger. The name and colours would need to be completely neutral. There can be none of the ‘Wakefield-Castleford Miners’ compromises as you say the Castleford name would be dropped eventually which would naturally drive away support from that area.

Calder Miners is an option or instead of Calder perhaps another name which encompasses the area. My only hope that if this situation ever arises I hope it’s done right and not halfarsed where we end up with a name like West Yorkshire Rage or some other equally horrid Americanised moniker.