Re: 2016 Membership : Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:43 am  

I think the players agreed to an improved contract IF we got back into SL.

I haven't bought a season ticket and I don't intend to until probably the weekend before kick off. May as well have the money in my account as long as possible. I've never really used the benefits so not much incentive to rush out to renew now the early bird discount has gone.

Re: 2016 Membership : Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:22 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I think the players agreed to an improved contract IF we got back into SL.

I haven't bought a season ticket and I don't intend to until probably the weekend before kick off. May as well have the money in my account as long as possible. I've never really used the benefits so not much incentive to rush out to renew now the early bird discount has gone.

I agree. I see no need to rush to give the club my money before Xmas.

Re: 2016 Membership : Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:29 pm  

At the risk of being lambasted on here I would ask is it worth losing one of our better players (no-one in particular). As they are all on contract we could perhaps better use the transfer fee to finance 2 or 3 good players. Having 1 world beater is OK until he gets injured. Otherwise, as the saying goes, we would be stupid to do what we did last year with the same resources and expect a different outcome.

Re: 2016 Membership : Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:58 pm  

You are all emperor's new clothes people. You have all seen that it isn't possible on Championship resources to win the MPG in all but extreme circumstances, which are unlikely to arise again, yet you are all talking as if we have a decent chance of going up. We haven't. Nobody has. If you haven't got a SL quality team then you will never win that game against a SL quality team, and usually you will get mullered.

Sure we will go through the motions, but really, we are not hoping to win an unfair comp, we are entirely dependant on some other team suffering a meltdown. That can happen, as we of all people know, but if it doesn't, this system does not allow promotion.

And having been the beneficiaries of a Wakey meltdown, we blew it anyway.

Re: 2016 Membership : Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:35 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You are all emperor's new clothes people. You have all seen that it isn't possible on Championship resources to win the MPG in all but extreme circumstances, which are unlikely to arise again, yet you are all talking as if we have a decent chance of going up. We haven't. Nobody has. If you haven't got a SL quality team then you will never win that game against a SL quality team, and usually you will get mullered.

Sure we will go through the motions, but really, we are not hoping to win an unfair comp, we are entirely dependant on some other team suffering a meltdown. That can happen, as we of all people know, but if it doesn't, this system does not allow promotion.

And having been the beneficiaries of a Wakey meltdown, we blew it anyway.

Ah. But if we put the chances of promotion at 1,000,000:1 ( for example) then they tend to happen 9 times out of 10..... (RIP Sir Terry).

Blind optimism. New season, the odds are stacked against us. Whatever strings the RFL tried to pull in our favour last season wasn't enough so they'll have to work harder. because everyone knows that we've done our time on the RFL naughty step and they love us now.....

Re: 2016 Membership : Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:59 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You are all emperor's new clothes people. You have all seen that it isn't possible on Championship resources to win the MPG in all but extreme circumstances, which are unlikely to arise again, yet you are all talking as if we have a decent chance of going up. We haven't. Nobody has. If you haven't got a SL quality team then you will never win that game against a SL quality team, and usually you will get mullered.

Sure we will go through the motions, but really, we are not hoping to win an unfair comp, we are entirely dependant on some other team suffering a meltdown. That can happen, as we of all people know, but if it doesn't, this system does not allow promotion.

And having been the beneficiaries of a Wakey meltdown, we blew it anyway.

Maybe you forget we best Salford by a fair margin?? Yes the odds are stacked but if we had performed to our full potential then we could have won the MPG... We didn't perform to our best for the full game and the obvious result happened.

Re: 2016 Membership : Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:20 am  

We will never be off the naughty step with the present regime at the RFL. However it is the system which is wong, as when it came into being we were under the impression that we would be contesting the teams as they started at the beginning of the Season, given injury replacements etc. This did not happen - and as someone pointed out two teams were given points deductions for playing ineligible players the previous season, so one can take it that these rules did not apply. So what rules were in place to make the competition fair? One- championship clubs were on an unequal pay incentive and two the difference in the two leagues is almost insurmountable. Three, dont hold your breath that this is going to alter.

[Bulliac]

Re: 2016 Membership : Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:06 am  

melly88 wrote:

Maybe you forget we best Salford by a fair margin?? Yes the odds are stacked but if we had performed to our full potential then we could have won the MPG... We did perform to our best for the full game and the obvious result happened.

Unfortunately for us, we were the lower ranked team in games against SL clubs. In those circumstances it really meant we needed to play at our best and the SL clubs needed to be a bit behind their best. If both played to their best we were always going to lose against SL clubs, imo.

Salford were poor and well and truly behind their best form so, on the day, our top notch performance deserved the win. In the other games, we were overpowered by better sides who clearly brought their A games. In the final, you're correct to say we could have won, but whilst having our moments, we certainly weren't at our best and Wakefield managed to pull it together sufficiently to take the spoils.

Re: 2016 Membership : Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:47 pm  

melly88 wrote:

Maybe you forget we best Salford by a fair margin?? Yes the odds are stacked but if we had performed to our full potential then we could have won the MPG... We did perform to our best for the full game and the obvious result happened.

We SHOULD have won the MPG and it is certain if poor Danny Addy had kicked those 2 goals then we WOULD now be in SL.

But it was only because Wakefield were in disarray leading up to the game and short of key players as well. That's what gave us a chance (which we all know we should have taken). All I am saying is that such an opportunity isn't likely to come along again.

If we had played Salford in the MPG then I would anticipate the bookies giving us a respectful 28 start. We had a great win, but it wasn't the MPG. In which we would more likely have ended up with another 50 past us. IMHO of course.

Re: 2016 Membership : Wed Oct 21, 2015 5:51 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

Unfortunately for us, we were the lower ranked team in games against SL clubs. In those circumstances it really meant we needed to play at our best and the SL clubs needed to be a bit behind their best. If both played to their best we were always going to lose against SL clubs, imo.

I agree with this completely!

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

If we had played Salford in the MPG then I would anticipate the bookies giving us a respectful 28 start. We had a great win, but it wasn't the MPG. In which we would more likely have ended up with another 50 past us. IMHO of course.

Agree to a point.

But whilst I am really not a fan of the new system... It does creates that "one off" game where anything "could" happen. Next year will be no different in the sense that whoever reaches the MPG has the chance in a "one off" game to gain promotion, regardless if wakey or any other club have a meltdown or not.

Taking my Bulls hat off, I honestly believe we had a better team overall than Wakey in the MPG and that's why it's frustrating not to have performed for the full 80! If we had and got the result, I am sure we would be talking very differently about the chances the system offers championship clubs. Even if we still didn't agree with it.

IMO the biggest problem with the system is the fact we weren't playing at a high enough intensity on a regular basis and that naturally will have a huge effect in high intensity games like MPG. That said I actually feel as though we have a better chance next year based on having a team where half the squad wont be new... plus a years experience in the championship and lessons learnt from the qualifiers- hopefully!

In summary... I don't think ours, Leigh's or anyone else chances will be weaker next year- perform on the day and you give yourself the best chance, don't perform and then it's back to championship. The format certainly won't change for the next couple of years so we need to learn how to handle it better.