Re: Boycott Wakefield : Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:15 pm  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

Superleague clubs chosen to host Sky Sports matches get 20K in compensation. As if you didn't need anymore proof of the disparity of competition in middle 8's Championship clubs get 0.

Derek is kicking off about it and understandably so given that Leigh have been chosen to host two of them.

Personally in view of this I'm not going to go to that soon to be derelict tip at Wankfield. For two reasons.

1. Given we've only been picked to play in one its our only chance to show support for the other Championship clubs affected by this.

2. As wakefield fans are quick to point out. Everyone should be treated fairly so not putting another penny in on top of the 20k they're already getting to gamble on staying up again.

It was bad enough when we had to compete with clubs taking half our sky money.

It might seem petty given it doesn't affect us as we aren't hosting any but because it's them I'm not going.

Fine! We won't miss you and your chip on your shoulder and it looks like Bulls fans won't either.

Re: Boycott Wakefield : Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:48 pm  

I wonder how many realise that the original Middle 8s ranking had team 6 (which was Wakefield at that time, as it is now.
because they were unlikely to finish above last in SL) playing team 4 (Bulls) as an away fixture, and also Hull KR as an away fixture. The new one in tablets of stone is a home fixture against both Hull KR and the Bulls, plus I m told now that not only do Wakey get at least 2 plum home fixtures, but a £20k SKY payment! And who believes the statement that each team put £80k into a pot for eventual compensation if they got a SKY game. Is that the pot Mr Carter said they hadn't got to perform a bodily function in at the start and mid season??? Wonders will never cease?

Re: Boycott Wakefield : Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:04 pm  

06.09.2015 HKR v Wakefield?
Originally due to play champ winners home, second away.That has switched.

Re: Boycott Wakefield : Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:48 pm  

We all said at the midway point of the season that 2nd place was arguably the more preferable finishing position. Logically that should never be the case, otherwise it would be a clear flaw in the system. So the changes made by the RFL were justified imo.

And as far as I'm aware, the £80k put in by all SL clubs was done at the start of the season, so it would simply have been deducted from their central funding. So the referral to Michael Carter's comments doesn't really apply - they never had the £80k to start with.

Re: Boycott Wakefield : Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:09 pm  

Nothus wrote:

We all said at the midway point of the season that 2nd place was arguably the more preferable finishing position. Logically that should never be the case, otherwise it would be a clear flaw in the system. So the changes made by the RFL were justified imo.

And as far as I'm aware, the £80k put in by all SL clubs was done at the start of the season, so it would simply have been deducted from their central funding. So the referral to Michael Carter's comments doesn't really apply - they never had the £80k to start with.

Well I am so convinced with your arguement that I wonder where the £960k is sitting at this moment, not sure what you mean! Because logicaly the changes only affect Wakefield postionally in the middle 8 matrix, with other teams having to bend their fixtures.Believe me if you compared the matrix it looks highly suspicious to a cynic like what I am.
Are you saying that the RFL agreed that this was changed because of your reasoning?
Perhaps you could mention it to whoever decided to change it, and I suppose Mr Carter never said they were on the financial brink???

Re: Boycott Wakefield : Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:23 pm  

Rarebreed wrote:

Well I am so convinced with your arguement that I wonder where the £960k is sitting at this moment, not sure what you mean! Because logicaly the changes only affect Wakefield postionally in the middle 8 matrix, with other teams having to bend their fixtures.Believe me if you compared the matrix it looks highly suspicious to a cynic like what I am.
Are you saying that the RFL agreed that this was changed because of your reasoning?
Perhaps you could mention it to whoever decided to change it, and I suppose Mr Carter never said they were on the financial brink???

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying they changed the grid just to give Wakefield some cash? Why would they do that, they could have just chosen their matches to be televised anyway?

Re: Boycott Wakefield : Sat Aug 08, 2015 11:04 pm  

Nothus wrote:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying they changed the grid just to give Wakefield some cash? Why would they do that, they could have just chosen their matches to be televised anyway?

I am wondering why the changes were brought about, if you are a Hull KR or a Bulls supporter, who may have wished for a home fixture which would have brought more revenue into your club. It would also have given your club an advantage over a club that had finished at the bottom of the SL table, whilst your club had been a lot more consistent, and had not stated that they would give up due to it being better to save themselves for the middle 8, so they had a better chance of going back into super league, you may have felt aggrieved.

But personally I have stopped being over awed with the decisions we have to live with, if we follow RL.

[PopTart]

Re: Boycott Wakefield : Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:41 am  

Firstly why do you think it's Wakefield's fault how Super League split up the money?
Second, not supporting your team seems a really bad way to protest against an opposition club.
Third, why do you think the fixtures have changed? As far as I can see we are playing exactly who the RFL said we would play when the grid first came out.
Only the order you play the teams and who was on telly was decided late on.

[Bulliac]

Re: Boycott Wakefield : Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:39 am  

PopTart wrote:

Firstly why do you think it's Wakefield's fault how Super League split up the money?
Second, not supporting your team seems a really bad way to protest against an opposition club.
Third, why do you think the fixtures have changed? As far as I can see we are playing exactly who the RFL said we would play when the grid first came out.
Only the order you play the teams and who was on telly was decided late on.

1 & 2, I agree with you observations Pop Tart, but on the third, I'm afraid the authorities messed up from the beginning by issuing a detailed description of how the the SL eights would work and then just said "ditto" and "ditto", for our eights and the bottom end of the championship. This led many to think that, for instance, along with the fixtures, a la, SL, we'd keep the league points we'd already got - which is daft and obviously unfair, but that is what was on the original draft.

Unfortunately, re-visiting nearly every edict is par for the course for the RFL so it's no small wonder that everything is viewed with suspicion [even when it's necessary] and they then get some stick - much of it warranted, imo.

Re: Boycott Wakefield : Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:45 am  

PopTart wrote:

Firstly why do you think it's Wakefield's fault how Super League split up the money?
Second, not supporting your team seems a really bad way to protest against an opposition club.
Third, why do you think the fixtures have changed? As far as I can see we are playing exactly who the RFL said we would play when the grid first came out.
Only the order you play the teams and who was on telly was decided late on.

Well my friend if you read my original , and indeed subsequent threads. Yo may note that I never apportioned blame to Wakefield as I merely stated facts which are irrefutable> Who said I wasn't supporting my team?
Would I lie to you about the fixture change? Other people can confirm this to your satisfaction, no doubt.
And where did I mention the decision to arrange the televised game was either wrong or right?

The information I gave was factual, with a bit of speculation admittedly, but that , in my opinion, didn't detract from the facts, nor was it critical of Wakefield, whatever I think?

You have turned it into something that suits your feelings on the subject, which is OK, but don't attempt to shoot the messenger.