Stay off the internet , you're dangerous

I can see the headlines now... Cas sell Wheldon Road and move to the Kibble



The land is part of a covenant, by the way.

Thats how i see it.

It's rather disingenuous to compare the state of our game with the NRL isn't it?

The bottom line is this: The anecdotal evidence (look no further than this messageboard) indicates absolutely no stomach at all for a merged team among those who would be expected to watch it. The key promoters of the idea are without exception from outside the five towns area, yet despite the endless repetition of the word "NO" by Wakey, Cas and Fev fans alike, there remains an endless supply of outsiders trying to tell us what's good for us.

Huddersfield/Sheffield, Hull FC/Gateshead... Mergers don't work, certainly not in the way they are perpetually spun as working. They are nothing more than a means for one struggling club to make an asset grab on another struggling club in the hope that at least one of them can survive. This peddled myth that merging offers some kind of utopian dream for fans needs to be shot down once and for all.

Maybe Cas should go down to the Championship at least for a while. Having been there I confess it felt quite good to be a big fish, even if it was in a smaller pond. Or maybe we should be given the help, opportunities and favours enjoyed by other clubs who have struggled and with assistance seemingly turned things around.

But please, please, please... for the millionth time... will people just stop banging on about a five towns merger?

I was not suggesting a merger. That was the point of the post. And if I can't compare with the NRL then I don't think you can judge the potential of the idea from fewer that half a dozen posters on an internet forum.

Given that Cas owe the value of their land to Jack Fulton, you wouldn't even get that.

This whole discussion is based on a series of misinformed and wrongheaded assumptions; a merger or whatever else is being proposed makes sense only to those people who a) have no idea of what they're actually talking about or b) want to believe that culling a number of clubs will result in more Sky money for those that remain. Why anyone thinks that Sky would continue to fund SL at the same level it does now with 4 less teams participating and fewer televised matches is probably worthy of a separate discussion all of its own.