Re: Mergers : Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:00 am  

Joff wrote:

Whoops, I forgot FC and KR.

Hull FC have previously merged with Gateshead so wouldn't be much point in merging again

Re: Mergers : Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:04 am  

EastHullUTR wrote:

Hull FC have previously merged with Gateshead so wouldn't be much point in merging again

You mean if west and east merged it would be called Hull FC?

Re: Mergers : Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:48 am  

Oldham,Rochdale & Swinton

Leeds & Hunslet

Cas, Featherstone & Wakefield

Huddersfield, Batley and Dewsbury

Re: Mergers : Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:54 am  

HXSparky wrote:

If two clubs merge, and play at the ground of one of the clubs, then the other club dies. That's reality.

For instance, if all the clubs in West Yorkshire merged and played at Headingley, it wouldn't be long before they became known as the Yorkshire Rhino's, shortly followed by being called the Leeds Rhino's (I'm not picking on Leeds here, just an example). A quick way of killing off a lot of traditional clubs, and decimating the (already small) numbers that do turn out week in week out to support their team.

FFS, just invest in what we've got and spend some of the millions in Sky money we have in attracting and developing our own home grown players. Properly run academy and reserve leagues would be a great start.

What is the point in investing in the likes of Hunslet, Batley & Dewsbury when you have SL teams who have acadamys that produce most the players for these teams - the crowds are pathetic. I am cannot see a viable reason for increasing the funding directly to these clubs - just because a club was formed 100 years ago doesn't mean it has to survive for ever - that's a bonkers way of dividing up the money.

These clubs are just parasites.

Re: Mergers : Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:02 am  

I've said it before. The Super Rugby model in NZ and South Africa enables the provincial sides below the Super Sides to play in their own competition with the cash from the Super Rugby filtered down to grass roots level........

Re: Mergers : Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:57 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

What is the point in investing in the likes of Hunslet, Batley & Dewsbury when you have SL teams who have acadamys that produce most the players for these teams - the crowds are pathetic. I am cannot see a viable reason for increasing the funding directly to these clubs - just because a club was formed 100 years ago doesn't mean it has to survive for ever - that's a bonkers way of dividing up the money.

These clubs are just parasites.

Remind us where Wlamsley came from or Sinfield, Morley etc, etc
All came from "paracitical" clubs like Batley and Oldham.

Some folk, who really ougth to know better, really have no grasp how our sport works.
It's not just about Super Dooper League and there is value to EVERY club at amateur and professional level, whether that is Wigan St Pats or Wigan Warriors, Cas Tigers or Cas Lock Lane, Dewsbury Rams or Dewsbury Celtic. Widnes or Warrington.

Its unbelievable how some can think that dropping half a dozen clubs from SL will improve the prospects of either Super League or RL in general.
SOME even want to replace clubs with poor attendances with new clubs, with no roots, no rugby league culture and possibly no long term future

Success will be making the most of what we have, receiving the highest level of investment (at all levels) and finding the best way to grow the sport FOR THE GOOD OF EVERYONE.

Some seem not to have learnt from the failures in places like Paris or Wrexham and want the sport to GAMBLE EVERYTHING in new territories.

Those who govern the sport need to have a short, medium and long term strategy, something that hasn't been too apparent over the last 40 years. Part of this may involve clubs in North America and it MAY work but, it may be wise to see what happens when Toronto get beaten every week by Wigan, Warrington or Wakefield before believing that they are the best way forward.

Re: Mergers : Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:12 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Remind us where Wlamsley came from or Sinfield, Morley etc, etc
All came from "paracitical" clubs like Batley and Oldham.

Some folk, who really ougth to know better, really have no grasp how our sport works.
It's not just about Super Dooper League and there is value to EVERY club at amateur and professional level, whether that is Wigan St Pats or Wigan Warriors, Cas Tigers or Cas Lock Lane, Dewsbury Rams or Dewsbury Celtic. Widnes or Warrington.

Its unbelievable how some can think that dropping half a dozen clubs from SL will improve the prospects of either Super League or RL in general.
SOME even want to replace clubs with poor attendances with new clubs, with no roots, no rugby league culture and possibly no long term future

Success will be making the most of what we have, receiving the highest level of investment (at all levels) and finding the best way to grow the sport FOR THE GOOD OF EVERYONE.

Some seem not to have learnt from the failures in places like Paris or Wrexham and want the sport to GAMBLE EVERYTHING in new territories.

Those who govern the sport need to have a short, medium and long term strategy, something that hasn't been too apparent over the last 40 years. Part of this may involve clubs in North America and it MAY work but, it may be wise to see what happens when Toronto get beaten every week by Wigan, Warrington or Wakefield before believing that they are the best way forward.

Sinfield was an amateur in Oldham - Leeds was his first professional club he never played for Oldham - he made his debut for Leeds at 16. Morley was the same - there is a case for putting the money into the top amateur sides and I would support that.

All sports have to be lead from the elite level - that is where the funding is generated. How you think weakening that in favour of supporting ground-roots rugby that nobody is interested in watching defies belief.

The better the elite competition the more money will flow into the game. If you want to keep clubs going with 500 spectators then link them to a SL club and their team is effectively the reserve grade i.e. players not getting selected for SL and youngsters on the way up.

The future is in the SL clubs and the really top amateur clubs - the rest are just an unnecessary drain on tight resources.

Re: Mergers : Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:28 am  

Catalans have had one of the best teams in the competition two or three times and have one GF Eliminator and one Challenge Cup win to show for some of their brilliant collection of players and brilliant coaches they’ve had down there. Let’s not get carried away with their success.

They won the Cup but Wire won the Cup finishing tenth in 2009.

It was where Wire went from there that was impressive, not that first solitary Cup after a 35 year drought. Look at Catalans, they’ve arguably got one of the best squads in SL yet they’re lying in eighth place after being in the Million Pound Game last year.

I’d say they are massively underachieving rather than saying they’re a success.

They had one of the best teams in SL in the past, under Robinson, getting to the GF Eliminator and the next year they finished bottom.

They’ve got a long way to go before we call them a success. I still think Wire have and we’ve won three CCs and two LLSs in the last decade, getting to eight finals in the decade. But I say we still underachieved because in 2011-13 aside from Riley on the left wing we had arguably one of the top five sides in the SL era yet didn’t win the GF (2011 side especially should have).

One CC win from a massively underachieving club doesn’t show that mergers work, at all!

Re: Mergers : Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:30 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Sinfield was an amateur in Oldham - Leeds was his first professional club he never played for Oldham - he made his debut for Leeds at 16. Morley was the same - there is a case for putting the money into the top amateur sides and I would support that.

All sports have to be lead from the elite level - that is where the funding is generated. How you think weakening that in favour of supporting ground-roots rugby that nobody is interested in watching defies belief.

The better the elite competition the more money will flow into the game. If you want to keep clubs going with 500 spectators then link them to a SL club and their team is effectively the reserve grade i.e. players not getting selected for SL and youngsters on the way up.

The future is in the SL clubs and the really top amateur clubs - the rest are just an unnecessary drain on tight resources.

Do you really think that players, apart from very, very rare exceptions, can go from playing for Wath brow one week to playing for a SL side the next, it's just a ridiculous idea.

Your plan would leave us with 6 or 7 SL clubs and then a drop to amateur rugby ??
Which TV company would want to invest in that ?

Football, the biggest and wealthiest sport in the UK, seems able to embrace clubs from Man United to Burnley without any difficulties and whilst their investment is on a substantially different level, they seem able to embrace the diversity within the sport and "sells" the fixtures.
Some RL fans seem to want 6 or 7 SL clubs and feck the rest.
I'm sorry but that will kill the sport far more quickly than having Wakefield, Salford and Widnes in the top flight.

Again, football has a pyramid that allows players to work their way up and allow the players that develop later (or more slowly) to find their way to the top.

I believe that you are old enough to remember RL before the Lindsay revolution and nobody at that point gave a stuff about attendances or, how many plastic seats were at each ground, this only came about when "franchising" was the order of the day.
A number of clubs have managed to improve their facilities and attendances, Hull FC, Warrington, Saints etc but, ultimately this has done nothing and will do nothing to help increase investment within the sport and even if/when we have a SL with all clubs achieving the mystical 10,000 fans at each game, something actually made more difficult by ever changing fixture dates to accommodate Sky, investment wont increase because of that.
The clubs want bums on seats, Sky want screen filler and the armchair viewer just wants a decent game to watch end of story.
But, knock yourself out with the American dream and destroy half of the remaining SL clubs and all of the other semi pro clubs and then enjoy Leeds v Wigan and Wire v Saints

Re: Mergers : Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:38 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Do you really think that players, apart from very, very rare exceptions, can go from playing for Wath brow one week to playing for a SL side the next, it's just a ridiculous idea.

Im pretty sure he means investing in the grass root teams to produce more junior talent that will filter into SL academy sides which imo, is the thing we should be doing.