: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:37 pm  

tb wrote:

You mean like the one they got in 2008. And the three-year one that replaced it for 2009-11?

You're a t1t at times.
You know exactly what I meant, you just try and pull people on the literal meaning of everything to try and look clever when actually you're a tool.
Next time you include a metaphor in a post I'll have to pull you up on it

[tb]

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:08 pm  

Dico wrote:

You're a t1t at times.
You know exactly what I meant, you just try and pull people on the literal meaning of everything to try and look clever when actually you're a tool.
Next time you include a metaphor in a post I'll have to pull you up on it

So … when you said "get their own TV deal" you didn't mean "get their own TV deal" and weren't just showing your ignorance of the fact they have their own TV deal? And I was supposed to know this how? Telepathy?

So what did you mean?

"far better TV deal than anyone has shown any signs of being interested in offering" (bearing in mind that only one other broadcaster has ever been interested in showing Championship [or NL as it the was] RL – and they wanted the RFL to pay them to put the games on a channel with even less of a footprint that Sky)

?

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:39 pm  

Maybe I was slightly harsh in my last comment, you did seem rather pedantic.
Considering we see Championship matches on telly every thursday indicates there's already some form of tv rights deal in place, that is so common knowledge my comment should have been taken with the assumption I meant a tv deal that would actually offer the clubs money that would allow them to put structures in place to compete at some form of full time level without an 'O'Connor' if you like.

As you stated that is highly unlikely and that is the point I was trying to make in indicating that the gap will grow exponentially imo between Championship and SL clubs.
I've said elsewhere before I think the Chp will be removed of its best clubs in the coming years for two SL conferences and whats left underneath will be merely a skeleton/feeder league.
If the popularity of RL increases maybe we'll see an increase in Chp interest

[tb]

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:43 pm  

Dico wrote:

Maybe I was slightly harsh in my last comment, you did seem rather pedantic.

de nada

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:46 pm  

Not sure how the arguments relate to crowds, I don't see a FT status as making any difference to crowds outside SL. Marketing, facilities and entertainment is where clubs need to spend money, not FT contracts, imo.

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:10 pm  

JB Down Under wrote:

Not sure how the arguments relate to crowds, I don't see a FT status as making any difference to crowds outside SL. Marketing, facilities and entertainment is where clubs need to spend money, not FT contracts, imo.

Except they dont have any, certainly not enough to do a half decent job of marketing their clubs against their local SL clubs

Dont forget that there is still relegation outside SL

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:12 pm  

Dico wrote:

Maybe I was slightly harsh in my last comment, you did seem rather pedantic.Considering we see Championship matches on telly every thursday indicates there's already some form of tv rights deal in place, that is so common knowledge my comment should have been taken with the assumption I meant a tv deal that would actually offer the clubs money that would allow them to put structures in place to compete at some form of full time level without an 'O'Connor' if you like.

As you stated that is highly unlikely and that is the point I was trying to make in indicating that the gap will grow exponentially imo between Championship and SL clubs.
I've said elsewhere before I think the Chp will be removed of its best clubs in the coming years for two SL conferences and whats left underneath will be merely a skeleton/feeder league.
If the popularity of RL increases maybe we'll see an increase in Chp interest

You were right the first time

Posts loads , says nothing , spent too long in the ' smoke ' , turned into one of those ' clever dick yuppies '

: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:22 am  

Rd 25 Aug 14th-16th
Wigan v Wolves 13,452
Leeds v Cas 16,931
Les Cats v Hull 9,800
Quins v Salford 2,612
Hudds v Bulls TBC
HKR v St's TBC
Wakey v CC TBC


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rd 19Rd Total = 60,260
Rd Avg = 8,608

Rd 20Rd Total = 53,471
Rd Avg = 7,6,38

Rd 21 Total= 63,645
Rd Avg = 9,092

Rd22 Total=60,192
Rd Avg = 8,598

Rd 23 Total = 67,053
Rd Avg = 9,579

Rd 24 CC slplit round

Rd 25 Total= TBC
Rd Avg = TBC

: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:02 pm  

Starbug wrote:

Except they dont have any, certainly not enough to do a half decent job of marketing their clubs against their local SL clubs

Dont forget that there is still relegation outside SL

well dont pretend they are a product to compete with SL then, it isnt.

Sainsburies own brand champagne doesnt try and compete with crystal, and casio dont try to compete with rolex,

instead of trying to compete with SL clubs, why not try and offer and alternative, why not look at making your product a different product rather than simply an inferior one?

: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:15 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

well dont pretend they are a product to compete with SL then, it isnt.

Sainsburies own brand champagne doesnt try and compete with crystal, and casio dont try to compete with rolex,

instead of trying to compete with SL clubs, why not try and offer and alternative, why not look at making your product a different product rather than simply an inferior one?

So Sainsbury Champers isn't inferior to Crystal or a Casio watch isn't inferior to a Rolex ?

Fizzy wine isn't the same as Fizzy wine, a watch isn't a watch

You're crackers

What do you suggest we do , play Lacrosse ?